Effects of Ability Grouping
Running head: EFFECTS OF ABILITY GROUPING ON ACHIEVEMENT
Effects of Ability Grouping on
First-Grade Reading Achievement
Misty P. McQuaig
Valdosta State University
1
Effects of Ability Grouping
2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if within-class ability grouping of first-grade students
would increase academic achievement and engagement in reading. For 4 weeks the class worked
in heterogeneous small groups; then students were placed in homogeneous small groups for 4
weeks. Data were collected using the STAR test, a reading theme test, an engagement checklist,
and field notes. Results indicated an increase in academic achievement and engagement using
ability grouping. Statistically significant gains were made in ability groups on the STAR test in
grade equivalency. The eight-week study also significantly increased student scores on the theme
test. Improvements in discussions, following directions, and supporting others were observed.
Effects of Ability Grouping on First-Grade Achievement
Effects of Ability Grouping
3
Through the years, teachers have tried to avoid “teaching to the middle” and sought to
reach every learner. However, it is not uncommon to see a teacher focusing her lesson on highability learners and hoping that the low-ability learners will catch up. Teachers have a hard time
finding a way to reach all learners, whether they are gifted or learning disabled, there is not a
single, instructional level that meets the needs of all learners. It is unfair to teach to low-ability
learners without considering the instructional needs of the high-ability learners and determining
what is best for the students who are average learners. Although many suggestions are available
on how to reach all learners, no idea comes with complete instructions and proven research. It is
important to know what the best method is for teaching the students within our classroom. With
research leading educators in multiple directions, the decision on how to best educate our
students is not always clear.
The research site used in this study was a small, rural school in southern Georgia with a
population of 6,996. The community is a very low-income area and the local school does not
have a large amount of parental support. The school was a combined primary and elementary
school, with an enrollment of about 539 students - 58% Caucasian, 39% African American, and
2% other racial groups. Eligibility rates for free or reduce-price lunch were 68% of the schools’
population, and the school is a Title 1 school. Most parents worked two or more jobs and over
6% were unemployed. According to the Georgia Department of Education website (2006) only
58% of the population in this small community had received their high school degree. CRCT
results in Table 1 show that the Early Intervention Program (EIP) students are at least 10-15
points below the lowest scoring regular education class in every subject.
In the past the researcher’s school grouped EIP students in a single class. Table 1
contains CRCT mean scale scores for the six first-grade classrooms from the 2006-2007 school
Effects of Ability Grouping
4
year. EIP students had the lowest mean scale score in all three subject areas. Placing all EIP
students together in a single class had not been effective in improving achievement. That practice
changed, and students were included in regular classrooms. Teachers were concerned about how
these students were going to participate in the regular classroom. They wanted to find out how to
deliver instruction to diverse students so that all their educational needs were met, academic
achievement improved, and all students were engaged in the learning process. They were
considering alternative strategies for grouping students to meet their educational needs and
support their learning. The current research focused on alternative strategies for grouping
students to support the students and teachers.
Table 1
CRCT Class Mean Scale Score for First-Grade
Type of First-
Math
Grade Class
Language
Reading
Arts
Regular Class
839
831
838
Regular Class
820
816
829
Regular Class
838
831
846
Regular Class
829
830
840
Regular Class
852
845
865
EIP Class
810
805
814
The school improvement plan used in this study was taken from a SACS report on the
researchers’ local primary school. Two areas of focus could be related to grouping. The first
Effects of Ability Grouping
5
area, learning to learn, was focused on the task of improving students’ achievement in math and
reading. The researcher wanted to determine if grouping students within a class based on their
ability would improve students’ achievement in reading. If the research did show that students
could improve their achievement in reading then the researcher could use this information to
support co-workers. School climate was also an area listed on the plan and it specifically
mentioned that teachers should work together to support the schools’ needs. Determining
whether or not to group students in specific ways to target instruction could benefit all teachers
within their classrooms and provide improvement for the school climate. Teachers would know
what method works best to improve student achievement and it would allow faculty members to
collaborate on how to meet their school’s needs.
In the past the school grouped EIP students in a single class. However, that practice
changed the next year when EIP students were included in regular classrooms. Teachers wanted
to determine how to deliver instruction to students so that their educational needs were met and
all students were engaged in the learning process. Teachers were concerned about how these
students would participate in the regular classroom. They considered alternative strategies for
grouping students to meet their educational needs and support their learning. Educators are at a
point in educational history when they have to collaborate to deliver higher quality curriculum in
a range of ways in order to ensure both equity and excellence to each learner whom they serve
(Tomlinson, 2006).
When teachers do not take individual learning abilities into account, all students may not
receive the most effective instruction. It is important to consider the child who is ready to move
on to a more advanced level and the child who is in danger of falling behind. The researcher
wanted to determine whether student’s specific learning style and needs, and whether that type of
Effects of Ability Grouping
6
instruction would increase achievement and engagement. The school was focusing on improving
student achievement and engaging learners. Grouping students within classes could be an
effective strategy to increase achievement and engage all learners.
Students can be grouped for instruction in several ways: using a whole-group lesson or
allowing students to work in groups based on ability, learning task, or learning style. It was clear
that understanding grouping might help this school to be more effective in engaging students and
making use of instructional time (Fiedler, Lange, & Winebrenner, 2002). Ability grouping has
been defined by Fiedler et al. as “re-grouping students for the purpose of providing curriculum
aimed at a common instructional level and cluster grouping has been defined as small groups of
students with similar instructional needs clustered within a primarily heterogeneous
classroom“(p. 1).
Using an early childhood longitudinal study across kindergarten, McCoach,O’Connell, &
Levitt, 2006) stated, “the frequency with which teachers used ability groups was positively
associated with mean school gain in reading, suggesting that early literacy and reading
improvement in kindergarten may be facilitated by the use of ability groups in reading” (p. 339).
Teachers who used cluster grouping reported that new leadership emerged in classes with no
grouping of gifted students. (Fiedler et. al, 2002).
Tieso (2003) said that there are not enough controlled studies on grouping practices and
how they affect student achievement, and much of the existing research on ability grouping is
almost 25 years old. The researcher also described two promising practices for increasing
achievement: curriculum revision - the process of analyzing and remodeling existing curriculum,
and differentiation - the process of assessing student knowledge and adapting grouping practices
based on that assessment.
Effects of Ability Grouping
7
Two years later (2005), Tieso claimed that much of the research completed has been
geared toward the grouping of gifted students. However, practices that were effective for gifted
students also worked for other students. Moderate gains occurred in students’ academic
achievement when educators adopted practices used in gifted education such as ability grouping.
Tieso studied the effects of grouping and differentiating curriculum achievement with 31
teachers and 240 mathematic students in grades three to four in New England. Tieso found that
“Students who were exposed to differentiated curriculum, combined with within- and betweenclass ability grouping, experienced significantly higher mathematics achievement than students
exposed to their regular textbook unit on data representation and analysis from pretest to
posttest” (2005, p.9).
Kutnick, Blatchford, and Baines (2002) stated that ability-based grouping is
recommended by school inspectors, but there is little research on the effectiveness of this
approach in primary schools. It is important to consider why schools choose to group their
students by ability and that their evidence of using that technique works. VanderHart (2006) used
a mathematical model based on the 1992 NAEP eighth-grade assessment to explore why schools
group students by ability. Schools used the number of students in a school, race, and social class
to decide upon grouping. A major concern related to ability grouping has been that it can be
racist and it promotes social discrimination among the students. Tracking was more prevalent in
schools with high minority rates. VanderHart found that the greater the student population and
dispersion of achievement, the greater the gain for grouping students by ability.
Chorzempa and Graham (2006) conducted a study to provide a description of how
grouping practices and related topics were used in primary classrooms. Primary teachers in first
through third grade were surveyed across the U.S. in 494 schools. The researchers found that
Effects of Ability Grouping
8
students of similar abilities were grouped in several ways except large group. They suggested
that one method of grouping may work better for one teacher and her students, but another
teacher might not have the same experience. They supported the point that all students learn in
different ways.
Kutnick et al. (2002) stated that teachers should determine whether or not groups can
interact without teacher assistance. They described how grouping practices and related topics
were used in primary classrooms from Years 2 to 5 in 11 schools in England. Half of students
were grouped in sets of 4 to 6 pupils and 56% of those students were grouped based on similar
ability level. The most popular grouping practice utilized was small groups of four to six students
in the areas of English and math. Most groups were formed by ability level of students and males
made up the largest percent of the lower-level groups. Surprisingly, Kutnick et al. found that
teachers spent more time with same-ability students than they did with mixed-ability students
when placed within groups. Another interesting finding was that students within any type group
tended to work on individual assignments and did not take advantage of collaborative learning
opportunities. This defeats the purpose of grouping which is to allow students to support each
other in the learning process and eventually become independent thinkers who do not rely solely
on teacher direction.
The most frequent reason cited for teachers using within-class ability grouping was that it
met students’ instructional needs (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006). The most common reason for
not using within-class ability grouping was that mixed-ability groups were better for students.
One teacher said, “I feel that it is good for the lower achievers to hear good modeling and for
higher achievers to learn tolerance” (2006, p.11).
Effects of Ability Grouping
9
Kutnick et al. (2002) described several strategies for grouping students within a class:
seating arrangements, age, gender, ability, learning task, and group size. They interviewed 20
teachers from six schools in England and found that teachers used whole-group instruction for
introducing new material or assessing understanding. Teachers utilized within-class grouping
during the middle of the lesson, but teachers were not concerned with the student’s ability level.
Teachers give many reasons for choosing not to ability group and they include the following: a)
ability grouping takes too much preparation work, b) grouping students makes it harder to
manage behavior, and c) the loss of instructional time due to changing or rotating groups.
Fiedler, et al. (2002) stated that teachers should have the flexibility to determine which
lessons should be taught using heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping methods. The researcher
discussed misconceptions of ability grouping with gifted students and stated that gifted students
would benefit from working with other gifted students.
It is also important to consider students’ perceptions of their instructional environment. In
a study of grouping methods (streaming, mixed ability grouping, setting, and within class
grouping), primary-grade students were interviewed to examine their perception on grouping
(Hallam, Ireson, & Davies, 2004). Six primary schools located in England adopted different
grouping practices in this study. Students were aware of how they were grouped and knew why
they were grouped in that setting. The students also stated that they knew they had to improve
their learning and behavior before they could be moved to a different group. Most students were
satisfied with their assigned groups and stated they liked working on their own level. Over 40%
of students in the study stated they had been teased or witnessed teasing of another student
because of their grouping placement. All types of grouping methods were utilized and still not
one was determined to be better than the other for increasing achievement (Hallam et al., 2004).
Effects of Ability Grouping
10
Richardson and Hines (2002) discussed at-risk students and the issues of ability grouping.
From the focus of the research it is clear that we should give each child an equal advantage to
achieve learning. Mixed-ability grouping is favored by some researchers because it allows all
students to receive the same amount of curriculum and not be teased because of their ability
levels. Richardson and Hines stated that there must be an end to the pattern of providing the least
to those who need the most in education (p.7).
The purpose of this study was to determine whether average and lower achieving
elementary students are better educated for small group activities using an ability grouping
approach rather than heterogeneous grouping.
Definition of Variables
Ability grouping. Ability grouping is the re-grouping of students with similar ability
characteristics for the purpose of providing curriculum aimed at a common instructional level
(Fiedler et al., 2002).
Grouping. Grouping is the process of placing students in cooperative learning groups of
whole-class, between-class, or within-class.
Differentiation. Differentiation is the process of assessing student knowledge and
adapting grouping practices based on that assessment (Tieso, 2003).
Achievement. Achievement is the understanding of a lesson as measured by reading
pretest and posttest scores.
Engagement. Engagement is active participation in the learning process during reading
instruction as measured by an engagement checklist.
Research Questions
Effects of Ability Grouping
11
Research question 1. Will ability grouping improve academic achievement in reading for
first-grade students compared with heterogeneous groups?
Research question 2. Will ability grouping improve engagement in reading for first-grade
students compared with heterogeneous groups?
Methods
Participants
The 12 participants in the research project were between the ages of six and eight. The
principal assigned the students to the researcher’s first-grade classroom. All students in the study
spoke English as a first language except one student whose first language was Spanish. No
students were identified with special needs or required English as a Second Language support.
Five of the students in the class did not score high enough on the Georgia Kindergarten
Assessment Program (GKAP) and were placed in the EIP class, but this did not affect student
participation in the study. Three students attended speech twice a week for 30 minute sessions.
For the first part of the study, students were grouped heterogeneously. Group A was made up of
6 students and Group B had 6 students. Students were assigned randomly to Group A or Group
B. For the second part of the study, students were regrouped homogeneously, based on their
STAR reading and unit test scores into groups C and D. Students in group C were reading at
grade levels 0.0 to 1.0 and Group D were reading at grade levels 1.1 to 2.0. Demographics for
the class and ability groups are listed in Table 2.
The researcher had been teaching for a total of 8 years and had worked in first grade for
4 years. The researcher was the only adult in the room during reading instruction.
Effects of Ability Grouping
12
Table 2
Demographics of Reading Groups
Group Characteristics
Group A Group B
Heterogeneous Groups
Group C
Group D
Homogeneous Groups
Male
4
2
2
4
Female
2
5
4
3
Black
3
2
2
3
White
2
5
3
4
Other
1
0
1
0
Limited English Proficiency
1
0
1
0
Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
6
6
6
7
GKAP Mean
164.2
161
163.4
161.8
GKAP SD
14.7
3.1
14.7
3.8
Intervention
Before the intervention began, students in the class took the STAR Reading (Renaissance
Learning, 2007) test to determine the grade-equivalent reading level of each student. The eightweek intervention involved grouping students during reading instruction heterogeneously for 4
weeks, and then by their reading ability level for the final 4 weeks.
Students spent some time at the beginning of class in whole-group instruction and were
able to learn from other students in the room. Stories were read aloud by the teacher and the
students. Readers of all levels read orally and every child could hear the differences in reading
ability among students within the class. Following each story, students responded to review
Effects of Ability Grouping
13
questions from the story. Questions were asked to the whole class so students could hear
examples of reasoning and comprehension of the stories.
Following whole-class instruction, students worked in heterogeneous groups A and B.
The researcher worked with one group of 6-7 students for 30 minutes while the other group was
participating in Accelerated Reader independent reading activities and after 30 minutes the
groups alternated tasks. The researcher conducted an engagement checklist at the end of each
reading lesson daily.
Students had their own Houghton Mifflin reading book and reading workbook to use
during the reading lesson. Students in both groups started the lesson by reviewing flashcards of
vocabulary words from the reading series and writing a story-chart on chart paper about what
they had learned the day before. Working together, students supported each other by adding on
to each others’ knowledge and ideas. The researcher was able to get a better understanding of
what the student’s reading ability was by working with them the first 4 weeks. This helped the
researcher to determine the placement of students in ability groups for the final 4 weeks. At the
end of the fourth week, students were given a unit reading test on the materials they had been
reading and the STAR Reading test again.
After taking the STAR Reading test, students were assigned to one of two homogeneous
reading groups that represented their reading ability level (C-high reading level; D-low reading
level). Students were able to work in a small group that was focused at instructing them on their
own level. Again, the researcher recorded student participation with an engagement checklist
once a week at the end of the daily reading lesson. At the end of the research, students were
administered the reading unit test and STAR Reading test.
Data Collection
Effects of Ability Grouping
14
STAR Reading Test (Renaissance Learning, 2007). The STAR Reading test is a test of
reading comprehension for students in grades 1-12. A score is given in grade-equivalent reading
level, percentile rank, and normal curve equivalence. The test was given to all students at the
beginning, middle, and end of the study. The researcher used the test to determine students’
reading levels after heterogeneous-group instruction and again after ability-group instruction.
Means and standard deviation were calculated and the researcher conducted a paired one-tailed ttest to compare the STAR reading test results.
Reading Theme Test (Valencia, 2004). The Reading Theme test published by Houghton
Mifflin is part of the school’s first-grade reading program. The theme test is broken into several
categories that assess consonants, sequence of events, cause and effect, sentence structure,
compare and contrast, and high-frequency words. Each theme test covers a theme book of five
stories. The researcher read the test orally to a small group of five to six students at a time and
students bubbled in the letter next to the answers provided on the test. The test contained 35
multiple-choice questions and was scored by percent of questions answered correctly. The theme
test means were calculated and a paired one-tailed t-test was used to compare the gains. The test
allowed the researcher to determine how student scores changed from whole-group instruction to
ability-group instruction.
Engagement Checklist (Appendix A). The researcher developed a checklist and three peer
teachers checked it for construct validity. The researcher completed the checklist once a week
after each reading group was complete. The checklist measured student engagement in the
following areas: interaction, support, discussion, following directions, and seeking instruction.
The researcher measured interaction by how much students participated, completed work, and
read orally. Support was based on how often students offered assistance to other readers or
Effects of Ability Grouping
15
assisted their group in working together. Discussion was measured by how often students were
reading or discussing the material with the group, and seeking instruction was based on whether
students asked for help from the researcher or another student. The researcher measured
following directions by whether or not the students in each group were sitting down in the
assigned group, working cooperatively, being respectful to others, and completing the
assignment. Means and standard deviations were formed using the points represented for each of
the tally marks each student received weekly. Each group was given a percentage based on the
total number of checks received under each category. The information was used to determine the
differences of whole-class engagement and ability-group engagement.
Daily journal. The researcher kept a daily journal of observations made during
intervention with all students, including a record of how students interacted with each other and
the researcher. Notes were made at the end of each day on comments students made about the
assignments and any comments made about both group types. Entries in the daily journal were
analyzed to help interpret data and to aid in understanding differences between whole-group and
ability-group instruction.
Results
The research compared heterogeneous and homogeneous small groups to determine
which method worked best to increase reading achievement and engagement of students in a first
grade classroom. Students were taught in a heterogeneous small group for 4 weeks then in a
homogeneous small group for the remaining 4 weeks. Four data collection instruments were
used to determine the most effective method of grouping students for reading.
The STAR test was administered to determine if reading achievement increased more in a
heterogeneous or homogeneous setting. The test was administered prior to each grouping and at
Effects of Ability Grouping
16
the end of each grouping to compare grade equivalency results. Table 1 shows the STAR test
results for each student before and after heterogeneous grouping. The results showed a gain for 3
students, a decrease for 2 students and no gain for 8 students. Nine of the students scored too low
on the pretest for the STAR test to give a grade equivalent score.
Table 1
Pre- and Post Heterogeneous Grouping STAR Test
Student STAR
STAR
Gain/loss
pretest
posttest
A
0
0.9
0.9
B
0.8
0.8
0
C
0
0
0
D
0
0.6
0.6
E
0
0.3
0.3
F
0.8
0.6
-0.2
G
0
0
0
H
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
K
0
0
0
L
0
0
0
M
1.1
0.8
-0.3
Mean
.21
.31
.1
*p < .05; **p < .01.
t
p
-0.66
.26
Effects of Ability Grouping
17
Mean scores were compared using a t-test. The increase in scores for heterogeneous
groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.26). This group had a mean of .21 (SD = .40) on the
pretest and .31 (SD = .37) on the posttest.
Table 2 shows the STAR test results for students prior to and after homogeneous
grouping. The results showed 8 students had a gain in homogeneous groups and 5 students
showed no change. No students were shown to have a decrease in their reading achievement
during the homogeneous grouping. This group had a mean of .31(SD = .37) on the pretest and
.62 (SD = .43) on the post test. The increase in scores for homogeneous groups shows that it is
statistically significant (p = .03). STAR test gains during heterogeneous grouping were not
significant but significant gains were made when students were grouped homogeneously.
Table 2
Pre- and Post Homogeneous STAR test
Student Pretest Posttest gain/loss
A
0.9
1.3
0.4
B
0.8
0.9
0.1
C
0.0
0.0
0.0
D
0.6
0.6
0.0
E
0.3
0.7
0.4
F
0.6
0.6
0.0
G
0.0
0.9
0.9
H
0.0
0.4
0.4
I
0.0
0.9
0.9
J
0.0
0.0
0.0
K
0.0
0.0
0.0
L
0.0
0.5
0.5
M
0.8
1.2
0.4
Means
.31
.62
.31
*p < .05; **p < .01.
t
p
-1.94
.032
The second method for data collection in the study was the administration of a reading
theme test that occurred after each grouping was complete at the end of the fourth and eighth
weeks. The tests were used to determine if there were any significant gains in academic
Effects of Ability Grouping
18
achievement for either group. Figure 1 compares the results of the unit tests given after
heterogeneous and homogenous grouping.
Theme Tests
120
100
Score
80
Unit 1 test
60
Unit 2 test
40
20
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Student
Figure 1. Results of Theme Tests 1 and 2
The results indicated an increase for all students. Student L entered the class after the end
of the heterogeneous grouping and was not administered theme test 1. The mean for theme test 1
was 72.12 (SD = 15.42) and the mean for theme test 2 was 84.38 (SD = 10.74). Results of the ttest showed that it was less than a .014% chance that the increase occurred by chance and that
the results were statistically significant. Students made significantly higher unit test scores when
placed in ability groups.
The engagement checklist was used to determine whether student engagement during the
lesson increased in heterogeneous or homogeneous settings. Results from the engagement
checklist are shown in Table 3. Engagement is reported as a percentage of total observations, and
these data were used to determine whether one method of grouping increased engagement and
student participation more than another. Examination of the data revealed that students in the
small heterogeneous and homogeneous groups were almost equal in their interaction within
interventions. When placed in homogeneous groups, students were slightly more engaged while
Effects of Ability Grouping
19
discussing the material and supporting other readers. Students in homogeneous groups followed
directions better than when they were placed in heterogeneous groups. Students sought
instructional assistance more when placed in heterogeneous groups.
Table 3
Percent of Engagement
Engagement
Active
Interaction
Discusses
Material
Supports Others
Follows
Directions
Seeks
Instruction
Heterogeneous
Group A
Group B
Homogeneous
Group C
Group D
54
36
33
50
83
64
79
86
21
32
25
43
71
75
83
86
17
14
8
7
The final method used for data collection was the daily journal. The most common
remarks students made were that they liked working in groups and asked daily if they were going
to be working in their groups. The researcher consistently recorded that both groups were
distracted by the other group within the room and that the lower, homogeneous group was even
more distracted than the other. When groups did something different, the other group would
question why they did not do the same activity. Several journal comments related to behavior
were made about the behavior in group D and how they were more off task than the other group.
Discussion
Conclusions
To determine which intervention improved academic achievement, the researcher
compared results from two tests. The researcher used beginning and ending grade equivalent
Effects of Ability Grouping
20
reading levels of the students during heterogeneous and ability grouping. Based on the STAR
test, students showed significant gains in the ability groups. When compared, results showed that
more students increased grade equivalent reading scores using the ability grouping approach.
The researcher also used pre and post reading theme test to determine academic achievement for
students during the intervention. Theme test 1 was administered at the conclusion of the
heterogeneous grouping and Theme test 2 was administered after using ability grouping. When
theme test results were compared, results showed that ability grouping did improve academic
achievement on those tests. Results from the two tests showed that ability grouping did increase
academic achievement. According to Kutnick, Blatchford and Baines, ability-based grouping is
what school inspectors (Department of Education and Employment) recommend (2002) and
Tieso (2005) reported that gains occur in academic achievement when ability grouping practices
are used.
To determine the impact of ability grouping on student engagement, the researcher
designed an engagement checklist to measure and assess the participation of each group. Results
showed that students were more engaged in discussion of material, supporting others, and
following directions during ability grouping. Students sought instruction and interacted more in
the heterogeneous group. The most common response recorded in the researchers’ journal was
that students enjoyed being in the groups (control and intervention) and were concerned with
what the other group did during their group time. Distraction was a problem for both groups, but
more off task behavior was noted in the low ability group. Findings from Hallam, Ireson, and
Davies support the results found in the journal by stating that students liked working in their
groups and would not change groups. The results from Kutnick, Blatchford, and Baines (2002)
reported that students placed in groups did not interact with other group members and these
Effects of Ability Grouping
21
results were not consistent with results found in this study. Results from the engagement
checklist showed that ability grouping did increase student engagement in discussion of material,
supporting others, and following directions.
Significance/Impact on Student Learning
Grouping students within an EIP class by ability did impact student learning. When
placed in small, ability groups all students experienced an increase in academic achievement, 8
students increased their grade equivalent reading scores, and students were engaged in
discussion, supporting others, and following directions. When placed in small groups of any
kind, students were excited to be in the group and anxious for reading lessons to begin. The
results show that it may be beneficial to place EIP students in small, ability groups for certain
activities.
Factors that Influenced Implementation
The research study was delayed on two separate occasions because the STAR program
was not working properly. Another factor that influenced the research was the enrollment of a
new student because he did not participate in the entire study and this prevented the researcher
from having complete results on this student.
Implications and Limitations
The researcher will continue to use ability groups because of the achievement and
engagement results. The results of this study will be shared with co-workers and faculty
members in order to inform them of the positive results found on engagement and achievement.
This will allow other teachers to determine whether or not ability grouping would work for their
EIP students. The increases may have been magnified by the fact that students may have scored
lower because of the beginning of the school year. The researcher feels that if the study were
Effects of Ability Grouping
22
done again in another school or subject that the results would be the same if it occurs in an EIP
setting. There could be an increase in scores in math, science or language by placing students
into small, ability groups, and students could be more engaged in the learning process. Teachers
with larger classes may not have the same results because the number of EIP students would
limit them on placing students in small groups. It would be beneficial to further study the effects
of ability grouping on students of all abilities and not just in an EIP setting.
References
Chorzempa, B. F., & Graham, S. (2006). Primary-grade teachers’ use of within-class ability
grouping in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 529-541.
Fiedler, E., Lange, R., & Winebrenner, S. (2002). In search of reality: Unraveling the myths
about tracking ability grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 24(3), 108-111.
Georgia Department of Education (2006). Comprehensive Plan Profile Reports. Retrieved July 2,
2007, from www.gadoe.org
Hallam, S., Ireson, J., & Davies, J. (2004). Primary pupils’ experiences of different types of
grouping in school. British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 515-533.
Effects of Ability Grouping
23
Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., Clark, H., MacIntyre, H., & Baines, E. (2005). Teachers’
understandings of the relationship between within-class (pupil) grouping and learning in
secondary schools. Educational Research, 47(1), 1-24.
Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2002). Pupil groupings in primary school classrooms:
sites for learning and social pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 187206.
McCoach, D. B., O’Connell, A. A., & Levitt, H. (2006). Ability grouping across kindergarten
using an early childhood longitudinal study. The Journal of Education Research, 99(6), 339-346.
Renaissance Learning, (2007). STAR Reading Test. Retrieved July 18, 2007, from
http://www.renlearn.com
Richardson, L. L., & Hines, M. T. (2002). Equity in education: A balancing act. Eugene, OR:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED476548)
Tieso, C. L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review, 26(1), 29-36.
Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 60-91.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2006). An alternative to Ability Grouping. Principal Leadership, 6(8), 31-32.
Valencia, S. (2004). Theme skills test. Boston,MA: Houghton Mifflin.
VanderHart, P. G. (2006). Why do some schools group by ability? American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, 65(2), 436-462.
Effects of Ability Grouping
24
Appendix A
Engagement Checklist
Observer: _______________
Date: ________________
Time: _______________
Students
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Active
interaction
with others
Discussion of
material
Supporting
other readers
Following
directions
Seeks
instruction