16
Ability Grouping Presentation by Stephen Bennett, Sinead Carroll, Shane Curran, Niall Kelly, Rachael Rysz, Sinead Wright.

Ability grouping final final

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

See http://psychsocvalues.wordpress.com/

Citation preview

Page 1: Ability grouping final final

Ability Grouping

Presentation by Stephen Bennett,

Sinead Carroll, Shane Curran,

Niall Kelly, Rachael Rysz, Sinead Wright.

Page 2: Ability grouping final final

What is ability grouping?

• Definition

• Between-class ability grouping

• Within-class ability grouping

Page 3: Ability grouping final final

How are students grouped by their abilities and how are they taught?• Grouped

Based on a review of performance data May be re-grouped based on skill level

improvement/disimprovement

• Teaching Teaching depends on curriculum and student

grade level Groups usually begin at comfortable level, then

increase difficulty as appropriate Pace of instruction and increase of difficulty

dependent on the group level (high or low)

Page 4: Ability grouping final final

What is the theory behind ability grouping?• Theory

• Assumption

• Debate and research

Page 5: Ability grouping final final

Our Proposition

• Propose the use of Ability Grouping, in a controlled and appropriate way.

• Importance of non-academic constructs, for example, friendships, self-esteem, anxiety levels, enthusiasm, etc.

• Avoid complete segregation of students, and promote mingling of groups in specific situations.

• Continuous monitoring of progress, and of teachers’ adherence to curriculum guidelines.

Page 6: Ability grouping final final

Arguments for Ability Grouping:

• Within class ability grouping and differentiation of instruction is seen as effective.

• Children with high ability benefit from more difficulty.

• Children work better when assigned work suited to their ability. But, Full day separation is not as effective.

• Greater curricular adjustment leads to greater improvements in student grades.

• Also, better more positive student attitudes towards class-work are seen.

Page 7: Ability grouping final final

Arguments Against Ability Grouping

• Potential risks to Students’ self esteem.

• Can be Difficult to implement and monitor properly.

• Potentially unnecessary expense on tight education budgets.

• May cause development of anti-authority groups

• More Research is needed before it can be deemed positive.

Page 8: Ability grouping final final

The Power of Research Findings:

• Research can be divided into two main areas within this field:

For Ability-Grouping

Against Ability-Grouping

Page 9: Ability grouping final final

For Ability-Grouping:

• Classes shows higher achievement

• Lower self-esteem shown in heterogenous class

• Promotes formation of friendships within groups

• Smaller group sizes are shown to produce higher benefits

Page 10: Ability grouping final final

Against Ability-Grouping

• Achievements of lower and average ability students higher in mixed classes

• Reduce self-esteem of higher ability students

• Associated with reduced curriculum, less experienced teachers, reduced expectations, negative self esteem

Page 11: Ability grouping final final

Ability Grouping- Strengths of the Research Findings• Strengths:

• ‘Allows teachers to challenge high-achievers, while providing remediation, repetition and review for low-achievers.’-Slavin, 1987.

• Findings confirm that higher –aptitude achievers benefit from ability grouping.

• Aids in student achievement by creating a gap in student learning-levels, therefore enabling the teacher to provide more or less instruction to the groups of students.

Page 12: Ability grouping final final

Ability Grouping- Weaknesses of the Research Findings• Weaknesses:

• Findings show that ability grouping has less effect on middle and lower aptitude learners.

• Creates a diversion in which students of the lower-level learning are not shown the example provided by the high-achieving students, so essentially there is no bar set.

• Labeling students lowers their self-esteem and

willpower to work harder.

Page 13: Ability grouping final final

Strengths and Weaknesses of Research Methodologies

• Strengths• Diverse, large population

that can be generalized.

• Kindergarten children were monitored in three different levels, all of which were controlled by the researchers.

• Controlling for background variables, like ethnicity and home situation.

• Weaknesses• Sample studies are not as

credible

• No control group—children were measured simply by the environments they were in.

• Correlational in nature.

Page 14: Ability grouping final final

Final Recommendation

• Starting positions aside, ability grouping can be highly beneficial, if used correctly

• Important to Monitor progress carefully Use regular feedback Employ regular evaluations

• Ability grouping – works well and can improve student’s learning environment and outcomes

• Therefore, if conditions for efficacy are satisfied, ability grouping should be implemented in schools

Page 15: Ability grouping final final

References:

• Adelson J. and Carpenter B. (2011) Grouping for achievement gains: For whomdoes achievement grouping Increase kindergarten reading growth? GiftedChild Quaterly, 55 (4) pp. 265 – 278.

• Allan, S., (1991). Ability-Grouping Research Reviews: What do they say about grouping and the gifted? Educational Leadership, March.

• Cheung, C. & Rudowicz, E. (2003). Academic outcomes of ability grouping amongjunior high school students in Hong Kong. [Electronic Version] The

Journal of Educational Research, 96 (4) 241-254.

• Hallinan, M. T. & Sorenson, A. B. (1985). Ability grouping and student friendships.[Electronic Version] American Educational Research Journal, 22 (4)

485- 499.

• Hamilton L., O’Hora P. (2010) The tyranny of setting (ability grouping): challenges to inclusion in Scottish primary schools. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 27 (4) pp 712 - 721

• Ireson, J. & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising Standards: Is ability grouping the answer?[Electronic Version] Oxford Review of Education, 25 (3) 343-358.

• Ireson, J. & Hallam, S (2001). Ability Grouping in Education. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications Inc.

Page 16: Ability grouping final final

References:

• Kulik, J. A., & Kulik C, C. (1992). Meta-analytic Findings on Grouping Programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (2).

• Linchenski, L. & Kutscher, B. (1998). Tell me with whom you’re learning, and I’lltell you how much you’ve learned: Mixed-ability versus same-abillity grouping in mathematics. [Electronic Version] Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29 (5) 533-554.

• Logsdon, A. (2008). What is ability grouping?. About Learning Disabilities.Retreived from http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/ac/a/ability_groups.htm

• Macqueen, S. (2008). Between-class achievement grouping for literacy andnumeracy: academic outcomes for primary students. Paper presented atthe Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Brisbane. http://www.aare.edu.au/08pap/mac08085.pdf

• Slavin, R. E., (1987) Ability Grouping and student achievement in elementary school: A Best evidence Synthesis, Review of educational research, 57 (3) no. 293-336.