Slavin, R. 1993. Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement

1
Class Presentation by Melina Day based
on Ability Grouping in the Middle
Grades Achievement Effects and Alternatives
Slavin, R. (1993). Ability grouping in the
middle grades Achievement effects and
alternatives. The Elementary School Journal, 93
(1). Retrieved February 12, 2006 from
http//links.jstor.org/sici?sici0013- 5984281993
0529933A53C5353AAGITMG3E2.0.CO3B2-Q
pages 535-552
2

• I chose this article because I
• had just read the articles on
• mixed-ability vs. same-ability
• and I wanted to see if the
• finding were similar and if they
• offered any teaching
• suggestions

My Rationale for Reading Article

• present effects of ability
• grouping
• discuss alternatives to grouping
• share need for additional
• research

Researchers Purpose
3

• middle school movement
• trying to reduce or eliminate
• ability grouping

Overview

• ability grouping shows no gain
• in achievement compared to
• other grouping methods

Why? What Were the Results?
4
Tracking

• putting students together
• based on ability level

What is Tracking?
Type of Tracking

• tracking with some subjects
• tracking with all subjects
• some accelerated classes
• between-class ability grouping
• most common
• example - reading groups

5
For or Against Tracking?

• adapt instruction to various
• abilities
• high achievers challenge
• low achievers support
• effective

Support Tracking
6
For or Against Tracking?

• damaging to low achievers
• slower pace
• lower quality of instruction
• less able teachers
• teachers not wanting to
• teach lower level students
• lower expectations
• few positive behavioral
• models
• students feel demoralized
• no equity not democratic
• not effective bad
• outcomes

Oppose Tracking
7
For or Against Tracking?
Oppose Tracking

• feel results will be
• delinquency
• being absent more
• frequently
• drop-out more often
• other social problems
• less likely to attend college
• difficult or impossible to
• leave category

8
STUDY

• 27 studies of tracking
• based on 3 categories of
• research design
• random assignment
• achievement or IQ
• assignment
• classes or schools that did
• or did not use ability
• grouping
• used analyses of
• covariance, multiple
• regressions, or other
• statistical procedures

What Kind of Design?
9

• few consistent patterns
• between ability grouping and
• heterogeneous grouping
• near zero for all grade
• levels, subject matters,
• types of schools
• affects students at different
• achievement levels differently
• median effect size was still
• close to zero
• has little effect on
• achievement of high
• achievers

What Were the Results?
10
Conclusion
Studies found
There is little reason to maintain ability
grouping. Must use alternatives to ability
grouping. More research must be done.
11

• Cooperative Learning
• must have 2 elements
• goals
• individual accountability
• positive effects
• self-esteem
• race relations
• acceptance of
• mainstreamed
• handicapped students
• ability to work
• cooperatively
• use both homogeneous
• heterogeneous within-class
• groupings

Alternatives to Grouping
12

• more difficult for teachers to
• teach heterogeneous classes
• hold back high achievers
• meeting needs of all students
• variety of teaching methods
• cooperative learning methods
• within-class ability grouping
• engage students
• more hands-on conceptual based
• teaching
• combine individualized with
• cooperative learning
• help low-achieving students to
• keep up expectations
• interventions

Research Needs
13

• team teaching
• rich and cover enough for high
• achieving students
• different teaching behaviors
• management
• motivation
• evaluation methods
• unsuccessful successful
• tracking
• barriers how to overcome
• them
• extremely able students be
• exempt from untracking
• ways to measure affective
• cognitive measures besides
• standardized testing

Research Needs