Can Unlike Students Learn Together Challenges of Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Grouping in Schools

1
Can Unlike Students Learn Together? Challenges of
Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Grouping in Schools

• Adam Gamoran
• University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

2
The Challenge of Unlike Students

• Schools, like other service organizations, must
  serve customers who differ from one another
• Hospitals, social service agencies, employment
  offices, are all examples of agencies that serve
  diverse clients

3
The Challenge of Unlike Students

• Typically, these agencies respond to
  heterogeneous clients by dividing them into
  homogenous units
• To meet their needs efficiently
• For example
• Hospitals have maternity wards, cardiac wings,
  and cancer units to respond separately to
  expectant mothers, heart attacks, and cancer
  patients

4
The Challenge of Unlike Students

• Schools, also, tend to divide heterogeneous
  clients into homogeneous subgroups
• Grades within schools
• Tracks, streams, or ability groups within grades
• These subunits allow teachers to provide separate
  treatments to different groups of students

5
The Challenge of Unlike Students

• Grouping seems logical and efficient
• Students differ in their performance levels, so
  teachers divide them to match instruction more
  closely to their needs
• A narrower range of student performance levels
  makes it easier to organize the curriculum
• So why is this problematic?

6
Problems of Ability Grouping

• Due to circumstances outside of school,
  separating students by academic performance may
  also separate them by ethncity and social class
• Homogenous classes lack the diversity that may
  foster rich discussions

7
Problems of Ability Grouping

• 3. Although ability grouping is intended to
  provide equally effective instruction to all
  students, that rarely occurs
• Teachers are also tracked
• Cycle of low expectations
• Low-level classes as caricatures
• Emphasis on procedures in low-level classes,
  discussion in high-level classes

8
Consequences of Tracking Between Schools

• Tracking between schools does not avoid the
  problems of ability grouping
• Evidence from PISA
• Countries with more stratification between
  schools produce more inequality between schools

9
Source Adapted from OECD (2002) Table 2.5 p.55.
10
Source OECD. (2001). Education policy analysis.
Paris OECD. Page 42.
11
Consequences of Tracking between Schools (PISA)

• Cases with low inequality and high achievement
  (Korea, Japan) have delayed selection
• Cases with high inequality and average or low
  achievement (Germany, Hungary, Switzerland, Czech
  Republic) have early selection

12
Evidence on Ability Grouping and Inequality

• Many studies show that classroom instruction is a
  key link between tracking and achievement
• Example Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, and Gamoran
  (2003)
• Discussion-based approach to teaching literature
  in middle school
• Teachers who foster discussion, authentic
  questions promote more learning
• Richer instructional climate in high-track classes

13
Evidence on Ability Grouping and Inequality

• Data 1000 students, 72 classes, 19 middle and
  high schools in 5 states
• Classroom observations, student and teacher
  surveys, school records
• Writing sample obtained in fall and spring
• Student background data from surveys
• Teacher report of tracked class as high, regular,
  low, or mixed

14
Ability Grouping and Unequal Instruction
Track Level
Source Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, Gamoran,
2003.
15
Ability Grouping and Unequal Instruction
Track Level
Source Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, Gamoran,
2003.
16
Ability Grouping and Unequal Instruction
Track Level
Source Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, Gamoran,
2003.
17
Ability Grouping and Unequal Instruction
Track Level
Source Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, Gamoran,
2003.
18
Ability Grouping and Unequal Instruction
Track Level
Source Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, Gamoran,
2003.
19
Ability Grouping and Unequal Instruction
Track Level
Source Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, Gamoran,
2003.
20
Problems of Ability Grouping

• Partly as a result of unequal classroom
  conditions, inequality among students widens over
  time

21
Achievement Gaps between High and Low Tracks
Source Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, Gamoran,
2003.
22
Problems of Ability Grouping

• Why do gaps remain even after background and
  instruction are controlled?
• Unmeasured selectivity
• Other aspects of instruction
• Peer effects

23
Consequences of Ability Grouping

• No effect on achievement productivity
• Increase in achievement inequality
• Supporters focus on productivity while critics
  emphasize inequality

24
Why Is it So Hard to Eliminate Ability Grouping?

• Normative barriers
• Political barriers
• Technical barriers
• Until we address the technical barriers, ability
  grouping will be hard to overcome

25
Responses to the Problem

• Reduce the use of ability grouping
• Eliminate dead-end classes
• Avoid teacher tracking
• Maintain an academic curriculum with high
  expectations and meaningful incentives in all
  classes

26
Less Harmful Uses of Ability Grouping

• Scotland 1984-1990
• Shift from Ordinary to Standard Grade
• More differentiated to less differentiated
• Resulted in higher average achievement and less
  inequality by social background at age 16
• Gap did not close at the top levels of
  performance

27
Scotland Standard Grade Reform
28
Scotland Standard Grade Reform
29
Less Harmful Uses of Ability Grouping

• A U.S. Comparison Math Upgrading
• New transition classes replaced general math
• Transition classes were more successful than
  general math
• But students are best off going directly into
  college-preparatory mathematics

30
Upgrading the Mathematics Curriculum
31
Less Harmful Uses of Ability Grouping

• Transition courses and achievement
• Achievement in transition courses was higher than
  in general math, but lower than in
  college-preparatory courses
• More rigorous curricular content accounted for
  the advantages of college-preparatory and
  transition courses

32
Upgrading the Mathematics Curriculum
33
Less Harmful Uses of Ability Grouping

• Israel Differentiation in the context of high
  incentives
• Ayalon and Gamoran (2000) Comparison of Israel
  and the US

34
Israel versus the U.S. Grouping in the context
of national examinations

• U.S.
• The more tracking, the more inequality
• Low-level classes characterized by
• Diluted curriculum
• Low expectations
• Minimal effort

• Israel
• More differentiation, less inequality
• Meaningful incentives are found at all levels

35
Course taking diversity in mathematics, United
States
36
Course taking diversity in mathematics, United
States
37
Israel Number of units offered in mathematics
38
Less Harmful Uses of Ability Grouping Elementary
Schools

• Reduce heterogeneity in the skill taught
• Flexibility in case assignments need to be
  changed
• Varied instruction that responds to student needs
  (and does not hold low-achievers back)

39
Less Harmful Uses of Ability Grouping Elementary
Schools

• Between-class grouping for all subjects in
  elementary school is hard to justify
• All skills rather than targeted skills
• Lacks flexibility
• Class assignments associated with other student
  characteristics
• Research consistently finds that instruction in
  low groups is less effective

40
Less Harmful Uses of Ability Grouping Elementary
Schools

• Within-class grouping has more support
• Common for early grades
• Brings other challenges in later grades
• Classroom management
• Keeping students challenged when they are not
  working with the teacher

41
Responses to the Problem

• Even in the best-case uses of ability grouping,
  some inequality remains
• Alternative use mixed-ability grouping
  (heterogeneous classes)

42
Challenges of Mixed-Ability Grouping

• Maintain a curriculum that challenges all
  students
• Tendency to dilute the curriculum
• Prepare teachers to respond to students diverse
  needs
• Its too hard to do all of this.

43
Challenges of Mixed-Ability Grouping

• Study of restructured schools
• Unsuccessful uses of mixed-ability grouping
• Wallingford lowering standards
• Marble Canyon keeping students in school by
  reducing demands

44
Challenges of Mixed-Ability Grouping

• Successful use of mixed-ability grouping Cibola
  High School
• Complex academic projects
• Varied expectations for different students
• Curriculum not bound by a rigid sequence
• Supporting conditions
• Small classes
• Extra tutoring on Saturdays
• Selection of staff and students

45
Resources for Mixed-Ability Teaching Elementary
Schools

• Elizabeth Cohen, Designing Groupwork Strategies
  for the Heterogeneous Classroom (Teachers College
  Press, 1994)
• Carole Ann Tomlinson, How to Differentiate
  Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms (ASCD,
  2001)

46
Conclusions

• Eliminate dead-end courses
• Where ability grouping is maintained, implement
  high standards for low-achieving students
• Where ability grouping is eliminated, see that
  standards for high-achieving students are not
  lowered

47
Conclusions

• Goals for heterogeneous classrooms
• Help teachers prepare to teach mixed-ability
  classes
• Avoid diluting the curriculum
• Use differentiated assignments to challenge
  high-achieving students

48
Conclusions

• All education systems face the challenge of
  teaching unlike students
• Ability grouping is a common response, but it
  brings other problems
• There is probably no single right answer
• Most important is not how students are assigned,
  but what happens after the classroom door is
  closed