The purpose of this study was to gain understanding of general and special education teachers' perceptions of grouping for reading and the types of grouping patterns that are implemented in classrooms in a diverse urban school district. Forty-nine third-grade teachers (29 general education teachers who had students with learning disabilities in their class for part of the day and 20 special education teachers) participated in the study. Individual and focus group interviews were used. The results of the interviews revealed that teachers value control over their decisions on how to group for reading. General education teachers indicated that they feel constrained by the demands of the district and school administration, whereas special education teachers believe they have more autonomy in their grouping decisions. The majority of the general educators reported predominant use of a whole class grouping format, whereas special education teachers used a more varied format. For the most part, general educators endorsed mixed-ability grouping arrangements for both social and academic reasons. Special educators, on the other hand, supported same-ability groups. The discussion provides insights into why teachers do not differentiate instruction when teaching in classrooms that have culturally, linguistically, and academically diverse student populations. The need for professional development in flexible grouping strategies is also addressed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities?Exceptional Children, 56, 515–526.
2.
Barr, R. (1989). The social organization of literacy instruction. National Reading Conference Yearbook: Vol. 38 (pp. 19–34). Milwaukee, WI: National Reading Conference.
3.
Barr, R. (1995). What research says about grouping in the past and present and what it suggests about the future. In M. Radencich & L. McKay (Eds.), Flexible grouping for literacy in the elementary grades (pp. 1–24). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4–15.
5.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory methods (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (1994). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavioral problems (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
7.
Bromme, R., & Brophy, J. (1986). Teachers' cognitive activities. In B. Christiansen, G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 99–140). Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
8.
Calfee, R., & Brown, R. (1979). Grouping students for instruction. In S. L. Duke (Ed.), Classroom management. Seventy-eighth year-book of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2 (pp. 144–182). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Dyson, J. W., Godwin, P. H. B., & Hazelwood, L. A. (1976). Group composition, leadership orientation and decisional outcomes. Small Group Behavior, 7, 114–128.
10.
Esposito, D. (1973). Homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping: Principal findings and implications for evaluating and designing more effective educational environments. Review of Educational Research, 43, 163–179.
11.
Floden, R. E., & Klinzing, H. G. (1990). What can research on teacher thinking contribute to teacher preparation? A second opinion. Educational Researcher, 19, 15–20.
12.
Flood, J., Lapp, D., Flood, S., & Nagel, G. (1992). Am I allowed to group? Using flexible patterns for effective instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45, 608–616.
13.
Floyd, C. (1954). Meeting children's reading needs in the middle grades: A preliminary report. Elementary School Journal, 55, 99–103.
14.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
15.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1994). Looking in classrooms (6th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
16.
Good, T. L., & Stipek, D. J. (1983). Individual differences in the classroom: A psychological perspective. In G. D. Fenstermacher & J. I. Goodlad (Eds.), Individual differences and the common curriculum. Eighty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1 (pp. 9–43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Goodlad, J. I., & Anderson, R. H. (1959). The nongraded elementary school. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
18.
Grossen, B. (1993). Focus: Heterogeneous grouping and curriculum design. Effective School Practices, 12, 5–8.
19.
Hallinan, M. T., & Sorensen, A. B. (1985). Ability grouping and student friendships. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 485–499.
20.
Harris, A. J., & Sipay, E. R. (1980). How to increase reading ability (7th ed.). New York: Longman.
21.
Heathers, G. (1972). Overview of innovations in organizing for learning. Interchange, 3, 47–68.
22.
Hiebert, E. H. (1983). An examination of ability grouping for reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 231–255.
23.
Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time: Don't fix blame; fix the leaky roof. The Reading Teacher, 5, 376–383.
24.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity & Excellence, 23, 22–30.
25.
Kuzel, A. J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 31–44) (Research methods for primary care series, Vol. 3). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Marshall, H., & Weinstein, R. (1984). Classroom factors affecting students' self-evaluations: An interactional model. Review of Educational Research, 53, 519–570.
28.
McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60, 249–261.
29.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori method. New York: Shocken Books.
31.
Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. (1991). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, consequences, and meanings. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum (pp. 570–608). New York: Macmillan.
32.
Otto, W. R. (1977). The Wisconsin design: A reading program for individually guided education. In H. J. Klausmeier, R. A. Rossmiller, & M. Saily (Eds.), Individually guided elementary education: Concepts and practices (pp. 137–149). New York: Academic Press.
33.
Pikulski, J. J. (1991). Grouping for literacy instruction: A need for thoughtful reconsideration. Florida Reading Quarterly, 27(4), 7–12.
34.
Radencich, M. C., & McKay, L. J. (1995). Flexible grouping for literacy in the elementary grades. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
35.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 559–586.
36.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Wilson, B. (1980). The effect of classroom structure on shared perceptions of ability. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 75–82.
37.
Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn, S. (1997). Grouping for reading instruction: General education teachers' perceptions and practices. Manuscript submitted for publication.
38.
Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 18–27.
39.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J., & Rothlein, L. (1994). General education teachers' beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for mainstreamed students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 22–37.
40.
Slavin, R. E. (1984). Research Methods in Education: A Practical Guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
41.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336.
42.
Stevens, R., Madden, N., Slavin, R., & Famish, A. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433–454.
43.
Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Schumm, J. S., & Klingner, J. (in press). A collaborative effort to enhance reading and writing. Learning Disability Quarterly.
44.
Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (in press). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children.
45.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. M. (1996). The focus group interview: Use and application in educational and psychological research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
Veatch, J. (1978). Reading in the elementary school (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
