This study challenges the belief that homogeneous ability grouping benefits high-ability students in cognitive and social-emotional development at the expense of their low-ability peers. From a developmental point of view, the authors hypothesize that homogeneous grouping may improve the learning behaviors and may benefit the literacy learning of kindergartners at all ability levels through adaptive instruction under adequate instructional time. The benefits are expected to be more evident for medium- and low-ability children than for high-ability children. However, when instructional time is limited, low-ability children may suffer from high-intensity grouping, defined as grouping taking up a large proportion of instructional time. The authors also examine whether low-ability kindergartners develop lower self-esteem as a result of homogeneous grouping. Analyzing Early Childhood Longitudinal Study kindergarten cohort data, the authors find no overall advantage of homogeneous grouping for high-ability students. For medium-ability students’ literacy growth, homogeneous grouping appears to be optimal when teachers spend more than 1 hour per day on literacy instruction; high-intensity grouping shows additional advantage for improving these students’ general learning behaviors. For low-ability kindergartners, homogeneous grouping with ample instruction time seems to improve their general learning behaviors, whereas low-intensity grouping with ample instruction time seems to reduce internalizing problem behaviors. Yet for low-ability students’ literacy growth, a detrimental effect of high-intensity grouping is found when instructional time is limited. These findings contradict results from past research and have important implications for educational theories and practice.
AndersonL. W. (1984). Time and school learning. London: Croom Helm.
2.
AuK. H.MasonJ. M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: The balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 115–152.
3.
AunolaK.LeskinenE.Onatsu-ArvilommiT.NurmiJ.-E. (2002). Three methods for studying developmental change: A case of reading skills and self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 343–364.
BarrR.DreebenR. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BloomB. (1974). Time and learning. American Psychologist, 29, 682–688.
7.
CamburnE.BarnsC. A. (2004). Assessing the validity of a language arts instruction log through triangulation. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 49–74.
8.
CarrollJ. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.
9.
CondronD. (2008). Skill grouping and unequal reading gains in the elementary years. Sociological Quarterly, 49(2), 363–394.
10.
CronbachL.SnowR. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.
11.
DawsonM. M. (1987). Beyond ability grouping: A review of the effectiveness of ability grouping and its alternatives. School Psychology Review, 16(3), 348–369.
12.
DonohueK. M.WeinsteinR. S.CowanP. A.CowanC. P. (2000). Patterns of teachers’ whole-class perceptions and predictive relationships between teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of individual child competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(3), 279–305.
13.
DreebenR.BarrR. (1988). The formation and instruction of ability groups. American Journal of Education, 97(1), 34–64.
14.
EderD. (1981). Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Sociology of Education, 54, 151–162.
15.
FelmleeD.EderD. (1983). Contextual effects in the classroom: The impact of ability groups on student attention. Sociology of Education, 56, 77–87.
16.
FergusonR. (1998). Can schools narrow the Black-White test score gap? In JencksC.PhillipsM. (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 273–313). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
17.
GamoranA. (1986). Instructional and institutional effects of ability grouping. Sociology of Education, 59, 185–198.
18.
GoodT.BrophyJ. (2008). Looking in classrooms (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
19.
GrantL.RothenbergJ. (1986). The social enhancement of ability differences: Teacher-student interactions in first- and second-grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 29–50.
20.
HartC.RisleyT. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap. American Educator, 27(1), 4–9.
21.
HiebertE. H. (1983). An examination of ability grouping for reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(2), 231–255.
22.
HollandP. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945–960.
23.
HongG. (2004). Causal inference for multilevel observational data with application to kindergarten retention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, School of Education.
24.
HongG. (2010). Marginal mean weighting through stratification: Adjustment for selection bias in multilevel data. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(5), 499–531.
25.
HongG. (2011, August15). Marginal mean weighting through stratification: A generalized method for evaluating multi-valued and multiple treatments with non-experimental data. Psychological Methods. Available at http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2011-17685-001/
26.
HongG.HongY. (2009). Reading instruction time and homogeneous grouping in kindergarten: An application of marginal mean weighting through stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 54–81.
27.
HongG.RaudenbushS. W. (2006). Evaluating kindergarten retention policy: A case study of causal inference for multi-level observational data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(475), 901–910.
28.
HongG.RaudenbushS. W. (2008). Causal inference for time-varying instructional treatments. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33(3), 333–362.
29.
HuangI.-C.FrangakisC.DominiciF.DietteG. B.WuA. W. (2005). Approach for risk adjustment in profiling multiple physician groups on asthma care. Health Services Research, 40, 253–278.
30.
HughesJ. N.ZhangD. (2007). Effects of the structure of classmates’ perceptions of peers’ academic abilities on children’s perceived cognitive competence, peer acceptance, and engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 400–419.
31.
ImbensG. W. (2000). The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika, 87, 706–710.
32.
KoziolS. M.JrBurnsP. (1986). Teachers’ accuracy in self-reporting about instructional practices using a focused self-report inventory. Journal of Educational Research, 79(4), 205–209.
33.
LouY.AbramiP. C.SpenceJ. C.PoulsenC.ChambersB.d’ApolloniaS. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423–458.
34.
MarshH. W. (1984). Relations among dimensions of self-attribution, dimensions of self-concept, and academic achievements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1291–1308.
35.
MartinJ.EvertsonC. M. (1980). Interactions with reading groups of differing ability levels. Austin: University of Texas, Research & Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 203 303)
36.
MayerD. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.
37.
McDonaldF. J. (1976). Report on Phase II of the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 39–42.
38.
MillotB. (1995). Economics of educational time and learning. In CarnoyM. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of economics of education (pp. 353–358). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
39.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
40.
OakesJ. (1985). Keep track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
OakesJ. (1995). Two cities’ tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, 96(4), 681–690.
42.
OakesJ.GamoranA.PageR. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In JacksonP. W. (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570–608). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
43.
PallasA. M.EntwisleD. R.AlexanderK. L.StlukaM. F. (1994). Ability-group effects: Instructional, social, or institutional?Sociology of Education, 67, 27–46.
44.
ParisS. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 184–202.
45.
ReumanD. A. (1989). How social comparison mediates the relation between ability-grouping practices and students’ achievement expectancies in mathematics. Journal of educational psychology, 81(2), 178–189.
46.
RockD. A.PollackJ. M.HauskenE. G. (2002). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K), psychometric report for kindergarten through first grade (NCES 2002-05). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
47.
RosenbaumJ. E. (1980). Social implications of educational grouping. Review of Research in Education, 8, 361–401.
48.
RosenbaumP. R. (1987). Model-based direct adjustment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 387–394.
49.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.
50.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 516–524.
51.
RowanB.MiracleA. W.Jr. (1983). Systems of ability grouping and the stratification of achievement in elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 56, 133–144.
52.
RubinD. B. (1978). Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization. Annals of Statistics, 6(1), 34–58.
53.
Sandby-ThomasM. (1983). The organization of reading and pupil attainment. Journal of Research in Reading, 6(1), 29–40.
54.
SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55.
SlavinR. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293–336.
56.
SnowR. (1989). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In AckermanP. L.SternbergR. J.GlaserR. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Advances in theory and research (pp. 13–59).New York: W. H. Freeman.
57.
SnowR.FedericoP.MontagueW. (1980). Aptitude, learning, and instruction (Vols. 1 & 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58.
StanovichK. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.
59.
StipekD. J.Mac IverD. (1989). Developmental change in children’s assessment of intellectual competence. Child Development, 60, 521–538.
TachL.FarkasG. (2006). Learning-related behaviors, cognitive skills, and ability grouping when schooling begins. Social Science Research, 35, 1048–1079.
62.
TrimbleK. D.SinclairR. L. (1987). On the wrong track: Ability grouping and the threat to equity. Equity and Excellence, 23, 15–21.
63.
WeinsteinR. S. (1976). Reading group membership in first grade: Teacher behaviors and pupil experience over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 103–116.
64.
WelnerK. G.OakesJ. (1996). Ability grouping: The new susceptibility of school tracking systems to legal challenges. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 451–470.
65.
WheelockA. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How “untracking” can save America’s schools. New York: New Press.
66.
WillmsJ. D. (2002). Vulnerable children: Findings from Canada’s National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta Press.
67.
WillmsJ. D.ChenM. (1989). The effects of ability grouping on the ethnic achievement gap in Israeli elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 97(3), 237–257.
68.
WilsonM. J. (1981). A review of recent research on the integration of reading and writing. Reading Teacher, 34(8), 896–901.
69.
ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer.
70.
ZirkelP. A.GluckmanI. B. (1995). It’s the law: Ability grouping. Principal, 75(1), 62–63.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
