Previous research has indicated benefits and potential pitfalls of within-class homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping for elementary math learning. However, there has been scant evidence with regard to the impacts of grouping for language minority kindergartners who may experience the small group setting differentially due to their particular needs for math and English language skill development. Analyzing the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten cohort data, we find that heterogeneous grouping or a combination of heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping under relatively adequate time allocation is optimal for enhancing teacher ratings of language minority kindergartners’ math performance, while using homogeneous grouping only is detrimental. As hypothesized, suboptimal instructional organization seems to place language minority kindergartners in a vulnerable situation.
AbediJ. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8, 231–257.
2.
AbediJ. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17–31.
3.
AbediJ.CourtneyM.LeonS.KaoJ.AzzamT. (2006). English language learners and math achievement: A study of opportunity to learn and language accommodation (Technical Report 702). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California, Los Angeles.
4.
AbediJ.HermanJ. (2010). Assessing English language learners’ opportunity to learn mathematics: Issues and limitations. Teachers College Record, 112, 723–746.
5.
ArlinM. (1979). Teacher transitions can disrupt time flow in classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 16, 42–56.
6.
AudS.HussarW.PlantyM.SnyderT.BiancoK.FoxM.. . . DrakeL. (2010). The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010-028). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
7.
AugustD.HakutaK. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
8.
BaileyA. L.KellyK. R. (2010). The use and validity of home language surveys in state English language proficiency assessment systems: A review and issues perspective. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
9.
BallD. L.RowanB. (2004). Introduction: Measuring instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 105, 3–10.
10.
Barnett-ClarkeC.HellerJ.HansonT.DarlingK. (2010). The impact of math pathways & pitfalls on students’ mathematics achievement and mathematical language development: A study conducted in schools with high concentrations of Latino/a students and English learners. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/mpp-ies-report.pdf
11.
BarrA. (1974). Instructional pace differences and their effect on reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 9, 526–554.
12.
Blum-KulkaS.SnowC. E. (2004). Introduction: The potential of peer talk. Discourse Studies, 6, 291–306.
13.
BrennerM. E. (1998). Development of mathematical communication in problem solving groups by language minority students. Bilingual Research Journal, 22, 149–174.
14.
CamburnE.BarnsC. A. (2004). Assessing the validity of a language arts instruction log through triangulation. The Elementary School Journal, 105, 49–74.
15.
Cardelle-ElawarM. (1990). Effects of feedback tailored to bilingual students’ mathematics needs on verbal problem solving. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 165–175.
16.
CarrascoR. L. (1981). Expanded awareness of student performance: A case study in applied ethnographic monitoring in the bilingual classroom. In TruebaH. T.GuthrieG. P.AuK. H. (Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom (pp. 153–177). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
17.
CarrollJ. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 722–733.
18.
CheungA.SlavinR. E. (2005). Effective reading programs for English language learners and other language-minority students. Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 241–267.
19.
ChorzempaB. F.GrahamS. (2006). Primary grade teachers’ use of within-class ability grouping in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 529–541.
20.
ClaessensA.DuncanG.EngelM. (2009). Kindergarten skills and fifth-grade achievement: Evidence from the ECLS-K. Economics of Education Review, 28, 415–427.
21.
CohenE. (1984). Talking and working together: Status, interaction, and learning. In PetersonP. L.WilkinsonL. C.HallinanM. (Eds.), The social context of instruction: Group organization and group processes (pp. 171–187). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
22.
CohenE. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
23.
ColadarciT. (1986). Accuracy of teacher judgments of student responses to standardized test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 141–146.
24.
CordenR. (2001). Group discussion and the importance of a shared perspective: Learning from collaborative research. Qualitative Research, 1, 347–367.
25.
DahllöfU. S. (1971). Ability grouping, content validity, and curriculum process analysis. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26.
DavidsonN. (1990). Cooperative learning in mathematics: A handbook for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
27.
DiazS.MollL. C.MehanH. (1986). Sociocultural resources in instruction: A context-specific approach. In Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 187–230). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.
28.
DreebenR.BarrR. (1988). Classroom composition and the design of instruction. Sociology of Education, 61(3), 129–142.
29.
DuncanG.DowsettC.ClaessensA.MagnusonK.HustonA.KlebanovP.. . . JapelC. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446.
30.
EnyedyN.RubelL.CastellnV.MukhopadhyayS.EsmondeI.SecadaW. (2008). Revoicing in a multilingual classroom. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 134–162.
31.
EsmondeI. (2009). Ideas and identities: Supporting equity in cooperative mathematics learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1008–1043.
32.
FrancisD.RiveraM.LesauxN.KiefferM.RiveraH. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions (Under Cooperative Agreement Grant S283B050034 for U.S. Department of Education). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ELL1-Interventions.pdf
33.
FryR. (2007). How far behind in reading and math are English language learners?Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
34.
FuchsL.FuchsD.CraddockC.HollenbackK.HamlettC.SchatschneiderC. (2008). Effects of small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at-risk students’ math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one?Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 491–509.
35.
FurnerJ. M.YahaN.DuffyM. L. (2005). Teach mathematics: Strategies to reach all students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 16–23.
36.
FusonK. C.SmithS. T.Lo CiceroA. M. (1997). Supporting Latino first graders’ ten-structured thinking in urban classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 738–766.
37.
GarrettR. (2010). Multilingualism, Mathematics Achievement and Instructional Language Policy (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (755049601) http://search.proquest.com/docview/75504960
38.
GarrettR.HongG. (2012, November). Optimal math instruction time in early elementary grades for language minority students and their English speaking peers. Paper presented at the annual Fall Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Baltimore, MD.
39.
GarrettR.SteinbergM. P. (2015). Examining teacher effectiveness using teacher observation scores: Evidence from the randomization of teachers to students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 224–242.
40.
GarrisonL. (1997). Making the NCTM’s standards work for emergent English speakers. Teaching Children Mathematics, 4, 132–138.
41.
GarrisonL.MoraJ. (1999). Adapting mathematics instruction for English-language learners: The language-concept connection. In Ortiz-FrancoL.HernandezN. G.De La CruzY. (Eds.), Changing the Faces of Mathematics: Perspectives on Latinos (pp. 35–48). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
42.
GerlemanS. (1987). An observational study of small-group instruction in fourth-grade mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 3–28.
43.
GerstenR. (1996). Literacy instruction for language-minority students: The transition years. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 228–244.
44.
GilesR.AshmanA. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 746–757.
45.
GoldenbergC.Rutherford-QuachS. R. (2010). The Arizona home language survey: The identification of students for ELL services (The Civil Rights Project). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
46.
GoodT. L.GrouwsD. A.BeckermanT. (1978). Curriculum pacing: Some empirical data in mathematics. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10, 75–81.
47.
GoodT. L.GrouwsD. A.MasonD. A.SlavingsR. L.CramerK. (1990). An observational study of small-group mathematics instruction in elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 755–782.
48.
GutiérrezR. (2002). Beyond essentialism: The complexity of language in teaching mathematics to Latina/o students. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 1047–1088.
49.
GutsteinE.LipmanP.HernandezP.de los ReyesR. (1997). Culturally relevant mathematics teachers in Mexican-American context. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 709–737.
50.
HakutaK.ButlerY. G.WittD. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (Policy Report 2000-1). Santa Barbara: The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
51.
HansenB. B. (2008). The prognostic analogue of the propensity score. Biometrika, 95, 481–488.
52.
HemphillF. C.VannemanA. (2011). Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and White students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Statistical Analysis Report, NCES 2011-459). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
53.
HogeR.ColadarciT. (1989). Teacher based judgments of academic achievement: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 59, 297–313.
54.
HongG. (2010). Marginal mean weighting through stratification: Adjustment for selection bias in multilevel data. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35, 499–531.
55.
HongG. (2012). Marginal mean weighting through stratification: A generalized method for evaluating multivalued and multiple treatments with nonexperimental data. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 44–60.
56.
HongG. (2015). Causality in a social world: Moderation, mediation and spill-over. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
57.
HongG.CorterC.HongY.PelletierJ. (2012). Differential effects of literacy instruction time and homogeneous grouping in kindergarten: Who will benefit? Who will suffer?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 69–88.
58.
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.
59.
KhistyL.ChvalK. (2002). Pedagogic discourse and equity in mathematics: When teachers’ talk matters. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14, 154–168.
60.
KoziolS. M.Jr.BurnsP. (1986). Teachers’ accuracy in self-reporting about instructional practices using a focused self-report inventory. The Journal of Educational Research, 79, 205–209.
61.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. L. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity & Excellence in Education, 23, 22–30.
62.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. L. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77.
63.
LoebS.SolandJ.FoxL. (2014). Is a good teacher a good teacher for all? Comparing value-added of teachers with their English learners and non-English learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 457–475. doi:10.3102/0162373714527788
64.
LoseyK. M. (1995). Mexican American students and classroom interaction: An overview and critique. Review of Educational Research, 65, 283–318.
65.
LouY.AbramiP. C.SpenceJ. C. (2000). Effects of within-class grouping on student achievement: An exploratory model. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 101–112.
66.
LouY.AbramiP. C.SpenceJ. C.PoulsenC.ChambersB.d’ApolloniaS. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
67.
MacCallumR.ZhangS.PreacherK.RuckerD. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40.
68.
MathesP. G.TorgesonJ. K.Clancy-MenchettiJ.SantiK.RobinsonC.GrekM. (2003). A comparison of teacher-directed versus peer-assisted instruction to struggling first grade readers. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 459–479.
69.
MayerD. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 29–45.
70.
McClureE. (1978). Teacher and pupil questions and responses and the Mexican-American child. The Bilingual Review/La Revista Bilingue, 5, 40–44.
71.
MeiselsS. J.BickelD. D.NicholsonJ.XueY.Atkins-BurnettS. (2001). Trusting teachers’ judgments: A validity study of a curriculum-embedded performance assessment in kindergarten to Grade 3. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 73–95.
72.
MortonB.DaltonB. (2007). Changes in instructional hours in four subjects by public school teachers of grades 1 through 4 (NCES 2007-305). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007305.pdf
73.
MoschkovichJ. N. (1999). Understanding the needs of Latino students in reform-oriented mathematics classrooms. In Ortiz-FrancoL.HernandezN. G.De La CruzY. (Eds.), Changing the faces of mathematics: Perspectives on Latinos (pp. 5–12). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
74.
MoschkovichJ. N. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 24–30.
75.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Nation’s report card for math. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
76.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Language minority school-age children indicator (The Condition of Education). Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
77.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
78.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards (Mathematics). Washington, DC: Author.
79.
OrtizF. I. (1988). Hispanic-American children’s experiences in classrooms: A comparison between Hispanic and non-Hispanic children. In WeisL. (Ed.), Class, race, and gender in American education (pp. 63–86). New York: State University of New York Press.
80.
Pease-AlvarezL.GarciaE. E.EspinosaP. (1991). Effective instruction for language-minority students: An early childhood case study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 347–361.
81.
ReardonS.GalindoC. (2009). The Hispanic-white achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 853–891.
82.
ReyesM.de la LuzLalibertyE. A. (1992). A teacher’s “pied piper” effect on young authors. Education and Urban Society, 24, 263–278.
83.
Rimm-KaufmanS. E.CurbyT. W.GrimmK. J.NathansonL.BrockL. L. (2009). The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology, 45, 958–972.
84.
Rimm-KaufmanS. E.La ParoK. M.DownerJ. T.PiantaR. C. (2005). The contribution of classroom setting and quality of instruction to children’s behavior in kindergarten classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 105, 377–394.
85.
RivkinS.HanushekA.KainJ. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–459.
86.
RobinsonJ. (2008). Evidence of a differential effect of ability grouping on the reading achievement growth of language-minority Hispanics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 141–180.
87.
RobinsonJ. (2010). Effects of test translation on young English learners’ mathematics performance. Educational Researcher, 39, 582–590.
88.
RockD.PollackJ. (2002, August). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K), Psychometric report for Kindergarten through first grade (NCES Working Paper No. 2002-05). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
89.
RockD.StennerJ. (2005). Assessment issues in the testing of children at school entry. The Future of Children, 15(1), 15–34.
90.
RockoffJ. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94, 247–252.
91.
RosenthalR. (1991). Teacher expectancy effects: A brief update 25 years after the Pygmalion experiment. Journal of Research in Education, 1, 3–12.
92.
RosenthalR.JacobsonL. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3, 16–20.
93.
RoystonP.AltmanD.SauerbreiW. (2006). Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: A bad idea. Statistics in Medicine, 25, 127–141.
94.
SaenzL.FuchsL.FuchsD. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231–247.
95.
SlavinR. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336.
96.
SlavinR.CooperR. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: Lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 647–663.
97.
SlavinR.LakeC. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 427–515.
98.
TakeuchiM. (2010). The social organization of mathematics classrooms and English language learners’ opportunities to participate. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.cjnse-rcjce.ca/ojs2/index.php/cjnse/article/view/142
99.
TourangeauK.BurkeJ.LeT.WanS.WeantM.BrownE.. . . WalstonJ. (2001). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K) user’s manual for the ECLS-K base year public-use data files and electronic codebook (revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
100.
TrimbleK. D.SinclairR. L. (1987). On the wrong track: Ability grouping and the threat to equity. Equity & Excellence, 23, 15–21.
101.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1973). Teachers and students: Differences in teacher interaction with Mexican American and Anglo students—Report V: Mexican American education study. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
102.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, & What Works Clearinghouse. (2012). Beginning reading intervention report: Peer-assisted learning/literacy strategies. Available from http://whatworks.ed.gov
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
105.
WangJ.GoldschmidtP. (1999). Opportunity to learn, language proficiency, and immigrant status effects on mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 101–111.
106.
WangM. C.WalbergH. J. (1983). Adaptive instruction and classroom time. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 601–626.
107.
Wong FillmoreL. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In GassS.MaddenC. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 333–344). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
108.
Wong FillmoreL. (2007). English learners and mathematics learning: Language issues to consider. In SchoenfeldA. H. (Ed.), Assessing mathematical proficiency (pp. 333–344). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
109.
Wong FillmoreL.AmmonP.McLaughlinB.AmmonM. (1985). Learning English through bilingual instruction (Final report). Berkeley: University of California.
110.
YingerR. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning. The Elementary School Journal, 80, 107–127.
111.
YoonB. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers’ roles and pedagogies on the positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 495–522.
112.
YuB. (2011). Variable selection and adjustment in relation to propensity scores and prognostic scores: From single-level to multilevel data (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
