Pomogeneous vs.

PeLerogeneous Crouplng 1











Whlch Lype of sLudenL grouplng, heLerogeneous or homogeneous, promoLes hlgher sLudenL
achlevemenL?
Shannon M. knopp
ur. koppenhaver
Appalachlan SLaLe unlverslLy

Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 2



!"#"$%&' )**+,$,-+*#

oole, u. (2008). lnLeracLlonal dlfferenLlaLlon ln Lhe mlxed-ablllLy group: a slLuaLed vlew of Lwo
sLruggllng readers. !"#$%&' !")"#*+, -.#*/"*01, 43 (3), 228-230.

1wo groups of flfLh grade sLudenLs ln a large urban area ln SouLhern Callfornla were sLudled as Lhey
parLlclpaLed ln readlng groups. 1he auLhor asserLs LhaL many schools have recenLly moved away from
homogeneous grouplng for readlng, and Lhls sLudy seeks Lo flnd Lhe lssues LhaL are prevalenL for
sLruggllng readers ln heLerogeneous readlng groups. She does noL recommend one Lype of grouplng
over Lhe oLher, buL seeks Lo make educaLors aware of Lhe lssues for sLruggllng readers ln any slLuaLlon.
ln Lhls sLudy Lhere are Lwo readlng groups LhaL conLaln flve sLudenLs each. As mandaLed by Lhe school
dlsLrlcL, Lhese musL be flex groups. 1he dlsLrlcL deflnes flex groups as groups wlLh aL leasL one hlgh, one
medlum and one low reader and Lhe oLher members randomly mlxed ln. So, for all pracLlcal purposes
Lhese are heLerogeneous groups. 1he researchers recorded Lhe lnLeracLlons of boLh groups for Lwo
days. 1he focus was on Lhe lowesL reader ln each group. 1he researchers wanLed Lo ldenLlfy lf Lhey
same problems LhaL occurred ln homogeneous groups also occurred ln heLerogeneous groups: wlder
achlevemenL gap, lower sLudenLs recelvlng lnferlor lnsLrucLlon, lower sLudenLs belng sLlgmaLlzed, lower
sLudenLs belng lnLerrupLed more and readlng less. 1he sLudled revealed LhaL Lhe Lwo sLruggllng readers,
kelsha and Shlrley, were lnLerrupLed for correcLlon by peers and Leacher more Lhan any oLher sLudenL ln
Lhe group. Shlrley also read fewer words before Lhe Leacher asked someone else Lo read Lhan Lhe resL
of Lhe group, and Lhere was even some evldence of sLudenLs belng annoyed by Lhe slow pace and
dlfflculLy of Lhe readlng wlL Lhese Lwo sLudenLs especlally Shlrley. ln addlLlon Lo Lhe Lrouble lncurred
whlle readlng, boLh of Lhese chlldren had more Lrouble answerlng Lhe comprehenslon quesLlons Lhan
Lhelr peers. 1he lnLeracLlons wlLh oLher sLudenLs and Lhe Leacher marked Lhese sLudenLs as lower
readers Lhan Lhelr peers.
1hls relaLes Lo my quesLlon because lL hlghllghLs Lhe dlsadvanLages for sLruggllng readers ln any
grouplng. AlLhough lL does noL expllclLly sLaLe whlch Lype of grouplng ls more advanLageous, lL does
propose lssues LhaL need Lo be consldered wlLh any readlng slLuaLlon. 1here ls a varleLy of research on
heLerogeneous grouplng and lLs negaLlve effecLs on hlgher level learners, and Lhls arLlcle offers Lhe
opposlLe of LhaL. AlLhough, Lhe Leacher ln Lhe arLlcle expressed LhaL she belleved Lhe mlxed groups
would help Lhe sLruggllng readers learn from Lhe sLronger one, Lhe daLa from Lhe sLudy does noL seem
Lo supporL Lhls ldea. 1he sLudy also suggesLs LhaL Lhere ls no sllver bulleL for readlng groups, buL maybe
Lhe besL way ls Lo consLanLly mlx up readlng groups, allowlng sLudenLs Lo experlence heLerogeneous and
homogeneous grouplng LhroughouL Lhelr readlng experlence ln Lhe classroom. 1hls arLlcle also helps me
ldenLlfy some speclflc problems LhaL low readers wlll experlence ln heLerogeneous groups.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 3



Shlelds, C. (2002). A comparlson sLudy of sLudenL aLLlLudes and percepLlons ln homogeneous
and heLerogeneous classrooms. !2"3"* !"4%"56 24 (3), 113-120.

1hls sLudy was done on flfLy-one flfLh grade and flfLy-four elghLh grade sLudenLs ln Canada. Palf of Lhe
sLudenLs were ln a homogenously grouped academlcally glfLed class whlle Lhe oLher half were ln a
heLerogeneously grouped class. 1hese classes were already a parL of Lhe school sysLem, buL Lhe sLudy
was done Lhrough an analysls of sLandardlzed LesL scores as well as a sLudenL survey. As expecLed
sLudenLs ln Lhe homogenous class had hlgher achlevemenL scores on sLandardlzed LesL Lhough flfLy-four
percenL of Lhe sLudenL scores overlapped meanlng LhaL sLudenLs were performlng well ln boLh classes.
1he homogenous class, however, had Lhe hlghesL scores recelved on Lhe LesL. ln addlLlon Lo
achlevemenL level, sLudenL percepLlons abouL schoollng and Leacher expecLaLlons were assessed.
SLudenLs ln Lhe homogenous class aL boLh levels reporLed experlenclng a greaLer developmenL of career
lnLeresLs. ln Lhe flfLh grade heLerogeneous class sLudenL reporLed more academlc self-confldence. AL
Lhe flfLh grade level sLudenLs ln Lhe homogenous class reporLed LhaL Lhelr Leachers expecLed more of
Lhem Lhan dld sLudenLs ln Lhe heLerogeneous class. 8y elghLh grade sLudenLs ln Lhe homogenous class
also reporLed more Leacher relnforcemenL of self-concepL, more Leacher feedback, more academlc
learnlng Llme and more homework.
1hls arLlcle reveals some of Lhe poslLlve aspecLs of homogeneous classrooms for glfLed chlldren. l am
explorlng whaL Lhe besL opLlon ls for sLudenL achlevemenL. 1hls arLlcle does noL answer LhaL quesLlons
buL lL does show a poslLlve correlaLlons beLween homogeneous grouplng and percepLlon of school and
learnlng for hlgh-achlevlng sLudenLs. As l explore Lhls quesLlon ls lmporLanL for me Lo see boLh sldes of
Lhe lssue. 1hls arLlcle noL only polnLs ouL some of Lhe poslLlves of homogenous grouplng, buL lL also
shows LhaL sLudenL can be hlgh-achlevlng and have hlgh self-confldence relaLed Lo Lhelr own
achlevemenL ln heLerogeneous classrooms.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 4



Archbald, u., keleher, ! (2008). Measurlng condlLlons and consequences of Lracklng ln Lhe
hlgh school currlculum. Amerlcan Secondary LducaLlon, 36 (2).

1hls arLlcle examlned Lhe use of Lracklng sLudenLs by ablllLy level ln hlgh school. lL referred Lo prevlous
research LhaL supporLed homogeneous classrooms as well as heLerogeneous classrooms. 1he general
ldea of Lhe research clLed was LhaL heLerogeneous grouplng may help low-achlevlng sLudenLs, buL
homogeneous grouplng seems Lo beneflL hlgh-achlevlng sLudenLs. 1he maln lssue of Lhls arLlcle
examlned how a school could successfully evaluaLe a Lracklng sysLem. lor Lracklng Lo be an effecLlve
meLhod mulLlple daLa sources musL be used Lo place chlldren lnLo approprlaLe Lracks. SuggesLed daLa
sources lncluded LesL scores, lC scores, prevlous class performance, and Leacher and parenL
recommendaLlons. Cnce sLudenLs are placed ln Lracks lL ls essenLlal LhaL school measure and evaluaLe
lnLer-Lrack moblllLy, or Lhe ablllLy for sLudenL Lo move beLween Lracks. lL ls lmporLanL for schools Lo
consLanLly monlLor Lhe achlevemenL of sLudenLs and evaluaLe Lhelr Lrack placemenL. 1here musL be
adequaLe evldence for sLudenL placemenL as well as aLLalnable ways Lo move from Lrack Lo Lrack when
achlevemenL, or lack of lL, warranLs movemenL.

1hls arLlcle demonsLraLes how homogeneous grouplng can be achleved ln a very sysLemaLlc and
dellberaLe way aL Lhe hlgh school level. AlLhough Lhe arLlcle does noL Lalk abouL Lhe affecLs of grouplng
on achlevemenL, lL demonsLraLes a way Lo analyze Lhe valldlLy of Lracklng ln a school. lf homogenous
grouplng ls Lhe answer ln Lhe hlgh school currlculum Lhen Lhls arLlcle explalns Lhe way lL should be done.
1he declslon Lo place a chlld should noL be made llghLly, nor should a chlld's placemenL be seL ln sLone
from 9
Lh
grade on.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 3



kelly, S. (2007). 1he conLours of Lracklng ln norLh Carollna. 7%', 8+,220 92.*&#0, 90 (4).

1he sub[ecLs of Lhls sLudy were nlneLy-Lwo hlgh schools ln norLh Carollna. Cf Lhese nlneLy-Lwo schools,
LwenLy-seven were consldered low-performlng, LhlrLy-Lhree were consldered average-performlng whlle
LhlrLy-Lwo were consldered hlgh-performlng schools. 1hls deslgnaLlon was deLermlned by school wlde
performance on sLandardlzed LesLs. 1he auLhor analyzed Lhe currlculum guldes for Lhese hlgh schools
Lo deLermlne Lhe conslsLencles and varlablllLy ln hlgh school Lracklng sysLems and how Lhey are
lmplemenLed LhroughouL Lhe sLaLe. 1he daLa revealed a wlde range of pollcles regardlng Lracklng
LhroughouL Lhe sLaLe. 1he auLhor analyzed Lhe schools on mulLlple elemenLs of research by Aage
Sorenson: selecLlvlLy, elecLlvlLy and scope. SelecLlvlLy and elecLlvlLy refer Lo how much lnfluence a
sLudenL has over Lhelr own placemenL ln courses. A hlghly selecLlve school glves a chlld llLLle cholce over
courses whlle a hlghly elecLlve school glves a chlld more cholce over courses. 1he scope of a Lracklng
sysLem refers Lo Lhe placemenL of a sLudenL ln mulLlple classes of Lhe same level. A school wlLh a hlgh
scope would requlre sLudenLs Laklng honors Lngllsh Lo also Lake honors level courses ln some or all of
Lhe oLher academlc areas. 1he arLlcle presenLed a vasL amounL of daLa on hlgh school classes, however l
wlll only lnclude Lhe lnformaLlon abouL Lngllsh classes. Cf Lhe nlneLy-Lwo schools sLudled forLy-one had
Lwo levels of Lngllsh, LwenLy-nlne had Lhree levels of Lngllsh, LwenLy had four levels of Lngllsh, one
small school had dlfferenL levels LaughL ln Lhe same class and anoLher small school had one level buL
asslgned honors credlL based on sLudenL performance ln LhaL class. AlLhough many schools offer many
levels of classes someLlmes Lhe level a sLudenL ls allowed Lo Lake ls deLermlned for Lhem. ln LhlrLeen
schools Lhere was no posslblllLy of Laklng honors Lngllsh LhroughouL hlgh school unless a sLudenL was
placed ln honors Lngllsh Lhelr freshman year. ln nlne schools Lhe sLudenL musL be place be LenLh grade
Lo be able Lo parLlclpaLe ln honors classes, and ln elghLeen schools Lhls placemenL musL Lake place ln
elevenLh grade. Cf Lhe Lhree Lypes of Lracklng sysLems - conLesL, sponsorshlp, and LournamenL - mosL
schools ln norLh Carollna leaned more Loward a sponsorshlp menLallLy of Lracklng. Sponsorshlp Lracklng
prefers sLudenLs who were prevlously ln honors class or have prevlously performed well on sLandardlzed
LesLs. ConLesL Lracklng places sLudenLs based on currenL performance and efforL meanlng LhaL a sLudenL
can move up or down lf Lhey do well, or noL so well, ln a glven class. 1ournamenL Lracklng does noL
provlde much opporLunlLy for upward moblllLy, buL hlgh-Lrack sLudenLs musL malnLaln hlgh-level
performance Lo remaln ln hlgh level courses. 1he exacL numbers of schools LhaL prescrlbe Lo each Lype
of Lracklng were hard Lo plnpolnL because Lhe schools ofLen have many requlred and recommended
pollces regardlng Lracklng. 1he auLhor dld sLaLe LhaL Lhe ma[orlLy of schools had more of a sponsorshlp
Lype Lracklng Lhen Lhe oLher Lwo opLlons.

1hls arLlcle analyzes how ablllLy-grouplng ls used ln hlgh schools ln norLh Carollna. 1hls lnformaLlon ls
essenLlal Lo my quesLlon because lL allows me Lo evaluaLe Lhe use of ablllLy-grouplng and lL's rlgldlLy aL
Lhe hlgh school level. AlLhough Lhe Lone of Lhls arLlcle casLs a negaLlve llghL on ablllLy-grouplng as lL ls
pracLlced ln many hlgh schools, lL also offers alLernaLlve ways Lo lnlLlaLe ablllLy grouplng aL Lhe
secondary level
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 6



McCoach, u.8., C'Connell, A.A., & LevlLL, P. (2006). AblllLy grouplng across klndergarLen uslng an early
chlldhood longlLudlnal sLudy. 92.*&#0 2: ;$.+#/%2& !")"#*+,, 99 (6), 339-346.

1hls sLudy was lnlLlaLed on 10,191 klndergarLen sLudenLs wlLh Lhe purpose of evaluaLlng Lhe
effecLlveness of wlLhln-class ablllLy grouplng for readlng lnsLrucLlon. Lach of Lhese klndergarLen
sLudenLs was glven Lhe Larly Chlldhood LonglLudlnal SLudy-klndergarLen CohorL (LCLS-k) assessmenL ln
Lhe fall and sprlng of Lhelr klndergarLen year. 1hls allowed Lhe auLhors Lo calculaLe Lhe average galn for
each school ln a school year. 1hls assessmenL was done by Lhe naLlonal CenLer for LducaLlon SLaLlsLlcs
and was analyzed by Lhe auLhors of Lhls sLudy. 1hey chose Lo focus on comparlng Lhe lnsLrucLlon aL low
or no-galn schools Lo Lhe lnsLrucLlon aL hlgh-galn schools. 1he frequency wlLh whlch Leachers used
wlLhln-class ablllLy grouplng for readlng lnsLrucLlon was assoclaLed slgnlflcanLly wlLh slgnlflcanL school
galns ln readlng. SLudenLs ln classes were ablllLy grouplng was used dally showed an average of 1.3
polnLs ln galn more when compared Lo schools LhaL lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey never used ablllLy grouplng.
CLher facLors of readlng galns were full-day klndergarLen, glrl readers, and sLudenLs who enLered
klndergarLen older Lhan many of Lhelr class maLes. 1he speclflc numbers assoclaLed wlLh Lhls sLudy are
compllcaLed sLaLlsLlcal equaLlons and Lherefore are noL lncluded ln Lhe absLracL. 1he use of Lhe Lerm
slgnlflcanL refers Lo sLaLlsLlcal slgnlflcance as deLermlned by Lhe sLudy.

1hls arLlcle lndlcaLes LhaL ablllLy grouplng ls beneflclal Lo chlldren when Lhey are learnlng Lo read. 1hls
helps wlLh my quesLlon because lL shows a poslLlve assoclaLe beLween readlng galns and ablllLy
grouplng. lL also lndlcaLes LhaL ablllLy-grouplng ls necessary and helpful someLlmes.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 7



CarrlLy, u. & 8urrls, C. C. (2007). ersonallzed learnlng ln deLracked classrooms. 8+,220
<$=%&%)/*#/2* , 63 (8).

8ockvllle CenLer School ulsLrlcL on Long lsland lnlLlaLed a pollcy Lo deLrack Lhe hlgh school and prepare
more sLudenLs Lo pursue Lhe lnLernaLlonal 8accalaureaLe (l8) dlploma. 1he flrsL sLep ln Lhe Lhls process
was Lo deLrack 10
Lh
grade Lngllsh and soclal sLudles classes and lnlLlaLe pre-l8 lnsLrucLlon LhroughouL Lhe
school 1he 9
Lh
grade classes had prevlously been deLracked wlLh greaL success, so Lhls sLep was
expandlng Lhe pollcy ln Lhe school. 1hls was followed by deLracklng of maLh and sclence classes aL Lhe
10
Lh
grade level. 1he school offered supporL Lo sLudenLs by creaLlng addlLlonal supporL classes LhaL
sLudenLs could Lake as elecLlves Lo enhance Lhelr learnlng ln Lhe heLerogeneous classroom. ln addlLlon
Lo Lhls, exLenslon acLlvlLles and classes were offered Lo sLudenLs who wanLed Lo lnvesLlgaLe Lhe class
conLenL even furLher. 1he resulL of allowlng more sLudenLs access Lo rlgorous classes was LhaL more
sLudenLs chose Lo enroll ln l8 courses. 1he Class of 1988 (276 graduaLes) had nlne l8 dlploma candldaLes
and 14 sLudenLs who Look l8 Lngllsh whlle Lhe Class of 2007 (303 graduaLes) had 137 l8 dlploma
candldaLes and 212 sLudenLs Look l8 Lngllsh. ln Lhe Class of 2009, Lhe flrsL class Lo be deLracked ln all
sub[ecLs ln 9
Lh
and 10
Lh
grade, elghLy-flve percenL of sLudenLs chose Lo Lake l8 Lngllsh and maLh and
slxLy-elghL percenL reglsLered Lo pursue Lhe full l8 dlploma. 1he number of sLudenLs earnlng a four on
Lhe l8 exams has gone up wlLh Lhe number of sLudenLs enrolled ln Lhe classes. 1he percenL of sLudenLs
passlng aL Lhls hlgh school ls compeLlLlve wlLh Lhe passlng raLe across Lhe u.S.

1hls sLudy shows LhaL deLracklng ln conLenL area classes aL Lhe hlgh school level can have a poslLlve
effecL on sLudenL achlevemenL. Also, allowlng sLudenLs access Lo hlgh-quallLy, rlgorous lnsLrucLlon has a
poslLlve lmpacL on Lhelr lmage as sLudenLs and allows Lhem Lo choose courses and academlc pursulLs
LhaL wlll beneflL Lhelr fuLure. 1he supporL LhaL was provlded wlLh Lhese rlgorous classes allowed
sLudenLs Lo geL Lhe exLra help Lhey needed Lo be successful ln rlgorous lnsLrucLlonal envlronmenLs.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 8



Wllklnson, l. & 1ownsend, M. (2000) lrom raLa Lo rlmu: grouplng lnsLrucLlon ln besL pracLlce
new Zealand classrooms. !"#$%&' >"#+,"*, 33 (6), 460-472.

LducaLors ln new Zealand have a much more poslLlve aLLlLude abouL readlng lnsLrucLlon ln ablllLy groups
Lhen many educaLors ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes. 1hls arLlcle evaluaLed Lhe ablllLy group readlng lnsLrucLlon of
four prlmary Leachers ln new Zealand. Lach Leacher placed sLudenLs lnLo readlng groups ln Lhe flrsL Lwo
weeks of school. 1he prlmary conslderaLlon for Lhese placemenLs was based on Leacher lnformal
observaLlon of sLudenL readlng ablllLy. revlous Leacher recommendaLlons were also facLored ln Lo Lhe
declslon. 1he Leachers had beLween four and Len groups runnlng aL any one Llme, and sLaLed LhaL Lhe
opLlmal was four Lo flve groups. Croups all parLlclpaLed ln llLeracy acLlvlLles durlng Lhe group readlng
block. Lach group had dlfferenL sLaLlons Lhey would work aL and Lhe Leacher would roLaLe Lhrough Lhe
groups. 1he Leacher made an efforL Lo meeL wlLh Lhe lower groups everyday and Lhe hlgher groups
every oLher day. 1eachers moved sLudenLs Lo dlfferenL groups as Lhe need for cerLaln skllls or supporL
became evldenL. 1he Leachers dld noL refer Lo Lhe groups as hlgh and low, buL lnsLead Lhe Leachers had
speclal name for each of Lhe groups. 1he Leachers vlewed readlng as developmenLal process and
Lherefore dld noL label sLudenLs as hlgh and low achlevers, buL as aL a cerLaln level for Lhe Llme belng.
AlLhough each classroom had flexlblllLy beLween groups, Lhe number of sLudenLs who moved groups
was acLually lower Lhan much of Lhe currlculum suggesLs. Powever, sLudenLs sLlll seemed Lo be learnlng
readlng ln a mlxed ablllLy classroom wlLhouL a sLlgma aLLached Lo Lhe dlfferenL groups.

1hls arLlcle demonsLraLes Lhe need for groups wlLhouL Lhe low" and hlgh" labels LhaL sLudenLs ofLen
flgure ouL. Lach group was learnlng someLhlng dlfferenL, buL Lhey all were readlng, had Llme wlLh Lhe
Leacher, and had a varleLy of readlng acLlvlLles Lo accompllsh ln Lhelr readlng Llme.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 9



Slavln, 8. (1990). AchlevemenL effecLs of ablllLy grouplng ln secondary schools: a besL-evldence
synLhesls. !"4%"5 2: ;$.+#/%2&#0 !")"#*+,6 60 (3), 471-499.

1hls ls a besL-evldence synLhesls of exlsLlng research on ablllLy grouplng aL Lhe secondary level. SLudles
had Lo meeL Lhese crlLerla Lo be lncluded ln Lhls synLhesls: comprehenslve ablllLy grouplng plans LhaL
lnvolved all or mosL sLudenLs ln a school, avallable ln Lngllsh, ablllLy group classes were compared Lo
heLerogeneously grouped classes, achlevemenL daLa from LesLs was lncluded, ablllLy grouplng ln place
for aL leasL a semesLer, lncluded aL leasL Lhree ablllLy grouped classes and Lhree heLerogeneous classes.
1here were LwenLy-nlne sLudles LhaL meL Lhe crlLerla llsLed above and were lncluded ln Lhe synLhesls.
AfLer collecLlng daLa from all of Lhese arLlcles, Lhe auLhor dlscovered LhaL Lhe dlfference ln achlevemenL
level for sLudenLs ln homogeneous vs. heLerogeneous classrooms was essenLlally zero. 1here was no
sLaLlsLlcal slgnlflcance on LesL achlevemenL beLween Lhese groups of sLudenLs for all sub[ecLs excepL
soclal sLudles. Soclal sLudles grouplng sllghLly favored heLerogeneous grouplng Lo lmprove
achlevemenL. 1he effecL slze for Lhe sLudles ranged from -0.6 Lo .00 wlLh Lhe medlan effecL slze for all
LwenLy-nlne sLudles belng .00.

1hls sLudy makes me breaLhe a slgh of rellef. 1here are so many conLradlcLlng sLudles abouL
heLerogeneous vs. homogeneous grouplng aL Lhe secondary level. 1hls synLhesls of many of Lhese
sLudles concludes LhaL grouplng has llLLle Lo no effecL on sLudenL achlevemenL. 1he sLudy dld noL
observe Leachlng and learnlng ln Lhe classroom so lL could noL commenL on Lhe dlfference of aLLlLudes
or expecLaLlons wlLhln any glven grouplng of sLudenLs. 1he daLa presenLed was sLrlcLly complled from
sLudenLs performance on Leacher made and sLandardlzed LesLs.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 10



Sorenson, A.8. & Palllnan, M.1. (1986). LffecLs of ablllLy grouplng on growLh ln academlc achlevemenL.
<="*%+#& ;$.+#/%2&#0 !")"#*+, 92.*&#0, 23 (4), 319-342.

1he daLa for Lhls sLudy comes from forLy-elghL elemenLary school classes ln norLhern Callfornla. 1here
were Len fourLh grade classes, Lwelve flfLh grade, Len slxLh grade, flve sevenLh grade, and eleven
comblned grade classes. 1hls equaled a LoLal 1477 sLudenLs LhaL were sLudled. 1eachers of Lhese
classes reporLed abouL grouplng for lnsLrucLlon slx Llmes durlng Lhe school year, Lhese reporLs lncluded
group asslgnmenL, basls for asslgnlng groups and amounL of lnsLrucLlonal Llme spenL ln groups. 1he
auLhors creaLed a maLhemaLlcal equaLlon Lo measure Lhe amounL of Llme spenL on glven maLerlal Lo Lhe
amounL of maLerlal masLered by sLudenLs ln dlfferenL grouplng slLuaLlons. 1hls maLhemaLlcal equaLlon
was used Lo analyze Lhe daLa from Lhe sLudenLs ln Lhe sLudy. 1he ouLcome was LhaL Lhere was noL a
sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL dlfference ln achlevemenL for sLudenLs ln grouped classes versus sLudenLs ln
ungrouped classes. 1he equaLlon used allowed Lhe researchers Lo add varlables and come up wlLh
addlLlonal flndlngs. 1hey dlscovered LhaL ln grouped classes sLudenLs were glven less opporLunlLy Lo
learn, buL Lhey learned more of Lhe maLerlal Lhey were presenLed wlLh. 8ecause Lhese sLudenLs learned
more of whaL Lhey were LaughL buL were LaughL less Lhan sLudenLs ln ungrouped classes Lhelr
achlevemenLs scores remalned Lhe same. 1here was a sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL dlfference ln grouplng for
black sLudenLs. 8lack sLudenLs achleved more ln readlng ln ungrouped classrooms. Powever, Lhls may
be ln parL because Lhere were more black sLudenLs ln Lhe sample LhaL happened Lo be ln grouped
classes Lhan ln ungrouped classes. ln addlLlon Lo Lhls, sLudenLs asslgned Lo hlgher ablllLy groups are
LaughL more, or glven more opporLunlLy Lo learn, Lhen Lhelr peers ln oLher groups.

1hls sLudy also LhaL overall Lhere ls no dlfference ln achlevemenL ln readlng LhaL relaLes Lo grouplng ln
class. Powever, when furLher lnvesLlgaLlon Lakes places Lhere seems Lo be oLher negaLlve effecLs of
ablllLy-grouplng LhaL are seen ln Lhls sLudy.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 11



Camoran, A (1986). lnsLrucLlonal and lnsLlLuLlonal effecLs of ablllLy grouplng. 82+%202'1 2: ;$.+#/%2&, 39
(4), 183-198.

1welve classes were lnvolved from Lhree school dlsLrlcLs ln Lhe Chlcago area. 1he classes were each
observed Lwelve Llmes aL approxlmaLely Lhree week lnLervals LhroughouL Lhe year. uurlng Lhese
observaLlons, lnformaLlon on Lhe soclal and lnsLrucLlonal operaLlons of Lhe classes was recorded.
SLudenLs also Look a readlng apLlLude LesL aL Lhe beglnnlng of Lhe year and ln uecember, March, and
May. School records and Leacher lnLervlews provlded lnformaLlon on sLudenL famlly background.
1eachers ln each flrsL grade class dlvlded Lhe sLudenLs lnLo small groups for readlng lnsLrucLlon. Lach
group ln each class was glven a LesL LhaL conslsLed of a random sample of Lhe words LhaL group had
learned so far LhaL year. 1hus, Lhe researcher was able Lo compare Lhe number of words Lhe group was
LaughL Lo Lhe number of words reLalned by sLudenLs over Lhe course of Lhe year. Crouplng had llLLle Lo
no effecL on sLudenL achlevemenL ln readlng. 1he effecLs LhaL were more apparenL were soclo-
economlc sLaLus, age, lnlLlal apLlLude performance and lnsLrucLlon. lnsLrucLlon meanlng Lhe number of
words LaughL Lo a parLlcular group of sLudenLs. Soclo-economlc sLaLus had a large lmpacL on Lhe
number of words learned. 1he approxlmaLe soclo-economlc sLaLus of each chlld was placed on a 9-polnL
scale. An lncrease of one polnL on Lhls scale averaged an lncrease of nlne words ln uecember, flfLeen
words ln March, and LwenLy-elghL words ln May. 8eadlng apLlLude was Lhe only facLor LhaL had a
greaLer affecL on readlng achlevemenL Lhen soclo-economlc sLaLus. AblllLy group has a small sLaLlsLlcally
slgnlflcanL affecL on words learned ln uecember wlLh Lhe hlghesL group learnlng Lwelve more words
Lhan Lhe lowesL group. 1hls flndlng however nearly dlsappears by May wlLh Lhe hlghesL group learnlng
approxlmaLely 1.70 words more. Cverall, words LaughL had Lhe mosL slgnlflcanL lnfluence over words
learned. All sLudenLs learned approxlmaLely Lhree-fourLhs of words LaughL LhroughouL Lhe school year.

1hls sLudy shows LhaL Lhe amounL a sLudenL ls LaughL wlll have a greaLer lmpacL on whaL Lhey learn Lhen
Lhe group Lhey are placed ln for learnlng. 1hls Lells me LhaL as a Leacher l should sLrlve Lo Leach Lhe
same maLerlal Lo all levels of sLudenLs whenever posslble. ln readlng lnsLrucLlon all sLudenLs should
have Lhe opporLunlLy Lo learn Lhe same number of words maybe [usL dlfferenL words aL dlfferenL levels.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 12



Cone, !.k. (2006). ueLracked nlnLh-grade Lngllsh: apprenLlceshlp for Lhe work and world of hlgh
school and beyond. >,"2*1 %&/2 3*#+/%+", 43 (1), 33-63.

1hls arLlcle was wrlLLen by one Leacher abouL her experlences ln a deLracked Lngllsh classroom. She
sLarLs ouL by seLLlng her expecLaLlons of hlgh sLandards for all sLudenLs ln Lhe class. She sLaLes LhaL her
goal ls Lo creaLe readers and wrlLers regardless of prevlous school experlence or performance. 1he flrsL
Lhlng sLudenLs do ls wrlLe her a leLLer Lelllng of Lhelr pasL readlng and school experlence, any personal
lnformaLlon Lhey wanL Lo share, and anyLhlng Lhey Lhlnk Lhe Leacher should know LhaL wlll make her
more effecLlve. SLudenLs Lake Lurns readlng Lhelr leLLers from Lhe auLhor's chalr ln Lhe fronL of Lhe class
as a way Lo lnLroduce Lhemselves Lo each oLher. As Lhe class beglns readlng shorL sLorles and novels, Lhe
Leacher models a comprehenslon sLraLegy LhaL ls heavy on dlscusslon and wrlLlng. Per goal ls Lo help
her sLudenLs see Lhe connecLlon beLween readlng, dlscusslng and wrlLlng Lo make meanlng of LexL.
8eadlng ls essenLlal ln Lhls class. SLudenLs are Lo be readlng consLanLly, and half of Lhe books Lhey read
wlll be Leacher selecLed and half wlll be sLudenL selecLed. Lvery day Llme ls spenL readlng sllenLly,
wrlLlng abouL readlng and dlscusslng readlng. 1he llLerary sLraLegles focused on are summarlzlng,
predlcLlng and rereadlng. Crammar ls LaughL by vlewlng Lhe problems LhaL occur ln sLudenL wrlLlng.
lnsLrucLlon ls glven on Loplcs of grammar LhaL are dlfflculL for Lhe leasL-skllled wrlLer and Lhose Lhlngs
LhaL are dlfflculL for Lhe mosL-skllled wrlLer. WrlLlng lnsLrucLlon ls focused on maklng and supporLlng a
clalm and persuaslve wrlLlng. SenLence sLrucLure ls heavlly enforced ln Lhe flrsL few weeks, and an
expecLaLlon LhaL sLudenLs wlll wrlLe ln Lhese varled senLence sLrucLures LhroughouL Lhe year. 1he
Leacher observed LhaL sLudenL wrlLlng lncreases ln complexlLy raLher qulckly wlLh Lhls meLhod. AlLhough
noL all sLudenLs [ump rlghL ln an see Lhemselves as academlc learners, Lhls Leacher has been a long Llme
advocaLe of deLracklng and has seen Lhe value of lL ln numerous sLudenLs who begln Lo flnd Lhelr
academlc ldenLlLy.

1hls arLlcle clLes many research arLlcle, buL lL ls noL research as much as some of Lhe arLlcles l have read
are. Powever, lL ls Lhe ldeas of a successful hlgh school Lngllsh Leacher LhaL has LhoughL long and hard
abouL Leachlng klds Lo read and wrlLe. 1hls arLlcle shows me effecLlve ways Lo engage klds ln a
heLerogeneous envlronmenL, as well as good pracLlces for llLeracy developmenL ln a freshman Lngllsh
class.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 13



uaLnow, A. & Plrshberg, u. (1996). A case sLudy of klng Mlddle School: Lhe symblosls of
heLerogeneous grouplng and mulLlculLural educaLlon. 92.*&#0 2: ;$.+#/%2& :2* 8/.$"&/)
?0#+"$ #/ !%)@, 1(2), 113-134.

klng Mlddle School ls a raclally dlverse, urban school where heLerogeneous grouplng and mulLlculLural
educaLlon are used Lo lncrease learnlng for all sLudenLs. A ma[or goal of mulLlculLural educaLlon ls for
sLudenLs of dlverse backgrounds and genders Lo experlence educaLlonal equallLy, and because so ofLen
homogeneous grouplng creaLes raclal and soclo-economlc segregaLlon mulLlculLural educaLlon musL
accompany heLerogeneous group lmplemenLaLlon ln Lhls dlverse school seLLlng. klng ls a magneL school
LhaL sLudenLs apply Lo and are selecLed by a loLLery sysLem. 1he averages of Lhe sLudenLs are sllghLly
hlgher Lhan Lhose ln Lhe oLher clLy schools (slxLy-Lwo percenL readlng aL grade level versus forLy-Lwo
percenL clLy wlde), however by Lhe Llme sLudenLs reach Lhe 8
Lh
grade Lhe average of klng sLudenLs ls
drasLlcally hlgher Lhan sLudenLs aL Lhe oLher clLy schools. ln 1993, elghLy-Lwo percenL of elghLh graders
were readlng aL or above grade level compared wlLh forLy-seven percenL ln Lhe clLy schools. All classes
ln flfLh Lhrough sevenLh grade are heLerogeneously grouped, buL some acceleraLed classes are offered
aL Lhe elghLh grade level because of a sLaLe requlremenL for sLudenLs Lo geL lnLo compeLlLlve hlgh
schools. LlLeraLure and sLudenL pro[ecLs are used Lo showcase Lhe poslLlve aspecLs of many dlfferenL
culLures LhroughouL Lhe world. 1he Leachers use lnLerdlsclpllnary lnsLrucLlon, cooperaLlve learnlng and
Lechnology Lo meeL Lhe needs of a dlverse sLudenL populaLlon. 1eachers also use a varleLy of oLher
Lechnlques Lo engage all levels of learners. 1hese Lechnlques lnclude: sLudenL conferences, mulLlple
acLlvlLles Lo accompany one lesson, lessons LhaL appeal Lo dlverse learnlng sLyles and oLher Leacher
speclflc sLraLegles. 1he school also provldes addlLlonal supporL Lhrough 1lLle l funds durlng an elecLlve
perlod ln Lhe day, Lhere ls also an exLenslve counsellng sLaff Lo supporL sLudenLs ln Lhelr educaLlonal and
emoLlonal developmenL. 1he admlnlsLraLlon ls noL apologeLlc abouL Lhe heLerogeneous, mulLlculLural
approach of Lhe school and expecLs Leachers Lo fully embrace boLh aspecLs. lL ls well know LhaL lf
Leachers don'L llke Lhe sLrucLure of Lhe school Lhere are plenLy of [obs avallable aL oLher school, and
because of Lhls expecLaLlon Lhere ls llLLle pollLlcal pressure or problems wlLhln Lhe school. 1he pressure
comes from ouLslde Lhe school. AdmlnlsLraLors work Lo offer unlque programs Lhrough granLs and
produce hlgh-performlng sLudenLs Lo help combaL Lhe crlLlclsm walLlng ouLslde Lhe school. 1he program
aL klng has shown success ln LesL scores, buL more lmporLanLly success ls seen ln a school LhaL provldes a
nurLurlng and equlLable envlronmenL LhaL values Lhe conLrlbuLlons and successes of sLudenLs from all
backgrounds.
1hls case sLudy glves pracLlcal ldeas for supporLlng sLudenLs ln Lhelr learnlng. lL also shows Lhe
lmporLance of heLerogeneous grouplng among dlverse groups of sLudenLs. So ofLen ln homogenously
grouped schools Lhere ls wlLhln school segregaLlon wlLh a dlsproporLlonaLe number of mlnorlLles belng
placed ln lower Lracks. 1he approach of klng Mlddle School allows all sLudenL equallLy ln educaLlon and
Lhe opporLunlLy Lo learn abouL Lhe value of all people.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 14



Cheng, 8.W., Lam, S. & Chan, !.C. (2008). When hlgh achlevers and low achlevers work ln Lhe same
group: Lhe roles of group heLerogenelLy and processes ln pro[ecL based learnlng. A*%/%), 92.*&#0
2: ;$.+#/%2&#0 ?)1+,202'1, 78, 203-221.

1hls sLudy lnvolved 1,921 secondary sLudenLs ln grades seven Lhrough nlne dlvlded lnLo 367 pro[ecL
based learnlng groups. 1he groups ranged ln slze from Lhree Lo seven sLudenLs. SLudenLs came from
elghL dlfferenL schools ln Pong kong. SLudenL achlevemenL on school exams was used as daLa as well as
a sLudenL survey LhaL measure group processes, self-efflcacy and group efflcacy. 1he survey conslsLed of
a 6-polnL LlkerL scale wlLh 1 represenLlng sLrongly dlsagree and 6 represenLlng sLrongly agree. Self-
efflcacy refers Lo an lndlvldual bellef ln hls/her ablllLy Lo reach cerLaln goals. Croup efflcacy refers Lo Lhe
lndlvlduals of a group collecLlvely bellevlng LhaL Lhe group can reach Lhe goals. 8oLh hlgh and low
achlevlng sLudenLs seemed Lo feel beLLer abouL Lhelr own learnlng and ablllLy Lo achleve and Lhe group
learnlng when Lhey had a group wlLh hlgh quallLy processes. 1hls reporL of efflcacy had llLLle Lo wlLh
sLudenL achlevemenL level and a loL Lo do wlLh Lhe quallLy of Lhe groups. Plgh quallLy groups produced
more sLudenLs who had Lhe capablllLy Lo achleve for hlgh and low achlevlng sLudenLs. Croup processes
of hlgh quallLy lnclude aL leasL four elemenLs: poslLlve lnLerdependence, lndlvldual accounLablllLy, equal
parLlclpaLlon and soclal skllls. lor hlgh achlevlng sLudenL Lhere was a dlscrepancy beLween self and
group efflcacy. 1hese sLudenLs raLed self-efflcacy hlgher Lhan group-efflcacy whlle low achlevlng
sLudenLs had opposlLe resulLs. Powever, when group processes were facLored ln and Lhe quallLy of Lhe
group was hlgh boLh hlgh and low achlevlng sLudenLs raLed Lhelr self-efflcacy and group efflcacy hlgh.
1he heLerogenelLy and slze of Lhe group apparenLly had no slgnlflcanL effecL on sLudenLs' percepLlon of
Lhelr ablllLy Lo succeed. 1he Lwo facLors LhaL dld was lndlvldual achlevemenL and Lhe quallLy of group
processes.

1hls arLlcle agaln shows LhaL grouplng has llLLle effecL on sLudenL achlevemenL. ln Lhls parLlcular sLudy
sLudenLs clLed Lhe quallLy of Lhelr group processes as a facLor of success as opposed Lo was ln Lhe group.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 13



LoLan, 8 (2006). 1eachlng Leachers Lo bulld equlLable classrooms. >,"2*1 %&/2 ?*#+/%+", 43(1), 32-39.
1hls arLlcle ls wrlLLen by a professor aL SLanford unlverslLy Lo address Lhe lssue of equallLy ln
heLerogeneous classrooms. She sLaLes LhaL Leacher musL creaLe an equlLable envlronmenL ln order Lo
narrow Lhe achlevemenL gap. 1hls can be done by provldlng sLudenLs wlLh equal sLaLus and balanced
lnLeracLlons. 1o bulld equlLable classrooms many Leachers musL redeflne Lhelr deflnlLlons of lnLellecLual
compeLence, academlc ablllLy and belng smarL as descrlblng sLudenLs. arL of redeflnlng Lhese ldeas ls
beglnnlng Lo recognlze Lhe mulLlple ways ln whlch sLudenL use and show lnLelllgence. 8ecognlzlng
Lhese mulLlple lnLelllgences as well as Lhe unlque sLrengLhs of each chlld ls a sLep Loward bulldlng and
equlLable classroom. 1eachers should also plan currlculum LhaL ls approprlaLe for Lhe dlverse academlc
backgrounds of chlldren ln Lhe class lnsLead of modlfylng Lhe currlculum already creaLed of Lhe average
chlld. AnoLher key sLep ln creaLlng and equlLable classrooms ls Lo equallze sLaLus and parLlclpaLlon
among sLudenLs. 1hls can be done by manlpulaLlng Lhe envlronmenL Lo allow sLudenLs equal
opporLunlLles Lo parLlclpaLe and by allowlng parLlclpaLlon ln a varleLy of ways. rovldlng opporLunlLles
of successful parLlclpaLlon for oLherwlse low-achlevlng sLudenLs also allows Lhem Lo feel successful and
also allows oLher members of Lhe class Lo see Lhem as valuable parLlclpanLs.
1hls arLlcle noL only sLresses Lhe necesslLy of heLerogeneous grouplng buL also some pracLlcal sLraLegles
Leachers can use Lo make heLerogeneous classrooms successful. 1eacher and sLudenL aLLlLude plays blg
parL ln sLudenL success ln Lhe classroom.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 16



8ubln, 8. (2006). 1racklng and deLracklng: debaLes, evldence, and besL pracLlces for a heLerogeneous
world. >,"2*1 %&/2 ?*#+/%+", 43(1), 4-14.

1hls arLlcle revlews Lhe reasons for and crlLlclsms of Lracklng ln Lhe Amerlcan educaLlon sysLem. 1he
auLhor sLaLes LhaL many schools and school dlsLrlcLs have begun Lo lmplemenL a deLracklng proLocol.
1hls ls done Lo varylng degrees, buL Lhe auLhor offers suggesLlons for success ln a heLerogeneous school.
Pe also asserLs LhaL all classrooms are heLerogeneous (evenL Lhose LhaL are homogeneous) and LhaL
Lhese besL pracLlces are appllcable for all Leachers ln all classrooms. ln order for deLracklng Lo be a
successful school reform, Lhree areas musL be addressed: Leacher, sLudenL and communlLy bellefs,
reshaplng lnsLrucLlon pracLlces, and reformlng school sLrucLures. SLudenL and Leacher bellefs can be
addressed ln Lhe classroom by engaglng all sLudenLs ln an educaLlon where mulLlple lnLelllgences are
valued, and by allowlng all sLudenLs Lo show Lhelr success and demonsLraLe Lhelr ablllLy Lo learn.
Changlng Lhe bellefs of Lhe communlLy can begln wlLh showlng Lhem evldence and daLa LhaL supporLs
heLerogeneous classes and Lhe lmporLance of mulLlple lnLelllgences. lnsLrucLlon ln a deLracked
classroom should bulld from Lhls seL of prlnclples: bulldlng a learnlng communlLy LhaL respecLs and
values dlverse conLrlbuLlons, provldlng opporLunlLles for dlverse ways of learnlng, provldlng supporL Lo
sLudenLs as needed, challenglng all sLudenLs, keeplng learners engaged, bulldlng a year-long currlculum,
whlch enforces sLrucLure, wlLh room for more complex levels of undersLandlng, and conslderlng learners
Lo be ln conLrol of Lhelr learnlng and bulldlng sLrucLures LhaL supporL Lhem ln challenglng Lhemselves.
1wo aLLrlbuLes of successful lnsLlLuLlonal reform are Lhe creaLlon of supporL classes for sLudenLs who
need exLra help ln academlc classes and Lhe Llme/resources for Leachers Lo learn and creaLe currlculum
LhaL engages all learners.

1hls arLlcle also offered pracLlcal advlce for Leachers ln a heLerogeneous classroom. lL helped me see
LhaL Lhe communlLy creaLed wlLhln a classroom can be more lmporLanL Lhan Lhe grouplng of sLudenLs.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 17




l have worked ln Lhree dlfferenL schools and have seen boLh homogeneous and heLerogeneous groups
used. l felL LhaL Lhere were ma[or lssues wlLh homogeneous groups when l worked ln Lhe schools LhaL
used Lhem and now l feel Lhere are lssues wlLh heLerogeneous groups ln my currenL school. 1hls
confuslon led me Lo ask Lhe quesLlon

Whlch Lype of grouplng, heLerogeneous or homogeneous, promoLes hlgher sLudenL achlevemenL?

When l flrsL began researchlng Lhls quesLlon, l was under Lhe assumpLlon LhaL homogeneous groups
were Lhe besL ldea for a hlgh school seLLlng. l arrlved aL Lhls assumpLlon afLer a dlfflculL semesLer of
Leachlng ln a hlgh school LhaL ls excluslvely made up of heLerogeneously grouped classes. 1he research l
read offered many perspecLlves for me Lo conslder. AlLhough l explored Lhls quesLlon ln relaLlon Lo all
sub[ecLs, l also looked speclflcally aL readlng lnsLrucLlon and Lhe role sLudenL grouplng has on lL.

./%%"*, 0%$&,-&"#

Many hlgh schools currenLly use Lracklng Lo place sLudenLs lnLo classes. 1hls pracLlce varles by school,
buL lL usually conslsLs of a number of levels of each class belng avallable Lo sLudenLs. 1he selecLlon of
courses ls elLher up Lo Lhe sLudenL, parenL, counselor, Leacher or a comblnaLlon of Lhe four. ln addlLlon
Lo Lhls, many school sysLems have LesL score requlremenLs and prerequlslLe requlremenLs. Some
schools have such rlgld requlremenLs for hlgher Lracks LhaL lower achlevlng sLudenLs have llLLle Lo no
chance of worklng Lhelr way up Lo hlgher Lracks (Archbald & keleher, 2008, kelly, 2007). CpponenLs of
Lracklng have also asserLed LhaL lower level classes recelve lnferlor lnsLrucLlon and Leachlng. 1racklng
has faced many crlLlcs, and some areas schools are beglnnlng Lhe process of deLracklng, or
heLerogeneously grouplng sLudenLs lnLo classes.

122"&,# +* #,/3"*, $&'-"4"5"*,

1here appears Lo be llLLle supporL for homogenous or Lracked classes ln Lhe research l have read. Many
arLlcles sLaLed LhaL homogeneous grouplng had no slgnlflcanL affecL on sLudenL achlevemenL. A
synLhesls of LwenLy-nlne research reporLs on grouplng concluded LhaL grouplng had a medlan affecL of
.00 on sLudenL achlevemenL (Slavln, 1990). Sorenson and Palllnan (1986) Look Lhls lnformaLlon even
furLher and concluded LhaL grouplng had no measurable effecL on readlng achlevemenL. Shlelds (2002)
also reveals LhaL achlevemenL was noL lncreased ln a homogeneous class for hlgh achlevlng sLudenLs,
buL Lhe hlgh achlevlng group ln Lhls sLudy dld seem Lo have a beLLer percepLlon of school and learnlng.
ln Lhe analysls by Camoran (1986), a flrsL grade class' acqulslLlon of words showed LhaL grouplng had no
slgnlflcanL affecL on Lhe number of words learned. lnsLead, Lhe number of words LhaL a sLudenL was
LaughL had Lhe mosL slgnlflcanL affecL on Lhe number of words learned. 8ased on Lhls lnformaLlon, lL
may noL be academlc achlevemenL we need Lo worry abouL when conslderlng how Lo group sLudenLs.

1here ls some evldence LhaL heLerogeneous grouplng lncreases sLudenL performance. When classes are
no longer a place where a sLudenL ls labeled by Lhelr ablllLy, sLudenLs can begln Lo flnd Lhemselves as
academlc learners. ln a school on Long lsland, Lracklng was replaced by a deLracked currlculum. 1he
new currlculum was LaughL aL a hlgh level wlLh a loL of rlgor, and sLudenLs succeeded. 1he number of
sLudenLs Laklng and succeedlng aL rlgorous lnLernaLlonal 8accalaureaLe courses exploded afLer Lracklng
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 18


was ellmlnaLed (CarrlLy & 8urrls 2007). 1hls leads me Lo belleve LhaL hlgh expecLaLlons, good Leachlng
and opporLunlLy Lo Lake rlgorous courses could allow all sLudenL success ln secondary schools.

6*#,%/&,-+*$7 6587-&$,-+*#

When heLerogeneous grouplng ls lmplemenLed Lhere ls a need Lo supporL sLudenLs who may fall behlnd
ln mlxed-ablllLy classes. Many of Lhe arLlcles clLed Lhe use of supporL classes for sLudenLs who were
falllng behlnd Lhelr peers. 1hese supporL classes aL Lhe secondary level could be ln Lhe form of elecLlves
so LhaL a sLudenL does noL have Lo be pulled ouL of any academlc class. 1here was also emphasls placed
on Lhe use of purposeful dlfferenLlaLlon wlLhln a classroom Lo supporL all learners. 1hls dlfferenLlaLlon
could be seen ln Lhe form of currlculum and wlLhln class grouplng. 8esearch by McCoach, C'Connell and
LevlLL (2006) asserLed LhaL Lhe degree Lo whlch klndergarLen Leachers used wlLhln class grouplng for
readlng lnsLrucLlon correlaLed hlghly wlLh galns ln readlng scores. 1hese groups should, however, be
flexlble ln naLure by allowlng sLudenLs Lo move ln and ouL of Lhem when necessary. All groups ln any
glven class should spend readlng Llme acLually readlng LexL and should be glven parLlcular skllls Lo work
on durlng Lhls Llme (Wllklnson& 1ownsend 2000).

AlLhough Lhere ls research Lo supporL wlLhln class ablllLy groups for readlng lnsLrucLlon, research by
oole (2008) shows evldence LhaL Lhere are problems LhaL occur ln boLh heLerogeneous and
homogeneous groups for low achlevlng readers. Low achlevlng sLudenLs ofLen read less and are
lnLerrupLed more Lhan Lhelr hlgh achlevlng peers. 1hls phenomenon shows LhaL grouplng cannoL flx all
lssues ln a classroom, buL hlgh-quallLy Leachers who dellver good lnsLrucLlon can aLLempL Lo remedy
lnequallLles presenL ln some classrooms.

1here are a number of suggesLlons for creaLlng equlLable classrooms where all sLudenLs have an
opporLunlLy Lo learn. 1he use of mulLlple lnLelllgences was one suggesLlon for Leachlng ln a
heLerogeneous classroom (8ubln, 2006). 1hls lncludes Lhe use of mulLlple meLhods for dellverlng
lnsLrucLlon and allowlng mulLlple ouLleLs for sLudenLs Lo demonsLraLe learnlng. 1hls also encourages a
move away from Lhe LradlLlonal ldeas of whaL makes a smarL sLudenL. noL all chlldren learn ln Lhe same
way and Leachers should seek Lo dellver lnsLrucLlon LhaL reaches Lhe mosL learners posslble. AnoLher
way Lo creaLe an equlLable learnlng envlronmenL ls Lo balance Lhe lnLeracLlons of all sLudenLs. 1oo ofLen
hlgh achlevlng sLudenLs domlnaLe Lhe dlscusslon and parLlclpaLlon ln a classroom. SLudenLs who have
been low achlevlng ln Lhe pasL need Lo be glven Lhe opporLunlLy Lo appear successful ln fronL of Lhelr
peers. 1hen Lhey wlll be able Lo parLlclpaLe ln valuable lnLeracLlons wlLh Lhe class (LoLan, 2006). CLher
suggesLlons by a hlgh school Lngllsh Leacher lncluded Lhe followlng: allowlng sLudenLs Lo choose many
of Lhelr own readlng books, allowlng all sLudenLs a chance Lo share work ln Lhe auLhor's chalr, and
focuslng sLudenLs on comprehenslon Lhrough wrlLlng ln order Lo creaLe sLudenLs who see Lhemselves as
readers and wrlLers (Cone, 2006). 1hls Leacher also focused on a selecL few comprehenslon sLraLegles
and forms of wrlLlng so LhaL sLudenLs had Lhe opporLunlLy Lo become experLs of Lhese forms.

.+*&7/#-+*

AfLer readlng an exLenslve amounL of lnformaLlon on Lhe Loplc of sLudenL grouplng, l feel LhaL Lhere are
pros and cons on boLh sldes of Lhe argumenL. AfLer slfLlng Lhrough Lhe research and my own
convlcLlons, heLerogeneous grouplng seems Lo be Lhe falresL way Lo organlze sLudenLs. lL ls mosL llke
real llfe, and lL offers all sLudenLs access Lo Lhe same quallLy Leachlng and maLerlal. lL ls lmperaLlve LhaL
Leachers use some of Lhe supporL meLhods prevlously menLloned ln aldlng sLudenLs ln a heLerogeneous
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 19


envlronmenL. Plgh-quallLy Leachlng along wlLh carefully LhoughL ouL dlfferenLlaLlon sLraLegles can glve
sLudenLs Lhe besL chance aL success ln school regardless of Lhe grouplng enforced by Lhe school.


9/,/%" %"#"$%&'

AfLer looklng lnLo Lhls Loplc and formlng an oplnlon, Lhere are sLlll cerLaln Lhlngs l would llke Lo do or
read more research on. l wonder abouL Lhe long-Lerm effecLs of Lracklng on sLudenLs and how Lhelr
grouplng ln school affecLs Lhelr progress Lhrough college and llfe. l would also llke Lo see research more
speclflcally focused on readlng achlevemenL and grouplng aL Lhe secondary level so LhaL l can see how
grouplng affecLs Lhe achlevemenL of readers who are below grade level.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 20



!"2"%"*&"#

Archbald, u., keleher, ! (2008). Measurlng condlLlons and consequences of Lracklng ln Lhe
hlgh school currlculum. Amerlcan Secondary LducaLlon, 36 (2).

Cheng, 8.W., Lam, S. & Chan, !.C. (2008). When hlgh achlevers and low achlevers work ln Lhe same
group: Lhe roles of group heLerogenelLy and processes ln pro[ecL based learnlng. A*%/%), 92.*&#0
2: ;$.+#/%2&#0 ?)1+,202'1, 78, 203-221.

Cone, !.k. (2006). ueLracked nlnLh-grade Lngllsh: apprenLlceshlp for Lhe work and world of hlgh
school and beyond. >,"2*1 %&/2 3*#+/%+", 43 (1), 33-63.

uaLnow, A. & Plrshberg, u. (1996). A case sLudy of klng Mlddle School: Lhe symblosls of
heLerogeneous grouplng and mulLlculLural educaLlon. 92.*&#0 2: ;$.+#/%2& :2* 8/.$"&/)
?0#+"$ #/ !%)@, 1(2), 113-134.

Camoran, A (1986). lnsLrucLlonal and lnsLlLuLlonal effecLs of ablllLy grouplng. 82+%202'1 2: ;$.+#/%2&, 39
(4), 183-198.

CarrlLy, u. & 8urrls, C. C. (2007). ersonallzed learnlng ln deLracked classrooms. 8+,220
<$=%&%)/*#/2* , 63 (8).

kelly, S. (2007). 1he conLours of Lracklng ln norLh Carollna. 7%', 8+,220 92.*&#0, 90 (4).

LoLan, 8 (2006). 1eachlng Leachers Lo bulld equlLable classrooms. >,"2*1 %&/2 ?*#+/%+", 43(1), 32-39.
McCoach, u.8., C'Connell, A.A., & LevlLL, P. (2006). AblllLy grouplng across klndergarLen uslng an early
chlldhood longlLudlnal sLudy. 92.*&#0 2: ;$.+#/%2& !")"#*+,, 99 (6), 339-346

oole, u. (2008). lnLeracLlonal dlfferenLlaLlon ln Lhe mlxed-ablllLy group: a slLuaLed vlew of Lwo
sLruggllng readers. !"#$%&' !")"#*+, -.#*/"*01, 43 (3), 228-230.

8ubln, 8. (2006). 1racklng and deLracklng: debaLes, evldence, and besL pracLlces for a heLerogeneous
world. >,"2*1 %&/2 ?*#+/%+", 43(1), 4-14.

Shlelds, C. (2002). A comparlson sLudy of sLudenL aLLlLudes and percepLlons ln homogeneous
and heLerogeneous classrooms. !2"3"* !"4%"56 24 (3), 113-120.

Slavln, 8. (1990). AchlevemenL effecLs of ablllLy grouplng ln secondary schools: a besL-evldence
synLhesls. !"4%"5 2: ;$.+#/%2&#0 !")"#*+,6 60 (3), 471-499.

Sorenson, A.8. & Palllnan, M.1. (1986). LffecLs of ablllLy grouplng on growLh ln academlc achlevemenL.
<="*%+#& ;$.+#/%2&#0 !")"#*+, 92.*&#0, 23 (4), 319-342.

Wllklnson, l. & 1ownsend, M. (2000) lrom raLa Lo rlmu: grouplng lnsLrucLlon ln besL pracLlce
new Zealand classrooms. !"#$%&' >"#+,"*, 33 (6), 460-472.
Pomogeneous vs. PeLerogeneous Crouplng 21