Academic outcomes of ability grouping among junior high

school students in Hong Kong

1

Presenter: Yang, Hao-Ting (Tim) Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa HsuDate:2013.03.25

2

Citation

Cheung, C. K., & Rudowicz, E. (2003). Academic outcomes of ability grouping among junior high school students in Hong Kong. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 241-254.

3

4

Introduction

5

Background

Ability grouping is supposedly undesirable because it leads to deficits in academic self-concept and academic achievement.

Ability grouping appears to be justifiable for its improvement of teaching and learning in schools, perhaps more so in a collectivist culture.

6

Purpose of study

The objective of the present study was to assess the effects stemming from ability grouping so as to throw more light on the debate about the benefits and problems associated with ability grouping among Hong Kong junior high school students.

7

Literature Review

Literature Review

8

The supposed benefit of ability grouping would stem largely from teachers’ tailoring their instruction for a homogeneous group of students, who can benefit from cooperation, mutual facilitation, and studying at the same pace in class.

( Lou, Abrami, & Spence, 1990)

Literature Review

9

(Gamoran et al., 1995; Oakes, 1985; Pallas, Entwisle, Alexander,& Stluka, 1994)

Ability grouping does not provide students with equal chances of achievement, particular when they receive different instructions and treatments from teachers and schools.

Literature Review

10

The student in the high-ability group has better conduct, learning strategy, educational expectation, and chance for university enrollment, and receives more attention, support, and encouragement from teachers and parents.

( Hallinan, 1996; Kerckhoff & Glennie, 1999)

11

Hypothesis

HypothesisHypothesis

1.Placement in an ability group, as compared with other forms of placement, has the following effects on the student:

1.1 lower self-esteem

1.2 lower academic self-concept (of efficacy for studying)

1.3 higher test anxiety

1.4 lower academic achievement

12

HypothesisHypothesis2.The student in a high-ability group, compared with the

student in a low-ability group, has:

2.1 higher self-esteem

2.2 higher academic self-concept (of efficacy for studying)

2.3 lower test anxiety

2.4 higher academic achievement

13

HypothesisHypothesis

3.The student whose parents have attained higher education is more likely to experience ability grouping.

14

Data Collection

15

16

In the academic year of 1998-1999, the study involved a survey of 2,720 eighth and ninth graders.

17

18

Results

Ability grouping had a slightly negative effect on the student’s self-esteem, test anxiety and a positive effect on academic self-concept.

Hypothesis 1

This table show that academic self-concept, but not self-esteem and test anxiety, significantly contributed to the student’s subsequent academic achievement, especially average marks and marks in English.

Hypothesis 2

20

The table showed that parents’ education did not have a significant effect on students’ placement in an ability-grouped class.

Hypothesis 3

21

Hypothesis

1. Placement in an ability group, as compared with other forms of placement, has the following effects on the student:

1.1 lower self-esteem

1.2 lower academic self-concept (of efficacy for studying)

1.3 higher test anxiety

1.4 lower academic achievement

22

Hypothesis

2. The student in a high-ability group, compared with the student in a low-ability group, has:

2.1 higher self-esteem

2.2 higher academic self-concept (of efficacy for studying)

2.3 lower test anxiety

2.4 higher academic achievement

23

Hypothesis

3. The student whose parents have attained higher education is more likely to experience ability grouping.

24

25

Conclusion

Conclusion

26

27

Reflection

28

Reflection

Future researchers can assess the short- and long-term impacts of ability grouping on parents, teachers, schools, and society as a whole.

Future researchers can evaluate how ability grouping can affect social inequality, society mobility, social solidarity, and economic development.

THANK YOU!

29