Grouping Strategies for Reading Instruction

How effective grouping can support the goals of differentiated instruction.

Jennifer HainsMaster of Science in Education ProgramNorthwestern UniversityJune 2007

Table of Contents

Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………….…. 3

Research Question .……………………………………………………………………… 4

Literature Review ………………………………………………………………………... 6The Inclusive Classroom ...………………………………………………………. 6Differentiation …………………………………………………………………… 7Positive Effects of Inclusion for Low-Ability Students ………………………….. 9Meeting the Needs of High-Achieving Students ...……………………………… 13Effects of Inclusion on Achievement ………………………………………….... 19Benefits of Group Work ………………………………………………………... 23Summary of Literature …………………………………………………………. 25

Data Collection ………………………………………………………………………… 26Setting ………………………………………………………………………….. 26Observations ………………………………………………………………….... 27Surveys .……………………………………………………………………….... 29Artifacts .………………………………………………………………………... 29Interviews ..……………………………………………………………………... 30Consent for Participation ………………...……………………………………. 31

Data Summary …………………………………………………………………………. 32Partner Reading Surveys …..………………………………………………....... 32Prairie Novel Group Surveys ……………………………………………....…. 34Interviews …………………………………………………...…………………. 35Observations …………………………………………………………………… 40Test Scores ……………………………………...……………………………… 44Assignments and Student Work ………………………………………………... 47

Interpretation …………………………………………………………………………… 49Skill Based Groups …………………..……..……………………….……….…. 49Social Dynamics …………………..…………………………….…………....... 54Assessment Tools …………………..…………………………….…………….. 57Quality Instruction and Grouping ……………………………………………... 59Other Contributing Factors …………………………………………..……...… 62

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………... 66Recommendations ..…………………………………………………………….. 65Limitations of the Study ……………...………………………………………… 66Questions for Further Research …..……………………………………………. 68

References ……………………………………………………………………………… 71

Appendix ……………………………………………………………………………….. 74

2

Abstract

Using groups within a class is one strategy employed to compensate for academic diversity in classrooms. Existing literature suggests that people with whom one shares a learning experience can impact the quality of learning, making the decision about how to group students a critical part of instruction. Separating students based on ability has been shown to have negative effects for low-achieving students and positive effects for high-achieving students. This study followed one class that used ability grouping for reading instruction through a four-week unit to understand how ability grouping effects students. The study concludes that successful grouping is dependent on clear identification of learning outcomes, proper assessment, and quality curriculum. Ability-based and non-ability-based groups can yield positive outcomes when they are used judiciously.

3

Research Question

How can teachers most effectively form groups for reading instruction to support

the goals of differentiated instruction in an elementary school classroom?

Rationale for Research

In all types of classrooms teachers must make decisions about how to divide

students into groups. Whether it is for a seating arrangement, sharing supplies, or

learning activities, teachers often try to predict which students will work well together.

The objective of this research is to provide insight to teachers about how to most

effectively group students to achieve learning objectives. While the focus of this study is

on reading groups because of their prevalence in elementary schools, most of the

recommendations can easily be applied in other areas of the classroom. The main

grouping options explored were mixed-ability (heterogeneous) groups and same-ability

(homogeneous) groups. There are several variations within each of these categories, but

the main focus was how the difference or similarity of ability affects the interaction

between students.

As inclusion and differentiation become accepted as best practice, grouping

students based on ability is being looked down upon. Yet, in all types of classrooms

students are still divided, especially for reading, based on ability. The researcher wanted

to know whether the negative attitudes toward ability grouping were a result of trends

that would change with time or if there was substantial evidence to support the end of the

traditional reading groups. Furthermore, what would be the best strategy to form

effective groups in one’s own classroom?

It seems as if a paradox is created by the desire to have greater ability within a

classroom, yet addressing all learners at the appropriate level. Grouping is often used in

inclusive classrooms as a strategy to compensate for differences, but separating students

contradicts the spirit of inclusion. The research question explores the question of how

grouping be used in an academically diverse classroom to address differences, yet

maintain the cohesion of the inclusive classroom.

Even though many teachers accept inclusion as best practice, the researcher has

observed evidence that teachers doubt the benefits of an inclusive classroom. The

frustration created by the challenges of serving such a wide range of students can easily

lead a teacher to reject the underlying philosophy of an inclusive classroom because he or

she may not see positive results. The researcher set out to explore doubts about the

benefits of an academically diverse class and whether best practices were being

implemented to sufficiently support differentiated instruction in a heterogeneous-ability

classroom. The research begins with a review of literature to establish what is known

about inclusive classrooms and then moves to a classroom where differentiation is

practiced.

5

Literature Review

The Inclusive Classroom

The wide range of academic ability in the classroom poses increasing challenges

for general education teachers. There has always been a range of abilities in the

classroom, since variance is part of human nature. There are also additional factors

contributing to variance in academic achievement such as a widening income gap and

growing number of English Language Learners that add to the variance based on natural

ability.

These changes alone would not necessarily impact the general education

classroom if it were not for the amendments to Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA) in 1997. First implemented in 1975, IDEA was amended in 1997 to require

curriculum for special education students to be more clearly aligned with the general

classroom. While there is much to discuss about IDEA, the focus of this discussion is the

philosophical change marked by the decreased separation of special education students.

Prior to IDEA, many students whose needs deviated beyond a small amount from the

average student were educated in separate special education classrooms. Under IDEA

’97, students with physical or learning disabilities are required to be included in the

general education classroom as much as possible. IDEA marked a new era in education

for all students where inclusion, that is including students with special needs of all types

in the common learning experiences in the general classroom, is considered best practice.

6

While the scope of this paper is not necessarily to address students with identified

disabilities, the reason for including IDEA is that it represents a shift in philosophy that

has permeated the field of education. Along with inclusive practices of special education

students came changes in how students interacted with each other and how teachers

interact with students. Separating students based on ability lost favor and mixed-ability

groupings became more common, but within the classroom many teachers have

continued to use ability-based groups. Clearly tension still exists between these two

philosophies.

Differentiation

With the practice of inclusion, it is not uncommon for a teacher to have gifted

students as well as students with learning disabilities as severe as Down Syndrome in the

same classroom. With students of such mixed abilities, what can a teacher do to

effectively reach all students in the classroom? The response to the wide range of

abilities in the classroom as a result of inclusion has been referred to as differentiated

instruction (DI). The philosophy of differentiation is centered on the belief that all

students should receive educational experiences that help them achieve their full

potential, regardless of how that potential compares to their classmates. Carol Ann

Tomlinson is a leading researcher in the domain of DI. Her work sets forth the theory of

DI, the goals of DI, and ways that teachers can implement DI in their classrooms.

According to Tomlinson, DI is “a philosophy of teaching purporting that students learn

best when their teachers effectively address variance in students’ readiness levels,

interests, and learning profile preferences” (2005, p. 263).

7

In addition to on-going assessment that informs instruction and activities that take

into consideration students’ differences, Tomlinson also cites flexible grouping as a

hallmark of the differentiated classroom (2001, p. 3). Flexible grouping means that

students will be frequently assessed by their teachers and instructional decisions will be

made on an continuous basis, rather than assigning a struggling student to a category that

determines his or her place in the educational system. For example, students beginning a

new math unit will take a pre-assessment on the material to be taught in the upcoming

unit. The teacher may divide the students into instructional groups for the first set of

lessons to address differences in background knowledge. Some students will get

remedial help while others get enrichment. Students not receiving instruction could be

working in learning centers to practice skills that are not yet secure as determined by the

teacher’s assessment. Another day, students could be grouped differently to explore new

content.

Another example of flexible grouping would be to have reading groups that

change periodically. One grouping strategy could be to divide students based on ability

to work on reading skills. A second strategy would be for students to choose their own

reading group based on areas of interest. Thirdly, students can read different material

that is at their respective levels, but on a similar theme so that all students could engage

in discussion on the common topic. Students of different abilities could also work in a

group where each group member has a specific task that contributes to the group, but the

individual tasks are tiered to address the range of ability in the group. These are some

examples of the many options available to teachers who choose to create groups within

the class.

8

Through flexible grouping, students are presumed to reap the benefits of both

homogenous and heterogeneous grouping because students will work in both types of

groups. Another strength of flexible grouping is that specific strengths (or weaknesses)

in an otherwise low-achieving (or high-achieving) student can be recognized and

addressed. According to DI, there does not have to be a choice between serving the

needs of the high-ability students versus serving the needs of the low-ability students.

Positive Effects of Inclusion for Low-Ability Students

The movement toward inclusive practices has largely been based on the concept

of equity. Proponents of inclusion speak from the perspective that inclusion is a moral

imperative. This view is expressed by Baglieri and Knopf who write, “Differences are

pervasive, ordinary, and acceptable. Inclusion of all students in general education is

critically important for creating societies that recognize and embrace human variation”

(2004, p. 526). According to these arguments, there can be no equality in separation

because students in low-level or remedial classes do not get access to the same

opportunities as higher-ability students. As a result of this argument, inclusion of

students of varying abilities in the general classroom has become synonymous with

equity in education for many advocates of inclusion.

Barriers to Quality Instruction. Proponents of inclusion cite instances in which

low-ability and special education students are denied access to high quality instruction.

Small-scale studies cited by Terwel (2005, p. 655) indicate that low-achieving students

receive less instructional time, face more class disruptions, and are taught at a slower

pace and lower cognitive level. While Terwel’s studies were based on class grouping, or

9

tracking, similar results were found for within class groupings. In a study of elementary

teachers who use ability groups for reading instruction, it was found that low-ability

groups spend less time reading silently, answering critical comprehension questions,

reading expository trade books, and selecting their own reading materials when compared

with students in higher-ability groups (Chorzempa and Graham, 2006, Discussion section

¶ 11). All of these practices experienced by low-ability students are contrary to best

practices in teaching. This is evidence that membership in the low academic ability

group does in fact create a barrier to quality instruction.

In addition to the aforementioned studies about the instruction in low-ability

groups, there is another factor to consider when grouping students by ability. Terwel

points to further research and concludes that the cognitive resources of the class, that is to

say the abilities of one’s classmates, play an important role in learning outcomes (Terwel,

2005, p. 664). He concludes that high-achieving students are least affected by

homogeneous-ability grouping and low-achieving students have the most to lose. The

reason for this is that the learning environment has less of an effect on high-achieving

students than low-achieving students (Terwel, 2005, p. 655). Saleh et al. also support the

theory that high-achieving students are resilient to their learning environment, performing

equally well on tasks working with peers or lower-ability students. (2005, p. 107).

Separating students based on ability reduces access to high quality education for

many students and perpetuates inequality between categories of students (Terwel, 2005,

p. 659 – 660). Terwel concludes in favor of heterogeneous-ability grouping and warns

against any situation that leads to “rigid, static, and permanent distinctions between

groups and individuals” (p. 666). Terwel considers both instruction and cognitive abilities

10

of peers to be resources in education. He considers tracking or ability grouping as a

means of “opportunity hoarding” (2005, p. 659) because these valuable resources are

reserved for a select group of people. Terwel says that alterations in curriculum based on

abilities are not “so much an attempt to accommodate individual differences in capacities

and interests as an organizational monopolization of educational resources.” (ibid).

Effects of Group Dynamics. Saleh, Ard, Lazonder, and DeJong (2005) further

support Terwel’s theory that the people with whom you share a learning experience

impact the quality of that learning. Instead of approaching this question as a matter of

equality, Saleh et al. examined academic outcomes. Their study exposed all students to

the same instruction and then had them work in groups of assorted compositions. Despite

similar instruction, the groups performed differently based on the relative abilities of

group members with whom they completed the learning task. The results supported their

hypothesis based on a study cited in their literature review by Lou et al. from 1996 in

which it was found that “low-ability students learn more in heterogeneous groups,

average-ability students achieve more in homogenous groups, and high-ability students

learn just as much in either group” (Saleh, Lazonder, & De Jong, 2005, p. 106).

The study by Saleh, Lazonder, and De Jong was significant because it went

beyond confirming established research and tried to explain the reasons for the differing

outcomes between groups. After analyzing the types of social interactions that took place

in the different group settings the authors concluded that, “group composition affects the

nature of the learning dialogue” (Saleh, Lazonder, & De Jong, 2005, p. 116).

Homogenous ability groups tended to work more collaboratively, responding to each

other and building on each other’s ideas, except in low-ability groups. In homogeneous

11

low-ability groups, the lack of more capable group members stunted the learning

experience (Saleh, Lazonder, & De Jong, 2005, p. 116). This study concluded that no

type of grouping is universally acceptable and that flexible grouping that takes into

consideration several factors including the ability level of students and anticipated

educational and social outcomes is desirable.

Saleh et al. and Terwel both argue in favor of inclusive classrooms because of the

positive effects for low-ability students. These authors also make important contributions

to the discussion on ability grouping by showing that different types of students are

affected differently by grouping situations. Since the presence of higher-ability students

contribute to the level of thinking and learning in a group, it is beneficial for low-level

students to have opportunities to work with higher-ability students. The evidence cited

by these authors provides a strong argument for the benefits of inclusion on low-ability

students, but their work also raises questions about the effects of inclusion on middle and

high-ability students.

One gap in this research is that it did not look beyond the assessment of a single

learning task. The amount of learning taking place beyond the given assessment was not

measured; therefore no conclusions can be drawn about long-term effects on students of

these studies. Simply because students performed well on an assessment does not mean

that learning has taken place. This is especially true of high-ability students because

according to Terwel they have more personal resources to supplement their classroom

learning such as prior knowledge and experience (Terwel, 2005, p. 655). It is likely that

a high-ability student would begin the task already possessing a portion of the knowledge

necessary to complete the task. While the high-ability students are performing well on

12

the specified assessment, there is no attempt to measure their performance compared to

their potential. Having examined benefits of mixed-ability grouping for low-achieving

students, it is necessary to examine effects on high-ability students.

Meeting the Needs of High-Achieving Students

With the introduction of more academic diversity in the classroom, it appears that

opportunities for everyone in the class to be engaged in the same activity are decreasing.

In the current educational climate where student test scores are equated with teachers’

success and job stability, teachers tend to focus on raising the up the struggling students

when a decision about how to invest scarce resources must be made. It is the most

talented students who are ignored because once they meet the grade level standards the

teacher has little incentive to continue providing instruction. Just as low-achieving

students can do better when held to higher expectations, so can high-achieving students.

When expectations are set so low for these gifted students, they stop receiving

educational opportunities far below their potential.

Highly capable students are often given activities to keep busy or asked to instruct

other students (Stamps, 2004, p. 3). These practices certainly do not provide highly

capable students with the challenge and intensive instruction that is experienced by less

capable students. In these situations high-ability students miss out on instruction on new

material because the instruction delivered to the class is material they have already

mastered. When students are not challenged, they lose their ability to perform well on

challenging tasks and often develop habits of avoid challenging tasks (Winebrenner,

2004, p. 53). Although these students are achieving at levels as high or higher than their

13

classmates, they are actually underachieving in relation to their personal potential. The

lack of challenge in early schooling can result in a pattern of underachievement and lack

of motivation to engage in challenging tasks.

Schools have traditionally addressed the special needs of gifted students by

separating them and assigning gifted students to advanced classes with more content and

a faster pace. Examples of this practice would be tracking or honors classes. Larger

school districts can create special schools or programs, such as magnet schools, where

gifted students are further separated from mainstream students. Because of the

philosophy shift created by IDEA and research such as presented in the previous section,

many schools are abandoning the practice of ability grouping in any form. In these

schools differentiation is the preferred method of addressing the diverse needs in an

inclusive classroom.

In her article, “Gifted Students Need an Education, Too” Susan Winebrenner

(2000) cites several ways that general classroom teachers can provide appropriate

learning opportunities for the most capable students in an inclusive classroom. All of the

strategies involve separating the students to complete separate activities. For example,

after completing a pre-assessment, students who demonstrate security in a skill in math

are separated and given a modified activity while the rest of the class is instructed on the

content of the general curriculum (p. 52). Another suggestion is to have students work on

extension activities on days when direct instruction is being given on subjects they have

mastered or when the pace of the class is too slow for them (p. 55).

All of Winebrenner’s differentiation strategies fall within the realm of

differentiation prescribed by the likes of Ann Tomlinson. They both say that content,

14

process, products (includes assessment), and learning environment can be altered to

create a unique and appropriate learning experience (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 1 and

Winebrenner, 2000, p. 55). However, given that the primary basis for inclusion was that

all students must receive the same instruction in order to achieve equitable distribution of

education resources, differentiation seems to detract from this goal. With so many

modifications to instruction and so much separation, is it still possible that students are

experiencing the benefits of a heterogeneous classroom and equal opportunity to

education?

Effects of Differentiation and Inclusion on High-Achieving Students. One

example of differentiation that raises many questions about the compatibility of inclusion

and differentiation is curriculum compacting. Curriculum compacting demonstrates the

range of goals and practices that are loosely termed as differentiation. While some

studies loosely use the term differentiation to describe a classroom that serves students of

different academic abilities in one classroom, most advocates of differentiated instruction

have more specific requirements for DI. Ann Tomlinson, one of the leading authorities

on DI, advocates flexible grouping and frequent assessment. Curriculum compacting is

an example of how differentiation without frequent assessment and flexible grouping

becomes another form of tracking that creates barriers to equity in education. Most

importantly, Tomlinson maintains that differentiation can only be successful as an

extension of quality curriculum. None of these requirements were present in Stamp’s

study on curriculum compacting showing that the philosophies of inclusion and

differentiation can be interpreted and implemented very differently.

15

This particular study by Stamps (2004) focuses on a first grade classroom where

teachers eliminated parts of the curriculum that students had already mastered and used

the time to provide enrichment activities. This strategy resulted in neutral to positive

results in students and positive results in parents (p. 10, 11). Teachers also felt that

curriculum compacting was beneficial to students while adding minimally to the

workload of teachers (p. 9). This study presents curriculum compacting as a positive

strategy with no apparent drawbacks.

There are reasons for concern from the perspective of advocates of inclusion. The

students in the classroom are receiving very different types of instruction. Curriculum

compacting is cited as an escape for bright students from the “dumbing down” of

textbooks, the over reliance on the these textbooks, the repetitious drill and practice for

much of the year, and the lack of new challenging material” (Stamps, 2004, p. 14).

Instead of this standard curriculum, high-ability students participate in enrichment

activities such as quilting, guest speakers, field trips, sign language, and chemistry

experiments (Stamps, 2004, p. 15). There is no question in this example that the high-

ability students have access to a different level of instruction than lower-ability students.

The question is why any students are being subjected to poor quality instruction such as

those described above.

Another cause for concern is the assessment strategies that determine who

participates in this group perpetuate inequality. Eligibility was determined by district

first grade entrance exams (Stamps, 2004, p. 6). These exams are meant to measure

readiness for school, not capacity for learning. Students who come from home

environments that did not encourage learning will be at a great disadvantage in this type

16

of test. With access to quality instruction, these children could catch up to their

classmates, but by being assigned to the low-ability group upon entering school, they will

receive lower quality instruction and have fewer opportunities throughout their academic

careers.

Additionally, the teachers who piloted this program intend to carry it through to

the next grade and “loop” (the teacher advances through two or three grades levels with

the same group of students) with these students (Stamps, 2004, p. 9). The nature of this

program does not facilitate easy entrance, making it difficult for students who did not

score well on school readiness exams to ever participate. Parents of children who

participated in the curriculum compacting said that they wanted their child to continue in

the program in order to “stay ahead” (Stamps, 2004, p. 11). For all of the students

staying ahead, others are staying behind and the achievement gap is widening.

While a practice such as curriculum compacting helps high-achieving students at

the expense of low-achieving students, inclusion efforts to help low-achieving students

may be hurting average- and high-achieving students’ academic performance. Huber,

Rosenfeld, and Fiorello (2001) applied a microeconomic theory of tolerance in the

classroom to predict the effects of inclusion. The theory is based on the idea that there is

a limited amount of variation that can be accommodated by any system. Samuel and

Geber (1995) suggest, “a fixed number of instructional resources (e.g. number of

teachers, new technologies) lead teachers and schools to only be able to effectively

educate (tolerate) students within a limited range of needs” (as cited in Huber, Rosenfeld,

and Fiorello 2001, p. 502).

17

Widening the range of student ability, as done by inclusion, puts more students

outside of the tolerance range. When a student falls outside of the tolerance range, his or

her educational needs are not being satisfied. The data collected by Huber, Rosenfeld

and Fiorello is limited (a small sample over a two year period), but it does support the

tolerance theory. Results to their study show “lower skill students made stronger

academic gains, while higher skill students’ achievement decreased” (2001, p. 502). This

theory suggests that it is necessary to make a trade-off between the needs of students

because it is not possible to best serve everyone in the same classroom.

This theory assumes a fixed system, meaning that no additional resources are

being given to support the increased variance in the inclusive classroom. The possibility

of additional resources is a major factor in the success of an inclusion program. Creating

smaller class sizes, team-teaching, including aides in the classroom, and introduction of

technology are all possible adjustments that could help accommodate the growing range

of student ability.

The Huber et al. study did not address the possible steps to widen the tolerance

range, but there are many schools that are investing additional resources in the schools to

support inclusion. Kay Woelfel reported on two programs aimed at raising achievement

of low-ability students. One program created a classroom setting where special educators

introduced strategies commonly used for students with identified learning disabilities.

Students could be assigned to this classroom without going through the formal special

education identification process and students could return to the general classroom after

improving skills and learning strategies (Woelfel, 2003, p. 50, 51). The second program

is a fifteen-month enrichment program. Students who are not ready to be promoted to the

18

next grade join this program and then rejoin their peer group in the following school year

(Woelfel, 2003. p. 51).

These programs are different, but the underlying theme is that success of the

program is dependent on a combination of effective instructional strategies,

administrative leadership, and staff commitment. Effective strategies used in both

programs that can be incorporated in any school include parental support, specially

trained teachers, high-quality instruction, and frequent assessments (Woelfel, 2003, p.

52). The tolerance theory does not suggest that inclusion cannot provide successful

learning to all students. Instead the theory is a reminder that inclusion presents many

challenges, and it must be incorporated as part of a larger program that accommodates

those challenges.

How Does Inclusion Help Low-Achieving Students?

With the host of changes that must occur to restructure schools for inclusion, it is

difficult to assess the specific mechanism by which achievement is changed as a result of

changes in student grouping. There is little evidence that the practice of grouping is the

causal factor in raising student achievement. Although schools that introduce mixed-

ability grouping report increased achievement, there are usually additional factors that

have been altered concurrently.

An example of such a study was done by Castle, Deniz, and Tortora (2005). The

study covers a period of time in which a flexible grouping program was being

implemented in an elementary school among a group of students whose literacy skills

were below the goals of the school. The article cites a wide body of literature that agrees

19

with other criticism of ability grouping. Castle, Deniz and Tortora conclude that the

negative effects of ability grouping include lack of student mobility, poor quality

instruction, low student self-esteem, lack of equity, and low achievement (Castle, Deniz,

& Tortora, 2005, p. 140). What this study fails to prove is that changing only the

grouping strategy can eliminate all of these problems.

During the period in which flexible grouping was implemented, increases in

percentages of students at goal level increased. The authors acknowledge that during the

course of the study other factors, such as changes in instructional methods, may have

contributed to the changes in student achievement. However, teachers cited flexible

grouping as a contributor to their students’ increased achievement because flexible

grouping allowed them to focus instruction on particular learning needs, keep students

focused on instructional tasks, and increase student confidence (Castle, Deniz, & Tortora,

2005, p. 139). This conclusion seems to be accepted among those participating in the

study despite lack of evidence as to which of many variables contributed most

significantly to changes in student achievement.

Gamoran and Weinstien (1998) present a more complete argument when

considering the role of ability grouping on achievement levels. Their study concluded

that “neither heterogeneous nor homogeneous grouping present insurmountable barriers

to high-quality instruction, but neither approach ensures effective teaching, either”

(Gamoran and Weinstein, 1998, p. 385). The focus of this study was schools that have

restructured (eliminated ability-based classes in favor of heterogeneous classes) in order

to provide equal learning opportunities to for all students. The hope was that creating

20

equal learning opportunities would lead to less inequality in student achievement

(Gamoran and Weinstein, 1998, p. 386, 387).

Despite the restructuring, these schools still had a glaring problem: how to meet

the needs of students who vary in their needs, capacities, and learning styles. The study

found that despite efforts to heterogeneously group students, at the elementary level

students were still divided according to ability for pull-out programs and within-class

groups (Gamoran and Weinstein, 1998, p. 397). Truly homogenous groups were also

difficult to find as a basis of comparison because “inevitably there is substantial

variability within groups” (Gamoran and Weinstien, 1998, p. 387). Natural variability

necessarily creates divisions among students and the type of instruction required to meet

their individual needs. The lack of examples of purely heterogeneous or homogeneous

groups questions the productivity of a debate that focuses only on the question of ability

grouping.

Gamoran and Weinstein do not give preference to either heterogeneous or

homogeneous groupings as intrinsically superior. Instead they look at high-quality

instruction as a separate factor for academic outcomes. While this research does support

previous findings about the correlation of high-level instruction and homogeneous groups

of high-achieving students (1998, p. 400), it focuses on the instruction methods, not the

grouping strategy. Findings indicate that intellectual rigor, commitment to equity, and

use of differentiation in a way that does not contradict equity as the common

characteristics that foster quality instruction. They also cite the benefits of resources

including time and money (Gamoran and Weinstein, 1998, p. 410). These results in

conjunction with studies that show access to high quality instruction is concentrated in

21

high-ability homogeneous groups help explain why inclusion is beneficial to low-ability

students.

The oversimplification of the effect of ability grouping is one of many

misconceptions in the understanding of ability grouping. According to educational

consultant Susan Winebrenner, “many educational leaders have misunderstood research

on role modeling to mean that some gifted students should be present in all classrooms to

facilitate forward progress for other students” (2000, p. 52). The way in which high-

achieving students help low-achieving students is not well defined. It is more realistic

that peers of slightly higher capability, rather than the highest achieving students, serve as

more appropriate and effective role models for low-achieving students (ibid). There is no

evidence that academic ability somehow disperses throughout the class as commonly

believed.

How teachers make choices about ability-based grouping shows further

misconceptions and lack of information. The following study shows that most teachers

are not using research-based information about the academic effects of ability grouping to

inform their practice. Chorzempa and Graham did a large-scale study (2006) on how

elementary school teachers use ability grouping for reading instruction. The survey

showed that of the teachers who chose to create homogenous ability-based groups, the

majority (68%) did so because they believe that it is the best method to address students’

instructional needs (Chorzempa and Graham, 2006, Discussion sections ¶ 5).

There was more variation of responses among teachers who used mixed-ability

groups. Most teachers responded that mixed-ability groups are better for students

because higher level students serve as models for lower- achieving students and higher-

22

achieving students learn to be more tolerant as a result of working with lower-achieving

students. Twenty percent of teachers who did not group by ability believed that ability

grouping stigmatizes students and has a negative impact on self-esteem. Only three

percent of teachers cited current research as the reason for choosing mixed-ability groups

(Chorzempa and Graham, 2006, Teacher’s Responses section ¶ 3). The fact that only

three percent of teachers use current research to inform their practice shows how easily

generally accepted beliefs and misconceptions make their way into teaching practices.

Benefits of Group Work

If there is consensus in the research in this field it is that flexible grouping offers

the most benefits. The benefit of flexible grouping is that groups change so that at some

point, all students will work in a group that is most beneficial their respective needs. This

also means that all students will spend some time in groups that are not most appropriate

for meeting their needs. The question that still remains is if flexible grouping is actually

an effective strategy or if it is just a compromise between the conflicting strategies of

homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping.

Flexible grouping offers one definite positive aspect, and that is the opportunity

for students to work in groups. Aside from the possible benefit of working with

classmates who will enhance achievement, group work offers benefits that cannot be

achieved through other instructional strategies.

One of the most important features of group work is the social benefit. Students

who worked in structured groups showed more high-level thinking, less off-task

23

behavior, and more peer interaction (Blatchford, et al., 2006, Discussion, ¶2, 3). If

Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) is correct in stating that “employers are placing

greater value on the applied skills of leadership, critical thinking, and problem solving,”

(2007, p. 3), then group work not only improves the classroom environment, but it is

essential to preparing students for the workforce.

Group work also teaches students to be less dependent on the teacher for learning.

When students are less dependent on the teacher, the teacher has more flexibility to work

with individuals and small groups. These important individualized interactions, such as

conferencing, that are often absent because teachers cannot manage the demands of an

individual interaction while keeping the rest of the class engaged in meaningful learning.

Group work is not a replacement for teacher instruction, but rather a way to enhance it

and make class time more productive for all students. Hopefully as students become

more independent learners in the classroom, the same skills will transfer out of the

classroom to help students become lifelong learners.

Teachers often shy away from group work because they do not experience

positive results when they begin using groups. Blatchford et al. (2006) conducted a study

that compared results of group work in classrooms where teachers had special training in

managing groups with teachers who had no special training. The results showed that the

amount of training for teachers and students had a significant impact on outcomes of

group interactions. While groups of students who had been given minimal instruction in

group work were often off-task or uncoordinated (Blatchford, et al., 2006, Teacher Pupil

Interaction ¶2), “group work can be successfully implemented… and improve pupil

interaction, provided teacher take time to train pupils in the skills of group working”

24

(Blatchford, et al., 2006, Abstract). Without proper instruction, teachers are not likely to

reap the benefits of group work.

Summary of Literature

Inclusion is a practice that has grown out of research and philosophies that aim to

address the inequalities in educational outcomes. As with many reform attempts,

inclusion has a positive effect on a specific problem, i.e. low-ability student achievement,

but has negative effects on other parts of the educational system. With inclusion,

teachers have increased demands to meet more educational needs and high-ability

students generally lose teacher attention. Additionally, high-ability students tend to have

better results working in homogeneous-ability groups. The philosophy of differentiated

instruction attempts to provide appropriate educational opportunities to all students so

that there does not have to be a trade-off between the needs of high-ability students and

the needs of low-ability students.

While recognizing that the people with whom students share learning experiences

have a significant impact on how students learn, most researchers (especially within the

field of DI) recommend flexible grouping strategies. With flexible grouping, students are

constantly being assessed and assigned to groups that are appropriate for short-term

learning objectives. While homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping provide different

levels of benefits to different types of students, group work in general offers positive

results for all types of students. Flexible grouping as part of a larger system of

differentiated instruction is therefore currently the best technique for educating groups of

students with wide variance in academic ability.

25

Data Collection

Setting

The primary source for data collection was a third grade classroom where the

researcher was student teaching. The school, located in a small affluent suburb of a large

metropolitan area, consistently achieves above the national average on standardized tests.

The students come from diverse backgrounds, with more than twenty-five percent

speaking a language other than English at home. The particular classroom where the

research was gathered had 24 students. Four students in this class receive special

education services for reading, two of which are ELL students. About ten (number

changed over the course of the study) students participate in the school’s vocabulary

enrichment program.

During the period of research, the class was involved in a unit on pioneers that

used the social studies class as well as historical fiction novels to introduce students to

pioneer life. The prairie novel unit was the first time the class was divided into reading

groups and the students’ first experience studying a novel. Students regularly engage in

reading independently , but there is little formal instruction on reading skills in the

general classroom. Discussion of reading strategies generally takes place in the context

of reading for other disciplines. For example, students are learning the parts of a textbook

in math and how to highlight information in social studies texts.

The decision of how to divide the students for reading groups and the positive and

negative consequences of this method was the question that drove this study. The class

of 24 students was divided into three groups of eight for the purposes of the reading

groups. The classroom teacher (CT), the student teacher (researcher), and the school’s

26

differentiation teacher (DT) each led a group. The groups met for one hour each day,

Monday through Thursday for four weeks. The novels that would be used for this unit

had already been agreed upon by the team of third grade teachers. Within the observation

classroom, the researcher, CT, and DT were responsible for creating the assignments,

activities, and assessments used in her respective group. The three novels were Sarah,

Plain and Tall by Patricia MacLachlan (SPT), Addie Across the Prairie by Laurie Lawlor

(Addie), and Caddie Woodlawn by Carol Brink (CW). The classroom teacher led the

group with the lowest test scores in reading SPT, the student teacher lead the Addie

group, and the differentiation instructor lead the highest scoring students in reading CW.

Observations

The researcher had a unique position as both student teacher and observer in this

classroom. Prior to conducting this study, the researcher was present in the classroom for

several weeks observing and working with students across all subject areas. The

researcher was involved in planning and implementation of instruction for this unit based

largely on goals that had been established by the CT. While the researcher had the

advantage of being highly involved and familiar with the students, the researcher also

was also able to be more objective and reflective than most teachers can be when

studying their own classroom because the researcher was not a long-term stakeholder in

this classroom. The position of student teacher also gave the researcher the opportunity

to simply observe on some occasions where she was not responsible for leading classing

instruction.

27

Observations were recorded in a journal as close to the time it took place as

possible. Daily interactions outside of reading groups were observed, but there were

three main periods of observations in which data was collected. The first observation

period was a series of discussions where students were divided into their groups and

asked to discuss a short picture book. Each discussion lasted approximately 40 minutes

and discussions took place on separate days over the course of one week. Each group

read a different book that matched the respective reading level of the group. These

discussions served as a practice for the upcoming novel unit. Since the idea of a book

talk or literature discussion was new to students, the expectations were introduced to the

whole class and students were given an opportunity to practice with a short reading

assignment. These discussions were all led by the researcher.

The second series of observations were made during the discussion time for the

novel groups. Because the researcher was leading the Addie group, that group is

primarily represented in the observations of the reading groups. However, the researcher

did have a few occasions to observe other reading groups and to receive feedback from

the CT and DT. The observations include significant events that occurred during the

course of the discussion groups over the four-week period.

The third observation period was a discussion that was held near the end of the

novel unit (see appendix for discussion questions). Students were divided into groups of

six, each group having two representatives from each of the book groups. The students

discussed a common question that related to all of their books. After forty minutes of

discussion, the entire class reassembled and shared information about what was discussed

28

in each group. The small groups were self-guided and the CT led the large group

discussion.

Surveys

Students in the observation classroom completed two surveys (see appendix for

survey questions). The first survey asked questions about students’ experiences in

partner reading. The same survey was administered to students on two occasions to

gather information about the experiences during partner reading. Partner reading is a

regular part of the classroom schedule where students read to each other in groups of two.

During this activity students are allowed to choose the book and the reading partner.

Since the length of time for partner reading is about 30 minutes students generally choose

picture books, not novels. The class has a collection of illustrated stories, non-fiction,

and reference books (almanacs, world records, etc.) that are suitable for this activity. The

students are clear on the teacher’s expectations for this activity, as it was a routine

established early in the school year.

The second survey asked students about their experiences in their prairie novel

reading group. The surveys were administered to students at the conclusion of the

reading groups. For both surveys, all students who were present were given a survey and

class time was used for students to complete surveys. The majority of students were able

to complete each survey in less than five minutes.

Student work. Representative samples of assignments from each of the reading

groups were collected. The researcher has the entire collection of activities and

homework that accompany SPT and Addie. Samples of student work were collected

29

from selected assignments from all students in the Addie and CW groups. Student work

included writing samples and student responses to vocabulary, reading comprehension,

and interpretation questions related to the novels.

Test scores. Standardized test scores from three different tests were obtained for

all students. The test that provided the most information was the Iowa Test of Basic

Skills, which is routinely administered to students across the district every fall. Another

standardized test that was used was the Scantron test. This test is a computer-based test

that adjusts questions based on student response. While it is much shorter than the Iowa

Test of Basic Skills, the interactive format purportedly provides comparable results. The

students took this test as part of a pilot group that was formed to help the district decide

whether or not to adopt the Scantron test and eliminate the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. The

second set of assessments is tests developed by the district that measure reading fluency

and comprehension. Scores from all of these assessments were considered to determine

the placement of students in the reading groups.

School Differentiation Philosophy. Information about the school’s differentiation

policy was taken from the school district’s website. This information contains facts about

differentiation as well as the school’s philosophy and mission in implementing

differentiated instruction. This information was used to identify school policies and

objectives for teaching an academically diverse student population.

Interviews

The researcher conducted two interviews (see appendix for interview protocols).

One interview was with the differentiation teacher (DT) who was involved in the reading

30

group unit. The scope of this interview included the CW reading group as well as

differentiation in general at this school.

The second interview was conducted with a gifted teacher (GT) outside of the

main research site. This teacher has a specialization in gifted education and has taught at

a gifted school for 10 years. This interview was conducted early in the research process

to gain insight about alternatives to mixed-ability classrooms.

Consent for Participation

Consent for participation in this research was obtained for children. Parents or

guardians of children were contacted through a letter that was sent home with students, as

directed by the school principal (see appendix for consent form). Twenty-three of

twenty-four students received permission to participate in the study. Consent from adults

was implied by their cooperation. The purpose of this research was explained to all

involved and participation was voluntary. Every effort was made to collect data in an

ethical manner and to protect the anonymity of all parties involved.

31

Data Summary

Partner Reading Surveys

Students were asked to complete surveys about their experiences during partner

reading on two occasions and observations were made about the groups on a previous

occasion, totaling three observation periods of partner reading. Students engage in

partner reading one to two times per week. Students who receive special education

services for reading and English Language Learners (ELL) are usually out of the

classroom at this time and do not participate in partner reading. Students are allowed to

choose their own partners and books for partner reading.

This information was gathered prior to the assignment of reading groups for the

prairie novels so students were not aware of the ability-based groups set up by the

teacher. The reading partners were categorized as like-ability or mixed-ability groups

based on the students’ reading groups for the pioneer unit.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 2 3

Survey

Number of students

mixed-ability partner same-ability partner

Figure 1. Students’ choices of partner for reading activity

32

The researcher determined if the student had a positive or negative experience

with this partner based on the question, “Would you want to work with this partner

again?” Students were given the choice of yes, no, or maybe. A response of “yes” is

considered a positive experience and a result of “no” is considered a negative experience.

Would you like to work with this partner again?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

yes no maybe

student response

number of students

mixed-ability partner same-ability partner

Figure 2. Students’ preference to work with a partner, separated by relative ability of the

partner.

The survey also included a free response question “What would you like me to

know about your partner reading today?” There were no negative comments written on

any of the surveys. Overall, students show enthusiasm for partner reading and few

incidents of uncooperative behavior was observed during partner reading. The most

popular comments from the surveys are listed in Table 1.

33

Comment OccurrencesSame-ability partner Mixed-ability partner

Fun / excellent /loved it 6 3

We read a good book 1 3

We worked well / did a good job 0 3

Liked partner 2 1

Table 1. Most frequent comments in free response section of partner reading survey

At the end of the prairie novel unit students were asked to complete a survey

about their experiences in the reading groups. Although each group had eight students,

the representation of the groups was not equal in the completed surveys. Some of the

missing surveys can be attributed to student absence and students who did not have

parental consent to participate in the research. The SPT group was underrepresented in

the free response questions because some of the students in this group failed to respond to

the questions.

The responses indicate that students across the groups felt similarly challenged by

and engaged in the novel unit. The clearest agreement across groups was the negative

feelings toward homework. Thirteen students reported that homework was the thing they

enjoyed least about the unit and six students reported that completing the homework was

the most challenging aspect of the unit. However, when asked if doing the homework

was difficult no students responded that the homework was too difficult and nine students

said the homework was challenging.

34

One challenge for some students was reading at the pace of the group. Two

students (from different groups) cited not being able to read more of the book was the

thing they liked least. Two students also noted that their book was considerably different

length than the other books. One student in CW said that she did not like having a book

that was so much longer than the others and one student in SPT said that he did not like

that his book was shorter than the other books.

The free response comments contained mostly positive comments. Six students

said the groups were fun or enjoyable, nine students indicated they liked the book or

some aspect of the book, and two students said they want to read more books by the

author they read in their groups. One student from SPT said that he enjoyed being with

the classroom teacher, and two students wrote comments about liking the people in their

groups. Two negative comments suggested reducing the amount or difficulty of the work

included in the unit.

Interviews

Gifted Teacher. The first interview was done prior to the primary data collection

for the purpose of shaping the research question. The main objective of this interview

was to identify the needs of gifted students and explore alternatives to inclusive

classrooms. The reason that gifted education was singled out by the researcher is because

meeting the needs of gifted students is talked about less in schools than meeting the needs

of low-achieving students. Students who are achieving below expectations are identified

and schools are legally obligated to refer these students to specialists in the school who

can help them meet their educational needs. There are no such requirement for gifted

35

students, and there is no state funding in Illinois for gifted education. Since the task of

meeting the special needs of gifted students is also the responsibility of the classroom

teacher, the researcher used this interview to seek information about serving gifted

students.

This is a summary of the content of the interview representing this person’s point

of view and experiences working with gifted students. This teacher’s background

includes a Master of Science in Education, specialized graduate level training in gifted

education, and ten years of teaching at a school for gifted students. Her general belief

about gifted education is that gifted students are best served in classrooms where they are

with other gifted students. She did not feel that being labeled as gifted was stigmatizing

for students who have been correctly identified as gifted. In fact, being at a school with

other gifted students minimizes the uniqueness of being gifted and gives gifted students

opportunities to flourish and feel like they belong more than they would have in an

inclusive classroom.

Being placed in a separate classroom specifically for gifted students is also

beneficial because then they receive instruction from teachers who understand the unique

emotional and academic needs of gifted children. Gifted students who are not challenged

often exhibit disruptive behavior. Perfectionism and intense emotions are also common

among gifted students. Knowing how to coax students out of their comfort zone and

achieve to their potential is a part of the unique skills required of teachers of gifted

students.

Academically, gifted students present a challenge because the pace at which they

learn pushes the teacher to prepare large amounts of material. Smaller class sizes help

36

teachers focus on individualizing instruction. Unlike a general classroom where the

teacher may provide multiple demonstrations, use manipulatives, and give students time

to practice and develop skills, a teacher in a gifted classroom does need to provide

repetitive or multiple explanations for students. The gifted teacher spends more energy

presenting new content, creating independent projects, and facilitating activities that will

expand the depth of students’ knowledge. There is also a wide range of academic

diversity that needs to be considered in a gifted classroom because most gifted students

have a particular strength or area of interest that sets them apart from their classmates.

Differentiation Teacher. This interview was conducted with the differentiation

teacher at the primary observation site. She has more than twenty years of teaching

experience, many of those as a teacher for gifted students in pull-out programs in public

schools. The focus of this conversation was the philosophy of differentiation at this

school and how it is implemented.

The position of differentiation instructor grew out of the position of teacher for

gifted students when the district adopted the philosophy of differentiation. Part of her

role still includes identification of gifted students. Students are identified as gifted based

on standardized testing, a process that was originally in place to help the school claim

state funding for programs for the gifted students. The funding no longer exists, but the

program for identification does.

The identification process is highly selective and is based on standardized test

scores (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) and teacher recommendations. To be labeled as

“gifted” students are required to have test scores in the top two percent of students in the

37

district. The label of “talented” is given to students who score in the top ten percent of

the district, but below the gifted students. While this identification is done as early as

first grade, there are no implications until fifth grade when tracking begins in middle

school. Since the identification process for gifted and talented students is different at the

middle school, there are no tangible implications from the identification that takes place

in the elementary school. Questions have been raised about the validity of this process,

but it has not yet been changed.

In theory, differentiation includes both low- and high-achieving students.

Differentiation means that differences in skills are identified and addressed in instruction

and assignments. The reality is that students who are identified as having learning

disabilities are legally entitled to special services and there is a legally mandated amount

of time that these students spend with a special education teacher. Gifted students are not

entitled to any special services and any enrichment is completely voluntary on the part of

the teacher and school. While the differentiation instructor is technically not a teacher for

gifted students, she does lead the school’s vocabulary enrichment program and usually

works with the highest achieving students.

The main goal of the differentiation instructor is to support the classroom teacher

as needed to enrich learning for all students. This is most often done by the DT working

with a group of students, but it can also mean providing materials for a student to work

on independently, or leading the class in a special lesson. Basically, the role of the DT is

to offer support in whatever ways the classroom teacher sees appropriate.

The differentiation program is different from a gifted pull-out program because

differentiation is supposed to be embedded in the curriculum of every classroom. Instead

38

of having a set time each day for enrichment, all students are supposed to be working at

their level in all activities.

Differentiation calls for students to be separated into groups when the difference

in ability calls for altered instruction. In theory, students would be assessed on the skills

to be covered in the next unit or set of lessons. Students should be grouped for

instruction based on competence with this skill. The lessons and resources used should

be paired with the skill and ability level of the group. In DI, students are usually

recognized as having strength in a particular area(s), so to label a child as talented is

against the foundation of DI that all students have unique talents.

Groups based on individual skill assessment are the most effective form of ability

grouping, but this is not how grouping typically works in reading instruction. Teachers

do not have time to administer assessments on specific skills. Standardized test scores,

curriculum tests, or observations usually inform teachers’ decisions about grouping. In

reading, books are usually chosen based on genre or topic. The skills to be taught are

then based on the needs of the group once it has been established. Groups do not change

very often and with-in class tracking often occurs.

The other way that the differentiation teacher supports reading instruction is to

provide “generic” activities that can be used with any book and works on developing

skills at a wide range of levels. For example, the “bookmark” is often used in place of

reading comprehension question. On the “bookmark” students are asked to identify

vocabulary words and identify important passages or key events that took place in the

reading assignment. This type of activity allows students to work at their own level

without the teacher having to create individual lessons for each student. Discussion is

39

also a common strategy to engage students in the same book, but at different levels.

Discussions among students with varying amount of input from the teacher can be used in

several contexts.

Another issue in grouping strategies is behavior. Behavior is frequently used as a

gatekeeper to enrichment opportunities. Likewise, completion and quality of work is

usually considered when assigning groups.

The differentiation program at the school continues to evolve. One area that

needs to be addressed is the reporting system. Currently, there are major discrepancies

between the differentiation philosophy and the report card system. Since the goal of the

school is to address the differences in student ability in a positive way, it is difficult for

teachers to report strengths and weaknesses of students compared to other students at

their grade level. There is currently a committee exploring options for a system that

would assess students on their proficiency according to individual expectations and hold

teachers and students accountable to curriculum standards of the district.

Observations

Practice Discussion. Students met in groups to practice discussion skills prior to

the actual novel groups. The students were assigned to read a picture book and then

participate in a discussion led by the reseracher. The books were all on the topic of quilts

(a lead-in to the topic of pioneers) and the reading level of each book was tiered to match

the ability level of the group. The groups were comprised of the same members as the

prairie novel groups.

40

The group of students with the lowest reading scores (SPT group) read The Quilt

Story. There were eight students assigned to this group, but the students who participate

in reading services and ELL classes were not present. There were three students present

for the discussion. One student was very reluctant to participate throughout the

discussion.

The group began the discussion by reviewing the facts of the book. This

consumed the entire discussion, as there was confusion about what actually happened in

the story. The story is about a quilt that is owned by two different girls at different times.

The change of ownerships is not explicitly stated, but it is obvious from the pictures that

a significant amount of time has passed from when the first girl put the quilt away and the

second girl discovered the quilt. Only one student figured out that there were actually

two main characters in the story. The majority of the discussion was the teacher pointing

to clues in the text that helped the students understand what happened in the story.

Students were not able to explore the story at a level beyond the basic plot. Most

comments consisted of reiterating what happened. One student did try to make a text-to-

text connection, but got very confused about what happened in which story. The group

ran out of time before discussing the actual discussion question planned by the teacher.

The intermediate group (Addie group) read The Keeping Quilt. This is a story

about a family that passes a quilt through several generations. The students were able to

offer an accurate summary of events in the book. Student comments were mostly about

parts of the books that they liked. The book includes Jewish ceremonies and words,

which generated some discussion. One of the Jewish students talked about the Jewish

customs and one of the Korean students made connections to customs in his culture.

41

The researcher posed a discussion question to the group relating to the meaning of

the title of the book. At first, the students answered the question in a very definite

manner. The teacher started to draw students to parts of the text that could introduce

ambiguity to the question and the level of the discussion changed from basic

comprehension to interpretation. Some students began to explore the text for

clarification. Through a bit of leading, students began to see that the question was not as

simple as it appeared. The teacher formally posed the question again and half of the

students changed their answer. Two students recognized that there was evidence to

support both points of view and could not decide on an answer.

The students with the highest reading scores (CW group) read The Log Cabin

Quilt. This book was chosen for this group because of its use of dialect and figurative

language. The discussion began with the teacher inviting students to make comments

about the book. Immediately, students began talking about the “weird words” (Southern

dialect) that were used in the book. The group talked about why the author would choose

to use those words. The discussion turned to use of figurative language and dialect to

help create a mood or picture in the mind of the reader. The group also talked about how

to figure out what words like “younguns” mean because these words are often not found

in dictionaries. Students also spontaneously turned to the text to answer questions and

provide evidence for their statements.

The group did not raise any questions about the plot. The teacher asked for a

summary to be sure that the students did understand, and the students were able to

provide an accurate summary.

42

Integrated Group Discussion. Near the end of the prairie novel unit, students

were divided into new groups with students who read different books for a discussion of

common themes across the books. Students were divided into four groups of six people

for discussion. After about forty minutes, the groups gathered together and talked as a

class.

It was observed that students’ ability to effectively participate in the discussion

was not related to the reading ability of the student. Each group had students who

dominated the conversation and students who got frustrated with other group members.

Many students had difficulty articulating the important details to their group members.

They were either retelling the entire story or skimming over information that was

essential to understanding. Students across the groups struggled with communicating

about their book to other students who had not read the book. While some students did

refer to the book for evidence, there were also many students quoting their

teachers/discussion leaders when interpreting the book.

The researcher observed that strong reading ability and strong discussion skills do

not always occur together. One of the lowest readers in the class showed strong

leadership skills during the discussion. He was able to cite text and interpret it as well as

manage the other students in the group who were not making positive contributions. One

of the students that needed reminders of how he should contribute positively to the

discussion was ironically one of the strongest readers in the class.

When the small group discussion ended and the large group discussion began,

students were only allowed to talk about a book they did not read. Students were asked

to give examples of bravery from one of the books they did not read. The most confusion

43

seemed to result from trying to understand Caddie Woodlawn. This book clearly has

more events in the plot than the other two books. Students who read the book had

difficulty communicating all that they wanted to share about their book in the short time

period. Students who did not read Caddie Woodlawn showed difficulty comprehending

the events from the book from their classmates’ retelling.

Test scores

The test scores that were used to create the ability-based reading groups are

shown below. Figure 3 shows test scores for district-wide tests. Each of these tests is

administered multiple times per year to measure students’ ability in reading

comprehension and reading fluency. Figure 4 shows students’ test scores based on

nationally administered tests. These tests rank students based on national percentiles and

were administered early in the school year. The fluency test scores are based on the

number of correct words read by the student from a selected passage in a given amount of

time. The other three tests were of a written, multiple-choice format. The differences in

ability across the class, as well as differences across the four tests for the same students

are seen in the data.

44

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223

student

percent correctcomprehension fluency

Figure 3. Student test scores on district-wide reading tests.

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223

student

national percentile

Scantron ITBS

Figure 4. Student test scores on nationally administered reading tests.

46

Assignments and Student Work

Two groups (SPT and Addie) were given a packet of work and activities that

contained all work for the novel unit at the beginning of the unit. These packets included

vocabulary words, comprehension questions, writing assignments, and related activities.

The CW group was given less structured assignments throughout the unit. Instead of

defining a word or answering a direct question, they were asked to write their own

question or synthesize information. Some worksheets contained specific questions about

the book, while other assignments asked the students to write their own questions and

identify vocabulary. The SPT and the Addie group had extension activities that

integrated other disciplines (like science or art) that were related to the book but not

directly related to the plot.

Questions across all three groups contained some common elements. All groups

were asked questions that required the student to make inferences, use the context to

understand new vocabulary words, and use textual evidence for support. The types of

questions that were asked varied across the groups. All groups had some comprehension

questions about the story line. The SPT group did not have questions that asked the

student to interpret a line or passage from the text and the other groups did. The SPT also

had writing assignments that asked the students to connect the characters to their own

lives. The Reader’s Response questions for the Addie group focused on interpreting the

book. The CW group did not have specific writing assignments. The CW group had

more note taking and short response questions integrated into all assignments.

47

Samples of student writing in the Addie group showed a wide range of skills.

Spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, and ability to relate the text to the questions

were all present at varying levels. There was no noticeable hierarchy of these skills. For

example, students who demonstrated higher level thinking skills did not necessarily

punctuate correctly. There was also a lack of consistency in how students performed in

class and how they performed on written assignments. Students’ contributions in

discussion were also a poor predictor of quality of written work.

48

Interpretation

Skill-Based Groups

Grouping for instruction is very common in an academically diverse classroom

because it allows the teacher to focus on a smaller number of students at one time. Two

major reasons for grouping are to give each student more individual attention and to

narrow the range of ability within the group so that each student is working closer to his

or her instructional level. Group work is also beneficial when it is led by students

because it teaches social skills like cooperation and teamwork. Once a teacher decides to

form groups, there are many decisions that need to be made. Some of these decisions are

made without a lot of thought. Teachers often base these decisions off of tradition, what

the school mandates, or what they believe to be best practice. Often, like at the beginning

of the school year, teachers may have to make decisions with imperfect or insufficient

information about students. The purpose of this study is to help teacher recognize the

effects of all of the decisions that are made in relations to grouping for reading

instruction.

The most common grouping for reading in elementary school is the ability-based

groups. According to the philosophy of DI, ability groups should be formed based on a

pre-assessment of the objective of the upcoming lesson or unit. According to the

differentiation teacher who was interviewed, this almost never happens because teachers

do not have time to continually assess their students. The ability groups that were formed

in this research were formed based on standardized test scores that were administered to

students in the fall. The two sets of tests that were used measured students’ vocabulary

49

and comprehension. These test scores were used to assess what level of the book the

students could read for the pioneer unit and the books were chosen based on the subject

matter.

The objectives for this reading unit were numerous. The novels were paired with

the social studies unit on pioneers, and gaining content from the novels was the primary

reasons the particular books were chosen. The students were also working on the skills

needed for participating in a book talk (discussion) and being responsible for completing

homework assignments. The objectives in regards to literary elements in the novels

varied across the groups. All groups were tying to understand elements of a novel, but

the CW group specifically focused on figurative language, the Addie group focused on

plot development, and SPT focused on characters.

While it is appropriate to divide a class to work on different skills, the weakness

with this particular arrangement was that there were so many skills involved in the unit.

It would have been nearly impossible for the teacher to assess students on all of the skills

that were being used in this unit. Also, the skills did not necessarily support the overall

objective. Understanding figurative language was not required to learn about life as a

pioneer. The range and variety of skills involved in this unit made it difficult for teachers

coordinate all objectives. The idea that inspires the unit is not necessarily the skills that

the students will practice when there are so many objectives.

When students participated in the integrated discussion at the end of the unit, it

was clear that the work that had been taken place in the groups had been very specific to

the individual novels. The purpose of the discussion was to learn about each other’s

books and to uncover common themes in pioneer life. However, students had a very

50

difficult time tying this all together because the student experience with the book was

largely driven by the plot of the particular book. All of the students could retell the plot

from their book and identify major events and characters, but there was a general lack of

understanding the difference between a detail and a significant part of the plot structure.

To apply the particular characters and situations to a larger theme or to see the “big

picture” was really not within reach of these students. The discussion across groups

about the theme was limited in its usefulness because students had received limited

instruction on identifying and discussing themes.

Even though the students could read their books, communicating about the books

was a challenge for them. Similar difficulties were found in the reader’s response

assignments. The extended response questions that were intended to assess students’

knowledge of the book became overridden by students’ writing ability. Separating the

content of the writing and the quality of writing proved to be difficult. One student in

particular turned in very poor quality writing assignments. However, he demonstrated

superior skills in reading during group discussions. He was the only student to make

correct inferences and to identify symbolism.

The complexity of skills and the large number of objectives involved in this unit

made it difficult to assess how effective the grouping strategy was in achieving learning

objectives. With each group taking a slightly different focus and only one informal

assessment at the end for the entire group, it was difficult to quantify what had been

accomplished during the unit. It was clear from observations outside of reading groups

that all students did learn about pioneer life from reading their respective books. It is

unclear how the grouping of students contributed to achieving this objective.

51

These groups were somewhat ability-based, but they were not based on a specific

skill. The test scores that were used to group students were based on general reading

skills, like comprehension. Therefore, the groups of students were likely to be

homogenous in regards to a specific skill, like discussing a novel. The groups still

experienced a range of ability and some students would be challenged while others were

not. There was evidence of this difference in ability in the Addie group in written work

as well as in behavior during group discussions. Even with the class divided into three

groups, there was a question of how to differentiate for students within each group.

The primary motivation for this grouping situation was not to work on a specific

skill but to have each student read a book that was at his or her reading level. It is

interesting to note that the students all excelled at comprehending their books and that

reading comprehension scores were the primary basis for forming the groups. Possibly,

the teachers have a general preference toward comprehension as the basis of reading.

However, the results are compatible with the theories on flexible grouping that say that a

teacher should pre-assess and form groups based on the skill to be taught. It stands to

reason that the skill or interest that is common in the group would be the natural focus.

If teachers are going to move beyond basic comprehension as the only skill for

reading, then perhaps the change must begin with the standard ability-based reading

groups based on comprehension tests. Since the only thing these groups inherently have

in common is the ability to read a text and answer comprehension questions, that is most

likely what students will do.

To make more effective ability-based groups, there should be a closer link

between the skill being addressed and the competence of students in this skill when

52

determining the groups. This is not to say that teachers cannot teach more than one skill

per book or unit, but an ability-based group can only focus on a small number of skills to

be effective. Since long-term projects generally use several skills, it is more useful to

create short-term groups within the project to focus on specific skills as appropriate.

High quality children’s literature is a great tool for reading groups because it will contain

a wide range of opportunities for the teacher to connect to the appropriate skill level of all

students. By using a common book for the class, all students can gain the same content

from the book while individuals get practice or instruction in a particular area. In this

way a teacher can differentiate without planning for and teaching separate units to several

groups in the class. It would be useful to extend this research to a reading unit where all

students read the same material.

Different results were observed with the ability groups in the short story

“practice” discussions. There was a clear progression in the level of thinking and

discussion among the groups. The observations of the differences in these groups

indicated that ability grouping can be effective in creating an appropriate level of

challenge for each student. It was clear that students in these groups were interested in

and capable of different types of discussions. Students in the CW group were bored by

questions about the events of the story while students in the SPT group needed to be

guided through the book to understand the plot. It is unclear and worth exploring how

much the books that were chosen and the questions posed by the teacher contributed to

this outcome. It is possible that the book read by the higher group was more appropriate

for a higher level of discussion or that the Quilt Story was a bad choice for the SPT

group. Settling these questions would require further research.

53

The way that each of these discussion groups worked well and students

demonstrated discussion skills on such different levels is because the assignment was

clearly focused on one skill. The students essentially had one question to discuss that

was specifically chosen for that group’s skill level. Based on this study, it seems that

homogeneous-ability grouping is most effect for short-term groups. This is consistent

with the literature which advises teachers who use ability groups to frequently reassess

students and allow mobility between groups.

Social Dynamics

There was no “control group” of non-ability-based reading groups for comparison

during the pioneer unit. However, within this class, there were interactions in which

students chose their own partners for reading. These interactions serve as an indirect

comparison of how students interacted with classmates in non-ability-based groups for

reading activities. Some of the reading groups did contain students of similar ability but

this was not the primary reason for the students working together. Students were allowed

to choose their own partners and reading ability was not seen as a strong indicator of

choice of partner or the success of the groups.

In observing these groups, the researcher was specifically looking for data to

support or refute the literature that indicates that a higher-achieving student paired with a

lower-achieving student will help increase the performance of the lower-achieving

student. The researcher did observe groups where one partner was clearly depended on

the other partner to help read the book. This cooperation allowed the lower student to

successfully read a more challenging book than he or she could have read independently.

54

There were many mixed-ability groups that had similarly positive experiences. It is

important to note that since students were allowed to choose their own partners for this

exercise, so it is not surprising that students has mostly positive experiences. In

situations where students have to work in groups that are chosen by the teacher, no matter

what the difference in ability, there are generally more negative student experiences.

There were few groups who had negative experiences, but there is some evidence

that negative experiences were associated with mixed gender, not mixed-ability groups.

Among the four students who worked with a partner of the opposite gender during one

observation period, only one student wanted to work with the same partner again. It is

difficult to make any conclusions about mixed gender grouping because out of twenty-six

pairs of students over three observation periods, only four were mixed gender. There is

evidence to conclude that in this class gender was a much better predictor of partner

choice and compatibility than ability.

In addition to gender, difference in maturity and social skills also played a

stronger role in how students worked together than reading skills. In the Addie group,

there was one student who was in the middle of the group in terms of reading ability, but

clearly below the other students in behavior. He was disruptive and uncooperative for

many of the discussions. One student actually said to me, “he is wasting our time with

his questions,” showing disgust with his interruptions. However, when another student

whose reading level was at the lower end of the group asked questions about the story,

there were no complaints about disruptions to the conversation. Often these questions

would be the beginning of interesting discussions because the other students in the group

would make comments to help answer the question or ask follow-up questions.

55

Social dynamics are very important to group success. One student, also from the

Addie group, commented the group was fun because “everyone got along and laughed a

lot. And I love to laugh” and one student from CW said, “I liked all the people in my

book group. They were really nice.” The amount of students who gave similar

comments about the groups being fun shows the impact of the group dynamic and group

atmosphere on the students’ perception of the experience. If teachers want students to

have a positive experience in reading groups, it is important to consider the social

dynamics of the group.

The literature claims that more time is directed toward behavior in low-ability

groups, but in this study behavior issues were not limited to low-ability groups. The

biggest behavioral issue was students being prepared with their book and completed

homework, and this was a problem that occurred in all three groups. During the

interview with the DI teacher, she pointed out that many teachers use behavior as a

“gatekeeper” for enrichment opportunities. This tendency may account for the negative

behavior that is often associated with low-ability groups and the high level of cooperation

that is associated with high-ability groups. The groups that were used for this research

were based on test scores, so there may have been more variation of behavior and social

skills than found in a typical class grouping. Regardless of how much weight teachers

give to social and behavioral skills when forming groups, this research indicates that

social factors have a significant impact on group success.

The amount of consideration that teachers give to whether or not students have a

positive experience will vary from teacher to teacher. If the main objective of the

classroom is to “cover” the required curriculum, then teachers may not consider the

56

enjoyment of the reading group as a priority. That would be a mistake, according to Jim

Trelease, who has written about the connection between the quantity of reading done by a

student and academic success. Trelease claims that enjoyable reading experiences will

motivate students to be avid readers, promoting academic success, and eventually

developing into a habit of reading as an adult. The enjoyment of the reading experience

had a strong influence on students in the study, who are encouraged to read for pleasure

on a daily basis. The connection between positive reading experiences and success as a

reader merits further exploration.

Assessment Tools

If a teacher decides to create homogenous ability groups, the method used to

assess students’ abilities can play a significant role in determining the successfulness of

the grouping strategy. The problem with many assessments is that they do not accurately

measure the skills that are primarily used for the learning activity taking place in the

group. It has been established thus far that many skills influence performance in a

reading group and these skills do not always occur in predicable patterns. For example,

one cannot assume that a student with a high comprehension score understands figurative

language. The teacher must make a choice about the criteria he or she will use to form

groups because students would fall into different categories depending on the criteria of

the categories. The teacher’s choice of assessment is the foundation of the structure of

the group.

In this study, test scores were used to create three groups. As previously stated,

these scores reflected general reading ability, not specific skills. Figure 5 reflects the

57

difference within the class and also the difference in scores for students on the two tests.

These two tests are meant to measure the same thing, thus it is concerning that some

students earned significantly different scores on the tests. Variation in test scores for

fluency and comprehension is not surprising, as these are two different skills. However,

the difference in national percentile rankings for ITBS and Scantron indicate that validity

and accuracy of standardized tests can vary, just as with any research instrument.

Teachers need to be educated about what they can accurately conclude about a student

based on test scores.

In this study, having an equal number of students in each group was a factor that

was given too high of a priority to create groups truly based on ability. Students were

assigned to groups based on ranking of general reading skills in the class. The top eight

students were assigned to the most challenging book, the next eight to the mid-level

book, and the bottom eight to the least challenging book. Assuming for a moment that

the ITBS is a valid instrument for determining reading proficiency, consider the test

58

scores.

ITBS Scores by Reading Group

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8student

test score

CW groupAddie groupSPT group

Figure 5. Each colored line represents a reading group and each point represents a student test score. The difference in test scores across the group increases sharply from the high to low group.

Even without considering the one exception for the SPT group (the student score

of 83 who was assigned to the SPT group), there is a significant difference in test score

deviation across the groups. The CW has a range of ten points, the Addie group has a

range of thirty-seven points, and the SPT group has a range of thirty-nine points. Also

consider that the difference between the lowest score in the CW group and the higher

score in the Addie group was one point and two points separated the bottom of the Addie

group and the top of the SPT group. It is difficult to argue that separating the group in

this way created truly homogenous ability groups.

Teachers also need to make choices about what factors will weigh most heavily

on their choices about grouping. Will comprehension be more important than fluency?

59

What about social and behavioral concerns? The answers to these questions will

influence the type of assessment teachers use to create groups. There are also many

other concerns that play into teachers’ decisions that are rarely discussed in the literature.

These include how many books of the desired title are available, how much seating is

available for a small group, and which students will be out of the classroom (for special

services like ELL) during the reading period.

Quality Instruction and Grouping

Math and reading are the two subjects where the most ability grouping takes place

because of a belief that acquisition of skills happens in a sequential manner and that

students must master a skill before moving onto the next skill. In reading, it is generally

believed that children learning to read independently acquire skills in the following order:

decoding, fluency, comprehension, and interpretation. The researcher does not refute that

there is a general development sequence to learning, but disagrees with the belief that

students must master a lower-level skill before moving on to a higher-level skill. For

example, a when students are read to by a more capable reader (peer or adult) they can be

building skills and comprehension without the student mastering the ability to decode

words. This is one of the founding beliefs in DI that has been reinforced in the literature

and in the researcher’s observations that support mixed-ability grouping.

In the observation classroom students are read to every day. This is an example

of all students working on higher-level skills of comprehension and interpretation

regardless of individual ability in fluency or decoding. Some classrooms of the other

third grade classrooms used the read aloud time to read Caddie Woodlawn because it was

60

above the reading level of most students, but the teacher wanted the class to be exposed

to the content. With the teacher’s guidance, this book was accessible to all of the

students.

One of the arguments against ability grouping is that lower-ability groups receive

lower quality instruction than higher-ability groups. Chorzempa and Graham found that

lower-ability groups spend less time reading expository texts and answering critical

comprehension questions (2006, Discussion section ¶ 11) and Terwel found these groups

were taught at a lower cognitive level (2005, p. 655). A whole class activity like reading

aloud overcomes these obstacles to quality instruction for all students. Reading aloud

cannot be the exclusive means of reading instruction, but it can be used to compensate for

differences in reading ability while exposing students to high-quality literature and

critical thinking skills.

It is difficult to compare the quality of instructional across the ability groups in

this study because each group was led by a different teacher. However, it was observed

that all groups did engage in a wide range of activities that concentrated on developing

several types of skills. Students across all groups were required to write, draw, use

dictionaries, cite textual evidence, relate the book to their own life, and answer

comprehension and interpretation questions. The questions reflected a wide range of

skills across all ability groups.

One variable factor was the degree of ambiguity in questions that were assigned

to students. The level of ambiguity in questions asked of students increased from low- to

high-level groups. The CW group was also had fewer projects not related directly to the

book. The Addie group and SPT group had art projects and activities that integrated

61

other disciplines that fit thematically with the book that were not part of the CW group.

Differences in instruction may be attributed to relative ability of students, but it is also

important to consider that Caddie Woodlawn is about twice as long as Sarah, Plain and

Tall or Addie Across the Prairie. The CW group was limited in opportunities to do any

activities beyond reading the book.

The literature previously presented (Saleh, Lazonder, & De Jong, 2005) agrees

that low-ability students perform better in heterogeneous groups and high-ability students

perform better in homogeneous-ability groups. In this study, there was no distinct

difference in student performance. Based on the final mixed group discussion and

speaking to the other teachers, the students across all groups struggled equally with

discussion skills and identifying the critical elements in the structure of their novel. All

students did well with understanding the basic story line and learning about pioneer life.

There were no major differences reported by students on surveys about the amount they

learned during the unit. With no final assessment based on similar skills, it is difficult to

assess the relative success of each group, but based on informal assessment student

achievement was not significantly impacted by the grouping situation.

Other contributing factors

While negative effects of ability grouping are well cited in the literature, the same

effects were not apparent in this study. One possible reason is that structures outside of

the reading groups that were present in this classroom were not present in the studies

presented in the literature. First of all, these reading groups were temporary, whereas

classrooms that use ability grouping often use the same groups for much longer periods,

62

sometimes spanning multiple grade levels. Students in the study class generally engage

in independent reading or whole group reading, not groups. Second, the classroom uses a

balanced approach to reading instruction and reading is integrated throughout the

curriculum. In the observation classroom, there was a stronger emphasis on the pleasure

of reading than the basic skills of reading. The teacher also read to the students on a

daily basis and used this opportunity to build comprehension and interpretation skills.

Third, there were few struggling readers in this class. The students who were struggling

received support outside of the general classroom. All of these factors help build

common skills among students in the class that allow them to engage in similar tasks

despite differences in reading levels.

The observations that are not consistent with the literature are most likely a result

of the overall school curriculum and structure. For teachers who have many students

who are reading below grade level and no reading specialists to support them, the

situation would likely be much different. The teacher would be obligated to provide

remedial instruction to failing students.

In the observation classroom, struggling students went to reading support class

where they practice basic reading skills and strategies that often define low-level ability

groups. Even though these groups are relatively stable, the students get benefits similar

to those in flexible grouping. The students focus on lower level skills with the support

staff and still engage in what the rest of the class is learning in the general classroom.

However, as the amount of time that a student is out of the general classroom increases,

the less the student benefits from inclusion because he or she is missing out on what the

rest of the class is doing during his or her absence.

63

The set up of the class may have also contributed to the lack of social stigmas that

are typically associated with ability grouping (Chorzempa and Graham, 2006). Students

in this class are aware of the differences in ability of students. Students notice the

enrichment group students are often together and that reading levels span a wide range of

books. In regards to this particular reading unit, two students commented on the length

of their book relative to their classmates’ book (on from SPT, one from CW), and one

student believed that he was in a group that was too easy for him (as reported on reading

group surveys). These were the only comments made in reference to difference in ability.

Observations in the final discussion where the reading groups were mixed did not

indicate social stigmas, as students across the groups participated with comparable

enthusiasm. The partner reading surveys also indicate that students willingly and

productively engage in work with classmates of different abilities.

The observed outcomes that differ from conclusions in much of the literature are

logical given the theory from Samuel and Geber’s theory that there is a fixed amount of

difference or change that a fixed system can effectively manage (Huber, Rosenfeld, and

Fiorello, 2001, p. 502). The school in the study was able to tolerate the difference in

student ability better than many of the schools in other studies because of the availability

of resources. By providing a special resource for the special needs of the extremely low-

ability students, the general classroom could more effectively serve a more diverse

population. Although schools are legally required to provide provisions for students with

diagnosed learning disabilities, there is unfortunately no such mandate for serving the

special needs of gifted students. Gifted students may still be underserved in the inclusive

classroom.

64

The effects of classmates in the learning process has been shown to effect how

students learn, but it is only one of many factors that make up the reading curriculum. As

Gamoran and Weinstein (1998) indicate, high-quality instruction supported by resources

is likely to have more impact than a grouping strategy. Class size, access to high-quality

literature, time spent on reading, and so many other factors play a role in a student’s

success in reading. It is important to remember that any strategy is most effective when it

is supported by and compatible with the rest of the curriculum.

65

Conclusion

Recommendation

The conclusion of this research is that the type of grouping used for reading

instruction is not as important as the reason why it is being used. The literature suggests

that most teachers base their strategies on tradition or what they believe to be true about

grouping and that a very small percentage of teachers actually base their decision on

research. The most important thing to remember is that the grouping should be strategic;

it should fulfill a specified purpose.

To successfully implement an effective grouping, the teacher needs to have a

clearly identified objective for the group. When the objective has been identified, the

teacher needs to assess students on their ability to fulfill that learning objective and group

students accordingly. Learning objectives and factors that can contribute to group

success are numerous. A learning objective could include an academic skill, gaining

content, or a social skill. The factors that can influence the group include factors as

varied as academic ability, social maturity, gender, motivation, and interest level in the

topic. Depending on what the teacher hopes the students will accomplish in the group, he

or she must decide how to prioritize these factors. If the teacher chooses different factors

on different occasions, the class will be formed into several different groups over time.

It is also important in flexible grouping to change groups often. It has been

shown that there is no grouping situation that works well for every type of learner,

therefore many types of groups should be used so that all students have the opportunity to

work in a grouping situation that is most appropriate for them. Frequent change also

helps balance the positive and negative effects that are associated with a particular

66

grouping strategy. Finally, when choosing to ability group, teachers should ask how

difference in ability will impact the students’ ability to participate in the given task. If

difference in ability will not inhibit participation, then a strategy other than ability-

grouping may be more appropriate.

Successful group work is also dependent on what happens in the classroom

outside of the groups. Students need to have some common skills, experiences, and

expectations to be able to work well with each other. Having whole class instruction and

using common materials will help maintain cohesiveness of the class and allow for more

options of how students can be grouped. Using common materials is especially feasible

in reading because quality children’s literature provides a rich resource for exploring

many types of reading skills within one book.

It is also important to consider the structure of the school and its curriculum.

Teachers who are required to use specific curriculum, like leveled basal readers, may find

these recommendations more difficult. Many factors in the school outside of the

teacher’s control can influence the reading curriculum. In these cases, it is important for

teachers to be aware of the negative side effects that are common to their grouping

situation. The data shows that negative effects of any type of grouping strategy are not

inherent in the grouping itself and that there is a limit to the effectiveness of any strategy

if it is not supported by the broader curriculum.

Limitations of the study

To make this study more informative, the researcher should have been involved in

more of the reading groups. Either videotaping class sessions or making frequent

67

observations would have been beneficial in comparing the strategies and behaviors across

the groups. The study would have been further improved by expanding it to include a

unit where a different grouping strategy was implemented to be used as a comparison to

the ability-based groups. In particular, the researcher would like to compare outcomes

with the same groups, but with all groups using the same materials.

The study would have also benefited from using more data collected from

students about their experiences, such as surveys and focus groups. The students proved

to be a more valuable resource than expected. More information could have been

gathered about their perceptions and experiences in the reading groups, especially in

regards to motivation.

There was little opportunity to see alternative grouping situations in this

classroom. The focus of the study was on ability-based groups, but there are many other

options that were not studied. Groups based on factors like gender, behavior, or interests

could have been used for comparison. The study also lacked a comparison of groups of

different size. The main focus of this study was whole group instruction (twenty-four

students), small groups of eight students, and partners. There was no opportunity to

observe the impact of different group sizes, which may have had an impact of the

successfulness of groups.

This study could also be expanded to include more classrooms in this school and

in different types of schools. Many of the negative outcomes discussed in the literature

were not present in this classroom, perhaps because the observation classroom was in a

high-achieving school and many of the schools represented in the literature are struggling

schools. More information could be gathered about choosing grouping strategies in a

68

study where more types of classrooms were represented. It is possible that less

successful schools, schools with fewer resources, or schools with different levels of

academic diversity would yield different results.

One of the benefits of observing only one classroom is that the researcher could

become acquainted with all of the students in the class. Knowing how the students

behave in many situations and knowing their work across several disciplines was helpful

in recognizing the uniqueness of each student. The researcher was also knowledgeable of

many aspects of the school and the classroom that contributed to the students’ learning

experience. Many studies where outside researchers have limited contact with students

result in conclusions that attribute any differences in outcomes to the variable being

researched, whereas spending an extended amount of time with these students provided a

more realistic and holistic view of what contributed to students’ work and behavior.

Questions for further research

There were two major topics that were not addressed by the data that were

intended to be part of the study. The first question is how much difference is tolerable in

one classroom. When DI advocates speak of meeting the needs of all learners, should

this statement be qualified or does it really include all students? The idea of inclusion

was generally accepted throughout this study because it is the reality that most teachers

must accept. There was no opportunity to explore a classroom that contained students of

similar abilities. It would be worth comparing the difference between an inclusive

classroom experience and a separate classroom experience of an exceptional student. If

high-quality instruction was provided and best practices were followed in both

69

classrooms, where would this student have a better educational experience? In the same

situation, would his or her classmates’ education be affected?

The second question is related specifically to gifted students. Gifted students are

such a valuable resource in our society, but completely overlooked. The question to be

explored is whether or not gifted students can reach their full potential in a general

classroom. Unlike struggling students, there are virtually no provisions to meet the needs

of gifted students. What is the school’s obligation to gifted students and how can it be

fulfilled?

The issue of motivation surfaced during the course of the study. Factoring in the

quality of the experience from the perception of the student may be an underestimated

factor in reading success. Since the amount of time spent reading is related to the amount

of success at reading, it is important for students to be motivated to read. Lack of

motivation is a problem that affects all types of students, but it is especially dominant in

high-achieving students. Motivation is a significant factor which has been given little

attention in the debate on increasing literacy which should be studied more thoroughly.

70

References

Baglieri, S., & Knopf, J.H. (2004). Normalizing difference in inclusive teaching.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 525 – 529.

Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., Bassett. P., & Chowne, A. (2006). TheEffect of a new approach to group work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology. 98(4), 750 – 765.

Castle, S., & Deniz, C.B. (2005). Flexible grouping and student learning in a high-needs school. Education and Urban Society, 37(2), 139 – 150.

Chorzempa, B. F., & Graham, S. (2006). Primary grade teachers’ use of within-class ability grouping in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,529 – 541.

Gamoran, A. & Weinstein, M. (1998). Differentiation and opportunity in restructured schools. American Journal of Education. May, 385 – 415.

Huber, K.D., Rosenfeld, J.G., & Fiorello, C.A. (2001). The differential impact of Inclusion and inclusive practices on high, average, and low-achieving general education students. Psychology in the Schools. 38(6), 497 – 504.

Powell, W., & Napoliello, S. (2005). Using observation to improve instructionEducational Leadership, February, 52 – 55.

Rangel, C. (2007). The cost of even one child left behind is too much. The Hill. Retrieved February 3. 2007 from. http://www.hillnews.com.

Saleh, M., Lazonder, A.W., & De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-classgrouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. InstructionalScience, 33, 105 – 119.

Stamps, L.S., (2004). The effectiveness of curriculum compacting in first grade classrooms. Roeper Review, 27(1), 31 – 41.

Trelease, J. (2006). The Read Aloud Handbook. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Terwel, J. (2005). Curriculum differentiation: Multiple perspectives and development in education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(6), 653 – 670.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 262 – 269.

71

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC Digest. Retrieved November 11, 2006 from, http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-2/elementary.html.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of allLearners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

U.S. department of education (1998). IDEA ’97 general information. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from , http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/geninfo.html.

Winebrenner, S. (2000). Gifted students need an education, too. Educational Leadership. September, 52 – 56.

Woelfel, K.D. (2003). Alternatives to social promotion or retention. Principal. December, 50 -54.

72

Appendix

Distributed to students for discussion on 3-2-07

Prairie Novel Discussion Guide

1) What does it mean to be brave?

2) Who is the main character in your book? Describe him or her to the group. Tell his or her story so that the children who didn’t read your book understand a little bit about the story you read.

3) Discuss how your character was brave. Give direct examples from the book. Remember to give some background that explains when this happened in the story so that your group members aren’t confused.

4) How can you connect the bravery of your main character to the bravery of another main character?

5) How are you brave? Would you have been brave in the same ways that the main characters were from the books we read?

73

Interview Protocol Interview with Gifted Teacher (GT)

What is your teaching background?

Are you specifically interesting in teaching gifted students? If yes, why?

What’s different about working with gifted students? What are the unique challenges?

How do you define giftedness? What are other ways that you have seen giftedness defined?

Does the gifted label create unnecessary pressure or stigma for students?

Are you an advocate for separate or inclusive education?

What are your thoughts about the resources spent on special education versus gifted education?

Do you find academic diversity in a gifted classroom? How do you accommodate the range of abilities and interests in the classroom?

Do you use ability grouping in the gifted classroom?

Other comment?

74

Interview ProtocolDifferentiation Instructor (DI)March 3, 2007

What is you role at the school? What is you background?

How do you collaborate with or provide support to classroom teachers?

Does the scope of your work include low, as well as high , ability level students?

What types of students do you work with most often? Who chooses which students are sent to you?

Other than you, what resources are available to support classroom teachers efforts to differentiate instruction?

What does it mean for a students to be identified as gifted?What is the identification process? What are the implications of this label?What do you think about the validity of this process?

How do you define differentiation? How is DI different from pullout programs from enrichment or resource?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the district’s DI policy?

Reading Group Questions

What were your objectives for the prairie novel unit?

What was the biggest struggle in your group?

What were you able to do with this group of students that you could not do with a mixed-ability group?

75

Partner reading surveys

Questions for Partner Reading

Date______________

Your name__________________________ Partner’s name________________________

Title of book(s) you read____________________________________________________

1. Did you work well with your partner?

yes could do better no

2. Did you do a good job of evenly dividing the reading?

yes could do better no

3. Did you help your partner understand the story or pronounce new words?

yes sometimes no

4. Did your partner help you with understand or with words you did not know?

yes sometimes no

5. Would you like to work with this partner again?

yes maybe no

What would you like me to know about your partner reading today?

76

Prairie Novel group surveys

For 1 – 5 circle the best answer to complete each sentence

1. I read the book: Addie Across the Prairie Caddie Woodlawn Sarah Plain and Tall

2. How did this book fit your reading level? The book was:

too easy easy at my level a good challenge too difficult

3. Doing the homework was:

too easy easy at my level a good challenge too difficult

4. The activities was did in class were:

too easy easy at my level a good challenge too difficult

5. I think I learned:

nothing a little some a lot too much

For questions 6 – 10 you can write about anything that is connected to the prairie novel. This includes activities you did in class, homework, and the book you read. Please be specific. For example: The most challenging part of the prairie novel unit was writing the reader’s responses.

6.What I liked best about the prairie novel unit was_______________________________

________________________________________________________________________

7. What I didn’t like about the prairie novel unit was ____________________________

________________________________________________________________________

8. The most challenging part of the prairie novel unit was ________________________

________________________________________________________________________

10. Another thing I would like to say about my book group is ____________________

________________________________________________________________________

77

Consent form*portions of this form have been altered out of consideration of participants’ privacy

January 25, 2007Dear Parents and Guardians,

I would like to introduce myself to you. My name is Jennifer Hains and I am a graduate student in the School of Education at XXXXXXX University. I was in CT ‘s class earlier this year to do observations, and I have returned to do my student teaching here. I have enjoyed the time I have spent with this wonderful group of students and I am looking forward to becoming more involved in the classroom over the next two months.

As a student teacher in your child’s classroom, I am required to do several assignments that involve gathering information from the classroom about my teaching as well as the students. This letter is to ask permission for your child’s participation in the research I am completing for my master’s degree requirements and teaching certification. The ways your child may be involved in my research are as follows:

Students may appear in videotapes of the class Students may be photographed as part of the class Samples of student work or assessments may be collected Students may complete brief surveys or interviews about their

experiences in school Observations of student learning and behavior may be cited

All research gathered will be used solely for educational purposes and will only be shared with my colleagues in an academic setting. Students will not be subjected to any treatment that would be considered physically, psychologically, or academically harmful. Participation in this research will not require any participation outside of the regular school day, nor will students be absent from classroom instruction. All of my interactions with students will be in compliance with standard school policies.

Procedures to protect the identity of students will be followed. Students’ names will be replaced with pseudonyms for any public presentation of this research. All research material will be kept under my control. No images of or references to your child will be published or appear on the internet. Your student can be excluded from all or parts of this research if you so choose. Please complete and return the attached consent form to indicate any restrictions on your child’s participation. Failure to return

78

this form by Tuesday January 30, 2007 will be considered as consent for your child’s full participation.

If you have questions about the purposes of this research, you may contact the following faculty members at xxxxxx University:Dr. xxx, course instructor, (xxx)xxx-xxxx orDr. xxx, Director of the Master of Science Program, (xxx)xxx-xxxx.

You may also contact me or CT for specific questions or concerns by calling the school. I may also be reached by email at xxx@xxx.xxx.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any concerns about this research or my presence in your child’s classroom. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jennifer HainsStudent teacherMSEd student, XXXXXX University

79

Research Participation Consent FormPlease return by Tuesday, January 30

I do / do not give my consent for ______________________________________ to (circle one) student’s name

be involved in academic research conducted by Jennifer Hains.

Please do not involve this student in:

check all that apply

_____ videotaping

_____ photography

_____ collection of work or assessments

_____ interviews

_____ surveys

_____ observations

_____ other (please specify)________________________________

__________________________________________ _______________signature of parent/guardian date

80

List of Children’s books referred to in this study. Book summaries are those provided by the publishers.

Brink, C.R. (2003). Caddie Woodlawn. Mass Market Paperbacks.

Caddie Woodlawn, which has been captivating young readers since 1935, was awarded the John Newbery Medal for the most distinguished contribution to American literature for children. Children everywhere will love redheaded Caddie with her penchant for pranks. Scarcely out of one scrape before she is into another, she refuses to be a "lady," preferring instead to run the woods with her brothers. Whether she is crossing the lake on a raft, visiting an Indian camp, or listening to the tales of the circuit rider, Caddie's adventures provide an exciting and authentic picture of life on the Wisconsin frontier in the 1860s. And readers will discover, as Caddie learns what growing up truly means, that it is not so very different today.

Howard, E. & Himler, R. (1996). The log cabin quilt. Holiday House, Inc.

When Elvirey and her family move to a log cabin in the Michigan woods, something even more important than Granny's quilt pieces makes the new dwelling a home.

Johnston, T. (1996). The quilt story. Penguin Young Readers Group.

Long ago, a young girl named Abigail put her beloved patchwork quilt in the attic. Now years later, another girl discovers the quilt and makes it her own, relying on its warmth to help her feel secure in a new home. "A quilt that provides warmth, fun and comfort to two different generations is the star of this rich picture book . . . dePaola provides a warm, dignified interpretation of Johnston's story."--Booklist, starred review.

Lawlor, L. (1991). Addie across the prairie. Simon and Schuster Children’s Publishing.

Nobody said pioneering would be easy!

Addie's a pioneer now in the vast Dakota territory, far from her friend Eleanor and Iowa. And now she must care for her youngest brother as Ma, Pa, and the older boys and Mr. and Mrs. Fency leave to build a home before winter comes. She's all alone with two year-old Burt when the terrifying prairie fire begins!

How can she save herself and little Burt before the raging fire steals their home and their lives!

MacLachlan, P. (2005). Sarah, plain and tall. Thomson Gale.

81

"I will come by train. I will wear a yellow bonnet. I am plain and tall."

A heartwarming story about two children, Anna and Caleb, whose lives are changed forever when their widowed papa advertises for a mail-order bride. Sarah Elisabeth Wheaton from Maine answers the ad and agrees to come for a month. Sarah brings gifts from the sea, a cat named Seal, and singing and laughter to the quiet house. But will she like it enough to stay? Anna and Caleb wait and wonder -- and hope.

Polacco, P. (2001). The keeping quilt. Simon & Schuster Children’s Publishing.

When Patricia's Great-Gramma Anna came to America as a child, the only things she brought along from Russia were her dress and the babushka she liked to throw up into the air when she was dancing. Soon enough, though, Anna outgrew the dress and her mother decided to incorporate it and the babushka into a quilt. "It will be like having a family in backhome Russia dance around us at night," she said. And so it was. Together with her Uncle Vladimir's shirt, Aunt Havalah's nightdress, and an apron of Aunt Natasha's, Anna's mother made a quilt that would be passed down through their family for almost a century. From one generation to the next, the quilt was used as a Sabbath tablecloth, a wedding canopy, and a blanket to welcome each new child into the world.

The Keeping Quilt, Patricia Polacco's signature piece, was first published in 1988 and won the Sydney Taylor Book Award from the Association of Jewish Libraries. This edition has been expanded to include Patricia's two children, who have also been able to share in the family tradition by using the quilt for birthdays and for play. Now a new generation of readers will come to cherish this heartwarming story of one family's special symbol of enduring love and faith in family, and the quilt that remains a symbol of their enduring love and faith.

82