boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd

Grouping by Ability

Within-class Ability Grouping

Between-class Ability Grouping

Flexible Grouping Methods

Grouping Practices

Outline Learning Goals

Discuss the pros and cons of within-class and between-class ability grouping.

Discuss the advantages of

ﬂexible grouping methods.

Identify the characteristics of cooperative learning and discuss the effectiveness of this approach.

Applications: Best Practices

Elementary School: Using Within-class

Ability Grouping Effectively

Middle School and High School: To Track or Not to Track

Using Cooperative Learning Effectively

Describe effective practices for addressing student differences in elementary and secondary education and for

implementing cooperative learning.

Summary Key Concepts Case Studies: Re

ﬂect and Evaluate

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 372

10/9/08 9:03:43 AM

Within-Class Ability Grouping. This method is commonly used in
elementary schools for teaching reading and math.

module twenty-one

grouping practices

373

Grouping

Practices

Module 21 :

A primary challenge for teachers is resolving how to deal with
differences in their students’ prior knowledge and achievement
levels. When students in a group show variation on an attribute, such
as achievement or ability, it is called heterogeneity. When little
variability occurs among students on an attribute, it is referred to as
homogeneity. Historically, the ﬁrst attempt at reducing heterogeneity
among children was the transition from the one-room schoolhouse to
grouping by age, now called grades. Grouping by age, an innovation
of the nineteenth century, still left a great deal of variability in
student ability within each grade (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).

Starting around 1900 and through most of the twentieth century,

ability grouping was a common practice for reducing heterogeneity
(Barr, 1995; Mills & Durden, 1992). Ability grouping is a method of
creating groups of students who are homogeneous in achievement or
ability. Cooperative learning, a more recent approach, is a method
of grouping students to work collaboratively, that typically involves
mixing students of different achievement levels within each group.
Although students within ability groups also may work
collaboratively, ability grouping creates a more competitive
atmosphere than does cooperative learning. The segregation of
students into distinct groups of higher- and lower-achievers often
results in higher- and lower-achievers experiencing different
teacher expectations and working toward different learning goals,
usually with different curricula (Weinstein, 1993).

The distinction between ability grouping and cooperative learning

does not necessarily mean that one grouping structure is better than
the other. In choosing a grouping structure to address heterogeneity in
student ability, teachers need to consider many factors, both academic
and socioemotional. Let’s examine the different approaches and
discuss some best practices for grouping students.

GROUPING BY ABILITY

The aim of ability grouping is to enhance learning for students of all
ability levels by allowing teachers to adapt learning goals, activities
and materials, and the pace of instruction to meet the speciﬁc needs of
students within each particular group or class. When ability grouping
is implemented correctly, students of all ability levels show

achievement gains (Fielder, Lange, & Winebrenner, 1993; Shields,
1995; Slavin & Madden, 1989). Students from minority groups and
economically disadvantaged backgrounds also beneﬁt from
well-implemented ability grouping (Lynch & Mills, 1990).

Teachers may decide whether to use ability grouping based partly

on their beliefs about the approach (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006).
Beliefs aside, in order to objectively evaluate the beneﬁts of ability
grouping, we should consider two key questions:
  1. How effective is ability grouping?
  2. Are the advantages (and disadvantages) of ability grouping the same for all students?

Within-class Ability Grouping

Within-class ability grouping is the practice of dividing students
within a self-contained classroom into groups that are homogeneous
in ability. This type of grouping is common practice for reading
instruction—and sometimes math instruction—in the elementary
grades. For example, a teacher might divide the class into high-,
average-, and low-achieving groups for reading, devoting time to
each group for read-aloud and comprehension activities while
students from other reading groups complete independent seat work.
While within-class ability grouping still is commonly used for
reading instruction in the early grades, current trends show a
movement toward whole-class reading instruction (Baumann,
Hoffman, Duffy-Hester, & Moon Ro, 2000; Chorzempa & Graham,
2006).

Research has shown that within-class ability grouping has positive

effects on student learning compared to other methods.

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 373

10/9/08 9:03:48 AM

374

cluster six

classroom management and instruction

Within-class ability grouping generally is more effective than traditional teacher-led

whole-class instruction, heterogeneous grouping, or individual seat work (Kulik & Kulik,
1992; Lou et al., 1996).

It is also more effective than individualized mastery learning (Lou et al., 1996). Mastery

learning is a practice in which teachers present a lesson and test students. Students who
fail to meet a preset mastery criterion (e.g., 80% on the test) receive additional
instruction, while students who exceed the criterion do enrichment activities.

Ability grouping for math and science, in particular, is more effective than heterogeneous

instruction (Lou et al., 1996). Math and science instruction, more than other disciplines,
is hierarchical, meaning that new concepts and skills often build on earlier content.
Within-class ability grouping allows teachers to speciﬁcally tailor instruction to the

current achievement level of students in each group. In mixed-ability classes, in contrast,
math instruction may cover some material that lower-ability students have not yet learned
and higher-ability students have already mastered.
While ability grouping does not appear to have detrimental effects on students’

self-esteem, it does promote the achievement of some students over that of others (Kulik &
Kulik, 2004). Students from higher ability groups and gifted students beneﬁt most from
within-class ability grouping (Kulik & Kulik, 1990, 1992). Average students tend to beneﬁt
some from ability grouping, while lower-achieving students beneﬁt more from
heterogeneous grouping (Lou et al., 1996). Thus, a major criticism of ability grouping is that
it widens the gap between high and low achievers (Calfee & Brown, 1979; Hiebert, 1983;
Moody, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1997).

The gap between ability groups may widen partly because students in lower and higher

groups receive different levels and paces of instruction. Compared to students in higher
reading groups, students in lower reading groups spend more time reading orally and being
read to by the teacher, spend less time reading silently, and spend more time on rote learning
of skills than on comprehension, discussion, and interpretation (Allington, 1983; Chorzempa
& Graham, 2006). Teachers also tend to interrupt oral reading to correct errors more often
with students in lower reading groups, slowing the pace of instruction (Allington, 1980,
1983). As a consequence, students in different ability groups get different amounts of
practice (Biemiller, 1977/1978; Juel, 1988; Nagy & Anderson, 1984). Students in higher
groups read about three to four times as many words per day as those in lower groups
(Allington, 1984; Biemiller, 1977/1978). Grouping students for reading, coupled with more
out-of-school reading practice by good readers than by below-average readers, creates a
so-called Matthew effect—above-average readers increase their reading achievement at a
faster rate than below-average readers (Stanovich, 1986).

In addition, within-class ability grouping seriously disadvantages minority students and

students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Students from higher socioeconomic
backgrounds usually make up the highest ability groups, while students from lower-income
families or from minority groups typically are placed in lower ability groups (Chunn, 1989).
Many factors may inﬂuence these placement decisions, including teacher expectations, past
performance, and standardized test scores.

Mastery: See page 361.

Between-class Ability Grouping

Between-class ability grouping (also called tracking) is a common practice in high school and sometimes middle
school, in which students are placed into homogeneous classes based on their level of achievement. Depending on
the district or school, a student’s past grades or test scores in a single subject (e.g., math or language arts) may be
used to determine placement in a track, or a combination of scores or grades from several subjects may be used.
Students’ ability group placement in elementary school is often another criterion for determining placement in
middle school or high school (Moore & Davenport, 1988; Rist, 1970; Rosenbaum, 1980). A student who was in the
low reading group in elementary school is likely to be placed in a lower track in middle school or high school. Based
on the selected criteria, students are assigned to curriculum tracks (e.g., honors, college prep,

Matthew Effect. Good readers, like the boy shown here, read more often outside of school and increase their reading skills at a
faster rate than below-average readers.

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 374

10/9/08 9:03:53 AM

module twenty-one

grouping practices

375

Schedule for a high track:

remedial/vocational) in which all their classes—English, math, science, history, and so on—are with students of
similar ability. Figure 21.1 shows a sample schedule for a student in a high track and a student in a low track.

One criticism of tracking is that it reinforces racial and socioeconomic segregation. As discussed earlier,

students from minority groups and impoverished backgrounds frequently are placed into lower ability groups in
elementary school. Because tracking decisions in middle school and high school are based partly on past group
placement in elementary school, students who are African American, Latino, or Native American and students from
low-income    environments    are disproportionately assigned to lower tracks (Darling-Hammond, 1995;
Loveless, 1999; Oakes, 1992).

Before discussing the effects of tracking on students, we should remember that the effects are caused

not by tracking itself but by the different experiences students have in their respective tracks. Tracking affects
higher- and lower-achieving students differently partly because of the different approaches teachers use (Gamoran,
1992; Wheelcock, 1992). Students in gifted programs, honors classes, and advanced placement courses clearly
beneﬁt from tracking (Kulik & Kulik, 2004; Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998). Teachers use different instructional
approaches with gifted students than they do with students who are not gifted, providing enrichment and accelerated
instruction that have been shown to be effective in teaching gifted students (Brown, 1993; Rogers, 2002). Teachers
of higher-track students (Finley, 1984; Oakes, 1985, 1990b):

spend more time preparing lessons,

use more interesting instructional materials,

give more demanding and longer reading assignments,

present more complex material, and

convey more enthusiasm in their teaching.

In contrast, students in lower tracks often are offered fewer courses in English, math, and science
(Darling-Hammond, 1995; Loveless, 1999). Their classes also are characterized by low-level instruction, rote drills,
and a lack of higher-level content (Banks, 2006; Gamoran, 1990; Oakes, 1992). As a result, tracking leads to a clear
academic advantage for students in high tracks.

Research indicates that students in middle and lower tracks experience a small disadvantage due to tracking

(Kulik & Kulik, 2004). However, looking at the overall effects of tracking—by comparing higher-track and
lower-track students—does not give the entire picture. The effects of tracking vary depending on factors such as
subject matter and gender.

In some subjects that are hierarchical, such as math, tracking may beneﬁt even students in the lower tracks.

Research on approximately 1,052 schools and 24,000 students in middle school indicates that tracking has a positive
effect on math achievement for students of all ability levels (Mulkey, Catsambis, Steelman, & Crain, 2005). This
ﬁnding supports previous research indicating that middle school students in mixed-ability (nontracked) algebra
classes did not learn as much as students in tracked algebra classes (Epstein & MacIver, 1992).

Tracking also may affect males and females differently. In middle school, high-achieving males tend to have

lower aspirations than high-achieving females when tracked for English and math (Catsambis,

Name: Darcy Lindquist Homeroom Teacher: Ms. Benoit

English: Honors English Composition Math: Algebra II Science: Biology Foreign Language: Honors Spanish I Elective: American

Government

Grouping

Practices

Module 21 :

Level: Freshman Homeroom Number: 214

Schedule for School Year 2009

–2010

Schedule for a low track:

Name: David Holmes Homeroom Teacher: Mrs. Klein

English: Freshmen Composition Math: Introduction to Algebra Science: Physical Sciences Foreign Language: Spanish I Elective:

American Government

Level: Freshman Homeroom Number: 211

Schedule for School Year 2009

–2010

Figure 21.1: Class Schedules for a High-track Student and a Low-track Student. Students in higher and lower tracks
experience different curricula and teacher expectations.

Giftedness: See page 413.

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 375

10/9/08 9:03:56 AM

376

cluster six

classroom management and instruction

Mulkey, & Crain, 1999, 2001). In math—a subject considered to be a
“male domain”—high-achieving females spend more time on
homework, perhaps because they work harder to compete with their

male peers. In contrast, males—who place a greater emphasis on
social comparisons in male achievement domains—may no longer
feel superior to other students when they are placed in higher tracks
because they now are grouped with peers of comparable ability
(Catsambis et al., 2001; Schwalbe & Staples, 1991). Low-achieving
male students placed in low tracks have more positive feelings than
do low-achieving females (Catsambis et al., 2001).

Tracking thus may actually have a small positive effect on the

self-esteem of students in lower tracks and a small negative effect on
the self-esteem of students in higher tracks (Kulik & Kulik, 1992,
2004; Mulkey et al., 2005). Students in higher tracks may experience
more negative feelings due to greater competition for grades and
comparisons to other high-achieving students (Mulkey et al., 2005).
This contradicts a popular belief that students in lower tracks may
suffer lower self-esteem due to labeling.

Imagine that you teach at a school that uses ability grouping.
What are the disadvantages of ability grouping at the grade level
you teach? How might you deal with these when teaching your
students?

Flexible Grouping Methods

Flexible grouping methods can be used as alternatives to ability
grouping. Like ability grouping, ﬂexible grouping methods reduce the
heterogeneity in skill level among students, allowing teachers to tailor
instruction to the needs and ability levels of students. Unlike
within-class grouping and tracking, however, ﬂexible approaches
allow for greater movement of students between ability groups as
their achievement changes and thereby avoid the stigmatization of
becoming stuck in a low group.

Regrouping is a method in which students receive reading or math

instruction in homogeneous groups based on their current skill level
but remain in heterogeneous classrooms for all other subjects (Slavin,
1987b). For example, if two second-grade classes have reading at the
same time each day, students would go to separate classes, each
designed for a speciﬁc reading level. Students may be grouped and
regrouped continuously as their achievement changes. Regrouping
reduces the number of reading or math groups to one whole-class
group, alleviating common problems of within-class ability grouping
such as the need to manage various groups and assign independent
seat work and the stigmatization of students in rigid ability groups
(Gutiérrez & Slavin, 1992; Slavin, 1987b). Regrouping has positive
effects on achievement when it is implemented for only one or two
subjects and when the curriculum and the pace of instruction are
modiﬁed to meet students’ ability levels (Gutiérrez & Slavin, 1992;
Mason & Good, 1993; Slavin, 1987a).

Several nongraded plans organize students ﬂexibly into

homogeneous groups across grade or age levels (Gutiérrez & Slavin,
1992). Cross-grade grouping is the simplest form of nongraded
plans. Students from different grades are assigned to homogeneous
groups based on their reading or math achievement level, and each
group works with different curricular materials and different methods
(Kulik & Kulik, 1992). Because cross-grade grouping involves many
more groups than within-class ability grouping, it allows for group
placement and instruction that closely match students’ skill levels

(Kulik & Kulik, 2004). For example, in the ﬁrst and best-known
cross-grade grouping plan—the Joplin plan (Floyd, 1954)—fourth
through sixth graders were assigned to homogeneous groups that
ranged from second- to ninth-grade reading levels (Kulik & Kulik,
2004). Students in cross-grade grouping, particularly lower-achieving
students, show small achievement gains over students in
mixed-ability instruction (Kulik & Kulik, 2004). Gifted students
beneﬁt from cross-grade grouping because it enables them to interact
with peers of the same ability level (Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1993).

On a wider scale, students may be grouped ﬂexibly for multiple

subjects, or entire schools may be structured as nongraded, multiage
classrooms (Gutiérrez & Slavin, 1992; Slavin 1987a). In multiage
classrooms, students of varying ages (e.g., 8, 9, and 10) are grouped
within a classroom based on their current achievement, motivation,
and interests. This structure reduces heterogeneity among students
and fosters a developmentally appropriate curriculum (Gutiérrez &
Slavin, 1992; Lloyd, 1999). Consistent with the aims of nongraded
plans, this grouping approach beneﬁts student achievement and does
not negatively affect socialization or psychosocial adjustment
(Gutiérrez & Slavin, 1992; Rogers, 1991). Students in nongraded,
multiage classes like school better and have a more developed
interpersonal intelligence than do students in graded classes
(Anderson & Pavan, 1993; Goodlad & Anderson, 1987; Veenman,
1995).

Note that multiage classes are distinct from multigrade classes.

Multigrade classes, also called combination classes or split-grade
classes, are an administrative tool for combining grades to address

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 376

10/9/08 9:03:57 AM

module twenty-one

grouping practices

377

Cooperative learning as a

constructive teaching method: See page 365.

declining enrollments or uneven class sizes (Lloyd, 1999; Veenman,
1997). Students in these classes are exposed to different curricula and
therefore maintain separate grade levels. No achievement beneﬁts are
to be gained from multigrade classrooms in which students from
different grades are taught by the same teacher but separate curricula
and grade levels are maintained (Veenman, 1997).

As a student, would you prefer

ﬂexible grouping methods over

ability grouping? What about as a teacher? Why or why not?

COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Cooperative learning, a method of grouping students to work
collaboratively, has become an increasingly popular approach in
elementary school through high school education, used by teachers
about 7% to 20% of the time (Johnson & Johnson, 1986). This
approach differs from group work, in which students work in groups
but do not necessarily need to work cooperatively. Also, in
cooperative learning, as opposed to group work, groups typically are
heterogeneous, consisting of low-, average-, and high-achieving
students (Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Slavin, 1980).

Characteristics of Cooperative Learning

For group work to be considered cooperative learning, it must contain
these ﬁve elements (Johnson & Johnson, 1999):
  1. Positive interdependence.
  2. Individual and group accountability.    3. Face-to-face interaction.
  4. Interpersonal skills.
  5. Group processing.

Positive interdependence is the most important factor to consider

when structuring a cooperative learning task (Johnson & Johnson,
1998; Slavin, 1991). Positive interdependence, a sense of “sink or
swim together,” can be implemented by (Johnson & Johnson, 1986):

establishing a group goal specifying that all group members must achieve their learning goals,

providing rewards based on the success of the group (e.g., giving

a group grade, bonus points, or tangible rewards when all group
members achieve their goals),

distributing limited resources so that cooperation is required,

assigning each member a speciﬁc role in the group project, or

dividing the work so that one member’s assignment is necessary

for the next member to complete his or her assignment.

Individual and group accountability, the second most important

element in cooperative learning, refers to a sense of personal
responsibility to the group (Johnson & Johnson, 1990). Because
students are graded or rewarded as a group (group accountability),
individual students are held accountable for completing their share of
the work and for helping others work toward achieving the group
goals (individual accountability). Accountability can be achieved in a
variety of ways, such as randomly selecting one student’s product to
represent the group or testing all members on the material they were
learning in the group and then averaging the scores (Johnson &
Johnson, 1986).

Cooperative learning also requires face-to-face interaction and

interpersonal skills. Beyond simply working together, face-to-face
interaction requires students to provide each other with effective help
and feedback to improve performance, exchange resources
effectively, challenge each other’s reasoning, and motivate each other
to achieve goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1990). To that end, students
need to have interpersonal skills such as trust, communication,
decision making, leadership, and conﬂict resolution. Rather than
assume that students possess these skills, teachers should teach and
monitor these skills, especially in the elementary grades. They also
should include interpersonal skills as objectives of a cooperative
learning activity and discuss the collaborative skills needed for
students to work successfully in their groups.

Cooperative learning ends not with the completion of the activity

but with group processing. In group processing, students identify
what was helpful and not helpful and make decisions about what

Grouping

Practices

Module 21 :

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 377

10/9/08 9:03:57 AM

378

cluster six

classroom management and instruction

to change before moving on to the next task.
Allowing time for group processing is necessary if cooperative
learning is to be effective (Johnson & Johnson, 1990).

Teachers can structure cooperative group activities differently

for different purposes (Slavin, 1987b):
1.      Johnson    methods    (named    after    creators
David and Roger Johnson): Students work together on a joint
activity in groups having the characteristics just discussed (Johnson
& Johnson, 1975, 1978). For example, a middle school English
teacher who has just ﬁnished a lecture on poetic devices and
ﬁgurative language may arrange students in cooperative groups and
assign each group a set of poems to compare and contrast, ending
with a group presentation to the class. To be effective, groups should
be heterogeneous and consist of three or four students (Lou et al.,
1996;    Marzano,    Pickering,    &    Pollack, 2005). Teachers can
create mixed groups based on criteria such as ability, interests,
gender, or ethnicity.
2.      Jigsaw    method:    Jigsaw    was    designed    to provide an
opportunity for interdependence and cooperation among students
from culturally diverse backgrounds (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan,
Sikes, & Snapp, 1978). Each group member becomes an “expert” on
one piece of an assignment and teaches the other members so the
assignment can be completed collaboratively. Everyone’s
contribution is important, and each member contributes to the
attainment of a common goal (Aronson, 2000; Aronson et al., 1978).
For example, fourth-grade students studying the underground
railroad might be assigned different topics for a cooperative project,
such as the lives of slaves, routes that slaves took to freedom, roles
of the abolitionists, and the role of Harriet Tubman.
  3. Skills-focused methods: Students in mixed-ability groups study
reading, mathematics, or other academic material and are rewarded
based on the achievement of all group members. Examples of
several of these methods are shown in Table 21.1.

Have you participated in group work or cooperative learning? Did
you

ﬁnd either of these beneﬁcial? Why or why not?

Is Cooperative Learning Effective?

Cooperative learning beneﬁts student achievement more than
competitive teaching methods, which have students compete for high
grades or best scores, and more than individualistic methods, which
have students work alone on tasks (Johnson & Johnson, 1998;
Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981). Also, students

in cooperative learning situations (Johnson & Johnson, 1990, 1998;
Johnson, Skon, & Johnson, 1980):

spend more time on tasks,

are willing to take on more difﬁcult tasks,

show persistence on tasks despite difﬁculties,

exhibit positive attitudes, and

demonstrate higher-level reasoning, creative thinking, and

long-term retention and transfer of what was learned.

But is cooperative learning beneﬁcial for everyone?

The Lives of

Slaves

Routes that
Slaves Took to Freedom

Roles of the Abolitionists

Jigsaw Method. Each group member is responsible for a piece of the
assignment.

The Role of

Harriet Tubman

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 378

10/9/08 9:03:58 AM

module twenty-one

grouping practices

379

TA B L E 2 1 .1

Skills-based Cooperative Methods Cooperative method

Characteristics Student Teams

–Achievement Division (STAD)

Four-member teams

that are heterogeneous in ability, gender, SES, and ethnicity.

Group members study together until all members master the

material.

Based on improvement over past quiz scores, each student

contributes points to an overall team score.

Individual high scores and team rankings are recognized in a

classroom newsletter.
Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT)

Students earn points for

their team by playing in weekly tournaments against members of
other teams with similar ability.

Individual winners and highest-scoring teams are recognized in

a newsletter.

Team Assisted Individualization (TAI)

Used for mathematics skills.

Four- to

ﬁve-member teams that are heterogeneous in ability.

Team members complete a series of math units at their own

pace, with teammates working in pairs to check each other

’s

worksheets.

Test scores and number of tests completed in a week contribute

to a team score.

Certi

ﬁcates are given for improvement over preset team

standards of performance.

Used for reading and writing/language arts.

Heterogeneous groups are formed by matching pairs of

students from one reading level (e.g., above-average) with pairs
of students from another reading level (e.g., average).

In cooperative learning groups, students complete indepen

dent reading requirements and work on reading assignments and
integrated language arts/writing assignments.

Sources: DeVries & Edwards, 1974; Slavin, 1978, 1986; Slavin, Leavey, & Madden, 1984; Slavin,
Madden, & Stevens, 1990; Stevens, Madden, Slavin, & Farnish, 1987.

Grouping

Practices

Module 21 :

Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition model (CIRC)

Cooperative learning tends to beneﬁt low-achieving students most

and gifted students least. Low-achieving students from elementary
through high school beneﬁt from cooperative learning both
academically and socially in subjects such as English, math, science,
and social studies (Schachar, 2003). Gifted students, however, do not
beneﬁt from cooperative learning activities involving groups of mixed
abilities (Feldhusen & Moon, 1992; Fielder et al., 1993). Rather,
gifted students who spend at least part of the school day in
homogeneous groups show greater achievement than gifted students
who are grouped heterogeneously (Kulik & Kulik, 1987).

Gender and ethnicity also are factors to consider when evaluating

the effectiveness of cooperative learning. Girls and minorities beneﬁt
more from cooperative and hands-on activities in math than do boys
(Peterson & Fennema, 1985). Students who are African American,
Native American, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Southeast Asian,
or Paciﬁc Islander tend to beneﬁt from cooperative learning activities
(García, 1995; Losey, 1995; Miller, 1995). Cooperative structures
more closely match the family values and practices of these groups,
emphasizing cooperative rewards and group achievements (García,
1992; Lomawaima, 2003). Cooperative activities also may be helpful
for second-language learners, because these learners have more
opportunity to practice language in this context (Smith, 2006).

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 379

10/9/08 9:03:59 AM

380

cluster six

classroom management and instruction

Cooperative learning has many nonacademic beneﬁts as well

(Solomon, Watson, & Battistich, 2001):

More than 80 studies have shown that cooperative learning

enhances self-esteem, especially in students with disabilities
(Johnson & Johnson, 1998; Smith, Johnson, & Johnson, 1982).

Cooperative learning encourages greater achievement motivation

and intrinsic motivation than competitive or individualistic
approaches (Johnson & Johnson, 1985).

Because students in cooperative groups must give and receive

personal and academic support, cooperative learning promotes peer
relationships, enhancing students’ empathy, tolerance for
differences, feelings of acceptance, and friendships (Johnson &
Johnson, 1998; Solomon et al., 2001). It fosters relationships
between students with disabilities and nondisabled students and
between students from different ethnic groups (Aronson, 2000;
Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Salend & Sonnenschein, 1989).

APPLICATIONS: BEST PRACTICES

Elementary School: Using Within-class Ability Grouping
Effectively

While ﬂexible grouping methods may be more effective than
within-class ability grouping for reducing heterogeneity among
students and increasing student achievement, within-class grouping
remains the norm in many elementary schools. The formation of
within-class ability groups requires careful consideration—and
frequent reassessment—of each student’s current achievement level.
The following guidelines can help ensure that within-class ability
grouping is used appropriately and effectively.

Adapt instructional methods and materials to meet the needs of

students within each group. Ability grouping fails when students,
regardless of ability group, receive the same instruction (Lou et al.,
1996). For example, elementary school teachers tend to spend equal
amounts of time with all reading groups even though the pace of
instruction often differs among the low, middle, and high groups, with
higher-achieving readers moving faster through curricula (Allington,
1983; Barr & Dreeben, 1983). This implies that additional
instructional time for students in the lower groups is necessary in
order to close the achievement gap (Allington, 1984).

Keep group size small. Teachers historically have formed three

homogeneous groups when implementing within-class grouping:
below average, average, and above average. However, today’s larger
class sizes pose a problem for within-class ability grouping because
they lead to larger groups. Larger group size has been found to
negatively affect achievement, with students in larger groups learning
less than students in smaller groups (Hallinan & Sorensen, 1985). The
optimal size for within-class ability groups is three or four members
(Lou et al., 1996). And recent trends show teachers moving in this
direction by forming more groups with fewer members—an average
of four groups per classroom (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006).

Change group placement frequently (Smith & Robinson, 1980). In

within-class ability grouping, students know that a hierarchy of
groups exists, and most students are aware of their position in the
hierarchy even when steps are taken to disguise the hierarchy (e.g.,
calling groups “dolphins” and “sharks”) (Eder, 1983; Filby & Barnett,
1982). In the early elementary grades, students also are beginning to
compare their abilities to those of others. A ﬁxed hierarchy serves to
reinforce feelings of inferiority for students in the lower groups. By
changing group placement frequently, teachers can counter the
negative effects of students’ comparing their group placement to that
of other students. This may also prevent the sustaining expectation
effect, which refers to teachers inadvertently sustaining low-achieving
students’ achievement at the current level by keeping them in their
current group placement. Once groups have been formed, teachers
tend to generalize expectations to all members of a group (Amspaugh,
1975). As a result, they sometimes fail to notice a student’s
improvement in a skill and thus fail to change their expectations for
the student. However, recent data suggest that teachers tend to change
students’ reading groups more frequently than in the past, when
students remained stuck in the group in which they originally were
placed (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006; Rowan & Miracle, 1983).

Middle School and High School: To Track or Not to Track

Tracking in middle school and high school appears to have mixed
effects, with students in higher tracks, advanced placement courses,
and gifted programs experiencing greater academic beneﬁts

Intrinsic motivation: See page 267 and page 279.

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 380

10/9/08 9:04:00 AM

module twenty-one

grouping practices

381

than students in lower tracks. To address the variability of student
abilities in middle schools and high schools, educators have at least
two options:

detracking or

improving the quality of instruction for students in lower tracks.

While research evidence suggests that eliminating tracking would

decrease the achievement level of higher-ability students (Argys,
Rees, & Brewer, 1996; Kulik & Kulik, 2004), educator and
researcher Jeannie Oakes and her colleagues propose an approach to
teaching effectively in secondary education without tracking. This
approach would:

require all students to take a common core of classes,

eliminate remedial courses, and

provide advanced courses as options beyond the common core

for all students, especially minority students.

In place of remedial courses, Oakes suggests incorporating additional
instructional time, before- and after-school tutoring, and homework
help centers to help students who are struggling. To accommodate the
variability in student abilities and interests, teachers also would need
to focus on teaching learning and study strategies, as well as provide
honors assignments as options within courses (Oakes, 1990a; Oakes
& Wells, 2002).

As one example of this approach, Robert Cooper (1999) reports

research on detracking in a racially mixed high school. In place of
tracking for ninth-grade English and history, educators created a
common core of English and history classes in which students were
heterogeneously grouped based on ability and race. The intent was to
provide a challenging curriculum for all students. Students who
traditionally were placed in lower tracks were required to take a
“back-up” English class in place of one elective as an academic

support for learning in the core English class. This allowed them
more time to learn the material and work on assignments. Consistent
with the proposal of Oakes and Wells (2002), this system offered all
students a common core, while at the same time providing
instructional support to ensure success for all. The majority of
students reported that their detracked courses were intellectually
stimulating and felt that the courses provided a positive learning
environment.

Other experts argue that tracking can be modiﬁed to enhance the

experiences of students in lower tracks. Research by Adam Gamoran
(1993) has identiﬁed several criteria for improving the achievement
level of students in lower tracks:

high expectations for students,

a rigorous curriculum,

encouragement of class discussions, and

assignment of innovative and experienced teachers to lower-track courses.

Gamoran and his colleagues found that, of tracked middle schools
and high schools, those that were effective in providing high-quality
instruction for all students emphasized intellectually stimulating
content, higher-order thinking, and in-depth discussions of material,
even in the lower tracks. These successes were due partly to teachers’
passion for their subject and a commitment to ensure equity across
classes (Gamoran & Weinstein, 1998).

Using Cooperative Learning Effectively

In general, cooperative learning is misused when tasks given to
groups are not well structured or when it is overused as an
instructional method (Marzano et al., 2005). Students will not beneﬁt
from a cooperative activity if they are not given speciﬁc guidance
about the objectives of the lesson and about the expectations for
individual contributions and the end-product. Also, cooperative
learning becomes overused when students spend most of their
instructional time in groups, with little time to independently work on
and demonstrate their new knowledge and skills. Research on
cooperative learning has yielded several guidelines that teachers can
use to help them effectively implement this approach (Johnson &
Johnson, 1986).

Preparing students for a cooperative activity. When preparing

students for a cooperative task, specify the academic and
interpersonal objectives for the lesson so students are aware of the
goals of the task. Teachers often fail to inform students of the
collaborative skills needed to work successfully

Grouping

Practices

Module 21 :

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 381

10/9/08 9:04:01 AM

382

cluster six

classroom management and instruction

Interpersonal Objectives. Teachers need to state interpersonal objectives to
foster cooperative learning.

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 382

10/9/08 9:04:01 AM

For this activity, all group members will need to:

Listen attentively

State ideas clearly

Take turns

Give constructive criticism Clarify

what others are saying Clarify your

own understanding

in their groups. Teachers also need to clearly explain positive
interdependence to students so they understand that they must work
together to achieve success. Teachers can also help groups function
effectively during a cooperative activity by:

teaching collaborative skills,

monitoring student behavior, and

providing assistance to groups (e.g., answering questions and clarifying

instructions).

Forming cooperative groups. Forming groups of mixed abilities is

not a critical element of cooperative learning (Mills & Durden, 1992).

However, cooperative groups should be heterogeneous in general.
Heterogeneous grouping can be based on a variety of criteria, such as
ability, interests, motivation, or even random assignment (Johnson &
Johnson, 1986; Marzano et al., 2005). Also, groups of three or four
tend to work best—such groups are small enough to ensure that each
student actively participates (Lou et al., 1996). However, when
students have little experience with cooperative learning or when the
teacher has limited time or materials, groups of two or three should be
formed (Johnson & Johnson, 1986).

Teachers need to pay careful attention to the gender composition

of groups. Balancing the number of girls and boys in a group provides
the best opportunity for equal participation (Webb, 1985). When girls
outnumber boys, they tend to defer to the boys for input; when boys
outnumber girls, they tend to ignore the girls (Webb, 1984, 1985,
1991).

Integration of students with disabilities into cooperative groups

also requires careful consideration. Cooperative learning may not be
useful for students with disabilities when they are learning new or
challenging concepts (Kirk, Gallagher, Anastasiow, & Coleman,
2006), so it should be used only when it is appropriate for the
instructional objectives. When implementing cooperative learning to
include students with disabilities, the most common concerns teachers
encounter are (Johnson & Johnson, 1986):

module twenty-one

grouping practices

383

feelings of fear or anxiety on the part of students with disabilities,

nondisabled students’ concerns over their grades, and

ways to encourage active participation by the students with disabilities.

You can address these concerns by adapting lessons so that students of all ability levels can participate successfully
in the cooperative group. To adapt a lesson, use different criteria for success for each group member, or vary the
amount    of    material    each
member is expected to master.
This approach should alleviate the concerns of the nondisabled students as well as the anxieties of the students with
disabilities.
Also, to lessen the anxiety of students    with    disabilities,    explain the    procedures    that    the    group will follow
and give these students    speciﬁc    roles    or    sources of expertise that the group will need, thereby encouraging their
active participation (Johnson & Johnson, 1986).

Providing time for group processing. When students evaluate the functioning of their group and plan for

improvements, they are less likely to believe that speed and ﬁnishing early are more important than meaningful
learning (McCaslin & Good, 1996). At the end of an activity, teachers can give students a survey, such as the one in
Figure 21.2, to help students identify what was helpful and not helpful. Teachers then can use this information to
make decisions about what to change for the next task or what changes to make in group placements.

In sum, remember that both ability grouping and cooperative learning are vulnerable to inappropriate use (Clark,

1990; Robinson, 1990; Slavin, 1990). Whether a grouping strategy is effective depends on the appropriateness of the
content and the instruction (Mills & Durden, 1992).

Imagine that you are being interviewed by a school principal for a teaching position. Based on the grade
level you intend to teach, provide a statement of your philosophy about ability grouping and cooperative
learning.

Grouping

Practices

Module 21 :

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Each of the statements below will ask you how the group worked. Next to each statement is a number. Circle your answer.

Circle number 1 if this almost never happened.
Circle number 2 if this seldom happened.
Circle number 3 if this sometimes happened.
Circle number 4 if this often happened.
Circle number 5 if this almost always happened.

1. All group members felt free to talk.

2. People listened to one another.

3. Group members were asked to explain their ideas.

4. Some members tried to boss others.

5. Group members tried to help others.

6. Everyone had a say in the decisions that

7. The members worked well as a group.

8. Each member had a job to do.

9. I felt good about being in this group.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Figure 21.2: Surveying Group Processing. Teachers can give stu-dents surveys like this one to help cooperative group members
re

ﬂect on the functioning of their groups.

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 383

10/9/08 9:04:02 AM

384

case studies: re

ﬂect and evaluate

Summary

Discuss the pros and cons of within-class and between-class ability grouping. In both within- and
between-class ability grouping, high achievers and gifted students bene

ﬁt academically more than

students in lower groups, and students from impoverished backgrounds and minority students are
disproportionately placed into lower groups. Tracking leads to bene

ﬁcial nonacademic outcomes such

as greater engagement in school, better grades, and positive attitudes toward academic subjects.
Within-class ability grouping tends not to affect self-esteem, but tracking yields a small self-esteem bene

ﬁt

for lower-achieving students.
Discuss the advantages of

ﬂexible grouping methods.

Cross-grade grouping and nongraded plans tend to have positive effects on achievement, especially for
lower-achieving students. Flexible methods are effective because they reduce the heterogeneity of skills
among students and allow teachers to tailor instructional materials and paces to meet the needs of
students. Flexible    plans    also    result    in    many    positive    nonacademic outcomes.
Identify    the    characteristics    of    cooperative    learning and discuss the effectiveness of this
approach. To be truly    cooperative,    tasks    must    contain

ﬁve elements:

(1) positive interdependence, (2) individual and group accountability, (3) interpersonal skills, (4)
face-to-face
interaction, and (5) group processing. Cooperative learning bene

ﬁts students academically more than

competitive and individualistic approaches. Girls and minorities tend to bene

ﬁt more from cooperative

learning, while gifted students do not bene

ﬁt. Cooperative learning also enhances self-esteem,

motivation, and peer relationships among students from diverse backgrounds and students with and
without disabilities.
Describe effective practices for addressing student differences in elementary and secondary
education and for    implementing    cooperative    learning. For    within-class ability grouping to be
effective, teachers should adapt instruction to meet the needs of students in each group, use many small
groups, and change group placement frequently. To meet the needs of middle school and high school
students of all ability levels, schools need to focus on eliminating the remedial focus in the lower    tracks
and    emphasize    high    expectations    and higher-level thinking skills for all students. For effective
cooperative learning at any grade level, teachers should specify objectives for interpersonal skills,
emphasize positive interdependence, form heterogeneous groups, use small groups, and facilitate group
functioning. Teachers also must carefully consider several factors    when    integrating    students    with
disabilities into cooperative groups.

Key Concepts

ability grouping between-class ability grouping cooperative learning cross-grade grouping face-to-face interaction

group processing group work heterogeneity homogeneity individual and group accountability interpersonal skills

Joplin plan Matthew effect multiage classrooms multigrade classes nongraded plans positive interdependence

regrouping sustaining expectation effect within-class ability grouping

Case Studies:

Refl ect and Evaluate

Early Childhood:

“Caterpillar Circle”

These questions refer to the case study on page 316.
1. Within-class ability grouping typically is used in elementary school for reading and math. Is there any reason to

form homogeneous groups in preschool? Why or why not?

2. Assume that you are in favor of ability grouping. On what criteria would you group preschool students (ability, prior

knowledge, age, etc.), and for what types of lessons?

3. Review the guidelines for effective use of within-class ability grouping in the section

“Elementary School: Using

Within-Class Ability Grouping Effectively

” on page 384. Explain why these guidelines would be easier to implement in

a pre-school classroom than in an elementary school classroom.

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 384

10/9/08 9:04:03 AM

4. What are the bene

ﬁts of using cooperative learning, especially in a class as diverse as Sarah’s?

5. Keeping in mind the developmental level of the children, what speci

ﬁc things would

you need to do to implement the

ﬁve elements of cooperative learning discussed in the

module? Be sure to give speci

ﬁc examples of how you would implement each of the

ﬁve elements, and address any challenges you would expect with this age group.

Elementary School:

“Ecosystems”

These questions refer to the case study on page 318.

1. If you were teaching this third-grade class, would you use within-class ability
grouping for teaching reading or math? Why or why not? What factors and/or research
evidence in

ﬂuenced your decision?

2. You want to eliminate within-class ability grouping at the elementary school where
you teach, and you arrange a meeting with the principal to discuss a new alternative.
Provide a convincing argument against within-class ability grouping, and explain the
practice of regrouping and its advantages.
3. Leilani wants to arrange students in cooperative learning groups for the ecosystem

project rather than keep their current group formation, in which they work together at
the tables where they sit. What criteria would you use to form cooperative groups
(ability, interests, etc.) and why?

4. Based on the argument that broke out at the end of the ecosystem activity, which element of
cooperative learning did

(Leilani) ignore? Give her speci

ﬁc suggestions for improving this component of cooperative learning.

5. Explain why the re

ﬂection process at the end of the ecosystem project is an

important component of cooperative learning. Speculate on what improvements Leilani
might make for future group projects.

Middle School:

“Classroom Safety”

These questions refer to the case study on page 320.
1. Imagine that Crosby Middle School uses tracking and that the seventh graders in the case study are in
a lower track.

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of tracking for these students. Why might
students

’ gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity be important factors to consider

when evaluating the effectiveness of tracking?

2. The school board is discussing whether to detrack Crosby Middle School. Provide a convincing
argument for detracking.

Create an original plan for meeting the needs of both higher achievers and lower

achievers within a detracked curriculum. 3. In what ways did Saul implement positive
interdependence successfully? How could he improve on this?

4. How can Saul improve the face-to-face interaction and interpersonal skills of the
groups? Provide speci

ﬁc examples or suggestions.

5. Explain why balancing the number of girls and boys is important for Saul to
consider when forming groups for the project.

6. Whatmodi

ﬁcations might Saul need to make to the group project for a student with a

disability?

High School:

“Refusal to Dress”

These questions refer to the case study on page 322.

1. Assume that student Brianna is African American. Based on the research on
tracking, explain why it would not be surprising to

ﬁnd students from minority groups in

a lower-level English class.
2. Based on the research on tracking, describe the possible effects of tracking on
Brianna

’s academic achievement and self-esteem. Would your response be different if

Brianna were male?
3. Imagine that you are giving David teaching advice. Describe how you would use
cooperative learning to review grammar in his second-period class. Be sure to give
speci

ﬁc examples of how you would implement (a) positive interdependence,

(b) individual and group accountability, (c) face-to-face interaction, (d) interpersonal
skills, and (e) group processing.
4. David is a bit uneasy about using cooperative learning with his second-period
English composition class. He

’s not sure the students are ready for such an approach

and feels more comfortable sticking to his tried-and-true method. Explain to David the
bene

ﬁts of cooperative learning, particularly for students like those in his second-period

class.
  5. David wants to introduce literature in his second-period English composition class.
Explain how he could use the Jigsaw approach.
  6. You are at a faculty meeting at Valley High School to discuss detracking. State a
convincing case for detracking, and describe a new curriculum that would address the
needs of students in higher tracks as well as students in the lower tracks, like Brianna.

case studies: re

ﬂect and evaluate

385

boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 385

10/9/08 9:04:06 AM