Education Insights: A Journal of Research, Theory, and Practice Volume 2 (2024)
Editor-in-Chief Kevin M. Jones, EdD Dean of the School of Education and Social Work, Assistant Professor of Education, Cedarville University Managing Editor Scott C. Hodgin, MA Assistant Professor of English, Cedarville University Submission Coordinator and Data Specialist Kathryn P. Carnegis, MBA Digital Services Director, Cedarville University Production Design Tricia Clark, BA Digital Services Specialist, Cedarville University Theology Consultant Marcus Leeds, PhD Associate Vice President for Academics, Associate Professor of Theology, Cedarville University On the Cover: The Education Insights cover is AI-generated art using Microsoft Bing's Copilot Designer application, powered by DALL-E 3 (24 Aug. 2024). Special thanks to Cedarville University’s Marketing and Communications Department for their help in shaping the AI art for publication purposes. On the Style: Education Insights uses The Chicago Manual of Style because the journal includes topics that connect education with history, philosophy, theology, and other humanities disciplines. Since we do not solely focus on educational research, we believe The Chicago Manual of Style provides the most flexibility and support for detailed citations through multiple disciplines. Education Insights is an online, open-access journal published by the School of Education and Social Work at Cedarville University, Cedarville, OH. ISSN 2836-3388 (Online) https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/education_insights/
Contents Articles Literature Review on Resurged Ability Grouping Practices as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic by Whitney Lawrence ………………………1 Shepherds Needed by Scott D. Hood ………………………………………………………17 Book Reviews Eyes that Kiss in the Corners by Megan Brown …………………….………………..……27 American Shoes: A Refugee's Story by Sharon Kerestes ……………………………..……31 Isaiah Dunn Saves the Day by Nickolas B. Turner ………………………………...………35 God, Grades, and Graduation: Religion's Surprising Impact on Academic Success by Kevin M. Jones …………………………...……39
© 2024, Whitney Lawrence, licensed under CC BY-NC-N Literature Review on Resurged Ability Grouping Practices as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic by Dr. Whitney Lawrence Abstract: Howard E. Gardner proposed the notion that human beings possess different ways of knowing, understanding, and communicating with the world. Despite his Theory of Multiple Intelligences, some educators continue to instruct and assess students without considering diverse learning styles. People possess certain combinations of different intelligences that affect how they learn and demonstrate learning in school. This literature review aims to provide a comprehensive report on the importance of exploring resurging ability grouping practices as we move from the impact of COVID-19. The article provides a review of current grouping practices, effects of ability grouping on students and their achievement, as well as perceptions of administrators and teachers. There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 These verses demonstrate the Holy Spirit’s gift of variances of favors to different people. When man was created, God established the gifts of each individual. Howard E. Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences can be seen through 1 Corinthians. This theory identifies individual aptitude sets of capabilities and ways in which one prefers to demonstrate intellectual abilities.1 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 explains there are different gifts, but the same God produces them for individual benefits. Despite the connections between individual gifts with teaching and learning, the impact of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory and its connection to ability grouping is deficient in literature. Homogeneous grouping has been defined as a practice of separation of students in the same grade into groups or classes that are differentiated based on test scores and school records.2 An essential step missing from this definition is the separation of students not only with similar ability, interest, or background knowledge, but also correlating styles of learning. When educators use the learning gifts provided to each student to create intentional instruction, it speaks directly to students. In Teaching to Change Lives: Seven Proven Ways to Make Your Teaching Come Alive, Howard Hendricks defines the 1 Howard E. Gardner, Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice (New York: Basic Books, 2006) 3. 2 James A. Kulik and Chen-Lin C. Kulik, “Meta-Analytic Findings on Grouping Programs,” Gifted Child Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1992): 73, https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600204.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 2 Law of Education as using the way people learn to determine how you teach.3 The implementation of properly executed ability grouping practices and consideration of individual gifts for learning opens broader doors for education. Ability grouping seems to be a simple way to provide the needed individualized instruction by reducing the range of adaptations that a teacher must make among his or her students. However, several studies demonstrate that the effects of ability grouping are inconsistent, varying across different countries, periods, and in a variety of schools.4 The practice of grouping students based purely on ability level endeavors to predict achievement solely on one type of intelligence across multiple subjects.5 Although this seems to offer an easy, rational solution, several factors contribute to the academic effectiveness of sorting students by their ability. Some include selecting and placing students accurately and in accordance with the expectations and ethos of students, parents, teachers, and administrators.6 Though resurging, ability grouping is not a new practice. As educators prepare to respond to the educational crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of ability grouping has resurged. COVID-19 created the largest disruption to the education system in history, affecting almost 1.6 billion students and over 200 countries.7 Despite the heroic efforts of educators, COVID-19 has taken a toll on students’ academic performance and mental health.8 The impact is far-reaching and will take time before researchers understand the pandemic’s full impact on students. Developments of Educational Instructional Practices 3 Howard G. Hendricks, Teaching to Change Lives: Seven Proven Ways to Make Your Teaching Come Alive (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Press, 1987), 31. 4 Chen-Lin C. Kulik and James A. Kulik, “Effects of Ability Grouping on Secondary School Students: A Meta-Analysis of Evaluation Findings,” American Educational Research Journal 19, no. 3 (1982): 415–28, https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019003415; see also Kulik & Kulik, “Meta-Analytic Findings on Grouping Programs,” 73-77; Adam Gamoran and Mark Berends, “The Effects of Stratification in Secondary Schools: Synthesis of Survey and Ethnographic Research,” Review of Educational Research 57, no. 4 (1987): 415–35, https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057004415; Robert E. Slavin, “Cooperative Learning,” in The Social Psychology of the Primary School, 1st ed., ed. Colin Rogers and Peter Kutnick (London: Routledge, 1992), 226-245; Susan Hallman and Inji Toutounji, “What Do We Know About Grouping Pupils by Ability?” Education Review London 10 (1996): 62-70; Judith Ireson and Susan Hallam, “Raising Standards: Is Ability Grouping the Answer?” Oxford Review of Education 25, no. 3 (1999): 343–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/030549899104026. 5 Judith Ireson and Susan Hallam, Ability Grouping in Education (London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2001); Robert E Slavin, Educational Psychology Theory and Practice, 8th ed. (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2006). 6 Ireson and Hallam, Ability Grouping in Education. 7 Sumitra Pokhrel and Roshan Chhetri, “A Literature Review on Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and Learning,” Higher Education for the Future 8, no. 1 (2021): 131, https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481. 8 Jorge V. Verlendenand et al., “Association of Children’s Mode of School Instruction with Child and Parent Experiences and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic — COVID Experiences Survey, United States, October 8–November 13, 2020,” MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 70, no. 11 (2021): 369–76, https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7011a1.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 3 Evolvements consistently occur with educational instructional practices. The first report of grouping students based on intellectual ability or academic achievement began in 1867 in St. Louis, Missouri; but it was, no doubt, a common practice in earlier times. Despite questionable research of its effectiveness and negative consequences associated with the practice, grouping of students for learning activities was a common practice up to the 1980s. Although the practice fell out of favor in the 1980s, demands from the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law in 2002 played a major role in reopening the door to the academic separation of students. As a result, schools began to focus primarily on students who are just below the proficiency levels in reading and math due to the rise of accountability and research-based education requirements under NCLB. The major focus of NCLB was to close the achievement gap by providing students with a fair opportunity to receive high-quality education. Though the law held schools accountable for student learning, it became controversial due to penalties for schools that did not show improvement. The focus on standardized testing, which exhibits the false belief or notion that uniform instruction is fair, caused a shift from instruction that included Multiple Intelligences.9 The emphasis of preparing students for standardized testing; conventional views of the negative influence of ability grouping; and No Child Left Behind have impacted the educational lives of students.10 Standardized tests focus on linguistic and mathematical intelligence but usually do not measure interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical, and bodily kinesthetic. At the beginning of the 21st century, schools began to focus heavily on assessment. This caused many teachers to shift to a style of teaching that focused on memorization due to their evaluations being tied to student success on standardized testing.11 The pressure felt by teachers led them to teach to assessment, which was against Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory. The autonomy in schools was reduced and failure to meet benchmarks led to the possibility of schools being shut down.12 In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) replaced NCLB and ended the intense consequences attached to standardized testing.13 It differed from NCLB because it assigned states the accountability for testing. Although it did not fully remove yearly standardized tests, it reduced the 9 Hani Morgan and F. Reisman, “Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory and His Ideas on Promoting Creativity,” in Celebrating Giants and Trailblazers: A-Z of Who’s Who in Creativity Research and Related Fields (London, UK: KIE Publications, 2021), 124-41. 10 Carol Tieso, “The Effects of Grouping Practices and Curricular Adjustments on Achievement,” Journal for the Education of the Gifted 29, no. 1 (2005): 60–89, https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320502900104. 11 Hani Morgan, “Relying on High-Stakes Standardized Tests to Evaluate Schools and Teachers: A Bad Idea,” The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 89, no. 2 (2016): 67–72, https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1156628. 12 Alyson Klein, “No Child Left behind: An Overview,” Education Week. December 7, 2020, https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/no-child-left-behind-an-overview/2015/04. 13 Morgan, “Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory,” 121-41.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 4 requirement and was more aligned with Gardner’s views as it encouraged teachers to meet the individual needs of students.14 Differentiation became more of a focus, which again allowed for a focus of individual growth. The importance of investigating appropriate practices continues to escalate post Covid-19. After closures of schools and other learning spaces have affected more than 94% of the world academic population, the urgency to close the achievement gap has increased.15 The focus has now shifted to building back our education system to provide better equitable learning for all students. The more educators know about their students’ needs, the better their learning goals are met.16 As we build our education system, there is still a need for more research on its effectiveness of educational instructional practices. Ability grouping continues to resurge and has become a strategy that some schools employ to customize learning to address the individual needs of students. However, evidence suggests that ability grouping does not lead to a consistent increase or decrease in student achievement.17 The selected literature below specifically examines concerns related to ability grouping practices, the effects that ability grouping has on achievement and students, as well as the perceptions of administrators and teachers toward this practice. Research Concerning Practices of Grouping The curriculum and manner in which instruction are organized within the school affect learning as well as achievement.18 Examiners have discovered that best practices of grouping differ by school, class, teacher, and student. Kulik and Kulik found academic achievement varied based on the type of grouping practices and successive curriculum established for groups.19 He suggested there are three different types of grouping practices utilized in schools: whole class instruction, between-class separation, and within-class or flexible grouping. Whole group instruction is presented to the entire class with little differentiation in content or assessment. This teaching approach benefits some students, but it may overlook the specific academic needs of others. Decisions made in education that includes one program, instructional technique, or group 14 Morgan, “Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory,” 121-41. 15 Pokhrel and Chhetri, “A literature review on impact of COVID-19,” 131. 16 Susan B. Goldberg, “Education in a Pandemic: The Disparate Impacts of Covid-19 on America's Students,” Office for Civil Rights, US Department of Education. Accessed February 1, 2024, http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocr-coronavirus-factsheet-12-2020.pdf. 17 Wynne Harlen and Heather Malcolm, “Setting and Streaming: A Research Review." Revised Edition. SCRE Publication 143, Using Research Series 18. "Using Research Series" formerly "Practitioner Minipaper Series," (1997); see also Laura Sukhnandan and Barbara Lee, Streaming, Setting and Grouping by Ability: A Review of the Literature (Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research, 1998); Ireson and Hallam, Ability Grouping in Education. 18 Ireson and Hallam, Ability Grouping in Education. 19 Kulik and Kulik, “Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs,” 73-77.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 5 arrangement ignores the complexity involved in educating diverse learners.20 The exclusive use of one instructional technique often leads to classroom issues.21 With modern ability grouping, students are placed in different levels of the same course that is more or less rigorous.22 This form of grouping is based on student performance data that requires teachers to make decisions based on curriculum objectives. Scholars have discovered strategies for creating equity and excellence by effectively sorting and selecting students.23 Advocates of ability grouping argue that flexible use of grouping between or within classrooms is more effective. Flexible ability grouping does not attach permanent labels to students and allows movement based on the student’s needs. Implementation of flexible ability grouping is sometimes confused with tracking. Burris and Garrity explained that some schools begin tracking with a kindergarten screening to determine placement for early elementary grades that develops into an educational route through the twelfth grade.24 While some schools use testing to help determine placement, others use teacher recommendations, grades, and a student’s motivation to dictate tracking placement. Some studies have concluded that students in high ability tracking courses encounter a challenging curriculum at a faster pace taught by experienced teachers perceived as the best.25 Low ability students tend to be allocated to teachers who are less experienced. Researchers have discovered that low ability students tend to correlate with the socioeconomically disadvantaged. Moreover, tracking not only widens achievement gaps, but it also reinforces social inequalities.26 Kalogrides and Loeb conducted a study involving three large urban school districts.27 Their findings corroborated that sorting students relegates low-achieving students to lesser quality teachers. Furthermore, assignment of students to educators based on a social agenda can be a disadvantage for both high and low performing students. 20 Michael F. Opitz and Michael P. Ford, Reaching Readers: Flexible & Innovative Strategies for Guided Reading (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2001). 21 JoAnne Caldwell and Michael P. Ford, Where Have All the Bluebirds Gone: How to Soar with Flexible Grouping (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002). 22 Carol Corbett Burris and Delia T. Garrity, Detracking for Excellence and Equity (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2008). 23 Burris and Garrity, Detracking for excellence and equity. 24 Burris and Garrity, Detracking for excellence and equity. 25 Jeannie Oakes et al., “Curriculum Differentiation: Opportunities, Outcomes, and Meaning,” in Handbook of Research on Curriculum, ed. Phillip W. Jackson (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 570–608; see also Adam Gamoran, “CES Briefing: Standards, Inequality & Ability Grouping in Schools,” The University of Edinburgh, September 2002. 26 Oaks et al., “Curriculum Differentiation,” 570-608; see also Samuel R. Lucas and Mark Berends, “Sociodemographic Diversity, Correlated Achievement, and De Facto Tracking,” Sociology of Education 75, no. 4 (2002): 328. 27 Demetra Kalogrides and Susanna Loeb, “Different Teachers, Different Peers: The Magnitude of Student Sorting Within Schools,” Educational Researcher 42, no. 6 (2013): 304–16.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 6 Effective practice of grouping based on ability is flexible with appropriate curricular adjustments. Even though flexibility is a component in ability grouping systems, appropriate strategies must be implemented to produce growth.28 Research findings gleaned at the elementary and secondary levels concur that grouping practices that do not complement differentiated curriculum will have only a modest effect on achievement.29 Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory Given the effects of the instruction and the method in which it is presented on student knowledge and progression, it is vital to consider the assessments used to place students into accurate ability groups.30 Gardner, a psychologist and professor of education at Harvard University, suggested that IQ tests are limited and do not allow for an accurate test of the wide range of abilities that people often exhibit.31 Students possess different levels of motivation, attitudes about learning, and unique responses to classroom environments and instructional practices.32 Due to the impact of inaccurate placement on student’s academic achievement, it is important that structured grouping systems consider multiple aspects.33 Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory addresses ways the brain processes information, using multiple ways of thinking, solving problems, and learning.34 This theory suggests that there is not one measure of intelligence or one method of teaching. Therefore, simply placing students, without adapting instruction and content to fit their needs, is not enough to increase achievement. Sahatsatatsana and Siriyothin conducted a study on the effectiveness of teaching with respect to multiple intelligences.35 The experimental group was instructed and assessed via a multiple intelligences 28 Junlin Yu, Pia Kreijkes, and Katariina Salmela-Aro, “Students’ Growth Mindset: Relation to Teacher Beliefs, Teaching Practices, and School Climate,” Learning and Instruction 80, August (2022): 1-11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101616. 29 Kulik and Kulik, “Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs,” 73-77; see also Karen B. Rogers, “Grouping the Gifted and Talented: Questions and Answers,” Roeper Review 16, no. 1 (1993): 8–12; Robert E. Slavin, “Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis,” Review of Educational Research 57, no. 3 (1987): 293–336. 30 Ireson and Hallam, Ability Grouping in Education. 31Armstrong, Thomas. You're Smarter Than You Think: A Kid's Guide to Multiple Intelligences. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing, 2014. 32 Felder, Richard M., and Rebecca Brent. “Understanding Student Differences.” Journal of Engineering Education 94, no. 1 (2005): 57–72. 33 Harlen and Malcom, "Setting and Streaming," Sukhnandan and Lee, Streaming, Setting and Ability Grouping; Ireson and Hallam, Ability Grouping in Education; Susan Hallam, “Ability Grouping in Schools: A Literature Review,” Institute of Education. University of London (2002): 79. 34 Sattra Sahatsatatsana and Peeresak Siriyothin, “The Improvement of Students' English Proficiency and Intelligences through Multiple Intelligence Integrated Syllabus,” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2010, 58–62. 35 Sahatsatatsana and Siriyothin, “The improvement of students’ English proficiency,” 58-62.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 7 syllabus, while a control group was taught through traditional methods that focused on lectures led by the teacher. The results indicated that students taught and assessed through the multiple intelligences syllabus showed significantly better achievement growth than through the traditional method. The validity of assessments that reflect a student’s academic potential, achievement, and placement decisions have found to be questionable.36 Although people have a variety of different intelligences that affect how they acquire information and exhibit learning in school, there appears to be a lack of literature on sorting students with consideration of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory. Gardner’s theory demonstrates the importance of instructing and assessing students with consideration of diverse learning styles.37 The inclusion of diverse learning abilities is an important factor when determining ability placement for students. The practice of grouping students based solely on one type of intelligence across multiple subjects, alters the complete image of students’ capabilities.38 Ability Grouping Impact on Achievement Peer Relationships As the education system continues to pick up the pieces from the damages of COVID-19, the emphasis remains on closing the achievement gap. Searching for and implementing practices that enable all students to have a fair opportunity to obtain a high-quality education has left teachers, administrators, and educational leaders desperate. Despite inconsistent research on the effects of sorting students by ability, schools continue to use ability grouping of students as a method to provide individualized instruction.39 It has proven effective for some but has caused damage to others. In recent years, peer effects on student achievement from ability level grouping have received ample attention in research literature. Two main concerns with grouping of students based on ability are whether it raises the academic attainment of all pupils and if it increases the achievement of particular groups of students at the expense of others.40 Mohammad, Lazonder, and Jong agree that low-achieving students tend to benefit when around high-achieving peers.41 Although controversy on the effects of 36 Jo Worthy, “Only the Names Have Been Changed: Ability Grouping Revisited,” The Urban Review 42, no. 4 (2009): 271–95. 37 Gardner, Multiple Intelligences, 121-41. 38 Ireson and Hallam, Ability Grouping in Education; see also Slavin, Educational Psychology. 39 Kulik and Kulik, “Effects of ability Grouping,” 415-28; Kulik and Kulik, “Meta-analytic Findings on Grouping Programs,” 73-77; Gamoran and Berends, “The Effects of Stratification in Secondary Schools,” 415-35; Rogers and Kutnick, “Co-operative Learning,” 397-412; Hallam and Toutouni, “What Do We Know about the Grouping of Pupils,” 62-70; Ireson and Hallam, “Raising Standards,” 343-58. 40 Ireson and Hallam, Ability Grouping in Education. 41 Mohammad Saleh, Ard W. Lazonder, and Ton De Jong, “Effects of Within-Class Ability Grouping on Social Interaction, Achievement, and Motivation,” Instructional Science 33, no. 2 (2005): 105–19.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 8 ability grouping continues to thrive, there is a wide range of situational factors that make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about its overall effectiveness.42 Burke and Sass have reported several factors concerning the impact of classroom peers on individual student performance.43 The researchers above employed a unique data set covering Florida public schools students in grades three through ten over a five-year period. This study differed from previous ones since it allowed researchers to explore each member of a given student’s classroom at each level as well as the classroom teachers responsible for instruction. The results indicated that peer effects depend on an individual student’s own ability and on the level of the peers under consideration. Subsequently, they asserted that the negative effects of peers tend to be stronger in the classroom versus within the grade level. Mohammad et al. supported the findings from the previous study with their position that grouping and social interactions should depend on the group’s structure.44 These researchers examined how grouping affects student achievement, social interaction, and motivation. They studied a group of 104 fourth graders in an elementary school in Kuwait. These students were randomly assigned to homogeneous or heterogeneous groups with the same biology instructor. The results indicated that lowability students are more motivated and achieve at a high level in heterogeneous groups. Mohammad et al. elaborated further on this by articulating that heterogeneous groups engage in higher production of individual elaboration while homogenous groups use more collaborative elaborations.45 In their discussion, these differences in social interactions explain the effects ability grouping has on achievement scores. Challenges regarding findings on the influence of self-perception are unclear. Some researchers believe that the practice of sorting students places labels on them that limits individual views of themselves to incompetent and unintelligent. Bandura explained that confidence can be established by views from others regarding an individual’s skills and aptitudes.46 Conversely, others argue that labels are difficult to avoid despite classroom construction. Rendall and colleagues added that self-confidence is a measure of a student’s belief that alters performance, both intellectually and non-academically.47 Overall, self-image concerns for lower ability students can also result from heterogeneous classrooms. In order to 42 Ireson and Hallam, Ability Grouping in Education. 43 Mary A. Burke and Tim R. Sass, “Classroom Peer Effects and Student Achievement,” SSRN Electronic Journal (2008), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1260882. 44 Saleh et. al., “Effects of Within-Class Ability Grouping,” 105-19. 45 Saleh et. al., “Effects of Within-Class Ability Grouping,” 105-19. 46 Albert Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (New York, NY: Freeman, 1997), 100. 47 Nicola Rendall et al., “Students' Goal Achievement: Exploring Individual and Situational Factors.” Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology 8, no. 1 (2009): 263–80.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 9 receive maximum learning, maximum involvement is needed from students.48 Gardner agreed explaining that learning would be forgotten without an active role from the student.49 Engagement from students is not possible without self-motivation. Hallam contended that challenging students far beyond their ability also decreases self-drive.50 Alpert and Bechar asserted that, despite the criticism and resistance toward ability grouping, it is difficult to defy. Several other researchers who have documented issues with eliminating ability grouping and its consequential influences on inequality supported their argument.51 Alpert and Bechar explored a concept called “Opening Triads” that involved periodic regrouping of three classrooms with students of the same age and studying the same subject into new groups. Their findings contend that ability grouping is difficult to eliminate, but there are alternatives that may reduce its harmful social and emotional effects. Valerie Pare emphasized that during adolescent years, circumstances will challenge selfperceptions.52 Many situations can cause similar insecurities which makes it difficult to claim that a student has low self-confidence due to a grouping practice.53 Advocates of ability grouping justify its intent to foster learning and not to decrease the emotional or social growth of students. Researcher Hallinan explained his support for ability grouping by stating that an appropriate balance between the level of instruction and the student’s ability will increase effectiveness and proficiency.54 Catasambis and Buttaro stated, “The potential effect of ability grouping on students’ psycho-social attributes and behaviors may be linked to characteristics of the classroom environment and teacher practices and expectations.”55 Perceptions of Administrators and Teachers Not only does the debate over grouping students by like ability levels center around the effects it has on students and their achievement, but it also includes research concerning administrators and teachers. Previous studies indicated that teachers who support heterogeneous grouping tend to be more 48 Hendricks, Teaching to Change Lives. 49 Morgan, “Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences,” 10. 50 Hallam, Ability Grouping in Schools, 113. 51 Jeannie Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, 2nd ed (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005); see also Jeannie Oakes, John Rogers, and Martin Lipton, Learning Power: Organizing for Education and Justice (New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2006). 52 Valerie Pare, “Exploring the Conflicts Involved with Ability Grouping,” University of Connecticut, Summer (2004), https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/summer042/. 53 Pare, “Exploring the Conflicts"; see also Kulik and Kulik, “Meta-analytic Findings on Grouping Programs,” 73-77. 54Maureen T. Hallinan, “Tracking: From Theory to Practice,” Sociology of Education 67, no. 2 (1994): 79. 55 Sophia Catsambis and Anthony Buttaro, “Revisiting ‘Kindergarten as Academic Boot Camp’: A Nationwide Study of Ability Grouping and Psycho-Social Development,” Social Psychology of Education 15, no. 4 (2012): 483–515.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 10 student-centered with a greater focus on versatile development, while teachers who favor ability grouping tend to focus more on academic achievement.56 Ultimately, ability grouping is a complex decision that principals and teachers must make that affects the entire school community, culture, and climate. Ireson and Hallam argued that teacher attitudes toward ability grouping vary according to the type of school and the subject they teach.57 Their study indicated that grouping structures adopted within a school vary based on teachers’ attitudes toward pupil grouping. Furthermore, their research reported that teachers, in general, believe behavior issues increase in lower ability classes, mixed ability grouping leads to better social adjustment for all students, and the setting of ability grouping focuses on ensuring that higher students benefit. The results of Al-Fadhi and Singh’s study of 102 teachers agreed and added that educators with high-achieving classes base their expectations on student ability while focusing on personal traits with lower grouped students.58 Several studies agreed that teachers’ perceptions toward both groups affected student academic success and behavioral mannerisms.59 Data from a Malaysian Secondary School were studied by Kusuanto, Ismail, and Jamil to find the influence of teachers’ perceptions on student behavior in between-class ability groups.60 Students’ selfesteem was measured using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The conclusion of this study suggested that high-achieving students were significantly influenced by supporting behaviors while low-achievers selfesteem was altered by perception of the teachers controlling behavior. Myers expanded on this by explaining that teachers expect higher-achieving students to make tremendous gains while assuming lower achieving students will exhibit numerous behavior issues.61 These expectations lead to certain behaviors and perceptions toward each group of students. Kusuanto, et al. suggested that teachers must show certain perceptions to students based on needs of the classroom when engaging in ability grouping.62 Determining the extent of implementation is a complex decision that others besides teachers must encounter. Administrators, too, should take responsibility for any negative consequences. Therefore, deciding whether to group students heterogeneously for instruction is a difficult decision that principals 56 Herbert J. Walberg, Arthur J. Reynolds, and Margaret C. Wang, Can Unlike Students Learn Together? (Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub., 2004). 57 Ireson and Hallam, Ability Grouping in Education. 58 Hussain Al-Fadhli and Madhu Singh, “Teachers’ Expectancy and Efficacy as Correlates of School Achievement in Delta, Mississippi,” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 19, no. 1-2 (2006): 51–67. 59 Al-Fadhli and Singh, “Teachers’ Expectancy and Efficacy,” 51-67; see also H. S. Tong, A Comparison of the Perception of Teachers Assigned to Teacher Higher and Lower Ability Group (Hongkong: University of Hongkong, 2002). 60 Prihadi Kususanto, Hairul Nizam Ismail, and Hazri Jamil, “Students’ Self-Esteem and Their Perception of Teacher Behavior: A Study of between-Class Ability Grouping,” Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology 8, no. 2 (2010): 707–24, https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v8i21.1395. 61 David G. Myers, Social Psychology (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2011). 62 Kususanto et. al., “Students’ Self-Esteem," 707–24.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 11 must make for their school and/or individual classrooms. If ability grouping is used, it should be thoughtfully implemented and data driven. Levin and Datnow agreed with Moss and Piety that it is important for administrators to use data to guide educational decision-making.63 Stroud conducted a study to discover factors middle school principals in East Tennessee considered when deciding whether to implement homogeneous instruction.64 Data was collected through a series of 20 taped interviews with principals. Her results revealed that “the impact of student achievement, standardized test accountability, social factors that affect students, the perception of teachers and parents, the impact of educational research” and many more factors influenced their decisions to implement sorting based on ability.65 Recommendations from principals in Stroud’s study included flexible scheduling that allowed for movement between groups based on objectives and standards.66 Rogers stated there are five approaches that administrators use to make decisions concerning implementation of sorting students.67 The approaches consisted of using past personal experiences to make current decisions, analyzing research, utilizing staff development to motivate staff members to implement change, establishing committees to support the change, and reevaluating grouping practices to decipher the best approaches.68 Given the impact of results that are involved in sorting of students, it is important that principals and teachers adequately examine the perceptions and factors that influence the process of deciding upon grouping.69 Conclusion After reviewing the literature related to research concerning practices of grouping, the effect of ability grouping on students and their achievement, and the perceptions of administrators and teachers, there is a need for additional research on current experimental and descriptive approaches toward grouping students. As Dr. Hendricks’ Law of the Teacher explains, if teachers stop growing today, teaching stops.70 If ability grouping is going to be used to build American public schools, barriers must be 63 James A. Levin and Amanda Datnow, “The Principal Role in Data-Driven Decision Making: Using Case-Study Data to Develop Multi-Mediator Models of Educational Reform,” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23, no. 2 (2012): 179–201. 64 Linda B. Stroud, “To Group or Not to Group: A Qualitative Study of Middle School Principals' Decision Making Processes Concerning Ability Level Grouping,” (Doctoral Thesis: East Tennessee State University, 2002), 27-33, Electronic Theses and Dissertation. 65 Stroud, “To Group or Not to Group,” 2. 66 Stroud, “To Group or Not to Group," 105. 67 Karen B. Rogers, “Using Current Research to Make ‘Good’ Decisions about Grouping,” NASSP Bulletin 82, no. 595 (1998): 38–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659808259506. 68 Rogers, “Using Current Research,” 38-46. 69 Stroud, “To Group or Not to Group,” 105. 70 Hendricks, Teaching to Change Lives.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 12 discovered in its practices and teachers must be empowered with proper training on effective implementation strategies. Due to the high influence of the results that may evolve from ability grouping, it is important to study the process that schools use to determine the method in which homogeneous or heterogeneous grouping will take place. The lack of available literature on current elementary teachers’ dispositions toward ability grouping, the factors considered in ability placement of students, and the influence of familiarity with ability grouping practices requires further research. The review of literature illustrated conflicting results of the effectiveness of grouping students based solely on their abilities. Important factors, such as flexible grouping and the usage of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory seem to be missing from the literature when assessing the effectiveness of ability grouping. Due to student variations in the intelligences identified by Gardner, teachers need to differentiate instruction to be effective to all students.71 Despite evidence on the importance of individual learning gifts, some educators continue to sort and instruct students without considering diverse learning styles and/or with little to no movement among groups. The paucity of studies on experimental and descriptive approaches toward grouping indicated a need for further examination of current school practices. Consequently, data generated by teachers will offer policy makers an overview into the practice within schools to achieve the goal of building the education system back and better. 71 Morgan, “Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences,” 124–41.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 13 Bibliography Al-Fadhli, Hussain, and Madhu Singh. “Teachers’ Expectancy and Efficacy as Correlates of School Achievement in Delta, Mississippi.” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 19, no. 1-2 (2006): 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-007-9032-9. Alpert, Bracha, and Shlomit Bechar. “School Organizational Efforts in Search for Alternatives to Ability Grouping.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24, no. 6 (2008): 1599–1612. Armstrong, Thomas. You're Smarter Than You Think: A Kid's Guide to Multiple Intelligences. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing, 2014. Bandura, Albert. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman, 1997. Burke, Mary A., and Tim R. Sass. “Classroom Peer Effects and Student Achievement.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2008. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1260882. Burris, Carol Corbett, and Delia T. Garrity. Detracking for Excellence and Equity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2008. Caldwell, JoAnne, and Michael P. Ford. Where Have All the Bluebirds Gone?: How to Soar with Flexible Grouping. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002. Catsambis, Sophia, and Anthony Buttaro. “Revisiting ‘Kindergarten as Academic Boot Camp’: A Nationwide Study of Ability Grouping and Psycho-Social Development.” Social Psychology of Education 15, no. 4 (2012): 483–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9196-0. Felder, Richard M., and Rebecca Brent. “Understanding Student Differences.” Journal of Engineering Education 94, no. 1 (2005): 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00829.x. Gamoran, Adam. “CES Briefing: Standards, Inequality & Ability Grouping in Schools.” The University of Edinburgh, September 2002. http://www.ces.ed.ac.uk/PDF%20Files/Brief025.pdf. Gamoran, Adam, and Mark Berends. “The Effects of Stratification in Secondary Schools: Synthesis of Survey and Ethnographic Research.” Review of Educational Research 57, no. 4 (1987): 415–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057004415. Gardner, Howard E. Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2006. Goldberg, Suzanne B. “Education in a Pandemic: The Disparate Impacts of Covid-19 on America's Students.” Office for Civil Rights, US Department of Education. Office for Civil Rights, US Department of Education. Accessed November 30, 2020. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocr-coronavirus-factsheet-12-2020.pdf. Hallam, Susan. “Ability grouping in schools: a literature review.” Institute of Education. University of London. (2002), 1-26. Hallam, Susan, and Inji Toutounji. “What do we know about grouping pupils by ability?” Education Review London 10 (1996): 62-70.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 14 Hallinan, Maureen T. “Tracking: From Theory to Practice.” Sociology of Education 67, no. 2 (1994): 79. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112697. Harlen, Wynne, and Heather Malcolm. “Setting and Streaming: A Research Review.” Revised Edition. SCRE Publication 143. Using Research Series 18. “Using Research Series” formerly "Practitioner Minipaper Series.” (1999), 1-79, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED437189. Hendricks, Howard G. Teaching to Change Lives: Seven Proven Ways to Make Your Teaching Come Alive. Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Press, 1987. Ireson, Judith, and Susan Hallam. “Raising Standards: Is Ability Grouping the Answer?” Oxford Review of Education 25, no. 3 (1999): 343–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/030549899104026. Ireson, Judith, and Susan Hallam. Ability Grouping in Education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2001. Kalogrides, Demetra, and Susanna Loeb. “Different Teachers, Different Peers: The Magnitude of Student Sorting Within Schools.” Educational Researcher 42, no. 6 (2013): 304–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x13495087. Klein, Alyson. “No Child Left behind: An Overview.” Education Week, April 10, 2015. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/no-child-left-behind-an-overview/2015/04. Kulik, Chen-Lin C., and James A. Kulik. “Effects of Ability Grouping on Secondary School Students: A Meta-Analysis of Evaluation Findings.” American Educational Research Journal 19, no. 3 (1982): 415–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019003415. Kulik, James A., and Chen-Lin C. Kulik. “Meta-Analytic Findings on Grouping Programs.” Gifted Child Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1992): 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600204. Kususanto, Prihadi, Hairul Nizam Ismail, and Hazri Jamil. “Students’ Self-Esteem and Their Perception of Teacher Behavior: A Study of between-Class Ability Grouping.” Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology 8, no. 2 (2010): 707–24. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v8i21.1395. Levin, James A., and Amanda Datnow. “The Principal Role in Data-Driven Decision Making: Using Case-Study Data to Develop Multi-Mediator Models of Educational Reform.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23, no. 2 (2012): 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.599394. Lucas, Samuel R., and Mark Berends. “Sociodemographic Diversity, Correlated Achievement, and De Facto Tracking.” Sociology of Education 75, no. 4 (2002): 328. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090282. Morgan, Hani. “Relying on High-Stakes Standardized Tests to Evaluate Schools and Teachers: A Bad Idea.” The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 89, no. 2 (2016): 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1156628. Morgan, Hani, and F. Reisman. “Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory and His Ideas on Promoting Creativity.” Essay. In Celebrating Giants and Trailblazers: A-Z of Who’s Who in Creativity Research and Related Fields, 124–41. London, UK: KIE Publications, 2021.
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 15 Moss, Pamela A., and Philip J. Piety. “Chapter 1 Introduction: Evidence and Decision Making.” Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education 106, no. 1 (2007): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00095.x. Oakes, Jeannie. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005. Oakes, Jeannie, John Rogers, and Martin Lipton. Learning Power: Organizing for Education and Justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2006. Oakes, Jeannie, Philip W Jackson, Adam Gamoran, and Reba N. Page. “Curriculum Differentiation: Opportunities, Outcomes, and Meaning.” Essay. In Handbook of Research on Curriculum, 570– 608. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992. Opitz, Michael F., and Michael P. Ford. Reaching Readers: Flexible & Innovative Strategies for Guided Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2001. Pare, Valerie. “Exploring the Conflicts Involved with Ability Grouping.” Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, 2004, https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/summer042/. Pokhrel, Sumitra, and Roshan Chhetri. “A Literature Review on Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and Learning.” Higher Education for the Future 8, no. 1 (2021): 133–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481. Rendall, Nicola, Caroline Wesson, Lindsey Anderson, and Emma Bould. “Students' Goal Achievement: Exploring Individual and Situational Factors.” Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology 8, no. 1 (2009): 263–80. Rogers, Karen B. “Grouping the Gifted and Talented: Questions and Answers.” Roeper Review 16, no. 1 (1993): 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199309553526. Rogers, Karen B. “Using Current Research to Make ‘Good’ Decisions about Grouping.” NASSP Bulletin 82, no. 595 (1998): 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659808259506. Sahatsatatsana, Sattra, and Peeresak Siriyothin. “The Improvement of Students' English Proficiency and Intelligences through Multiple Intelligence Integrated Syllabus.” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2010, 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1109/icdle.2010.5606042. Saleh, Mohammad, Ard W. Lazonder, and Ton De Jong. “Effects of within-Class Ability Grouping on Social Interaction, Achievement, and Motivation.” Instructional Science 33, no. 2 (2005): 105–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-004-6405-z. Slavin, Robert E. “Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis.” Review of Educational Research 57, no. 3 (1987): 293–336. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057003293. Slavin, Robert E. “Co-operative Learning.” In The Social Psychology of the Primary School, 1st ed., edited by Colin Rogers and Peter Kutnick. London: Routledge, 1992. Slavin, Robert E. Educational Psychology Theory and Practice. 8th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon,
Education Insights • 2024 • Volume 2 • Issue 1 16 2006. Stroud, Linda B. “To Group or Not to Group: A Qualitative Study of Middle School Principals’ Decision Making Processes Concerning Ability Level Grouping.” Doctoral Thesis: East Tennessee State University, 2002. https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1797&context=etd. Sukhnandan, Laura, and Barbara Lee. Streaming, Setting and Grouping by Ability: A Review of the Literature. Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research, 1998. Tieso, Carol. “The Effects of Grouping Practices and Curricular Adjustments on Achievement.” Journal for the Education of the Gifted 29, no. 1 (2005): 60–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320502900104. Tong, H. S. A Comparison of the Perception of Teachers Assigned to Teacher Higher and Lower Ability Group. Hongkong: University of Hongkong, 2002. Verlenden, Jorge V., Sanjana Pampati, Catherine N. Rasberry, Nicole Liddon, Marci Hertz, Greta Kilmer, Melissa Heim Viox, et al. “Association of Children’s Mode of School Instruction with Child and Parent Experiences and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic — COVID Experiences Survey, United States, October 8–November 13, 2020.” MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 70, no. 11 (2021): 369–76. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7011a1. Walberg, Herbert J., Arthur J. Reynolds, and Margaret C. Wang. Can Unlike Students Learn Together? Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub., 2004. Worthy, Jo. “Only the Names Have Been Changed: Ability Grouping Revisited.” The Urban Review 42, no. 4 (2009): 271–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-009-0134-1. Yu, Junlin, Pia Kreijkes, and Katariina Salmela-Aro. “Students’ Growth Mindset: Relation to Teacher Beliefs, Teaching Practices, and School Climate,” Learning and Instruction 80, August 2022, 1-11. About the Author: Dr. Whitney Lawrence currently serves as an assistant professor of Education at Kentucky State University.
digitalcommons.cedarville.eduRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=