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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=