Within-Class Grouping During Literacy

Instruction:A Look at Equity

Jessica St.Louis

Grouping Refers to…

Small Group Breaking students into pods,

generally 3 to 10 students, who receive separate instruction per group, with individual accountability.

Whole Class vs. Small GroupWhole Class

Teacher delivering instruction at a set pace to all students, followed by individual seat work.

Grouping TermsIntra-Class; Grouping inside the same whole

classAcross Class; Grouping across different

classrooms (commonly leads to tracking)

Across Grade; Grouping across classes of different grades (commonly leads to tracking)

Heterogeneous ; Grouping students of mixed ability together

Homogeneous; Grouping students of same ability together

Flexible; Creating options during groupingCooperative; Structuring group work, so focus is

on group learning and product, not individual

“What grouping strategies and methods are most effective at creating equity in learning literacy across ability levels?”

Group SizesSmall Group

DynamicsStudent NeedsTeacher’s PracticesStudent Perceptions

My Focus

Started in one-room school houses, over a century ago. Primarily administered as homogeneous, with-in class groups.

History of Grouping

Basal ProgramsImplemented by Administration3-tier systemHomogenous groups (until “recently”…)

Reading Programs & Grouping

Grouping Methods ComparedBest Practices for Grouping By ThreadSummary of Best PracticesWeaknesses of Body of ResearchFurther Research

Findings

Group SizesSmall Groups were better than whole class

(most of the time). Less than 10, but not less than 3 students.Whole-class was found to be favorable over

some specific basal, reading programs

Small Group DynamicsFocus on the group’s reading ability, not the

individual’s.A group with an overall higher reading level will create a

higher level of learning for the members of that group.Higher group fluency = higher student attentiveness,

comprehension, and recallHeterogeneous pair tutoring (1 to 1) found growth in

both students, with more growth in lower-ability students.

Students with a lower reading level spent less time reading orally, and received less per-word practice and instruction.

Student NeedsDe-emphasize student’s ability levels,

regardless of grouping strategy. Create a community where all students believe

in themselves as readers.Negative social stigmatism associated with

homogeneous groups was also in heterogeneous groups.

Ability exposure led to social hierarchyExpectation = EncouragementEmphasis of ranking drastically reduced reading

improvement for lower and middle level students, but didn’t affect higher level students at all.

Egalitarian treatment showed no difference

Teacher’s PracticesDifferentiation or scaffolding for students

with special needs wasn’t being completed.Consideration for student placement into

groups was based off a combination of test scores, individual observations, and last year’s teacher recommendations.

Wide range of methods used, sometimes by choice of administration, not teacher.

Generally Special Ed teachers had more freedom to choose, then General Ed teachers.

Provide optimal control of;1) Working conditions, 2) Teacher

assistance3) Ridicule from peers, 4) Pace of

learningTreat ALL students like they are high

ability studentsNo correlation between ability and attitude

toward reading; i.e. students of all high ability levels were just as likely to dislike reading as students of low ability.

When teachers treated students like high-ability readers, their appreciation of reading excelled.

Students perceptions of their ability level did not match teacher’s perceptions, with the exception of high ability students

Student Perceptions

Summary of Best PracticesSmall Groups were better than whole class

(most of the time). Focus on the group’s reading ability, not the

individual’s.De-emphasize student’s ability levels,

regardless of grouping strategy. Create a community where all students

believe in themselves as readers.Treat ALL students like they are high ability

studentsProvide optimal control of;

1) Working conditions 2) Teacher assistance

3) Ridicule from peers 4) Pace of learning

Grouping Methods Compared

Heterogeneo

us Grouping

Homogeneous

Grouping

Allows more capable peer interactions, and peer tutoring.

Commonly prevents student’s from moving between groups, possibly due to identification by self & teachers.

May not be teacher’s choice. May be required by administration.

Provides for higher group ability.

Whole ClassIndividual needs are not taken into account.

Students have to learn to perform in survival of the fittest model.

Set pace.Set Instruction.Differentiation for

students with an LD or LLD doesn’t happen.

Students’ ability is exposed

Social Hierarchy may be a problem.

Focuses on Community building and peer support.

Teaches Social & Communication Skills

Weaknesses of Research There’s no such thing as isolating variables in

a real classroom.Transferability Rarely Seems Valid

There’s a lack of qualitative studies

Further ResearchCooperative Learning or Interdependence Comparing Egalitarian vs. Elitist classrooms

Next StepsThe problem doesn’t lie in using

homogeneous groups, the problem lies in using solely homogeneous groups, and failing to de-emphasis the group levels.

It’s not enough to not label tired groups. Ability of groups must be de-emphasized.

Students must also be taught that they are all capable.