Ability Grouping

Hello,
This message is in regards to Penny Gaines' post about ability
grouping in elementary schools

"Firstly, there are some children who are very good in one area, but
very poor in another. Which class do you put them in? The
'high-ability' group, because they are good at mathematics, or the
'low-ability' group, because they can barely read?

Secondly, there have been several pieces of research that show that
the teachers' expectations tend to be self-fulfilling. When a
teacher
is told that a child is 'above-average' when they are not, research
has shown that the child tends to end the year as actually being
above
average.

Also, in elementary school, I think that children tend to change
ranking on a very fluid basis. At 5yo, a child may seem behind
(especially if they have a late birthday, and are being compared to
children a year older then themselves): the same child may be
average at 8yo, and above average at 11yo, simply due to development.
I would be very unhappy if one of my children (who all had relatively
late birthdays) was put in a low set when they started school."

I agree that ability grouping in elementary can be harmful to students
for several reasons. I am currently a student of elementary
education. We discuss the issue of ability grouping in almost all of
my classes. One solution we discuss is using flexible ability
grouping within the classroom. This way, the teacher is able to
differentiate for several different levels without the permanence of
most ability groups. With constant assessment (informal as well as
formal) the teacher is able to move students often to better meet
their needs.

I wonder what other teachers and parents think about flexible ability
grouping. As I am not yet in the classroom full time, I do not know
the full effect of this type of ability grouping regarding the self-
fulfilling prophecy.

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 18:09:13 -0800 (PST), Chelse wrote:

Hello,
This message is in regards to Penny Gaines' post about ability
grouping in elementary schools

"Firstly, there are some children who are very good in one area, but
very poor in another. Which class do you put them in? The
'high-ability' group, because they are good at mathematics, or the
'low-ability' group, because they can barely read?

I only know of ability grouping in specific subjects. That works well,
IMO. The kids who are struggling shouldn't have to work at the pace of
above average kids. They just feel like failures. The above average kids
need to be challenged and shouldn't be kept to the same level as below
average kids. It's all very fluid at DS's school. The kids are regularly
tested and reassigned when necessary and it's all subject specific to math
and reading groups.

"Chelse" wrote in message
...
As I am not yet in the classroom full time,

Are you a teacher?

On Dec 8, 9:09 pm, Chelse wrote:
Hello,
This message is in regards to Penny Gaines' post about ability
grouping in elementary schools

"Firstly, there are some children who are very good in one area, but
very poor in another. Which class do you put them in? The
'high-ability' group, because they are good at mathematics, or the
'low-ability' group, because they can barely read?

Secondly, there have been several pieces of research that show that
the teachers' expectations tend to be self-fulfilling. When a
teacher
is told that a child is 'above-average' when they are not, research
has shown that the child tends to end the year as actually being
above
average.

I doubt that this effect, if it exists at all, is strong enough to
matter. Telling a child he is above average in intelligence won't make
him so. For some evidence against the "Pygmalion Effect", you could
read the review paper

Educational Researcher, Vol. 16, No. 9, 28-37 (1987)
The Self-Fulfillment of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Samuel S. Wineburg
Few ideas have influenced educational research and practice as much as
the notion of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Yet despite the impact of
the "educational self-fulfilling prophecy," the empirical status of
the construct, as applied to the effect of teacher expectations on
student IQ, remains equivocal. Lack of evidence was apparent even in
the now-classic "Pygmalion Study" (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968), which
claimed to show that teachers" expectations affect student
intelligence. Despite criticism of the study and failure to replicate
the effect in different settings, Pygmalion became one of the most
cited studies in education. What made the educational self-fulfilling
prophecy so durable when many other ideas in education have a fleeting
half-life? How was research that was much contested in scholarly
circles used by the courts and portrayed in the media? This paper
examines these questions.

at

http://sciencethatmatters.com/wp-con...weinburg87.pdf
http://sciencethatmatters.com/wp-con...osenthal87.pdf
http://sciencethatmatters.com/wp-con...ineburg87b.pdf

as well as some discussion of the review.

Beliavsky wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:09 pm, Chelse wrote:
Hello,
This message is in regards to Penny Gaines' post about ability
grouping in elementary schools

"Firstly, there are some children who are very good in one area, but
very poor in another. Which class do you put them in? The
'high-ability' group, because they are good at mathematics, or the
'low-ability' group, because they can barely read?

Secondly, there have been several pieces of research that show that
the teachers' expectations tend to be self-fulfilling. When a
teacher
is told that a child is 'above-average' when they are not, research
has shown that the child tends to end the year as actually being
above
average.

I doubt that this effect, if it exists at all, is strong enough to
matter. Telling a child he is above average in intelligence won't make
him so. For some evidence against the "Pygmalion Effect", you could
read the review paper

But the studies refered to did not involve telling the child that he/she
was above average: they involved telling the child's teacher.

Educational Researcher, Vol. 16, No. 9, 28-37 (1987)
The Self-Fulfillment of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Samuel S. Wineburg
[snip]

http://sciencethatmatters.com/wp-con...weinburg87.pdf
http://sciencethatmatters.com/wp-con...osenthal87.pdf
http://sciencethatmatters.com/wp-con...ineburg87b.pdf

as well as some discussion of the review.

Those articles were published 20 years ago - did you consider them
particularly significant for some reason?

I found a much more recent review at
http://psr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/131.pdf

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

toypup wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 18:09:13 -0800 (PST), Chelse wrote:

Hello,
This message is in regards to Penny Gaines' post about ability
grouping in elementary schools

"Firstly, there are some children who are very good in one area, but
very poor in another. Which class do you put them in? The
'high-ability' group, because they are good at mathematics, or the
'low-ability' group, because they can barely read?

I only know of ability grouping in specific subjects. That works well,
IMO. The kids who are struggling shouldn't have to work at the pace of
above average kids. They just feel like failures. The above average kids
need to be challenged and shouldn't be kept to the same level as below
average kids. It's all very fluid at DS's school. The kids are regularly
tested and reassigned when necessary and it's all subject specific to math
and reading groups.

Yeah, if I remember correctly I was posting in response to someone who
said that the children should be in different *classes* depending on
whether they were "high-ability" or "low-ability" children. That's
quite differnt from children within one class who are specific groups
for specific subjects.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

I would like to thank everyone for their responses and suggestions for
future reading. As a current student of elementary education, I am
always looking for material to clarify my ideas. As the self-
fulfilling prophecy is brought up in my classes often, I look forward
to bringing a fresh perspective to the discussion.
Thank you all, again,
Chelse