Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Hetero vs. Homogeneous grouping studies
Posted:
Feb 8, 1998 12:40 PM
|
|
The most definitive survey looking at the entire body of research addressing
the question of whether heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping is more
effective was written in The HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW VOl. 66, No. 4, Winter
1996, "Sustained Inquiry in Education: Lessons from Skills Grouping and Class
SIze" by Frederick Mosteller, Richard Light, and Joason Sachs, pgs. 797 - 828.
Their article concludes that because of the lack of well designed longitudinal
research at the present time, educators can not make informed decisions about
what type of grouping is more effective. The author's main finding is that the
appropriate, large-scale, multi-site research studies on skills grouping have
not yet been carried out, even though the issues have been debated as major
public concerns within education for most of this century. I found that the
paragraph that I will quote below sums up many of the present ills of American
education (and I am an educator).
"U.S. education does not lack innovations; rather, it lacks careful, long-term
evaluations of their performance. In order to be evaluated well, an
intervention must be implemented in enough depth so that it is well defined.
Teachers must develop sufficient experience to actually deliver it. Then,
after initial evaluation, one expect adjustments and improvements, followed by
further evaluation. Our impression is that this process does not often take
place in education. Instead, innovations are introduced, but frequently
without sustained evaluation."
This is not a quick-read article for educators uncomfortable with the most
basic statistics. Unfortunately, too many of us- especially administrators
fall into that camp. This article is also not for those who are wedded to the
belief that because of all the variables, well-designed research studies in
education are to be ignored. I've come to the point that I wish every educator
who falls into that camp would have to join a specially designed HMO that
bases all of its decisions on a mishmosh of current fads and medical
practices used back in the early 19th century before physicians began making
decisions based on well-designed research studies.
For anyone who obtains this article, I would draw your attention to the
optimism about the possibilty of Joplin grouping being an effective classroom
grouping pattern. My own observations as a behavior therapist in classrooms
has been that the few times I have seen this implemented, I have for the first
time seen the needs of gifted as well as special education learners met.
Joplin grouping is a way of grouping students across grades so that they work
in small groups with other students who share similar current skills levels.
Joplin grouping is not a form of tracking, in that easy, prompt, upward steps
are available as student's skills improve. Several mothers I know who were
concerned about their gifted students' lack of challenge in their elementary
classrooms took this above-mentioned article to their principals and used it to
help get their child assigned to a higher grade level for either math or
reading.
As I work with teachers, I find it relatively easier to make adaptations for
students at different levels in content area subjects such as social studies
and science (elementary and middle school). In all of the hundreds of
classrooms I have visited, I have yet to see effective adaptations made in math
and language arts for students grouped heterogeneously. I've almost stopped
looking. Sometimes the only way that individuals will listen to common sense is
when there is finally research support. Think about all of the mothers' claims
for years about the advanced perceptions of their infants responses and skills.
Only after the appropriate studies were conducted did the medical community and
educators take those claims seriously, because the research supported them.
Many teachers find themselves now in the same position. THeir common sense
claims are probably valid, but the researchers in our field have shied away
from doing the research we so desperately need.
----------------------------
message approved for posting by k12.ed.math moderator:Sheila King
k12.ed.math is a moderated newsgroup.
charter for the newsgroup at www.wenet.net/~cking/sheila/charter.html
submissions: post to k12.ed.math or e-mail to k12math@sd28.bc.ca
|
|
|
|
