within-class grouping during literacy instruction: a look at equity
DESCRIPTION
Within-Class Grouping During Literacy Instruction: A Look at Equity. Jessica St.Louis. Grouping Refers to…. Whole Class vs. Small Group. Whole Class Teacher delivering instruction at a set pace to all students, followed by individual seat work. Small Group - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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.