Differentiation and Ability Grouping

I have been thinking about ability grouping and meeting the needs of diverse learners.

Teachers who decide to ability group students explain that it allows them to more readily meet the diverse needs of their learners (Rubie-Davies, 2014).  The concept of diversity is continually growing and changing which is reflected in school demographics and societal challenges.  While diversity may once have meant cultural diversity, teachers are faced with complex classrooms full of students with more than ethnic diversity.  (Ladson-Billings 2011).  Several researchers consider it costly both in money and effort for teachers to constantly match instructional support to learner needs (Pressley, Gaskins, Solic, & Collins, 2006).  This view is supported by the perception that the role of a teacher has increased, intensified and expanded (Valli & Buese, 2007).  Challenging this argument is the perceived cost of not meeting the needs of all students, resulting in educational inequality and subsequent negative social impact (Lleras & Rangel, 2009).  When faced with increasingly diverse learner needs and the complex demands of the role of the teacher, it is understandable for teachers to rely heavily on ability grouping.  In New Zealand, ability grouping in literacy is commonly seen as effective practice.  This view has been identified by Rubie-Davies (2014) as “… entrenched, ubiquitous, and unchallenged practice in New Zealand” (p. 122).

Advocates for ability grouping strongly assert that all learners benefit academically from small group instruction and identify peer learning, tailored instruction, cooperative incentive structures and the development of social and communication skills as benefits (Abrami, Lou, Chambers, Poulsen, & Spence, 2000).   Challenging this belief is the finding that although teachers are working to match the instruction to the level of learner ability, students are often reporting that the level of work remains unchallenging (Hallam, 2003).  Teachers are reported to use ability grouping to meet the needs of their learners yet this often leads to inequitable learning opportunities (Rubie-Davies, 2014).  

It is vital for New Zealand teachers to consider our whole literacy programmes and ensure there are opportunities for our learners to work with different learners and share their diversity.  A balanced reading and writing programme will offer multiple opportunities for learners to interact with content in multiple ways.  If fixed ability grouping is the only way our students interact with literacy learning, then the unintended negative consequences raised in research will likely become their reality.  Yet if we consider differentiation as a fluid model that changes dependent on content and context, students are more likely to experience success.   Flexible grouping described in Rubie-Davies, (2014) shows how teachers with high expectations ability grouped for instruction but not for learning activities. This worked to counter negative social impacts of ability grouping.  There is currently a change in pedagogy in New Zealand schools who are exploring innovative learning environments, where fluid grouping strategies are becoming the norm as many teachers share the responsibility for many learners.

So big questions for me are:

Why do we group our students?

When do we group our students?

What types of grouping do we use?

What are the benefits of grouping our students?

What are the disadvantages or challenges of grouping our students?

How often do our groups change? 

What is the experience of grouping for our students? Do we collect this student voice and respond to it?

 

Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., & Spence, J. C. (2000). Why should we group students within-class for learning?  Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(2), 158-179.

Hallam, S. (2003). Mixed up? The pros and cons of ability grouping. Education Journal, 64, 24-26.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Asking the right questions. Studying diversity in teacher education, 385-398.

Lleras, C., & Rangel, C. (2009). Ability grouping practices in elementary school and African American/Hispanic achievement. American Journal of Education, 115(2), 279-304.

Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Solic, K., & Collins, S. (2006). A portrait of benchmark school: How a school produces high achievement in students who previously failed. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 282.

Rubie-Davies, C. (2014). Becoming a high expectation teacher: Raising the bar. Routledge.

  Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519-558.