Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Chapter 6- Accomodating Student Variability
What are my beliefs about ability grouping? What do I see as the benefits and costs of ability grouping? If I find myself in a school that utilizes ability grouping, what can I do to ensure that I maintain high expectations for all my students no matter what ability group they fall under?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The decision to group kids by ability is complicated, and it 'depends'. There are some skills and concepts that may be best taught to children in groups of other children with similar strengths and weaknesses. For example, when teaching about 'simple machines' in Science, grouping the kids in this way would give some children the chance to 'step up' that they do not normally have. It will also allow others to 'run with it' who may feel constrained in some settings. However, I think it is important to remember that all kids have high abilities in some areas. In other circumstances, say working on fluency, kids grouped with others of all strengths and challenges works out well. Many hesitant readers will shine during Reader's Theater because they can learn their lines and even add expression, tone, and humor. Better readers benefit as well, as they can work to 'improve' their lines in the script or add props or other pieces of themselves to the play. Both grouping techniques should include individual plans with goals to be reached by the teacher and the student.
ReplyDeleteI think that flexible ability groups can be very benefical if they are used correctly. I think that by ability grouping students, you are better able to enrich students who have mastered the particular concept or standard, remediate students who are at nonmastery level, and provide some support for students who are proficient. I think that if these groups are used, they must change regularly. Students must not be "stuck" in a particular group. All students have strengths and weaknesses and every student needs to feel successful. If a student is always with the same group of students and the same teacher, they will lower their self-concept and settle for less than their personal best. I think that teachers need to ensure that with all groups their expectation is mastery level learning. They need to ensure that their lessons are engaging and "get the most bang for their buck". These groups will allow teachers to focus on specific standards to ensure student understanding. Students in each group must be pushed up to the next level of learning. To ensure that students are in flexible groups, teachers can create common formative assessments. Then based on the result of each test, form a group that focuses on a particular skill, such as number sense, for a week. Have each group work towards the same expectation of mastery learning. Then at the end of the week asses the students again to check for improvements. The instructors for the ability groups should also change so that one teacher is not always the nonproficiency group leader. The focus groups can show improvement as long as students don't feel stuck in a particular group.
ReplyDeleteAbility grouping, as long as these are flex groups, actually make a teacher's life easier. They need to be flex groups so the same students aren't stuck in the same group all of the time. Groups need to be changed regularly so that you are truely working with each kids' strength or weakness for whatever concept you are working on. If you don't change these groups, kids' self-efficacy will suffer. High expectations need to be set for all abilities to ensure mastery. These groupings can better allow differentiated ways of instruction to meet each students needs while still being able to look for the same criteria for assessment purposes.
ReplyDeleteCream rises... this is one of my very high beliefs as an educator. No matter the ability level of my class, there are certain expectations that I hold for student behavior and classroom procedures, that have to hold true. I know that some of my students are not as capable as others, but I still expect that they can follow an assignment's format and framework. Often, I'll modify assignments for lower ability students with an IEP, and when grading, I may have a different expectation for the answers a student may give (when assigning a grade).
ReplyDeleteI think that ability grouping can meet other needs of students-- social and emotional security can be met, when students are in an academic group that fits their level. I do think as teachers we need to be careful about niche instruction though, because as kids age, their capabilities may change. I'm afraid if we get them stuck in a "track", they will never come out of that track.
I think that ability grouping is useful in certain subjects. We are considering doing ability yet flexible grouping next year for math. When students are working with students that are at the same level, I feel they can work through problems together. With ability grouping, one student would not be doing all the work. On the other hand, if you had a lower group of students working with higher students, they might be able to utilize the students with higher ability in the subject area. The positive side of this would be that the higher groups can move quicker and be challenged with higher level thinking. And the lower group could be a smaller more intimate group with more one-on-one instruction, which is what they need to succeed. I have also seen negative effects of ability grouping by hearing comments from students saying “oh you are in the smart group” and “oh I am in the dumb group.” With those comments, they also might be thinking they are satisfied at where they are, and not push themselves intrinsically. They also would not be able to challenge each other or provide examples for each other. To maintain high expectations I would let me know that the groups are not permanent. There is always room to move to another group, both up and down.
ReplyDeleteI have never tried ability grouping, but in my building it is done in the 6th grade for math. Our 6th grade math teacher is very experienced and the grouping works very well for her. With the start of the next school year, we will be ability grouping in 5th grade as well. With an estimated 32 students per class in 6 classes and only one floating aide, I feel the grouping will help with the flow of the math classes. We plan to group as low, average and high. The high should be able to move at a faster pace and be presented in a more challening way. The low class will have a smaller number of students and include the classroom teacher, a special education teacher, and 1 or 2 aides. I feel that with the same (I use that term loosely) abilities in one classroom, the flow of the lessons should go more smoothly. I will be able to gage the students and teach using certain strategies geared toward them better than if their abilities were at a greater range. However, I guess a cost would be lack of role models and the thought they the students in the low and average class might succumb to being low or average and assume that is all we expect of them. I have to admit that I am nervous about this and realize that as we go along there will be a lot of kinks to work out. I hope to convince the kids that these groups are flexible and the placing of them is because we feel that in order to be successful in math this year you may work best with this certain teacher and group of kids.
ReplyDeleteAbility grouping can be very beneficial if it is done correctly. If you use flex grouping, you can change your students around more because you are focusing on the skill, not the students overall ability. Your expectations should be the same no matter what ability group you are working with. All students should be expected to follow the procedures and work to the best of their ability. Ability grouping is extremely beneficial for gifted students. Gifted students need time to be with other gifted students, plus if gifted students are placed in one group, it allows others students to have more time to answer and feel less intimidated. I have used flex grouping for reading and math and it works well if you have the staffing to do it. The past few years we have had only 2 teachers at our grade level with no capable aide, so you would have to do groups in your classroom. This was not possible because there were too many behavioral issues in that group of kids. If I am ever in a situation were flex grouping is possible, I would make sure students understand that the groups are not the "dumb kids" and the "smart kids" but focus on what skills they need to practice.
ReplyDeleteI find myself more open to the idea of ability grouping for particular subject areas and on the condition that students may move within the groups as needed. Therefore, I could more closely identify with the regrouping style as mentioned in Chapter 6 and less with the between-class model. One key to grouping effectively seems to be looking at a variety of factors other than a child's IQ or performance on one standardized test before placing a child in a particular work group. Like many other educational practices, I feel that ability grouping is best used in balance with instruction in a heterogeneous setting. In this balance, students can receive instruction at their skill levels in homogeneous groups but can also reap the rewards of working in mixed ability groups to share and learn from the individual strengths of others.
ReplyDeleteFor me, ability grouping is one of those "it depends" scenarios. In thinking about between-class ability grouing, I see more cons here than pros, especially at the intermediate level. I think it is beneficial for students to work with other students of different ability levels. This helps them to grow as individuals. When you have one class with all low or medium students, then they are not given the opportunity to interact with individuals of higher abilities. Also, kids at this age know who the "smart" kids are. By doing this kind of grouping, we could be damaging the self-esteem of several kids. Regrouping is slightly better, in my opinion, in that kids are only switching for one subject. I remember doing this in elementary school for both reading and math. The benefit is that it allows the teacher to teach at the necessary pace. However, again the students know which group is the "smart" group. This too can have a negative affect on self-concept. I think the safest way to ability group is to do within-class grouping. Then the teacher has the option of doing some homogenous and hetergeneous grouping as needed. Hopefully this can be done strategically so that the students aren't feeling disappointed or discouraged. As far as expectations go, I think you have to hold all students to a high standard. On the other hand, a standard for a high-ability student might not necessarily be the same standard for a low-achieving student. In most cases, such as quality of work, discipline, etc., the standards should be held the same for all and should be communicated with the students several times throughout the year. Using modeling for these expectations, such as how the work should be turned in, what is expected, etc.,can be demonstrated as whole-class instruction, or even within the groups.
ReplyDeleteI tend to be in favor of ability grouping for more advanced students. This fall I will be having two periods of 7th grade pre-algebra. I feel this is necessary to push and challenge the stronger math students. However, my other three periods will be a somewhat balanced mixture of the average, low, and special eduation students. My experience with low ability grouping has not seemed beneficial to the students. I feel they lack role models and becomed lulled into a comfortable state of ignorance. They look around at each other and agree that math is too complicated. Other teachers on my team have made similar observations. One area that has seen some success in low ability grouping is in reading class because the required reading material is adjusted. Make no mistake about it though, these students are aware and will comment about being in the "dumb" group.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that many schools are considering ability grouping now. Maybe it comes from the increasing pressure to meet the needs of all learners no matter where they fall on the spectrum. I am really interested in trying this out with my grade level team. We were very close to making the decision to begin between-class ability grouping (we called it cluster grouping) in the upcoming school year. We decided to postpone the decision until we had done more research and were more prepared to answer questions from parents. On one hand we saw the immediate benefits to the students because differentiation was built into the arrangement. I feel that one of the greatest advantages to this grouping is that the students who are high-achievers, or the GT students, would be better challenged. When these students are not being challenged, they oftentimes create behavior problems. From a teaching standpoint, there would be more time to plan and prepare more meaningful activities, since the group is somewhat more homogeneous. We thought about the obvious disadvantage of there being no leaders or role models for the low or middle students to follow. We concluded that amongst any group, no matter how homogeneous they appear, leaders will emerge. There would still be opportunities for students to learn from others. I think a key component in this grouping concept is for teachers to maintain high expectations, no matter whether they teach the high, middle, or low group. I would always keep in mind that I am still teaching first grade curriculum and first grade state standards. Even the low group is expected to perform at grade level. It is how I go about teaching that may differ from group to group. Pace your instruction according to your students' needs, but let students know that you expect their best at all times.
ReplyDeleteAs many of you have said, it depends. On one hand (or in certain subjects, depending on the strengths of your students), ability grouping is easier for teachers because those GT kids that are always done first are put into one group, the bubble kids are in the next, and those students that need remediation are put into another. It’s easier because the students that need the most help are all together. On the other hand is mixed grouping. This takes more time because an assessment must be done for each student because the groupings must be able to be “working” groups. Teachers must take into account student personalities, social norms of the classroom, and ability levels must be of a wide range so that essentially, peer-tutoring takes place. But do I want to constantly rely on peer-tutoring? The answer is no, a variety of instruction needs to take place and being able to allow students to receive direct instruction, supported instruction, and peer-tutoring.
ReplyDeleteOne of the elementary schools I was in used flexible ability grouping. I must say I loved it, especially for math because we got to move at a fast pace. Looking back, I think it worked well because kids could move in and out of the groups. They weren't "stuck" in whatever group they may have started in. In my opinion, maintaining the same groups the entire school year would give some children a sense of inferiority and low self-esteem. As a teacher, I always look for time to work with my struggling students. My on-level kids do just fine, but it seems to me that my advanced learners are left hanging. Flexible ability grouping will allow teachers to meet the needs of all levels of students. No matter what group a child is placed in, the teacher needs to expect him/her to put forth his/her best effort. The teacher can provide challenges within each group in order to maintain high expectations from all. And always let your students know that you believe in them and their abilities to succeed.
ReplyDeleteI believe that ability grouping can be extremely beneficial. I agree that the GT students, in particular, need a chance to be challenged in a homogeneous group. With experience doing between-class ability grouping in reading, I observed that often times the GT students, who felt bored and were always the leaders, found new challenges and room for growth when placed with other students of their same ability. Ability grouping can help students in each group to feel comfortable with their own abilities, and often new leaders emerge as a consequence. Groups should ideally, be flexible, so that students understand that they are not fixed in the "dumb," "average," or "smart" groups. I've also experienced behavior problems when students from other homeroom classes are mixed in between-class grouping. To maintain a high level of expectations, I would set individual goals for each student and let them know that they are not "stuck" in their group.
ReplyDelete