Session Information
09 SES 03 B, Issues in Secondary Education: Competencies and Attitudes in Heterogeneous Classrooms
Paper Session
Contribution
The handling of the students’ various preconditions for learning differs within the European context: In most European countries, students predominantly learn in heterogeneous classrooms and are only regrouped according to achievement for selected subjects. In Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, however, ability grouping into different types of secondary school is applied to create homogeneous learning groups. Although this allocation to different tracks should only be based on achievement, it is strongly connected with the students’ social background – especially in Germany. As a result, students with the same level of achievement are allocated to different tracks. Thus, even in a tracked school system as in Germany, learning groups are heterogeneous with regard to achievement.
The question whether the composition of learning groups should be homogeneous or heterogeneous is one of the oldest and most controversial issues in educational research (Slavin, 1987): On the one hand, achievement heterogeneity is considered as an obstacle when aiming at improving the skills of all students. On the other hand, achievement heterogeneity is increasingly seen as a chance for learning and an enrichment for instruction. In theory, proponents of ability grouping emphasise that it permits students to make progress according to their abilities, it allows an adaption of instruction techniques to the students’ needs and makes teaching easier, it reduces failures and helps to maintain interest and incentive for all students. Opponents of ability grouping, however, argue that it discriminates against the low-achievers who need the presence of high-achievers to stimulate and encourage them, but often lack a positive reference group, face a lower quality of instruction and have less experienced teachers (Oakes, 1985; Slavin, 1990). Moreover, ability grouping leads to social and ethnic disparities (Rosenbaum, 1980).
Research findings on the effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping are inconclusive: Controlling for individual as well as school process and composition variables, Opdenakker & van Damme (2001) find no effect for the heterogeneity of numerical intelligence on Mathematics achievement of Belgian secondary students. In contrast, Duru-Bellat & Mingat (1998) report that French secondary students achieve slightly, but significantly higher in French and Mathematics when attending heterogeneous classes. Luyten & van der Hoeven-van Doornum (1995), however, conclude that it is not clear whether the effect of heterogeneity on achievement is positive or negative, but it does not seem to be very strong.
The analyses presented here relate to the pros and cons of homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping. They focus on three questions: Does achievement heterogeneity within learning groups affect individual achievement at all? Do students learn more in homogeneous or heterogeneous learning groups? How much of the variance in achievement only accounts for achievement heterogeneity and to what extent is it confounded with other compositional and institutional characteristics? According to mostly negative evidence of ability grouping in previous research, it is assumed that achievement heterogeneity positively affects individual achievement. Moreover it is assumed, that it independently, but only slightly accounts for individual achievement as compositional and institutional characteristics seem to be highly correlated (Baumert et al., 2006).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Baumert, J., Stanat, P. & Watermann, R. (2006). Schulstruktur und die Entstehung differenzieller Lern- und Entwicklungsmilieus. In J. Baumert, P. Stanat & R. Watermann (eds.), Herkunftsbedingte Disparitäten im Bildungswesen. Vertiefende Analysen im Rahmen von PISA 2000 (pp. 95-188). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Cohen, J., West, S. G., Cohen, P. & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). London: Erlbaum. Davier, M. v. & Davier, A. A. v. (2007). A unified approach to IRT scale linking and scale transformations. Methodology, 3 (3), 115-124. Duru-Bellat, M. & Mingat, A. (1998). Importance of ability grouping in French ’Collèges’ and its impact upon pupils’ academic achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(4), 348-368. Luyten, H., & van der Hoeven-van Doornum, A. (1995). Classroom composition and individual achievement. Effects of classroom composition and teacher goals in Dutch elementary education. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 20(1), 42-62. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. How schools structure inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press. Opdenakker, M.-C. & van Damme, J. (2001). Relationship between school composition and characteristics of school process and their effect on Mathematics achievement. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 407-432. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Rosenbaum, J. E. (1980). Social implications of educational grouping. Review of Research in Education, 8(1), 361-401. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.