1. Within-Class Grouping During Literacy Instruction: A Look at Equity
Jessica St.Louis

2. Whole Class vs. Small Group
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
Breaking students into pods, generally 3 to 10 students, who receive separate instruction per group, with individual accountability.

3. Grouping Terms Intra-Class; Grouping inside the same whole class
Across Class; Grouping across different classrooms
(commonly leads to tracking)
Across Grade; Grouping across classes of different grades
Heterogeneous ; Grouping students of mixed ability together
Homogeneous; Grouping students of same ability together
Flexible; Creating options during grouping
Cooperative; Structuring group work, so focus is on group learning and product, not individual

4. My Focus
“What grouping strategies and methods are most effective at creating equity in learning literacy across ability levels?”
Group Sizes
Small Group Dynamics
Student Needs
Teacher’s Practices
Student Perceptions

5. History of Grouping
Started in one-room school houses, over a century ago.
Primarily administered as homogeneous, with-in class groups.

6. Reading Programs & Grouping
Basal Programs
Implemented by Administration
3-tier system
Homogenous groups (until “recently”…)

7. Findings Grouping Methods Compared
Best Practices for Grouping By Thread
Summary of Best Practices
Weaknesses of Body of Research
Further Research

8. Group Sizes
Small 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

9. Small Group Dynamics
Focus 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 recall
Heterogeneous 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.

10. Student Needs
De-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 hierarchy
Expectation = Encouragement
Emphasis 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

11. Teacher’s Practices
Differentiation 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.

12. Student Perceptions Provide optimal control of;
1) Working conditions, 2) Teacher assistance
3) Ridicule from peers, 4) Pace of learning
Treat ALL students like they are high ability students
No 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

13. Summary of Best Practices
Small 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 students
Provide optimal control of;
1) Working conditions 2) Teacher assistance
3) Ridicule from peers 4) Pace of learning

14. Grouping Methods Compared

15. Whole Class Homogeneous Grouping Heterogeneous Grouping
Individual needs are not taken into account.
Whole Class
Set pace.
Differentiation for students with an LD or LLD doesn’t happen.
Set Instruction.
Students have to learn to perform in survival of the fittest model.
Homogeneous
Grouping
Students’ ability is exposed
Social Hierarchy may be a problem.
Focuses on Community building and peer support.
Teaches Social & Communication Skills
Heterogeneous
Grouping
May not be teacher’s choice. May be required by administration.
Provides for higher group ability.
Commonly prevents student’s from moving between groups, possibly due to identification by self & teachers.
Allows more capable peer interactions, and peer tutoring.

16. 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 Research
Cooperative Learning or Interdependence
Comparing Egalitarian vs. Elitist classrooms

17. Next Steps
The 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.