Teachers’ appraisal of various aspects of the efficiency of homogeneous and heterogeneous learning groups

Mara Cotič; Daniel Doz; Milena Valenčič Zuljan; Amalija Žakelj; Darjo Felda

doi:10.29333/iejme/12810

Full Text (PDF)

Mara Cotič ¹ , Daniel Doz ¹ ^* , Milena Valenčič Zuljan ² , Amalija Žakelj ¹ , Darjo Felda ¹

More Detail

¹ Faculty of Education, University of Primorska, Koper, SLOVENIA² Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, SLOVENIA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

In the present study, we were interested in the appraisal by teachers who have had experience with an individual form of differentiation of the efficiency of grouping learners into homogenous or heterogeneous groups. In the study, seven aspects were thus considered: (1) the learning performance and motivation of learners, (2) the learners’ activity, (3) didactic ways of adapting teaching to diverse learners, (4) the impact on the formation of learners’ personality, (5) cooperation among learners, (6) opportunities for professional development, and (7) cooperation with parents. The research has shown that there is a statistically significant difference between the teachers who teach in homogeneous groups and the teachers who teach in heterogeneous groups in all the seven aspects of the appraisal of the efficiency of grouping learners into homogenous or heterogeneous groups. Regarding most of the assertions, teachers belonging to both groups perceive the way of teaching they perform as having the most advantages.

Keywords

teacher
teaching mathematics
homogeneous groups
heterogeneous groups

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

INT ELECT J MATH ED, Volume 18, Issue 1, February 2023, Article No: em0727

https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12810

Publication date: 06 Jan 2023

Article Views: 1673

Article Downloads: 1131

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Adamič, M. (1996). Model sukcesivnega kombiniranja temeljnega in nivojskega pouka ter dosežki nivojskih skupin [Model of successive combination of basic and level education and achievements of level groups]. Sodobna Pedagogika [Modern Pedagogy], 47(1-2), 39-48.
Askew, M., & Wiliam, D. (1995). Recent research in mathematics education. HMSO/Osted.
Aydin, E., & Tugal, I. (2005). On the influence of grouping practices on classroom teaching. Essays in Education, 14, 1.
Aylett, A. (2000). Setting: Does it have to be a negative experience? Support for Learning, 15(1), 41-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.00141
Biehler, R. F., & Snowman, J. (1993). Psychology applied to teaching. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Blanco Diez, J. C. (2018). Learning contexts available for Japanese teachers in a top tier public high school: Encompassing a demanding work environment with adult education needs. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1222725/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Boaler, J. (1997). Setting, social class and survival of the quickest. British Educational Research Journal, 23(5), 575-595. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192970230503
Cheung, C. K., & Rudowicz, E. (2003). Academic outcomes of ability grouping among junior high school students in Hong Kong. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 241-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309598813
Crahay, M. (2000). L’école peut-elle être juste et effi cace? De l’égalité des chances à l’égalité des acquis [Can school be fair and effective? From equal opportunities to equal achievements]. De Boeck University.
Crahay, M. (2003). Peut-o lutter contre l’échec scolaire? [Can we fight against school failure?] De Boeck University.
Dawson, M. M. (1987). Beyond ability grouping: A review of the effectiveness of ability grouping and its alternatives. School Psychology Review, 16, 348-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1987.12085298
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20586
Dupriez, V. (2010). Methods of grouping learners at school. UNESCO.
Duru-Bellat, M., Mons, N., & Suchaut, B. (2004). Caractéristiques des systèmes éducatifs et compétences des jeunes à 15 ans [Characteristics of education systems and skills of young people at age 15]. Les Cahiers de l’Iredu [The Iredu Notebooks], 66, 1-158.
Esposito, D. (1973). Homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping: Principal findings and implications for evaluating and designing more effective educational environments. Review of Educational Research, 43(2), 163-179. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543043002163
Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 415-435. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057004415
Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M., & Lepore, P. C. (1995). An organizational analysis of the effects of ability grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 687-715. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032004687
Gorard, S., & Smith, E. (2004). An international comparison of equity in education systems. Comparative Education, 40, 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006042000184863
Hamilton, L., & O’Hara, P. (2011). The tyranny of setting (ability grouping): Challenges to inclusion in Scottish primary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 712-721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.009
Hanushek, A. E., & Wößmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, 116(510), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01076.x
Harlen, W., & Malcolm, H. (1997) Setting and streaming: A research review. SCRE.
Hattie, J. (2018). Vidno učenje za učitelje: Maksimiranje učinka na učenje [Visual learning for teachers: Maximizing the impact on learning]. Svetovalno-Izobraževalni Center MI [Counseling and Education Center MI].
Hoffer, T. B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(3), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737014003205
Kerckhoff, A. (1986). Effects of ability grouping in British secondary schools. American Sociological Review, 51, 842-858. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095371
Kiryakova, G., Angelova, N., & Yordanova, L. (2018). The potential of augmented reality to transform education into smart education. TEM Journal, 7(3), 556-565.
Kožuh, A. (2017). Active learners at school. University of Primorska Press.
Kulik, C. L. & Kulik, J. (1984). Effects of ability grouping on elementary school learners: A meta-analysis [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association.
Liu, F. (2007). Personalized learning using adapted content modality design for science students. In Proceedings of the 14^th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Invent! Explore! (pp. 293-296). https://doi.org/10.1145/1362550.1362612
Maaz, K., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Educational transitions and differential learning environments: How explicit between‐school tracking contributes to social inequality in educational outcomes. Child Development Perspectives, 2(2), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00048.x
Marentič Požarnik, B. (2000). Psihologija učenja in pouka [Psychology of learning and teaching]. DZS.
Marks, R. (2014). Educational triage and ability-grouping in primary mathematics: A case-study of the impacts on low-attaining learners. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 38-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2013.874095
McGillicuddy, D. (2021). “They would make you feel stupid”-Ability grouping, children’s friendships and psychosocial wellbeing in Irish primary school. Learning and Instruction, 75, 101492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101492
Mendolia, S., Paloyo, A. R., & Walker, I. (2018). Heterogeneous effects of high school peers on educational outcomes. Oxford Economic Papers,70(3), 613-634. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpy008
Oetzel, J. G. (1998). Explaining individual communication processes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups through individualizm-collectivism and self-construal. Human Communication Research, 25(2), 202-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682958.1998.tb00443.x
Opdenakker, M. C., Van Damme, J., & Minnaert, A. (2006). Are there equal opportunities in our classes and schools? An investigation into the relationship between class composition, indicators of the learning environment and the class climate, effort, and academic achievement of classes. Catholic University of Louvain.
Page, R. (1992). Lower track classroom: A curricular and cultural perspective. Teachers College Press.
Pečar, M. (2018). Izkušnje in stališča učiteljev o prilagajanju pouka predznanju in interesom učencev [Teachers’ experiences and attitudes towards adapting lessons to students’ prior knowledge and interests] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Ljubljana].
Pozas, M., Letzel, V., & Schneider, C. (2020). Teachers and differentiated instruction: exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(3), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12481
Raftu, G. (2016). Methods and techniques of instruction individualization and differentiation. Learning through cooperation or group work. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Series VII: Social Sciences and Law, 9(1-Suppl), 83-90.
Rees, D. I., Argys, L. M., & Brewer, D. J. (1996). Tracking in the United States: Descriptive statistics from NELS. Economics of Education Review, 15(1), 83-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(95)00025-9
Schofield, J. W. (2010). International evidence on ability grouping with curriculum differentiation and the achievement gap in secondary schools. Teachers College Record, 112(5), 1492-1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011200506
Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2006). Are heterogeneous or homogeneous groups more beneficial to students? Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 542-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905277305
Sibieta, L. (2016). Can grammar schools improve social mobility. Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057003293
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in elementary and secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060003471
Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. L. (1981). Cognitive and affective outcomes of an intensive student team learning experience. The Journal of Experimental Education, 50(1), 29-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1981.11011797
Strmčnik, F. (1993). Učna diferenciacija in individualizacija v naši osnovni šoli [Learning differentiation and individualization in our primary school]. Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo [Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Education].
Suk Wai Wong, M., & Watkins, D. (2001). Self-esteem and ability grouping: A Hong Kong investigation of the big fish little pond effect. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 79-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410123082
Supena, I., Darmuki, A., & Hariyadi, A. (2021). The influence of 4C (constructive, critical, creativity, collaborative) learning model on students’ learning outcomes. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 873-892. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14351a
Valenčič Zuljan, M., & Kalin J. (2020). Učne metode in razvoj učiteljeve metodične competence [Teaching methods and development of teacher methodological competence]. Pedagoška Fakulteta [Faculty of Education].
Valenčič Zuljan, M., Peklaj, C., Pečjak, S., Puklek Levpušček, M., & Kalin, J. (2012). Didactic competencies of teachers from the learner’s viewpoint. Educational Studies, 38(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.567028
van der Lans, R. M., van de Grift, W. J., & van Veen, K. (2017). Individual differences in teacher development: An exploration of the applicability of a stage model to assess individual teachers. Learning and Individual Differences, 58, 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.007
Vandenberghe, V., Dupriez, V., & Zachary, M. D. (2001). Is there an effectiveness-equity trade-off? Across-country comparison using TIMSS test scores. In W. Hutmacher, D. Cochrane, & N. Bottani (Eds.), In pursuit of equity in education (pp. 243-252). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47579-0_10
Vinkler, L. (2020). Alternative tools for motivating young primary school students when learning maths. Journal of Process Management and New Technologies, 8(4), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.5937/jouproman8-29210
Wooten, C. B. (2019). Tutoring as an early field experience for preservice teachers: A teacher preparation educator’s reflections. Journal on School Educational Technology, 14(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.14.4.15870
Wyman, P. J., & Watson, S. B. (2020). Academic achievement with cooperative learning using homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. School Science and Mathematics, 120(6), 356-363. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12427
Žagar, D. (2004). Nivojski pouk v devetletni osnovni šoli [Level lessons in a nine-year primary school]. Šolsko Polje [School Field], 15(5/6), 29-51.
Žakelj, A. (2003). Kako poučevati matematiko. Teoretična zasnova modela in njegova didaktična izpeljava [How to teach math. Theoretical design of the model and its didactic derivation]. Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo [Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Education].
Žakelj, A. (2016). Jezikovna dimenzija matematike in pouka matematike [The linguistic dimension of mathematics and mathematics teaching]. In T. Devjak, I. Saksida, I., & M. Dagarin Fojkar (Eds.), Bralna pismenost kot izziv in odgovornost [Reading literacy as a challenge and responsibility] (pp. 163-176). Pedagoška Fakulteta [Faculty of Education].
Žakelj, A., Cotič, M., & Felda, D. (2018). Razvoj matematičnega mišljenja pri reševanju problemov [Development of mathematical thinking in problem solving]. Pedagoška Obzorja [Faculty of Education], 33(1), 3-17.

How to cite this article

APA

Cotič, M., Doz, D., Valenčič Zuljan, M., Žakelj, A., & Felda, D. (2023). Teachers’ appraisal of various aspects of the efficiency of homogeneous and heterogeneous learning groups. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 18(1), em0727. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12810

Vancouver

Cotič M, Doz D, Valenčič Zuljan M, Žakelj A, Felda D. Teachers’ appraisal of various aspects of the efficiency of homogeneous and heterogeneous learning groups. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2023;18(1):em0727. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12810

AMA

Cotič M, Doz D, Valenčič Zuljan M, Žakelj A, Felda D. Teachers’ appraisal of various aspects of the efficiency of homogeneous and heterogeneous learning groups. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2023;18(1), em0727. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12810

Chicago

Cotič, Mara, Daniel Doz, Milena Valenčič Zuljan, Amalija Žakelj, and Darjo Felda. "Teachers’ appraisal of various aspects of the efficiency of homogeneous and heterogeneous learning groups". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2023 18 no. 1 (2023): em0727. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12810

Harvard

Cotič, M., Doz, D., Valenčič Zuljan, M., Žakelj, A., and Felda, D. (2023). Teachers’ appraisal of various aspects of the efficiency of homogeneous and heterogeneous learning groups. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 18(1), em0727. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12810

MLA

Cotič, Mara et al. "Teachers’ appraisal of various aspects of the efficiency of homogeneous and heterogeneous learning groups". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 18, no. 1, 2023, em0727. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12810