Leveling the playing field: Increasing student achievement through data-driven ability grouping and instruction. Jami Sexton January 6, 2010 1 Leveling Abstract This action research project focuses on increasing student comprehension and achievement. The study examined the effectiveness of completing detailed item analysis of assessments for the purpose of placing students into different Language Arts classes and learning groups with in those classes. Research advocates placing students of similar ability levels for reading instruction as long as instructional practices are equitable. After student placement, the data was used then for instructional planning. Item analysis of weekly assessments and a unit test continued for the purpose of arranging learning groups and for instructional planning. The participants in this study consist of ten fifth-grade students. The students participated in lessons on a number of reading skills. Data were collected from fifth-grade Ohio Achievement Tests, Reading Benchmark tests, weekly assessments, a Unit Test, a reading survey, an interest survey, self-evaluation survey, conferences, and observational notes. The results of the study suggest a positive relationship between detailed item analysis and student placement. The results also show a positive relationship between using detailed data analysis for instructional planning and increasing student achievement. Introduction In response to No Child Left Behind, school districts across the country have been scrambling to try to find “scientifically-based research to support educational practices” perhaps “the time has come to revisit an old friend (or foe depending upon one’s personal persuasion): ability grouping” (Tieso, 2003, p.1). This is not your mother’s ability grouping, however. Today’s ability grouping is decidedly not the old tracking that placed students at a disadvantage by placing them into “low-achievement groups” with “self- 2 Leveling fulfilling low expectations” (apples4theteacher.com, 2004). Today, ability grouping allows classroom instruction to use the results of high-stakes testing for what it was originally conceived: driving instruction to provide quality education for all students. This paper is based on my experience grouping students into learning communities based not on an overall score on one high-stakes test, but reviewing the results of each question for each student on a high-stakes to determine how to group students and provide each child with an equitable, quality education. The ability groups the children are placed in will be based on their results from individual Ohio Achievement Test questions, a Benchmark reading test and student interviews and surveys. Despite the fact that I am ability grouping, this data will be used to devise learning communities that may prove to be more heterogeneous than if I sorted the students only by overall score without any context concerning that score. Students will be placed into classes by specific need in order to address these needs. Once students are placed into these learning communities, I will be able to address students’ specific reading needs and differentiate my instruction for the sole purpose of increasing student comprehension and achievement. During the course of my research, I will collect multiple pieces of data to demonstrate students’ progress and achievement in the form of weekly and short-cycle assessments. In addition to quantitative research, I will also conduct qualitative research in the form of student surveys, observations and one-on-one interviews. Ability grouping has been rejected as a ‘best practice’ grouping method because it has been associated with tracking students. The ability grouping of today addresses the academic needs of students. I believe that when ability grouping is well designed, there is 3 Leveling equality in instruction and it will “readily help” and “improve” (video: Expert Commentary: How can I identify an area of focus for my research) the reading abilities of my students. I am, however, acutely aware students self-esteem also needs to be monitored to ensure no child begins to feel as if they are in the “dumb” class. To address these concerns, I have devised an anonymous survey to allow students to share with me any negative feelings that may come from these groupings. I also plan to address these issues during my student interviews. Given the individual nature of the sorting process, I believe my classes will become more heterogeneous instead of homogeneous. I do not anticipate issues with self-esteem, but also believe I need to be cognizant of the warning signs and address these personal needs in a timely manner. As much as I am concerned with my students’ achievement, in the course of a lifetime, positive self-esteem is far more important. Research Questions 1. What effect does sorting student groupings through analysis of individual testing results versus sorting only by overall score have on the make up of the student groupings? 2. What effect does differentiated instruction have upon students’ performance levels in their individual areas of need? Describe any differences in performance levels when the differentiated instruction was delivered in small groups (four students or less) or in the whole-class setting. 3. What effect does placing students in ability groups have upon their self- esteem? 4 Leveling Literature Review Tieso, C.L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore, 26. The Questia Online Library. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://www.questia.com This article fully embraces and justifies both my educational practice of ability grouping and my desire to use a combination of high-stakes testing, student ability and instruction based on students’ needs to make “significant improvements in students’ achievement” (Tieso, 2003, p. 1). This is exactly what I want to do with my action research project. The article is interesting because it doesn’t shy away from addressing the critics of ability grouping. The author doesn’t dance around or try to excuse the very real inequalities that existed in some practices of ability grouping when it was used to track students and there was no room for the students to “escape” their perceived level. However, as far as Tieso will go in conceding any faults with ability grouping. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, she encourages educators to use ability grouping to address the different needs of students in a manner that will allow them to achieve. There are several practices included in the article, some of which I had already considered and some that would be impossible in my current setting. I am encouraged I have been on the right track in my thinking about better ways to serve the needs of all of my students, not just the ones with letters (IEPs) and numbers (504s) attached to their names. Mitchell, R. (2006, March 30). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction [Review]. The Center for Public Education. (2006. May 30). Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org 5 Leveling This article addresses a number of issues I am interested in for my research project and my teaching practice. One issue addressed in this article is the research on the effects of testing. I thought it was very interesting most of the research has been about why we should or shouldn’t have high-stakes testing and little research has been done to address the actual effects testing has on classroom instruction. The research has been done “shows teaching a curriculum aligned to state standards as feedback produces higher test scores than an instructional emphasis on memorization” (2006, p. 2). No offense to the researchers, but they could have learned in any basic teaching methods course memorization is not a good teaching practice. The article includes some very interesting information about attitudes towards testing from the general public, teachers, counselors and students. I found it intriguing the public had concerns about validity of the testing, but wanted to know their school district was performing well. The teachers’ attitudes emphasized their concern other teachers would only teach to the test and not properly instruct their students, but they would not do that themselves. I was most surprised by the report most students do not suffer from test anxiety. The data from this survey though may not be valid because the focus group was very small. Test anxiety is one of the factors definitely skewing a child’s test results that would definitely have an impact on my analysis of test data, so I will need to find more information about this factor. Finally, the article addressed the issue because widespread testing is relatively new, there is little research on the use of test data, but there is a model for analyzing student data. The article only mentions Todd McIntire’s guide, but I am now trying to 6 Leveling find out more information about what he determined were best practices for helping all students to meet the state standards. Schullery, N.M., & Schullery, S.E. (2006). Are heterogeneous or homogeneous groups more beneficial to students?, 30(4), 542-556. Journal of Management Education, (2007). Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://www.sagepublications.com This article states the argument between heterogeneous and homogeneous groupings by comparing the classroom setting to a work setting where everyone is a mix of abilities. The authors make compelling points about life outside of the school setting. I think many of the points presented are interesting and though provoking because they are different from my own. This article will help me to consider a different point of view about how I group in the future. The article does state some successful ways homogeneous groupings have worked. It is these successes and how they were achieved I need to keep my focus on as I develop my action plan for student success. Anderson, K.M. (2007). Tips for Teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49-54. (2007). Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www.heldref.org This article focuses on strategies to help all of the students in the classroom through a variety of means. Although the author doesn’t specifically state ‘ability grouping,’ but she describes sorting students into groups which are flexible in nature allowing students to work toward mastery. This article will help me as I develop my action plan for student success. There are tips for getting started with differentiating instruction and there are steps to take to implement the strategies in the classroom. The article describes how these strategies 7 Leveling worked for a real teacher in a real classroom. This information is the most helpful because it clearly shows these techniques are doable in a classroom setting. I am finding there are many strategies available, but I have serious reservations as to their validity in a classroom setting with real children. Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., et al. (2007). National Assessment of Title I: Final Report (pp. 1-276, Rep. No. NCEE 2008-4013). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. This reference has an overwhelming amount of data and materials about different reading intervention for struggling readers. I will use some of the techniques mentioned in the report to help my own students. Some of the testing models used are outside of the scope of what I could possibly do with my students, but generally, much will be quite useful. There is a great deal of data included in the report. Not a great deal of it is useful to my cause, but I have found the models to be very interesting and will use some of the data analysis practice in my own research. Educational Sources. (2004, November 7). Math and Reading Ability Grouping in Elementary Schools. In apples4theteacher.com. Retrieved May 18, 2009, from http://www.apples4theteacher.com. This article discusses the differences between ability grouping within the classroom setting and from class to class. There are several theories addressed within the article outlining different grouping plans and their potential effectiveness. The first theory discusses regrouping only for one or two subjects. The suggestion is grouping can “improve student achievement,” but “the level and pace of instruction must be adapted to achievement level” (Educational Sources, 2004, p.2). 8 Leveling The second theory is the Joplin Plan. I’ve read about this in other publications. I agree with this plan in theory to have heterogeneous groupings throughout the day, but “across grade levels for reading instruction” interesting perspective seems to be outside of the realm of what most school districts would be able to do. I also question having three different grade levels in one class without it having a negative impact on students’ self-esteem. The third plan is the Non-graded Plan. Students are placed into groups based on performance level rather than a grade. Much like the Joplin Plan, I question having students at different ages in the same class period without there being any effect on student’s self-esteem. The last plan is within-class ability grouping. The article states this is most effective for math instruction. The article corroborates what I have been finding in my own research: not enough is known about the effectiveness of any one type of grouping for reading instruction because not enough research has been done concerning reading instruction because of the difficulty with determining a control group. This is where I am also struggling to determine on what basis will I know my plan is effective. This article raised more questions for me than it answered, but in and of itself is important. Muir, M. (2007). Tracking and ability grouping [Research brief]. The Principals’ Partnership. (2007, January 8). Retrieved May 18, 2009, from http://www.principalspartnership.com This article outlines the differences between ability grouping and tracking. Much like the other articles I have found, tracking is criticized for a multitude of sins against education. Ability grouping is discussed differently when done only for reading 9 Leveling instruction. Again, the focus is to make sure all students are receiving the same level of instruction to ensure equity. Equity in education is the main focus of this article. This is where ability grouping goes very wrong when equity is not strived for and subsequently achieved. The article gives some solid advice on how to achieve this and I plan to try to develop a graphic organizer to keep myself in check to make sure I am indeed achieving equity in my instruction. Westchester Institute of Human Services Research. (2003). High-Stakes Testing. The Balanced View. 7(1). This article focuses on the positives and negatives of high-stakes testing. For my purposes, the article provides information about using high-stakes testing to form school curriculums to ensure that schools, and subsequently classroom teachers, are teaching what the state requires. The article states there is little research on the impact high-stakes testing can make in a classroom setting. There is a word of caution about teaching to the test, but at the same time, the article encourages teachers to use their test data in a way to effect a positive change upon their own practices. I am hopeful I will able to make a positive change upon my practice so I can help my students become better readers. Schumm, J., Moody, S., & Vaugh, S. (2000). Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities (2000, September 1). Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://www.accessmylibrary.com. This article presents grouping from the perspective of children with learning disabilities. This is very important to me because I do have children in my classes with