The present study investigates how the implementation of between-class ability grouping affects EFL students’ learning from various perspectives. To have more insight into the effects of the grouping practice on students, both the level effect and timing effect are analyzed. Not only freshmen who had completed one year of the English program but also sophomores who had completed two years of the program were included in the study. How teachers perceive the effects of the grouping arrangement on the basis of their own teaching experience and their students’
performance is also examined. The key findings of this study can be summarized as follows:
1. Research findings indicate that the majority of surveyed students hold positive attitudes toward ability-grouped class assignment. A strong majority of all the subjects agree that: (1) ability grouping is beneficial to their English learning and
helps them build more confidence; (2) teachers’ teaching materials and instructional methods better match their ability levels; (3) teachers’ instructional methods help them become more interested in learning; (4) ability grouping benefits both their listening ability and reading comprehension ability; and (5) they are appropriately placed into the appropriate levels of listening classes and reading classes.
2. It’s noteworthy that about one third of the subjects perceive ability grouping negatively in the following situations: (1) near one third of all the subjects agree that ability grouping causes more anxiety, (2) about one third of the subjects, either freshmen or sophomores, do not agree that the teaching materials and methodology used in homogenously grouped classes help increase their interest in learning English, (3) more than one third of the sophomores oppose the view that ability grouping helps them feel less pressure of learning English and increase academic motivation, and (4) about 30% of the sophomores do not consider themselves to have been placed in the appropriate levels of either listening classes or reading classes.
3. The majority of the teachers show preference for the grouping plan. As high as 97% of the teachers agree that ability grouping is beneficial to students’ learning of English as a foreign language. A very high percentage, more than 90%, of the teachers also shows varying degrees of favorable attitudes toward the grouping practice in the following perspectives: (1) teachers’ instructional methods used in homogeneously grouped classes are better suited for the students’ proficiency levels and more helpful for increasing students’ interest in learning, (2) ability grouping helps students feel less negative pressure and anxiety about learning, (3) ability grouping helps students build more confidence in learning, and (4) ability grouping helps the enhancement of students’ listening ability. A comparatively lower percentage, 82.4%, of the teachers agrees that ability grouping helps elevate students’ reading ability.
On the other hand, it is important to note that teachers seem to have more concern about the grouping plan in terms of: (1) whether ability grouping helps increase students’ learning motivation, (2) whether the teaching materials used in grouped classes help students become more interested in learning, and (3) whether students are placed into the appropriate levels of classes based on their listening and reading ability. Although only less than 30% of the teachers show negative perceptions of ability grouping in these aspects, more careful examination of the effectiveness of the teaching materials, curriculum, and the grouping criteria is suggested in the future.
4. When questioned if the key to further improvement in English is students’
own learning attitudes or learning strategies rather than ability grouping, the
overwhelming majority of students and teachers agree with the statement. For example, 92.7% of the 245 freshmen agree that one’s own attitudes toward learning are more important than the grouping arrangement to accelerate one’s academic performance.
5. About 70% of the students and 90% of the teachers agree that achievement level should be reassessed every year. The findings support Slavin’s (1988) conclusion that any type of grouping plan should allow for frequent reevaluation of students’ academic progress.
6. The interaction effect between level and timing is found non-significant for all the items. The timing effect is only significant for four questions pertaining to the overall beneficial effects of ability grouping for English learning. Whenever the timing effect is significant, students in the second-year English program hold less positive attitudes towards the effects of the homogeneous grouping arrangement than those taking the first-year program. It remains to be investigated whether student support declines over time because of disappointment with the effects of ability grouping on improving their English proficiency or because of other causes.
7. Level effect is found significant for 10 out of the 18 questions. Whenever there is a significant level effect, the highest group mean is obtained by the low-achievement level. The advanced level has the lowest group mean. Post hoc test results show that the elementary and advanced levels are never in the homogeneous subsets. Students placed in the lower-ability level have the most positive perceptions of ability grouping with regard to questions about whether: (1) ability grouping helps ease the negative pressure of learning English, helps them build more confidence in learning, and improves their learning motivation, (2) the teaching materials and instructional methods used in grouped classes better match their ability levels and increase their interest in learning English, and (3) ability grouping is beneficial to their reading comprehension ability. To the contrary, the students in high-achieving group hold the lowest positive attitudes toward homogeneous placement.
Opponents of grouping are particularly concerned for its labeling and harmful effects on low achievers. They argue that the low-performing students may receive a lower quality of instruction than those in other groups. These students may also suffer from decreases in self-esteem and learning motivation. Apparently, these problems are not the major concerns for the low achievers in the present study. The findings are consistent with Yu’s (1994) conclusion that groups with low performance evidently show stronger support for the ability grouped class assignment than the other groups.
Results of post hoc multiple comparisons show that students in the higher-ability group have more reservations about the grouping arrangement than those in the other groups when asked if the practice helps them feel less pressured and more confident to learn. Kulik (1992) noticed that when highly able students are grouped with similar peers, they may become less satisfied with themselves and experience a slight decline in the perception of their ability and self-confidence. High achievers’ academic self-concept is likely to decrease due to higher expectations from their teachers and more competition from other high-achieving students. All these may explain why the students grouped in the higher-ability level in the present study feel more pressure than those at the other levels. Although the grouping effects on self-esteem may be negative for high achievers and positive for low achievers, researchers noticed that all the effects are very slight (Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1993; Rogers, 2002). The findings of this study indicate that, overall, students in the higher-ability stream perceive the grouping effects positively rather than negatively.
The findings also suggest that more high achievers than students in the other groups disagree that the teaching materials used in grouped classes are helpful in terms of increasing their learning interest. Kulik and Kulik (1982) maintained that grouping effects on achievement are only positive for high ability students when they receive “enriched instruction.” Kulik (1993) claimed that the enriched classes for these high achievers should provide a special curriculum in which a great deal of adjustment is made. In fact, a special curriculum that is adapted to the level of the students is crucial to student learning not only for high achievers, but also for students of all levels. It is important that the curricular and instructional needs of the learners are taken into careful consideration. Most teachers are in favor of the ability grouping practice because homogeneous classes are easier to manage. This kind of arrangement allows teachers to vary the method and content of instruction to more efficiently handle the diversity of student abilities. With more careful planning, the ability grouping practice can be a very effective way of controlling ability differences and fostering students’ learning interest. The goal of grouping is certainly to promote quality instruction for students of varying ability levels and help them develop more positive attitudes about learning and themselves, which hopefully will lead to improved student achievement. More studies in the future should be carried out to examine whether students in grouped classes receive effective instruction in well- modified and differentiated curricula.
VII. References
Braddock, J. H. & Slavin, R. E., “Why ability grouping must end: Achieving excellence and equity in American education.” Paper presented at the Common Destiny Conference at Johns Hopkins University, 1992.
Chang, B.Y., “A descriptive case report of TEFL program planning for non-English majors: The Fu-Jen experience.” Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 1987, pp.205-212.
Chang, B. Y., “A study on the curriculum design of required English courses at universities.” Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 1992, pp.161-170.
Chen, M. H., Lin, Y. C., & Feng, H. C., “Students’ and instructors’ perceptions of ability grouping in English listening learning.” Journal of Chang Jung Christian University, Vol. 8, No.1 (2004), pp.107-123.
Chien, C. N., Ching, H. L., & Kao, L. H., “Study on a different leveling English instruction policy for ‘Freshman English’ in Chung Yuan Christian University.”
Chung Yuan Journal, Vol.30, No.4 (2002), pp.505-516.
Fiedler-Brand, E., Lange, R. E., & Winebrenner, S., “Tracking, ability grouping and the gifted.” Norristown, PA: Pennsylvania Association for Gifted Education, 1992.
George, P. S. & Rubin, K., “Tracking and ability grouping in Florida: Educator’s perceptions.” Florida Educational Research Bulletin, Vol.23, No.3-4 (1992), pp.1-52.
Hoffer, T. B. & Gamoran, A., “Effects of instructional differences among ability groups on student achievement in middle-school science and mathematics.”
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 509), 1993.
Hollifield, J., “Ability grouping in elementary schools.” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 290 542), 1987.
Hopkins, G., “Is ability grouping the way to go-or should it go away?” Education World, 2003.
Ireson, J., Hallam, S. & Hurley, C., “What are the effects of ability grouping on GCSE attainment?” British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31 (2005), pp.443-458.
Jaeger, R. M. & Hattie, J. A., “Detracking America’s Schools: Should we really care?” Phi Delta Kappan, Vol.77, No. 3 (1995), pp.218-219.
Kulik, C. -L. C. & Kulik, J. A., “Research synthesis on ability grouping.” Educational Leadership, Vol.39, No.8 (1982), pp.619-621.
Kulik, J. A., “Findings on grouping are often distorted: Response to Allan.”
Educational Leadership, Vol.48, No.6 (1991), p.67.
Kulik, J. A., “An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives.” Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 1992.
Kulik, J. A., “An analysis of the research on ability grouping.” NRC/GT Newsletter, (1993), pp.8-9.
Liang, T. L., “Cooperative learning: An alternative to ability grouping.” Journal of Paisa Humanities and Social Sciences, No.2 (2003), pp.141-175.
Loveless, T., “The tracking and ability grouping debate.” Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1988.
Luo, B., “Achievement grouping and students’ progress in freshman English classes at Feng Chia University.” Feng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, No.11 (2005), pp.253-279.
Oakes, J., Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985.
Reis, S. M., “No child left bored.” School Administrator, Vol.64, No.2 (2007), p.22.
Rogers, K. B., “Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers.”
RoeperReview, Vol.16, No.1 (1993), pp.8-12.
Rogers, K. B., “Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers.”
RoeperReview, Vol.24, No.3 (2002), pp.102-107.
Sheu, C. M. & Wang, P. L., “A case study of student perceptions toward between-class ability grouping in freshman practical English class.” K.U.A.S.
Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, No.3 (2006), pp.111-140.
Slavin, R. E., “Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis.” Review of Educational Research, Vol.57, (1987), pp.293-336.
Slavin, R. E., “Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and secondary schools.” Educational Leadership, Vol.46, No.1 (1988), pp.67-77.
Slavin, R. E., “Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools.” Review of Educational Research, Vol.60, No.3 (1990), pp.471-499.
Slavin, R. E., “Are cooperative learning and “untracking” harmful to the gifted?”
Educational Leadership, Vol.48, No.6 (1991), pp.68-71.
Slavin, R. E., “Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement effects and alternatives.” Elementary School Journal, Vol.93, No.5 (1993), pp.535-552.
Slavin, R. E., “Detracking and its detractors: Flawed evidence, flawed values.” Phi Delta Kappan, Vol.77, No.3 (1995) pp.220-221.
Strech, L. L., “Ability grouping for elementary reading instruction and its relationship to the balanced literacy approach.” Master Thesis. Long Beach, CA: California State University, 1995.
Tieso, C. L., “Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore.” Roeper Review, Vol.26, No.1 (2003), p.29.
Tsao, C. H., “The impact of ability grouping on foreign language learners: A case study.” Hwa Kang Journal of TEFL, No.9 (2003), pp.79-102.
Yu, C. F., “The assessment of ability grouping in the college lab program: The Soochow experience.” Soochow Journal of Foreign Languages and Literature, No.10 (1994), pp.45-77.
Appendix A
Percentages and Chi-square Values of Junior and Senior Students’ Responses to Questions about Ability Grouping
Item Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Strongly X² * Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
Q1. 2.2 8.9 8.9 35.6 37.8 6.7 66.533 Q2. 3.3 10.0 12.2 40.0 25.6 8.9 50.000 Q3. 2.2 10.0 14.4 32.2 34.4 6.7 49.467 Q4. 2.2 4.4 18.9 37.8 30.0 6.7 58.667 Q5. 4.4 4.4 10.0 33.3 37.8 10.0 60.000 Q6. 4.4 7.8 17.8 33.3 32.2 4.4 48.533 Q7. 3.3 4.4 10.0 37.8 42.2 2.2 90.667 Q8. 2.2 10.0 10.0 43.3 30.0 4.4 72.133 Q9. 0.0 0.0 6.7 22.2 37.8 33.3 20.756 Q10. 0.0 1.1 5.6 31.1 40.0 22.2 49.222 Q11. 0.0 5.6 20.0 26.7 26.7 21.1 13.444 Q12. 5.6 18.9 38.9 21.1 12.2 3.3 45.333 Q13. 3.3 3.3 11.1 41.1 36.7 4.4 82.800 Q14. 3.3 3.3 12.2 41.1 33.3 6.7 72.933 Q15. 4.4 6.7 14.4 20.0 26.7 7.8 52.800 Q16. 3.3 6.7 16.7 41.1 24.4 7.8 54.800 Q17. 6.7 8.9 14.4 34.4 22.2 13.3 28.267 Q18. 5.6 8.9 26.7 28.9 21.1 8.9 27.733
* All the chi-square tests are significant at the 0.01 level.
Note: These students had been placed in both mix-ability and homogeneous classes.
Appendix B
Means of Students’ Response Scores Organized into Two Years and Four Ability Levels
Item / Year Level I II III IV Total
Q1. Year 1 4.31 4.37 4.38 4.15 4.30 Year 2 4.21 4.15 4.20 3.87 4.11 Total 4.26 4.26 4.29 4.01 4.20 Q2. Year 1 4.59 4.07 3.87 3.59 4.04 Year 2 4.60 3.95 3.63 3.22 3.85 Total 4.60 4.01 3.75 3.40 3.94 Q3. Year 1 4.41 4.05 4.05 3.74 4.07 Year 2 4.35 4.10 3.90 3.58 3.98 Total 4.38 4.07 3.97 3.66 4.02 Q4. Year 1 4.00 3.98 4.07 3.80 3.96 Year 2 4.15 3.61 3.86 3.50 3.78 Total 4.07 3.79 3.97 3.65 3.87 Q5. Year 1 4.16 4.08 3.92 3.84 4.00 Year 2 4.31 3.97 4.07 3.37 3.92 Total 4.23 4.02 3.99 3.60 3.96 Q6. Year 1 4.03 3.76 3.70 3.33 3.71 Year 2 4.18 3.82 3.66 3.17 3.70 Total 4.10 3.79 3.68 3.25 3.71 Q7. Year 1 4.30 4.19 4.10 3.75 4.09 Year 2 4.34 3.89 3.95 3.53 3.92 Total 4.32 4.03 4.02 3.64 4.00 Q8. Year 1 4.11 4.02 3.87 3.54 3.89 Year 2 4.06 3.76 3.69 3.45 3.74 Total 4.09 3.88 3.78 3.50 3.81 Q9. Year 1 2.36 1.98 1.93 2.07 2.09 Year 2 2.55 2.06 1.92 1.89 2.11 Total 2.45 2.02 1.92 1.98 2.10 Q10. Year 1 2.41 2.15 2.10 2.11 2.20 Year 2 2.79 2.26 2.24 2.20 2.37
Total 2.60 2.21 2.17 2.16 2.28 Q11. Year 1 2.97 3.03 2.95 2.97 2.98 Year 2 3.24 2.87 2.88 2.72 2.93 Total 3.10 2.95 2.92 2.84 2.95 Q12. Year 1 3.92 4.07 4.25 3.79 4.00 Year 2 4.00 4.00 3.83 4.00 3.96 Total 3.96 4.03 4.04 3.90 3.98 Q13. Year 1 4.27 4.25 4.18 3.97 4.17 Year 2 4.00 3.92 3.90 3.78 3.90 Total 4.13 4.08 4.04 3.87 4.03 Q14. Year 1 4.25 4.10 4.15 3.87 4.09 Year 2 4.02 3.84 4.08 3.70 3.91 Total 4.13 3.97 4.12 3.78 4.00 Q15. Year 1 4.11 3.92 3.97 4.07 4.02 Year 2 4.03 3.84 3.78 3.80 3.86 Total 4.07 3.88 3.87 3.93 3.94 Q16. Year 1 4.17 3.80 3.98 4.11 4.02 Year 2 3.97 3.74 3.81 3.91 3.86 Total 4.07 3.77 3.90 4.01 3.94 Q17. Year 1 3.89 4.32 3.75 3.97 3.98 Year 2 3.81 4.13 4.07 4.27 4.07 Total 3.85 4.22 3.91 4.12 4.02 Q18. Year 1 3.92 3.68 3.84 3.43 3.72 Year 2 3.61 3.58 3.27 3.31 3.45 Total 3.77 3.63 3.56 3.37 3.58 Note: Level I, II, III, IV respectively denote basic, intermediate, high-intermediate, and advanced level.