Chapter 6 Discussion and Conclusions
This chapter begins with a brief summary of the study, followed by discussion of the findings related to each research question. Next, the conclusions will be made and the implications will be offered. Last, the limitations of the study will be presented.
Summary of the Study Framework This study aimed to answer four major research questions:
1. What attitudes did students keep towards English learning when they were in grouped and ungrouped classrooms respectively?
2. What instructional strategies did teachers use when they dealt with grouped and ungrouped classes?
3. What difficulties did teachers encounter in the two different teaching situations?
4. What attitudes did parents keep towards ability grouping implemented in junior high English teaching and learning?
Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to investigate the effects of ability grouping on Sunny Junior High English teaching. The 263 9th graders of Sunny Junior High School in the school year of 2004 and their parents were asked to
complete questionnaires; teachers and administrators involved in ability grouping, as well as selected students (n=40) and parents (n=10) were interviewed for deeper understanding of the effects of ability grouping from different aspects.
Discussion
Students’ Attitudes towards English Grouped and Ungrouped Classes Questionnaires and interviews were used to explore students’ attitudes towards
grouped and ungrouped classes in the areas of stigma attachment, affective effects, teaching, learning, in-class interaction, general responses to ability grouping and their preferences for ability grouping.
Stigma attachment
In terms of stigma attachment effect, only Group B students agreed to a
significant level that the stigma attachment effect was stronger in grouped class than in ungrouped class. Some students of Group B and one parent of Group B students also reported in interviews that ability grouping labeled students. They reflected their frustration of being assigned to Group B and of being defined as poor English learners at the very beginning of their junior high school life. The finding was consistent with the finding of Goldberg et. al. (1966) that ability grouping placed a stigma upon low achievers.
Besides, some interviewees from Group B also reported conflicts among students due to the labeling effect. They believed that B1 was better than B2 in English ability because 1 versus 2 carried literal meanings that 1 was better than 2. In fact, the school administration beforehand tried to avoid labeling low-ability students by adopting the A-B-B grouping policy. But B1 versus B2, which carried no substantial meaning, caused unexpected labeling effects and conflicts between B1 and B2 students.
However, ST7 and SB10 said that using the same set of textbooks reduced the differences among groups and eased the pain of being teased later. They shared similar opinions with Page (1991), who suggested that the same course outlines might make students of low groups not so different than the others.
Affective effects
The major findings in questionnaire data were: (1) Group B and Transfer agreed
significantly more than Group A that Group A students had a feeling of superiority, (2) in grouped class, Group A showed significantly higher confidence in English learning than Group B.
In terms of the superiority, the English teachers also observed that the arrogant attitudes of Group A students were more obvious in grouped classes than in
ungrouped classes. Being in Group A strengthened these students’ superiority. They showed their boredom or disdain attitudes towards teachers’ instruction. Some Transfer students also believed that they were shifted from Group A to Group B because of their disdain attitudes towards learning when they were in Group A. The findings were consistent with the findings of Esposito (1973) and Wilson and Schmits (1978). Being in Group A inflated students’ arrogant attitudes, which was not obvious in ungrouped class.
In terms of confidence in English learning, Group A students had significantly stronger confidence than Group B students in grouped learning condition. Interview data also showed Group A students generally agreed that being assigned to Group A enhanced their confidence in learning. But the case of SA8 was an exception found in interviews. SA8 could easily take the lead in her ungrouped homeroom class, but she was anxious, frustrated, and afraid to ask questions when she dealt with outside readings in Group A class. She was thus more confident in ungrouped class. The case of SA8 reflected the Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect that some students in the low
standing of high-ability groups had struggling learning experience (Boaler et al.,2000;
Eder, 1979; Ireson et al.,2001).
It was also found from the interviews that ability grouping could benefit those who had unhappy learning experiences before. The interviewees of Group B with negative experiences in elementary English learning confessed that English ability grouping at the 7th grade helped them rebuild their confidence in English learning.
They had chances to restart their English learning and gain fulfillment when they were in Group B because of teachers’ detailed, slow-paced instruction. Similar findings were found in two homeroom teachers’ interviews. They observed that many low achievers who were willing to try in the 7th-grade grouped class gave up English learning in the 8th-grade ungrouped class, where they fell behind in English learning and lost confidence. These findings suggest that ability grouping for a specific subject can have positive effects on students’ attitudes towards the subject if they can perceive the advantage of receiving instruction that suites their ability and levels (Hallam et al.,2000; Ireson, et.al., 2001; Kulik, 1981; Kulik & Kulik, 1982; Lou, 1986). But there were also students who were not confident about their learning in Group B. These students from both Class B1 and Class B2 thought themselves misplaced. Among them, SB6 in Class B2 especially showed resentment towards learning in Group B.
He said that he got tired every time before the English class began when he was in the 7th-grade grouped class. He very much disliked being in Group B. He thought he deserved a better class. There were similar findings in Burroughs and Tezer’s study (1968). They found that students in low-level groups had negative attitudes towards English learning.
In terms of the pressure of academic competition or shifting groups, no significance was found in questionnaire data. However, most interviewees from Transfer held a positive view on ability grouping, claiming that ability grouping stimulated their learning motivation. ST10 even said that he had no motivation to learn when he had English in the 8th-grade ungrouped class because there was no pressure of shifting groups. Those who transferred down to a lower group worked especially hard in Group B because they wanted to go back to Group A. Therefore, ability grouping can be a positive force for students of Transfer to make progress. In Chiang’s study (2000), students in the low standing of advanced groups refused to
transfer to lower groups, and greater resistance to transfer came from parents. The differences in the findings of the two studies may lie in the age of the students and parents’ meddling. Transfers of Sunny Junior High School were teenagers who might appreciate the advantages of ability grouping. Besides, parents of Sunny Junior High School rarely questioned school policy, as reported by the director of students’
academic affairs. However, the students in Chiang’s study (2000) were elementary school students at the age from 9 to 12, who might not be able to appreciate the advantages of shifting groups in learning and viewed it as a matter of losing face.
Furthermore, the school in Chiang’s study was a private elementary school. Parents of private schools tended to have more personal opinions on school affairs, and parents’
attitudes towards shifting groups also affected their children.
Teaching effects
The major findings in questionnaire data were: (1) Group A perceived grouped class to be more interesting, whereas Transfer and Group B preferred ungrouped class, (2) Group A had a significantly better understanding of the teachers’ instruction than Group B in either grouped or ungrouped class, and (3) Group B and Transfer perceived teachers’ low expectation about them significantly more strongly than Group A did in both grouped and ungrouped classes.
In terms of the fun of English class, the grouped class was significantly more interesting to Group A students while ungrouped class was more interesting to Transfer. In addition, Group B generally had less fun in English learning than the others in both classes, but ungrouped class was more interesting for Group B than grouped class. According to students’ and English teachers’ descriptions in the interviews, creative and communicative activities, which were canceled in later ungrouped class, made learning in Group A more fun. In contrast, Group B students,
especially those who felt they were misplaced (SB5, SB6, SB15), were bored with repetitions, reviews, and the slow pace of instruction in Group B. The findings coincided with the findings of French and Rothman (1990), Page (1991), and Gamoran (1993). Ability grouping tended to favor high-level students in instruction.
In addition, the questionnaires showed that Group A students had a significantly better understanding of the teacher’s instruction than Group B students in both grouped and ungrouped classes. The interview data further showed that some Group B students were left far behind when they were in ungrouped class (SB3, SB17, &
SB19). According to SB17, the teacher’s instruction in ungrouped class was aimed at those so-called “good students.” The needs of less capable and slow learners seemed to be ignored in ungrouped class. Her statements corresponded to the claim of Kelly (1969) that average or high achievers usually come into focus in teaching in a heterogeneous class. In contrast, in grouped classes the teacher would offer easy questions or tasks to involve less able or slow learners of Group B.
In terms of students’ perceptions of teachers’ expectation, Group B and Transfer perceived teachers’ low expectation significantly more strongly than Group A in grouped and ungrouped classes. As reported in the interviews, Group A interviewees rarely mentioned teachers’ low expectation about them. But the reflections of Group B interviewees varied. Some felt that English teachers demanded more of their grades in ungrouped class; some felt that their ungrouped teachers cared more about capable students and less about them. The interview findings were not consistent with the findings of Goldberg et al. (1966) that teachers’ low expectation occurred in low-level groups. It was found in the interviews that low-ability students also perceived
teachers’ low expectation about them even when they were in ungrouped class.
Learning effects
The major findings in questionnaire data were: (1) Group A made significantly greater progress than Group B in grouped class and Transfer made significantly greater progress than Group B in ungrouped class, (2) Group A paid significantly more attention to teachers’ instruction in grouped class than in ungrouped class, (3) Group A perceived that their Group A peers concentrated more than their ungrouped homeroom peers, whereas Group B perceived their ungrouped homeroom peers concentrated more than their Group B peers.
In terms of peers’ concentration in class, peers of Group A were perceived to be significantly more concentrated in grouped class than in ungrouped class; but Group B perceived their peers to be more concentrated in ungrouped class than in grouped class. Those who had transferred their groups depicted Group A and Group B classes in the same way as Eder (1982), French and Rothman (1990), and Page (1991). That is, low group lessons were often more boring and repetitious than high group lessons.
Therefore, more students were off-task and inattentive in Group B class than in Group A. The results that Group A students perceived their peers in grouped class
concentrated more than in ungrouped class correspond to the results of students’
self-perceived concentration level. Group A students concentrated more in grouped class than in ungrouped class. The finding can be explained by Group A interviewees’
reports. Group A interviewees more often mentioned keen competition in grouped class, which drew their attention. Besides, they said that their peers in Group A responded to the teacher’s questions very quickly. They themselves had to concentrate and raised their hands quickly so that they could get opportunities to speak and earn extra points. Transferred interviewees, who experienced both kinds of classes, also had the same reports as Group A interviewees.
In terms of students’ progress, Group A significantly agreed more than Group B
that they made progress in grouped class. Besides, there was no significant difference found on Group B’s progress in grouped and ungrouped classes. Group A
interviewees also reported they made greater progress in Group A because of the enriched content and the keen competition in Group A. This finding was consistent with the finding of Kulik and Kulik (1982). Ability grouping favored high achievers due to enriched content and stimulation of peers, but it had no effects on low
achievers in learning.
However, the data from Group B interviewees suggest different possibilities.
Ability grouping might benefit those who had negative learning experiences or gave up English in elementary school (SB1, SB2, SB3, SB9, SB12, SB17, SB19, SB20). It was reported that their learning in the 7th-grade Group B class helped them make progress in English. But they had different performance in English learning when they learned in the 8th-grade ungrouped class. SB9 and SB12, for example, said that competing with top students in ungrouped homeroom class made them progress even more than in Group B. Their reflections were consistent with the findings of French and Rothman (1990), Gamoran and Berends (1987), Hallinan (2000), and Ireson et al.,(2002) that low-level students made more progress in mixed-ability classes. In contrast, SB3 and SB17 said that they fell behind in ungrouped class because they did not understand most of the content and instruction.
On the other hand, the questionnaire data showed that Transfer agreed
significantly more than Group B that they made progress in ungrouped class. Again, there were different findings in the interviews. Several interviewees of Transfer reported that they lost motivation to work hard in ungrouped class because the pressure of shifting groups was gone. To sum up, the qualitative and quantitative data yielded inconsistent findings regarding the progress of students with different English proficiency levels in grouped and ungrouped classes.
In-class interaction
The major findings in the questionnaire data were: (1) Group A agreed that in-class activities went significantly more smoothly in grouped class than in
ungrouped class, (2) Group A agreed that they were under more pressure when they spoke or performed in front of the grouped class than in ungrouped class, (3) Group B and Transfer agreed that their ungrouped peers were significantly more willing to help each other than grouped peers, (4) Group B agreed more strongly than the other
groups that they could not find role models in grouped class, (5) Group A agreed significantly more than Group B that it was easy for them to find more able peers to consult in grouped class; Group B and Transfer believed that it was easier for them to find more able peers to consult in ungrouped class than in grouped class, (6) Group B agreed more than Group A and Transfer that it was easy to find familiar peers to consult in ungrouped class, whereas Group A and Transfer agreed more than Group B that it was easy to find familiar peers to consult in grouped class.
One major significant interaction effect lay on the likelihood of finding role models in the English class. Group B students could more easily find role models in homeroom class than in Group B class. Besides, there were more role models in Group A class than in Group B class. The consequences were very straightforward when seen from Group B students’ interviews (SB9, SB14). They would rather go back to their homeroom class to consult more reliable homeroom classmates than consult their Group B peers when they had questions. The results also correspond to the results of the accessibility to more capable peers for consultation, i.e., Group B and Transfer students considered it easier to find able students in ungrouped class to consult than in grouped class. The findings were consistent with the findings of French and Rothman (1990) and Oakes (1985). They also reported that students lacked successful students and role models in low-level groups.
Another major significant interaction effect lay on the accessibility to familiar peers for consultation in class. Group A showed higher familiarity with their grouped peers than Group B with their grouped peers. The finding might suggest that the traits of cooperation, good will, and the willingness of offering help are more often found in Group A than in Group B (Oakes, 1985). In addition, Group B and Transfer were more alienated in grouped class than in ungrouped class. This questionnaire result was consistent with the finding of student interviews. Most of them reported that they tended to stay with their homeroom peers when they were in grouped class because they were not familiar with peers from other classes. This finding also corresponds to the questionnaire results that Group B and Transfer believed that homeroom peers were significantly more willing to help each other than grouped peers did. The main reason stated in student interviews was that they were not familiar with the peers from the other classes. The fact reflected that the amount of time students spend in ability groups clearly determines the magnitude of the effect of grouping on friendship choices (Hallinan & Sørensen, 1985). In the present study, students stayed in their English grouped classes only four class-periods a week so that they were alienated in grouped class.
In terms of the pressure of performance, Group A felt more pressure when they spoke or performed in front of the grouped peers than in front of the ungrouped peers.
The finding was also found in the interview of SA1. He was particularly nervous and felt stressed in Group A because he knew he was performing or speaking English in front of English high achievers. But he viewed the pressure as a positive force that could improve his English learning. When he had English in homeroom class, however, he felt more relieved because he was better than many others in the homeroom class.
The questionnaire data showed no significant interaction effects between groups
and grouping policy on the chance of speaking or practice. The interview data,
however, provided different points of view. Several Group B interviewees (SB2, SB3, SB4, SB9), who often volunteered to answer the teacher’s questions in Group B, said that they never did that in homeroom class because they could not compete with those faster and better learners in homeroom class. A Transfer (ST10), who occupied many speaking or practice chances in Group B, quit raising his hand in Group A due to the same reason as those previous Group B students stated. The phenomenon suggests that ability grouping benefits students in the high standing of low-level groups where they easily take the lead while they hide themselves in the crowd in ungrouped class or among able peers (Kelly, 1969). It also reflects the Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect (Ireson et al., 2001), as described above.
Preferences for grouping policy
The major findings in students’ responses to ability grouping were: (1) Group A and Transfer had significantly more positive responses to the 7th-grade grouped English class than Group B, (2) Group B had significantly more positive responses to the 8th-grade ungrouped English class than Group A and Transfer.
The questionnaires results corresponded to the results of the interviews. Most interviewees who had stayed in Group A held a positive view about grouped classes where enriched content and activities aroused their interest in learning. Though some Group B interviewees with negative learning experiences in elementary school appreciated the advantages of ability grouping, the learning environment in ungrouped homeroom class was still friendlier for most of them. Besides, they benefited from the presence of able students and the same access to the same content in ungrouped class. The findings are consistent with the findings of Ireson et al.
(2002), who reported low-level students gained more in mixed-ability classes whereas
high-level students gained more in high-ability groups.
When given a choice, nearly half of the students (49.8%) showed a preference for mixed-ability class. The students’ choices were related to which group they were assigned to in the 7th grade. Group A showed their preferences for grouped classes while Group B showed their preferences for ungrouped classes. The tendency again corresponds to the results of the interviews. Most students of Group A reported they enjoyed the active learning atmosphere and enriched content in Group A class.
However, Group B students disliked the feeling of being tagged as Group B,
especially B2. Besides, Group B felt the learning atmosphere in homeroom class was more competitive than in Group B so that they worked harder in ungrouped class.
SB7 and SB13 particularly pointed out that they longed to be taught by their English homeroom teacher to create a closer bond with the homeroom class and the teacher.
Teachers’ Instructional Strategies in Grouped/Ungrouped Teaching Situations Group A versus Group B
The English teachers involved in the 7th-grade grouped English class used different instructional strategies when dealing with different grouped classes although they were required to conduct the class based on the same set of textbooks for all groups.
Besides the textbooks, the English teachers provided high groups with extra materials. Giving Group A students outside readings was the most common way. At the same time, they made some changes in teaching techniques. For example, the teachers usually induced what Group A students already knew instead of giving them lectures or mechanical drills. Group A students were given more opportunities to do oral presentations, act out the adaptations of the dialogues in the textbooks, and do small group activities or experience sharing. In Group B class, the instruction was
mostly teacher-centered. Lectures and drills were the common techniques used in Group B class. Group B students were usually given questions with fixed answers based on the content of the textbooks. Such differences seemed to conform to the findings of French and Rothman (1990), Gamoran (1989, 1993), and Page (1991).
They reported that contextual learning, high-order cognitive activities, and student-centered discourse often occurred in high-ability groups while traditional approaches were used to teach low-ability groups.
However, it was hard to judge whether poor quality of instruction existed in Group B class due to the use of teacher-centered methods. According to the teachers’
reports in the interviews, many students of Group B had little background knowledge in English or lacked basic abilities in speaking and writing. Therefore, it was
necessary for them to establish these students’ basic knowledge about the new language. The teachers viewed traditional teacher-centered methods as an effective way. Questions with fixed answers were asked to check students’ comprehension without overwhelming them; constant drills were used to help students get familiar with new sentence patterns; repetitions, reviews, and slow pace helped students digest and internalize new things they had learned. This part can be viewed as a kind of remedial instruction for low achievers in Group B. From student interviews, several students of Group B with negative English learning experience before (SB1, SB2, SB3, SB9, SB12, SB17, SB19, SB20) claimed that ability grouping benefited their English learning in the 7th grade though several interviewees of Group B showed their boredom towards teachers’ instruction in Group B. Therefore, ability grouping may benefit low achievers or slow learner as well as high achievers.
Grouped classes versus ungrouped classes
The interview data showed that the teachers treated ungrouped class more like
the way they treated Group B because two-thirds of the students in the 8th-grade ungrouped class belonged to Group B before.
When dealing with ungrouped class, the teachers focused more of their attention on basic pattern practices and drills. They gave lectures at an average teaching rate.
Due to the limitations of class hours and students’ average abilities, such creative activities as acting out adaptations of textbook dialogues, outside readings, and oral presentations, which the teachers used to do in Group A, were canceled in ungrouped class. Considering the needs of the nearly one-third of that came from Group A,
however, the teachers added higher-level grammatical knowledge in their instruction.
In terms of types of questions in quizzes, many easy fill-in-blanks questions were given to Group B while Group A students were given questions of writing sentences in grouped classes. In ungrouped class, challenging questions like translations were included into test paper for more able students in addition to some easy questions.
Similarly, in ungrouped class, one teacher gave her top students extra assignments, but out of the request of parents. These more capable students turned in English book reports after they finished reading storybooks or novels in their free time, and the grades were included in the teacher’s evaluations on their daily performance.
It can be found that the teachers tried to fulfill the average needs of all students in ungrouped class. Therefore, the teachers combined strategies and techniques of teaching Group A and Group B in their ungrouped class instruction. The findings were not consistent with the findings of Roye (1971), who observed that instruction in grouped class was similar to instruction in ungrouped class.
Difficulties Teachers Encountered in Grouped/Ungrouped Classes Group A versus Group B
In grouped situations, the main difficulties English teachers encountered
included extra preparation work for Group A, superiority or disdain attitudes of top students in Group A, and low motivation of students in the lowest standing in Group B class.
According to the interviews with English teachers, students of Group A showed certain distinguished features in English learning. For example, they liked to have more control over work, enjoyed performing or acting out, and were more creative. In view of these features, two teachers designed activities and provided extra reading materials for Group A. However, they did not work together as a team. They searched for teaching resources and made lesson plans of their own. They both complained that the extra preparation work was time -consuming and increased their workload. That was why another teacher prepared the same materials for her Group A and Group B classes. She only made minor changes in presentations of the materials, such as the teaching rate and types of questions.
Another problem reported by the English teachers was the arrogant attitudes of top students in Group A, which was also found in Chiang’s study (2000). This was also the complaint the director of students’ academic affairs received most from the teachers. These students disdained their English learning in school and easily got bored by teachers’ instruction based on the textbooks. They showed their interest only when game-like activities were held in class. Group A teachers believed that the only way to solve the problem was to give these students more opportunities to present or perform on stage. However, their indecent performance sometimes upset the teachers.
These students liked to create violent, dirty plots using segmented, incorrect English to amuse their classmates. It was a dilemma for the teachers: these students were spiritless in class if their opportunities to perform were taken away; however, when they were given a chance to act out on stage, they did not produce appropriate, correct language to the teachers’ expectations. The teachers reported that their solution was to
allow students to show their creativity on stage, but to correct their mistakes on meanings and forms afterwards.
In addition, some Group A students’ performance on teachers’ assignments also reflected their disdain attitudes towards schoolwork. Some of Group A students only cared about paper-and-pencil tests but did not turn in homework. Of course, they gained low grades on daily evaluations in return.
On the other hand, the main teaching difficulty in Group B was the low
motivation of low achievers. They were not attentive to teachers’ instruction and they showed little interest in learning. Similar findings were also found in Chiang’s study (2000) that teachers were depressed when they dealt with low-level groups because of students’ low motivation and rebellious behavior. They spent more time and energy on classroom management, which made teaching low-level groups difficult (French &
Rothman, 1990; Page, 1991; Eder, 1981). In the present study, however, the English teachers interviewed reported that although they had no ideas how to help these students with learning, keeping the order in Group B class was not a big headache for the teachers in Sunny Junior High School. In Chiang’s study (2000), students were divided into 3 levels. All the inattentive students with rebellious behaviors were assigned to basic groups. This arrangement increased teachers’ difficulties in
classroom management. In Sunny Junior High school, students were divided into only two levels. Therefore, the low-level group (Group B) still consisted of many students that had a strong desire to learn English. These students might have some positive influence on class order.
In terms of the morale of teachers assigned to low-level groups, the present study did not find similar results to the study of Burroughs and Tezer (1968). The finding that English teachers at Sunny Junior High School adapted their instruction to
students of different levels was similar to that reported in Burroughs and Tezer (1968).
In Burroughs and Tezer’s study (1968), the Department of English at Iran Girls’
College also implemented ability grouping to attend to students’ wide discrepancies.
Like those teachers in this study, the teachers at Iran Girls’ College applied different teaching materials, methods and techniques for groups of different levels. However, in the end, besides unexpected negative effects on low achievers (e.g., stigma attachment and resentment towards English learning), the morale of a teacher assigned to
low-level groups was terribly affected. Ability grouping did not cause such negative effects on the English teachers in Sunny Junior High School. A possible reason for such a different effect on teachers may be that the teachers in Sunny Junior High School were assigned to both Group A and Group B classes at the same time, whereas that morally defeated teacher at Iran Girls’ College was assigned to teach low-level groups only.
Grouped classes versus ungrouped classes
Besides the difficulties discussed above, the administrators had trouble collecting test papers, computing grades, and seeking support from teachers and staff when ability grouping was practiced in 7th-grade English class. Under the grouping policy, students of 9 classes were divided into three large sections, and each section was further divided into three classes of 2 levels, 1 class of Group A and 2 classes of Group B. That is, students of each homeroom class were assigned into 3 different English classes. The complexity of distribution increased the difficulties of collecting test papers and computing students’ grades. After a couple of months’ practice of ability grouping, the director of students’ academic affairs received a lot of complaints from English teachers. These complaints implied that the teachers did not support the continuance of ability grouping. Thus, she felt it was difficult for her to practice the policy.
In ungrouped class, the English teachers and homeroom teachers both observed that more students gave up English learning. In particular, slow learners who kept up with Group B well started to fall behind and finally gave up learning in ungrouped homeroom class because of difficulty in understanding difficult grammar instruction and strong sense of frustration. As a language teacher commented in the study of Reid, Clunies-Ross, Goacher, and Vile (1981), in mixed-ability class the teacher loses the lower end, especially when the less able cannot grasp the grammatical content. The English teachers coped with this problem by offering extra remedial instruction.
However, they reflected the effects were limited because of insufficient time and the large number of students in need of remedial instruction.
Parents’ Attitudes towards Ability Grouping Parents’ opinions on the effects of ability grouping
The major findings in questionnaire data were: (1) parents from Group A and Transfer agreed significantly more than parents from Group B that ability grouping met students’ different needs and benefited their children’s English learning, (2) parents from Group B agreed significantly more than parents from Group A that ability grouping in English learning would cause negative affective effects on their children, such as feeling of inferiority or superiority.
Corresponding to the results of questionnaires, parent interviewees from Group A and Transfer agreed that ability grouping was the solution to wide discrepancies of students’ proficiency in class. But parent interviewees of Group B held varied opinions on the effects of ability grouping. For example, P1, a mother of a Group B student observed her son gained satisfaction and fulfillment due to his good
performance in Group B, which gave him encouragement and confidence. In the
8th-grade ungrouped class, her son had a hard time competing with more able students.
In contrast, P3, also a mother of a Group B student, pointed out the negative effects of ability grouping on her daughter. She mentioned that the name of B2 labeled her daughter adversely. She also viewed B1 superior to B2, like what was found in the statements of two student interviewees (ST7 & SB14). Besides, her daughter was not assigned to the group that her English homeroom teacher was responsible for, which, in her opinion, caused inequity and alienation in homeroom class. It should be noted that labeling effects on slower learners as well as inequity of the education were claimed to be the key factors that would fail ability grouping by Chiang (2003).
Parents’ preferences for grouping policy
The questionnaire data showed that more than half of the parents (57.1%) preferred ability grouping implemented in English class. Their preferences were related to two factors, students’ groups and years of English learning before junior high. That is, parents of those students who had stayed in Group A and had more years of English learning experiences beforehand preferred grouped class, while parents of Group B or those whose children had fewer years of English learning experiences beforehand tended to prefer ungrouped class.
From the interview data and the reasons stated in parent questionnaires, parents of high achievers were concerned more whether or not their children could keep moving forwards. Therefore, they preferred grouped class and thought their children would waste time and get bored easily in ungrouped class. They also believed that the needs of low achievers could only be met in grouped class because they needed more basic practices and teachers’ attention. Parents of Group B, however, put more emphasis on the equity of education or negative influences that ability grouping caused on students’ psychological phase. For example, P3 mentioned her worries that her daughter would learn less in Group B and that alienation would occur among
homeroom peers because two-thirds of the homeroom students were not taught by their homeroom teacher. The mother also pointed out that the practice of ability grouping might encourage parents to send their children to cram schools and start learning English at an earlier age, which was against the equity of education.
The other two parents of Group B (P1, P6) had different opinions from P3. P1 and P6 reported that ability grouping benefited their children not only in English development but also in the affective domain, such as cultivating the interest in learning English. Less able students were more attentive when they felt they could manage the learning tasks in Group B.
The dilemma of grouping policy was reflected in the interview of P8 (Transfer).
This mother basically supported ability grouping due to the positive learning effects but was worried whether her son’s abilities could be properly cultivated in Group B class to deal with the BC-test that all students had to take.
Conclusions
Overall, in the case of Sunny Junior High School, there were not many significant interaction effects found in student questionnaires between students’
groups and their responses to the two different learning situations (grouped vs.
ungrouped classes). That is, to students that experienced different groups (Group A, Group B, and Transfer), learning in grouped class was not very different from learning in homeroom class. One possible reason was that no differentiation of textbooks and two-level grouping policy failed to bring about great effects on English learning (Chien, 1987; Goldberg et al., 1966; Kulik, 1981; Kulik, 1992). Coincidently, the director of students’ academic affairs also advocated in the interviews that finer differentiation of curriculum and ability levels is crucial to make ability grouping work. The director’s opinion was supported by the findings of Chien, Ching, and
Kao’s study (2002) that ability grouping with differentiation of curriculum and instruction benefited students in learning.
In contrast to the few significant interaction effects, more simple main effects were found. That is, students of Group A, Group B, and Transfer showed different attitudes towards learning in either grouped or ungrouped class. Most importantly, there was a tendency that Group A preferred grouped class while Group B preferred ungrouped class. Ability grouping seems to favor students of Group A due to enriched contents and activities, competitive learning atmosphere, and an abundant supply of role models in Group A. The results coincide with the results of Gamoran and Berends’ study (1987). It showed that in grouped classes sharing the same course outlines, instructional differences favored high-level groups. But it should be noted that like in Chien’s study (1987), where more than half of the students in the
experimental group disliked ability grouping policy in Freshman English, the results from the student questionnaires in the present study showed that half of the students preferred ungrouped class.
Ungrouped classes in this study were found to benefit students that should be assigned to Group B due to the access to the same materials, friendly peer relationship, more role models and able peers to consult in ungrouped homeroom class. The results are consistent with the findings that mixed-ability classes favored low-level students whereas grouped classes favored high achievers (Ireson et al., 2002).
As opposed to students, more than half of the parents showed their preferences for ability grouping. Parents basically held the opinion that ability grouping benefited their children’s English learning. There was a tendency that parents of those students who ever stayed in Group A and had more years of English learning experiences before junior high preferred grouped class, while parents of Group B or those who had fewer years of English learning experience preferred ungrouped class.
In terms of teaching, the English teachers adapted their instruction and contents under different grouping situations. In grouped classes, their teaching was based on the same set of textbooks in all groups but they added extra materials when dealing with Group A students. Their teaching methods were more inductive and
student-centered in Group A but more deductive and teacher-centered in Group B.
Considering that the majority of the ungrouped class came from Group B, the teachers treated ungrouped classes more like Group B classes. Nevertheless, it was still hard for them to arouse the learning interest of the students in the lowest standing as well as the top students. This was exactly the problem the teachers previously expected to solve by adopting ability grouping. Although ability grouping appeared to somewhat solve this problem, unexpectedly, the grouping policy brought them new problems, such as increased workload and difficulties of homeroom class management.
In terms of administration, ability grouping did not cause many difficulties, except a little trouble in collecting test papers and computing students’ grades.
According to the administrators’ interviews, the fact that ability grouping did not cause too many problems was because the policy was practiced in Sunny Junior High School with only one grade for one year. Therefore, not many elements were included into consideration in their reflections, such as the deployment of classrooms, students, teachers, and timetables for the whole school.
Several phenomena found in the interviews and student questionnaires were worth the attention of teachers, administrators, and educators. First, some Group B students, especially those from Class B2, who felt themselves misplaced, developed resentment against Group B class and did not care much about learning in Group B.
Secondly, the names of B1 and B2, which originally carried no substantial meanings, caused misunderstandings and even conflicts among students and even parents.
Thirdly, some students and parents were concerned that the English homeroom
teacher could not teach two-thirds of the homeroom class under the grouping policy.
In their opinions, this caused inequity and alienation among the peers and the homeroom teacher. Fourthly, ability grouping favored some students who had
negative English learning experiences in elementary school. They gained progress in Group B class due to Group B teachers’ explicit instruction and slow teaching pace.
Last, it was found in the student questionnaire data that students did not perceive much encouragement from their English teachers either in grouped or ungrouped classes.
Implications
The major finding of this study is that half of the students preferred ungrouped class while more than half of the parents preferred ability grouping. The parents were concerned more about the efficiency of learning while the students cared more about good peer relationship in class. Besides, high achievers preferred ability grouping whereas low achievers preferred ungrouped classes. To solve the conflicting needs and preferences of parents and students, an alternative may be to have students study English in homeroom class in the first semester of the 7th grade and to have grouped English class from the second semester or, when appropriate, second year on, as Reid et al. (1981) suggested. To bridge the gap between English curriculum and instruction of elementary school and those of junior high, in the first semester, teachers can focus on familiar topics (e.g., locations, family members, and classroom objects, etc.), basic language functions (e.g., greetings and introductions), and simple language forms (e.g., sentences with be verbs and simple present tense, etc). In this context, teachers can from time to time make use of games, chants, songs, or role-plays, which are common in elementary English classes, to get students involved in lively social interactions in mixed-ability classes, helping them adapt to the new and more
competitive learning environment.
When instructional focuses move from simple sentences to more complex structures or from the spoken to the written language, it may be time to adopt ability grouping into language teaching because not all students can operate at the same pace to deal with these difficult structures and language tasks (Reid et al., 1981). Another advantage of this alternative is that English homeroom teachers can have a good chance to observe the learning potentials and characteristics of each homeroom student in the first semester, so that they can have a better understanding of their homeroom students, build up good relationship with them, and can manage their homeroom class well after ability grouping is practiced. This may help solve the dilemma of those English homeroom teachers that preferred ability grouping in English teaching yet worried about homeroom class management when ability grouping was practiced. At the same time, it is also more objective and may reduce the chances of misplacement if students are grouped into different levels not only by their academic performance but also by teachers’ judgment based on one-semester’s or one-year’s observation. English teachers can also decide with good reasons how many levels students should be divided into according to their observation of the students.
The successful example of Lungan Elementary School provided another way to group students (Chiang, 2003). Its flexible grouping system allows students to choose their own group and to transfer from one group to another at any time during the semester. The advantage is that no implementation of placement tests eliminates stigma attachment on slower learners as well as inequity of the education, which were the two issues that P3 was concerned about in the interviews of this study. However, it is worth observation if this grouping policy would cause more difficulties in
administration.
Another alternative is to sort out a small number of students with high English proficiency to form English-gifted classes. The majority of other students stay in their homeroom classes to study English. In this way, the needs of top students will be taken care of by providing them enriched content. At the same time, equity of education and good relationship with homeroom peers and homeroom teacher that Group B students and parents care most are also taken into consideration.
One key factor should be considered when ability grouping is practiced is the differentiation of English curriculum for students of different levels. On one hand, teaching based on the same set of textbooks can reduce the sense of inferiority in low-level groups. On the other hand, ability grouping without differentiation of curriculum hardly has effects on learning (Chien, 1987; Chien et al., 2002; Goldberg et al., 1966; Kulik, 1981; Kulik, 1992). Therefore, a better way may be for teachers to develop extra materials in different types for each level based on the same set of textbooks. Meanwhile, to reduce the workload, teachers can work with their
colleagues as a team to make preparation work more efficient and to brainstorm more creative teaching ideas. Moreover, the school authorities should avoid assigning low-level groups to the same teacher to prevent the morale of the teacher from being terribly affected.
Once ability grouping is implemented, the school has the obligation to help students understand sufficiently the rationales of the grouping policy and its
advantages in learning. In addition, the school authorities should be careful in naming groups of different levels. Symbols that carry meanings of “bad or good” and “rank or order,” such as numbers or alphabets, should be avoided. School may try to use names of great English-speaking people (e.g., Shakespeare, Mark Twain, or Hemingway) or places (e.g., London, New York, Sydney) to avoid negative labeling effects.
Though students of Group B showed their preferences for ungrouped class, the
qualitative data pointed out that the 7th-grade grouped English class benefited some Group B students who had negative English learning experiences in elementary school. Their learning in Group B helped them reestablish their confidence in English and make progress. Therefore, English teachers should never skip the basics or
neglect low achievers’ learning potentials no matter in grouped or ungrouped situation.
Under ungrouped situation, school may need to identify these students by distributing questionnaires relating to their English learning background right after they enter junior high school and give them additional remedial instruction. When dealing with low achievers or less able students in the mixed-ability class, if possible, school can offer an extra teacher or teaching assistant to help them. Student teachers are
considered the best human resources.
It was also worth attention that students did not perceive much encouragement from English teachers no matter what kind of English learning class they were in, as indicated in the student questionnaire data. The finding suggest that English teachers might need to reflect on how often they gave students praise or compliments in their daily teaching. In fact, in order to increase students’ motivation and confidence, teachers should place more emphasis on verbal encouragement to students.
Limitations
In the present study, questionnaires and interviews were used to collect responses of students and parents to the 7th-grade grouped English class and the 8th-grade
ungrouped class. The strength of this study is that the same group of students could compare their learning because they experienced both grouped and ungrouped classes at the same time. However, the time to collect data was after the students and parents completely experienced the two different learning situations. The subjects had to recall their learning in the 7th-grade grouped class in retrospect when filling out the
questionnaires and receiving interviews. The lapse of time and memory might reduce the reliability of the reported data. Therefore, longitudinal approach is suggested for future studies to truly document the whole experience in detail.
Besides, the students who transferred upwards and downwards were categorized as belonging to one group－Group Transfer－when questionnaire data were analyzed.
Without distinguishing between upwards transferred students and downwards transferred students in questionnaire data analysis, interpretations of the present study’s results became difficult in some cases. For example, the quantitative data showed that ungrouped class was more interesting to Transfer as a group. But most interviewees from Transfer reported that learning in ungrouped class was more like learning in Group B or somewhere between Group A and Group B and was thus not so interesting and challenging like in Group A. The above conflicting results might have been better explained if a distinction between the two subgroups of Transfer had been made and their responses, compared. Besides, the four parent interviewees of Transfer were those whose children transferred from Group B to Group A. Therefore, their reports could not represent the general opinions of parents from Transfer.
Furthermore, from the data of students’ interviews, some students described in detail the characters or traits of their ungrouped or grouped teachers and revealed their personal likes or dislikes towards the teacher in person. Therefore, the students’
responses or feelings were possibly affected by the teachers themselves, not by the grouping policy.
In addition, the results of this study may not stand for the effects of ability grouping on all junior high school students in English learning because only a school was surveyed and the number of subjects survey was small. Besides, the grouping policy was practiced for only one year. Different effects might be found if the policy were practiced longer. Furthermore, the educational, social, and economic background
of parents in this particular school district might have an effect on their own and their children’s opinions or responses to ability grouping. Different results may be obtained from students and parents of a socio-economic background totally different from that of Sunny Junior High School’s students and parents.
