Chapter 2 Literature Review
This chapter will start with a brief introduction of the history and rationale of ability grouping, and then review studies concerning ability grouping practiced in general subjects and foreign language learning.
History of Ability Grouping Development of Ability Grouping
W. T. Harris’s plan, initiated in 1867 in St. Louis, was often cited as the origin of ability grouping. In that plan, bright pupils were selected and rapidly promoted through the elementary grades. A few years later, several plans adopted this model, putting emphasis upon advancing bright pupils. At the turn of the 20th century, the Santa Barbara Concentric Plan divided each grade into A, B, C sections, and each section mastered the same fundamentals for each subject, but A’s did more extensive work than the B’s, and the B’s more than the C’s (Goldberg et al., 1966). This model of grouping is followed by thousands of American schools today (Kulik & Kulik, 1982).
Ability grouping, however, once faced a decline in the decade of 1940 because it was thought as an undemocratic practice in education. According to Lu (1991), in the 1950s, the Soviet Union launched the first rocket Sputnik so that ability grouping made its comeback in the United States, especially in the field of gifted education. In late 1980s, a fierce debate on ability grouping was provoked among educators.
Opponents asserted that less able children lacked positive role models in grouped classrooms and were segregated in school as aliens. Such segregation violated the principle of equity in Constitution of the United States (Oakes, 1985). On the other hand, some educators considered ability grouping as a workable way for students to
learn. They contended that in mixed-ability classrooms the better students
monopolized class activities and let the others become silent audience. Therefore, ability grouping could offer students of average and lower ability more opportunities to participate in class activities (Lu, 1991). Though ability grouping is still an issue under debate, it is still popular in schools in the United States.
Ability grouping is also wildly used in other countries of the world. In England, students in primary, junior, even grammar or secondary modern schools, are sorted into different groups depending on their ability, which is called “streaming.” Similar grouping system is adopted in secondary schools of many countries of the Eastern and Western worlds (Kulik & Kulik, 1982).
Ability Grouping in Taiwan
Before 1968, ability grouping was rarely an issue for educators and scholars in Taiwan (Huang, 1991). Students who enrolled at junior high school had been sorted by a joint entrance examination, and that made their academic performances reach a certain kind of standard. Therefore, schools did not need ability grouping to organize students at that time.
When the nine-year compulsory public education started in 1969, elementary graduates were allowed to get into a junior high school in their neighborhoods without passing examinations. Because of wide discrepancies of students’ learning abilities or learning rates as well as uncontrollable quality of students’ achievement levels, more and more junior high schools began to adopt ability grouping to organize classes (Huang, 1992). By grouping students in this way, it was easy and convenient for teachers to adjust their instruction in class, and schools could easily and effectively raise students’ grades on joint entrance examination of senior high school. However, many defects of ability grouping were discussed among educators, parents, and the
public. One of the defects mentioned most, for example, was the effect of
stigmatization, which had bad influence on teachers’ expectations and the quality of instruction, students’ self-esteem, and the relationship between teachers and students (Chu, 1987). It was also pointed out that the effect of stigmatization influenced not only students’ learning and personality but also the equity of education because schools usually offered the best teachers and more resources to high-level classes (Chen, 1988).
Based on these defects of ability grouping, MOE of Taiwan proclaimed in 1982 that no fixed ability grouping was allowed in junior high school, but ability grouping was allowed to apply to English or math class when students were in the 8th grade and plus science class when students were in the 9th grade. In 1985, MOE reaffirmed its previous position and further announced that ability grouping for a certain subject had to allow students to shift their groups according to their learning or adaptation in the middle of the semester. Grouping students by their abilities of individual subject seemed reasonable, but more and more problems and complaints started to come up among teachers and schools administrators, such as the management of homeroom class, the lack of motivation to learn in low-level classes, the frustration of students who were forced to shift to lower groups, the deployment of classrooms, the
schedules of class hours, etc (Huang, 1991; Huang, 1998). Therefore, in 1991 MOE canceled ability grouping for certain subjects and asserted that heterogeneous grouping had to be implemented in junior high school. In September 2001, English instruction was included into the Nine-year Joint curricula Plan for 5th graders. Some elementary schools started implementing ability grouping in English class to cope with students’ wide discrepancies in proficiency level (“Ability Grouping,” 2004).
For the past thirty-five years, MOE of Taiwan has shifted the policy of grouping several times, and either way has its own merits and demerits. It is hard to reach a
conclusion for educators and administrators.
Rationale for Ability Grouping
Grouping students by ability is one of the most common practices in education. It is used to deal with difficulties in instruction and curriculum caused by students’
differences in knowledge, skills, developmental stage, and learning rate. According to Tai (1998), the rationale for ability grouping originated from and was affected by the following theories and ideologies in the early 20th century, that is, social Darwinism, the movement of scientific management, the mental test movement, and
structural-functionalism. Their positions on school education are briefly stated as follows.
First, social Darwinism stated that only if schools had explored students’
differences, met their individual needs, and offered them differentiated curriculum could schools function (Oakes, 1985). Secondly, the principles of scientific
management were applied to education in the early 20th century in the U.S. They contended that schools should provide students appropriate curriculum and training based on their backgrounds, interest, and ability to get the best achievement gains (Tai, 1998). Thirdly, the mental testing movement claimed that scientific tests and
statistical method could be used to allocate students to different and suitable curriculum objectively, effectively, and fairly. Such classification of students was developed to deal with students’ individual differences (Chapman, 1988). By the 1920s many American schools used tests not only to measure intelligence and achievement but also for selection and placement of children into classes (Kulik, 1992). Fourthly, structural-functionalism pointed that the process of education was a process of sorting in nature, and schools were responsible for giving appropriate education to students of different abilities (Tai, 1998).
To sum up, grouping students by ability is a logical way to deal with students’
discrepancies (Slavin, 1993). The thinking behind ability grouping goes like this:
“When the range of abilities among a group of students is reduced, it will be easier for a teacher to meet students’ needs and all students will achieve more” (Hereford, 1993).
Thus, education can serve its social function.
Effects of Ability Grouping
This section will review studies concerning the effects of ability grouping from the following dimensions: stigma attachment, affective effects, effects on teaching and learning, and in-class interaction.
Stigma Attachment to and Affective Effects on Students
Stigmatization or labeling is the most common demerit when it comes to ability grouping. Many studies showed that ability grouping would place a stigma upon low-achievers (Goldberg et al., 1966). Research findings showed that even though different ability groups were named after colors or animals which would not show literal meaning of achievement level, it did not take long before students understood which level they were in and labeled themselves as being smart, average, or stupid.
The fact that they used different books or work materials contributed to such perception of their group level (Eder, 1979; Nicholson, 1998; Wilson & Schmits, 1978). Lower ability students felt depressed and suffered inferiority in an
ability-grouped environment (Lu, 1991).
The impact of ability grouping on affective developments of students was
essentially unfavorable. Reviewers summarized that the positive effects on the egos of high-achievers were overbalanced by stigmatizing average and low groups as inferior and incapable of learning. High-ability students consistently showed higher scores on
self-esteem or self-concept in both homogeneous and heterogeneous groupings.
However, low-ability groups tended to have lower self-concepts than their equivalents in heterogeneous groupings. Students in low-ability groups suffered lower self-esteem and lower self-expectations, facing the stigma of being dumb. In addition, students in the low standing in high-ability groups experienced greater stress of competition, which was often highlighted in high-ability groups (Borg & Maxfield, 1967; Bryan &
Findley, 1970; French & Rothman, 1990; Nicholson, 1998; Young, 1990).
Boaler, Wiliam, and Brown (2000) attributed the source of anxiety for students in top groups to the requirement to work at a fast pace and teachers’ high expectations.
Students in high groups were regarded as mini-experts who could work at a fast pace and conform to the expectations the teachers had of their groups. Some of them might be worried that they were the only one in the class that didn’t understand. They further got depressed and didn’t want to ask. Such anxiety particularly occurred among students in the area that produced conflicting information. The poorest performers in the high-ability group would receive some information that indicates their ability is high and some information that indicates their ability is low, which caused their disaffection with their placement (Boaler et al., 2000; Eder, 1979). These students might have lower self-concepts than those students of similar ability in lower groups, which is called the Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect (Ireson et al., 2001).
Other research found that ability grouping labeled students as success or failure and that further proved a self-fulfilling prophecy (Hallinan, 2000; Reglin, 1992).
Desirable attitudes and self-concepts of low-grouped students were impaired as a result of ability grouping, while the self-esteem of high-grouped students tended to be artificially inflated (Esposito, 1973; Wilson & Schmits, 1978). Research findings also showed that high achievers were much more favorable towards ability grouping than other students, whereas students in the middle and low groups felt that their teachers
would prefer to teach higher ability students rather than teach them (Winn & Wilson, 1983).
However, research showed that ability grouping could have positive impact on students’ self-concept. When students were taught in their mixed-ability groups but were regrouped by ability for specific subjects, it led students to make more positive judgments of themselves and attitudes towards the subject (Ireson et al., 2001; Kulik
& Kulik, 1982). Evidence showed that grouping had a positive effect on student attitudes towards the subject when grouping was used only for teaching mathematics or English composition. Students perceived the advantage that they were able to experience better teaching or explanation when they studied a particular subject with peers who were like themselves (Hallam et al., 2000; Kulik, 1981; Lou, 1986).
Another possible affective effect of ability grouping is teasing. It is reported that teasing related to ability grouping was very frequent for students either in high level or low level, such as bookworms or dummies. Though the teasing was often
interpreted as playful, students found it upsetting. On the contrary, students in mixed-ability groups reflected that people did not make fun of them because they were in different groups and that it was nice to be with friends (Hallam et al., 2000).
Effects on Teaching and Curriculum
It is commonly believed that ability grouping can accelerate the learning of top students and remedy the learning of slower learners. The key factor of the assumption is teachers’ instruction because learning is the product of teaching. In ability-grouped class, teachers can adjust their instruction and provide more appropriate materials and content for students of similar ability, which also makes teaching easier. Wilson and Schmits (1978) informally surveyed a group of teachers at an in-service workshop and found that approximately 81 percent of the teachers favored ability grouping because
they believed that teaching would be easier when the range of students’ abilities or levels in class was minimized. However, the assertion that ability grouping provides teachers a better opportunity to attend to students’ discrepancies was not consistently supported by empirical evidence. A lot of studies showed that the patterns of
instruction found in homogeneous classrooms were very similar to those found in heterogeneous classrooms (Roye, 1971).
Other studies showed that teachers did modify instruction or materials when they dealt with students of different levels. Gamoran (1989) viewed teaching as a form of discourse, which was governed by rules for sharing information. He conducted a pilot study using teacher and student questionnaires and classroom observations to examine the exchanges between teachers and students in class. The results showed that higher quality instruction more often occurred in high-ability groups. The exchanges in high-level classes were more often characterized by “authentic assignments, student control over work, and higher-order cognitive tasks” (p. 139). Besides, teachers’
praise in high-ability groups was likely to correlate with their actual performance, while in low-ability groups teachers’ praise was used to encourage slower students to try harder (Eder, 1979).
Again, Gamoran (1993) tried to figure out the differentiation of curriculum and instruction in ability-grouped classrooms. He observed 112 English classes of 8th and 9th grades. These classes showed that high-track classes read standard works of literature, whereas low-track classes often read young-adult fiction. The activities were very different in different groups, too. Low-track classes, for example, filled in blanks more often than they wrote essays; they spent less time on homework and completed fewer of their written assignments. On the contrary, high-track classes spent more time on discussion and were provided more open-ended questions. The differentiations of activities in class were very similar to what Page (1991) observed
in classes of two schools. It was found that instruction in higher-track classes put emphasis on open-ended questions and student-centered discourse, whereas in low-track classes, teachers limited demands for reading and writing, and asked questions with rote responses. However, teachers basically presented the same content to low-track classes as to other classes, but covered less detail and the pace was slower. The social benefit of this pattern was that low-track students did “not feel so set apart” (p. 182) because they had the same course outlines as other peers, but in a different way of presentation.
By reviewing recent research on ability grouping from kindergarten through twelfth grade, French and Rothman (1990) further argued that approaches used to teach low-ability groups were outdated and oversimplified the process of learning.
They asserted that contextual learning and higher order cognition, such as meaning, relevancy, and concepts, were primary in learning new material for all students, including low achievers. However, data showed that teachers’ instruction in lower-track classes mostly focused on trivial knowledge irrelevant to previous experiences, which caused poor quality of instruction in low-ability groups. Similar phenomena occurred in the classrooms that Page (1991) observed. She described teachers’ role at low-level groups as babysitters who worked to maintain order by letting students do more seatwork (such as fill-in-the-blank worksheets or workbook pages) and talk less or functioned as buddies of low-level students rather than academic experts.
Besides, French and Rothman (1990) also argued that teaching lower-level groups was usually more difficult than teaching mixed-ability groups because of the negative peer culture and mischievous behavior in lower-level groups, which was the opposite to what most teachers believed (Wilson & Schmits, 1978). The negative classroom atmosphere might interact with teachers’ instruction and attitudes (French
& Rothman, 1990; Page, 1991) and further cause poor quality of instruction at low-level groups because teachers had to spend more time on classroom management rather than on instruction. Eder (1981) video-taped 30 first-grade reading lessons and the results indicated that there were over twice as many management acts in lower groups as in higher groups.
Similar findings were also discovered by Trimble and Sinclair (1987). They reported that marked differences in curricular content among ability-grouped classes existed in the amount of time devoted to instruction, teachers’ demands, and course goals. High-level groups spent more class hours on learning while getting students to behave took more time in low-level groups. Teachers made fewer academic demands in low-level classes, which reflected teachers’ low expectation of low-ability students.
Teachers tended to underestimate the capabilities of low-level students (Goldberg et al., 1966). In addition, course goals for high-level groups were more likely to include higher-level analytical skills and knowledge, but low-level course goals tended to emphasize low-level skills and trivial knowledge.
From these studies discussed above, ability grouping did have negative effects on instruction or teachers’ attitudes towards lower-level groups. Even in those classes sharing the same course skeletons, instructional differences favored high-level groups (Gamoran & Berends, 1987). However, ability grouping may have positive effects on instruction if it is carried out in the right way. Slavin (1987) took Joplin Plan as an example, in which ability grouping could be instructionally effective when two conditions were fulfilled. The first one was that students had to be grouped for only one or two subjects, such as reading or math, because reducing heterogeneity was especially important for these subjects. The second one was that instructional level and pace in reading or math class had to be completely adapted to student performance level. In Joplin Plan, students were regrouped by ability only for reading
class, and class hours were used for direct instruction accommodated to all students’
level of readiness and learning rate. The outcomes showed that students of Joplin Plan outperformed their equivalents in mixed-ability groups 31% on average. Obviously, differentiation of content and instruction was one of the key factors that made ability grouping successful. In the case of Joplin Plan, the instructional adaptation meant neither poor quality of instruction nor negative teaching attitudes of teachers at low-level groups. Other research also reached similar conclusions that programs without curricular differentiation usually had little or no effect on academic achievement for all level groups (Goldberg et al., 1966; Kulik, 1981; Kulik, 1992).
In summary, in ability-grouped classrooms, teachers usually adopt different activities and adjust their instruction to meet students’ needs at different groups whether the content or curriculum is differentiated or not. However, teachers’ attitudes might affect the quality of instruction.
Effects on Learning
One of the assumptions of ability grouping is that achievement can be promoted when students are grouped by ability. It is believed that students can advance at their own rate with peers of similar ability. However, there is no consistent evidence that supports this belief.
Kulik and Kulik (1982) reviewed 52 studies of ability grouping carried out in secondary schools. In the area of achievement, they found that the benefits from grouping were small but significant on achievement examinations. Ability-grouped students overall gained an average increase of 0.1 standard deviations on examination scores. However, when students were examined by subgroups of high-, intermediate-, and low-level respectively, high-ability students especially benefited more on
achievement due to enriched curriculum and stimulation of other high-aptitude peers.
Intermediate- and low-ability groups, instead, benefited near-zero effects on
achievement. This finding was consistent with the conclusions that ability grouping significantly favored high-ability groups on achievement, but it neither had favorable effect on nor damaged the learning of intermediate- or low-level groups (Bryan &
Findley, 1970; Oakes, 1985).
Recent research also found that high-ability students gained more in high-ability groups while low-level students made more progress in mixed-ability classes. In mixed-ability classes, students of all ability levels are taught in the same ways, having the same access to the same curriculum, while there is a tendency that in grouped classes teachers provide low-level groups with less access to the curriculum, more repetition and more mechanical practices (Ireson, Hallam, Hack, Clark, & Plewis, 2002).
Slavin (1990) reviewed 29 studies of ability grouping and concluded that the effect of ability grouping on achievement was essentially zero for secondary students of all levels. He mentioned that one possible reason of this result was that secondary teachers overwhelmingly used a very narrow range of teaching methods, such as lecture, in classrooms of all levels. It was reported that listening to the teacher talk was the most common activity in secondary schools. Active interchange was rarely involved in class discussions, in which teachers, instead, just sought specific answers to factual questions (Lu, 1991; Trimble & Sinclair, 1987).
Other reviewers claimed that ability grouping retarded the academic progress of students in low- and intermediate-ability groups (French & Rothman, 1990; Gamoran
& Berends, 1987). French and Rothman (1990) further pointed out that ability grouping hinders achievement in lower-ability classes, due to outdated teaching methods and teacher expectations. Moreover, separation from bright students often creates a negative climate in lower-ability groups that discourages study. If a low
ability student was placed in a higher group, the strong learning environment might compensate for the student’s ability and lead to higher achievement (Hallinan, 2000).
Eder (1981, 1982) explained that lower-ability groups became inattentive in class more frequently than high-ability groups because the learning contexts varied
dramatically across ability groups. In low-level groups, students were often distracted by verbal and non-verbal behaviors of their peers, such as reading turn disruptions and violations, playing with an object, touching, posture, gaze, etc. The influence of the peers made the groups be viewed as being poorly behaved and thus they learned less in class because teachers had to spend more class hours on management, which was also another kind of distraction and contributed to student inattention. In contrast, in high-level groups, students were instructed in a much less disruptive environment. A greater number of students in low-level groups were not involved in instructional activities than in high-level groups (Eder, 1981; Trimble & Sinclair, 1987). In addition to the peers’ influence, Eder (1982) proposed that one reason why inattention was common in low-level groups was that “low group lessons were often more boring and repetitious than high group lessons” (p.18). It corresponded to what French and Rothman (1990) and Page (1991) claimed.
The degree of the efforts students made on schoolwork also varied. It was reported that high-level groups spent more out-of-class time doing homework than low-level groups (Oakes, 1985; Trimble & Sinclair, 1987).
Effects on In-class Interaction
Ability grouping tends to create very different classroom climates in different level groups. Trust, cooperation, and good will were far more characteristic of high-level groups than low. There was higher student satisfaction and more positive personal relationship in classrooms where students were more actively involved in
classroom activities. High-ability groups more often agreed that their classmates really liked one another and were willing to offer help. In low-ability groups, greater percentage of students was off-task. They were far less concerned about completing classroom tasks, showed greater degrees of apathy, and were often left out of class activities. Thus, students in low-level groups often reported that their class was unfriendly, angry, and hostile. Alienation, distance, and authority were more
characteristic of low-level groups, where students perceived more punitiveness from teachers and more proportion of class hours spent on discipline (Oakes, 1985). The lack of successful students and role models in low-ability groups tends to create negative peer culture, which discourages learning and results in rebellious and mischievous behavior (French & Rothman, 1990).
However, advocates of ability grouping held a different position. Students in the high standing of low-level groups benefited most from their class because the learning situation provided them with an opportunity to become a leadership role in their group and give a reasonable stimulus to the other group members (Kelly, 1969). The slow learners can be the best learners in an atmosphere that challenges their ability appropriately, whereas they often become reluctant learners in a heterogeneous situation where average or high achievers usually come into focus in class teaching.
Ability grouping also tends to limit students’ friendship choices (French &
Rothman, 1990; Hallinan & Sørensen, 1985). Sharing the same learning environment creates new similarities among group members in attitudes, values, norms, and behaviors. There is a tendency that students would choose peers with similar
academic performance or behavior as friends. However, the amount of time students spend in ability groups clearly determines the magnitude of the effect of grouping on friendship choices. The more time students spend together in the same instructional groups, the greater are the constraints on their friendship choices within the groups
(Hallinan & Sørensen, 1985).
Summary
In summary, evidence showed that positive effects of ability grouping were outnumbered by negative effects. Students were labeled by their groups, which particularly harmed low-level students’ affection. Poor quality of teaching and learning was often found in low-level groups. Negative peer culture in low-level groups discourages learning and results in mischievous behavior. However, ability grouping could be practiced successfully for all levels when the following conditions were fulfilled, such as proper curriculum differentiation, teachers’ correct attitudes or well-adjusted instruction, good learning atmosphere, or practice in a certain subject.
Ability Grouping Implemented in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning The diversity of students’ ability and starting point is apparent in foreign language learning. Such diversity may be caused by ages of starting learning, IQ, different learning rate, strategies, etc. Therefore, it is a big problem for language teachers to meet different individual needs in mixed-ability class.
One of the major problems in Taiwan’s elementary and junior high English education is wide discrepancies of student level in English classrooms. Most English teachers believe that ability grouping is the most effective way to solve this problem (Chen, 2002; Chiang, 2000, Lin, Z. Y., 2003; Lin, C. S., 2003). According to Chen (2004), Huang (2002), and Reid, Clunies-Ross, Goacher, and Vile, (1981), the difficulty of teaching mixed-ability English class was that slower learners revealed inferiority and gave up learning quickly whereas fast learners showed arrogant attitudes towards English learning. Especially those students with high proficiency level showed no interest in class because they felt the content of lessons had no
challenges for them (Chen, 2004). The situation was getting worse when students moved to the upper grades. Chen (2004) stated in her study that up to 50.3% junior high English teachers called for “providing underachieving students with appropriate learning materials” and 44.8% called for “implementing ability grouping for English courses” (p.71).
Generally speaking, English teachers in Taiwan believe that by placing students in different levels, teachers can provide students with appropriate materials and instruction. Hence, the effectiveness of language teaching and learning will be improved. However, there are always two sides of a story. This section will present negative and positive examples of implementing ability grouping in foreign language teaching and learning.
Negative Examples
Burroughs and Tezer (1968) examined how English teachers in Iran Girls’
College implemented ability grouping in Department of English. The teachers grouped students based on previous formal class grades into high, middle, low levels, and allowed the transfer from one group to another when the need arose. They set different goals for each class, adopted and applied appropriate materials, teaching methods and techniques for groups of different levels with the hope that students could identify with their group, and a spirit of competition could be easily generated among the peers with similar ability. The results of the experiment, however, were negative and frustrating:
1. Students in the middle and lower-level groups developed resentment against the English teacher, the English language program and their fellow group members.
2. The students in the lower-level groups began to complain of excessive work and use of poor teaching methods and techniques.
3. A negative spirit of competition developed in many of the lower-level groups. Students began to do as little as possible and became quite apathetic about their lack of accomplishment.
4. An attitude of complete disassociation and disorientation became apparent in some students.
5. Teachers became disenchanted with the unsuccessful classes and tended to take their duties less seriously.
6. The teaching program as it related to the slower groups tended to disintegrate. (p.5)
The evidence showed that ability grouping could only benefit advanced language groups at the cost of stigma attached to low-level groups, who turned out to have negative attitudes towards English learning, English teachers, and themselves.
Moreover, the morale of a teacher assigned to low-level groups could be terribly affected, which reduced the teaching effectiveness and quality. The case of Iran Girls’
College proved the potentially bad influences of ability grouping on language learning.
In Taiwan, Chiang (2000) observed ability-grouped English classrooms in one private elementary school in Taichung. Students of each grade from 3rd to 6th were divided into three levels. In each grade, there were at least one advanced, one basic, and three intermediate classes. The advantage of leveling was that the small number of students in each class and less discrepancy in students’ English proficiency level made teaching and learning easier. Teachers could adjust the pace of teaching and the content of lessons according to students’ current level. Students had more opportunities and were more willing to speak in grouped class. Meanwhile, low-level students received more individual attention from teachers.
However, the disadvantages teachers perceived were even more striking.
Advanced students showed arrogant attitudes towards learning whereas students in basic groups had a feeling of inferiority and further gave up learning. In addition, the lack of role models in basic groups created negative learning atmosphere, which
enhanced students’ rebellious behavior. Teachers of basic groups consumed much time and energy in keeping order in class, which made them depressed. They described themselves “functioning more like a special education teacher instead of an English teacher” (p. 75).
Besides, ability grouping also caused affective disadvantages among advanced learners. The students in the low standing in advanced groups felt a lot of pressure in academic competition and could not adjust well. Some of those who were left behind in advanced groups refused to transfer to intermediate groups because that would make them lose face. The greater resistance to transfer to lower level usually came from parents who insisted that children’s staying in advanced groups make the best learning. And that really caused school administration a lot of trouble.
Chien (1987) conducted a study to evaluate the effects of ability grouping on Freshman English in Chung Yuan Christian University. Students in the experimental group were divided into two levels for English instruction. Students in the control group received English instruction in major/year based grouping situation. All students used the same textbooks and examination questions.
The results of pre-test and post-test showed no significant difference of improvement in experimental and control groups. Chien pointed out the possible reason of the outcome was the arrangement of the policy. No differentiation of curriculum made ability grouping ineffective. In addition, about 60 percent of the students in the experimental group disliked ability grouping policy in Freshman English. Most of the students who were against ability grouping believed that ability grouping did not improve their English academic achievements and interest but increased their pressure of learning.
Positive Examples
Yu (1994) drew the conclusion from an informal survey through e-mail communication that ability grouping is widely used in American university language classrooms. The fact can be seen clearly from what Mike Ledgerwood of State University of New York at Stony Brook stated in a personal communication:
Almost all universities or colleges and all I know of personally have a placement policy. For some this policy is based upon high school language study only but for most there is some kind of placement or proficiency test used. (p. 50)
The remarks depicted that ability grouping is a common policy in language teaching and learning in the U.S. Under grouped learning situations, the course materials and activities can be more accurately designed to meet students’ needs at their current stage of learning.
Yu (1994) further evaluated the effects of ability grouping on Soochow University’s lab program. A total of 2,448 sophomores who had Freshman English Lab Course in major/year based grouping situation were divided into three levels for Sophomore English Lab Course. It was found that students showed strong preference towards ability grouping. Most students felt that they were under less pressure and more motivated in class. The team-task was easier for them to work with their peers of similar ability since the materials, task, and teachers’ instruction could reflect their level. They felt they had learned better in grouped classrooms.
Chien, Ching, and Kao (2002) conducted an evaluation on effects of ability grouping on Freshman English in Chung Yuan Christian University. Different from Chien’s study in 1987, this time students in the experimental group were divided into three levels and used different teaching materials corresponding to their placement.
Students in the control group were formed into classes according to their own departments and were provided teaching material equal to the intermediate level in the
experimental group. All students took the same pre-TOEFL and post-TOEFL tests.
The scores showed that students in the experimental group had a greater progress in the post-TOEFL test than those in the control group. Students in the low level of experimental group obviously perceived the connection of teaching methods to their English improvement and made the greatest progress than those in high and intermediate levels. It was pointed out that ability grouping benefited low-level students most due to the differentiation of curriculum and instruction. Teachers and those low-grouped students supported ability grouping policy most while high- and intermediate-grouped students did not care much about grouping policy.
There was another successful case of implementing ability grouping in English reading Class at Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages (Su & Lin, 2003). Six hundred second-year students majoring in English, German, French, Spanish, or Japanese were divided into four levels: advanced, high, intermediate, and low, for second year English reading class. The study showed that most students of all levels agreed that ability grouping suited the learning needs of students of different levels.
Students did not feel they were tagged or labeled by their ability level. They got benefits from instruction and materials that were suitable for their level.
Besides the three cases of higher English education, Lungan Elementary School is also a successful example. Its flexible grouping system allows students to choose their own group and to transfer from one group to another at any time during semester.
English teachers set different goals and adopt different materials for basic and advanced groups. Great flexibility is the key factor to make the system work out in that no implementation of placement tests eliminates notorious stigma attachment to slow learners as well as inequity of the education (Chiang, 2003).
Generally speaking, ability grouping conforms to theory of language learning.
Krashen’s Monitor theory addresses that language acquisition takes place when the
learner receives comprehensible input, slightly above the learner’s present level of competence (Richards & Rodgers, 1998). By sorting students into different levels and reducing the differences of students in the same classroom, teachers can further adjust syllabus design and adopt appropriate instruction to fulfill students’ current needs, making comprehensible input possible for each student in the same classroom. The cases of Soochow, Chung Yuan, Wenzao, and Lungan proved that ability grouping did make English learning and teaching better and easier.
Summary
To sum up, both negative and positive effects of ability grouping can be found in high and primary foreign language education. It is common to implement ability grouping in foreign language learning in universities or colleges in the U.S. In Taiwan, successful examples can be also found in universities or colleges, like Soochow, Chung Yuan, and Wenazo (Chien et.al., 2002; Su et al., 2003; Yu, 1994). However, Chien’s study in 1987 revealed that the near-zero effects of ability grouping seemed to have something to do with the fewer number of the levels and no differentiation of curriculum. However, the case of Iran Girls’ College (Burroughs & Tezer, 1968) showed negative effects of ability grouping on low achievers and their teachers though the grouping policy was practiced with classification of 3 levels and material differentiation.
At the stage of elementary school, the case of Lungan (Chiang, 2003) proved the positive effects of ability grouping on students. The case in Chiang’s study (2000) pointed out the negative effects of ability grouping on elementary school students, including negative learning atmosphere and rebellious behavior in basic groups, arrogant attitudes of advanced students, and even the problem of losing face caused by group shifting.
