Maurice J. Eash
Some generalizations from research
Grouping: What Have We Learned? Education is essential not only to indi vidual fulfillment but also to the vitality of our national life. The vigor of our free institutions depends upon educated men and women at every level of the society. Our schools must prepare a ll young people, whatever their talents, for the serious busi ness of being free men and women. 1
THAT education is essential to na tional survival is a question which is no longer being debated. Yet the ineans to promote a type of education which will insure the vitality of democracy is still an important area of discussion. In the list of currently debated means to accomplish agreed upon ends, the amor phous, protean subject of grouping ranks quite high. Recent reports by distinguished schol ars endorsing use of ability grouping in most subject areas have heightened the concern of serious educators. Certainly these reports have been seized upon as documentary evidence that specific pat terns of abilit) grouping must be pur sued if the schools are to be effective in their effort to preserve our society. The practice of widespread use of abil ity grouping lias been resurrected after ' John \V. Gardner. "National Goals in Edu cation." Goals jor Americana. E nfilewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentiee-Hall, Inc., 1960. p. 81.
April 1961
25 years of dormancy. Consequently, ability grouping practices are being formulated and adopted by many edu cators without their consulting the avail able research as to the effect of these practices on learning. In analyzing the research findings, it is imperative to recognize that the re search must be related to a particular value orientation. This orientation is the preservation and promulgation of the democratic way of life whose major fea ture is the importance of the opportunity for self development for every individual. The function of research, as far as group ing practices in a democratic society are concerned, is to uncover those practices which are supportive to developing dem ocratic personalities and to expose for what they are those practices which are inimical to democratic processes. Any research approach which willfully ig nores this value orientation for some vague referent such as "science," or to promote greater efficiency in a narrowly defined area of learning, may participate, however unconsciously, in injury to a so cial order which has promoted the self development of the individual more than any other comparable system in history. Bruno Bettleheim succinctly maps out this road to destruction in his recent 429
article, "The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank" (3). In the Gestapo concentra tion camps as well as in their civil life, many Jewish people of Germany will ingly participated in fashioning their self destruction as they suppressed their strong value orientation in cooperating with the Nazis in order that they might for a brief time remain physically com fortable. They divorced means from ends in their immediate lives, removing them selves from the realities of the dreadful consequences of their practices. As one witnesses the reaction of many educators to basically discriminatory, antidemocratic practices in the school, one wonders whether the same commit ment to a comfortable illusion obtained by separating means and ends is not involved in some of the present school practices. It is imperative that the group ing practices which are sanctioned are those which will support the develop ment of democratic behavior and en courage the goals of individual develop ment. This article, then, is concerned with developing some generalizations which are supported by research findings and which will give educators some guidance in the area of grouping. These generalizations are organized under three major headings: (a) Ability grouping and achievement; (b) Grouping and personal and social development; and (c) Areas of needed research. Ability Grouping and Achievement Perhaps the most commonly practiced grouping in our schools is ability group ing, sometimes erroneously referred to as homogeneous grouping. This type of grouping customarily places children in a class according to group IQ test scores or some other standardized test score. One of the primary motivations 430
for practicing ability grouping has been the rather generally accepted assumption that children, especially bright children, learn more if they are grouped accord ing to ability and taught separately. But how valid is this assumption? The fol lowing five generalizations seem to be supported at the present time by re search. 1. Ability grouping in itself does not produce improved achievement in chil dren. Improved achievement seems rather to result from the manipulation of other complex factors; curriculum adaptation, teaching methods, materials, ability of the teacher to relate to children and other subtle variables (1, 7, 14, 25, 26). 2. Contrary to statements in previous summaries of the research on the effects of ability grouping on children's achieve ment (most of this reported research was done in the 1920's) (22, 23, 24), more recent research evidence seems to indi cate that ability grouping actually may be detrimental to children in the aver age and lower ability' groups (13). These children appear to suffer from the de privation of intellectual stimulation when brighter children are removed from the class. Conversely the brighter children did not appear to suffer when left witli the average and lower ability students, at least through the elementary school (13). 3. Ability grouping at an early age seems to favor unduly the placement of children from the higher socioeconomic class in higher ability groups. These children do not necessarily benefit, at least in elementary and beginning junior high school, from the increased academic diet (4, 12, 13). 4. Research evidence in the area is quite meager, but what is available does Educational Leadership
not support the prevalent assumption that college achievement is improved by ability grouping in the high school. Rather, improved achievement in col leges as the result of high school train ing is a function of other complex fac tors than ability grouping (1). 5. Ability grouping as an organiza tional structure may accentuate the at tainment of goals and symbols for goals of narrow academic achievement to the extent that other broader desirable be havioral goals and objectives are at tenuated and jeopardized. The organiza tional structure of ability grouping may promote group norms which are anti thetical to norms that foster societal co hesion and individual societal respon sibility (17, 25). Grouping and Personal and Social Development
A second broad problem which has been a cause for major concern among thoughtful educators with the advent of ability grouping as a major instructional procedure in recent years is the influ ence that ability grouping may have on the student's personal and social develop ment. The question stated in its most direct form is, "Does ability grouping militate against personal development (especially development of a healthy self concept) and social development of children?" Research findings on ability grouping as it relates to personal and social development of students would appear to support these important gen eralizations: 1. The evidence is fairly conclusive that grouping practices in a school can assist in developing social situations that influence the student's perception of self, his sense of dignity and worth, and his April 1 961
attitudes toward other children. In view of this, grouping practices should be concerned with furthering the establish ment of social climates that will encour age the intellectual, social and personal development of every child without det rimental effects on individual children (17, 19). 2. Grouping practices are significant factors in establishing a teaching-learn ing situation whereby children can ac quire the general education skills and abilities needed by all citizens in a demo cratic society (21). This means, in brief, that students need opportunities to work in common purpose with a wide range of individuals. Grouping practices which separate students on the basis of ability as determined by group IQ or standard ized tests reduce the likelihood that stu dents will be exposed to a broader range of ethnic and cultural differences in the society (12, 28). 3. Pressures to institute certain group ing practices in our schools represent pervasive social problems in our culture. Educators need to be doubly alert that the schools are not utilizing grouping practices which assist in maintaining and promoting social and racial biases which militate against the general education objectives, equal educational opportu nity and the development of each per son as an individual (4, 28). 4. The solutions to the broad prob lems of learning are probably not to be realized in some scheme of ability group ing. The key to what happens in any in structional group is probably the class room teacher (11, 26). Grouping can assist a teacher in attainment of desir able general and special education obMaurice J. Eash i» Assistant Professor of Education, Ball Slate Teachers College, \tuncie, Indiana.
431
jectives, hut grouping practices are in no sense a substitute for teacher compe tence (27). Areas of Needed Research 1. There are certainly some differences in the problems of grouping as they are encountered in the elementary and the secondary school. As the students pro gress, research shows that the range of differences widens. This broader range of differences in the secondary school will surely necessitate different practices in grouping. Consequently, a major issue in the secondary school curriculum is how to maintain groups which struc turally provide the opportunity' to pro mote general education objectives and also develop groups which will give at tention to the encouragement and de velopment of special interests. Both areas need attention in our concern for strengthening our society. 2. The second problem concerns the relation of grouping practices to that vast number of children who because of their underprivileged environment have been called disadvantaged (5). Can the school develop educational programs that will assist these children in de veloping competencies and, at the same time, avoid practices which segregate and even prompt their early elimination from school? There is some evidence that cultural deprivation begins to exact its toll at an early age. At the age of three the unfavorable influences already begin to weigh heavily upon the child (9). Therefore, it has been suggested that these culturally disadvantaged children be started to school two years earlier in order to compensate for the intellectual impoverishment they suffer. 3. A third problem which lies at the 432
very heart of the instructional process, and one which will take considerable professional courage on the part of many educators to face, is a need for an ex ploration of the reasons for the popu larity of ability grouping among our teachers and administrators. Ability grouping in elementary schools espe cially is woefully inadequate in reduc ing to any great extent academic differ ences of more than one variable. Yet, despite this evidence, a large segment of the profession seems at present to befirmly committed to the practice of ability grouping (6, 8). One anthropologist has suggested that some teachers unconsciously project their own psychological needs into the classroom and, therefore, favor groups of children who give them need satis faction (10). These teachers receive need satisfaction from children who have learned to be sensitive to adults' psy chological needs and are responsive anil eager to fulfill these demands by their classroom action. This would mean that teachers who are motivated by this par ticular psychological needs system would select children who are sensitive, docile and compliant, and would reject those children who are resentful, rebellious, unable or reluctant to relate to a teach er's need demands. Tacit admission of this situation is seen in the common ad ministrative practice of giving a teacher a "fast" group the next year if he or she will take a "slow" group for a year. Generally, the "fast" groups are made up of those children with whom teachers are happy (receive need satisfaction from) to work. Are grouping practices serving some underlying motivations rather than concern for students' learn ing? This may be one of the more fruit ful hypotheses to explore in trying to understand an uncritical acceptance of Educational Leadership
ability grouping practices based at best on specious measures of abilities. 4. A fourth problem on which more research is needed is in the area of creativity. Recent researchers in these areas are raising questions as to whether our present grouping procedures do not actually discriminate against creative children in favor of their docile and/or conforming peers. At this time our meas urements in the areas of IQ and aca demic achievement do not correlate highly with measures of creativity, and in our desperate search lor talent our schools may be overlooking the talent most urgently needed, the creative in dividual (8, 18). With the advent of the technological developments many of the technical, specific skills which we seek to develop in our schools may be obsolete as computers take over these processes and a higher premium will be placed on those who can creatively de sign and program problems for the ma chines (16). The big question in this area is, how can the school discover and foster this talent? Ability grouping, at this time, definitely does not seem to be of assistance in the solution of this prob lem. 5. The last area, but one of the most promising for new information on the development of human personality through structuring social organizations, is the current research movement which is examining the complex dynamics in volved in the interaction of human per sonalities and social organizations. This movement has been characterized by the use of elaborate theoretical conceptual systems which serve as frameworks to organize the multitude of variables in volved in the process of interaction. While education has been slow in re searching this area, industrial psychol April 1961
ogy has explored this field in greater depth (2, 15). However, a recent pub lication of the National Society for the Study of Education, The Dynamics of Instructional Groups, uses some of these new concepts in analyzing the sociopsychological characteristics of instruc tional groups (20). This research may very well change our conceptions of what constitutes a good instructional group. Educators need to follow care fully these efforts and also, with their own research, to support investigations in this area. There is undeniably a great need for more and better research in every area of grouping. Unfortunately many of the current "studies" reported are not predi cated on any acceptable research design and in fact seem to be directed to sup porting preconceived conclusions. Thus, it would seem that the research design must take into account such factors as: learning in its broadest sense, longitudi nal achievement data, pupils' attitudes and values, the influence of group inter action, and differences in teachers' class room performance, to name but a few. Nevertheless, the author believes that the generalizations which have been re ported in this paper have been estab lished by research in education and in the allied social sciences. He also believes that these generalizations can give us guides to action, increase our objectiv ity, and buttress our courage to pursue desirable educational goals in the face of public pressures which often urge the schools to subscribe to fads. If educators choose to pursue policies and practices which ignore these researches and to promote a value system antithetical to the democratic value pattern, as was pointed out in the first part of the paper, this is done at great risk to our future. Here rests the challenge that these re433
search data hold for our educational practices in grouping today. References
1. DAVID ABRAHAMSON. "The Effectiveness of Grouping for Students of High Ability." Educational Research Bulletin 38:169-82; Oc tober 14, 1959. 2. CHRIS ARCYHIS. Personality and Organ ization. N ew York: Harper & Brothers, 1958. 291 p. 3. BRUNO BETTLEHEIM. "The Ignored Les son of Anne Frank." Harpers 221:45-50; No vember 1960. 4. BRUNO BETTLEHEIM. "Segregation: New Style." S chool Review 66:251-72; Autumn 1958. 5. KENNETH CLARK. "Disadvantaged Stu dents and Discrimination." The Search for Talent. Bulletin # 7 on College Admissions, College Entrance Examination Board. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service; 1960; p. 12-19. 6. W. W. COOK. "The Gifted and the Re tarded in Historical Perspective." Phi Delta Kappan 39:249-55: March 1958. 7. RUTH ECKSTROM. E xperimental Studies of Homogeneous Grouping: A Review of the Literature, Princcton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service; April 1959. 8. JACOB W. GETZELS and P. W. JACKSON. "The Meaning of 'Giftedness': An Examina tion of an Expanding Concept." Phi Delta Kappan 40:75-77; November 1958. 9. EMMA HARRISON. "Negro Curbs Cited by Psychiatrists." Neic Yorfc Times; February 28, 1960. p. 18. 10. JULES HENRY. "Attitude Organization in Elementary Classrooms." A merican Journal of Orthopsychiatry 27:117-33; January 1957. 11. DARRELL HOLMES and Lois HARVEY. "An Evaluation of Two Methods of Group ing." Educational Research Bulletin 35:213-22; November 14, 1956. 12. TORTSEN HUSEN. "Loss of Talent in Selective School Systems: The Case of Swe den." C omparative Education Review 4 :70-74; October 1960. 13. TORTSEN HUSEN and NILS-ERIC SEVSON. "Pedagogic Milieu and Development of In tellectual Skills." The School Review 68:36-51; Spring 1960. 14. DAISY M. JONES. "Experiment in Adap tation to Individual Differences." Journal of 434
Educational Psychology 39:257-72; May 194V 15. ROBERT L. KATZ. Toward a More Ef fective Enterprise." Harvard Business RevietL 38:80-102; September, October, 1960. 16. WILLIAM E. LAWRENCE. "Brainy Ma chines." The New Yorfc Times; J uly 17, I960, Part IV, p. 7. 17. ABRAHAM LUCHINS and EDITH LUCHINS. "Children's Attitudes Tflward Homogeneous Grouping." Journal of Genetic Psychology 72: 3-9; March 1948. 18. DONALD W. MACKINNOM. "What Do We Mean by Talent and How Do We Test for It." The Search for Talent, Bulletin # 7 on College Admissions, College Entrance Examination Board. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service; 1960. p. 20-29. 19. MAXINE MANN. "What Docs Ability Grouping Do to the Self Concept." C hildhood Education 36:357-60; April 1960. 20. National Society for the Study of Edu cation. The Dynamics of Instructional Group'.: Snciopsychological Aspects of Teaching, and Learning. Fifty-Ninth Yearbook, Part II. Chi cago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. 286 p. 21. THEODORE M. NEWCOMRE. "The Predic tion of Interpersonal Attraction." A merican Psychologist 1 1:575-86; November 1956. 22. ARWOOD S. NORTIIY. "Classification of Pupils." E ncyclopedia of Educational Research. Edited by Walter S. Monroe. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950. p. 1168. 23. HENRY OTTO. "Classification of Pupils. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. E dited by Walter S. Monroe. New York: The Mac millan Company, 1950. p. 376-78. 24. HENRY OTTO. "Classification of Pupils. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. E dited by Walter S. Monroe. New York: The Mac millan Company, 1941. p. 438-40. 25. W. G. A. RUDD. "The Psychological Ef fect of Streaming by Attainment." B ritish Journal of Educational Psychology 2 8:47-60; February 1958. 26. HAROLD G. SHANE. "Grouping in the Elementary School." Phi Delta Kappan 4 1: 313-19. 27. HAROLD G. SHANE. "Organization of the Elementary School." Encyclopedia of Educa tional Research. Edited by Chester Harris. New York: The Macmillan Company, I960, p. 427. 28. "Southern Schooling The Negro Pupil." Newsweek. Vol. 50; Part II; p. 71; September 2, 1957. Educational Leadership
Copyright © 1961 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.
