The effects of within class grouping on reading achievement: A meta-analytic synthesis

1. The effects of within class grouping on reading achievement:A meta-analytic synthesis Kelly Puzio & Glenn Colby Vanderbilt University

2. Overview of presentation • Brief introduction to grouping • Survey results suggest that teacher use of grouping in reading may be declining • Previous reviews have neglected reading outcomes • Research methods and results • Discuss trends and gaps in research

3. Grouping: how should learning be organized?

4. Why group students for reading? • Academic diversity: students have wide variety of literacy levels and interests • Learning is an interactive and social activity (Vygotsky, 1978) • Increased discourse: students may engage in more discourse (listening, explaining, negotiating, etc.), which may stir learning and mental development • Student motivation may be affected by a regular display of skills and knowledge • Small groups can provide an opportunity for differentiated instruction

5. Percent of Teachers using grouping 80% of teachers report grouping (Austin & Morrison, 1963; Weinstein, 1976). 56% of teachers report grouping students, but only 25% said this was the primary way for organizing reading instruction (Baumann, Hoffman, Duffy-Hester, and Moon Ro, 2000). 60% of teachers reported regularly grouping students (Chorzempa and Graham, 2006). Within-class grouping may be on the decline in reading instruction Teacher Surveys

6. Within-class grouping studies in Previous Reviews “There is not enough research on within-class ability grouping in reading to permit any conclusions” (Slavin, 1990, p. 320).

7. Current Study: Primary Research Questions • To what extent does within-class grouping impact student achievement in reading? • For which grade(s) or which students is within-class grouping most or least beneficial? • Do any moderators, especially measurement source, teacher development, and grouping type, help explain this effect?

8. Systematic Review • Guided by the Campbell Collaboration, a systematic review must have:  • Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria • An explicit search strategy • Systematic Search for unpublished reports • Systematic coding and analysis of included studies • Meta-analysis (if possible)

9. Inclusion Criteria • Date: Study published in or after 1980 • Subjects: Grades 2 – 12 in regular classroom settings • Design: Quasi-experimental or Experimental • Intervention: Grouping as central intervention or key component of wider intervention (CIRC, CORI). No peer tutoring interventions. • Outcome: The assessments must require students to “read” and show evidence of comprehension of extended text – no studies were admitted if they assessed only vocabulary, grammar, or punctuation.

10. Searching and screening studies • Stage 1: Abstracts screened: 4839  1590 • Stage 2: Abstracts carefully read: 1590  233 • Stage 3: Study reports examined: 233  75 • Stage 4: Full Coding: 75  15 • Most studies were excluded for two reasons: • No reading outcomes • No comparison group

11. Study Coding & Statistical Procedures • Coding: Every study was coded on 51 predetermined items: sample, research design, intervention, measurement, and effect size statistics • Effect Size Adjustments: Pretest, clustering, small sample size correction (Hedges’ g) • Main Effects Analysis: Random effects statistical model • Publication Bias Analysis: Duvall & Tweedie’s trim and fill procedure; Egger’s regression intercept test • Inter-rater reliability was compared on 5 studies that were separately coded (Kappa = 0.86; Pearson’s r = 0.98). Disagreements were discussed and resolved to consensus (Lipsey & Wilson, 2000)

12. Results: Included Studies • 15 Unique Studies; 28 study cohorts* • Total Sample: 5,410 study participants • Interventions: CIRC , CORI, Cooperative Learning, STAD, QAR, Collaborative Strategic Reading • Grade: Grade 2-6 (13); Grade 7 – 10 (2) • Outcome Measures: Standardized (11) Researcher (4) • Intervention instructor: (14) Classroom teacher; (1) Researcher • Professional Development: (4) < 10 hours; (6) > 10 hours; 5 NA • Length: (3) < 10 weeks; (4) 10 to 20 weeks; (8) > 20 weeks

13. Effects of within-class grouping on reading

14. Back to the research questions Q1: To what extent does within class grouping impact reading achievement? Mean Weighted ES = 0.22. (0.08 < μ < 0.349). Q2 & Q3: Are there any significant moderators of effects? This question could not be answered with this data (Q = 9.91; I Square = 0.00).

15. Practical Significance of Effects • Is +0.22 big or small? • Cohen’s social science index: 0.2, 0.5, or 0.8 • 22 effects used standardized measures – mean ES = 0.29 • 6 effects used researcher measures – mean ES = 0.07 • Normative yearly reading growth on standardized assessments (Hill, Bloom, Black, & Lipsey, 2008) • Grade 2-3 = 0.60 • Grade 3-4 = 0.36 • Grade 4-5 = 0.40 • Grade 5-6 = 0.32 • Grade 6-7 = 0.23 About half a year’s growth

16. Research Trends and gaps • Fidelity of implementation was not assessed in any study • Although computer and internet based reading is a diverse and growing field, no quasi-experimental or experimental studies met our inclusion criteria • Although English Language Learner (ELL) reading is a growing field, only a few studies have investigated the effects of within-class grouping on ELL reading achievement

17. Discussion & Limitations • The data suggest that within class grouping is beneficial for reading • The majority of included studies used cooperative groups; focused searches for guided reading, interest-based groups, and other grouping types is underway now • Peer tutoring studies were excluded in this synthesis but these could be included in a larger study • If you know of any other studies that have examined the impact of grouping on reading, please let us know

18. The End