Tracking seems like it would be beneficial to students as they would be able to learn at their own pace. Research really doesn't find that to be true. The gains found in tracked or ability grouped students are not significant enough to be worth while as well at either end of the ability spectrum. The only real gain was seen in the high ability students who were accelerated by a grade level or so.
One of the problems that was reported was that often more qualified teachers were assigned the students with the higher abilities while the students who were more mathematically challenged were given to less qualified students. That was not beneficial to the students who struggled with math. As a result of the teacher assignments, the higher level students received instruction with more rigor while the struggling students got more skill work and less of the higher level thinking skills. “Among variables assessing teacher “quality,” the percentage of teachers with full certification and a major in the field is a more powerful predictor of student achievement than teachers’ education levels (e.g., master’s degrees).” (Hammond, L D. 1999)
Another problem was that the identification of students does not always match their real skill levels. Teachers might assume that because this student did well in class their test scores would be such that they would be placed in a higher level course. This was not always found to be true. So that means that higher ability students might not get the upper level courses while a student with comparatively lower abilities might get the placement.
The only real benefit that could happen was the improvement of the confidence of students with difficulties when the higher ability students were removed from their classes. Because they did not compare themselves to students who were not in their class, they were more confident in their abilities. On the flip side, those in the higher ability classes sometimes became less confident as they were challenged for the first time. This benefit was not see to be enough to ability group students.
What I found really interesting is this research did not agree with what I had always thought. I thought being taught at a pace that was comfortable for learning would benefit all students. What I had not taken into account was teacher assignment and the subsequent lack of rigor in lower ability classes.The final conclusion I came to after this research is that it is important to offer rigor to students of all levels as well as qualified, motivated teachers who believe in the students ability to learn. As a student, learning in a class that offered more than basic skills would also be far more motivating.
Hammond, L D. Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence
Kulik, J A. (1993, Spring). An analysis of the research on ability grouping. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, p. 8-9.
Slavin, R E. (1990). Ability grouping in the middle grades: achievement effects and alternatives. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-479.
Stiff, L V., Johnson, J L., & Akos, P. (2011). Disrupting tradition: research and practice pathways in mathematics education. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
All the Gifted and Talented coursework I took stressed that for these students ability grouping was essential, especially in math. In math I have found that these student needs are met when they have been accelerated in math. However, in other subjects a lot of these students do not like being pulled away from friends and separated from the class. They would prefer the social interaction over the academic sometimes. However in math it always becomes a win win situation when the student is properly identified and needs to move at a higher level and a faster pace.
ReplyDeleteHi Cathy,
ReplyDeleteIf you're looking for some more reading on the subject, I suggest Gamoran (for a fairly balanced view), Loveless (pro ability grouping), and Oakes (anti-tracking). It's a thorny subject!
I have struggled with this question as well. We've been lucky enough at our school to have some say over tracked vs. non-tracked acience courses. We began with three leveled courses, then recently moved to one heterogeneous level (with the exception of a lower-level class for those who have already failed... multiple times...). The higher-level students do seem to bring up the rest of the class, and I know the learning experience I offer is richer for mid-level students, but I do feel that higher-level students are not getting the same opportunities and information. I struggle now wondering if I want the honors level courses back!
ReplyDeleteCathy,
ReplyDeleteI liked your conclusion. It does seem that the research does not point to the use of tracking as a practice in itself, but with the faults in its implementation. All of the teachers should be qualified to teach and all the classes should be rigorous (whatever that really means). I think tracking can work well as long as students are not bound to any particular group with an iron chain. There has to be flexibility. The groups also cannot be assigned with a punitive feel.