Classroom Composition and Pupil Achievement (1986)

A Study of the Effect of Ability-Based Classes

Yehezkel Dar, Nura Resh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351214964
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Published in 1986, this book addresses the controversial classroom dilemma of ability segregation versus integration. It presents an extensive review of the current literature and formulates a conceptual framework for analysing the social processes that affect classroom composition and their effects on academic achievement. Applying an innovative framework to two empirical studies of Israeli high schools, the authors highlight the profound implications for classroom organisation, and include an explanation of teachers' attitudes to pedagogical issues and social influences. Sociologists, teachers and educational psychologists will find this a stimulating but practical study of ability grouping and streaming in schools.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction: The Homogeneity-Heterogeneity Dilemma

In an attempt to answer the demand of education for all — first on the elementary level, then the post-elementary stage, and eventually for higher education (Meyer et al., 1977; Craig, 1981), education systems have been faced with the dilemma of ensuring an adequate scholastic level in student populations that are heterogeneous both in social composition and scholastic aptitude while maintaining schools and classes whose educational climate and social structure suit the ideals of a democratic society. Educational systems have tried to adjust to this problem in a number of ways: through didactic manipulations, i.e., the development of suitable methods of instruction; through pedagogical manipulations with respect to definitions of educational goals and contents; and through organizational manipulations in the form of adaptations and alterations in learning trajectories and student body compositions.

That the efforts invested in theory, research and experimentation of teaching methods have borne fruit is difficult to establish. Comprehensive research in the psychology of learning, as well as intensive development of learning programs, methods of instruction, and sophisticated technology, have not yet brought about a breakthrough which meets the needs of heterogeneous student populations.

A more promising avenue has been found in pedagogical manipulations, i.e., in lowering the academic profile of the school, in extending the range of its educational objectives, and in providing for more flexible learning trajectories. Accordingly, a model of school has been developed which assigns no less importance to the expressive multilateral growth of the student than to his intellectual development and which considers social, vocational, and cultural self-expression as important as academic achievement.

Unless accompanied by far-reaching individualization of instruction, however, realization of this model is perceived as exacting a price in terms of traditional achievements, one which many educational systems are unprepared to pay, especially as regards talented students. Hence, homogeneous separation on the basis of scholastic ability (vertical separation) and/or scholastic interest (horizontal separation) has been implemented in various forms, i.e., students have been assigned to schools of different types (e.g., academic, vocational, "general") and/or have been grouped, streamed, and tracked within the school. This separation is said to serve adaptive as well as integrative functions of education (Shavit, 1984); in other words, while educational systems aim at a better extraction of personal abilities and better preparation for future social roles, differentiation of learning trajectories and the Introduction of non-academic tracks are expected to afford an extended education to weaker social groups.

Alongside the various kinds of intentional separation is a "natural' one, i.e., that resulting from attendance at neighborhood schools and the demarcation of residential areas along racial, ethnic, or social class lines. To the extent that both intentional and natural separation exist, pressures for in-school homogenization are lower but demands for heterogenization at the system level are augmented.

As part of the democratization of education, accelerated after World War II and more so since the early 1960s, the meaning of the right to education and the concept of equality of educational opportunity have changed radically. The demand for equal public inputs to various learning trajectories was first replaced by a cry for equality of access to various tracks and then by a demand for equal educational results, at first with but eventually without relation to personal aptitude (Coleman, 1968; Freidman, 1980; Cohen and Neufield, 1981). This transformation is associated with an increased awareness of the link between social and intellectual composition of student bodies and educational outcomes and with the notion that classroom composition constitutes a learning resource, both in itself and in determining curriculum and credentials.

Herein lies the root of the demand to eliminate homogeneous separation which led to educational reforms in Europe, racial desegregation in the U.S., and ethnic integration in Israel. Yet, even when political pressures for democratization of education has eliminated separation at the system level and established integrated and comprehensive schools, separation continues to manifest itself within schools, whether in an overt form of grouping and streaming or, less obviously, assuming the shape of tracks and "trends" which supposedly group students according to their interests. This situation challenges the very goals of integrating populations and combining tracks in common educational frameworks, thereby undermining the demand for educational and social equality which is the impetus behind integrational manipulations.

A political and educational controversy over compositional manipulations has been raging for decades. Concomitant with the democratization of education its fervor is continuously increasing. The debate, anchored in different social and educational philosophies, relates to the needs of society, the educational system, and the individual student (Evetts, 1973; Morshead, 1975; Bailey and Bridges, 1983). It deals with the validity and reliability of educational selection; with ways of teaching and learning; with scholastic, emotional and social outcomes for the student within the school, his peer group and community; and with effects on the student's social status and life chances as an adult (Yates, 1966; Franseth and Kourg, 1966; Husén and Boalt, 1967; NEA, 1968; Ford, 1969; Heathers, 1969; Simon, 1970; Sorenson, 1970; Findley and Bryan, 1971; Mosteller and Moynihan, 1972; Esposito, 1973; St. John, 1975; Bowles and Gintis, 1976; Frankenstein, 1976; McDermott, 1976; Kelly, 1978; Rist, 1978; Klein and Eshel, 1980; Rosenbaum, 1980; Stephen and Feagin, 1980; Reid et al., 1981; Amir, Sharan, and Ben-Ari, 1984).

Proponents of homogeneity raise three mam arguments. First, they point to the academic benefit gained by matching content and level of learning materials and pace of instruction with student ability. Second, they claim that separation frees weak students from pressures of unfair competition, attenuates their feelings of inferiority, allows them a sense of achievement and improves their self-image. The didactic fit and the psychological release are said to arouse motivation and eventually increase achievement. Third, they argue that teacher work load is alleviated in classes with restricted ability ranges to the benefit of both student and teacher. In the final analysis, they claim, separation can improve fulfilment of personal potential — undoubtedly among the brighter students, but also among the weaker ones.

In return, partisans of heterogeneity attack educational separation as discriminatory and as disregarding the diversity of human intellect, its dynamic nature, and the role of non-cognitive factors in learning. They maintain that under separation quantitative academic achievements are emphasized at the expense of more diffuse moral, social and expressive educational goals, and that students are prevented from experiencing heterogeneous social frameworks as a true reflection of adult society. Advocates of integration claim that weak students benefit from learning with strong students. The absence of the latter is said to impoverish the curriculum, reduce study-relevant interaction, lower interest, diminish teacher demands and student ambition, and impair learning efforts of average and weak students, thereby reducing achievement. They point out that separation attaches a stigma to students in the "low" schools and trajectories, one which lowers teacher expectations and affects peer relationships and self-image; hence both educational achievement and social status are likely to be reduced. Not only is the initial educational gap between homogeneous levels maintained, but it widens with time. At the individual level the chances of extracting scholastic potential — and certainly of increasing it — are reduced and life opportunities are affected; at the societal level wastage of talent results. Finally, those who oppose separation stress its contribution to social segregation, not only along intellectual lines, but also along social class and ethnic ones. They suggest that the provision of different educational contexts and contents to different groups of students creates differential socialization which in fact helps to reproduce existing cultural and social inequalities.

In this wide range of arguments two sets of factors can be discerned. The first refers more to the student's cognitive behavior as expressed mainly in his scholastic achievement. It contains factors of normative meaning, like curriculum, methods, academic norms, quality of scholastic interaction, the class 'pool' of information and the models of cognitive behavior available therein. In relation to this set, although homogeneous "matching" is considered advantageous for both strong and weak, "impoverishment" of the learning environment for the weak and its "enrichment" for the strong is also pointed out. The second set is associated more with the student's affective responses, like anxiety, sense of achievement, sense of participation, identification, feelings of deprivation, alienation, self-image, motivation and control. It includes factors of comparative meaning like the scholastic and social status scales relevant for the student and the labels which symbolize the relative position of students within classes, of classes within schools, and of schools within the educational system. With regard to the student's affective responses there are references to "liberation" as opposed to "labelling" and to positive and negative feelings, especially regarding weak students allocated to low-level frameworks.

These two sets of claims can be seen as two sides of the same coin. With regard to the cognitive domain, the educational benefit derived from matching curriculum, instruction and norms to differential abilities may be associated with a price of impoverishing the socio-learning environment for the weaker students (as opposed to enrichment for stronger ones) in those very same elements which have been matched, especially in the level, and perhaps also in the motivational meaning of the classroom scholastic interaction. Thus, an assessment is required of the relative effect of didactic fit as against the impoverishment of intellectual and social composition (and of curriculum). Regarding the affective domain, the benefit of separation reveals itself in an easing of pressures upon the weaker students, but this relief is experienced within the narrow social framework of the classroom and may exact a price of stigmatic, social and institutional labelling, significant in wider social contexts within and without the school. Thus, it is necessary to determine the relative strength of the emotional relief in the narrow circle as opposed to the stigmatic and frustrating effect in the wider circles. It seems plausible that the balance of profit and loss in the cognitive domain will affect that in the affective domain and vice versa: a positive emotional state may improve achievement, while achievement will improve the emotional state. Here a more comprehensive question arises regarding the relative effect that structural, cognition-related, and affective factors have upon scholastic behavior and achievement following separation or mixing.

It is no wonder that an educational issue so controversial in both social and political senses has generated a plethora of research, the analysis of which is presented in Chapter 2. This voluminous body of study has contributed little to the resolution of the dilemma, and in practice separation and integration in educational systems continue to have little basis in research findings. The failure to arrive at more unequivocal conclusions may be associated not only with flaws in the research but also with the weakness of the "treatment" itself. Also to blame may be the lack of a more analytical, process-oriented approach and the absence of a suitable research paradigm for the study of the entirety of phenomena involving separation and integration.

The present work may be justified by the effort to depart from the prevalent approach of educational evaluation which usually guides research in this field and to draw hypotheses from a theoretical discussion of possible psycho-social processes activated by separating and mixing students. This is done by applying a sociological rather than a pedagogical frame of reference and by relating to five dimensions of the socio-learning environment: future pay-off of learning, symbolic message, normative reference, comparative reference, and quality of classroom interaction.

Chapter 3 not only discusses these five dimensions, but also outlines a research paradigm whereby instead of pursuing the pros and cons of homogeneity and heterogeneity, it is the effect that enrichment or impoverishment of the classroom intellectual composition has upon students with varied personal resources which is examined. Hence the focus of interest is shifted from classroom intellectual variability to the class intellectual level. Actually two sets of concepts are applied interchangeably: that of student composition quality and that of homogeneity versus heterogeneity, assuming that heterogeneity implies enrichment of composition for "lows" and impoverishment for "highs". Attention is also directed to the possible interaction between personal resource level and the quality of the learning environment in affecting scholastic outcomes. It is the interaction, rather than the main effects, which becomes the focus, enabling a more minute examination of the educational costs and benefits involved in separating and mixing different ability groups, and it is this focus which distinguishes the present research from many fine studies carried out in the past.

The conclusions of our theoretical deliberation are then subjected to an empirical examination. In its first stage the effect of classroom intellectual composition is examined under strict control of personal capacity. In the second stage the durability of the previous effect is examined when the analytical model is extended to include an affective, motivation-related dimension as a control. A preliminary investigation of the relative effects in the cognitive as opposed to affective domain is also achieved. These stages of inquiry are presented in Chapters 4 and 5 respectively.

Teachers and educational establishments have been known to adhere to practices of homogenization despite the failure of research to substantiate a consistent and significant advantage to educational separation. This intriguing phenomenon is explored in Chapter 6, where an effort is made to distinguish between pedagogical considerations and contextual influences in forming teacher attitudes towards the homogeneity-heterogeneity dilemma. Educational implications evolving from this study are discussed in the final chapter.

This work focusses upon the scholastic implications of separating and mixing students with varying intellectual faculties. In this respect two comments should be made at the outset, one concerning our emphasis upon scholastic achievement, the other explaining our use of classroom intellectual level as treatment variable.

The importance of scholastic achievement as opposed to other educational outcomes is essentially a question of value orientation. Nevertheless, as long as one is referring to prevalent societal expectations from the school and to current orientations of educational policymakers, administrators and teachers, scholastic achievement is considered the dominant educational output. It is also the main consideration behind maneuvers of student compositions. Scholastic achievement — and certificates reflecting it — is perceived as the major resource in a meritocratic society and a condition for social advancement. It also conveys prestige, which affects social status within both adolescent and adult societies. Hence, it necessarily becomes the focal point of research on the effects of separation and integration.

Defining the treatment variable as the intellectual level of classroom composition may be subject to speculation in light of the ample evidence (presented in Chapter 2) testifying to the minor effect of compositional manipulation upon scholastic outcomes. We adhere to this definition nevertheless because of our belief that existing research has been preoccupied with the variability of student compositions while the level of compositions, and especially the intellectual one, has not received due attention. Application of the above-mentioned research paradigm, with its focus on intellectual and personal resources at the classroom (rather than school) level, provides us, we believe, with an appropriate tool for reaching clearer conclusions regarding the scholastic outcomes of educational separation and mixing.

CHAPTER 2
Review of Existing Research

Few educational questions have aroused more interest than the issue of homogenization (separation, segregation) versus heterogenization (mixing, integration) of scholastically weak and strong students in the classroom and in the school as a whole. Hundreds of studies indicate the importance attributed to the question, no less than the failure of research to settle the controversy. The vast amount of scholarship obliges the researcher who attempts entering this densely investigated field to undertake a thorough analysis of existing studies. The analysis in this chapter is concerned with the most direct scholastic outcomes of compositional manipulations per se. (With processual corollaries of such manipulations we shall deal in Chapter 3.)

The chapter opens by addressing changes in research orientation over the past 60 years, followed by a review of selected surveys which have periodically summarized research. The gist of the chapter, however, is an analysis of the most important studies of ability grouping, streaming, curriculum tracking, and ethnic integration carried out in the last two decades in the U.S., England, Sweden, and Israel. Substantive and methodological conclusions end the chapter.

2.1 Changing Perspectives

From the mid-twenties to the mid-thirties research was carried out primarily in the American elementary school, where a pedagogic frame of reference was applied, mainly treating cognitive outcomes. The research reflected concern with classroom heterogeneity owing to the immigration influx and the mobility of blacks from south to north. The tendency of schools to incorporate ability grouping was nurtured by the development of IQ testing and the "scientific movement" in American education. The research was thus designed to assess the efficacy of grouping in the face of progressivist criticism (McDermott, 1976). In contrast, dual...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Contents
• 1. Introduction: The Homogeneity-Heterogeneity Dilemma
• 2. Review of Existing Research
• 3. Structure and Processes
• 4. Empirical Analysis (1): Classroom Composition and Academic Achievement
• 5. Empirical Analysis (2): Classroom Composition, Motivation-Related Variables, and Achievement
• 6. Teachers' Attitudes
• 7. Educational Implications
• Appendix: The Research Designs
• References
• Subject Index
• Author Index