Research indicates that cooperative learning increases achievement. (Marzano, Robert. Classroom Instruction That Works. Prentice Hall, 2004)

Here are a dozen things to consider when setting up and implementing independent and small-group activities in order to foster the best results:

1. Provide instruction and activities that match students of varying skill levels.
2. Assess student progress frequently by monitoring student work and error patterns to identify what needs to be re-taught.
3. Avoid using worksheets as the primary focus of small-group work. Worksheets should be kept to a minimum, if not eliminated altogether.
4. Establish clear routines for students to follow. Model and practice those routines. Rehearse the expectations and review expectations frequently.
5. Notice positive group behavior. Research indicates that teachers should give students more positive comments than negative comments.
6. Calmly, quietly, and quickly approach and redirect students who are off task. Use a nonverbal cue, a cue card (see cue card example)
7. Use proximity control. The co-teaching environment makes this much more doable.
8. Use assessment data to create lesson plans and determine the groups.
9. Keep groups small, preferably three to four students to a group. Sometimes it might even be appropriate to have pairs.
10. Change groups often as students grow or test out of a curriculum section.
11. Describe, show an example, or model the expectations for assignments and activities as well as examples of what the outcome should, and should not, look like.
12. Correct misbehavior and teach appropriate behavior and expectations (we cannot assume that students know what to do).

Explore even more tips, tools, and resources for collaboration at TheHowofCo-teaching.com!

Bring Susan to your campus!

Featured seminar – Co-teaching and Collaboration

Would you like to reprint this article, or an article like it, in your newsletter or journal?
CLICK HERE to visit the articles page.

The post A Dozen Surefire Tips for Flexible Grouping and Small Group Learning appeared first on Susan Fitzell.

In 2001, in Robert Marzano’s “Classroom Instruction that Works,” on page 87, he states, “As shown in figure 7.3, students of low ability actually perform worse when they are placed in homogeneous groups with students of low ability as opposed to students of low ability placed in heterogeneous groups. This is evidenced by the negative effect size of a -.60. In addition, the effect of homogeneous grouping on high ability students is positive, but small (.09). Alan Fiero, in his study, concludes that “All students benefit from ‘thinking about their thinking’.”

Heterogeneous groups provide a wider range of ideas to examine. Having students think deeply to explain their ideas and critique the ideas of others brings out the “genius” in all of our students.”(Fiero, n.d.) Proponents of gifted education counter some of these studies with research that indicates that gifted youth were not properly represented in much of the research on ability grouping. However, despite the fact that studies that include gifted students often do not replicate the same research results indicating negative effects of ability grouping, they do overwhelmingly state that the key to success of all students is flexible grouping.(Tieso, 2003)

It appears as though research on tracking has been nonexistent in the past five years. Consequently, there is no new research to provide evidence for or against tracking. I, however; have taught low ability classes where students’ misbehavior is exacerbated by the fact that students feed off one another, where teachers’ expectations are low, even when they believe they are challenging students, and where the segregation of low ability students significantly impacts students’ self-esteem.

In some of the research, authors have claimed that including students with low ability in a heterogeneous group perpetrates low self-esteem. I disagree. I have seen, with my own eyes, in my own classrooms and in the classrooms of powerfully effective co-teachers, students who exceed low expectations and achieve more than I ever dreamed possible. Teachers who teach effectively, who differentiate instruction, who use data to ability-group flexibly and as needed to re-teach before students fail have classrooms where students make gains.

When I walk into a classroom, where low is grouped with low, I see a very different level of teaching and expectation by both general education and special education teachers, even today. The keys to student success are complex. There are no magic bullets and no simple answers. What I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that low-level classrooms yield low-level results.

Given that the classes that students take in middle school and high school determine their future, including their ability to make a decent living or go to college, we have a moral responsibility to ensure that we are not limiting students’ life choices based on standardized test scores. I conclude with one question that each school leader needs to ask them self, “Do we have the right to decide a child’s future based on test scores when they are as young as the sixth grade?”

Fiero, A. (n.d.). Hetero Genius Classes- Why inclusion and mixed grouping.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom Instruction That Works: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tieso, C. L. (2003, September). Ability groupin is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review. doi: 10.1080/02783190309554236

For more information on differentiation and Response to Intervention, see Susan Fitzell’s book, RTI Strategies for Secondary Teachers.

Bring Susan to your campus!

Featured seminar – Response to Intervention (RTI) Strategies

Would you like to reprint this article, or an article like it, in your newsletter or journal?
CLICK HERE to visit the articles page.

The post The Resurgence of Tracking and Homogenous Grouping appeared first on Susan Fitzell.