Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 105–119 | Cite as

Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation

  • Mohammad Saleh
  • Ard W. Lazonder
  • Ton De Jong
Article

Abstract

This study examined how grouping arrangements affect students’ achievement, social interaction, and motivation. Students of high, average and low ability were randomly assigned to homogeneous or heterogeneous ability groups. All groups attended the same plant biology course. The main results indicate that low-ability students achieve more and are more motivated to learn in heterogeneous groups. Average-ability students perform better in homogeneous groups whereas high-ability students show equally strong learning outcomes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Results on social interaction indicate that heterogeneous groups produce higher proportions of individual elaborations, whereas homogeneous groups use relatively more collaborative elaborations. In the discussion, these differences in social interaction are used to explain the differential effects of grouping arrangements on achievement scores. Practical implications are discussed and topics for further research are advanced.

Keywords

collaborative learning group formation social interaction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Azmitia, M. 1988Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than oneChild Development598796Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Damon, W., Phelps, E. 1989Strategic users of peer learning in children’s educationBerndt, T.Ladd, G. eds. Peer Relationships in Child DevelopmentWileyNew York13157Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Karns, K. 1998High-achieving students’ interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairingsAmerican Educational Research Journal35227267Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hooper, S., Hannafin, M.J. 1988Cooperative CBI–The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex conceptsJournal of Educational Computing Research4413424Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hooper, S., Hannafin, M.J. 1991The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instructionEducational Technology Research and Development392740Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hooper, S., Ward, T.J., Hannafin, M.J., Clark, H.T. 1989The effects of aptitude composition on achievement during small group learningJournal of Computer-Based Instruction16102109Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. 1999Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competetive, and Individualistic LearningAllyn & BaconBostonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E. 1986Revised Circle of Learning: Cooperation in the ClassroomInteraction Book CompanyMinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    King, A. 1997Ask to THINK–TELL WHY®©: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learningEducational Psychologist32221236Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lou, Y., Abrami, P.C., Spence, J.C., Poulson, C., Chambers, B., ‘d Apollonia, S. 1996Within-class grouping: A meta-analysisReview of Educational Research66423458Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McManus, S.M., Gettinger, M. 1996Teacher and student evaluations of cooperative learning and observed interactive behaviorsJournal of Educational Research901322Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Slavin, R.E. 1990Comprehensive cooperative learning models: embedding cooperative learning in the curriculum and the schoolSharan, S. eds. Cooperative Learning, Theory and ResearchPraegerNew York261283Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Slavin, R.E. 1994Student Teams-Achievement DivisionsSharan, S. eds. Hand book of Cooperative Learning MethodsGreenwoodWestport319Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slavin, R.E. 1995Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and PracticeAllyn BaconBostonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boxtel, C. 2000Collaborative concept learning: Collaborative learning tasks, student interaction and the learning of physics conceptsUtrecht UniversityUtrecht, The NetherlandsPh.D. ThesisGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Webb, N.M. 1982Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groupsJournal of Educational Psychology74475484Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Webb, N.M. 1991Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groupsJournal for Research in Mathematics Education22366389Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Webb, N.M. 1992Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groupsHertz-Lazarowitz, R.Miller, N. eds. Interaction in Cooperative Groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of Group LearningCambridge University PressCambridge102119Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Webb, N.M., Baxter, G.P., Thompson, L. 1997Teachers’ grouping practices in fifth-grade science classroomsThe Elementary School Journal9891113Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Webb, N.M., Palinscar, A.S. 1996Group processes in the classroomBerliner, D.C.Calfee, R.C. eds. Handbook of Educational PsychologyMacMillanNew York841873Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weinberger, A. 2003Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning.University of MunichMunich, GermanyPhD. Thesis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Instructional TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations