Abstract
There are many subtle but extremely important differences between grouping students and tracking students for purposes of designing appropriate instructional interventions. Unfortunately, in many inner-city urban settings, the policy of grouping students eventually becomes a policy ofde facto tracking of students. While grouping students seems to be an educationally justifiable policy in many school situations, tracking students raises serious concerns with regard to its educational value, social desirability, and complicity with the legal notions of due process and equal protection. This study examines the use of a specific form ofshort-term grouping of students that is based on an information-referenced criterion for selection. Using a large sample of ninth- and eleventh-grade students, an information-referenced grouping procedure was designed for the areas of language arts and mathematics. The study finds that grouping selections, using an information-referenced criterion, are strongly associated with teachers perceptions of these students' actual educational and information needs. In addition, the information-referenced grouping design provides important specific educational feedback to both students and teachers to help low-attaining students move to mainstream classes. Finally, many of the “due process” concerns raised by educational researchers with regard to abuses and shortcomings of presently used “ability” or standardized test-driven grouping efforts are addressed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albedi, J. (1988).Test-Retest Reliabilities of MCW-APM. New Orleans, LA: American Education Research Association.
Brown, T. A. (1970, June).Probabilistic Forecasted and Reproducing Scoring Systems. RM-629-ARPA. The Rand Corporation.
Brown, T. A., and Shuford, H. E., Jr. (1973).Quantifying Uncertainty into Numerical Probabilities for the Reporting of Intelligence. R-1185-ARPA. The Rand Corporation.
Bruno, J. E. (1986). Assessing the knowledge base of students: An information theoretic approach to testing.Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 19(3).
Bruno, J. E. (1988). The instructional audit using information referenced testing (IRT) and signal receptor assessment theory.The Urban Review 20(2).
Bruno, J. E. (1989). Comparison of right-wrong (R-W) and information referenced (MCW-APM) test scoring systems for formative and summative evaluation.Journal of Research and Development in Education 23(1).
Bruno, J. E., and Hogan, J. (1985). What public interest lawyers and educational policymakers need to know about testing.Whittier Law Review 7(4): 915–942.
Bruno, J. E., Holland, J., and Ward, J. (1988, April). Enhancing academic support services for special action students: An application of information referenced testing (IRT).Journal of Measurement and Evaluation Counseling and Development 21(1).
Bruno, J. E., and Shuford, H. E., Jr. (1977).Problems in the Evaluation of Inner-City Instructional Programs: Implications for Title III.
Dar, Y., and Resh, N. (1986).Classroom Composition and Pupil Achievement: A Study of the Effect of Ability-Based Classes. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Doscher, P. L., and Bruno, J. (1981). Simulation of inner city testing.American Education Research Journal.
Fallows, J. (1989).More Like Us: Making America Great Again. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Grier, J. B. (1975). The number of alternatives for optimal test reliability.Journal for Educational Measurement 12: 109–113.
Grier, J. B. (1976). The optimal number of alternatives at a choice point with travel time considered.Journal of Mathematical Psychology 14: 91–97.
Kulik, C. C., and Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings.American Educational Research Journal 19(13): 415–428.
Noll, J. W. (1989).Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Educational Issues, 5th ed. Connecticut: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.
Oakes, J. (1985).Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Oakes, J. (1987). Curriculum inequality and school reform.Equity and Excellence 23(1–2): 8–13.
Oakes, J. (1989).Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Educational Issues, 5th ed. Connecticut: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.
Persell, C. (1977).Education and Inequality: The Roots and Results of Stratification in American Schools. New York: Free Press.
Raffini, J. P. (1986, September). Student apathy: A motivational dilemma.Educational Leadership, 51–55.
Shuford, H. E., Jr., Albert, A., and Messingale, H. E. (1966). Admissible probability measurement procedures.Psychometrika 31: 125–145.
Sibley, W. L. (1973).A prototype computer programs for interactive computer-administered admissible probability measurement. The Rand Corporation.
Slavin, R. E. (1987a). Grouping for instruction.Equity and Excellence 23(1–2): 31–36.
Slavin, R. E. (1987b). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best evidence synthesis.Review of Educational Research 57: 213–336.
Trimble, K. D., and Sinclair, R. L. (1987). On the wrong track: Ability grouping and the threat to equity.Equity and Excellence 23(1–2): 15–20.
Wick, J. W. (1983). Research note.American Educational Research Journal 20: 461–463.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bruno, J.E. Design of technology-based information-referenced grouping systems for use in large urban schools. Urban Rev 22, 163–181 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01109022
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01109022