Grouping children by ability for reading instruction is common practice in many elementary schools today. By reducing heterogeneity, ability grouping presumably allows teachers to provide instruction at an appropriate level for students in a particular group. However, research has shown that grouping children by ability can have a negative impact on lower ability readers, especially when the grouping occurs over time

Logan, Nancy Leyse

Paradis, Edward E.

Rux, Jean Dixon

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage ArtsVolume 32Issue 2 November/December 1991 Article 112-1-1991Profile of a Heterogeneous Grouping Plan forReadingNancy Leyse LoganEducational Opportunity Center, Syracuse, New YorkJean Dixon RuxSt. Lawrence School, Laramie, WyomingEdward E. ParadisUniversity of WyomingFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizonsPart of the Education CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SpecialEducation and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For moreinformation, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationLogan, N. L., Rux, J. D., & Paradis, E. E. (1991). Profile of a Heterogeneous Grouping Plan for Reading. Reading Horizons: A Journal ofLiteracy and Language Arts, 32 (2). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol32/iss2/1.mcProfile of a HeterogeneousGrouping Planfor ReadingNancy Leyse LoganJean Dixon RuxEdward E. ParadisGrouping children by ability for reading instruction iscommon practice in many elementary schools today. By reducing heterogeneity, ability grouping presumably allowsteachers to provide instruction at an appropriate level forstudents in a particular group. However, research hasshown that grouping children by ability can have a negativeimpact on lower ability readers, especially when the grouping occurs over time. The authors of Becoming a Nation ofReaders state "because of the serious problems inherent inability grouping, the Commission on Reading believes thateducators should explore other options for reading instruction" (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott and Wilkinson, 1985, p. 91).Reflecting on available research on grouping will undoubtedly raise questions in the minds of teachers who useability grouping. As we reflected, some of our questionswere: If teachers choose not to group students by ability forreading, what can they do in its place? If teachers choose togroup children of differing ability levels together(heterogeneous grouping) can students read successfully?If so, how might one organize and manage such groups?86 READING HORIZONS, 1991, volume 32, #2With these questions in mind, we found a fifth gradeclassroom in which students were heterogeneouslygrouped for reading and observed how the teacher organized and managed this type of grouping, and its effects onstudents' reading. A description of the teacher's plan comprises the first part of this article. The second part of this article outlines factors contributing to the success of the planin this classroom based on observation and student report.Organizing heterogeneous groupsThe cooperating teacher had grouped her studentsheterogeneously for four years prior to the semester of observation and had tailored the program over time to suit herteaching style and students' needs. Through observationsand discussion with the teacher and her students, two stepswere identified as key in the organization of heterogeneousgroups in this classroom: 1) the all-class book and 2) groupbooks. In addition, several management techniques suchas a daily reading schedule and rotating discussion groupswere considered important.The all-class book. Reading instruction began inthe fall with all the students in the class reading the samebook: Tuck Everlasting by Natalie Babbitt (1975). It waschosen because the reading level could accommodate avariety of abilities while the story line was interesting to allstudents. Beginning with an all-class book allowed theteacher to become acquainted with students and to modelactivities and strategies that the students would later use. Inaddition, the all-class book allowed all readers their first experience of being part of a heterogeneous group ratherthan being separated by ability.Among the reading strategies modeled during the all-class book were 1): mapping and categorizing, 2) writtenREADING HORIZONS, 1991, volume 32, #2 87retellings, summaries, and responses, 3) mental imageryexercises, and 4) prediction/confirmation exercises. Thesefour strategies were stressed because of their importanceto reading comprehension and because each would beused frequently throughout the school year. Workingthrough the all-class book took approximately four to fiveweeks. This time period was important to enable sufficientmodeling of strategies so students could later apply themindividually or in small groups. Based on conversations withthe teacher and supported by classroom observations, timespent on the all-class book set the stage for groups to worksmoothly and efficiently throughout the semester.Group books. Following the all-class book, studentsformed small groups. The teacher introduced this step bypreviewing a variety of books for the students in order toprovide background for their selection. The books varied inreading level to accommodate all readers and were basedupon a theme of early America to integrate with the socialstudies curriculum. From the books, individuals were askedto choose one of interest to them. Using book choice as thecommon element, the first set of small groups was formedon the basis of student interest. Each group included readers from a range of abilities. Although there were more thanthree books from which to select, the teacher kept the number of reading groups at three, based on what she considered a number for effective instructional management.Once students made a selection, they were allowed aperiod of one week to switch books. Some students madeinitial selections based on friends' choices or other criteria.Therefore, the trial period provided a respectable means ofself-selecting out of a book if a child discovered it was uninteresting or too difficult. After choices were made, theteacher read aloud to each group the first two chapters of88 READING HORIZONS, 1991, volume 32, #2the book to generate immediate interest in the story. Whilethe teacher was reading to each group, other students wereinvolved in prereading tasks for their book or other assignedactivities modeled during the all-class book.Students were then assigned to read two to threechapters at a time, depending on length and difficulty of thebook. In class, some students read aloud together, someread silently sitting in a group, and others read alone.Children who did not finish reading during "reading time"read during Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) or took theirbooks home at night. In approximately one month, when allof the small groups were finished with their books and associated reading activities, the process of forming groupswas repeated. Each time, a new selection of books was offered. (Books not chosen for group work were available asSustained Silent Reading choices.) During the fall semesterone all-class book and two small group books were completed. In addition, students completed individual booksduring SSR. The following semester students again readbooks in small groups, as a class, and with partners.Managing heterogeneous groupsOnce groups were organized, effective managementbecame important. The teacher used the strategies thatfollow to teach children effectively and manage theseheterogeneous groups.Daily reading schedule. To keep reading instruction moving smoothly, daily group assignments and activities were listed on the board in the order to be completed.Students' attention was drawn to these lists at the beginningof each reading period, and necessary explanations weremade and questions answered. This provided an overviewREADING HORIZONS, 1991, volume 32, #2 89of each day's agenda for those not involved in group discussion, thereby avoiding interruptions to the discussion group.Students not involved in discussion spent time reading assigned chapters or additional books or working independently on activities associated with their books such asmapping, theme boxes (Carrico, 1988), vocabulary games,writing activities, art activities, and culminating activitiessuch as plays or creating objects described in the book. Toaddress varying ability levels, students were provided withoptions for activities ranging from easier to more difficult.Addressing individual needs. One concern of theteacher was whether she was serving the individual needsof students. Was she challenging all students without frustrating others? She addressed this issue in three ways.First, she used regular discussion groups. Discussions allowed less fluent readers the chance to clarify content andto observe the connections and conclusions made by fluentreaders while still challenging the higher ability students.Second, the teacher involved students in activities that allowed them practice on skills they needed, regardless ofability (e.g., summarizing and mapping). Some of these activities were cooperative in nature, allowing less proficientstudents to be paired with more proficient students, whilesome were individualized to provide an avenue for individual student evaluation. When appropriate, individuals orgroups of students with a need for specific skill instructionwere engaged in minilessons. Third, many assignmentswere open-ended to address individual needs of readers ofall abilities. Most assignments encouraged students tocreate original work based on their interpretation of the text.Rotating discussion groups. Reading discussionswere held with one or two groups a day, since the teacherbelieved it was not necessary nor even possible for every90 READING HORIZONS, 1991, volume 32, #2group to meet for book discussion on a daily basis. Groupswere generally led by the teacher and occasionally by anappointed student. Time was spent discussing the readingmaterial with the students, answering questions about thebook, reviewing vocabulary and drawing connections toother books and background information.Pacing. One of the teacher's goals was to have allgroups finish their books at approximately the same time toallow for the formation of the next set of groups. This involved careful consideration and some trial-and-error onthe part of the teacher. Groups needed to be paced to avoidtoo many activities for those moving faster and to avoid neglecting important learning activities for groups movingmore slowly or reading longer books. The teacher workedthrough the pacing dilemma by balancing the time schedulefor reading, discussion groups and extension activities (seeFigure 1). The teacher indicated that the solution to pacingvaried throughout the year and with groups because of attention to individual needs and book choices.Anecdotal records. During group discussions, theteacher wrote anecdotal records for two to three children sothat each student was observed at least once weekly. Theteacher noted which students needed more challenge andwhich needed more guidance. Records were reviewed laterfor evaluation purposes, discussed with parents at conference time, and used to justify the program to parents andadministrators. Thus, anecdotal records became crucial forevaluation and accountability. In sum, organizing heterogeneous groups for reading was carried out in two steps: firstthe all-class book and then the small group books.Throughout both steps, management techniques were incorporated to keep groups working smoothly and effectivelyin order to facilitate students' reading development.READING HORIZONS, 1991, volume 32, #2Figure 1Sample of Teacher's Planning and Pacing for Three BooksDay Book 1 (longest) Book 2 Book 3Teacher readschapters 1 & 2As a group, makesome predictionson large tabletSSRPreview book; record Same as Book 2questions you wouldlike answered.Same as Book 2Compare questionswith group membersTeacher reads aloud SSRchapters 1 &291Read chapters3,4&5Activity 1: MapKit's routeSSRAs a group, makepredictions on largetabletMake predictions onRead chapters 3 &4 large tabletTeacher reads aloudchapters 1 & 2SSR SSRRetell chapter 11 Retell chapter 9 Group discussion15 Finish bookGroup discussionCulminating activity Culminating activitySSR SSR16 Culminating activity Culminating activity Culminating activityIndividual response Individual response Individual responseconferences conferences conferencesSSR SSR SSRBook 1: Witch of Blackbird Pond (1958) by E. G. SpeareBook 2: Sign of the Beaver (1983) by E. G. SpeareBook 3: Sing Down the Moon (1970) by S. O'DellObservations of heterogeneous reading groupsDuring the semester of observation in this heteroge-neously-grouped classroom, it was evident that students of92 READING HORIZONS, 1991, volume 32, #2differing reading levels were able to read the same bookstogether successfully. Through observation and discussionwith the teacher and her students, four factors emerged thatwe believe contributed to the success of heterogeneousgrouping in this class: positive student perspective, studentchoice of reading material, group cooperation, and groupdiscussion.Positive student perspective. With the exceptionof one child, students' comments reflected a positive perception of the grouping plan. To explain how heterogeneous grouping worked in the classroom, one averagereader said, "Readers who want to get to be better watchwhat the better readers do." A middle-to-low reader commented, "In past years when we were grouped by ability,most of the people in our group didn't understand [the selection]." This student's comment shows a contrast between her perceptions of ability grouping and heterogeneous grouping. Further, it reveals one possible result ofgrouping children by "like" ability. Even in this heteroge-neously-grouped classroom, children were aware of andable to identify better and poorer readers. However, children did not see themselves as members of an ability groupbut associated themselves with a particular book. Thus, labels were not contrived and the group name was not a disguise for a reading level. In the words of a student who wasnew to the school, "That's what I like here because they mixreaders up so those that can't read that well can learn fromthose who can."Choice of reading material. "If you're grouped byability and if the book is boring you can't change it ...so youdon't pay attention to it," remarked an average reader in thisclassroom. While the impact of choosing one's reading materials is unlikely to be exclusively linked to heterogeneousREADING HORIZONS, 1991, volume 32, #2 93reading groups, book choice was the basis on which individuals were grouped in this room. In this way, studentchoice was linked to heterogeneous grouping. Commentsfrom children indicated that interest was a major factor intheir motivation to read. Discussion with the students revealed that they had different strategies for reading what didand did not interest them. They reported that they readbetter with material they were allowed to choose. One high-ability reader said, "If you choose the book you like and thenif it's really good ...you can read faster." One middle-to-lowability student also reported, "If you like books you'll readbetter. If you don't like it you read slow or skip around." Alower ability student remarked that if he could not haveswitched books to read the one he wanted, "I probablywouldn't have worked my hardest." Asked when he didwork his hardest, a high-ability reader answered, "If youhave a real good book that you like." In essence, in thewords of one student, "If you have a book that you don't likeyou're not going to work as hard."Group cooperation. While good readers helpedthe less able readers, the latter also contributed to thegroup. Rather than being separated from readers of differing abilities as in ability grouping, children in this classlearned from each other. Within groups, most children sawother students as reliable and willing sources of informationeven though they were aware of ability differences. Somestudents, especially girls, read together in close proximity.When asked why, one group agreed that if they had a question, help was immediately available. Another group saidthey read together to help each other and to discuss thebook. A very good reader reported that students in hergroup helped each other. She stated she had not understood part of a story but two group members (less ablereaders) had explained it to her. Further evidence for group94 READING HORIZONS, 1991, volume 32, #2members having an effect on peers came from an assignment apart from reading. Students were asked to writenames of people who had taught them something special.One middle-to-low reader wrote the names of three reading group members and added, "My friends showed mehow to read better."Group discussion. Group discussion helped to fill inany gaps in understanding for students of all abilities andwas important for their reading comprehension for two reasons. First, group discussion made students accountablefor their reading. Second, groups were a place for theteacher and the children to share both their knowledge ofthe book and their enthusiasm. In discussions, children received guidance from the teacher, insights from otherreaders and established direction for future reading. Whilechildren were also accountable to the teacher for individualwritten and verbal response, group work allowed readers ofall abilities to pool and expand their knowledge. Observations revealed that students were active and generally equalparticipants in these groups. When asked how group discussions helped their reading, some students commentedthat the teacher told them about words and things they didnot understand, that they got parts of the story cleared up,and that questions were answered. In essence, discussionswere the glue that held readers together as groups and enhanced reading comprehension.ConclusionsIn conclusion, we return to the questions posed initially.First, the question concerning how one could set up andmanage heterogeneous groups was addressed in theexplanation of this teacher's use of whole class and groupbooks as well as her specific instructional techniques. Justas this teacher continuously refines her grouping plan toREADING HORIZONS, 1991, volume 32, #2 95keep up with new insights and information and to meet theneeds of her students, teachers who draw from her ideaswill necessarily make their own adaptations. Second, canstudents read successfully in heterogeneous readinggroups? Observations of readers and discussions with boththe students and their teacher indicated students in thisclassroom, though of varying reading levels, were able toread and comprehend the same material. Finally, if teachers choose not to ability group students for reading, whatcan they do? There is no definitive answer and more research is needed on various alternatives to ability grouping.Heterogeneous grouping as described here is one optionavailable to teachers. In this classroom, the teacher andstudents made the option of heterogeneous grouping worksuccessfully for them.ReferencesAnderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, A.G. (1985).Becoming a nationof readers: The report of the commission on reading.Urbana IL: Universityof Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.Babbitt, N. (1975). Tuck everlasting. New York: Farrar, Straus.Carrico, M.K. (1988). Theme cubes. The Reading Teacher, 42, 96.O'Dell, S. (1970). Sing down the moon. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Speare, E.G. (1958). The witch of blackbird pond. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Speare, E.G. (1983). Sign of the beaver. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Nancy Leyse Logan is with the Educational Opportunity Center in Syracuse New York; when this research wasconducted she was at The University of Wyoming. JeanDixon Rux is a fifth-grade teacher at St. Laurence School inLaramie Wyoming. Edward E. Paradis is a faculty memberin the Department of Elementary Education at TheUniversity of Wyoming, Laramie Wyoming.