Chapter 10 page 211
tends to enhance students’ motivation. You will learn much more about cooperative learning in the
later chapter on collaborative learning.Use heterogeneous and varied grouping arrangements. Historically in the U.S., teachers and
schools have grouped students by proficiency. Beginning in first grade, teachers have formed
“high,” “medium,” and “low” reading groups, for instance. Many schools track larger groups of
students in what may be called honors, regular, and basic tracks.
The research on the effects of such grouping and tracking on achievement are mixed. The effects
on high groups are inconsistent across different studies. Some have argued that grouping and tracking have,
on the average, small positive effects for high-proficiency students, in comparison with high-proficiency
students who are not grouped or tracked (xx). However, grouping and tracking have strong negative effects
on low-proficiency students; that is, low-proficiency students learn much more when their schools do not
group or track.
Once students are placed in lower-performing groups, they are extremely unlikely to be moved up
to higher-performing groups. One reason for this is that lower-performing groups are taught less. In reading
groups, for example, low-proficiency groups read less text, and they are less likely to get instruction that
focuses on understanding or meaning. They are less likely to learn and practice reading comprehension
strategies such as elaboration or explanation. Every year, they fall further and further behind their peers in
the higher-performing groups.
A clear negative effective of grouping is that they reinforce performance goals rather than learning
goals. Early in the elementary school years, children develop strong notions of who the “smart” kids and
“not so smart” kids are. This is facilitated by the groups teachers form. Students all know who is in the
“high” group and who is in the “low” group, even if these groups are given innocuous sounding names such
as “the bluebirds” and “the sparrows.” Motivationally, students in low-performing groups develop very low
expectations of success. Given that students assigned to the lowest-performing group seldom move out of
this group, it’s also no surprise that some of these students may come to view ability as fixed.
To avoid these problems, motivational researchers recommend that teachers employ grouping
flexibly. If there are some students who need to work on a particular aspect of decoding, the teacher may
form a group of these students. But the teacher does not assume that this is a permanent group. Once the
students master these points, the students fan out to different groups that are focused on other strategies.
Reading groups may also be formed on the basis of interests rather than reading proficiency; students
interested in a particular book join a group to read and discuss that book. When that book is finished, new
groups are formed.
This flexible approach to grouping allows teachers to work with students on strategies that they
need to learn without stigmatizing some students as generally less capable. Because groups are constantly
forming, dissolving, and reforming, and students end up working with all other students in the class at
various times during the year, students are much less likely to compare themselves with others. This has
positive effects on motivation.
Evaluation Dimension, together with the Recognition Dimension
In this section, I’ll describe some of the key recommendations of motivational researchers with
respect to the evaluation and recognition dimensions.
Don’t create an artificial scarcity of rewards and recognition; give all students opportunities
to receive rewards and recognition. Many classrooms create an artificial scarcity of rewards. To see
what I mean, consider this contrast between two teachers. (And ignore for a moment the use of stickers as
an external reward.)
Teacher A regularly gives tasks such as this: “Study these 20 words, and then we’ll have a test.
The top 3 scorers will get a sticker.”