Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T21:44:49.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Within-class grouping: evidence versus conjecture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Philip C. Abrami ,
Yiping Lou ,
Bette Chambers ,
Catherine Poulsen  and
John C. Spence
Philip C. Abrami
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Yiping Lou
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Bette Chambers
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Catherine Poulsen
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
John C. Spence
Affiliation:
Alberta Centre for Well-Being, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lou, Abrami, Spence, Poulsen, Chambers, and d'Apollonia (1996) reported the findings from a quantitative review showing generally positive but variable effects of within-class grouping on pupil achievement and other outcomes. Replying in the National Institute Economic Review (July 1998), Prais argued for whole-class teaching claiming that we mis-summarised our findings. In this abbreviated rejoinder, we argue that our findings are: useful; not so variable as to be meaningless; provide evidence of beneficial effects for pupils of all relative abilities; are thorough and detailed; and provide a rather complete picture of the available evidence. In contrast, we believe that Prais (1998) has relied too heavily on conjecture and selective citation to offer a view of within-class grouping which is a serious mis-summarisation of the findings.

Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 169 , July 1999 , pp. 105 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was supported by grants to Abrami and Chambers from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Government of Canada) and the Fonds pour la formation de chercheurs et l'aide a la recherche (Government of Quebec). For an unabridged version of this rejoinder and copies of our papers on within-class grouping contact: Philip C. Abrami, Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8 or by electronic mail: pabrami@alcor.concordia.ca.

References

Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C. and Spence, J.C. (1998), ‘Within-class grouping: evidence versus conjecture’, Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October.Google Scholar
Hedges, L.V. and Olkin, I. (1985), Statistical Methods in Meta-Analysis, Orlando, FL., Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lou, Y., Abrami, P.C., and Spence, J.C. (under review), ‘Best practices for within-class grouping’, Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
Lou, Y., Abrami, P.C., Spence, J.C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B. and d'Apollonia, S. (1996), ‘Within-class grouping: a meta-analysis’, Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luxton, R. and Last, G. (1997), ‘Under-achievement and pedagogy’, National Institute Discussion Paper No. 112 (forthcoming in Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications).Google Scholar
Prais, S.J. (1998), ‘Raising schooling attainments by grouping pupils within each class’, National Institute Economic Review, 165, 83–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar