Exploring the influence of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping on students’ text-based discussions and comprehension

Pricilla Karen Murphy, Jeffrey A. Greene, Carla M. Firetto, Mengyi Li, Nikki G. Lobczowski, Rebekah F. Duke, Liwei Wei, Rachel M.V. Croninger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Small-group, text-based discussions are a prominent and effective instructional practice, but the literature on the effects of different group composition methods (i.e., homogeneous vs. heterogeneous ability grouping) has been inconclusive with few direct comparisons of the two grouping methods. A yearlong classroom-based intervention was conducted to examine the ways in which group composition influenced students’ discourse and comprehension. Fourth- and fifth-grade students (N = 62) were randomly assigned to either a homogeneous or heterogeneous ability small-group discussion. All students engaged in Quality Talk, a theoretically- and empirically-supported intervention using small-group discussion to promote high-level comprehension. Multilevel modeling revealed that, on average, students displayed positive, statistically and practically significant gains in both basic and high-level comprehension performance over the course of Quality Talk. Further, our findings indicated heterogeneous ability grouping was more beneficial than homogeneous ability grouping for high-level comprehension, on average, with low-ability students struggling more in homogeneous grouping. With respect to student discourse, additional quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed group composition differences in terms of the frequency, duration, and quality of student questions and responses, as well as the types of discourse low-ability students enacted in homogeneous groups. This study expands upon the extant literature and informs future research and practice on group composition methods.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)336-355
Number of pages20
JournalContemporary Educational Psychology
Volume51
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2017

Fingerprint

grouping
Aptitude
comprehension
Students
ability
student
small group
Group
group discussion
discourse
classroom
performance

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

Murphy, Pricilla Karen ; Greene, Jeffrey A. ; Firetto, Carla M. ; Li, Mengyi ; Lobczowski, Nikki G. ; Duke, Rebekah F. ; Wei, Liwei ; Croninger, Rachel M.V. / Exploring the influence of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping on students’ text-based discussions and comprehension. In: Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2017 ; Vol. 51. pp. 336-355.
@article{1d5b4cc3a6bb4efa9a98317eb9ef6b08,
title = "Exploring the influence of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping on students’ text-based discussions and comprehension",
abstract = "Small-group, text-based discussions are a prominent and effective instructional practice, but the literature on the effects of different group composition methods (i.e., homogeneous vs. heterogeneous ability grouping) has been inconclusive with few direct comparisons of the two grouping methods. A yearlong classroom-based intervention was conducted to examine the ways in which group composition influenced students’ discourse and comprehension. Fourth- and fifth-grade students (N = 62) were randomly assigned to either a homogeneous or heterogeneous ability small-group discussion. All students engaged in Quality Talk, a theoretically- and empirically-supported intervention using small-group discussion to promote high-level comprehension. Multilevel modeling revealed that, on average, students displayed positive, statistically and practically significant gains in both basic and high-level comprehension performance over the course of Quality Talk. Further, our findings indicated heterogeneous ability grouping was more beneficial than homogeneous ability grouping for high-level comprehension, on average, with low-ability students struggling more in homogeneous grouping. With respect to student discourse, additional quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed group composition differences in terms of the frequency, duration, and quality of student questions and responses, as well as the types of discourse low-ability students enacted in homogeneous groups. This study expands upon the extant literature and informs future research and practice on group composition methods.",
author = "Murphy, {Pricilla Karen} and Greene, {Jeffrey A.} and Firetto, {Carla M.} and Mengyi Li and Lobczowski, {Nikki G.} and Duke, {Rebekah F.} and Liwei Wei and Croninger, {Rachel M.V.}",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.09.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "336--355",
journal = "Contemporary Educational Psychology",
issn = "0361-476X",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

Exploring the influence of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping on students’ text-based discussions and comprehension. / Murphy, Pricilla Karen; Greene, Jeffrey A.; Firetto, Carla M.; Li, Mengyi; Lobczowski, Nikki G.; Duke, Rebekah F.; Wei, Liwei; Croninger, Rachel M.V.

In: Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 51, 01.10.2017, p. 336-355.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring the influence of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping on students’ text-based discussions and comprehension

AU - Murphy, Pricilla Karen

AU - Greene, Jeffrey A.

AU - Firetto, Carla M.

AU - Li, Mengyi

AU - Lobczowski, Nikki G.

AU - Duke, Rebekah F.

AU - Wei, Liwei

AU - Croninger, Rachel M.V.

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Small-group, text-based discussions are a prominent and effective instructional practice, but the literature on the effects of different group composition methods (i.e., homogeneous vs. heterogeneous ability grouping) has been inconclusive with few direct comparisons of the two grouping methods. A yearlong classroom-based intervention was conducted to examine the ways in which group composition influenced students’ discourse and comprehension. Fourth- and fifth-grade students (N = 62) were randomly assigned to either a homogeneous or heterogeneous ability small-group discussion. All students engaged in Quality Talk, a theoretically- and empirically-supported intervention using small-group discussion to promote high-level comprehension. Multilevel modeling revealed that, on average, students displayed positive, statistically and practically significant gains in both basic and high-level comprehension performance over the course of Quality Talk. Further, our findings indicated heterogeneous ability grouping was more beneficial than homogeneous ability grouping for high-level comprehension, on average, with low-ability students struggling more in homogeneous grouping. With respect to student discourse, additional quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed group composition differences in terms of the frequency, duration, and quality of student questions and responses, as well as the types of discourse low-ability students enacted in homogeneous groups. This study expands upon the extant literature and informs future research and practice on group composition methods.

AB - Small-group, text-based discussions are a prominent and effective instructional practice, but the literature on the effects of different group composition methods (i.e., homogeneous vs. heterogeneous ability grouping) has been inconclusive with few direct comparisons of the two grouping methods. A yearlong classroom-based intervention was conducted to examine the ways in which group composition influenced students’ discourse and comprehension. Fourth- and fifth-grade students (N = 62) were randomly assigned to either a homogeneous or heterogeneous ability small-group discussion. All students engaged in Quality Talk, a theoretically- and empirically-supported intervention using small-group discussion to promote high-level comprehension. Multilevel modeling revealed that, on average, students displayed positive, statistically and practically significant gains in both basic and high-level comprehension performance over the course of Quality Talk. Further, our findings indicated heterogeneous ability grouping was more beneficial than homogeneous ability grouping for high-level comprehension, on average, with low-ability students struggling more in homogeneous grouping. With respect to student discourse, additional quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed group composition differences in terms of the frequency, duration, and quality of student questions and responses, as well as the types of discourse low-ability students enacted in homogeneous groups. This study expands upon the extant literature and informs future research and practice on group composition methods.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029491192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029491192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.09.003

DO - 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.09.003

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85029491192

VL - 51

SP - 336

EP - 355

JO - Contemporary Educational Psychology

JF - Contemporary Educational Psychology

SN - 0361-476X

ER -