Flexible instructional groups are the product of a methodology in which teachers are empowered to group their students based upon the student’s readiness to begin learning specific levels of course content. Basically, data is collected based upon one or more forms of assessment to determine at what level of mastery of a subject the individual student is currently located. Using this data, the student is assigned to a particular group with other students at the same or nearly the same level of learning readiness. The teacher would form at least three groups of their class who share similar characteristics and divide the students into these groups to perform specific activities or projects that would help them to master the level of content which they are immediately ready to handle. In this manner, flexible instructional groups are a form of differentiated instruction based upon a particular grouping criterion that seeks to form groups sharing homogeneous characteristics in regards to learning readiness for the course content.
Ability grouping is a broad term that seeks to assign students to particular learning levels based upon academic criteria. Ability grouping and its cousin, academic tracking, both seek to form homogenous groups to create perceived desirable circumstances for learning. The similarity between flexible instructional grouping and ability grouping with the exception of the mechanism of student movement from one group to another necessitates an examination of the research behind ability grouping and how this research pertains to flexible instructional grouping.
The majority of research seems to pertain to ability grouping in its rigid, traditional sense and without the flexibility mechanism. Therefor...
... middle of paper ...
...achievement. Equity &
Excellence, 23, 22–30.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d'Apollonia, S. (1996).
Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Grouping for reading instruction: Does one
size fits all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 477–488.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Grouping for instruction in the elementary school. Educational
Psychologist, 22(2), 109. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Tieso, C. L., & Margison, J. (2004). The Effects of grouping and curricular practices
on intermediate students' math achievement. Roeper Review, 26(4), 236. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Wright, S. (2001, January 25). Montgomery school's new take on ability grouping yields results.
The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com
Suresh, G., Horbar, J., Plsek, P., Gray, J., Edwards, W., Shiono, P., & ... Goldmann, D. (2004).
Stanley, J., Gannon, J., Gabuat, J., Hartranft, S., Adams, N., Mayes, C., Shouse, G. M.,
Cloran (n.d.) suggest teachers need to have a broad understanding of giftedness and learning disabilities, a variety of identification measures and the ability to modify the curriculum and implement differentiated teaching strategies to meet the unique needs of all students. A graduate teacher recognises that students learn in their own way and should understand and be able to identify a number of teaching strategies to differentiate and meet the learning needs of all students. They may create groups based on previous assessment results and set clear or modified instructions for each group based on ability or learning styles. To address the specific learning needs of all student abilities, multi-sensory strategies using charts, diagrams, outside lessons and videos, as well as posters around the room or information on the desk could be used. Tomlinson (1999) suggests that differentiated instruction aims to build on student’s strengths and maximize their learning by adjusting instructional tasks to suit their individual needs. Ensuring teaching and instructions are clear, revising and prompting students during lessons and providing templates and assisting student in breaking down tasks into achievable, systematic chunks are some additional examples. Lucas, (2008) suggests highlighting key vocabulary within the text to focus students on the central concepts within the text. Quick finishing students should be provided with the opportunity to extend themselves with extension tasks that have a specific purpose and
Wynn, D., Kaufman, M., Montalban, X., Vollmer, T., Simon, J., Elkins, J., I Rose, J. W. (2010).
Tackett, J. L., Lahey, B. B., van Hulle, C., Waldman, I., Krueger, R. F., & Rathouz, P. J. (2013).
Khenzi, N., Hutton, D. N., Garber, A. M., Hupert, N., & Owens, D. K. (2009).
Kobau, R., Zack, M. M., Manderscheid, R., Palpant, R. G., Morales, D. S., Luncheon, C., et al.
Vahey, C. D., Aiken, H. L., Sloane, M. D., Clarke, P. S., and Vargas, D. (2010 Jan. 15).
Strengths Finder 2.0 uses an online assessment to evaluate the individuals unique talents by having the taker rate how they view a particular question in 20 seconds or less (Rath, 2007). After taking the assessment, my five strengths were determined to be achiever, maximizer, input, arranger, and relator (Gallup StrengthsFinder, 2012).
Trautner, H. M., Ruble, D. N., Cyphers, L., Kirsten, B., Behrendt, R., & Hartmann, P. (2005).
Personalizing learning for students takes the idea of differentiating instruction to fit the needs of your students is vitally important to fostering an environment that makes ...
Whelan, R., Conrod, P. J., Poline, J., Lourdusamy, A., Banaschewski, T., Barker, G. J, Bellgrove, M. A.,
Duley, S. M., Cancelli, A. A., Kratochwill, T. R., Bergan, J. R., & Meredith, K. E. (1983).
Hill, T.F., & Nabors, L.A., & Reynolds, M.W., & Wallace, J., & Weist, M.D. (2001). The
Since the beginning of formal education, teachers/educators have sought the best method of instruction to maximize the learning potential of their students. It was recognized early that students differ in intelligence, ability to learn, background, environment, learning style, and many other factors that affected their progress through the educational system. Over time the classroom became the place for a teacher’s intuition, experiences, and impressions of the child to be the guidebook (Cronbach & Snow, 1969). As a result, aptitude treatment interaction (ATI) research developed as a way to find the best methods of instruction for the student population.