A Comparison of Pupil Achievement after One and One-Half and Three Years in a Nongraded Program

Jones, J. Charles; Moore, William P.; Devender, Frank Van

doi:10.1080/00220671.1967.10883590

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our mini meta-analysis also yielded similar findings concerning the effects of cross-grade subject grouping as previous studies. Our mini meta-analysis and Slavin's (1987) both reviewed two randomized studies of cross-grade subject grouping (i.e., Jones et al, 1967;Morgan & Stucker, 1960). For the Jones et al (1967) study, Slavin (1987 reported an ES of 0.32 for high-ability students and 0.94 for low-ability students, and the current meta-analysis found ESs of 0.43 and 0.89, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Our mini meta-analysis and Slavin's (1987) both reviewed two randomized studies of cross-grade subject grouping (i.e., Jones et al, 1967;Morgan & Stucker, 1960). For the Jones et al (1967) study, Slavin (1987 reported an ES of 0.32 for high-ability students and 0.94 for low-ability students, and the current meta-analysis found ESs of 0.43 and 0.89, respectively. For the Morgan andStucker (1960) study, both Slavin (1987) and the current meta-analysis reported an ES of 0.33 after the grouping was implemented for 3 years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Of the 13 studies retrieved, the study by Marascuilo and McSweeney (1972) was excluded because ESs were not calculable. The article by Hillson, Jones, Moore, and Van Devender (1964) was excluded because it shared the same set of data as Jones, Moore, and Van Devender (1967). The article by Slavin and Karweit (1985) actually consisted of two experimental studies (Experiments 1 and 2).…”

Section: A Mini Meta-analysis Of 12 Randomized Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Jones et al (1967) study was unique. Jones et al compared the effects of cross-grade subject grouping (in a nongraded reading program) of first, second, and third graders with that of within-class grouping in which students in each grade level (i.e., Grades 1-3) grouped into high, medium, and low reading levels.…”

Section: Mini Meta-analysis Of 12 Randomized Studies Descriptive Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K–12 Students’ Academic Achievement

Steenbergen‐Hu¹,

Makel

Olszewski‐Kubilius³

2016

Review of Educational Research

313

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two second-order meta-analyses synthesized approximately 100 years of research on the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement. Outcomes of 13 ability grouping meta-analyses showed that students benefited from within-class grouping (0.19 ≤ g ≤ 0.30), cross-grade subject grouping (g = 0.26), and special grouping for the gifted (g = 0.37), but did not benefit from between-class grouping (0.04 ≤ g ≤0.06); the effects did not vary for high-, medium-, and low-ability students. Three acceleration meta-analyses showed that accelerated students significantly outperformed their nonaccelerated same-age peers (g = 0.70) but did not differ significantly from nonaccelerated older peers (g = 0.09). Three other meta-analyses that aggregated outcomes across specific forms of acceleration found that acceleration appeared to have a positive, moderate, and statistically significant impact on students’ academic achievement (g = 0.42).

show abstract