Effects of Reading Group Assignment on Reading Development in First and Second Grade

Abstract

Placement in a reading group determines: (a) the materials a child sees during reading instruction, (b) the pace at which a child proceeds through reading materials, and (c) the peers a child interacts with during reading instruction. The current study examined these effects of reading group placement upon the individual's growth in reading during first and second grade. The study also examined how children were initially placed in reading groups. A secondary analysis of data collected by Juel, Griffith, and Gough (1986) and Juel (1988) was performed. Initial first-grade placements were found to be primarily based on standardized reading readiness tests. Children rarely changed groups. The correlations between place in basal series at the end of first grade and place in series at both the beginning and end of second grade were .77. Children with low incoming readiness test scores developed better decoding skills when placed in a basal series with fewer unique words. Initial aptitude, growth during first grade in decoding skills, and a high success rate in learning basal words influenced first grade reading achievement considerably more than sheer basal coverage or certain peer group characteristics. Only after basic reading skill was acquired did group placement begin to adversely affect reading development-if it constrained exposure to text in second grade.Grouping children for instruction in elementary schools continues to be a controversial topic (Gamoran, 1987;Hiebert, 1987;Slavin, 1987aSlavin, , 1987b. In part this is due to philosophical, psychological, and political concerns over assigning children to instructional groups on the basis of so-called ability tests. In part, however, this is also due to: (a) contrary findings on the effects of ability grouping, and (b) the criticism that many studies on effects of grouping have failed to sufficiently account for instructional processes and classroom factors that accompany the grouping procedures. Two basic questions have been raised about the latter which might

A Microanalysis of the Small-Group, Guided Reading Lesson: Effects of an Emphasis on Global Story Meaning

“…But this is only the most recent in a long string of studies (e.g. Barr & Dreeben, 1983;Juel, 1990;Weinstein, 1976) to give this result, so the finding must be taken seriously.…”

Balance in the making: Learning to read in an ethnically diverse first-grade classroom.

“…She wanted to make sure that she had both homogeneous and heterogeneous achievementlevel groupings each day, as much as possible (e.g., on flexible grouping, Flood, Lapp, Flood, &Nagel, 1992, andPinnell, 1996), This factor was linked to the teacher's epistemological outlook in that she thought that different kinds of groups could be associated with different kinds of knowledge or different ways of knowing. Because students will make the most reading progress when they are reading in materials at their "instructional" levels (e.g., Barr, 1989;Chall, Conard, & Harris-Sharpies, 1991;Elley & Mangubhai, 1983;Juel, 1990), she thought it was imperative that at least some of the daily instruction occur in small achievement-level groups. Daily "reading meetings" were achievement-level groupings.…”

About Hopes, Aspirations, and Uncertainty: First-Grade English-Language Learners' Emergent Reading

“…Another way I thought about balance (which may be a unique interpretation among current views of abalanced approach to reading) was that I wanted to make sure that I had both homogeneous and heterogeneous achievement-level groupings each day as much as possible (see Flood, Lapp, Flood, & Nagel, 1992, on flexible grouping). Knowing that research suggests that students will make the most reading progress when they are reading in materials at their instructional levels (e.g., Barr, 19 8 9;Chall, Conard, & Harris-Sharpies, 1991;Elley & Mangubhai, 1983;Juel, 1990), it seemed imperative to me that at least some of their daily instruction occur in small achievementlevel groups. On the other hand, heterogeneous grouping also has benefits, such as when poorer readers learn from the modeling provided by a peer better reader.…”