Equity Issues in Collaborative Group Assessment: Group Composition and Performance

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of group ability composition on group processes and outcomes in science performance assessments. Students in 21 eighth-grade science classes worked on science assessments first individually, then in groups, and finally individually again. Group composition had a major impact on group discussion quality and on student achievement. Groups with above-average students produced more accurate and high-quality answers and explanations about how to solve the test problems than groups without above-average students. As a result, below-average students who worked with above-average students showed higher achievement than did below-average students who worked without above-average students. High-ability students generally performed better when they worked in homogeneous groups than when they worked in heterogeneous groups. The fact that heterogeneous groups provide a greater benefit for below-average students than they impose a detriment on high-ability students is discussed.

Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing

“…On the other hand, the study also shows that students with lower abilities made greater progress than those with higher abilities. This finding is consistent with observations that although high-ability students can perform equally well in various groups (Webb et al 1998;Dembo and McAuliffe 1987;Hooper and Hannafin 1998;Lundstrom and Baker 2009), they may be held up when grouped with weaker students (Mills and Durden 1992). Among the three groups, Group C was the weakest, but when they worked with Group A and B, they made the greatest progress in the long run.…”

“…More and more researchers support diversity in groups with the hope that stronger students can help weaker ones and will benefit from the experience of tutoring (Webb et al 1998;Dembo and McAuliffe 1987;Hooper and Hannafin 1998). They also found that high-ability students will perform equally well whether in heterogeneous groups or in homogeneous groups.…”

Ability-based pairing strategies in the team-based training of a complex skill: Does the intelligence of your training partner matter?

“…Consistent with the mixed opinions regarding the relative superiority of heterogeneous versus homogeneous teams, the empirical research offers mixed findings, with some studies indicating that heterogeneous groupings lead to better achievement for both low-and high-ability students (e.g., Beane & Lemke, 1971;Larson et al, 1984;Webb, 1980), and other studies indicating that low-ability students benefit from heterogeneous groupings, while the achievement of high-ability students suffers (Dar & Resh, 1986;Hooper & Hannafin, 1988;Webb et al, 1998). With respect to heterogeneous groupings, researchers have also suggested that the benefits for low-ability students are significantly larger than the losses incurred by high-ability students (Dar & Resh, 1986;Webb et al, 1998).…”

“…With respect to heterogeneous groupings, researchers have also suggested that the benefits for low-ability students are significantly larger than the losses incurred by high-ability students (Dar & Resh, 1986;Webb et al, 1998). In fact, recent metaanalyses of field studies in cooperative learning (Lou, Abrami, & Spence, 2000;Lou et al, 1996) have shown that the achievement of low-ability students increases by approximately one-half a standard deviation in heterogeneous groupings compared to homogeneous groupings, while the achievement of high-ability students is not differentially influenced by composition strategy.…”

“…Although few studies have examined the ability composition of training teams using an experimental design, the growing literature on cooperative learning strategies in elementary and secondary education can offer insight into the optimal ability compositions of training teams (see Hooper, 1992;Hooper, Temiyakarn, & Williams, 1993;Webb, Nemer, Chizhik, & Sugrue, 1998). Advocates of mixed-ability groupings claim that, along with its potential positive affective consequences, mixed-ability groupings also have important positive cognitive consequences (Slavin, 1990), especially when tutor-tutee relationships exist among group members (Webb, 1982a(Webb, , 1982b.…”