Linchevski, L.,

1
Class Presentation by Melina Day based on Tell
Me With Whom Youre Learning, And Ill Tell You
How Much Youve Learned Mixed-Ability Versus
Same-Ability Grouping in Mathematics p. 533-554
Linchevski, L., Kutscher, B. (1998). Tell me
with whom youre learning and Ill tell
you how much youve learned Mixed-ability
versus same-ability grouping in
mathematics. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 29, 533-554.
2
When reading the summary for practitioners I had
some questions. After reading the full-text
article some of them were answered.
How can they say that it has anything to do with
cooperative learning when they are just
separating them by mixed-ability and
same-ability? Whos to say that the different
teachers are even using cooperative learning in
their classrooms?
It sounds like the teachers may not have wanted
to teach this way. How did the teachers feel
about this?
How can you have such varying abilities and still
be successful? For example, if you have a 7th
grader who still is having trouble with division
of whole numbers it doesnt necessarily mean that
the whole class needs to be taught that skill.
What do you do?
The teachers were randomly assigned. Dont they
have different teaching abilities and skill
techniques?
What kind of problems did they recognize that
this study may have had?
3
Studies have Shown

• most teachers have a positive
• attitude toward ability grouping

Attitudes of Teachers

• low-ability settings lead to
• low-quality teaching
• teachers low expectations
• a low-status
• nonacademic curriculum
• valuable class time spent on
• managing students behavior
• most class time spent on
• paperwork, drill, practice
• nature and quality of oral
• interactions are less
• discussions have a lower quality

Why Not Use Ability Groups?
4
Studies have Shown

• believe the study group is
• critical to learning environment
• different participants
• different styles of
• interaction

Theorists
5

• Together and Apart
• had weekly workshops for
• teachers
• on teaching cooperative
• learning in a heterogeneous
• classroom
• discussion sharing of
• problems

What is TAP?

• keep a class together as one
• learning unit
• responding to different needs
• of each student

Major Principle
6
Cooperative Learning

• 4 major settings

Type of Setting?

• whole-class setting
• small heterogeneous groups
• small homogeneous groups
• large homogeneous groups

Kind of Grouping?

• different needs for interaction
• among students
• between teacher and
• students

Why?
7
Cooperative Learning Instructional Activities
For What?

• shared topics

For Who?

• for all students

• heterogeneous settings
• whole class
• (teacher as active role)
• small mixed-ability groups
• (teacher as supportive role)

How?
8
Cooperative Learning Differential Instructional
Activities
For What?

• differential topics

• for all students based on
• abilities
• prior achievements

For Who?
How?

• homogeneous settings
• large same-ability groups
• (teacher as active role)
• small same-ability groups
• (teacher as supportive role)

9
Heterogeneous Grouping More Detail

• basis for collaborative dialogues
• to help small group
• interactions
• allow weaker students to
• participate

Whole Class

• develop conceptions about math
• create an appropriate learning
• atmosphere
• foster norms
• listening to classmates
• legitimizing errors as part of
• learning process
• allowing expression of ideas and
• tolerance of ambiguity

What for?
10
Homogeneous Grouping More Detail

• for teachers direct intervention
• for enrichment topics

Large Same- Ability Groups

• for different math topics
• for teaching alternate
• approaches to the same topic

Small Same- Ability Groups
11
Researchers Recognized

• alternate assessments would be
• better to see students thinking
• process
• tests were traditional in form
• but, they were open-ended
• mean achievement levels
• test-score variance
• standardized separately for
• each school
• mean of 0 standard
• deviation of 1

Testing
12
Researchers Recognized

• further investigation needs to
• be done to better understand
• cognitive differences

Cognitive Differences

• differences in achievement
• could have been for the initial
• differences

Achievement Differences

• teachers were not randomly
• sampled

Teachers
13
Personal Concerns about the Validity of the
Results

• Does this mean that the other
• classes did not have cooperative
• learning or just not the same
• kind of cooperative learning?
• Teachers all had training, but
• they didnt have the same
• training by the same person.
• Arent the same-ability classes
• smaller than the mixed-ability
• classes? Shouldnt class size
• make a difference?

Questions
14
whole class
peer collaboration (2 partners) same-ability
small mixed-ability groups
12
1
11
peer tutoring (2 partners) high low
small same-ability groups
2
10
large same-ability groups
large same-ability groups
3
9
8
4
small same-ability groups
peer tutoring (2 partners) high low
7
5
6
peer collaboration (2 partners) same-ability
small mixed-ability groups
partner of choice
15
_____________
12
1
11
_____________
_____________
2
10
_____________
_____________
3
9
_____________
_____________
8
4
_____________
_____________
7
5
6
_____________
_____________
_____________