1998 - Equity Issues in Collaborative Group Assessment: Group Composition and Performance

Attribution: Webb, Noreen, Nemer, Kariane, Chizhik, Alexander, & Sugrue, Bredna
Researchers: Alexander ChizhikBredna SugrueKariane NemerNoreen Webb
University Affiliation: UCLA
Email: webb@ucla.edu
Research Question:
Investigated the effects of group ability composition on group processes and outcomes in science performance assessments.
Published: 1
Journal Name or Institutional Affiliation: American Educational Research Journal
Journal Entry: Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 607-651
Year: 1998
Findings:
  • Low ability students who worked with high ability students performed significantly better than did low-ability students who worked with med-high, low-medium, or low-ability students.
  • Group ability composition had a major impact on all performance and process variables.
  • High ability students generally performed better when they worked in homogeneous groups than when they worked in heterogeneous groups. However the composition of heterogeneous groups was not a factor in high-ability student’s performance.
  • Students at all ability levels benefit from working with high ability students, but dilemma: The performance of high-and low ability students cannot be optimized at the same time!
  • Group composition must be taken into account when interpreting and comparing scores of different students, classrooms or schools.
  • Heterogenous groups privde a greater benefit for below-average students than they impose a detriment on high-ability students.
Keywords: Ability GroupsScienceRegions: WestMethodologies: MixedResearch Designs: Quasi-ExperimentAnalysis Methods: ANCOVA Sampling Frame:7th and 8th grade students from 5 schools in LA
Sampling Types: NonrandomAnalysis Units: StudentData Types: Mixed-Cross Sectional
Data Description:
  • 662 7th and 8th grade students (21 classes) from 5 schools in Los Angeles County.
  • 6 teachers taught the 21 classes.
  • Pretests: Vocabulary, Verbal Reasoning and nonverbal reasoning. After administration of these tests, all teachers conducted a 3-week unit on electricity and electric-circuits in their classrooms. After the end of the instructional unit, students were administered a Hands on test and written (science tests), 3 phases. One month later, with no intervening instruction or review, students were re-administered the same two science tests. Students completed the hands-on test and the written test the next day.
  • The testing design had three phases: Phase I (prior to instruction) students completed the verbal and nonverbal pretests individually. Phase II (immediate posttests), students completed the hands-on and written science test individually. Phase III (delayed posttests), students completed the hands-on test again either in collaborative three-person groups or individually (Phase 3a) and completed the written test individually (Phase 3b).
  • Coded of videotapes of group discussions and individual behavior of students in groups.
  • DV: Science Achievement Test Scores
  • IV: Group ability composition
Theoretical Framework:
Relevance:
Archives: K-12 Integration, Desegregation, and Segregation Abstracts