Course code: EDU 4003

Course name: Research Methods and

Reflective Practice in Education
Course teacher: Laila Boisselle
Task title: Report on the preliminary
investigation

How does homogeneous and

heterogeneous collaborative
grouping effect on students
performance?

Student name: Aaesha Mohammed

ID: H00248080

Table of contents Page number

Introduction

Literature
review
Research
methodology

Findings

Action plan

11

References

13

Introduction
Collaborative group working is seen by some as a tool for academic
achievement (Johnson et al., 1986; Salvin , 1995). Grouping students
during classwork collaboratively means working together on activities
and tasks. In my preliminary research study of the effect of
collaborative group work, I will focus on two types of grouping:
Homogeneous and Heterogeneous grouping for students of different
abilities high, middle, low based on the categorization of these
students by their classroom teacher based on their achievement on a
range of tests and activities. in classroom. I chose these two types of
grouping arrangements as these groupings benefit the students in
their learning processes. As Saleh, Ard, Lazonder and De Jong state,
heterogeneous grouping allows students to learn from each other,
interacting with diverse individuals, while at the same time sharing
their unique abilities and interests (2005, pp.107-108). Homogeneous
grouping helps all students in the classroom stay on the same track of
learning while advantaging high ability students (Saleh, Ard, Lazonder
& De Jong, 2005 pp.106-107).
The preliminary observations for the study were conducted in a Ras
Al Khaimah (RAK) government Primary school with a Grade Four allfemale class of thirty students (with 9-10 years olds), which was not
grouped or differentiated based on achievement on language ability.

This is in stark contrast to private schools in RAK which I have taught in

previously, where ability grouping was prevalent and heterogeneous
and homogeneous activity groupings was common. The students
clearly were from a large range of abilities and the class included four
to five students with a range of Special Needs including students with
extreme mental disabilities which required individual guidance by their
classroom teacher in the absence of any classroom or Special Needs
aides or assistants.
After TP sem7, I tend to say that this study is needed to be
implemented for my class, to help the lower ability to improver and get
to upper ability through discussing and sharing, and the rest abilities to
exchange the ideas and extend knowledge and develop the social
interactions between students.
Homo\hetero grouping has been studied across a variety of contexts
for example US (Davenport, Linda Ruiz, 1993), and Qatar (Ahmed O.
Faris, 2009). United States is often homogeneously grouped is the
small groups in classrooms which are based on ability or achievement.
In Qatar the study of this issue shows the heterogeneity factor had a
negative effect on the achievement of the students.
Two research questions with respective: addressed in this study:
1. What are the benefits of Homo\Hetero grouping on students
learning?

2. What are challenges of Homo\Hetero grouping on students

performance?

Literature review
Key terms: effect, heterogeneous grouping, homogeneous grouping,
students performance, and collaborative.

Effect: to produce a change, here the affect is verb, and the

meaning of affect is how homo\hetero grouping does make a change in
students performance.
Heterogeneous grouping: groups that include students with a wide
variety of instructional levels (eductors.about.com). Which mean
students with different abilities: high, middle, and low, are sitting in
one group.
Homogeneous grouping: students are all at the same instructional
level (educators.about.com). Which mean students with the same
ability, are sitting in one group.
Students performance: learning, application of knowledge, skills,
and work habits through the performance of tasks (ASCD,2016).

Collaborative: involving two or more people working together for a

special purpose (Cambridge Dictionary).
The of homogeneous\heterogeneous grouping for students with
different abilities in collaborative learning strategy made learning more
fun and beneficial for students, enhanced their self-confidence, and
academic awareness (Ahmed O. Fares,2009).
To group students in hetero\homo grouping according to their different
abilities has been shown different results through different studies that
conducted in this topic, as each type of grouping has shown some
benefits in developing the learning process.
Heterogeneous grouping of students with different abilities,
identifies as one of the major source of inter-schools, as the variation
on this type of grouping affect the students performance and
achievements (Ahmed O. Fares, 2009). When there are different
abilities with different skills and thinking, it leads to better outcomes.
As it consider more roles (Nancy M. Schullery & Stephen E. Schullery,
2006). So, more different perspectives tend to more discussion to
extend knowledge.
Homogeneous grouping with the same ability of students tend to
be happier with less conflict (Nancy M. Schullery & Stephen E.
Schullery, 2006). The homogeneous grouping more serve the needs of
academically talented and gifted students without detrimental effects

to other students, as they are smart enough, and more aware to

understand what to do for learning, comparing to the low abilities
which made a huge difference for them, as if they grouped as homo,
there will not be a valuable success as the scores will show the same
results with no improvements.
The three different levels of ability high, middle and low show
different preferences in type of grouping according to their needs. The
low ability students are benefits more in heterogeneous grouping, that
because they can ask their group mates for a help, and they are more
likely to receive a support they need from their peers (Azmitia , 1988;
Hooper & Hannafin , 1991).
The high ability , some results shows that they perform equally in
homo\hetero grouping, while other studies present that they generate
more cognitive conflict and produce more collaborative elaborations
when grouping homogeneously (Fuchs et al., 1998; Hooper & Hannafin,
1988, 1991).
Webb (1982, 1991) demonstrated that the middle ability students
plays more active role in their learning in homogeneously grouping, as
they receive more explanations than those mixed-ability groups.
There is an affective indicator while grouping which affect the
success of grouping work, which is social interaction. The results on

social interaction indicate that heterogeneous groups produce high

ratio of individual elaborations, whereas homogeneous groups are
more collaborative elaborations. This difference in social interaction is
one of challenging factors, and has an impact of grouping
arrangements on achievement scores. In social interaction the
students construct a shared understanding of a given task by building
on each others ideas, discussing their perspectives and personal
beliefs, to reach the agreement for the whole members bout the
productive that they are working on (Damon & Phelps, 1989; Salvin,
1995). The challenge students faced in social interaction that is
because of repair of misconceptions, and the gaps between students
from different ages maybe, or cultures, and the level of ability itself.
To involve collaborative in homo\hetero grouping is better than other
approaches to develop students learning like student centered, VAK
etc. because when collaborative learning when implemented with
careful instructions techniques play a critical factor in the success, and
in the classroom the students development is the top priority (Jacob,
1997).

Research methodology
The research cycle I followed was Kemmis Model, I planned first, by
asking my MST about the students levels and have their names on a

list (see appendix1), secondly I reflected on my application of study,

how will my student accept that they will be grouped into two ways
Homo\Hetero groups, and how they will perform, then think if there any
challenges which may face them like conflicting in social interaction,
especially in Hetero grouping. After that in action step, I started with
asking a permission from the principal to apply my action research in
this school for my class using a permission letter (see appendix 2), also
a permission letter to all my students class to be signed by their
parents to agree or not(see appendix 3), when I provide the letter of
the permission for parents I gave a brief idea of my action research
with total truth of the work, and everything will be privacy, with no
harm for any student, with ensuring that their kids names will not be
mentioned at all, even the school name. Then I focus on collecting
qualitative data by using different tools to gather adequate information
about the results of how effective is to apply Homo\Hetero grouping in
students achievements. The tools I applied the pre-post- test assessed
the students individual and group work, and weekly reflection notes
from observation (see appendix 4).. The pre-post-test to assess my
students work individual first, then in unorganized groups after that
using Homo\Hetero grouping. In this tool measured the construct by
giving them each time different activities, different assessments, and
from these data I recorded all the grades and have a qualitative
descriptive about the students process in working individually, groups

10

and what scores they get in each type of working, and it was really a
useful tool that showed me the process of their working either if it
developed or not after recording the results of their works. The other
tool I used which works as the third step of Kemmis model is observe, I
used weekly reflection notes to observe the students performance in
Hetero\Homo grouping each week and write a weekly reflection diary,
it was useful because it keeps me on track to see how it effect on
students achievements and their social interaction toward each as it
considered a challenge during the group works. The sampling that I
applied the tools for is a convenience sample, as they are my only
choice, because I taught only grade 4 and I can implement my study
during my teaching time (see appendix 5). The last step of Kemmis
model is to reflect, and this will be my action plan for semester 8, after
looking at the findings results and see if Homo\Hetero grouping works
or not, and what more suggestions could be add to study about.
Findings
Through the qualitative results I collected from applying the tools
were that the pre-post- test assessed the students individual and
group work show me that firstly the pre and post individual work shows
that the high and middle levels are performing in the same level of
achieving, while the low level need direct support every time from the
class teacher, or they ask their peers for help. But in collaborative

11

homogeneous\heterogeneous group work, there was a totally different

in the results of achievements for the low level results, and that was
obvious when they were organized in heterogeneous grouping with
different levels, that is because they can ask their peers and get
support from the higher level (see appendix 6). While the high level
and the middle, do achieve equally in homogeneous and
heterogeneous grouping, but their performance is less, and from the
weekly reflections note I notice that the cause of their performance is
their work habit id getting difference when they work in heterogeneous
grouping. When the students get into a heterogeneous level, the factor
of conflicting increased, that is because the repair misconceptions
between the different levels, and it make a really challenge to them to
interact easily with each other, firstly when they were organized in a
heterogeneous grouping they argued a lot because they want to be
with their friends or with students who fits their level, but at the end
they get to accept it, and they try to help each other to show that they
are the best group in finalizing the tasks firstly and the work, but for
sure not all students understand the core of the task.

12

13

14

References:

Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: when are two
heads better than one? Child Development 59: 87-96.
Damon, W . & Phelps, E. (1989). Strategic users of peer learning in
childrens education. In T. Berndt & G. Ladd, eds, Peer Relationships in
Child Development, pp. 13-157. New York: Wiley.

15

Davenport, L. R. (1993). The Effects of Homogeneous Groupings in

Mathematics. ERIC/CSMEE Digest.
Faris, A. O. (2009). The Impact of Homogeneous vs. Heterogeneous
Collaborative Learning Groups in Multicultural Classes on the
Achievement and Attitudes of Nine Graders towards Learning Science.
Hooper, S. & Hannafin, M.J. (1991). The effects of group composition on
achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computerbased cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development 39: 27-40
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Holubec, E. (1986). Revised Circle of
Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom. Minnesota: Interaction Book
Company.
Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-class
ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and
motivation. Instructional Science, 33(2), 105-119.
Salvin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and
Practice. Boston:Allyn bacon.
Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2006). Are heterogeneous or
homogeneous groups more beneficial to students?. Journal of
Management Education, 30(4), 542-556.

16

Webb, N.M. & Palinscar, A.S. (1996). Group Processes in the classroom.
In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee, eds, Handook of Educational Psychology,
pp. 841-873. New York: MacMillan).
Webb, N.M. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and
achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational
Psychology 74: 475-484
Webb, N.M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics
learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education 22: 366-389
www.ascd.org
www.dictionary.cambridge.org
www.educators.about.com