The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 1

The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings over Homogeneous Groupings

Andrew J. Kruse
University of Saint Thomas


Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
CIED 500 Principals of Educational Research
July, 2011




The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 2

Introduction
Abstract
A trend is spreading in schools around America and it seems like an old-fashioned idea.
Classrooms around our country are beginning to reorganize in ways that more closely resemble the one
room school houses of the 19
th
century than modern elementary classrooms. While it may be logical to
assume that students of the same age and academic ability would benefit most by studying and learning
together, deliberately placing students into groups of differing ability has grown in popularity in recent
years. These mixed-ability or heterogeneous groups often take the form of multi-age or multi-grade
classrooms. Heterogeneous grouping does not; however, need to occur by mixing students of several
age groups together, it can be created within a modern, traditional classroom by grouping students
within one classroom with peers of different academic abilities and aptitudes.
Though heterogeneous grouping has recently seen a surge of popularity in America (and around
the world) not all educators are showing the same enthusiasm, in fact, another grouping concept has
become equally popular. That concept, called homogeneous, or same-ability, grouping deliberately
places students of very similar ability and aptitude together. Examples of homogeneous grouping can
be found in ability-grouping, tracking, and models like Response to Intervention (RtI) model.
Supporters of either grouping model have seen great benefit to students and suggest many
causes for academic growth associated with their model. Those who believe in heterogeneous methods
of student grouping compare the school environment created to that of a realistic work environment.
They recognize that once students enter the work force they will be asked to work with people that
have a wide variety of ages, abilities, and aptitudes. Supporters of heterogeneous groups also see the
immediate benefits to lower ability, and average ability learners being supported by peer instruction
and high ability learners able to reinforce their learning by teaching others, a method proven to improve
retention. Supporters of homogeneous groups state the benefits of isolating gaps in student learning,
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 3

and reaching the students who have fallen behind at the same time, or on the other hand, allowing
students who progress at a faster pace to continue to progress, not being held back by the slower
learning rate of other students.
Regardless of which grouping camp educators have sided with, in recent years nearly all
schools have made efforts to implement collaborative group work, which is viewed as generally
beneficial to all students. Collaboration, as stated in the discussion of heterogeneous grouping, models
future work force scenarios for students and reinforces the need for communication skills, organization
skills, and individual and team accountability.
If the purpose of education is to prepare students for adult citizenship and life in the work
force, allowing them to collaborate only with individuals of their age and ability is not giving them real to
life experiences, and therefore not fully preparing them for life. Learning to work with individuals who
have a variety of abilities more closely models what we consider "real-life". Grouping students into
heterogeneous groups with differing levels of ability in an educational setting more closely models a real
to life situation in which students must work with and learn from others. However, we must ask
ourselves, should our classrooms be organized to model future work environments? What about
student achievement?
Regardless of the importance placed on student preparedness for future work environment or
the social benefits found in relation to heterogeneous and homogeneous groupings, a separate and
often more heavily weighted topic is that of student academic achievement. Both heterogeneous and
homogeneous grouping can benefit students when appropriately organized and structured, but is one
more effective at producing student academic growth than the other?
As a private, parochial school teacher I have experience with both heterogeneous and
homogeneous groupings. A majority of my experience has been with heterogeneous grouping, which I
deliberately structure into my collaborative groups whenever possible. I practice heterogeneous
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 4

grouping based on repeatedly positive personal experiences I have had as an educator, and what I
believe will be most beneficial to student learning. However, I recognize the benefits other educators
have experienced with homogeneous groupings and desire to explore more deeply any observable and
significant benefits heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping may have. It is the intent of this research
to examine academic achievement as it relates to the growth of individual students placed into either a
heterogeneous or homogeneous group. This will be done in order to determine if there is a significant
academic effect of either heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping on individual academic growth.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study is to determine the effect that heterogeneous groupings have, as
opposed to homogeneous groupings, on the overall academic achievement of students in the primary
grades. Academic achievement will be defined by individual growth as measured by performance on
the Minnesota Cumulative Assessment and scores collected on unit pretest and posttest material during
this experiment.
Review of Related Literature
As noted in the abstract, benefits to both heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping exist and
have been documented. A study of 137 college sophomores and juniors who were studying in
educational courses was conducted by John Baer (2003). His study speaks largely in support of
homogeneous groups, stating that, Overall, homogeneously grouped students (who were grouped
based an achievement of their first test given in the course) significantly outperformed heterogeneously
grouped students of the final exam. (Baer, 2003) It is important to compare his findings to the design
of this research in several key areas. His sample was grouped by academic ability, but that ability was
determined on the scores from the first quiz of single course, and not on overall academic ability. The
subjects were college students, not students from the primary grades. The structure of college courses
differs in method drastically from that of primary grade classrooms. Finally, the samples were assessed
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 5

individually throughout the course; they were never assessed as a group, suggesting that, though
collaborative assessments were given to these subjects, they had no stake or motivation to utilize their
group members or work together in the manner that the trademark of most beneficial practice for
collaborative grouping.
The term heterogeneous used in the broad sense ultimately means a grouping of things that
differ. For the purposes of this study, that difference will be academic ability, however it is beneficial to
examine studies that have heterogeneously grouped students based on criteria other than academic
ability. A study conducted by Nancy M. Scullery and Stephen E. Schullery (2006) heterogeneously
grouped 394 sophomore and junior-level undergraduate students based on 8 personality-based
variables. The student samples, who were Business Communications and Organizational
Communications students, were then heterogeneously grouped and analyzed on 18 desirable outcomes.
Although the variable used in their study and the basis for group heterogeneity was personality and not
academic ability, it is useful in the context of this study as a foundation to the possible benefits of
grouping students heterogeneously by any pre-determined variable. The researchers identified ways in
which group composition might be customized to benefit students with particular needs or to
emphasize particular goals, noting that, A teacher can situate her students to maximize their grades
and satisfaction with their groups by assigning groups that are heterogeneous(Schullery & Schullery,
2006). This study of college students highlighted possible pitfalls of heterogeneous grouping based on
personality, but suggested that heterogeneous grouping has specific benefits regardless of what variable
is used to group heterogeneously.
Often in elementary grade levels, which will be the focus of this study, research depicts three
specific groups; high, average, and low-ability students. Heterogeneous groupings in the elementary
grade levels have been found to produce academic and social benefits for high-ability, average-ability,
and low-ability learners.
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 6

It seems a majority of research focuses on special needs students or gifted and talented
students, many times leaving average-agility learners without adequate data. This may be the case
because average ability students are considered to be free benefiting from most instructional practices.
Regardless, it is important to include sufficient data on how heterogeneous grouping has affected
average ability learners. In a study conducted by Saleh, Lazonder & Jong (2006), 164 fourth-grade
students in Kuwait were divided into heterogeneous groups based on academic ability. 50% of the
participants chosen were considered to be average-ability, while low ability and high ability students
each comprised 25% of the sample. From that point the 164 students were broken into classes that
contained structured groups and unstructured groups. The structured groups contained group dialogue
ground rules and basic interaction instructions, while the unstructured group was free to interact
without any group ground rules. Both groups were instructed through 16 biology lessons of
considerable rigor. The researchers were confronting the problem of average-ability learners getting
lost in group work and participating less, through this study the researchers learned that
heterogeneously grouped student who were required to follow group ground rules contributed more.
These collaborative episodes had a positive correlation to recorded achievement gains seen in
average-ability learners in structured groups. In other words, heterogeneous groups with ground rules
had average-ability learners participating more, and thus improving their academic achievement.
One of the greatest attributes of heterogeneous grouping is identified when all participants
benefit, which is why the following study stands out so boldly. A case study, (Belland, Glazewski &
Ertmer, 2009), was conducted on project based learning in a middle school of six hundred students, in
the Midwestern United States. The case studys focus was on the group interactions of a small number
of mainstreamed students who had been diagnosed with learning disabilities and were considered low-
achieving, at risk students. The low achieving students accounted for 2 of the 27 students involved in
the study, which took place over one two week unit, which was given as a project-based learning unit.
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 7

The data was collected through intense observation and multiple student interviews. The research team
determined through this study that when heterogeneous groups of this nature are formed, those
groupings held the potential to increase motivation and social confidence of special needs learners, and
helped all members of the group, average and high ability, overcome their own challenges. (Belland,
Glazewski & Ertmer, 2009)
When it comes to high-ability learners being grouped heterogeneously, the chief concerns
regarding high-ability students are the boredom of over simplified work, or the weight of carrying the
rest of the group. A case study conducted by Barone and Schneider (2003) focused on one unique little
boy named Kirby. Kirby was identified as gifted and talented, and in third grade began attending a
school in the southwestern United States located in an at-risk setting. The school was considered to
be at-risk because it was located in an urban setting that had a population of 54% free and reduced
lunch, and a population of 33% homeless students. What set the school apart; however, was the
classroom organization which was multi-age. The duration of the three year case study was Kirbys time
in Mrs. Schneiders 3
rd
-5
th
grade classroom. Researchers collected data by conducting classroom
observations, interviews with Kirby, Kirbys mother, and Mrs. Schneider. They frequently reviewed
Kirbys work and his teachers daily journal. Kirby experienced outstanding growth in literacy, even
while none of the other learners were at his level. The researchers conclusions attributed Kirbys
outstanding literacy growth to his home life, teacher, and school structure, Fourth, the importance of
learning with others was highlighted in each class. Children were encouraged to work with other
students who were either at a similar level of academic development or at higher or lower levels.
Children varied between acting as expert or as learner. (Barone, Schneider, 2003) The schools
structure of heterogeneous grouping had similar results for Kirbys classmates as well, the majority of
students in this school were testing at grade level or abovean amazing accomplishment for a school
with its demographics. (Barone, Schneider, 2003)
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 8

Heterogeneous grouping, when structured appropriately, is shown to have a positive impact on
high, average, and low-ability learners. The positive impacts observed have been social, conduct
related, focus related, having to do with intrinsic student motivation, and academic ability. Therefore, it
is reasonable to conclude that heterogeneous grouping will produce higher levels of academic growth in
a random selection of students than homogeneous grouping would.
Hypothesis
For the purposes of this study academic growth will be defined by a percentage of increase on
the mean percentile scored on the MCA-II in the subject area, one before treatment and one after, and
the comparison of pretest and posttest unit raw scores in the subject area. There will be two
independent variables, or treatments; those are the specifically designed heterogeneous and
homogeneous groupings. The dependent variable, or outcome, will be the measured academic growth.
Through the course of this experimental research, the data collected and quantified will show that
primary grade students, who are grouped heterogeneously by academic ability, will show significantly
higher academic growth than students grouped homogeneously by ability.
. . .







The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 9

Methods
Research Participants
The subjects for this study will include 256 randomly selected students from the Minneapolis
Public School District, in Minneapolis, Minnesota
1
. A majority of this district is comprised of non-white
students. The district holds 39.6% African American, 17.1% Hispanic American, 9% Asian American, and
4.5% American Indian (totaling 70.2% minority students). Only 29.8 % of the students in this district
are considered white Americans. This demographic is relatively similar to the neighboring school urban
district, St. Paul School District, which has a 24.7% white American and 73.3% minority student, or
student of color population. These demographic statistics; however, are in drastic contrast to the
greater Twin City metropolitan area. That area, with a population totaling roughly 3.2 million, is 84.3%
white American according to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, conducted in 2008.
Even the city of Minneapolis itself, with a population of over 400,000 more closely resembles the
greater metropolitan area having a population of 65% white, and 35% people of color. Within the
sample for this study, 13% of students come from a single parent household, 15.9% are Special
Education, 23.2% are English Learners (ESL), and 65.6% are free and reduced lunch. The city of
Minneapolis, along with the greater metro area are almost exactly 50-50% male and female.
Two fourth grade classrooms from Minneapolis Public School District (ISD 1) have been chosen
for this study. The first classrooms instructor, Teacher A
2
, is a math instructor at Number One
Elementary School
3
. For the purposes of this study, four math sections will be take part in the research.
Each math section will contain 32 students, placed randomly by a number table. The second
classrooms instructor, Teacher B, is a reading instructor at Number Two Elementary School. For the

1
Because this research has not yet been conducted, the specific demographics of the participants are unavailable,
please refer to the school district demographics for an approximate break down.
2
Because this research has not yet been conducted, specific classroom teachers have not yet been identified.
3
Because this research has not yet been conducted, specific MPS elementary schools have not yet been identified.
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 10

purposes of this study, four reading sections will take part in the research. Each reading section will
contain 32 students, placed randomly by a number table. These eight classes will be chosen as random
cluster samples for the overall experiment.
At this time, the only determinable sampling bias is related to the narrow geographic area from
which the sample is taken and highlights a limitation of this study. While the sample will accurately
reflect an urban/inner-city population, based on significant demographic differences, it will not
represent the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area, suburban areas, or rural areas.
If the nature of the randomly selected students is overwhelmingly similar in academic ability, it
may obscure heterogeneous grouping data and be considered a sampling error. Other sampling errors
may occur if a students previous MCA-II test, used to place that student in a group, is highly non-
reflective of that students academic ability.
Instruments
The experiment itself will take data from a daily functioning classroom. Though many forms of
formative and summative assessments will be performed by each teacher throughout the experiment,
data that will be used for the purposes of the study will come from two forms of published instruments.
The first published instrument used to place students into groups for the purpose of this
research, and also used as a primary measure of academic growth and achievement for this research is
the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment-Series II or (MCA-II). A system of self-referenced scoring will
be administered to score the dependent variable, growth in student achievement. The MCA-II, a
criterion-referenced test, will be used to measure academic achievement as it relates to the individual
academic growth of each subject by conducting a comparison of the prior years test scores with the test
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 11

scores produced after the experimental treatment. Prior years test scores will also be used to place
students into homogeneous and heterogeneous groupings.
The MCA-II test is considered to be highly valid in all content areas. This test is appropriate for
use as it is required to be taken annually by the Minnesota Department of Education. The test has been
authored by a team of recommended educators and is given annually statewide; the test has a high
equivalence and stability reliability rating.
A standardized method of administering and scoring is used for this test. Raw scores are
processed into range, mean, and standard deviation readings and separated by gender, ethnicity,
English proficiency, free and reduced lunch takers, special education, and migration status. For the
purposes of this study, grouping placement will be determined by standard deviation scores of each
individual on their most recently taken MCA-II.
The other instruments used to gather data for this experiment will be pretest and posttest
published in conjunction with the math and reading curriculum used by the teachers. The math
curriculum, Harcourt Math, and the reading curriculum, Houghton Mifflin-Literacy by Design have
chapter pretests and posttests assessments, authored by the curriculum designers associated with the
publishing company. The material is used nationally and it consistently measures the standards taught
in the curriculum chapters. These pretests and posttests will be taken individually and given through a
standardized method of administrating and scoring in all eight sections of the experiment. The
assessments are considered to be highly valid, as they measure only the standards found in those
chapters. Because the test questions are predetermined and will not change, the reliability of the
pretest and posttests will remain a constant.
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 12

In a method very similar to how the MCA-II will be used, a process of self-referenced scoring will
be applied to pretest and posttest scores for individuals to measure the dependent variable, growth in
student achievement.
Design
This is an experimental study which was designed with a directional hypothesis. That hypothesis
states that heterogeneous grouping will produce significantly higher levels of academic growth in
individual students than homogeneous grouping. The goal of this study is to collect data that will allow
for the determination of such significant outcomes, analyze said data, and determine what relationships
exist between the treatments and significant levels of academic achievement. This experiment includes
two treatments, or independent variables. The first treatment is deliberate homogeneous grouping by
academic ability (Ho). The second is deliberate heterogeneous grouping by academic ability (He).
The random clusters of subjects will be treated with either (Ho) or (He). Each teacher will have
four sections of one subject, two receiving (Ho) grouping treatment, and the other two (He) grouping
treatment. Prior to the beginning of the experiment random classroom selection, random (He) or (Ho)
selection, and random small group selection will take place based on the predetermined sorting criteria.
Each teacher will instruct all four of their sections, 2 (He) and 2 (Ho), in identical lesson during
each regularly scheduled class period for the duration of one spring semester (quarters 3 and 4). In
order to control, to the greatest degree possible, all of the thousands of other variables that exist within
a classroom, the students will be given the same daily work, formative assessments, pretest and
posttest assessments, other summative assessments, group work assignments, group ground rules,
classroom procedures and protocol, and finally MCA-II testing. The students will also be subject to
similar classroom management plan, formulated mutually by the teachers. Data will be collected
throughout the semester by the classroom teachers and recorded as raw data by the researcher. Data
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 13

will be entered and analyzed at the end of the semester and each teacher will be asked to fill out a daily
log of observations and take part in two interviews. Those two qualitative measures will not be
quantified for the purpose of the experiment, but will be informal measures of possible bias that could
have affected statistical outcomes.
This research will require:
1. Willing participation of administrators from two ISD #1 schools with relation to the overall
participation in the study, the method of random selection of 32 students for all four sections
taking part in each respective school, and approval of the cooperative instruction model and
grouping methods.
2. Access to MCA records is necessary for student grouping placements and will require approval
of the school district and the Minnesota Department of Education.
Assumptions
1. The cooperative learning groups formed as a result of either treatment are beneficial to
students and will not limit academic achievement.
2. Both treatments are ethical and beneficial to the students; however, (He) treatment will show
significantly higher levels of growth in academic achievement as determined by improvement
on assessment and test scores.
3. Both teachers will be willing to construct a highly similar classroom management system, and
adhere to it.
Possible limitations
1. Random selection of students may not produce diverse enough student ability for the most
effective samples of heterogeneous grouping. For example, a section of math may not have
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 14

very many high-ability learners, or an abundance of low-ability learners; therefore skewing the
heterogeneousness of a group.
2. It will also be subject to the validity and reliability of the students previous scores on the MCA-II
test, which will be used for initial placement. Should that test not accurately reflect the
students ability, they may be placed into the wrong group, thus skewing group placing.
3. Possible weaknesses of the experiment lie in the ability of the instructors to replicate identical
lessons throughout each school day, reinforce group procedures consistently, withhold bias that
may form between sections, and manage lesson content to ensure all students, regardless of
treatment, are receiving the same information.
Procedures
Group Selection:
Every group is heterogeneous by nature, that is to say, a randomly selected group is by nature
heterogeneous. A differentiation can only be stated when specific effort is placed into grouping
students in either a homogeneous or heterogeneous group. Random groupings, though heterogeneous
by nature, may include an uneven stratification of academic abilities. In order to combat uneven
stratification of abilities, a process will be constructed to group sample participants into three ability
groups, and thereafter, randomly divide them into either a heterogeneous or homogeneous base group
based on the needs of the experiment.
Student grouping will be determined by the students performance on the most recent MCA-II.
Students will be separated into three possible performance based categories; high-ability, average-
ability, and low-ability. Student placement will occur through the following process. All participants
most recent MCA-II mean percentile score will be entered into the same database. All students who
scored above a standard deviation of 1 will be considered high-ability. Students who scored between
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 15

a standard deviation of -1 and 1 will be considered average-ability. Finally, students who scored
below a standard deviation of -1 will be considered low-ability.
Each of the two teachers will then randomly select, by coin toss, two of their four sections for
heterogeneous (He) treatment. The non-selected groups will receive homogeneous (Ho) treatment.
Heterogeneous Grouping (He):
Once the heterogeneous sections are selected, within-section group division will be created by
placing the 32 students within each individual section into the three existing ability categories (high,
average, and low). Groups will be formed heterogeneously by dividing students into groups of 1 high, 2
average, and 1 low ability student. A table of numbers will be used to choose students from each group
randomly. When student ability does not allow the prescribed 1,2,1 separation, a student of the closest
ability score will be chosen to replace the desired ability position.
Homogeneous Grouping (Ho):
Once the homogeneous sections are discovered, after the random selection of heterogeneous
groups, within-section group division will be created by placing the 32 students, within each individual
section, in order from lowest to highest ability, based on the standard deviation method listed above.
Starting at the low end, groups will be taken by counting off every four students. This method will be
used for each of the four homogenous sections.
Class time and Assessment Procedures
Once initial ability placing and grouping is complete, each teacher will carry out regular class
sessions with all four treatment groups for the duration of the spring semester (quarters 3 and 4). Both
treatment groups will receive a set of ground rules regarding the procedures for small group discussion
and small group work. Each teacher will subject all four of their sections to the same set of classroom
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 16

expectations, same lesson plans, assessments, and general procedures. Each teacher will give their four
sections, two (He) and two (Ho), identically prepared lessons, daily work, formative assessments, group
activities and assignments, and summative assessments. Data will be collected from pretest
assessments and posttest assessments. At the end of the semester, the MCA-II assessment will be
administered to all sections.
Teacher Feedback and Data Collection
At the end of the third and fourth quarters, two informal interviews will take place with each
teacher. The purpose of the interview is to collect any informal data from the teachers, and look for
possible error or bias that may have formed. At each interview, the researcher will collect a daily journal
of observations kept by the teachers. The teachers will also be required to send in all pretest and
posttests administered to students to the researcher. The exact method does not matter as long as the
original tests, graded by the teacher, are given to the researcher.
Data Analysis
4

Prior to the experimental treatment, the only data needing to be processed will be each
individuals most recent MCA-II score in the subject area they will be grouped in (math or reading). The
students standard deviation scores will place them into one of three ability groups; low, average, and
high-ability.
Raw data from pretest and posttest scores will be collected by the researcher one to two times
a month throughout the course of the experiment. The data from pretest and posttest assessments will
be analyzed in the following way to represent student growth:

4
This is a research proposal, submitted prior to the experiment. The research outlined in this proposal has not yet
been carried out; however, an explanation of statistical measures to be taken has been listed.
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 17

1. (Purpose) This study is interested in representing the growth students have from the
beginning of a chapter to the end; therefore I am interested in representing data in a way
that compares pretest to posttests for each individual. This study is also interested in then
comparing all individuals from the (He) treatment, to those of the (Ho) treatment.
2. Each raw score will be translated into a percentage by dividing the total amount of points by
the total amount of points earned: (T/pE )
3. The percentage posttest score for each chapter will be subtracted from the percentage
pretest score in order to show either gain or loss, represented as a percentage.
Post(T/pE ) - Pre(T/pE ) = Gain or Loss
4. Using the central tendency mean, each individuals percentage of gain or loss will become
one score at the end of the experiment, represented as a percentage growth score. The
lowest score is dropped to exclude statistical anomalies.
For example John Doe had these pretest and posttest scores:
Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pretest
Score
74% 65% 88% 90% 51% 70% 98% 17% 86% 86%
Posttest
Score 85% 79% 85% 92% 74% 87% 75% 89% 95% 89%

John Does posttests are then subtracted from his pretests, giving the score variance:
Score
Variance
11% 14% -3% 2% 23% 17% -23% 72% 9% 3%

After dropping John Does lowest score (-23%), those score variances are then averaged to produce John
Does growth score. (24.7% growth score)
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 18

This process occurs for each of the 256 participants and all growth scores are collected in one
database. Then, separated by the independent variables of (He) and (Ho), the growth scores are
analyzed to show each variables mean growth score. The scores are then norm-referenced to show
percentile placement of each individual in order to represent the placement of (He) students verses the
placement of (Ho) students. Analysis will show which group averaged a higher percentile growth score.
At the end of the experiment, once the MCA-II tests have been taken for a second time, each
students standard deviation within the experiment pool is examined for growth. The variance between
each students first MCA-II standard deviation and second MCA-II standard deviation is then formulated
into a growth score and represented in the same manner as the scores for pretest and posttest were.
Conclusion
In order to determine the significance of the results found in this experiment, a two-tailed test
of significance would be performed on the statistics, with a determined level of significance being the
standard 0.05. A breakdown of male and female outcomes would be desirable to determine if gender
played a significant role in academic growth for subjects. Further research would likely be needed to
determine if heterogeneous and homogeneous groupings had similar effects on non-urban/inner-city
populations or in other urban/inner-city populations.
Time Schedule and Budget
Approximately 30 weeks will be required for the time of this experiment. This time frame
includes data collection time (quarters 3 and 4 of the spring semester) and data analysis time. The
experiment will begin in January at the beginning of the 3
rd
quarter. The duration of treatment will
continue from that date until the end of the 4
th
quarter in early June, and the time needed for data
analysis.
The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 19

Minimal fees will be required for extra photo-copies of pretests and posttests from the reading
and math curriculum that may not have otherwise been needed and possible postage used by the
teachers to send testing results for data entry to the researcher. Ultimately, this experimental research
holds no major cost to the individual schools or the district. The MCA-II tests are taken regardless of this
experiment.



















The Benefits of Heterogeneous Groupings Over Homogeneous Groupings: Kruse, 20

References
Baer, J. (2003). Grouping and achievement in cooperative learning. College Teaching, 51(4), 169-174.
Retrieved from http://www.heldref.org/ct.php
Barone, D., & Schneider, R. (2003). Turning the looking glass inside out: A gifted student in an at-risk
setting. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 259-271. Retrieved from doi,10.1177/001698620304700403
Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). Inclusion and problem-based learning: Roles of
students in a mixed-ability group. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 32(9), 1-19.
Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2006). Are heterogeneous or homogeneous groups more beneficial
to students? Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 542-556. Retrieved from doi,
10.1177/1052562905277305
Song, H., & Grabowski, B. L. (2006). Stimulating intrinsic motivation for problem solving using goal-
oriented contexts and peer group composition. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 54(5), 445-466. Retrieved from doi,10.1007/s11423-006-0128-6