Heterogeneous Grouping in Education: Benefits & Best Practices

Quick Links

Introduction

The concept of grouping students has always been a topic of considerable debate in education. One approach that has gained significant attention is heterogeneous grouping, where students of varying identities, abilities, backgrounds, and interests are grouped together. This method stands in contrast to the more common homogeneous grouping (also known as ability grouping or tracking), where students are grouped based on perceived similar abilities or achievement levels. This article delves into the power of heterogeneous grouping in education, exploring its benefits, strategies for effective implementation, and addresses the problems with ability grouping.

What is Heterogeneous Grouping

Heterogeneous grouping is an educational practice where students with diverse abilities, skills, and backgrounds are placed in the same learning group. Heterogeneous grouping within a classroom begins with proportionally representing students across a school. Proportional representation means that the demographics of students receiving special education services, students receiving English Language services, and students receiving advanced learning services in the school are proportionally reflected in every classroom, course, activity, setting, or experience.

Benefits of Heterogeneous Grouping

Heterogeneous grouping promotes a more inclusive and collaborative learning environment, fosters a range of perspectives and skills, and deepens high-quality learning for all students. Let’s explore the benefits.

Academic Benefits

One of the primary advantages of heterogeneous grouping is the enhancement of learning outcomes. Students learn not only from their teachers but also from each other. This peer interaction fosters improved critical thinking and problem-solving skills, as students are exposed to a variety of perspectives and methods of approaching problems.

Social Benefits

Heterogeneous grouping also offers substantial social benefits. It aids in developing empathy and social skills, as students learn to work with others with different abilities, backgrounds, and viewpoints. This collaborative environment encourages teamwork and cooperation, essential skills for future professional and personal success.

Emotional Benefits

On an emotional level, heterogeneous grouping can increase students’ sense of belonging, self-esteem, and confidence and reverse the effects of stereotype threat that often come with ability grouping. In a supportive and motivating learning environment, students feel valued and understood, which enhances their engagement and enthusiasm for learning. This environment also reduces the anxiety and stigma often associated with being placed in lower-ability groups, as every student has the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the group and participate in rigorous study.

Furthermore, if a school is truly committed to equity and, therefore, to providing high-quality learning for every student, heterogeneous grouping is the only way to accomplish these goals.

Research Supports Heterogeneous Grouping

The Academic Benefits of Diversity

Heterogeneous grouping has been proven to improve learning outcomes, better prepare students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepare students as professionals.

In addition, heterogeneous grouping improves cognitive skills, critical thinking, and problem-solving because students’ experience with individuals different from themselves, [and] the novel ideas and situations that such experience brings, challenges their thinking and leads to cognitive growth” according to a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court Brief from Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

Other research findings that support heterogeneous grouping include the following:

Varied achievement within student groupings positively impacts student achievement (Hnushek, Klin, Markman, and Rivkin, 2003).
Heterogeneous classrooms have high expectations, a faster pace of instruction, peer models of effective learning, and challenging curricula (Leithwood, Louis, Andserson, and Wahlstrom, 2004).
… students having difficulty at school, including students experiencing poverty learn more when they learn in heterogeneous rather than in homogenous ability groups (Oakes, 1985 and Yonezawa, Wells, and Serna, 2002).
For students with mild cognitive disabilities and learning disabilities, specifically in reading and math, there are no additional gains in segregated settings (Cole, 2004).
The common finding across these studies is that “a system of sorting and separating students based on academic level is neither necessary nor particularly helpful for supporting gifted and high-achieving students” (Potter and Burris, 2019).
Students of all abilities learn more in heterogeneous vs. ability groups (Leithwood, Lois, Anderson, & Wahlston, 2004; Oakes, 1985; Yonezawa, Wells, & Serna, 2002).

The National Education Association agrees with and supports the elimination of ability grouping. According to a 2005 NEA resolution, the use of discriminatory academic tracking based on economic status, ethnicity, race, or gender must be eliminated in all public school settings.

The Dangers of Ability Grouping

The History of Homogeneous Grouping

Ability grouping/homogeneous grouping involves placing students in groups based on their perceived ability levels or achievement. This method aims to tailor instruction to the specific needs of each group by pulling students out of the core classroom into separate rooms or even separate schools for learning. Homogeneous grouping also happens within classroom groups by clustering students for small group activities.

As a result of various civil rights legislation, student populations have become more diverse over time. Yet, as schools have become more diverse, educators – intending to help – have often responded by providing even more segregated special programs, ability grouping, and tracking, which has actually reinforced marginalization and oppressive school systems.

The problem with this type of segregation is that data consistently shows that students who receive free/reduced-priced lunch and students who are racially minoritized are over-identified for special education and Response-to-Intervention and are significantly under-identified for gifted/advanced learning services compared to the percentage of those students in the school.

Figure 1 shows a proportional representation graph as an example. The far left bar shows that 19.1% of students receive free/reduced-priced lunch at this school.

Figure 1: Example Proportional Representation Graph

In the second bar from the left, we see that 28% of students who receive special education services are receiving free/reduced-priced lunch. Thus, students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch are over-identified for special education services. Instead, no more than 19.1% of students receiving special education services should be receiving free/reduced-priced lunch.

In the next bar, 6.8% of students identified for advanced learning services receive free/reduced-priced lunch, demonstrating that these students are under-identified for advanced learning services. Instead, at least 19.1% of students identified for advanced learning should receive free/reduced-priced lunch.

In the last bar, 33.8% of students identified for RTI services receive free/reduced-priced lunch. Of the students receiving RTI, no more than 19.1% should be receiving free/reduced-priced lunch.

Thus, at this school, the data shows that students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch are over-identified for special education and Response to Intervention services and are significantly under-identified as gifted/advanced learning services.

These data are typical for most school districts and demonstrate that ability grouping increases social stratification, as students experiencing poverty are more likely to be placed in lower tracks, perpetuating cycles of educational harm and inequality.

In addition to the problematic disproportional representation of racially minoritized students and students experiencing poverty, extensive research indicates that ability grouping does not significantly improve overall student outcomes. Studies have shown these students are not held to grade level standards and beyond, typically given less challenging material and fewer opportunities for advancement, leading to widening opportunity and achievement gaps.

A 1982 study by James and Chen-Li Kulik found no evidence that students learn more when grouped by ability; at lower skill levels, a 1986 study shows that students actually learn less. In another 2015 large-scale study, researchers Balu, Pei, Doolittle, Schiller, Jenkins, and Gersten found that reading interventions did not improve reading outcomes; they produced negative impacts.

Research from John Hattie, Emeritus Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne and author of Visible Learning, confirms this. To find out what works best in education, Hattie developed a way of synthesizing findings from 1,400 meta-analyses of 80,000 studies involving 300 million students. He ranked each influence according to its effect size, from very positive effects to very negative effects. Hattie found that the effect size of the practice of ability grouping is .12 (Hattie, 2023). In other words, it negatively impacts student outcomes.

Research from Eric Hanushek, John Kain, Jacob Markman, and Steven Rivkin (2003) suggests that students in low-ability groupings are often the furthest behind. Every year that a student is removed from the core of teaching and learning reinforces a stereotype threat that will continue to have a negative impact on them for the rest of their lives.

Students who are racially minoritized, with a disability, who are linguistically diverse, and/or experiencing poverty are often the students who receive their educational “opportunities” someplace else other than the core of teaching and learning. When this occurs, students are symbolically and, in practice, told that they do not belong to the “normed group of students.” All students then learn from this practice who belongs and who does not, who is smart and capable, and who is not.

Students in lower-ability groups often face stigmatization and lowered self-esteem, which impacts their overall motivation and engagement with learning. The more marginalized a student is, the more impossible it becomes to take an advanced placement class. Upon graduation, if the student graduates, the cycle of marginalization is reinforced, often across generations. The research is clear that the problems with ability grouping extend beyond academic performance.

What About Students Receiving Advanced Learning Services?

When discussing the notion of heterogeneous grouping, parents and caregivers of students receiving advanced learning services are often concerned. Their children may be benefiting from stereotype lift. Though these families may believe that their children generally receive rigorous instruction with high expectations, the research is clear that the more homogenous the learning setting, the less all students learn. The more diverse a learning setting, the more all learn.

For example, the National Center for Research on Gifted Education measured gifted education across 2,000 students across three states. “Third-grade students in gifted programs were not making significant learning gains compared to their peers in general education …[and that] pull-out programs or self-contained classrooms [for students Identified as gifted] were, on average, not helping to boost academic achievement” (cited in Potter & Burris, 2019).

In 2014, researchers Sa Bui, Steven Craig, and Scott Imberman studied 14,000 fifth graders in a large urban district. They found no differences in achievement between students attending the segregated gifted school and those attending the regular schools.

Our Take: Heterogeneous Grouping Improves Student Outcomes when Implemented Correctly

Why Schools Continue to Group Students by Ability

Across the country, the segregation caused by systems and practices of ability grouping in schools perpetuates cycles of marginalization, particularly for students who are racially minoritized, those with disabilities, students who are linguistically diverse, and those experiencing poverty. Traditional practices such as pull-out services, within-class ability grouping, and lower-tracked classrooms and courses contribute to this issue, emphasizing a reactive system that blames student failure on the students themselves rather than addressing structural and systemic inequities.

However, despite the research showing that homogeneous grouping does not work and the life-long negative side effects of these practices on students, teachers, administrators, and parents often cling to it for all the wrong reasons.

First, teacher training programs often prepare educators for ability grouping, which many perceive as effective primarily because it simplifies classroom management. When teachers group students by perceived similar ability levels, teachers can tailor their instruction to a narrower range of needs, making their job more straightforward. This setup might result in visible improvements for one or two students over a short period; however, the benefits are not widespread, and most students do not experience significant academic gains. Furthermore, teachers miss out on the opportunity to develop their skills and capacity to educate a diverse array of learners.

Economic factors also influence the persistence of ability grouping. Curriculum and software companies profit immensely from selling specialized materials for different ability levels. School districts are often reluctant to abandon a multi-year commitment, having invested substantial sums in curricula, assessment software, etc., which creates a bias against adopting heterogeneous grouping despite the evidence supporting its efficacy. Schools may feel trapped by their previous investments, leading to a cycle where the status quo is maintained at the expense of broader student success.

To move beyond these entrenched practices, schools must adopt a more inclusive and equitable approach, which includes heterogeneous grouping which aims for high-quality teaching and learning for all.

Heterogeneous Grouping Requires a New Way of Thinking

It’s important to note that heterogeneous grouping on its own is not a panacea. Implementing heterogeneous grouping effectively requires district administrators to lead with a commitment to changing their structures and practices on a much deeper and systemic level – not simply re-grouping students in classrooms.

This cultural and structural transformation involves a fundamental shift in educational practices and mindset across the entire district system. The school must first build acknowledgment of the history of marginalization and oppression, awareness of personal biases, and foster an assets-based culture. This work takes time, resources, and a true commitment to equity.

How Schools Perpetuate Poverty and Low Expectations through a Deficit-Based Lens

How Schools Can Disrupt Poverty and Low Expectations Through an Asset-Based Lens and Heterogeneous Grouping

Heterogeneous grouping will not be effective if the personal and cultural work isn’t done first.

Heterogeneous Grouping Requires a New Way of Teaching

It is not enough to simply place students with varying abilities together; educators must be equipped and willing to embrace new instructional strategies and collaborative frameworks. Effective implementation demands that teachers and administrators confront and change any existing biases against mixed-ability classrooms. This involves a commitment to ongoing professional development and adopting collaborative teaming structures like Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams.

C3 Teams should include grade-level teachers, teachers of students receiving special education services, teachers of students receiving gifted services, teachers of students receiving multi-lingual services, interventionists, and other staff as needed at each grade level and then within content areas rather than clustering students with specific labels into particular classrooms or courses. Team member expertise is aligned to student needs at that grade level. The team shares planning, instruction, and learning responsibilities. By working together, teachers develop each other’s capacity to address the diverse needs of their students, ensuring that all learners benefit from the rich, varied interactions that heterogeneous grouping facilitates.

Heterogeneous Grouping Requires a New Process

School districts and teachers must have a proven process and instructional practices to ensure that every student fully participates in the group and learns at a high level.

When appropriately implemented, the heterogeneous grouping process promotes the following:

Develops critical thinking skills: Encourages students to explore issues together and test hypotheses, enhancing problem-solving skills.
Promotes discussion and communication skills: Provides a comfortable environment for discussion, encouraging active participation and sharing of understandings.
Active learning: Helps identify and address gaps in understanding, activates prior knowledge, and encourages reflection and self-regulation.
Self-motivation: Involves students in the learning process, increasing motivation and promoting self-directed learning.
Develops transferable skills: Fosters leadership, teamwork, organization, prioritization, problem-solving, and time management skills.
Application and development of ideas: Offers opportunities to apply ideas and consider outcomes, enhancing understanding through group discussions.
Tutor as a role model: Demonstrates transferable skills through a systematic approach, motivating students.
Recognizes prior learning: Encourages students to bring forward their prior knowledge and perceptions.
Social aspects of learning: Makes learning more enjoyable through participation and social interaction.
Encourages alternative viewpoints: Promotes awareness of different perspectives, enhancing learning through diversity.

Our process for forming and facilitating heterogeneous groups with C3 Teams includes a step-by-by step framework for:

Creating the teams;
Setting team expectations;
Developing team norms;
Defining group roles, which include the Facilitator, the Pathfinder, the Communicator, the Inquirer, the Recorder and the Summarizer;
Developing an instructional design template;
Creating an Individualized Skills at a Glance template to ensure students receiving special education services, English language services, interventions, and advanced learning services are provided opportunities through the lesson and through the entire day to accomplish targeted goals;

Conclusion

When implemented correctly, heterogeneous grouping holds significant potential for transforming education. Evidence shows that this approach enhances academic, social, and emotional development for all students by fostering diverse and inclusive learning environments.

Educators can create rich, dynamic, and supportive learning environments that prepare students for success in an increasingly diverse and interconnected world by properly implementing heterogeneous grouping.

The Power of Heterogeneous Grouping in Education