Differential Effects of Literacy Instruction Time and Homogeneous Ability Grouping in Kindergarten Classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study challenges the belief that homogeneous ability grouping benefits high-ability students in cognitive and social-emotional development at the expense of their low-ability peers. From a developmental point of view, the authors hypothesize that homogeneous grouping may improve the learning behaviors and may benefit the literacy learning of kindergartners at all ability levels through adaptive instruction under adequate instructional time. The benefits are expected to be more evident for medium- and low-ability children than for high-ability children. However, when instructional time is limited, low-ability children may suffer from high-intensity grouping, defined as grouping taking up a large proportion of instructional time. The authors also examine whether low-ability kindergartners develop lower self-esteem as a result of homogeneous grouping. Analyzing Early Childhood Longitudinal Study kindergarten cohort data, the authors find no overall advantage of homogeneous grouping for high-ability students. For medium-ability students’ literacy growth, homogeneous grouping appears to be optimal when teachers spend more than 1 hour per day on literacy instruction; high-intensity grouping shows additional advantage for improving these students’ general learning behaviors. For low-ability kindergartners, homogeneous grouping with ample instruction time seems to improve their general learning behaviors, whereas low-intensity grouping with ample instruction time seems to reduce internalizing problem behaviors. Yet for low-ability students’ literacy growth, a detrimental effect of high-intensity grouping is found when instructional time is limited. These findings contradict results from past research and have important implications for educational theories and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".