This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Abrami, P. C. Articles by Spence, J. C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Within-class grouping: evidence versus conjecture

Yiping Lou

Bette Chambers

Catherine Poulsen

John C. Spence

Lou, Abrami, Spence, Poulsen, Chambers, and d'Apollonia (1996) reported the findings from a quantitative review showing generally positive but variable effects of within-class grouping on pupil achievement and other outcomes. Replying in the National Institute Economic Review (July 1998), Prais argued for whole-class teaching claiming that we mis-summarised our findings. In this abbreviated rejoinder, we argue that our findings are: useful; not so variable as to be meaningless; provide evidence of beneficial effects for pupils of all relative abilities; are thorough and detailed; and provide a rather complete picture of the available evidence. In contrast, we believe that Prais (1998) has relied too heavily on conjecture and selective citation to offer a view of within-class grouping which is a serious mis-summarisation of the findings.

National Institute Economic Review, Vol. 169, No. 1, 105-108 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/002795019916900111


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?