The Effect of Intra-Class Ability Grouping on Arithmetic Achievement in Grades Two Through Five.

110 Pages·2017·3.31 MB·English

LLoouuiissiiaannaa SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy
LLSSUU DDiiggiittaall CCoommmmoonnss
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School
1960
TThhee EEffffeecctt ooff IInnttrraa--CCllaassss AAbbiilliittyy GGrroouuppiinngg oonn AArriitthhmmeettiicc
AAcchhiieevveemmeenntt iinn GGrraaddeess TTwwoo TThhrroouugghh FFiivvee..
William Maurice Smith
Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Smith, William Maurice, "The Effect of Intra-Class Ability Grouping on Arithmetic Achievement in Grades
Two Through Five." (1960). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 603.
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/603
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It
has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU
Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
THE EFFECT OF INTRA-CIASS ABILITY GROUPING ON
ARITHMETIC ACHIEVEMENT IN GRADES TWO THROUGH FIVE
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
The College of Education
by
William Maurice Smith
B.A., Louisiana State University, 1937
M.A., Louisiana State University, 1945
June, 1960
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special acknowledgment is made to Dr. C. W, Hilton under whose
direction this dissertation was prepared. The writer gratefully acknow­
ledges the encouragement and many helpful suggestions offered by Dr.
Sam Adams, Dr. L. M. Harrison, Dr. W. A. Lawrence, Dean George H.
Deer, Dr. Donald E. Shipp, and Dr. Waldo Braden. For cooperation and
assistance in carrying out the study, the writer is indebted to the
principals and teachers of the Lake Charles City Schools. Grateful
appreciation is extended to Miss Betty Harless for her assistance
throughout the study.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT....................... ii
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................... v
ABSTRACT.................................................................................. ix
I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................... 1
The problem......................................... 1
D efinitions............ ' . . . . „ ....................... 2
Need for the study.............................................................* 3
Sources of data.................................................................... 5
Organization of the remainder of the study............... 6
II. PROCEDURE................................................................................ 7
General procedure for pairing teachers........................ 7
General procedure for pairing pupils ............ 8
Procedure for experimental classes.............................. 11
Procedure for control classes.......................................... 25
Final achievement te st..................................................... 29
III. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS..................... 30
Procedure for statistical analysis................................. 30
Interpretation of results for grade tw o ........................ 32
Interpretation of results for grade th ree..................... 46
ill
CHAPTER PAGE
Interpretation of results for grade four .......................... 59
Interpretation of results for grade five............................. 72
Summary of results for all c la sse s................................... 84
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................... .. 87
Summary........................................................................... 87
Conclusions............................................................................... 89
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................... 91
APPENDIX....................................................................................... 93
BIOGRAPHY.................................................................................... 96
iv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I. Information Concerning Teachers and Resultant
Pairings, Grades Two through Five, Lake Charles
City Schools, 1959-1960 . . . . 9
II. Data on Paired Pupils in Grade Two................................. 12
III. Data on Paired Pupils in Grade Three................................ 14
IV. Data on Paired Pupils in Grade F our................................ 15
V. Data on Paired Pupils in Grade F iv e .............. 17
VI. Grade Placements in Arithmetic Average Presented
by Matched Pairs, Grade Two .............................. 33
VII. A Comparison of Mean Gains in Arithmetic Average,
Grade Two......................................... 35
VIII. Grade Placements in Arithmetic Computation
Presented by Matched Pairs, Grade Two1. ..................... 36
IX. A Comparison of Mean Gain in Computation,
Grade Two....................... 38
X. Grade Placements in Problem Solving Presented by
Matched Pairs, Grade Two .................... 39
XI. A Comparison of Mean Gains in Problem Solving,
Grade Two.............................................. 40
/
v
TABLE PAGE
XII. A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group A and Matched Partners/ Grade Two . . . 42
XIII, A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group B and Matched Partners, Grade Two . . . 43
XIV. A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group C and Matched Partners , Grade Two . . . 45
XV. Grade Placements in Arithmetic Average Presented
by Matched Pairs, Grade T hree............................................ 47
XVI. A Comparison of Mean Gains in Arithmetic Average,
Grade Three..................................................................... 48
XVII. Grade Placements in Arithmetic Computation
Presented by Matched Pairs, Grade Three.................... 49
XVIII. A Comparison of Mean Gain in Computation,
Grade Three............................................................................ 50
XIX. Grade Placements in Problem Solving Presented by
Matched Pairs, Grade T hree............................................ 52
XX. A Comparison of Mean Gains in Problem Solving,
Grade Three............................................................................ 53
XXI. A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group A and Matched Partners, Grade Three . . 54
XXII. A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group B and Matched Partners, Grade Three . . 56
vi
TABLE PAGE
XXIII. A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group C and Matched Partners, Grade Three . . 58
XXIV. Grade Placements in Arithmetic Average Presented by
Matched Pairs , Grade Four................................ 60
XXV. A Comparison of Mean Gains in Arithmetic Average,
Grade Four.............. 61
XXVI. Grade Placements in Arithmetic Computation
Presented by Matched Pairs, Grade F our.................. 62
XXVII. A Comparison of Mean Gains in Computation,
Grade Four............................................................................. 63
XXVIII. Grade Placements in Problem Solving Presented by
Matched Pairs, Grade Four............................................ 65
XXIX. A Comparison of Mean Gains in Problem Solving,
Grade Four.................................................... 66
XXX. A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group A and Matched Partners, Grade Four . . . 67
XXXI. A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group B and Matched Partners, Grade Four . . . 69
XXXII. A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group C and Matched Partners, Grade Four . . . 71
XXXIII. Grade Placements in Arithmetic Average Presented
by Matched Pairs, Grade Five...................................... 73
vii
TABLE PAGE
XXXIV. A Comparison of Mean Gains in Arithmetic Average,
Grade Five. ........................................................ 74
XXXV. Grade Placements in Arithmetic Computation
Presented by Matched Pairs, Grade F iv e.................. 75
XXXVLi. A Comparison of Mean Gain in Computation,
Grade Five..................................................... 76
XXXVII. Grade Placements in Problem Solving Presented by
Matched Pairs, Grade F ive............................................ 78
XXXVIII. A Comparison of Mean Gains in Problem Solving,
Grade Five............................................................................ 79
XXXIX. A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group A and Matched Partners, Grade Five . . . 80
XL. A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group B and Matched Partners, Grade Five . . . 82
XLI. A Comparison of Mean Grade Placement in Arithmetic
between Group C and Matched Partners, Grade Five . . . 84
XLII. A Comparison of Grade Placement Gains in Arithmetic
in Grades Two, Three, Four, and Five....................... 85
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of intra-
class ability grouping on arithmetic achievement in Grades Two
through Five of the elementary school.
Experimental and control classes were established in Grades
Two through Five of the Lake Charles City Schools during the first
semester of the 1959-1960 school session. Thirty teachers were
paired, then selected for experimental or control assignments through
random sampling. Ninety-five pupil pairs were established, using as
the major criteria the grade placement in arithmetic average on the
Stanford Achievement Test, Form L, and estimated intelligence quo­
tients derived from the Science Research Associates Mental Abilities
Test.
Participating teachers were instructed through conferences for
their roles in the study. All classes followed the arithmetic program
suggested by the local course of study for the first semester. Teachers
kept daily logs of their activities. Experimental classes spent at least
seventy-five per cent of the daily arithmetic period working in intra­
class groups — A (high), B (average), and C (low) — formed by use
of grade placements in arithmetic average. Control classes were
taught by the "class-as-a-whole" procedure. The same supervisory
ix