Interesting research project underway

[Amber]

I remember some research from way back on teacher expectation and pupil outcomes. Basically, from what I remember, they gave teachers a bright group and a below average group and then after a while tested them. The results matched the groups they were in but the children had all been similar ability in the first place.

So this idea is not new ...

I think that was Jane Elliott's eye colour experiment? They told the children that they were brighter too...that was the fascinating bit. And being told they were brighter made them perform more highly. And then they reversed the groups with the effect that the 'bright' ones started to perform more poorly once they were told they had been wrongly assigned.

And no it is not new (and this is different research altogether); the researchers do not claim that it is. Nor do they claim that it is 'fair' or 'reliable' because it is essentially qualitative work (out of fashion in these days of measurement) - almost an ethnographic study in many ways because they are asking the views of children, their perceptions. The measuring stuff has already been done and has 'reliably' demonstrated that grouping children by 'ability' in primary schools is a bad idea on many levels.

[Guest55]

No, I don't think it was anything to do with eye colour.

[Amber]

Ah Ok, don't know that one. Hers was actually designed to look at racism but used eye colour as a proxy. The blue eyed children were told they were brighter and so were the teachers. I don't know the other one but would be interested to see it.

[RedPanda]

Thanks Amber for the explanation. Being 'drilled' during my teacher training to differentiate by ability (probably ability to keep up with the pace of my lesson I suppose, based on past summative assessments ) I probably have a blind spot to working any other way. I don't mean the explicit examples given in this thread but the subtleties of differentiated teaching where pupils inevitably work out their rank, so to speak. That said, I was secondary so maybe that is different.

Not that it matters. I don't destroy confidence in classrooms anymore

What I'm hoping for is something deeper than 'outing' bad practice I guess. Unless that is the point they are trying to make. You (and mystery) seem to think it is widespread and will know better than I. Perhaps it does need putting out there.

@Guest55 - I remember hearing about that study (or at least one similar) in one of my lectures. I think it was designed to prove self-esteem (or one of the other self-isms) was important. Applies equally well here.

[anotherdad]

The blue eyed children were told they were brighter.

We're not? Damn.

[kenyancowgirl]

[Stroller]

I remember some research from way back on teacher expectation and pupil outcomes. Basically, from what I remember, they gave teachers a bright group and a below average group and then after a while tested them. The results matched the groups they were in but the children had all been similar ability in the first place.

So this idea is not new ...

Was it do with self-fulfilling prophecies? The Pygmalion effect?

[mystery]

Thanks Amber for the explanation. Being 'drilled' during my teacher training to differentiate by ability (probably ability to keep up with the pace of my lesson I suppose, based on past summative assessments ) I probably have a blind spot to working any other way. I don't mean the explicit examples given in this thread but the subtleties of differentiated teaching where pupils inevitably work out their rank, so to speak. That said, I was secondary so maybe that is different.

Not that it matters. I don't destroy confidence in classrooms anymore

What I'm hoping for is something deeper than 'outing' bad practice I guess. Unless that is the point they are trying to make. You (and mystery) seem to think it is widespread and will know better than I. Perhaps it does need putting out there.

@Guest55 - I remember hearing about that study (or at least one similar) in one of my lectures. I think it was designed to prove self-esteem (or one of the other self-isms) was important. Applies equally well here.

LOL! I am sure you never did destroy confidence! I don't know how widespread it is at primary level.

I trained at secondary level just beyond the mid-80s. We were taught to teach to suit everyone in the class somehow or other --- but the fashion of doing a three-way lesson plan for three different levels in the class only first came to my notice when some scrap paper from primary I was using when volunteering had some terrible lesson plan on the back of it from a literacy website that gave schools free lesson plans. It was along the lines of the bottom group writing one line and the top group writing a poem.

I then came across it when my own children passed up through primary school..

Then I came across it more "formally" in the example lesson plans on a return to teaching course I experienced a few years ago in session on "differentation" (not calculus) -- that was when I saw the ludicrous example of the bottom group having the notes they could use in a composition severely restricted, the middle group having a wider range of notes, and the top group any note they liked.

I really don't know where that fashion came from or if OFSTED really would have loved it in the way that the advisers or whoever they were that taught it seemed to think they would. Wish I could remember the name of the website that had this whole mass of terrible literacy lesson plans too.

[Amber]

Now interestingly (I trained mid 80s) I was not encouraged to differentiate and never did so in my early primary career at all. Even when I taught a mixed Reception/Y1 class I did not group by ability (because how would I define ability in 4 year olds?!) and I did not encounter any issues other than with one child who clearly had undiagnosed SEN and was functioning at about the 18 month level. That was tricky (no classroom support in those days). The problems started to arise with the introduction of the national curriculum (we were a pilot school) and I had to do different things for them depending on whether they were R or Y1 (I recall a particularly challenging lesson involving making wheels with axels for a little car they had to build, and I was meant to be using a battery to propel it with a simple motor for the older ones while the younger ones had to content themselves with pushing it along. Crazy.).

The differentiated lesson plan thing came to bite me much later on; massive waste of time imho and once I had small children writing aims and objectives every time they opened their books I realised I needed out. I took refuge in special needs and 1-1 interventions which became the only areas where teachers could still exercise some autonomy and creativity in developing lessons. Wild horses would not drag me back into a primary classroom now - last time I was in one (after a course similar to the one you did Mystery) I could have wept with frustration as 5 year olds tried to get to grips with split digraphs (which even as a linguist I had never heard of) but couldn't get themselves dressed after their (very formulaic) PE lessons. I remembered fondly my first Reception class helping to dress each other (zips and buttons etc) after some of my slightly daft and often spontaneous - when I could see they were getting bored or tired - PE lessons with improvised obstacle courses and little team games.

[Surferfish]

My favourite example of judgements about ability being used to limit a child's education come from a return to teaching course I went on not too long ago. During a session on lesson planning, we were given some ideal formats to use that were, according to the trainer, good examples that would ensure good teaching and also probably thrill an ofsted inspector. One of them was completed for a KS3 music lesson involving composing a piece of music. The "below average" group was allowed to use a narrow range of notes, the middle group a wider range of notes and the top group any note that they wished. It nearly made me spit out my water - and all the more so because no-one in the room including the trainer seemed to think that it was ludicrous.

I wonder whether any of the teachers on the course decided to use this format for their English lessons?

Today children I'd like you to write me a story about what you did on your holidays. The top table can use all the letters in the alphabet, the middle group can use any letter from A to M and the bottom table should just use the letters A to F in their story to make it easier for them...