Within-class grouping: evidence versus conjecture

Philip C. Abrami, Yiping Lou, Bette Chambers, Catherine Poulsen and John C. Spence

National Institute Economic Review, 1999, vol. 169, 105-108

Abstract: 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.

Date: 1999
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:nierev:v:169:y:1999:i::p:105-108_11

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in National Institute Economic Review from National Institute of Economic and Social Research Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().