1

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Rationale of the Study

In a National Science Foundation study of the way in which this nation's

educational system provides opportunities to learn mathematics and sciences, cross-

sectional data about mathematics and science programs, teachers, and

classroom practices at the elementary and secondary school level were analyzed

(Oakes, 1990a). These data were from the National Science Foundation's 1986

National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (NSSME). While an analysis

of these data showed important differences in opportunities to

learn mathematics between schools, important differences were also found within

schools. This seemed to be related to the practice of placing students into different

tracks based on ability, achievement, or career expectations. The report identified

three areas in which inequities in mathematics instruction were found: (1) access to

strong mathematics programs; (2) access to well-qualified mathematics teachers; and

(3) access to classroom opportunities.

Similar qualitative differences in the mathematics instruction available to

students in homogenous or heterogeneous classes are borne out in other research as

well. For example, an examination of the middle school mathematics instruction in

six different school districts found that in most districts a clear tracking hierarchy

existed. Heterogeneous students received a more limited curriculum and engaged in

 2

less favorable interactions with the teacher than did their homogenous counterparts

(Ekstrom & Villegas, 1991). It is worth noting that even within the same classroom,

differing patterns of interactions between teachers and high- and low-ability students

have been found. With regard to mathematics instruction, a case study of one

particular classroom showed that low-ability students received less teacher time and

were asked a fewer number of process-oriented questions (Leder, 1987).

It is therefore in the interests of society, and the responsibility of educators, to

improve students' attitude towards Science and Mathematics, and to prepare students

to live in a highly scientific and technological society. The future of our society will

be determined by citizens who are able to understand and help shape the complex

influences of Science and technology on our world (Ungar, 2010).

Ability grouping in education has long been the subject of debate. The

discussion is particularly relevant to middle and secondary mathematics education, as

mathematics, more than any other subject, tends to be taught in homogeneously

grouped classes (Loveless, 1998; Boaler, Dylan & Brown, 2000). Many studies of

ability grouping have focused on questions of equity, and the negative effects on

children who are taught in heterogeneous classes (Slavin 1990; Oakes, 1995). Other

studies have found that some grouping systems have benefits for learners (Kulik &

Kulik, 1992).

The field of science has become the focal point of man’s interest in the

contemporary world, (Saunders, 1956). Instructional design alone cannot produce

better learning and achievement. The instructional designer must know crucial factors
 3

that affect student learning and build a bridge between goals and student

performance. Identifying these factors will help to utilize limited resources

including financial resources and time more effectively (Libienski & Gutierrez,

2008).

This study aims to assess the performance of the students in homogenous and

heterogeneous classes in Science and Mathematics subjects; to provide high quality

learning and better performance by allowing students to do some "real" Science

through developing and testing their own hypothesis; to improve teamwork skills; and

to boost the students' confidence in their ability to apply knowledge and skills to

problem-solving.
 4

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Education is said to be the major engine of driving your way to success and

prosperity. In student’s schooling life, they often worry in their grades especially in

their Science and Mathematics subjects. In this study the researchers want to see if

the ability grouping of classrooms would affect the level of performance of the SSC

and heterogeneous students in the subjects Science and Mathematics. Would these

ways of grouping benefit the students or not?

Heterogeneous grouping indicates within-classroom groupings in which

“students of varying abilities learn together in cooperative learning arrangements”.

On the contrary, ability grouping can be regarded as a practice that distributes

students among classrooms taking into account their perceived capacities for learning,

thus students of similar academic level are placed within the same group for

instruction.

Many say that this ability of grouping the classrooms would affect the

performance of the students. It seems that a majority of research focuses on special

needs of students, especially the Special Science Class students who have advance

competencies in the subjects Math and Science, many times leaving average-agility

learners without adequate data.

In the Harvard Education Letter, Leon Lynn and Anne Wheelock state that

“schools that reserve the highest quality educational opportunities for the “best”

students -as determined by a selection process that is often flawed and discriminatory
 5

– are denying many students the opportunity to achieve their full potential”. Emily et

al (2003) found out that grouping by ability deprives low-ability students of

opportunities to learn effectively and peer, personal and teachers´ expectations of

poor performance may end up reducing their motivation

Students who are placed in the higher-performing homogeneous groups, then,

may start to feel arrogant about their abilities and begin to dislike their schoolmates

and batch mates. Most people who advocate for homogeneous grouping (often times

it is the parents) believe that mixed-ability grouping slows down the learning of

higher performing students. (Johnson et all, 2007).

Another issue that arises with homogeneous grouping, in which all gifted

students are separated from non-gifted students, is the level of fairness.  The gifted

students would require the best teachers, best materials, and would be involved in

many more enrichment activities than would the "normal" class.  This puts the non-

gifted students at an even greater disadvantage than they already might be

academically for the future.  In the research, people who discussed this idea seemed

to favor heterogeneous grouping.  This way, all of the students have the opportunity

to have the enrichment that the gifted students might receive.

An interesting work by Melser (1999) “measured the self-esteem of gifted

students in homogeneous groups and compared them” to the ones in a heterogeneous

class. The result indicates that gifted students in the heterogeneous group have a boost

in their self-esteem, while when included in a homogeneous setting their self-esteem

decreases.
 6

Alan Singer, author of Social Studies for Secondary Schools (2007),

vehemently disagrees with the idea of homogeneous grouping. One disadvantage is

that it creates academic and social tracking, with students feeling separated and

stigmatized. Students may also feel like they are permanently trapped in the “stupid

group” of students, making them unwilling to invest their energy into learning.

Rogers (2002) analyzed the research on various grouping options for gifted

learners and found that full-time gifted programs demonstrate the strongest benefits,

followed by cluster grouping within heterogeneous classes (an arrangement in which

the top five to eight gifted learners at a grade level are placed in one classroom with a

classroom teacher who has special training in gifted education); acceleration of the

curriculum through such methods as grade telescoping (time compression of the

junior or senior high school curriculum); regrouping for enriched learning in specific

subjects; cross-grade grouping or non graded classrooms; enrichment pullout

programs; and within-class ability grouping. Rogers also found that cooperative

grouping, which has demonstrated benefits for most learners, has not been shown to

enhance learning for gifted learners. On the basis of her research review, Rogers

concluded that gifted students need some form of grouping by ability so that their

curriculum may be appropriately broadened and extended.

Shields (2002) supports Rogers's findings. Her research found that

homogeneous grouping generally had a significant, positive effect on gifted students'

academic achievement, attitudes concerning themselves as learners, and school

 7

experiences. But what about the students who were not identified as gifted and who

were left behind in the regular classes? According to Shields, students placed

appropriately in regular classes did not suffer socially or emotionally when students

identified as academically talented or gifted were served in separate, homogeneous

classes.

These statements have been studied countless times. Salend (2008) mentions

that heterogeneous grouping should be the goal for cooperative learning activities as

they have no negative effect on high performing students and they have immensely

positive effects on lower and middle level students.

Homogeneous grouping is usually consistent with the idea of accelerated

learning.  This is a result of the ability of the classes of all gifted students to move

faster through material than might be required with a mixed group of students.

We often encounter classrooms with an unbelievably large range of cognitive

ability, reading levels, as well as a very diverse population. In classrooms such as

these, teachers often rely on homogeneous grouping techniques because they allow

time for the teacher to remediate struggling students while the higher performing

students move ahead at their own pace. At first read, the rationale behind

homogeneous grouping makes sense—put similar students together so they can focus

together on the skills they are struggling with.

According to Faris (2009), who conducted a study on heterogeneous and

homogeneous grouping, there is evidence that concludes when a school has more
 8

heterogeneous characteristics—different ethnicities, varying socioeconomic status,

varying cognitive abilities, etc—that it has a greater chance to affect the school

negatively academically. In other words, on the school-wide level, Faris (2009) states

that the majority of authors/researchers she has studied have come to the conclusion

that student body heterogeneity may have a negative impact on the overall

performance of the school.

In the US, McEwin, Dickinson, and Jenkins (2003) concluded that 78% of

middle schools in 2001 used some degree of ability grouping. Hence, this result

emphasizes the trend to move towards homogeneous classrooms as recent studies

showed that the academically strongest benefit more from ability-grouping, especially

in subjects as Science and Mathematics.

Some of these pros and cons were made clear in the survey performed by Jan

Adams-Byers and her colleagues in which they asked gifted students at a summer

program about their feelings regarding homogeneous versus heterogeneous

arrangements. The article written about their findings cites that, "the participants

perceived homogenous grouping more positively with respect to academic

outcomes."(Adams-Byers et. al., 2004) This was a result of the opportunity to move

quickly through easier material and the ability to do more challenging exercises and

delve deeper into subject matter than would be permitted in a heterogeneous

classroom.  
 9

Even when schools officially espouse the goal of grouping students of

differing abilities together, their efforts to accomplish this goal sometimes run up

against practical realities. For example, Burns and Mason (2002) found that

elementary school principals in their study, when creating supposedly heterogeneous

class groupings, tended to avoid assigning low-performing students and high-ability

students to the same classes because the principals assumed that teachers would gear

the instructional pace to the lower portion of the class. Burns and Mason also found

that students in the high-ability classes received better instruction, had more

motivated or better qualified teachers, and benefited from high-ability classmates who

contributed to an improved academic climate.

Sternberg, interviewed by Shaughnessy (2002), outlines three overarching

issues that schools must address in the education of gifted children. First, students are

not simply gifted or non gifted; rather, there are various types of gifts and many ways

to capitalize on strengths and to correct and compensate for weaknesses of all

students. Therefore, schools need to do a better job of identifying giftedness in all its

forms. Second, giftedness is not just a state but also a process: Given the right

opportunities, many students who now perform only adequately could become expert

learners if their teachers understood how to develop competencies within students.

Third, schools need to look past students' unconventional backgrounds when

identifying students as gifted. Sternberg posits that our conventional measures favor

cultural majority-group children and not those, for instance, who live in homes where

English is not spoken.

 10

Schools have many options for meeting the needs of gifted students in both

homogeneous and mixed-ability grouping arrangements. Each school must decide on

the best arrangements for its high-ability students on the basis of its own student

population, organizational structure, staff expertise, and school culture.

 11

Theoretical Framework

“For as long as instruction has been delivered, students, teachers,

administrators, and researchers have debated the question of how classes should be

organized” and this will continue for as long as teachers are teaching (Slavin,

1987, p. 109). Ability grouping in schools has been going on since the mid 19 th

century and has become ingrained in U.S. school system and will continue to be

debated (Chui et al, 2008). Ability grouping relates to homogenous regrouping of

students for purpose of providing curriculum aimed at a common instructional

level (Fiedler, Lange, & Winebrenner, 2002). In order for ability grouping to work,

the students must not be permanently locked into place but must be allowed to

move up or down in classes based on what is appropriately challenging for them

(Fiedler et al, 2002).

There are opposing views when it comes to ability grouping of students. Some

say that there are negative effects and others say there are benefits for the students. In

the past, minorities are economically disadvantaged students were underrepresented

in the gifted class but now educators have refined their identification methods so this

is no longer the case (Fiedler et al, 2002). There are several ways schools can group

students by ability. Schools can group all the average achieving students, the low

achieving students and the gifted and talented students. The gifted and talented

students, from this study had very clear effects of grouping and showed significant to

moderate achieving gains (Kulik & Kulik, 1984). A meta-analysis of studies by Kulik

and Kulik (1984) suggested that students gained somewhat more academically from
 12

grouped classes and they did from ungrouped ones. It has also been said that

achievement is based more on nature and quality of instruction than the class make up

(Hattie, 2002). Another concern that schools have is that there might be a widening

gap between high achievers and low achievers. Students in remedial classes

performed poor compared to have many options for extracurricular activities

(Olzewiski-Kubilius, 2010). By having both homogeneous classes in a school, all

students would benefit and be challenged and it would help to eliminate boredom and

frustration. High ability grouping should be open to all students no matter their IQ.

By providing challenging classes and exceptional teachers the students have

everything that may lead to an increase in student achievement.

The level of performance between the heterogeneous and the homogeneous

group has great difference in the sense that in homogeneous group, the students have

the highest level of intellect for they are selected base on their mental capability while

in the heterogeneous group, students are mixed– fast and slow learners.

As shown in the diagram, we can differentiate the level of performance between

homogeneous and heterogeneous group through the results of their examination on

Pre-test and their grade in the previous year.

 13

Homogeneous Group Heterogeneous Group

(Special Science Class)

Level of Performance in Level of Performance in

Science and Mathematics Science and Mathematics

Pre Test

Grade in the previous year

Fig. 1 Conceptual Paradigm of the Study

 14

Statement of the Problem

This study determines the level of performance between the SSC students and

heterogeneous class students, this academic school year 2014-2015. Also, it

determines the significant difference of the variables treated under study.

Specifically, the study answers the following questions:

1. What is the level of performance of SSC in the subjects:

1.1 Science; and

1.2 Mathematics?

2. What is the level of performance of Heterogeneous classes in the subjects:

2.1 Science; and

2.2 Mathematics?

3. Is there a significant difference between the level of performance of SSC

students and Heterogeneous classes students in the subjects:

3.1 Science; and

3.2 Mathematics?

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the level of performance of SSC

students and Heterogeneous classes students in the subjects Science and Mathematics.
 15

Significance of the Study

The study provides information to:

STUDENTS. It makes them aware of their performances on the subjects

Science and Mathematics, they can examine and evaluate their habits and their

natural tendencies and decide how they might be able to improve their study habits

and performances in class by tapping into their personal strengths.It would help them

overcome their problems like psychological problems.

TEACHERS. This study enables the teachers to improve their strategies or to

find other ways to introduce concepts in a way that students will surely understand.

The findings help the students and teachers to increase their performances in classes

on the subject Science and Mathematics. It provides information on how Special

Science Class students and heterogeneous students of Maryknoll High School of

Panabo City perceived their performances. This help teachers improve their teaching

skills by arranging professional development programs and mentorships , that will

equally accommodate the learning abilities of the Special Science Class students and

the heterogeneous class students.

 16

RESEARCHERS. This study helps the researchers to information on what

must be done if performances are low, on what might be the cause that students aren’t

that cooperative and on what could be the possible solution to increase it, and how do

they maintain if their performances are well . The study provides information to the

researchers on the significant difference of the performance of the Special Science

Class students and heterogeneous class students in Science and Mathematics subjects.

FUTURE RESEARCHERS. It enables them to have ideas on how to keep

students performance on progress. It makes them aware of the following

performances of the students. The findings of the study provides a foundation or

reference for future undertakings and conduct of related studies and research works.
 17

Chapter 2

METHOD

In this chapter the research methodology used in the study is described. The

geographical area where the study was conducted, the study design and the

population and sample are described. The instrument used to collect the data,

including methods implemented to maintain validity and reliability of the instrument

are described.

Research Design

Casual-Comparative Research is a type of descriptive research that describes

conditions that already exists. It is the form of investigation in which the researcher

has no control over the independent variable as its expression has already occurred or

because they are essentially non-manipulable. For example, if a researcher observes

that two or more groups are different on a variable, he tries to identify the main factor

that led to this difference. The researcher selects two groups of participants

(comparison groups). This design particularly involves comparison.

The researchers are mainly focusing on the comparison between two groups

to see if there is something significant in accord with each subject area and that will

be justified with the use of the pre-test and grades in Mathematics and Science. It will

let us see if the there is a consistency between two parties.

Also, this study utilized a descriptive research design to determine the level

of performance of the two groups (heterogeneous class and homogeneous class (SSC)
 18

) in terms of the pre-test result and previous grade in Science and Mathematics. This

design is used to determine the significant difference of their level of performance in

Science and Mathematics.

Research Environment

This study is conducted at Maryknoll High School of Panabo. This institution

manifest the christian values of students, where students become aware of their

dignity as persons and as children of God and may live happy and bear love, and be

of service to others. They may show concern and readiness to willingly engage or

help in any activities they’ll be joining.

Maryknoll High School of Panabo is an educational institution dedicated to the

preparation of the whole person for a life here and here-after. This includes the

catholic identity of the school, education in regards to life and faith, celebration of life

and faith, and action and justice. The Maryknoll High School of Panabo was

originally owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Tagum Inc. and was managed by

the Congregation of the Dominican Sisters of the Most Holy Rosary of the

Philippines. The school was founded in 1960 headed by Sister Mary Rhoda, who also

acted as the principal; the school was named St. Mary’s High School. Many years had
 19

passed; it was changed to the name as we call it today then the school was turned over

to the Dominican order. The rain of blessing’s profusely poured upon the institution

as Sister Ma. Edna Billones, OP assumed the principalship recently. She made several

changes to the school’s daily activities, facilities and programs.

Maryknoll High School of Panabo is located at the National Highway and right

next to Sto. Nino Parish Church.

The researchers choose Maryknoll High School of Panabo as the research

environment for this study for more easy and accessibility of the conduct of the

research. The researchers can easily survey teachers, students, administrators since

the respondents in this study are only within the school premises.

Research Respondents

The respondents of this study are the Gr. 7 and Gr.8 students of Maryknoll

College of Panabo, Inc. There is a total of 312 students coming from Gr. 7, 45 from

homogenous class and 267 from heterogeneous class, and 335 students from the Gr.

8, 45 in the homogenous class and 295 heterogeneous with a total population of 647

students. They are selected through the process of Complete Enumeration. In which

only 90 students met the criteria to be included in the sample.

 20

Research Instrument

Two instruments were employed for data collection in this research study: the

pre-test grades and the grades in the previous school year of the Grade 7 and Grade 8

Heterogeneous and Homogenous students in Mathematics and Science. Both of the

instruments used aim to see the significant difference between the performance of the

Heterogeneous and Homogenous in the subjects Science and Mathematics.

Pretests are administered to determine a student’s baseline knowledge or

preparedness for an educational experience or course of study. Many educators

believe that the best and most effective lesson plans are those which begin with the

final assessment in mind. In other words, teachers should know what they want to test

before creating their actual lesson content. A very important part of this lesson

planning process should be creating pretests.

Pretests are given to students before a lesson or unit to assess what they do in fact

already know. These tests reveal many gems to the savvy teacher. For our study, the

researchers have gathered the pretest scores of the Grade 7 and Grade 8

Heterogeneous and Homogenous students in the subjects Mathematics and Science. It

is to show if there is really a noteworthy discrepancy between the scores. If the

advance lessons of the Homogenous classes would affect their scores in the
 21

preliminary exam, or the results are just the same between the students in the

Heterogeneous and Homogeneous classes.

The researchers have also collected the Science and Mathematics grades of the

students in their previous year. This data would help us to discern the performances

of the students on the two subjects. It would help more in the evaluation of the

performance of the Heterogeneous and Homogeneous students. It allows us to know

student’s performance on the previous year on the two subjects, if the higher level of

lessons and competencies of the Homogeneous classes would also result to higher

grades.
 22

Parameter Limits

Table 1. The Level of Proficiency in Mathematics and Science

LEVEL
OF EQUIVALENT DESCRIPTION
PROFICIENCY NUMERICAL VALUE
The student at this level struggles
with his/her understanding;
prerequisite and fundamental
BEGINNING (B) 74% and below knowledge and/or skills have not
been acquired or developed
adequately to aid understanding.
The student at this level possesses
the minimum knowledge and
DEVELOPING (D) 75%-79% skills and core understandings, but
needs help throughout the
performance of authentic tasks.
The student at this level has
developed the fundamental
knowledge and skills and core
understandings and, with little
APPROACHING 80-84% guidance from the teacher and/or
PROFICIENCY with some assistance from peers,
(AP) can transfer these understandings
through authentic performance
tasks.
The student at this level has
developed the fundamental
PROFICIENT (P) 85-89% knowledge and skills and core
understandings, and can transfer
them independently through
authentic performance tasks.
The student at this level exceeds
the core requirements in terms of
knowledge, skills and
ADVANCED (A) 90% and above understandings, and can transfer
them automatically and flexibly
through authentic performance
tasks
 23

Source: DepEd; The Enhanced Basic Education Act Of 2013, or Republic Act No.

10533

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers made transmittal letters to the principal, registrar and

guidance in-charge for the data that are needed in the research study. Since, there

were no data of the pre-test scores of their respondents in the guidance office, they

approached the concerned teachers. Unfortunately, they only gathered the data of the

grade 7 and three sections of the grade 8 in mathematics subject. Thus, they planned

to conduct pre-test in mathematics and science subjects for the grade 7 and grade 8

homogenous and heterogeneous classes.

Though the researchers do not need to make questionnaires under the

parameter limits, they only searched the scale of the K to 12 level of proficiency.
 24

Data Analysis

The researchers would use the statistical tools, mean and t-test, for this study.

The mean is the average of the numbers: a calculated "central" value of a set

of numbers. The researchers would get the mean of the pretest and previous year

scores of the heterogeneous and homogeneous classes from grade 7 to grade 8 in the

subjects Mathematics and Science. This tool would help the researchers to answer the

statement of the problem number 1 and 2, in which, we would get the level of

performance of the homogeneous and heterogeneous classes in the two said subjects.

The other statistical tool that the researchers would use is the T-test. T-test is a

statistical examination of two population means. A two-sample t-test examines

whether two samples are different. In the case of our study, the heterogeneous and

homogeneous classes are the two samples. This tool, is used to determine if there is

really a significant difference in the level of performance of the two variables. Thus,

this tool would help the researchers to answer the statement of the problem number 2.
 25

Chapter 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this chapter, the researchers discuss the findings and results from the data gathered.

The researchers also tested the null hypothesis formulated in the study.

Level of Performance of the Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Students in

Science and Mathematics in terms of Average Grade and Pre Test Result

The table 2 shows the level of performance of homogeneous class students in

the subjects Science and Mathematics with the two indicators which are grades and

pre test scores. The grades in Science have the mean score of 88.58 and 88.31 in

Mathematics. They are both within the proficient level. The average pre test scores in

Science and Math are 47.47 and 46.04 respectively. Both are within the level of

beginning. Science has a grand mean of 68.18 while Mathematics has 67.18.
 26

Table 2. Level of Performance of Homogeneous Class Students in the Subjects

Science and Mathematics

Indicator Mean Interpretation Mean Interpretation

Science Mathematics

GRADE 88.58 PROFICIENT (P) 88.31 PROFICIENT (P)

Pre-Test
47.47 BEGINNING (B) 46.04 BEGINNING (B)
Result

TOTAL 68. 18 67.18

The level of performance of heterogeneous classes in the subjects Science and

Mathematics is shown in table 3. Just like table 2, two indicators are developed, the

grades and pre test results. The grade in science has a mean of 79.44 which was

interpreted as developing. Also, the grade in mathematics was interpreted as

approaching proficiency, having the mean of 81.86. The pre test result in Science and

in Mathematics has a mean score of 40.44 and 32.82. Both are interpreted as

beginning. Science has a grand mean of 60 and Mathematics that has a grand mean of

57.34
 27

Table 3. Level of Performance of Heterogeneous Classes Students in the Subjects

Science and Mathematics

Indicator Mean Science Interpretation Mean Interpretation

Mathematics
DEVELOPING APPROACHING
GRADE 79.44 (D) 81.86 PROFICIENCY
(AP)

Pre -Test BEGINNING BEGINNING

40.55 (B) 32.82 (B)
Result

TOTAL 60 57.34

In the subject Science, the homogeneous class got an average grade of

88.58 during their previous school year and their average pre test result is 47.47. It

has a grand mean of 68.18. The heterogeneous students’ average grade of 79.44 and a

mean pre test result of 40.55. This has a total mean of 60.

In the Mathematics subject, the heterogeneous students got the mean

grade of 81.86 during the previous school year and their mean pre test score is 32.82.

While the homogeneous students got a 88.31 in their average grade and 46.04 in their
 28

average pre test scores. The heterogeneous students’ average grade has a grand mean

of 57.34 while they got a total mean of 67.18 in their pre test.

We can see that the homogeneous class got a higher mean score in the

grades and pre test. Maybe this significant difference between the scores are affected

by the motivations of the teachers, the time and attention allocated by the

administration and the subjects, lessons and curriculums given to both classes.

Usually, the homogeneous classes are given more attention and time by the teachers

and administration. Their needs as students are fully given by the school and those

students in the heterogeneous classes are often ignored. Teachers also give motivation

and interest to the homogeneous class more than those in the heterogeneous class.

Thus, those students often lose their self-esteem and are discouraged to work hard and

achieve more. Also, the homogeneous classes have more advance and higher lessons

and topics in their competencies and their areas of expertise are really developed.

Thus, they have greater chances to acquire and learn more about the different

subjects.

A meta-analysis by Slavin (1990) found that there were no significant

positive effects of ability grouping for any programmes, except acceleration for the

gifted. Braddock & Slavin (1995) cite several studies that show negative effects of

ability grouping, especially on students in low-ability groups who are frequently

taught by less able teachers, cover less content than higher ability classes, and suffer

from loss of motivation and self-image.

 29

Within an ability-grouped class, students are able to contribute more

equally to group work (Mills & Durden, 1992), and discuss ideas together more easily

(Koshy, 2001). Meanwhile teachers struggle with the complexity of heterogeneous

classes, and find it easier to teach ability-grouped classes. Since teachers often opt to

teach to the 'average' child in the class, ability grouping achieves a better match

between learning tasks and student aptitudes (Koshy, 2001). In America, Epstein &

MacIver (1992, cited in Loveless, 1998), found that students did better in ability

grouped classes. There is evidence that teachers tend to feel more positive about

teaching same-ability classes, even if they have experience in mixed-ability teaching

in a supportive environment (Dar, 1985, in Linchevski & Kutscher, 1998).

In a study of three secondary schools, Boaler et al. (2000) found

many negative effects on ability grouping for the presumably able students in the

highest set mathematics class. These effects included being taught at a pace too fast

for students to develop understanding of what they were learning, and being taught

too prescriptively. Boaler & William (2001), in a study of 1000 students in six

London schools, report a number of observed and reported disadvantages for students

in lower set classes, including lower expectations, limited curriculum, an emphasis on

rote learning and copying, and being taught by non-specialist teachers. Mixed-ability

classes were more likely to be given differentiated tasks, or tasks with variable

outcomes. Students in heterogeneous classes were more likely to be allowed to work

at their own pace.

 30

A study comparing mixed-ability to same-ability classes in one

Israeli school found that there were significant losses for middle and low ability

students in the same-ability classes, and insignificant gains for high-ability students

(Linchevski & Kutscher, 1998). In their study of 45 English schools, Ireson, Hallam,

Hack, Clark & Plewis (2002) found that there were gains for high-achieving students

in streamed classes, and slight losses for low-achieving students. International studies

have pointed out the effectiveness of Japanese mathematics teaching where classes

through elementary and middle school are mixed-ability and socially diverse (Okano

& Tsuchiya, 1999, Schaub & Baker, 1994, Stigler & Hiebert, 1997).

Level of Performance of the Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Students in

Science and Mathematics in terms of Average Grade and Pre Test Result

Table 4 presents the significant difference between Homogeneous and

Heterogeneous Class Students on their Academic Performance in the subjects Science

and Mathematics in terms of Average Grade.

Table 4 Significant Difference between Homogeneous and Heterogeneous

Students in Science and Mathematics in terms of Average Grade

VARIABLES N T-VALUE CRITICAL INTERPRETATION

VALUE
Academic
Performance in 45 8.205 1.671 Significant
Science
Academic
Performance in 45 3.559 1.671 Significant
Mathematics
Note: Level of Significance at 0.05
 31

In terms of significant difference, the academic performance in Science of the

students has a computed t-value of 8.205 which is greater than the tabulated t-value of

1.671. The null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

Thus, there is a significant difference between the performance of the Homogeneous

and Heterogeneous students in the subject Science in terms of their average grade. On

the other hand, the academic performance in Mathematics of the students has a

computed t-value of 3.559 which is greater than the tabulated t-value of 1.671. The

null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. It shows that

there is a significant difference between the performance of the Homogeneous and

Heterogeneous students in the subject Mathematics base on their average grade.

This is supported with a research conducted of Kulik’s meta-analysis. It is due

to the fact that homogeneous class received an enriched curriculum and accelerated

programs. In the research, they noticed that the average scores of homogeneous

students in the subjects Science and Mathematics were far greater than those in the

heterogeneous class. This was given substantiation in Kulik’s meta-analyses of

enrichment and advance curriculums for the homogeneous students yielded an effect

size that completely dominated the results of the heterogeneous students.

 32

Table 5 presents the significant difference between Homogeneous and

Heterogeneous Class Students on their Academic Performance in the subjects Science

and Mathematics in terms of Pre test Result.

.Table 5 Significant Difference between Homogeneous and Heterogeneous

Students in Science and Mathematics in terms of Pre test Result

VARIABLES N T-VALUE CRITICAL INTERPRETATION

VALUE
Pre test result
in Science 45 5.967 1.671 Significant

Pre test result

in Mathematics 45 4.518 1.671 Significant

Note: Level of Significance at 0.05

In terms of significant difference, the pre test result in Science of the students

has a computed t-value of 5.967 which is greater than the tabulated t-value of 1.671.

The null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there

is a significant difference between the performance of the Homogeneous and

Heterogeneous students in the subject Science in terms of their pre test result. On the

other hand, the pre test result in Mathematics of the students has a computed t-value

of 4.518 which is greater than the tabulated t-value of 1.671. The null hypothesis is

rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. It shows that there is a significant

difference between the performance of the Homogeneous and Heterogeneous students

in the subject Mathematics based on their pre test results

 33

This is supported with a research conducted by Kulik in his meta-analyses.

Due to the advance curriculum and accelerated programs, homogeneous students

have a wider stock knowledge, thus in the pre test exams they have the greater chance

to achieve higher scores. Also, because of this advance lessons, students in the

Special Science Class have higher and more developed critical and comprehensive

skills.
 34

Chapter 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section presents the summary, conclusions drawn from the implication of data

and recommendations by the researchers.

Summary

In Chapter 3, we acquired the results from our gathered data and had tested the null

hypothesis. For the statistical tool in our study, we used the t-test. Tables 4 and 5

shows the significant difference between the academic performance of homogeneous

and heterogeneous students in the science and mathematics subjects in terms of their

average grade and pre test results, respectively.

In table 4, it is shown that the variable, academic performance in science, got

a t value of 8.205 which is greater than its tabular value which is 1.671. This implies

that there is a significant difference among the SSC and heterogeneous students in the

subject science. The same can be said in the academic performance in mathematics,

which has a t value of 3.559 and a tabular value of 1.671.

Table 5 shows that there is a significant difference between the performance

of the homogeneous and heterogeneous students in terms of pre test results. This is
 35

proven in the table, where its t value, 5.967, is greater than its tabular value which is

4.518.This was interpreted as significant. The pre test results in Mathematics displays

the same outcome. It has a t value of 4.518 and a tabular value of 1.671.

Conclusion

In light of the mentioned findings of the study, the following conclusions are

drawn:

A long lasting debate in education has been whether students perform better in

primarily homogeneously grouped classes or in primarily heterogeneously grouped

classes. Much of the current research thus far has focused on the academic

performance of students placed in homogeneous and in heterogeneous groups.

Based on our findings, it can be said that the homogeneous students

performed better due to specialized and advance curriculum and programs. Compared

to the heterogeneous students, they are more accelerated in these subjects because

they used different curriculums.

 36

Recommendation

After a careful review of the findings and conclusions of the following study,

recommendations are given:

Students

1. The students shall be aware of their performances, weaknesses and

strengths.

2. They shall actively participate in classroom activities.

3. They shall observe time management for them to cope up with their

studies or other school works.

4. They shall monitor their grades to evaluate their own performances.

Teachers

1. They should monitor their student’s strengths and weaknesses.

2. They shall give opportunities to those students who need to cope up with

their studies.

3. They shall encourage the students to work hard to achieve goals and

enhance their performances.

 37

4. They shall implement strategies that will help students to understand their

lessons more

School Heads

1. They shall continuously check and monitor their student’s performances.

2. They shall acknowledge the achievements of the students and encourage

them to strive more.

3. They shall find solutions to increase the level of performances of the

students and provide necessary enhancements for the student’s academic

accomplishments.

DepEd Officials

1. They shall consider the result of this study as a guide in making plans that

will make students aware of their performances.

2. They shall manage to help students in their strengths and weakness,

support teachers to assess students in their lessons.

Other Researchers

1. They shall serve this as a guide for the future researchers who wish to

conclude a study which is similar to these subjects.

 38

2. They shall supply other meaningful references and administrate other

studies comparable to this study.

REFERENCES

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/math/ma800.htm

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410.full

http://www.education.com/reference/article/learning-and-teaching-mathematics/

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/empzeal-active-learning/

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-volume-I.pdf

http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380364076_Adodo%20and

%20Agbayewa.pdf

http://www.chemiedidaktik.uni-bremen.de/symp2012/SS2012FinProg.pdf

http://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/12.99.pdf

http://www.slideshare.net/martianne21/k-to12-assessment-and-rating-of-learning-

outcomes
 39

http://uege5102-09m.blogspot.com/2009/07/heterogeneous-and-homogeneous-

grouping.html

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/education/ability-grouping-in-a-secondary-

classroom-education-essay.php

http://www.oerj.org/View?action=viewPDF&paper=84

http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380364076_Adodo%20and

%20Agbayewa.pdf

http://www.metrokids.com/MetroKids/January-2010/Ability-Grouping-Beyond-

Labels/

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-grouping-homogeneous-heterogeneous-ben-

johnson