Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(1994)
Using multi-dimensionality to capture versimilitude: Criterion-referenced performance-based assessments and the ooze factor
(1997)
Collaboration in student assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta
G. Mugny, W. Doise (1978)
Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performancesEuropean Journal of Social Psychology, 8
N. Webb, Sydney Farivar (1999)
Developing productive group interaction in middle school mathematics
Linda Skon, David Johnson, Roger Johnson (1981)
Cooperative peer interaction versus individual competition and individualistic efforts: Effects on the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73
Angela O'Donnell, A. King (1999)
Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning
N. Webb, Jonathan Troper, Randy Fall (1995)
Constructive Activity and Learning in Collaborative Small Groups.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87
(1994)
State Student Assessment Programs Database, School Year
(1991)
From groupwork among children to R&D teams: Interdependence, interaction, and productivity
H. O'Neil (1992)
Measurement of Workforce Readiness: Review of Theoretical Frameworks.
P. Laughlin, A. Ellis (1986)
Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22
(1992)
The composition of small groups
Tej Pandey, Theodore Smith (1991)
A sampler of mathematics assessment
N. Webb (1995)
Group Collaboration in Assessment: Multiple Objectives, Processes, and OutcomesEducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17
Richard Shavelson, Noreen Webb (1991)
Generalizability Theory: A Primer
R. Swezey, E. Salas (1992)
Teams: Their Training and Performance
(1992)
ConnMap: Connecticut's use of concept mapping to assess the structure of students' knowledge of science
L. Fuchs, D. Fuchs, C. Hamlett, K. Karns (1998)
High-Achieving Students’ Interactions and Performance on Complex Mathematical Tasks as a Function of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous PairingsAmerican Educational Research Journal, 35
(1986)
Experimental evidence on group accuracy
M. Pomplun (1996)
Cooperative Groups: Alternative Assessment for Students with Disabilities?The Journal of Special Education, 30
What work requires of schools. A SCANS report for America
M. Blythe (1993)
Kansas Curricular Standards for Science.
L. Bartlett (1992)
Students Successfully Grapple with Lessons of History in Innovative Group Performance Tasks., 56
Randy Fall, N. Webb, Naomi Chudowsky (2000)
Group Discussion and Large-Scale Language Arts Assessment: Effects on Students' ComprehensionAmerican Educational Research Journal, 37
B. Grofman (1986)
Information Pooling and Group Decision Making, 2
(1989)
Everybody counts: A report to the nation of the future of mathematics education
R. Shavelson, G. Baxter (1992)
What We've Learned about Assessing Hands-On ScienceEducational Leadership, 49
Paper presented at the Conference of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing on What works in performance assessment
David Mathiasen (1991)
Groups that work (and those that Don't): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork, edited by J. Richard Hackman. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass 1990, 512 pp. Price: $39.95 clothJournal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10
(1994)
Maryland School Performance Assessment Program: Public release tasks
(1992)
Connecticut Academic Performance Test
D. Hemsley (1975)
Tests in print II: O.K. Buros (ed.) The Gryphan Press, Highland Park, NJ, 1974, xxxix + 1107 ppBehaviour Research and Therapy, 13
(1985)
The New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills
N. Webb (1991)
Task-Related Verbal Interaction and Mathematics Learning in Small Groups.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22
Simon Hooper (1989)
The Effects of Aptitude Composition on Achievement during Small Group LearningThe Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 16
R. Brennan (1983)
Elements of generalizability theory
Yiping Lou, P. Abrami, J. Spence, C. Poulsen, B. Chambers, S. d’Apollonia (1996)
Within-Class Grouping: A Meta-AnalysisReview of Educational Research, 66
N. Webb (1980)
A process‐outcome analysis of learning in group and individual settingsEducational Psychologist, 15
M. Azmitia (1988)
Peer Interaction and Problem Solving: When Are Two Heads Better Than One?.Child Development, 59
P. Laughlin, L. Branch (1972)
Individual versus tetradic performance on a complementary task as a function of initial ability levelOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8
E. Kennedy (1994)
On the Common Core of LearningThe Educational Forum, 58
Hilary Saner, D. McCaffrey, Brian Stetcher, S. Klein, R. Bell (1994)
The Effects of Working in Pairs in Science Performance AssessmentsEducational Assessment, 2
E. Salas, T. Dickinson, S. Converse, S. Tannenbaum (1992)
Toward an understanding of team performance and training.
Steven Bossert (1988)
Cooperative Activities in the ClassroomReview of Research in Education, 15
R. Linn (1993)
Educational Assessment: Expanded Expectations and ChallengesEducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15
D. Baker, E. Salas (1992)
Principles for Measuring Teamwork SkillsHuman Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 34
E. Cohen (1994)
Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small GroupsReview of Educational Research, 64
M. Brannick, A. Prince, C. Prince, E. Salas (1995)
The Measurement of Team ProcessHuman Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37
Simon Hooper, M. Hannafin (1988)
Cooperative CBI: The Effects of Heterogeneous versus Homogeneous Grouping on the Learning of Progressively Complex ConceptsJournal of Educational Computing Research, 4
R. Slavin (1990)
Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice
Steven Bossert (1988)
Chapter 6: Cooperative Activities in the ClassroomReview of Research in Education, 15
This study investigated the effects of group ability composition on group processes and outcomes in science performance assessments. Students in 21 eighth-grade science classes worked on science assessments first individually, then in groups, and finally individually again. Group composition had a major impact on group discussion quality and on student achievement. Groups with above-average students produced more accurate and high-quality answers and explanations about how to solve the test problems than groups without above-average students. As a result, below-average students who worked with above-average students showed higher achievement than did below-average students who worked without above-average students. High-ability students generally performed better when they worked in homogeneous groups than when they worked in heterogeneous groups. The fact that heterogeneous groups provide a greater benefit for below-average students than they impose a detriment on high-ability students is discussed.
American Educational Research Journal – SAGE
Published: Jun 24, 2016
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.