PLEASE REBUTTAL AND ANSWER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OR POST STATEMENTS. MUST BE 150 WORDS (PLEASE), WRITE IN 3RD PERSON. ONLY ONE REFERENCE CAN BE USED FOR EACH ANSWER. MUST BE 150 WORDS (PLEASE), WRITE IN 3RD PERSON.PLEASE MAKE SURE TO USE SCHOLARLY PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES AND PLACE EACH REFERENCE USED UNDER EACH ANSWER.
My topic is about the differences between heterogeneous grouping and ability grouping in reading. For decades, educators have been informed of different approaches regarding student grouping. Past teaching strategies encouraged teachers to have ability grouping because the strategy was developed to assist students learn at their capability levels. Further research began to change the approach because theorists like Vygotsky proved that children learn best when interacting with one another (Burger, 2005). Paige’s theory also shows that children’s language development strengthens as they interact with each other, and cognitive development reaches higher level by social interaction (Fisher, 1980).
Therefore, various studies related to student grouping have been accomplished, yet different results have been concluded. For instance, Matthews, Ritchotte, and McBee (2013) found out that cluster grouping organized schoolwide has null effects for higher students’ academic development or lower performing students’ achievement; in the study neither group showed that cluster grouping helped improve their academic status. Additionally, past studies by Kulik, C. and Kulic J. (1982) had concluded after 52 studies that ability grouping showed small significance on achievement and high school examination for students who were in grade level classes, but ability grouping proved to have more positive effects for students who were enrolled in honors classes due to the enriched instruction.
As for elementary students, studies by Slavin (1987) concluded that students benefited from inclusion, and that ability groping should not take place for more than one or two subjects daily. Slavin (1987) discussed the benefits of heterogeneous grouping within class activities, and that this type of grouping allows students to interact and discuss concepts, creating social interactions (supports Vygotsky’s and piaget’s theories). Views on ability grouping vary between elementary and secondary. There are more benefits to ability grouping within the classroom then complete ability segregation. Later studies in 2013 showed that ability grouping by isolation did not show benefits to neither higher level or at level groups. On the other hand, older studies had shown that higher level students had benefitted from the class ability grouping.
Berger, M. (2005). Vygotsky’s theory of concept formation and mathematics education.
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, vol. 2, 153-160. Retrieved from
Fisher, K. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. American Psychological Association, Vol. 87(6), 477-531, November 1980. Retrieved from
Kulik, C.L, and Kulik, J.A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, January 1, 1982. Retrieved from
Matthews, M.S., Ritchotte, J.A., and McBee, M.T. (2013). Effects of schoolwide cluster
grouping and within ability grouping on elementary school students’ academic achievement growth. Routledge Journals, 24(2) 81-97, December 1, 2013. Retrieved from
Slavin, R. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, September 1987. Retrieved from
This is the point ‘
The most significant challenges are that there are limited studies, which have been developed over the years discussing communal gardening.>… If they were unlimited, why do the study. Now…how to bring in the gap in existing studies? You mgiht have to find the theory involved and approach this from a theory point of view…Theory states this…”ljlfdaskflk” ….but theory only applies to this XXXXX focus and not to your focus, right? jim
According to Cipra, (2016) the background to the problem section in chapter 2 in the GCU doctoral dissertation discusses how the dissertation topic problem has evolved throughout time to its current state, furthermore, the background section also describes the gap or the need of the current literature and how it leads to the creation of topic and problem statement for the study. The background is very important it places the research into a historical context and helps to explain how the topic and problem was developed to existence. One of the biggest problems in my dissertation research topic is that the United States is becoming a more diverse nation and the diversity trend is not being carried over to the healthcare industry workforce. As the Latino population continues to increase in the US, the under-representation of Latinos in top executive positions is not reflecting the trend of the growing population. One of the key elements that provide the historic context is the amount of Latinos dropping out of high school and not obtaining higher education. The research literature so far supports that minorities are currently not obtaining a higher education for various reasons like financial issues or lack of family support.
Cipra, D. (2016). Chapter 5: Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem. In Grand Canyon University (Ed.), GCU Doctoral Research: Analyzing Research. Retrieved from http://lc.gcumedia.com/res861/gcu-doctoral-research-analyzing-research/v1.1/
The problem under study for my dissertation is that it is not known how or why leader education programs influence mid-level leaders to make ethical decisions in crises situations within corporate organizations. The historical context for this study stems from the societal issues surrounding ethical violations that have caused significant catastrophe. Cases such as Enron or British Petroleum highlight ethical windfalls that have prompted much attention (Kottke & Pelletier, 2013). As a result, public pressure demands answers to international scandals and corruption violating the work place compelling companies to institute ethic policy within their operating procedures (Herold & Stehr, 2009). Studies have extensively examined executive and senior leadership decision making, but few have taken into account ethical decision making with mid-level leadership (Kottke & Pelletier, 2013).
The literature associated with this study general examines the historical context in terms of a societal issue. Ardichvili, Jondle, and Kowske (2012) agree that ethical decision making often overlooks mid-level leaders in these ethical dilemmas. In concert with this, Kottke and Pelletier (2013) argued that mid-level ethical models are just as important as those in the senior or executive leadership levels. Selart and Johansen (2011) examined this from a stress construct addressing how stressful situations affect both ethical leadership and leader recognition of ethical dilemmas. But in order to address recognition of ethical dilemmas from this historical context, Glazumina (2015) argued that leadership is a critical element to the development and success of organizations while poor leadership may have difficulties dealing with environmental changes by responding reactively.
Ardichvili, A., Jondle, D., & Kowske, B. (2012). Minding the gap: Exploring differences in perceptions of ethical business cultures among executives, mid-level managers and non-managers. Human Resource Development International, 15(3), 337-352. doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.687625
Glamuzina, M. (2015). Levels of leadership development and top management’s effectiveness: Is there a clear-cut relationship? Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 20(1), 89-131.
Herold, T., & Stehr, C. (2009). Developing a Code of Ethics for the Globalization of Companies. Journal of Knowledge Globalization, 2(2), 69-83. Retrieved 17 May 2016 from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=51902280&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Kottke, J., & Pelletier, K. (2013). Measuring and differentiating perceptions of supervisor and top leader ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 415-428. doi:10.1007/s10551-012 1312-8
Selart, M., & Johansen, S. (2011). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: The Role of Leadership Stress. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 129-143. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0649-0