A comparison of self-concept scores of students in an above average, average, below average, and slow ability group in the fifth grade at Sam Houston Elementary School

This study was undertaken for the purpose of studying the relationship between ability grouping and self-concept. A more accurate picture and understanding of students' self-concept could lead educators in the direction of providing a more effective curriculum program for these students. The fifth grade at Sam Houston Elementary School was chosen as the general study area because of its ability grouping procedure. The samples included nineteen students from the Slow Group, twenty-nine students from the Below Average Group, twenty-six students from the Average Group, and twenty-two students form the Above-Average Group.

The primary methods and procedures used in data assembly for this research involved the Piers-Harris Children's Self- Concept Scale, Kruskal and Wallis H Test, and a Multiple Comparison of Data. Data from the Stanford Battery Form B Test, which was administered to students in the fourth grade, were heavily relied upon for the initial placement of students.

The major findings of the research indicated there was a significant difference between Group Two (below average group) and Group Four (Above average group). Group Four scored significantly higher on self-concept than Group Two. However, this was the only pair that differed significantly in their performance on the self-concept scale. It was also noted that the Above Average Group had the highest self-concept followed by the Average Group then by the Slow Group, with the Below Average Group having the lowest rank average.

The researcher felt that further studies should be done in this area to look closely at the consequences of ability grouping. Students often function or behave in the manner they feel is consistent with their self-concept. Teachers in schools with ability grouping are advised to keep these factors in mind when planning for instruction. Schools should reconsider the use of alternate grouping procedures. The success of one group should not be based on the failure of another.