Blog 5: Grouping--What to do or not do?

       After the article discussion last night on differentiation and homogenous vs. heterogenous grouping, I began to reflect on my own experience, and the conclusions I drew from the discussion.  In a classroom full of 6-7 year olds, who come from a multitude of backgrounds, structure is a necessity.  The more routine a task is, the higher their success rate will be.  As a long term substitute with virtually no guidance from the teacher on leave, I have done my best to make sure my practices are aligned with the research, and all I learned during my undergraduate degree, but grouping is one area that gives me grief.  In the literature from the Massachusetts Literacy program literacy block outline in my other reading class it stated that guided reading should be 15-20 minutes, with 1-2 groups meeting each day 4-5 times per week.  This is exactly what I do in my classroom, but I often wonder if it is the way I am grouping them that is not working. 
      I thought it was poignant to note that in the article entitled Ability Grouping Across Kindergarten Using an Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, low ability students did better in heterogenous groups, medium ability students did better in homogeneous groups, but for the high level students the grouping did not make a signficant difference.  Comparing this article then to Differentiated Instruction to Support High-Risk Preschool Learners, DeBaryshe showed in the data that groups in the study were grouped homogeneously, and teachers employed best practices such as engaging phonocs instruction mixed with more whole-language activities like journal writing.  I was befuddled that the data then said lower level kids were exposed to fewer activities than kids who were reading at a higher level, but then the lower level kids performed better.  The article then goes on to state in its discussion that the project did not include a control group which makes the data, from a scientific standpoint, very inconclusive.
      What I gather from the articles in our class, my other class, and personal experience, I feel that there needs to be a simpler solution.  It is difficult as a new teacher to make informed decisions about grouping when kids require so much structure, but varying the grouping constantly would cause so many delays in understanding the flow.  It is a specific pitfall I have as a new elementary teacher thrown into an unorganized classroom that belongs to another teacher, but I have found that homogeneous guided reading groups work best because the flow of skills and planning is more consistent, and easier to manage when the curriculum is changing from common core, Baltimore City has adopted a new math curriculum, and the kids are settling into the meaty part of the school year.  I feel that more research needs to be conducted on which method works for students' academic success, and classroom management wise.  I am starting to use class dojo, so data could be taken when switching up grouping styles and students, and then class dojo could be used keeping the groups homogeneous to compare the two.  I am interested to see where this topic goes because I also sometimes wonder how I learned to read so well if I never had guided reading as a child the way it is structured today.