Kinley Lit Review and Research Write Up

THE EFFECTS OF GROUPING ON EDUCATORS 1

THE EFFECTS OF GROUPING ON EDUCATORS:

CONSIDERING ABILITY AND PERSONALITY

A Research Project

Presented to the

Templar School of Education

Johnson University

In Fulfillment

Of the Requirement for the Degree

Master of Arts in Holistic Education

By

Shana M. Kinley

April 2016

The Effects of Grouping in the Classroom:


Considering Ability and Personality

Introduction

Grouping has the ability to dramatically impact the environment and instruction of a

classroom. Currently, grouping research stands at the forefront of educational research.

Scholars have suggested that classroom instruction benefits most when students work in groups.

Strategies for instructional grouping include: whole group, small groups, and individual work.

Researchers have diverse opinions regarding the organization of these groups. Rowcliffe (2006)

suggests educators should group students based on their ability whereas Sapon-Shevin (2010)

places emphasis on pairing students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups.

Another aspect of research influencing the classrooms includes studies on people’s

personalities. Scholars in this field of research strive to understand the following: what

characterizes a personality, how to assess one’s personality, and how to enhance and embrace

one’s personality.

This study aims to combine modern research on grouping strategies and personality

characteristics in order to improve grouping structures in the classroom. Literature reviewed and

research collected will be used to understand the concepts behind grouping and personality

research and to analyze the results of the project that is to follow.

Literature Review

The literature reviewed for this project includes scholarly articles and journals that

discuss types of grouping styles in instruction, personality characteristics, and personality

assessments. The push for grouping strategies grew out of the race to close the achievement gap

which developed from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008). As a

result, educators and scholars worked to find grouping strategies that met the needs of their


students. Four major groupings include whole group instruction, small group instruction,

individual instruction, and grouping by ability.

One can break each grouping technique into sub techniques or sub categories. For

example, under the umbrella of small group instruction, scholars have identified the

subcategories of cooperative learning and peer learning. Also, grouping by ability includes the

sub-strategies of heterogeneous grouping, homogeneous grouping, differentiated instruction and

grouping by demographics. Each of these sections and subsections help educators better

understand different aspects of grouping styles.

In addition to literature regarding grouping styles, literature concerning personalities and

personality assessment was reviewed. “The word personality is derived from the Latin term

persona, originally representing the theatrical mask used by ancient dramatic players (Millon,

2010, p. 1227). Over time, the meaning of personality has evolved to regard the true

characteristics of a person, as opposed to the ones they portray. Scholars have developed many

types of assessments to identify these characteristics; two personality assessments considered for

this study include The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the True Color Inventory.

An analysis of grouping and personalities demonstrates their importance to classroom

instruction. Furthermore, implementing the data from said analysis can enrich the group and

classroom community.

Grouping

Before schools divided students by age level, all students met in one school house at the

same time for instruction. Grouping proved essential for this multi-age classroom to ensure that

every student continued to learn. The modern grade level (K-12) classroom structure has

minimalized the use of multiage classrooms. Regarding gap closure, Hoffman (2002) comments:


“The K-12 structure has given instructors the opportunity to teach based on developmental

ability. The current struggle, however, regards meeting the needs of all students rather than

teaching to the age median” (p. 47).

Grouping styles. As educators and scholars seek to find the best grouping techniques,

they have developed multiple styles designed to meet the needs of instruction, student ability,

and cooperative learning. Instruction-specific grouping techniques include whole group

instruction, small group instruction, and individual instruction.

Whole group instruction. Whole group instruction remains the most common grouping

in the current classroom settings; teachers and students may lead instruction. Regardless of who

leads instruction, the audience all has its attention on one presenter. Ward, Kennedy, and Rivera

(2015) note that focused lessons during the whole group instruction setting provide students with

anchor experiences for each content area. Educators can take this time to introduce a new topic

or concept before delivering differentiated instruction. Whole group instruction also allows the

teacher to bring the students together for the close of a unit.

Hoffman (2002) found that whole group instruction promotes community building,

planning, introducing new concepts/skills, reading, writing, and thinking strategies, and provides

an opportunity for whole group closure. Teachers may use this time to have students work

toward a class goal (e.g. earning points based on good attentiveness).

Whole group instruction also gives teachers the opportunity to model skills. Modeling

instruction especially benefits English Language Learners and English as a Second Language

classrooms where educators constantly model commands, word pronunciation, and behavior

expectations. Conner (2004) suggests that modeling during reading instruction can benefit all

students as teachers demonstrate the behaviors that good readers exhibit.


During student-led whole group instruction, presenters have the opportunity to develop

and practice professional development skills. Weimer (2013) writes, “By doing presentations,

students learn how to speak in front a group, a broadly applicable professional skill. They learn

how to prepare material for public presentation, and practice (especially with feedback) improves

their speaking skills” (para. 1).

Small group instruction. In the classroom, a small group consists of a collection of three

to six students. Researchers encourage educators to place students in groups this size to promote

social and academic learning. Groups larger than six would take away from the small group

dynamic. Teachers, or students—or a combination of both—may lead small group activities.

Hoffman (2002) proposess that teacher led groups provide guided practice, task-focused help, an

opportunity for shared reading, and writing assessments. Student led groups, on the other hand,

provide opportunities for supported practice, shared tasks, collaborative responses, common

interest, and sharing reading and writing.

Cooperative learning. Slavin (2006) notes, “Cooperative learning refers to instructional

methods in which students work in small groups to learn academic content” (p. 309). To make

the most of the opportunities available during small group instruction, students “may be asked to

work on projects, to tutor each other, or just to help each other as needed” (Slavin, 2006, p. 309).

To continue, Slavin (2006) indicates the following:

One appeal of cooperative learning regards motivation through group rewards. Students

are encouraged to help one another so that the whole group will succeed. If not all group

members demonstrate learning then no one gets points. Individual accountability, which

means that the group is rewarded based on the sum or average of individual children's

performance, not on an overall group task (p. 309).


In addition to the academic achievement gained during cooperative learning, students also

develop social and emotional skills. Creating a group rewards system can motivate students to

communicate with one another to encourage the learning of their peers. Furthermore,

dissatisfaction within the group structure provides an opportunity to show students constructive

ways to express their emotions.

Peer learning. Peer learning has been defined as the act of gaining academic

understanding through small group instruction. Chief research on peer learning comes from

Blum-Kulka and Dvir-Gvirsman (2010). These scholars built their peer learning research around

foundational theories from Piaget and Vygotsky.

Occasionally, small group instruction can sometimes lead to conflict within the group.

Blum-Kulka and Dvir-Gvirsman (2010) note Piagetian theory which suggests, “Peer interaction

promotes such cognitive conflict by exposing discrepancies between different participants’ level

of knowledge, resulting in a state of disequilibrium” (p. 444). Moreover, from the Vygotskian

perspective, the scholars state, “Cognitive development depends on active social interaction,

including reasoning and explanation, with a more-competent partner” (p. 445). Conflict within

the peer learning groups allows students to express their feelings, learn how to communicate

with one another, and resolve problems.

Individual instruction. Individual instruction provides a time for students to

independently complete coursework and have one-on-one time with the instructor. Hoffman

(2002) suggests that individual instruction gives students the opportunity for independent

practice and individual response. The work produced during this time helps the educator

understand how much and what parts of a lesson each student has retained. This information can

then help the educator form groups and guide the instructor for scaffolding the next lessons.


Individual instruction also provides the opportunity to build teacher-student relationships.

Relationship building remains an important aspect of the classroom culture. Bahr and Harriss

(2015) discovered that one-on-one time with the instructor provides an opening to establish and

build this relationship by creating a natural environment between the student and the educator.

Giving students the opportunity to check in with the teacher and discuss classwork or personal

issues helps create a welcoming and friendly environment in the classroom and builds rapport.

Grouping by ability. Ellison and Hallinan (2004) make a perfect remark about grouping

based on ability when they state, “One of the primary mechanisms that schools use to effect

student learning is the organization of students for instruction.” (p. 109). Class divisions and

instructional groupings determine the curriculum and pedagogical characteristics that students

learn under.

Simply numbering students or allowing them to form their own groups will not create the

support students need for group assignments. Teachers need to consider student abilities and

what they can offer to the group setting. Carefully developed groups can provide one of the best

learning experiences for students of all grade levels.

In a science classroom, Rowcliffe (2006) observed,, “Although it is clear from some

research that mixed-ability grouping benefits the low-ability students academically, some of the

same evidence points to the fact that high-ability students do better, and take science further,

when placed in high-ability sets” (p. 88). Grouping students based on their ability will allow the

teacher to teach to the diverse nature of the students, not just the median. As educators monitor

the classroom during group instruction, they have an opportunity to note how students work

together and where students have picked up and dropped information form the lesson.


Scholz (2004) noted that grouping by ability has become an essential part of the

mathematics classroom because, “the hierarchical nature of maths requires that grounding

concepts be learnt before the mathematical process can be continued” (p. 29). This concept

remains true in other subject areas as well. In order to best understand American history one

needs to first understand where “Americans” came from. In order to write a good, complete

sentence one must first understand how to order words.

Heterogeneous grouping. Heterogeneous grouping signifies the organization of students

into diverse groups. Sapon-Shevin (2010) states, “Heterogeneous grouping refers to grouping

arrangements in which whole classes of students are grouped so that they vary according to

achievement or inferred ability or to within-class groupings that place students in similarly

diverse groups to learn together”” (p. 438). Diverse learning groups promote rich educational

experiences for students. First and foremost, students have the opportunity to learn from and

teach their peers. Secondly, students practice and enhance their social skills as they learn how to

work with one another.

Homogenous grouping. Homogeneous grouping refers to the division of students into

similar groups. This grouping technique is most often used to group gifted/talented students and

learning disabled students. On this subject, Sapon-Shevin (2010) explains the following: that,

“Those who promote homogeneous grouping for instruction (including many teachers and

parents) argue that it is easier to target instruction when students are grouped by ability” (p.

438)..

Targeted instruction can help encourage and challenge the students within a specific

homogeneous group. Homogeneous grouping is not limited to academic levels.


Many school use homogeneous strategies to form clubs and intramurals. In this setting,

students are grouped by topic or interest. They work with their peers as they research a certain

topic, such as the Bible, or they collaborate on a group project, such as the school’s Year Book,

or they form teams and compete against one another through intramurals.

Differentiated instruction. Benjamin (2006) writes, “Differentiated instruction is a

practice that grows out of certain values that are important in the way we treat our students,

design our curricula, establish rules, and talk about learning” (p. 1). As educators pick their

curricula and design classroom rules they create goals that meet individual academic, social, and

emotional needs. Alavinia and Farhady (2012) comment,

The main challenge for current pedagogy is not the mere confession to the prevalence of

differences in the learning context. Awareness of such variations and endorsement of

learner differences can just feature as the springboard for a more critical stage, which is

the implementation of sound approaches and methods aimed at addressing the

complicated needs of modern pedagogy (p. 74).

A key term used in conjunction with differentiated instruction is scaffolding. Scaffolding is a

teaching technique where teachers build off one concept to reach the next. Some view this

strategy as the creation of a hierarchy. For example, in math you first learn to add and subtract,

then you learn to multiply and divide.

Personality

Personality. An article titled Personality (2008) states, “Personality most commonly

refers to the psychological features that distinguish one individual from another—regularities in

the way an individual thinks, feels, and behaves” (p. 217). How a person behaves is one of the


things people notice during a first impression; one may take note of a person’s automatic

responses or habits they may display when they get nervous or uncomfortable.

Personality (2008) also comments, “Personality also refers to a separate subfield of

psychology that uses the scientific method to investigate people’s defining characteristics—what

the characteristics are, how best to measure them, and the consequences for individuals who

embody them (Personality, 2008, p. 217).. Scholars such as Mary Miscisin (2006), Isabel Myers,

and Katharine Cook Briggs (2015) have sought to understand this subfield of psychology.

Miscisin, Myers and Briggs have done extensive research to understand these

psychological features of personality in order to better understand the nature of people. They

have used their results to create personality assessments to make the psychology behind the

nature of people more accessible and understandable.

Carl G. Jung (1875-1961), a psychological researcher, indicated eight mental processes

that combine one’s functions and attitudes. These processes include: extraverted sensing,

introverted sensing, extraverted intuition, introverted intuition, extraverted thinking, introverted

thinking, extraverted feeling, and introverted feeling. Jung’s research was later used to influence

one personality assessment known as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

Personality assessment. Weiner (2010) states, “Personality assessment is the use of

psychological assessment procedures to identify personality characteristics of individuals” (p.

1198). Furthermore, assessing personalities provides an opportunity to “describe or make

inferences about the characteristic traits, attitudes, beliefs, values, needs, motives, emotional

states, coping styles, or aspirations of an individual” (Lanning, 2008, p. 721).

Many forms of personality assessments include: “an Internet dating questionnaire, an

epitaph, a letter of recommendation, a psychodiagnosis, an integrity test administered as part of


an employment application, and a psychobiography based on a historical record (Lanning, 2008,

p. 721).

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. C. G. Jung (2015) believed, “That much seemingly

random variation in the behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic

differences in the ways individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment” (The MBTI,

para. 1). The Myers and Briggs Foundation adapted the processes outline previously and created

their personality inventory to make Jung’s psychological types understandable and useful in

people’s lives (The Myers, 2015). Results from the MBTI place people on a table based on how

the answered questions during the assessment.

True color inventory. Mary Miscisin, like Myers and Briggs, has taken personality

research and simplified it into the form of a personality inventory. She has used her research to

create books, inventories, presentations, and games to help people better understand who they are

and how they can best interact with their colleagues. After answering questions from the true

colors inventor, participants receive literature on the two colors that dominate their personality

(see Appendix D, E, F, and G for copies of the literature participants read).

On the literature regarding the blue personality, Miscisin (2006) writes that people with

“blue” characteristics,, “seek understanding of themselves and how they fit into the world around

them” (p. 5). People that identify with the blue personality strive to be authentic and sincere;

they make genuine connections that are important to those around them. In the classroom, these

are the students that try and mediate disagreements. They seek was to make the classroom

atmosphere feel peaceful (see Appendix D for more information).

People that identify with the gold personality often take on leadership roles in schools

and classrooms. These are the students that take the lead and do all that the teacher asks without


resistance. People that associate with the gold personality group often value order and are

organized. One may call these people punctual, predictable, and practical (see Appendix E for

more information).

True Colors Keys to Personal Success (2015) the publisher describes people in the green

group as visionary, global, and intellectual. In the classroom one would notice students that

question the teacher; they always want to know “why” they are doing or learning something.

These students would generally be self-motivated because they want to have a deeper

understanding of life (see Appendix F for more information).

People in the orange personality are often characterized as risk-takers and entertainers. In

classrooms and on the sports teams these students are most competitive. Teachers motivate these

students with games and rewards. Some have defined these people as action oriented with a

strong desire to test the limits (see Appendix G for more information).

After reading about the different personalities the group may engage in team building

activities. The activities will be done in groups of the same color and in multi-color groups. An

example of one team building activity would be to have a group of gold’s create something from

the perspective of the blue group. This will help the gold’s understanding of their blue

counterparts and enable them to better discern their creations and attitudes.

Grouping by Personality

As previously mentioned, grouping structures prove to be an enhancement to classroom

structure. Grouping students by ability can enhance classroom and group communities. Another

aspect of student grouping to consider is student personalities. The nature and characteristics of

the child have the ability to create a richer grouping environment.


One interactive teaching strategy that accesses natural student abilities is Table Talk.

Students are given a question to discussion with a group of four to six of their peers. During the

discussion students are given the roles of facilitator, timekeeper, recorder, and reporter.

Teachers may assign these roles to the students that are best fit to represent them.

Considering students’ natural ability to complete the roles in Table Talk and grouping

strategies such as ability groups, homogeneous groups, or heterogeneous groups, allows the

educator to bring together the ideas of implementing grouping strategies and recognizing the

personalities of students. In the following study educators at a school in Knoxville, Tennessee

demonstrate the productivity of groups when they are placed in heterogeneous groups and

homogeneous groups based on their true colors inventory.

Description and Analysis of the Project

Proposal of the Project

Proposal for the research project was submitted to the Knox County Board of Education

on October 15, 2015. Approval for the project was received on November 23, 2015. The time

frame proposed for the study was between January 1, 2016 and April 25, 2016; the study was

then conducted on February 25, 2016 at Bonny Kate Elementary School (BKE).

Parameters. The researcher and her mentor proposed to invite faculty and staff

members as the participants rather than use the kindergarten students in the researcher’s base

classroom. The anticipated number of participants was between twenty-five and thirty educators.

The study was expected to consume no longer than one hour of faculty and staff member’s time.

The value of this study to Knox County, as well as other school districts, is that the study will

allow educators to better group their students by understanding how student personalities can

improve and take away from group experiences and productivity.


Description of the Project

True Colors Keys to Personal Success (2015) defines the True Colors Inventory as, “An

easy, entertaining, user friendly way to identify your color spectrum to better understand yourself

and others. The true colors mission is to foster healthy, productive relationships and

organizations whose esteem and success flow from the natural gifts and talents of each person”

(p. 3). The True Colors Inventory used in this project aimed to identify the positive and negative

effects that one’s personality may have on group structures and productivity.

Data collection procedure. After the researcher welcomes participants and introduces

the study, participants will take a printed True Colors Inventory (Appendix A and B). Next,

they will record their results through an online survey created by the researcher via Google

Forms© (Appendix C). After recording their results research participants will read literature on

the four color categories, paying special attention to the color that presented most dominate from

their inventory. After ample time has been given for the educators to read the provided literature

they will be placed into heterogeneous and homogeneous groups based on their dominant colors.

These groups will then participate in a series of discussions and respond with their observations

of how the group functioned.

Collection instruments. Instruments necessary to collect data for this study include: the

True Colors Inventory from the North American Federation of Temple Youth website

(www.nfty.org), a survey for collecting results created by the researcher, a device to access the

survey (smart phone, iPad, tablet, computer, etc.) and a device to record participants during the

discussion.

Analysis of the Project

http://www.nfty.org/


The true colors inventory. The following table displays the results of the data collected

from the seventeen participants. The names of anyone who did not agree to have their name

affiliated with this study have been changed to Anonymous.

Gold personalities dominated the room taking a 47.1% lead; the other three colors (orange,

green, and blue) were split evenly among the remaining participants with a percentage of 17.6.

Results of the second highest colors followed a similar pattern, the green personality type

dominated with 47.1% of the participants; blues came in second with 23.5% of the participants;

orange followed with 17.6% of the participants; and gold came in last with 11.8% of the

participants. Knowing the second highest color for each participant is significant because no one


can be defined by any one set of parameters. All people show characteristics of multiple

personality traits.

Knowing the lowest scores is equally important so that participants and viewers can

better interact and respond to their coworkers. Results of the lowest scoring colors are as

follows: 50% orange, 33.3% blue, 11.1% gold, and 5.6% green. The results have been converted

into the following pie charts:


As mentioned previously, the True Colors Inventory event was voluntary for all participants.

With that in mind it is interesting to note that nearly fifty percent (47.1%) of the participants

were gold dominant. In the text True Colors Keys to Personal Success (2015) the publisher

notes people with a dominant gold personality often promote institutions and organizations (p.

16).

Color correlations. Often time’s gold and green personalities can seem very similar.

One of the major differences is that gold people do what they are asked without hesitation

whereas green people always ask why. It is interesting to notice that of the 47.1% of people that

noted gold as their highest color, 50% of those people also noted green as their second highest

color.

Two colors that are at odds in styles are gold and blue. The other 50% of the participants

that marked gold as their highest color marked blue as their second highest. These personality

types do not typically work together because the “go with the flow” attitude of the blues does not

fit will with the punctual and practical values of the golds. This group of educators pulled these


two personalities together by forming a bond between the warm and compassionate side of the

blue with the caring and sensible side of the gold.

The discussion. Again, the three discussion topics were: standardized testing, the

Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) and school politics. Each group had one

and a half minutes to discuss the topic before reporting to the research.

Homogeneous groups. After first being placed in their groups the participants were

eager to discuss the results of their inventory. As a result, during the discussion of the first topic

all groups reported that they were off topic but justified their discussion by noting that they were

discussing the topic of their inventory. A few reporters stated that they began discussing what

color categories their significant others would be placed in. After the first topic the researcher

realized that a three minute time period was too long and she adjusted to one and a half minutes.

Now that the educators knew that the researcher would be following up on their topics

they tried harder to stay on task during the second discussion. Most groups reported that they

started with the topic then drifted to other topics. The researcher observed that most

conversations would start on topic and then move to discussing each participants results of the

inventory.

The last discussion topic, school politics, was a bit difficult for all groups. Deborah

Howard, of the gold circle, reported that their group spent most of the time trying to determine

what school politics meant. All other groups agreed that they were a bit confused by the title to

the topic as well. The researcher then explained that she intended this topic to be broad

including items such as the school budget, who comprises the school board, and decisions made

by people on the school board. The researcher did not ask the groups to discuss this topic again

with the new information and chose to eliminate that topic during the heterogeneous grouping.


Heterogeneous groups. Following the clarification of school politics, the researcher had

participants reorganize themselves into groups that included one person of each color. This task

was a bit difficult since the majority of the educators were gold dominant; in addition, some of

the participants had to leave early due to previous obligations. Some chose to identify

themselves with their second highest color in order to even out the grouping.

As the educators divided themselves up the researcher observed that following directions

was a bit harder for the people that were blue dominant. They had been talking when directions

were given so when others started moving they weren’t sure what was going on. Laura Snapp

said, “We lost a blue” when one of her mates went to join another group and then she turned to

the researcher who repeated the directions so that she would regroup as well.

Following the first discussion time the groups noticed a few changes in the atmosphere.

While the groups mainly stayed on topic, there were a few in each group that would lead the

group off topic and one that would help them to get back on the right path. In one group it was a

gold dominate person, Debbie Moore, that led them off topic and a green dominate, Jessica

Fachman, who brought the group back together. One group reported that it was difficult for

them to stay on topic but they knew what was expected of them so they made a harder effort to

do so.

Subsequent to the second discussion question the participants noted that when they stayed

on topic, most of them had similar views and feelings regarding TVAAS. This is to be expected

considering that all of the participants are educators. Groups did note that some people were

able to lend more of an understanding of what TVAAS is and what it scores, whereas others

were slightly uninformed on the topic. Discussion three was bypassed due to lack of clarity.


Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations

Summary. The researcher set out to demonstrate how one’s personality can impact the

atmosphere and productivity of group structures. The study was conducted among a group of

educators in a forty minute time frame. Results were collected immediately then the researcher

spent two weeks analyzing the data and drawing conclusions.

Conclusion. The study confirmed the purpose that was stated in the proposal: The True

Colors Research Project aims to identify the positive and negative effects that one’s personality

may have on grouping structures. The data collected from the survey suggests that the majority

of educators can identify with characteristics of a gold personality with influences from the green

and blue personalities. Information from the discussion shows that people cannot be put into one

category; although golds are typically the leaders and task managers, one gold during the

discussion led their group off task and a green brought them back together.

Limitations. A major limitation for this study was the weather. The study was

originally scheduled for an in service day so that all faculty and staff members could attend, but

snow caused the study to be rescheduled as a voluntary, after school, in service credit.

Selecting a group a educators to collect data from did not all the researcher to have an

adequate example of how this would work in the classroom setting. The students that make up

an elementary classroom are not all working toward one career; their desired futures and

worldviews would change how they would respond to discussion questions.

Recommendations. Given the opportunity to conduct the study again the researcher

may adapt the study to meet the needs of students so that the study could be conducted in the

classroom. Should the researcher conduct this study again with adults, they would include

participants that were not limited to educators. Furthermore, the researcher would take time to


define the topics and better outline what she wanted the participants to be discussing during the

allotted time.


References

Alavinia, P., & Farhady, S. (2012, April). Using differentiated instruction to teach vocabulary in

mixed ability classes with a focus on multiple intelligences and learning styles.

International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(4), 72-82. Retrieved from:

http://www.ijastnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_4_April_2012/11.pdf

Bahr, E. & Harriss, C. (2015, January). One-to-one instruction: Two perspectives. College &

Research Libraries News, 76(1), 14-17.

Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. (2008, Spring). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum

enrichment and differentiation: One school‘s story. Journal of Advanced Academics,

19(3), 502-530.

Benjamin, A. (2006, Spring). Valuing differentiation. Leadership Compass, 3(3), 1-2. Retrieved

from: http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Leadership_Compass/2006/LC2006v3n3a2.pdf

Blum-Kulka, S., & Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2010). Peer interaction and learning. In P. Peterson, E.

Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed., Vol. 5, pp.

444-449). Oxford, UK: Academic Press.

Conner, J., & Farr, R. (2004). Using think-alouds to improve reading comprehension. Retrieved

from: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-think-alouds-improve-reading-

comprehension

Ellison, B. J., & Hallinan, M. T. (2004). Ability grouping in Catholic and public schools.

Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 8(1), 107-129.

Hoffman, J. (2002, Winter). Flexible grouping strategies in the multiage classroom. Theory into

Practice, 41(1), 47-52.


Lanning, K. (2008). Personality assessment. In F. T. L. Leong, E. M. Altmaier, & B. D. Johnson

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Counseling (Vol. 2, pp. 721-729). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications.

The MBTI Type Today. (2015). Carl Jung & psychological types. Retrieved from:

http://mbtitoday.org/carl-jung-psychological-type/

Millon, T. (2010). Personology. In I. B. e & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), The Corsini Encyclopedia

of Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1227-1229). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Miscisin, M. (2006). Four color styles bundle. Sacramento: Positively Publishing.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2015). MBTI Basics. Retrieved from:

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/

True Colors Keys to Personal Success (9th ed.). (2015). True Colors Intl.

Personality. (2008). In W. A. Darity, Jr. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences

(2nd ed., Vol. 6, pp. 217-220). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.

Rowcliffe, S. (2006). The future of student grouping systems in science 14-16. Science

Education Review, 5(3), 87-94.

Sapon-Shevin, M. E. (2010). Heterogeneous-homogeneous grouping. In C. Kridel (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies (Vol. 1, pp. 438-439). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Reference.

Scholz, S. (2004). Ability groups: Ineffective or ineffectively used? Australian Primary

Mathematics Classroom, 9(2), 29-31.

Ward, S., Kennedy, A., & Rivera, C. (2015, June 29). A literacy framework for whole group

instruction. Retrieved from: https://www.polk-fl.net/staff/teachers/reading/documents/


Read180Day2/Tuesday1/ALiteracyF_Kennedy/ALiteracyF_Kennedy%20[Compatibility

%20Mode].pdf

Weimer, M. (2013, February 21). Student presentations: Do they benefit those who listen?

Retrieved from: http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/student-

presentations-do-they-benefit-those-who-listen/

Weiner, I. B. (2010). Personality Assessment. In I. B. e & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), The Corsini

Encyclopedia of Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1198-1200). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.


Appendix A

The True Colors Inventory adapted from http://www.nfty.org/Documents/index.cfm?id=12954

http://www.nfty.org/Documents/index.cfm?id=12954


Appendix B

True Colors Inventory Score Sheet


Appendix C

Researcher Created Survey


Appendix D

Literature regarding color characteristics


Appendix E

Appendix F


Appendix G

Kinley Lit Review and Research Write Up

Documents

Transcript of Kinley Lit Review and Research Write Up