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) proposes 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: “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

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

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Kinley Lit Review and Research Write Up

Similar to Kinley Lit Review and Research Write Up (20)

Kinley Lit Review and Research Write Up