Eduphoria

A comment on the Taylor Daily Press community forum brings up a good question.  In response to my observation that heterogeneous grouping results in “chunking,” “covering,” and using higher level students as teachers, commentor Delila asked:

Why is it unfair to high-performing students to act as teachers in group learning? Isn’t that the way it used to be in the old “one-room schoolhouse” concept? Obviously the teacher has to maintain control & is the ultimate authority. However, most high-performing students have natural leadership abilities anyway. It enhances their self-image, strengthens their skills, assists the teacher, and reinforces the lessons to the low-performing students when practiced in a controlled environment.

It’s a good question with a reasonable argument – shouldn’t students have the opportunity to practice and refine their leadership skills?  Of course.  In the ideal classroom, this would be happening with all students.  In a classroom where there is a large disparity between ability levels, however, there may be some unforeseen consequences which I’ve observed:

1. Higher ability students who believe that instruction cannot move forward until all students understand may a) get frustrated with lower ability students, and b) feel obligated to do some “under the table” teaching (often more like providing answers) very quickly in order to move their own progress ahead as much as possible.  The act of instruction requires, at the very least, providing information, modeling, and allowing the student to practice on their own before providing answers or revision.  This is not going to happen in five minutes’ time.

2. Lower ability students may become co-dependent and lose self-esteem, especially if they are embarrassed by their inability to understand and/or complete tasks within the time allowed, or what they perceive to be the allowed time.  I mention the perception of time allowed because in a heterogeneous class with a large difference in ability levels you will always have students who are able to answer quickly – usually by blurting.  There are ways to circumvent this, of course, but the stigma may remain from past experiences.

3. Occasional occurrences of student-to-student tutoring in class aren’t bad, even in groups.  But when the higher performing students feel obligated to do so every day, under the table or otherwise, then they’re being put in a position they do not deserve.  They may never get behind, but they won’t get ahead either.

4. If the students are high performing enough to be consistently ahead of their group, shouldn’t they be allowed the opportunity to move ahead?  If I have 4 such students in one class, 7 in another, 5 in the third, and 3 each in the fourth and fifth, that’s pretty close to a single class size – and why not place them where they will be successful?  The same goes for the lower performing students – if they are interspersed throughout classes, and their placement is not moving them forward, why shouldn’t they be placed where they are only in competition with themselves, and can move forward without intimidation?  Some argument may be made that students need to learn to work in groups of differing ability – improving their 21st century skills and what not – but I don’t think this skill is as important as mastery of the core subjects, which will eventually inform and provide those 21st century employment opportunities.

Kitchen Table Math is discussing a study in which 7th grade depression is attributed to student experience in the first grade, including some anecdotes about heterogeneous grouping.  One quote from the study says:

Often, children with poor academic skills believe they have less influence on important outcomes in their life.  Poor academic skills can influence how children view themselves as students and as social beings.