Describe at least one question, confusion, or something you’re wondering. (When commenting this week, LOOK for others’ comments and address them.
On page 374, it says that “ability grouping does not appear to have determinental effects on students’ self-esteem.” I don’t possibly see how this can be true, if a student knows that they are in the low group, then wouldn’t they possibly feel not smart and feel defeated academically? I remember when I was in 3rd grade we did ability grouping, there were 3 3rd grade teachers and so there was one class for lower students, average students and high students. Students were not supposed to know that the 3 classes meant the ability level,but I did and so did many other students. I was in the average class for math and reading, but I always wanted to be in the high group, because I wanted to feel smart and wanted to feel like I was one of the smart ones. How did that not hurt my self-esteem? Especially with dealing with elementary children, can’t ability grouping make one feel like they are only average and will only ever be average, and therefore some average students may never reach their full potential because they were told they were “average.”
Last week, many of you claimed that you could change a student's Piagetian stage by giving them more advanced tasks. This is NOT true from Piaget's perspective. Piaget believes that development drives learning. Vygotsky, however, believes that learning drives development.How would Vygotsky recommend that you teach students? (explain specifics) Does grouping matter? Does age matter? What kind of strategies should you use as a teacher? Why?
Vygotsky would recommend that students be taught with a variety of children at different levels. He would recommend that, for example, that 1st and 2nd graders be put together for some activities because the 2nd graders could help the 1st graders accomplish tasks that they could not complete on their own, but they are on the verge of developing. This goes along with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development theory. When 1st and 2nd graders work together, they eventually will be in intersubjecivity because they were at different levels of knowledge at the beginning, but at the end both of the students’ knowledge will come together for a mutual understanding. Vygotsky would say that grouping does matter because putting students together who are all at the same level, would not help students learn as much as putting students together who are at different levels. Vygotsky would probably say that age does not matter as much as their level of development and learning. Age does not tell anyone the level of learning a student is at, and therefore age is not very important, but the level of learning one is capable of is the main area of importance when grouping students.
As a teacher I would use strategies that group together students that are at high and average levels. Higher students could help average students complete tasks that they are almost ready to learn. At the same time, grouping together average and lower students would accomplish the same idea. I would use this strategy because it would help all levels of students, and help students who are more advanced learn to help students who are not as advanced as them, and this would be teaching them a social skill at the same time. Both students would also reach the point of intersubjecivity and both would come to a mutual understanding. Also another similar strategy would be to make groups of 3-4 students, who are all in different learning levels and can help each other learn the material presented.
You have a very good question, so I tried to look up the paper that is cited in the book after that statement. I couldn't find THAT one, but found one from the same authors in 1982. That paper claims that, in ability grouping, changes in student attitude are clearer than changes in student achievement. The attitudes of students increase toward a particular subject area (math, science, etc) when grouped by ability. "Effects of grouping on attitudes toward school and on self concept were also positive but these effects were smaller and less consistent".
ReplyDeleteThey just list numbers and graphs (no interviews) so it's hard to determine more. I think they're trying to say that students got less frustrated by math if they were in a classroom with others of the same ability (while working, perhaps they didn't feel 'stupid' by asking questions or by having difficulty, because everyone else acted similarly).
Your memories are a good counter argument (I've always hated the terms 'oh, those smart kids', etc.... But if you think about it, that happens in even heterogeneous class groupings. Students typically know who gets higher grades, or who is in the highest reading group, etc.... It's hard to hide such things.
Having the most advanced students teach others would teach social skills, but also, learning to TEACH someone something, simplifying it for them in order to scaffold, helps a student learn the material even better. Also, once students are grouped, the teacher can step in to scaffold for the most cognitively developed students in the class.