Unit 6 - Flexible is the key

Photo from Pixabay (truthseekero8)

As previously mentioned, I was a bit surprised to see that grouping students is a controversial issue in education, because it's done so commonly. The objections are mainly related to issues with “tracking”: rigidity, negative labeling, bias in grouping and possibly no positive effect on learning, (depending on where you gather your research, as noted last post) can be avoided with flexible ability grouping. Some would say this tool serves the needs of the teacher
more than the students. That could be true, depending on how these ability groups were executed  “If used properly...flexible ability grouping is a tool to match a students readiness for learning with the instruction provided,” as noted in  Olszewski-Kubilious, P. (2013, February). Setting the Record Straight on Ability Grouping. Retrieved from https://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25919701&bcid=25919701&rssid=25919691&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edweek.org%2Fv1%2Ftm%2Findex.html%3Fuuid%3D1A7DF4D0-C175-11E2-8893-03A9B374366

These groups can be quite short term in nature, with students moving in and out of them as required. Data points are used to group students, avoiding bias. This can be done through both formative and summative assessment. Pretesting, work samples, observations, exit tickets and student requests can all help form groups.  Some would say this tool serves the needs of the teacher more than the students.  

I was lucky enough to see what I consider good flexible ability grouping in action (and was able to participate). It was in a math class. This was a “flipped class”, meaning the content instruction was recorded on video and stored online for the class. Homework was watching and making notes on the topic. Students were expected to arrive to class having finished this.   Class would begin with a question on the board, Q&A, or activity related to the topic for about 5-10 minutes. The assignment would be given and students would begin.  Based on the observations of the opening activity and student input such as previous exit tickets, the teacher would work with small groups out to address issues for a few minutes, then they would return to doing the assignment. 

This method of grouping addressed many of the criticisms of “tracking” type ability grouping. The groups were based on performance data, the groups were not static, they lasted only one lesson quite often. Students were not labelled, and students received differentiation in instruction when they were ready. I also really liked that the time the teacher was spent addressing any issues with the assignment, rather than students struggling at home. 

One major advantage is the class structure allowed students to work at their own speed. There were students in this class who had moved over a entire grade level ahead, so I think the issue of matching students readiness to learn was certainly accommodated. 

How would I apply what I saw to grouping  an English Language Learner’s class? At first, the first class entry assessment and my observations would play a big part in how I grouped the students. I think the biggest take-home for me would be to make sure to do plenty of formative assessment to make sure my groupings were based objectively. These would be across speaking, listening, reading and writing domains, because progress would not likely be even. 

The other benefit of recording data points in these areas is it would allow you to also use the data points for heterogeneous grouping activities.