Como organizar as turmas? Como gerar mais aprendizagens para todos? Como cumprir as promessas das virtualidades do arco-íris na turma? Como diferenciar as propostas de aprendizagem? Como não fazer de conta que todos os alunos são um só? Como potenciar o mais possível os talentos de cada um? Como despistar os efeitos nefastos usualmente associados aos "grupos de nível"? Como evitar o maciço "efeito Mateus" que reina nas turmas "heterogéneas"?
Tópicos para um debate: (...)
Arguments for and against ability grouping
Grouping strategies based on ability are used in various forms in schools and classrooms world-wide, and are certain to arouse discussion. Research has proliferated in the field and mainly two diverse views emerged. The traditional hypothesis states that ability grouping yields positive gains by all students regardless of the group they are placed in, whereas the divergence hypothesis holds that only the students in high ability group show gains in achievement and those in low ability group actually lose in performance (Kerckhoff, 1986). For over seventy years ,the pendulum of search for the effects of ability grouping has been swinging between the two ends of this debate. The advocators of grouping students by ability propose four basic rationale (Mamary & Rowe, 1985): • It will allow the teacher to be more efficient in their planning. •high ability students learn more than low ability ones • low ability students do not get frustrated by the progress of high ability students. • It is easier to teach hence less discipline problems occur in homogeneous classes.
Some criticism of ability grouping is based on the supposed negative impact on selfesteem for those students placed in low ability groups. But Mamary and Rowe argues that this does not in fact appear to be the case, with ability grouping having minor, generally positive effects on the self-esteem of slower learners with instruction received in homogeneous ability groups (Mamary & Rowe, 1985). The possible negative effects of labelling can be reduced by minimising any conspicuous nature of the labelling involved (for example using colours or names of famous people to name groups rather than "advanced", "normal" and "remedial"), and by retaining as much flexibility as possible in terms of group selection and revision. The "role model" argument in favour of heterogeneous groups appears flawed as children of low or average ability do not model themselves on fast learners even when they are in the same class (Schunk, 1987).
(...)
Their criticisms to ability grouping can be summarized as follows: • Opportunities to learn. One of the clearest outcomes of ability grouping at all instructional levels is that students in low-ability groups are exposed to substantially less material and to lower quality instruction than are students in middle-or high ability groups. • Achievement: He argues that the pro-grouping argument is primarily concerned with effectiveness, and the anti-grouping argument is primarily concerned with equity, and democratic values. He states further that the proponents of ability grouping fail to meet this burden of proof clearly showing the effectiveness of grouping enabling to sacrifice the needs of low achievers in favour of the high achievers. • Low level skills: Students in low-ability groups are likely to be exposed to more low-level skills than are students in middle and high groups. • Segregation. One of the most consistent effects of ability grouping is to create classes that have disproportionate numbers of students from the same racial or social groups • Self-esteem, and feelings of inferiority. The feelings of inferiority and worthlessness may be the outcome the students in low achieving groups. • Delinquency, and dropout: Students in the low track are still more likely to be delinquent than are other students and are less likely to complete their education.
Yates (1966) mentions that the children who are streamed by their ability to a certain group (a class or a school) quickly understand the significance of the procedure. The students who are assigned to the lower groups indicates lower motivation, hence their progress is prevented. The able ones, on the other hand, may develop feelings of anxiety and others overestimating their capabilities might develop inflated notions about their intellectual superiority. (...)
Using longitudinal data from 48 classes of fourth to seventh grade Californian elementary schools, Hallinan and Sorensen (1983) found that although instructional grouping is a popular method especially in reading (71%) and mathematics (44%), students are generally assigned to three quite stable groups as high, medium, and low in equal numbers rather than on the basis of homogeneity. They also found that the impact of grouping is greater if true homogeneity is substantiated. This partly explains the inconsistent research findings. Still, the results of their study indicated that the students who are placed in high ability groups benefit more from the practice.
Acesso ao texto Integral
