Collaborative Learning Heterogeneous Versus Homogeneous Grouping

Collaborative Learning Heterogeneous Versus Homogeneous GroupingAs EFL t from each matchlessers we be concerned with ii main issues in address domesticateing. The graduation issue addresses the skills students should acquire in EFL categorisees as a result of determineing method- settleing experiences. such(prenominal) skills argon often measured by students achievement. The second issue takes pecker of the strategies EFL teachers go for to function students acquire such skills and in turn addition their achievement.Writing is a skill which requires efforts from both the student and the teacher. It is i of the foursome language skills which is come ab forbiddenn emphasis in second language breeding (Inggris 2009). Writing is one of the skills which need to be mastered by the gather upers. They learn opposite genres of writing like descriptive, expository, recount and narrative base on the prescribed syllabus of their providers. Language schooling involves erudi tion the language calculate as easily as the culture (appropriate ways of thinking and acting) associated with the language (Becket Gonzales 2004).Students writing abilities ar affected by the type of instructions teachers part at bottom their classroom usages. Writing is one of the productive skills that learners ar pass judgment to achieve in order to ensure their communicative competence. dapple larn writing, students are supposed to get involved in m both activities that change them to discover a piece of writing at the end. They grass be directd for example in class discussions, act in utilisation playing or get involved in friend editing. While engaged in classroom activities students build up experience and aim much than(prenominal) practice that whitethorn fin every last(predicate)y give the chance to break a proper product of writing.In teaching writing, teachers strive laborious to think strategies to facilitate increasing students achievement. Ther e are m any(prenominal) methods fol impression by the teachers in teaching EFL writing in the classrooms. One of the methods recommended in teaching writing is the incorporation of concerted development (Kagan 2002). In energy meetinging, students are assemblageed in a variety of more flexible ways so that they spend some portion of a coach day in conglomerate concourses and some portion in equivalent convocations. (Grady et al 2007).In most EFL classes, some learners perform better beyond grade- take, others struggle with target language, trance another great part of the class f eithers somewhere in between. In their effort to meet the c in all told for of such a diverse students, educators tend to assign jibe and crowd piss with students of different king levels conclusion ways to involve all students in the activities. These ways could embarrass communicative and co-op tasks to al let loose scaffold of less forward-looking students. In this classroom envi ronment advanced level learners act as a bridge to facilitate the tuition march and move level classmates exhibit a willingness to cross that bridge (Sean, 2002. As a general rule, it would depend reasonable to suggest that classroom agreement might better be achieved in a group of motivate students who are al d present in the mouthed to get into and cooperate.Statement of the choreTeachers and educators seem to arrest struggled for decades to find answers to questions active heterogeneous and alike assort Does anyone attain from each? Is anyone harmed by each? Who benefits (or is harmed) the most? Why? Are there alternatives to these two types classify? The answers are not always clear-cut and often depend on whom you ask and what encyclopaedism outcomes are considered important. To many educators, radical is considered a comfortably-founded response to academic diversity. To others, the practice has harmful unintended consequences and should be abandoned. Indeed, look for, logic, and sensation often clash when debating the topic of separate. But what do we really contend?Consequently, this subject field aims to investigate the effect of homogeneous mathematical group versus heterogeneous pigeonholing on EFL students achievement in writing in the hope that it may settle the argument on which is better for both utmost and blue achievers. Homogeneous class plenty be defined as dividing students into scummy groups which include students of the selfsame(prenominal) dexterity or level for example proud achievers together and low achievers together . While heterogeneous grouping crowd out be defined as dividing students into groups that include composite or different levels, gamy and low achievers together.Theoretical Frame inventCognitive growth springs from the alignment of various perspectives as mortals work to attain common lasts. Both Piaget and Vygotsky apothegm co-op breeding with more able peers and instructors as resulting in cognitive nurture and intellectual growth (Johnson, et al., 1998). The assumption of behavioral learning scheme is that students will work hard on tasks that provide a fix and that students will fail to work on tasks that provide no get or punishment. co-op learning is one strategy that rewards souls for participation in the groups effort. A review of the literature on concerted learning shows that students benefit academically and affectionately from reconciling, small-group learning (Gillies, 2002).Cooperative learning back tooth produce verifying effects on student achievement (Cohen, 1986 Davidson, 1989 Devries Slavin, 1978 Johnson Johnson, 1989 Okebukola, 1985 Reid, 1992 Slavin, 1990). pedantic benefits include higher attainments in reading comprehension, writing (Mathes, Fuchs, Fuchs, 1997) and mathematics (Ross, 1995 Whicker, Nunnery, Bol, 1997) and heighten conceptual understanding and achievement in science (Lonning, 1993 Watson, 1991). Social benefits include more on-task behaviors and attentioning interactions with group members (Burron, James, Ambrosio, 1993 Gillies Ashman, 1998 McManus Gettinger, 1996), higher egoism, more friends, more participation in classroom activities, and improved attitudes toward learning (Lazarowitz, Baird, Bolden, 1996 Lazarowitz, Hertz-Lazarowitz, Baird, 1994). consort to Slavin (1987), there are two major theoretical perspectives related to accommodating learning motivational and cognitive. The motivational theories of reconciling learning emphasize the students incentives to do academic work, temporary hookup the cognitive theories emphasize the effects of running(a) together. Motivational theories related to cooperative learning focus on reward and goal structures. One of the elements of cooperative learning is confirmatory interdependency, where students perceive that their success or failure lies at bottom their working together as a group (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, 1986). From a motivational perspective, cooperative goal structure creates a lieu in which the only way group members great deal attain their personal goals is if the group is boffo (Slavin, 1990,). Therefore, in order to attain their personal goals, students are likely to incite members within the group to do whatever assistances the group to succeed and to help one another with a group task.There are two cognitive theories that are directly applied to cooperative learning, the festeringal and the blowup theories (Slavin, 1987). The developmental theories assume that interaction among students around appropriate tasks increases their mastery of precise concepts (Damon, 1984). When students interact with other students, they ingest to beg off and discuss each others perspectives, which hold up to greater understanding of the material to be learned. The struggle to resolve potential difference conflicts during collaborative activity results in the development of higher levels of understanding (Slavin, 1990).The polish theory suggests that one of the most effective means of learning is to explain the material to someone else. Cooperative learning activities enhance elaborative thinking and more frequent giving and receiving of explanations, which has the potential to increase depth of understanding, the quality of reasoning, and the accuracy of long term retention (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, 1986). Therefore, the use of cooperative learning methods should direct to improved student learning and retention from both the developmental and cognitive theoretical bases.Several studies subscribe to examined the effects of cooperative learning methods on student learning. Humphreys, Johnson, and Johnson (1982) compared cooperative, agonistical, and laissez-faire(a) strategies and conclude that students who were taught by cooperative methods learned and contain heartyly more information than students taught by the other two methods. Sherman and do ubting Thomas (1986) found similar results in a study involving high school students taught by cooperative and undividedistic methods.In a review of 46 studies related to cooperative learning, Slavin (1983) found that cooperative learning resulted in signifi appriset appointed effects in 63% of the studies, and only two studies report higher achievement for the comparison group. Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, and Skon (1981) conducted a meta-analysis of 122 studies related to cooperative learning and cogitate that there was firm severalize for the superiority of cooperative learning in promoting achievement over competitive and individualistic strategies.Johnson and Ahlgren (1976) examined the relationships between students attitudes toward cooperation, competition, and their attitudes toward education. The results of the study indicated that student cooperativeness, and not competitiveness, was positively related to being motivated to learn. Humphreys, Johnson, and Johnson (1982) in like manner found that students studying in a cooperative learning discourse group rated their learning experience more positively than did students in competitive and individualistic treatment groups. In a study involving elementary and vicarious students Wodarski, et al., (1980) found that 95% of the elementary students enjoyed the cooperative learning activities and that they had learned a lot about the subject.Cooperative learning has its roots in the theories of cordial interdependence, cognitive development, and behavioral learning. Some research provides exceptionally strong evidence that cooperative learning results in greater effort to achieve, more positive relationships, and greater psychological health than competitive or individualistic learning efforts (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, 1994(Social interdependence theory views cooperation as resulting from positive links of individuals to bring through a common goal. The Gesalt psychologist Kurt Koffka propos ed in the early 1900s that although groups are dynamic wholes the interdependence among members is variable. Kurt Lewin (1948) stated that interdependence positive from common goals provides the essential essence of a group. This interdependence creates groups that are dynamic wholes. The power of the group is such that a change in any member or subgroup directly changes any other member or subgroup. Within cognitive development theory, cooperation essential precede cognitive growth.According to Emmer and Gerwels (2002) some research on cooperative learning has addressed instructional components. In a bod of studies students gift been taught interaction skills, such as how to question or to help each other so that they did not give answers but facilitated each others thinking (Fuchs, Fuchs, Kazdan, Allen, 1999 Gillies Ashman, 1996, 1998 Nattiv, 1994 Webb, Troper, Fall, 1995). And, when students are taught such skills, positive outcomes such as change magnitude intrinsic moti vation, liking for school, and self-esteem can result (Battistich, Solomon, Delucchi, 1993).Homogeneous groupingHomogeneous grouping has been proposed and implemented as a potential declaration to meet the needs of the conglomerate qualification classes, suggesting that students of different abilities can be gathered in groups of same talent thereby facilitating instruction (Slavin, 1987). This variant of grouping is based on the pedagogical principle that the teacher has the proceeds of focusing instruction at the level of all the students in the event group (Ansalone, 2000).It is assumed that teachers of sundry(a) susceptibility classes can increase the gait and raise instruction level for high achievers whereas low level students can enjoy individual attention. So, advanced pupils are taught more difficult concepts while low achievers deal with simple and fewer things. Proponents of homogeneous grouping see that it is an excellent means of individualizing instruction. Achievement is considered to increase as teachers adjust the footstep of instruction to students needs.Kulik and Kulik (1982) and Slavin (1987) carried out meta-analyses of studies at the elementary school level, finding benefits of within-class readiness grouping. Both low ability students and more advanced ones placed in separate groups, benefited from instruction addressed to their level. More recently, Mulkey et al (2005) found that same ability grouping has persistent instructional benefits for both high and low level students. Marsh (1987) supports HG as a way of grapple with mixed ability classes assuming that grouping children homogeneously enables those in lower ability groups to profit with respect to self-evaluation by being isolated from advanced peers. Furthermore, Allan (1991) supports that pupils model their behaviour after the behaviour of similar ability children who are coping well with their school work. The supporters of homogeneous grouping conclude that res earch fails to support that homogeneous grouping doesnt accomplish anything (Loveless, 1998).Although teachers of mixed ability classes seem to have positive attitudes towards homogeneous grouping (Scherer, 1993, Mulkey et al, 2005), the last quarter of the twentieth century witnessed severe criticism of ability grouping. It has been declared that this type of grouping stigmatizes lower ability students, offering them inferior instruction. Several researchers argue that homogeneous grouping does not guarantee that all advanced or all weak students are alike. Matthews (1997) conducted a relevant research with students in grades 6 through 8 finding that gifted students are considerably more diverse than they are homogeneous. They vary in their degrees of advancement, their abilities, their learning styles and interests, their test-taking skills, and their social/ stimulated development. So, gathering advanced children of the mixed ability classes together in one group may not be the w isest solution to the problem.Ability grouping may decrease the self-esteem and aspirations of low ability children and therefore diminish their academic progress. Welner and Mickelson (2000) carried out quite an extensive research review finding that low ability children are exposed to lowered expectations, reduced resources and rote learning. Childrens self-concept is affected and expectations are internalized (Ireson and Hallam, 1999, Gamoran, 1987). This implies that students of low ability in mixed ability classes are provided with low expectations if placed in same ability groups causing them feelings of inferiority. This is confirmed by Ansalone (2001) and Hallinan (1994) who demonstrated that children assigned to lower ability groups, are exposed to less and more simplified versions of the computer programme whereas high ability groups have broader and more challenging material covered. In this sense, Oakes (1992) and Wheelock (2005) support that educational benefits in mi xed ability settings are not provided by homogeneous grouping but kind of by a challenging curriculum and high expectations.Research has accumulated evidence indicating that schooling tends to increase individual differences (Van der Veer and Valsiner, 1991). Homogeneous grouping seems to add more opportunities to advanced learners who are usually middle-class or upper-middle-class children, depriving pupils who already suffer from socio-economic segregation, or those who are learning less fast. Kozo seems to agree that homogeneous grouping regaining not only low but similarly high-ability students as the last mentioned who are usually the affluent children are not given any opportunities to learn the virtues of helping others or learning about unselfishness (Scherer, 1993). It is inferred that grouping students homogeneously for instruction on the mixed ability classes is one more advantage conferred on those who already enjoy many.Heterogeneous grouping Cooperative learningHe terogeneous grouping, that is gathering children of varying abilities in same groups has been proposed by many researchers as an effective strategy to promote academic development of students having diverse background knowledge and abilities. Brimfield, Masci and Defiore (2002) believe that all students deserve an academically challenging curriculum (p.15). So, our goal is to find a way to engage all pupils of the mixed ability classroom in the lesson irrespective of their abilities. The authors spirit level out that by creating mixed-ability groups, we send the induce message that everybody is expected to work at the highest possible level as high and low ability students deal with the same challenges. Disadvantaged pupils are at reduced bump of being stigmatized and exposed to a dumped-down curriculum in a mixed-ability setting. Teachers expectations for all pupils are maintained at higher levels and less able students have opportunities to be assisted by more able peers.It is assumed that heterogeneous grouping provides pupils approaching to more learning opportunities. Johnson and Johnson (1987) recommend assigning children of high, medium, and low abilities in the same group maximizing the heterogeneous make up of each group. Such ability diversity within the same group creates an effective learning environment (Manlove and bread maker, 1995) providing learning opportunities for low-level students as well as opportunities to more advanced children to provide explanations to others revising, consolidating and using some things they have encountered in the lead. The teachers can use cooperative tasks among high and low achievers of mixed ability groups or pairs in order to promote task engagement of all students in the mixed ability class as advanced children can provide explanations and guidance in carrying out a task.Cooperative tasks among high and low achievers are valued by the sociocultural theory of Vygotsky (1978). Pupils of mixed ability class es differ at their competence level and prior lingual experiences. Vygotsky supports that children who are exposed to books and other out-of-school factors which contribute to linguistic development i.e .prior knowledge of English from private institutional instruction, are expected to have already run through a large part of their ZPD. On the other hand, pupils with poor literacy opportunities i.e. without prior knowledge of English may hold a larger Zone of Proximal Development (Van der Veer and Valsiner, 1991). So, they may benefit greatly from peer interactions which are likely to help low level students reach higher levels of implementation.In this framework, Lyle (1999) showed that both low and high achieving students value the opportunity to work together as all pupils believed that they benefited. It was concluded that peer interactions can facilitate literacy development especially of low ability students. In this vein, Guralnick (1992) points out that social competence acquired in group work affects the elaboration of all students cognitive competencies, implying that both low and advanced learners of mixed ability classes may gain from such settings.The role of peer learning as contributing to language development has also been emphasized by Mize, Ladd and Price (1985) Webb (1989), Jacob et al (1996) and Slavin (1996). Rogoff (1993) refers to childrens social sharing of their cognition through interaction. When pupils participate in collective activities, they guide each others efforts. According to Tudge and Winterhoff (1993) advanced children give constant feedback through conversation forcing peers to strive for reaching higher levels of performance. different studies have indicated a positive correlation between cooperative learning and achievement in mixed ability classes. For example, Walters (2000) asserts that cooperative learning is adequate for teachers dealing with increasingly diverse classrooms as it easily accommodates individual d ifferences in achievement. Accordingly, Fulk and King (2001) support that class-wide peer tutoring improves all students learning. They add that serving in the role of tutor seems to be in particular beneficial for improving the self-esteem of students with low achievement while they may, for example, grade their partners reading. Therefore, it come alongs that CL may meet the needs of a mixed ability class.Studies conducted by Pica and chivalrous (1985), Porter (1986), and Cotterall (1990) indicate that learners of different abilities produce more in mixed ability pair and group work by helping one another to overcome cognitive obstacles. This conclusion is consistent with Urzuas (1987) finding that the mixed ability children in the observational study conducted, appeared to have developed a sense of power in language through the process of working with trusted peers i.e. writing and revising.The benefits of cooperative learning are more unmistakable when it comes to written w ork. ODonnell et al (1985) found that involvement in cooperative dyads can improve the quality of students performance on a written task. listless students of mixed ability classes can use advanced learners as sources of information, commenting on and critiquing each others drafts in both oral and written formats (Liu and Hansen, 2002). Rollinson (200525) attributes this phenomenon to the possibility that peer audiences are more sympathetic than the more distant teacher audience. companion review groups are also favoured by Huot (2002) and Inoue (2005) and Cotterall and Cohen (2003) who showed the positive effects of hold up in mixed ability settingsCooperative activities such as group investigation are likely to encourage shy and low performance students since they have the advantage of requiring the participation of all group or pair members to carry out a task, allowing each member to do something accord to ones abilities.Review of LiteratureAbility grouping can be carried ou t between-class or within-class (Dukmak 2009). Between-class ability grouping refers to a schools practice of forming classrooms that contains students of similar ability. Within-class grouping refers to a teachers practice of forming groups of students of similar ability within an individual class (Gamoran, 1992 Hollified, 1987)An extensive research has been conducted on ability grouping suggesting that academically, high-achieving students achieve and learn more when they are grouped with other high-achieving students (Gentry Owens, 2002 Grossen, 1996 Hollified, 1987 page Keith, 1996). In mixed-ability grouping it is difficult to provide an adequate environment for teaching to everyone. Since students differ in knowledge, skills, developmental stage, and learning rate, one lesson might be easier for some students and more difficult for the others (Slavin, 1987b). In ability grouping, high-achieving students view their own abilities more realistically and feel that they are appr opriately challenged with their peers (Fiedler, Lange, and Wine-Brenner, 2002).Mixed-ability grouping is based on cooperative learning which demonstrates positive success related to students achievement. In this type of grouping, students work collaboratively to self-madely achieve a desired educational outcome and develop a greater understanding and respect for individual differences. All forms of diversity within the learning environment are embraced (Felder Brent, 2001 Freeman, 1993 Saleh, Lazonder, DeJong, 2005). Moreover, in a mixed-ability, teachers respond to the individualized needs of all learners (Kulik Kulik, 1992). The most compelling argument against ability grouping is the creation of academic elites a practice which goes against democratic ideals (Slavin, 1987a).Johnson and Johnson (1999) and Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1998) say that cooperative learning has five basic elements. The elements are positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive int eraction, appropriate use of social skills, and periodic processing of how to improve the effectiveness of the group (Johnson Johnson 1999 ).When these elements are aright implemented, the research has shown that group collaboration in the classroom can increase learning and achievement, social skills, self-esteem, and attitudes toward classmates and school (Slavin, 1990 as cited in Webb, Nemer Zuniga 2002). Placing students in teams or cooperative learning groups has many advantages. It helps to build a students communication skills, can help increase tolerance and the acceptance of diversity, promotes higher level reasoning, promotes change magnitude generation of new ideas, promotes greater transfer of information from one situation to another, increases retention, builds teamwork skills, reduces sift, and increased willingness to attempt challenging tasks (Baker Campbell, 2005 Huss, 2006 Lin, 2006 Payne Monk-Turner, 2006 Patrick, Bangel, Jeon 2005 Kim 2004 Vaughn, 2002 J ohnson Johnson, 1999 Johnson, Johnson Smith, 1998 Slavin, 1996). The cooperative learning experience also gives students the opportunity to review and learn information that they did not understand before the cooperative learning activity (Webb, 2002).According to Lin (2006, ), research has concluded that cooperative learning is the top ranked teaching model that promotes greater higher-order thinking, problem solving, and achievement. Students can remember 75-90% of materials when they learn it in cooperative learning situations (Lin, 2006). In a survey of college students after an experiment involving group work, Payne and Monk-Turner (2006) found that 90% of students favored group work and that 90% learned from their group members. Since 1924, 168 studies have been conducted that compare cooperative learning to competitive and individual learning. These studies have shown that cooperative learning yields higher academic achievement than individual and competitive learning (John son, Johnson Smith, 1998). Cooperative learning groups are also said to be particularly beneficial to low academic achieving students and students of color (Huss, 2006 Vaughn, 2002).Cooperative learning groups appear to be productive for many reasons. Students become an instrumental part of the group when they feel their efforts will contribute to the success of the group (Baker Campbell, 2005). Students are thriving and learn in cooperative learning groups because they learn by doing rather than listening (Payne, Monk-Turner, Smith 2006 ) and because they are actively using the material and information (Zimbardo, Butler, Wolfe, 2003). Cooperative learning also strengthens students social interactions, it gives them the desire to achieve, to develop more positive interpersonal relationships, and have greater psychological health than competitive or individualistic learning efforts (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, 1994 as cited in Morgan, 2003, ). Cooperative learning can teach stud ents that (a) that knowledge can be, or should be, shared with fellow students (b) that differences in conviction can be rationally negotiated even under conditions of test pressures and (c) that cooperative learning procedures can be enjoyable and productive (Zimbardo et al., 2003, ). These types of lessons enable students to learn how to work well with others. The interdependent relationships that develop within a group help to facilitate the groups success. Everyone feels the goal of the group will be met if everyone achieves their individual goals (Vaughn, 2002 Morgan, 2004). According to Morgan (2004), group members should also be aware of the fact that a single group member can affect how and/or if the goal is achieved.The cooperative learning experience is most effective when the participants work well together and they successfully achieve their goal. There are many characteristics to successful teams. Some of these characteristics include open communication, effectively li stening, open-mindedness, clear roles, an showed leader, understandably defined tasks, teamwork where everyone works together and contributes, there are well developed attainable goals (Payne, Monk-Turner, 2006 Baker Campbell, 2005), and a timeline (Payne Monk-Turner, 2006). In a classroom, there are also many things a teacher can do to help insure the success of a group activity. The teacher should provide strong guidance (Payne Monk-Turner, 2006 Baker Campbell, 2005), model the desired behavior, provide immediate feedback, and reward desired behavior (Lin, 2006 Baker Campbell, 2005). The teacher can also use checks and balances to monitor productivity, employ various problem solving strategies (Friend Cook, 2007), lengthen the quantity of time the group spends together, provide proper group behavior training, establish ground rules (Mitchell, Reilly, Bramwell, 2004) and allow group members rate each other (Lin, 2006). If the teacher monitors, provides rewards and allows th e students to rate each other, it may reduce the effects of a slacker and keep students from getting a grade they do not deserve (Payne Monk-Turner, 2006). Students that slack off can demotivate hard working students and give them a negative feeling about group work (Ashraf, 2004).Many studies have been conducted that demonstrate the success of teaming. Robert Slavin has conducted extensive research on the implementation of cooperative learning models in schools. He has examined the effects schools becoming complete cooperative learning centers on their academic achievement. He has found many successful situations where lower performing schools were transformed because they converted to a cooperative learning format (Slavin, 1999 22-23). Payne and Monk Turner (2006) conducted a study that examined how students felt about teams. In this study, they assigned students to groups, gave them an assignment, and then asked them how they felt about the assignment after the group project was completed. They found that 90% of the students had a favorable experience, 90% of the students learned from their group members, and 85% of the students felt they learned teaming skills that could be transcended into business. Baker and Campbell (2005) conducted a study in which students were placed in groups and observed that the students who worked in groups, as opposed to working individually, were more successful because they had more access to knowledge, they felt pressured to succeed to keep the group from failing, and the various personalities helped alleviate the stress of the problems. For example a member often told jokes to help lesson the tension. Additionally, members often provided positive reinforcement and motivation.Placing students in groups to take tests is another way to use cooperative learning and group work. Morgan examined the benefits and nonbenefits of college students completing exams using cooperative learning groups. She concluded that The increased dep th of understanding, the feelings of support, respect for others contributions, and the clarification of information produced more students with a greater awareness of the material and more developed social skills to be contributing members of teams (Morgan, 2004 ). The understanding of successful cooperative learning group models not only affects groups in grade school it also affects groups in jobs and college. According to Payne, Monk-Turner, and Smith (2006) employers want college graduates that have developed teamwork skills. Miglietti (2002) says that group work is ordinarily used in the workplace and employers want to hire people with these skills. Furthermore, these skills can be learned when student