Through others we become ourselves. (Lev Vygotsky)
The current model of schooling
divides students in multiple ways: by age, by ability level, by socio-economic
means and by ethnic or national origin. By taking the world that we face
as a ready-made given, we fail to question the historical and cultural context
for how the dominant school model came into being. Further, we leave
unasked: How can we re-imagine school to prioritize diversity as a central
value?
Organizing students into classes
by age group came about in the nineteenth century, when mass schooling
movements originated (in the USA with Horace Mann’s Common Schools Movement,
for instance). This occurred within the context of the Industrial
Revolution and is shaped largely in its image. Ken Robinson discusses how
schools are organized like factory lines, with ringing bells, separate
facilities, separate subjects and separate grades for each age group. He
questions: “Why is there this assumption that the most important thing kids
have in common is how old they are? It is like the most important thing about
them is their date of manufacture” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U). What underlies this assumption that
students must be organized by age group?
Enlightenment thinkers, such as
Locke and Rousseau, elaborated upon their ideas about human development and
education. During this period the concept of childhood changed
dramatically from the view of a child as a miniature adult to seeing childhood
as unfolding in stages of development. This view, coupled with an
industrial model, contributed toward the conception of schooling which divides
students into age groups.
An additional separation of
students, beyond age, has been the leveling students into different classes or
different groups by academic ability. Students are labeled as strong or
weak; above level, on level or below level; or proficient or deficient.
What underlies this assumption that students must be organized by level?
One origin of leveling groups by
academic ability can be found in the discussions of tracking in the USA in the
1890s. In his book, “Someone Has to Fail: The Zero Sum Game of Public
Schooling”, David Labaree (2010) sites the National Educational Association’s
Committee’s decision towards school tracking due to market considerations which
called for “differentiating curriculum choices and school experiences according
to a student’s class background and future prospects” (23).
This class-based separation of
students has already occurred in many cases around the world prior to walking
through the doors of the school. In some places, such as the USA, a
student’s school is largely determined by the neighborhood in which he/she
resides, which is largely determined by his/her family’s socio-economic
conditions. The division between public and private schools also
contributes to the separation of students by socio-economic conditions, which
is typically the case in many countries around the world. A further separation
of students in schools based on ethnic or national origin can occur due to
higher concentrations of certain groups of common ethnic or national origin in
specific neighborhoods or within schools when recently immigrated students are
separated into different classes (for ESL, for instance).
All of this separation can be
reduced to the belief that homogeneity is preferential to heterogeneity.
In other words, if we put students together that are similar (in age, in
ability level, in socio-economic level and ethnic and/or national origin), it
is easier to teach them and easier for students to learn. Even phrases
like “teach to the top/middle/bottom of the class” are indicative of this
belief. Typically this position toward teaching and learning is heavily
skewed toward abilities in math and language arts, considered by many to be the
top tier subjects of academic studies. This argument for homogeneity in
the classroom is usually situated within a task-based system of teaching and
learning that operates from whatever is taken to be simple to increasing levels
of difficulty. Within this line of thinking, the individual, and what he
or she can do on his/her own, is the focus of teaching and learning.
Additionally, getting the right answers is rewarded and getting the wrong
answers in penalized within this overarching conception of teaching and
learning. This larger context, in which a preference for homogeneity is
set, has been historically constructed. Behaviorist educators, inspired by the work
of B.F. Skinner (and others), have furthered this model for schooling,
heralding it as the definitive model for education, rather than one possibility
for schooling amongst many.
The world,
however, is not a homogeneous place (unless you take the unifying quality of
all being human, therefore homogenous). People have different beliefs,
unique experiences, discrete passions, varied preferences and distinct
interests. The fundamental question is how to re-imagine schooling such
that this diversity is embraced and viewed as a resource for growth
and development, rather than an obstacle.
Lev Vygotsky,
the father of social constructivism, argued that people learn in collaboration
with one another and can do much more in collective activity than by
themselves. Vygotsky's concept of the zone of proximal development posits
that what children can do in collaboration with others is a better indicator of
their development, than what they can do on their own. In "Mind in
Society" he argues, "what is in the zone of proximal development
today will be the actual development level tomorrow - that is, what a child can
do with assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow" (87).
He discusses the cases of two children, both eight years old, yet when
given support one child can deal with problems up to a twelve year old's level and
the other up to a nine year old's level. This reasoning lends support to heterogenerous
grouping.
Another
argument to for heterogenerous grouping is that people cannot be reduced to one
single identifying factor, such as being “a good student”. People have multiple characteristics, which
include many different levels of ability, depending on the task at hand.
A student who is skilled at math might have a lot of difficulty with
reading and interpreting texts, which can be problematic when having to solve
word problems in math. Putting together a student with an opposing, yet
complementary skill sets can create a win-win situation for both students.
We must, however, be very careful not to classify students as strong at
this and weak at that. In different contexts and with different
activities, students can perform in different ways. In the article,
"In Life, Ten; In School, Zero" (translated from Portuguese: "Na
Vida, Dez; Na Escola, Zero") researchers showed that students that were
tested on the same mathematical content in two different ways, one related to
their life outside of school (making calculations in a street market) and
another in a standardized school form, performed exceptionally well on the one and
exceptionally poorly on the other. This shows that there are many ways of
knowing something and showing it, which supports my argument for diverse grouping.
Furthermore,
when taking analytical problems, concept development and decision-making into
consideration, heterogeneous groups have the opportunities to see many more
different points of view and make choices together from an array of possibilities.
At times, it is the novice that poses a breakthrough question for the
group, which moves inquiry further. Students that learn to think
divergently with others and then bring together diffuse ideas into a plan for
action develop high levels of creativity. Critical thinking in
collaboration with people that think differently than one’s self and working
together to understand each other to make decisions, builds webs of
interconnected meaning of complex concepts across disciplines and constructs caring
social relationships with others.
Recent
studies conducted by Columbia University researcher, David Stark, and
University of Texas researcher, Sheen Levine, show that diversity makes people
brighter (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/opinion/diversity-makes-you-brighter.html?_r=0).
They found that: "Diversity improves the way
people think. By disrupting conformity,
racial and ethnic diversity prompts
people to scrutinize facts, think more deeply and develop their own opinions. Our findings show that diversity actually benefits everyone, minorities and
majority alike."
Along this
line, other research studies have shown that working together with people who
have different perspectives increases creativity and innovation, as cited in a
recent article in Scientific American magazine (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/).
Putting students together into
heterogeneous groups that represent a diversity of students of different ages,
ability levels, socio-economic conditions and ethnic and national origins with
real world problem-based activities to solve together builds the 5Cs of Contemporary
Education (collaboration, connection, caring, criticality and creativity) into
schooling. By bringing real world problems into schools for students to
share responsibility in solving them together, they grow and develop ways of
seeing the world and being in the world by arguing divergent points of view and
negotiating decisions for taking action in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment