能力分组不再仅仅是分班
“不让任何一个孩子掉队”的原则，强调教学研究要基于科学，鉴于20世纪80年代对奥克斯和斯拉夫的严厉批评，“能力分组”重新打开了一套教学和课程实践的大门。这篇文章回顾了教学和课程方面的最佳实践文献。无论是处在资源丰富的课堂还是普通的教室里，这可能都会使美国有天赋和才华的青年取得更大的成就。综述表明，灵活的能力分组再加上适当的课程修订或分化，无论是普通学习者还是高能力学习者，都会获得可观的成绩。资优教育领域的教育者必须在这方面起到带头作用，才能使任何儿童，包括有天赋和才华的儿童，都不会被落在后面。在“不让任何儿童掉队”的背景下，我们必须进行科学研究，以支持教育实践，现在该是重温一位旧友：能力分组的时候了。
在最近的一段时间里，对能力分组的研究已不可避免地停止了，这主要是因为珍妮·奥克斯和罗伯特·斯拉文在20世纪80年代对其中可能存在的公平问题和对种族主义的指控提出了担忧。研究结果指出，在这种教育模式下，有天赋和有才华的学生受教育机会减少了，需要额外帮助的学生得不到关注。教育公平是一个崇高的目标，但并不代表要牺牲那些特别优秀和特别差的学生的利益，尤其是如今，政治言论和教育问责制受到人们的高度关注。但能力分组并非我们的敌人，在过去，能力分组被等同于固定分班，这是一种永久性的、现在不被接受的方式，在这种方法中，根据对学生先前的成就或通过智力测验对其进行评估，然后将他们分入固定的组中，并且学生必须遵从这种组织形式，这种情况对教育公平和平等来说是有问题的。无论是在班内分组还是打破班级制分组，能力分组的当下和未来都应该注重灵活分组。然而，仅靠能力分组并不能显著提高学生的学习成绩。除非与基于学生学习风格、兴趣和能力的课程相结合。 如果以灵活和临时分组的方式运用能力分组，并根据课程进行适当的调整，则可使教育效果显著提高。
大量的研究表明，当教师采用天才式教育时，学生的学业成绩会有适度的提高，比如能力分组制、课程调整、差异化教学、提高思维层次能力的策略、基于概念的教学、基于问题的学习、建构主义教育学等来提高学生的成绩。由于单独使用一种策略不太可能像多种干预措施那样有效，因此建议学校工作人员再进一步研究分组实践和差异化课程教学相结合的综合效果。
接下来是对相关文献的整理回顾，以帮助学校工作人员进行这一研究调查。相关文献提供了侧重于三个分组实践的背景信息（班级内、班级之间、以及课堂内灵活分组）和两个课程实践(修饰和差异化)，展示了不同的学习者从一般到取得令人印象深刻的成就的过程。
一般分组制
.能力分组被定义为：根据对学生的准备程度或能力水平的初步评估，将学生分在不同的班级或小组中(Kulik，1992年)。库利克发现，根据分组的类型和随后为学生制定的课程的不同，不同的分组方法对学生成绩有不同的影响。
班级制教学
班级制教学的特点是采用传统的、以教科书为主的课程(Bagley, 1931; Goodlad, 1984; Reis et al., 1993),，采用同样的教学方法和教材 (Cuban, 1984; Goodlad, 1984)，课程进度相同，以对全班学生同时进行教学 (Good amp; Brophy, 1994)。
根据Archambault(1993)等人的说法。课堂教学模式从上世纪初开始，并没有发生多大的变化。教师仍然遵循传统的年级制、以上课时间和课程资源划分主题，以及遵循一种固定的、惯用的教学模式，即教师介绍新课内容，然后依次背诵或小组练习，再另外布置一些课堂作业，最后是家庭作业，让学生自己练习技能 (Good amp; Brophy, 1994)。古德拉德(1984)观察到，“教室里发生的许多事情就像一幅数字画——填充页面上的数字所要求的颜色”。(p. 108)
在古德拉德关于美国教室的开创性研究(1984)中，他思考了教师在课堂中的角色。“无论我们如何处理课堂，从某种程度上都是为了描述和理解课堂中发生的事，老师经历了教练、四分卫、裁判，甚至是规则制定者的角色。但这个类比必须停止，因为教学中是没有（像橄榄球队这样）团队的”。他指出，老师在课堂上几乎做了所有的选择，包括问什么问题和回答哪些问题。根据古德拉德说的：“不同的学校间课堂教学方式都是一样的；老师讲课和提问，学生们听，教科书是最常见的教学和学习的媒介——这使很多教学都具有一致性。”
以教师和学生为中心的课堂。Cuban 将课堂的显著特征描述为不是以教师为中心就是以学生为中心。以教师为中心的课堂的特点，就是在交流中教师说的话更重要；主要表现在班级授课环境中的教学，小组或个别指导时发生的频率较低；教师确定课时安排；课堂安排，通常包括课桌的排放，是随意排放的，还是面对黑板的，或者是排在讲台的周围。
在以教师为中心的课堂上，教师提出只有一个正确答案的问题，同时鼓励学生成为更独立的思考者和学习者。亚当斯和比德尔(1970)指出，在84%的课堂交流中，教师是主要参与者。古巴(1984年)指出，班级授课的特点是严重依赖教师提出的训练和背诵。即使学生被分成小组，他们也经常从事同样的活动和功课(Cuban; Good amp; Brophy, 1994; Goodlad, 1984; Kulik amp; Kulik, 1992)。以学生为中心的课堂的特点，是学生对与学习任务的发言权至少和老师相同；主要以小组或个别形式进行的教学；会考虑学生的学习需求，并在组织学习内容时会加入学生需要的东西；学生能够帮助决定行为法则和执行规定：采用可以供学生个人或小组学习时使用的多种教材；至少一半的时间内，学生要使用老师规定的或学生决定的教材；教室布置要允许学生在他们的学习区域内能够独立活动，包括课桌椅的移动，方便教学。
整体小组教学的主要优点是，更多的学生可以在分级的课堂内接受教育，在这种课堂中，教师仅根据学生的能力或准备水平来备课(Goodlad, 1984)。主要的缺点是不考虑学生先前的知识、兴趣或准备程度，学生分组可以任意调动(Good amp; Power, 1976)。自十八世纪末美国经济大规模工业化以来，这种方法一直是分组教学中的主要模式 (Grinder amp; Nelsen, 1985) ，并且在今天的教育领域仍旧占主导地位。(Archambault et al., 1993; Cuban, 1984; Gardner, 1999; Good amp; Brophy, 1994; Goodlad, 1984)
班级间分组
班级间分组制中最著名的是乔普林制，它是由密苏里州乔普林的学校助理总监塞西尔·弗洛伊德设计的 (Floyd, 1954)。这个计划的最早版本包括小学生阅读的跨年级分组。在一段时间内让孩子进行阅读，根据准备程度的不同，四年级、五年级和六年级的学生将去不同的教室接受适合他们教学，进行不同的学习。高等组的学生会使用6、7、8年级的课本。中间组的学生使用5年级、6年级和7年级的课本；低等组的学生使用的是4、5和6年级的课本(Kulik, 1992)。在一小时的课程结束后，学生们将回到他们原本的常规教室。这种分组安排方式后来扩大到算数学科。
乔普林制主要有三大优点：第一个优点是分组是临时的。大多数现代跨年级分组制都是以单一学科为主的，并与特定技能紧密联系在一起。这一安排使学生根据他们目前已证明的成绩，进入或离开小组(Kulik amp; Kulik, 1982; Slavin, 1987)。学生在一个或两个科目中先被预先评估，之后根据他们在这些领域的实际表现分组。学生通常在另一间教室接受阅读或数学方面的教学，然后在一天中余下的时间里回到他们的常规教室或固定上课的教室。据斯拉文说，能够重新分组的教学(乔普林制)允许纠正第一次分组时存在的分组误差，而不将学生转移到另一个班级，也不改变他们原有的固定上课的教室。
乔普林计划的第二个主要优点是小组中可以进行课程调整。教师须根据团组的独特需求制定课程，而不是利用'一刀切'的课程开发方法。学生根据自己的准备程度，使用不同年级的教科书(Kuli.1992年)。根据Kulik和Kulik(1992)的说法，不同能力组别的学生使用不同的教材和方法学习。因此，这种方法加强了分组安排与课程的匹配。
班级间分组的第三个主要优点是，它的目标是在不影响差生自尊的情况下减少课堂的异质性。 (Begle, 1975: Goodlad, 1966: Slavin, 1987)Goodlad认为，小学里班级的平均水平略高于其所在的年级水平(p. 6)。这意味着在传统的四年级课堂上，有二年级水平的学生，也有六年级水平的学生。如果一个教师说：“我教四年级，实际上她只在教班级里的两三个学生（因为班级里只有两三个真正是四年级水平的学生）。”Goodlad进一步指出，标准化考试很可能没有注意到两名平均水平都是四年级学生之间的区别：一个在算术计算中得分3.9分的学生在文章大意理解上得了7.4分，另一个在算数上得了6.7分的学生在词汇和阅读理解上只得了3.2分。通过在不同学科上采取不同的分组，教师更有可能减少班内学生的差异，同时确保满足每个学生的适当课程需求。
班内分组
第三种类型的分组主要是在班级内或者灵活的分组。这种分组方式将同一班内的学生根据特定的教学活动和教学目标分成几小组(Kulik amp; Kulik, 1992, p. 75)。通常情况下，老师给全班学生上一堂课，然后根据表现、兴趣、先验知识水平等将学生分成几个小组(Renzulli, 1994)。Kulik明确了几个关于班内分组的计划。首先，为了使分组教学取得成功，教师必须先对学生进行区分。这不是一种便捷的办法，利用教学资源和时间对学生进行预先评估，将他们分成几个小组，并对两三个不同的小组先进行同样的教学。第二，学生依旧要全天都在同一个教室里上课。这一方案可以缓解所有教师同时教同一门课的问题。据Slavin（1987）说，灵活分组的主要优点是分组的临时性，对学生的学习发展情况经常进行评估，并在此基础上重新分组，调整组别。
关于班内分组和学习的机会。Sorenson和Hallinan(1986)认为，关于能力分组争论的关键问题之一，是学生的学习机会。他们建议由学生的能力和努力程度来决定他们获得教师提供的学习机会的多少。此外，他们提出了该模型的框架对班内能力分组学生有两个好处。首先，当小组内学生人数较少时，教师更容易引起和保持学生的注意力。第二，教师更有可能使他们的教学方法和教学材料适应一个较小的、同质的（水平差不多的）群体中的学生。即使从实际上来说，在学生被分成小组之后学生接受教学的时间相对减少了，但在这些小组中学生学习的知识数量和类型增多了许多，不仅能够补偿被缩短的教学时间，而且教学效果更好了。
课堂内分组的一个主要缺点是要求教师学习一种新的课堂管理模式，以创造一个对学生学习准备程度比较敏感和易于管理学生行为的学习环境(Arlin,1982;Tomlinson,1999)。由于对课堂管理的关注，许多教师试图为不同的小组布置不同的、重视广泛训练和实践操作的学习任务，特别是对于先前程度较低的学生。虽然这种训练和实践方法可能有助于课堂管理，但它剥夺了学生使用更高层次的概念、学习资源和方法的机会(Newmanamp;Schway，1992)。Kulik和Kulik(1992)认为，当班内分组成功时，教师对不同的小组进行不同的教学，学生仍然在他们的固定教室内。根据学生的先前准备程度将他们分成不同的组别，所有学生都应该进行有意义和适合其特定需求的学习。
分组教学的实践研究
对能力分组的研究已经进行了将近一个世纪。最早的有记录的研究是在犹他州盐湖城，1927年，当时研究人员确定并预先对两组同等的小学生预先测试(Kulik，1992年)。一组中的学生按照能力分组，每组中的学生学力相仿；同时，另一组的学生不考虑差异性，混合分班。学生在学年结束时再次接受测试，同质组的学生在数学上的分数比原本能力相似的同级学生高出大约两个年级。有了这些结果，长达一个世纪的分组教学法的争论就由此开始了。
在对能力分组具体实践的早期总结中，Passow(1962)提出，许多关于能力分组的研究结果更多地关注“分组本身”，注重分组教学的目标设置、具体教学内容、教学方法、教学进度的差异以及教师的教学技能等方面设计得是否恰当，而不注重分组教学的理论内涵（p.284）。Kulik回顾了对能力分组的早期研究(比如二十世纪00年代到二十世纪50年代),并应用元分析技术（Glass,1976）对其进行研究。他发现，与传统的班级授课制相比，按能力分组的学生在没有任何课程调整的情况下，学生的平均成绩为(ES=.14)。
现代元分析研究表明，按照乔普林制(课程调整)分组的学生学习成绩的平均效果大小是.33，这是一个很小但有重要的效果。Kulik和Kulik在一门或两门科目中调查了16项关于跨年级分组的乔普林制的对比研究。其中12项研究发现，采用乔普林制的学生课程成绩更高。两项乔普林制的研究分别展示了不同能力水平的学生采用这种制度的效果。高成就组的中位效应大小为.12，中等组为—.01，低成就组为.29(Kulikamp;Kulik)。Slavin(1987)发现乔普林制分组的中位效应大小为.45，而罗杰斯(1991)发现其平均效应大小为.34。此外，Mills、Ablard和Gustin(1994)发现，五年级学生的效果较好(ES=2.4sd)，他们采用了乔普林制，课堂节奏灵活的数学课程，并进行了适当的课程调整。最后，对于班级内活动分组，Slavin(1987)发现了显著的中等效应大小(ES=.41)，Kulik(1992)发现小平均效应大小(ES=.25)。Kulik的11项研究中有9项报告显示，与整个班级的教学相比，具有灵活分组安排(平均ES=.25)的总体成
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
Ability Grouping Is Not Just Tracking Anymore.
作者:
Tieso, Carol L.1 CTieso@bamaed.ua.edu
来源:
Roeper Review. Fall2003, Vol. 26 Issue 1, p29-36. 8p. 1 Black and White Photograph.
文献类型:
Article
主题语:
*ABILITY grouping (Education)
*LEGISLATION
*RACISM
人物:
OAKES, Jeannie
SLAVIN, Robert
摘要:
The No Child Left Behind legislation, with its emphasis on conducting scientifically based research, has reopened the door to a set of instructional and curricular practices left for dead in light of the scathing criticism of Oakes and Slavin in the 1980s, mainly ability grouping. This article represents a review of the literature of best practices, both instructional and curricular, that may lead to increased achievement among Americas gifted and talented youth, whether they reside in an enrichment or resource room or the regular classroom. The review suggests that flexible ability grouping, combined with appropriate curricular revision or differentiation, may result in substantial achievement gains both for average and high ability learners. It is imperative that researchers in the field of gifted education take the lead in this endeavor so that no child, including the gifted and talented, will be left behind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holders express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
作者单位:
1Carol L. Tieso is an assistant professor in gifted education at the University of Alabama.
全文字数:
8143
ISSN:
0278-3193
DOI:
10.1080/02783190309554236
入藏编号:
11246827
Ability Grouping Is Not Just Tracking Anymore
The No Child Left Behind legislation, with its emphasis on conducting scientifically based research, has reopened the door to a set of instructional and curricular practices left for dead in light of the scathing criticism of Oakes and Slavin in the 1980s, mainly ability grouping. This article represents a review of the literature of best practices, both instructional and curricular, that may lead to increased achievement among Americas gifted and talented youth, whether they reside in an enrichment or resource room or the regular classroom. The review suggests that flexible ability grouping, combined with appropriate curricular revision or differentiation, may result in substantial achievement gains both for average and high ability learners. It is imperative that researchers in the field of gifted education take the lead in this endeavor so that no child, including the gifted and talented, will be left behind.
In the backdrop of the No Child Left Behind legislation and its requisite need for scientifically based research to support educational practices, the time has come to revisit an old friend (or foe depending upon ones personal persuasion): ability grouping. In the recent past, research on ability grouping has ground to an inexorable halt, mainly due to concerns raised in the 1980s by Jeannie Oakes and Robert Slavin over issues of equity and accusations of racism. The result has been the degradation of educational opportunities for students identified as gifted and talented and the lack of concern for students identified as needing extra assistance. Equity is a noble goal, but not at the expense of students who lie on either end of the normal curve, especially in these days of political rhetoric and a heightened concern for educational accountability. But ability grouping is neither the fiend nor the foe that it has been labeled. In the past, ability grouping has been equated with tracking, a permanent and now unacceptable approach in which students are assessed based on prior achievement or measured intelligence and placed into streams or tracks from which they never escape, a situation that has created problems for advocates of equity and equality. The present and future of ability grouping lies in the flexible use of grouping, either between or within classrooms. However, ability grouping alone will not lead to significant improvement in students achievement unless it is combined with curricula that have been created based on students learning styles, interests, and abilities. When ability grouping is utilized in a flexible and temporary manner, with appropriate curricular adjustment, significant achievement gains can be realized.
Agreat deal of research indicates that moderate gains occur in students academic achievement when teachers adopt practices from gifted education pedagogy, such as ability grouping (Kulik, 2003; Slavin, 1987), curriculum modification (Wiggins amp; McTighe, 1998), differentiation (Renzulli, 1994; Tomlinson, 1995, 1999), strategies to enhance higher level thinking skills, concept-based instruction (Erickson, 1998), problem-based learning (Delisle, 1997), and constructivist pedagogy (Brooks amp; Brooks, 1995), to improve student achievement (Bechtol amp; Sorenson, 1993; Bloom, 1976; Feldhusen, 1989; Kaplan, 1986, 2001; Renzulli, 1988, 1994; VanTassel-Baska, 1986; Walberg, 1985). Because it is unlikely that one strategy operating in isolation is as effective as multiple interventions, it is recommended that school personnel investigate the combined effects of gr
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
Ability Grouping Is Not Just Tracking Anymore.
作者:
Tieso, Carol L.1 CTieso@bamaed.ua.edu
来源:
Roeper Review. Fall2003, Vol. 26 Issue 1, p29-36. 8p. 1 Black and White Photograph.
文献类型:
Article
主题语:
*ABILITY grouping (Education)
*LEGISLATION
*RACISM
人物:
OAKES, Jeannie
SLAVIN, Robert
摘要:
The No Child Left Behind legislation, with its emphasis on conducting scientifically based research, has reopened the door to a set of instructional and curricular practices left for dead in light of the scathing criticism of Oakes and Slavin in the 1980s, mainly ability grouping. This article represents a review of the literature of best practices, both instructional and curricular, that may lead to increased achievement among Americas gifted and talented youth, whether they reside in an enrichment or resource room or the regular classroom. The review suggests that flexible ability grouping, combined with appropriate curricular revision or differentiation, may result in substantial achievement gains both for average and high ability learners. It is imperative that researchers in the field of gifted education take the lead in this endeavor so that no child, including the gifted and talented, will be left behind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holders express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
作者单位:
1Carol L. Tieso is an assistant professor in gifted education at the University of Alabama.
全文字数:
8143
ISSN:
0278-3193
DOI:
10.1080/02783190309554236
入藏编号:
11246827
Ability Grouping Is Not Just Tracking Anymore
The No Child Left Behind legislation, with its emphasis on conducting scientifically based research, has reopened the door to a set of instructional and curricular practices left for dead in light of the scathing criticism of Oakes and Slavin in the 1980s, mainly ability grouping. This article represents a review of the literature of best practices, both instructional and curricular, that may lead to increased achievement among Americas gifted and talented youth, whether they reside in an enrichment or resource room or the regular classroom. The review suggests that flexible ability grouping, combined with appropriate curricular revision or differentiation, may result in substantial achievement gains both for average and high ability learners. It is imperative that researchers in the field of gifted education take the lead in this endeavor so that no child, including the gifted and talented, will be left behind.
In the backdrop of the No Child Left Behind legislation and its requisite need for scientifically based research to support educational practices, the time has come to revisit an old friend (or foe depending upon ones personal persuasion): ability grouping. In the recent past, research on ability grouping has ground to an inexorable halt, mainly due to concerns raised in the 1980s by Jeannie Oakes and Robert Slavin over issues of equity and accusations of racism. The result has been the degradation of educational opportunities for students identified as gifted and talented and the lack of concern for students identified as needing extra assistance. Equity is a noble goal, but not at the expense of students who lie on either end of the normal curve, especially in these days of political rhetoric and a heightened concern for educational accountability. But ability grouping is neither the fiend nor the foe that it has been labeled. In the past, ability grouping has been equated with tracking, a permanent and now unacceptable approach in which students are assessed based on prior achievement or measured intelligence and placed into streams or tracks from which they never escape, a situation that has created problems for advocates of equity and equality. The present and future of ability grouping lies in the flexible use of grouping, either between or within classrooms. However, ability grouping alone will not lead to significant improvement in students achievement unless it is combined with curricula that have been created based on students learning styles, interests, and abilities. When ability grouping is utilized in a flexible and temporary manner, with appropriate curricular adjustment, significant achievement gains can be realized.
Agreat deal of research indicates that moderate gains occur in students academic achievement when teachers adopt practices from gifted education pedagogy, such as ability grouping (Kulik, 2003; Slavin, 1987), curriculum modification (Wiggins amp; McTighe, 1998), differentiation (Renzulli, 1994; Tomlinson, 1995, 1999), strategies to enhance higher level thinking skills, concept-based instruction (Erickson, 1998), problem-based learning (Delisle, 1997), and constructivist pedagogy (Brooks amp; Brooks, 1995), to improve student achievement (Bechtol amp; Sorenson, 1993; Bloom, 1976; Feldhusen, 1989; Kaplan, 1986, 2001; Renzulli, 1988, 1994; VanTassel-Baska, 1986; Walberg, 1985). Because it is unlikely that one strategy operating in isolation is as effective as multiple interventions, it is recommended that school personnel investigate the combined effects of gr
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[272366]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
