We talk about learning architecture this week. It is a “design of framework” that helps to organize the instruction. Decisions of what teaching strategies to be employed and how to deliver them are made here. There are a lot of interdependent variables that you need to take into account, for instance, the overall goal of the instruction/ training, practical economics constrain and culture/philosophy of a wider system. Strategies and techniques you use should conform to some first (learning & teaching) principles mentioned in class.
Both group size and group structure play a part in collaborative/cooperative learning. One thing I noticed in Romi’s book is that he said “heterogeneous groups are the best” when talking about ways to group students. Is heterogeneous grouping always the best choice in instructions at the school level, compared to homogeneous grouping and random grouping? From articles online, I found that groups composed of a mixture of students on different academic levels seems to be preferred by most people (although random grouping is the one I experienced most so far). Homogeneous grouping is blamed for lacking varied social interactions because everyone is on the same level or working at the same speed. Also, similarities may lead to boredom, and thus fail to motivate students engaging in class activities. These are shortcomings most widely discussed. However, no one could deny that people feel comfortable when they are grouped in this way. No one feels that they are above or below the academic challenge.
Reasons for thinking highly of heterogeneous grouping partially lie in the trend of peer learning in which high-achieving students can tutor and remediate less capable students. Groups of mixed abilities students could help to improve sharing capabilities and peer relations. The key point is to make sure higher performing students really learn something. The pay-off. One big concern over mixed abilities grouping is that by doing so it may slow down the learning of higher achieving students. Some research reveals that “heterogeneous grouping …have no negative affect on high performing students (according to their performance in standardized tests) and they have immensely positive effects on lower and middle level students.” Another issue is work distribution. Stronger and more dominate students do the work while others contribute nothing in a mixed abilities group. It is not rare to see. Perhaps it is not the way we group students the problem, but how to motivate less capably students to involve in learning that matters. Homogeneous grouping, however, could provide those less academic outstanding students with chances to explore their potential.
Reference
http://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-grouping-homogeneous-heterogeneous-ben-johnson
http://uege5102-09m.blogspot.com/2009/07/heterogeneous-and-homogeneous-grouping.html
mengyingjiang 
Hi Mengying,
I do share the same concerns in mixing different capabilities in the group. I think that by rotating roles within a group might be helpful. Also, using individual work within the group then discuss the answers might help. So, involving different strategies within this strategy might be useful.
Thank you
Sammya
Rotating roles within a group is a good idea ! Everyone has the chance to do the work differently. Yes, it is about applying appropriate strategies to the context.
Thank you. Sammya~
I would agree that homogeneous groups probably make more sense for primary and secondary educational settings, but I’m not convinced they are for instructional settings in business or even higher education. For these settings, there is a huge advantage to draw from multiple backgrounds and experiences. If the class is filled with students that have similar trains of thought then there is very little chance for “outside the box” solutions to be discovered.
Thank you for your comment. Yep, I agree that diversity in background and experience could really benefit people in class discussion cause you can hear something that you have never thought about before. I don’t know how things go in business, in higher edu, unfortunately, I would say that in most cases, teachers would use random grouping when assigning tasks. Perhaps they don’t want spend time in it or they don’t think it matters a lot.
huh. We called homogeneous grouping “tracking.” It is always seen as advantageous for students at higher ability levels since the assumption is they are being held back. But there is value on heterogeneous grouping where students can learn and teach each other. (I have often heard the best way to learn something is to teach it to someone else.)
When it comes to the comment on workload, which is more of a learning management issue, that comes down to making it clear what roles individuals take on, and setting it up so everyone participates. As Sammya mentions, this is about using various strategies.
Prof. Pusch. Thank you for the comment. I have learnt something about work distribution in Project Management class. I agree that it is a management issue. Neither homogeneous grouping nor heterogeneous grouping could really solve the problem at root. It is more of a motivation issue.