II.

Body:

For:

Through homogeneous student sectioning, students are encouraged to learn at high and

fast-paced levels. According to Samsudin, Das, and Rai (2006), students who are grouped as

having the same intellectual ability showed increased self-esteem and have better understanding

of their abilities. This method of student sectioning, in the study conducted by Heltemes (2009),

proves to be “a more controlled and deliberate approach to grouping and can result in much

greater achievement and development”. This practice satisfies and maintains the interest of the

ability group by allowing the teacher to modify the class pace and discussion according to the

students’ needs (Adodo & Agdayewa, 2011).

This practice of ability grouping is beneficial to students because it provides students

opportunities to define themselves. This approach promotes flexibility as students grouped

homogeneously can grow and improve ability levels when focus is set on their ability of concern

(Azim, 2011). This claim is further supported by Marsh (1987, as cited by Azim, 2011) which

stated that lower ability students benefit from this type of grouping as they are able to gain from

their self-evaluation by being detached from their higher level peers.

Homogeneous student sectioning also reduces instances of social isolation. This method

of student sectioning reaps positive social effect for student development through achieving

psychological intimacy and achieving integrated involvement (Nelson, 2008, as cited by

Heltemes, 2009). According to Heltemes (2009), “Psychological intimacy is a psychological

closeness to other group members. It is important to a student’s overall emotional health because
it results in positive feelings of affection and warmth. Achieving psychological intimacy will

also reduce feelings of emotional isolation and loneliness.”

Against

However, students classified in low-level abilities would be left out from the entire batch

due to factors such as low self-esteem, lack of motivation to learn, and missed dialogue with

other students. Kintz (2011) stated that a divergence exists between high-level and low-level

ability groups in a homogeneous group environment. This may be because they lack the

confidence to interact with other students due to their poor grades and due to the factors

previously stated.

Students grouped in the same level of ability would have little room for improvement.

This is true especially for low-level ability students. In a study conducted by Kulik and Kulik

(1987), they found that although high-level ability students benefited from a homogeneous

placement, low-level ability groups did not improve significantly (as cited by Johnson, May

2016). In addition, one math teacher said: “Test scores do not improve in the lower-ability group.

They only rise in the higher group and then only slightly” (Cromwell, 2004).

This little room for improvement may be caused by the lack of self-esteem and lack of

motivation to learn. This can be supported by Heltemes (2009) as she stated that:

“The results of the teacher observations also cited instances of low self-esteem and

low-self efficacy among low ability students in homogeneous groups. This was demonstrated

when the students would only answer the two questions they were absolutely sure about without

attempting others they did not feel confident about. This lack of self-efficacy or belief in their

personal capabilities greatly hindered these students in accomplishing group assignments. This
 observation supported Nelson (2008) and Heath’s (1999) who identified self-esteem and

self-efficacy as important factors contributing to performance and motivation.”

In a homogeneous group environment, students having low level abilities would have

difficulty in coping with the class pace. This is because a homogeneous group promotes an

individualistic and competitive environment. It lacks an avenue for higher level and low level

ability students to interact. Through this interaction in a heterogeneous group, high-level students

can help low-level students in coping with the class pace. This is also beneficial to them in

contrast to what others say because of cognitive rehearsal. According to Woodfolk (2001), high

ability students will process their lessons better through re explaining their lessons to their

classmates. This is known as cognitive rehearsal and is coherent with Vygotsky’s theory of

cognitive development (as cited by Samsudin, Nas & Rai, 2006).

In a homogeneous student sectioning system, students classified with low-level abilities

would be left out from the entire batch. In contrast, research claims that heterogeneous student

sectioning has positive effects on the students’ attitude toward school, increase of self-concepts

as learners, relationship with other students, anxiety reduction, and future aspiration (McAvoy,

1998). This clearly shows that a heterogeneous system of grouping students promote a more

student-friendly system in contrast with a homogeneous student sectioning system. This system

will help build more relationships of students and will ensure a more friendly environment within

the batch. As stated by McAvoy (1998), “As we enter the new millenium, we must work even

harder to ensure that no student is left behind”.