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
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
Homogeneous student sectioning also reduces instances of social isolation. This method
of student sectioning reaps positive social effect for student development through achieving
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
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
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
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