This article, based on material used on our DELTA courses, focuses on teaching mixed ability classes, and discusses…
a) The problems of teaching such classes
b) The solutions to those problems
a) The problems of teaching mixed ability classes
1. Problem - Mixed level groups
The class is composed of learners at different levels and teacher has to ensure the lower level learners can follow the course and participate in the activities while not boring the higher level learners. This often happens in small language schools where a learner is placed in a class because they are just above or below the level, but there is no other suitable class for them at the time they require. They may therefore either not have control of language items/subskills which the others have covered, or already know items/subskills which the others need to cover fully “from scratch”. I have also had learners in a class who had already repeated a previous level (A2), had still not reached the required standard for B1, but the school decided to let them continue rather than risk losing the client.
2. Problems - “True” mixed ability groups
a) Problem: Even if groups are all at the same average level, some may have a “spiky profile” (ie be at the level in some systems/skills, but weak in others – eg be fluent but highly inaccurate, or be weaker than the stated level in one skill only, such as listening). They will therefore need more practice in those areas than other members of the class. Again, the T. needs to ensure that this is provided without boring or wasting the time of the others.
b) Problem: Groups may also contain learners who are at the “correct” level, but simply take longer to assimilate new information. The teacher therefore has to ensure that the number, pace and format of the activities meet the needs of both the weak and strong learners. Working at the pace of the slower learners may frustrate the stronger ones, while working at the pace of the strongest may mean the weaker Ls feel over-stretched and fall even further behind. This can lead to a poor classroom dynamic and low motivation in both groups.
c) The same problem may occur when groups contain learners with different needs – eg multilingual groups, or mixed GP. BE or ESP Ls. Differences in the learners’ L1s will affect the ease at which they can assimilate new items and develop new skills. Eg: Learners who are speakers of will be able to recognise cognates in texts which learners from non-European languages cannot understand. Again, spending time focusing on areas they find “easy” may frustrate the Ls who don’t have the problems, while glossing over them will not resolve the problem for those that do.
3. Problem - Rapport: All of these situations, but especially 1 and 2b also lead to the problem of rapport. The T needs to ensure that the weaker/lower level learners are not “written off” by the others as “stupid”, and that there is no reluctance to work with them and include them in group activities. If this happens it will be damaging to their self-esteem and their own belief that they “can” learn the language. This (in Krashen’s terms a rise in the “affective filter”) will negatively affect their classroom performance (eg their willingness to contribute) and motivation towards the course.
4. Problem: Differences in working pace may also lead to the problem of “fast finishers” – ie the stronger learners finishing a task while the slower ones are only half way through. One solution to this problem of “fast finishers” (point 5) is to pair the learners weak/strong. This also allows the stronger learners to help the weaker ones. However, this strategy may create problem of its own : the stronger learners may simply dominate, doing all the work while the weaker learners remain passive. Or they may resent being put in the role of "teacher" and feel they are being “held back”.
b) The solutions to the problems
i) Differentiation solutions
5. Possible solution for problems 1, 2b and 4: Often the same task can be “tweaked” to make it easier or more challenging. Eg: the lesson has reached the controlled practice stage and the Ls are working in pairs. Weaker Ls are given a simple gapfill task to do with the missing words in a box, in jumbled order. Stronger Ls are given the same task, but without the examples in the box.
6. Possible solution for problem 1: A Test-Teach-Test format to a lesson can often be useful to differentiate the level of challenge presented by the lesson. For example, if a lesson on polite requests started with a roleplay where L’s had to make and respond to requests in three or four situations (eg Ask your partner to take care of your four cats while you’re on holiday) the T. might notice the one learner, Ingrid, was using Can and Could accurately but avoiding Will and Would, so focuses on these for her and tells her to practise them in the activities to come. Belem on the other hand was using all the modals accurately - so the T.introduces Do you think you could... and told her that for the rest of the lesson she should go on practising that. And so on. The follow up activities may be gapfills, roleplays or other activities where the learners can use "their own" exponent, thus each working at their own level, but also having receptive knowledge of those exponents at a higher level.
7. Possible solution for problems 1 and 2a-c: differentiating the amount of practice given: After the presentations of a new structure, a number of practice activities can be prepared, to be done individually or in pairs. Stronger Ls do one controlled practice activity before passing on to several freer activities, while weaker Ls do several controlled practice activities before passing on to at least one freer activity. The T. monitors, helping the Ls with whatever problems arise and providing the “next” activity as they finish. This allows all Ls to work at their own level, and could end with the activity suggested in point below with the weaker learner acting as “scribe”.
8. Possible solution for problems 1 and 2a-c - Materials differentiation: Eg: When teaching listening or reading, the “same” text can be used, but produced for different levels. Sites like “News in Levels” provide texts at three different levels, roughly A2, B1 and B2. Alternatively, the T. might choose an authentic text for strong, high-level learners, but write a simplified version for weaker/lower-level group members. Tasks can be the same or also differentiated, depending on the text and the learners’ needs.
ii) Classroom management solutions
9. Possible solution for problem 3 - Pairing and grouping: In my own teaching, I ensure that Ls change partners frequently – sometimes being paired/grouped weak/strong, but often also with Ls at their own level. This, combined with differentiated activities to ensure “doability” for the weaker learners, allows all the learners to work at their own level and to feel that they are being challenged by their partners. The stronger learners can learn from each other without feeling they are being used as teachers, while the weaker learners realise that other people have the same problems and need the same pace of work as they do.
10. Possible solution for problem 1 - Allocating L. roles: Hadfield (cited by Roberts) suggests that when groups do contain mixed ability participants, an answer may be to allot specific roles to each group member. She gives the example of appointing one L as the “scribe” in a GW discussion. They should only listen and take notes, but after the discussion, they will feed back to the whole class. If the strongest student is the scribe, this will prevent them from dominating, but still give them an important role and a chance to shine at the end. If a weaker student takes this role, the pressure is taken off them to produce language spontaneously, but they can prepare something to say at the end, which will provide a sense of achievement. This can help with problems 1 and 2b.
11. Possible solution for problem 2b - Nomination: The T. needs to think carefully about the use of nomination in full class stages. S/he can therefore direct “harder” questions at the stronger Ls and “easier” ones at the weaker Ls. When eliciting answers to exercises done individually or in PW, s/he can monitor noting where the weaker learners have got answers right. Those answers can then be elicited from them, to boost their confidence. Wrong answers (or errors the T wants to focus on during the follow up stage) can be dealt with anonymously by boarding the answer and saying “Someone said XXX” (rather than naming the student) before dealing with the problem.
12. Possible solution for problem 2b - Nomination: However, I find that very weak Ls still often panic if nominated, but are willing to offer answers to “open” questions when they feel sure of the answer. I therefore often leave the elicitation open but position myself close to the L who I actually want to answer, directing my body and gaze towards them. With certain learners this works well.
13. Possible solution for problem 2b: Similarly, T/class activities can be geared to the ability of the Ls. Eg. If the T has done choral repetition of a model sentence and has moved on to individual repetition, S/he can then ask several strong Ls to repeat individually before calling on less able learners, so that they have the advantage of the extra models. Even better, the learners can first be asked to “say it to your partner” before being called on in full class to allow the t to check.
iii) Other solutions
14. Possible solution for problem 4: Talk to the learners about the situation, the strengths and weaknesses of each learner, and the reasons for the differences – taking care to emphasise that these differences are normal and not problematic.. Explain some of the strategies you’ll be using to cope with the situation so that learners understand that they will all get a chance to work at their own level during the course, but will also be asked to collaborate and help others to increase the overall amount of learning in the group.
