Viability of Tracking of Students - Research Paper Example

? Education Research paper Education Research Paper Tracking is the clustering in accordance to their academic abilitiesin groupings for each subject within a learning institution. Streaming is the other term that describes this division in other learning institutions. The achievement of those to join these classes depends on the scores of these students. In essence, their separation is per their above average, average and below average scores. Students in the higher tracks get to study advanced mathematics, additional foreign languages, and literature materials. On the other hand, the students in the lesser tracks get equipped with skills on welding, bookkeeping, and beauty therapy. Essentially, this paper will illustrate whether the tracking system of learning is viable or not by giving substantial reasons (Powell, 2000). In addition, it will argue out whether this system should apply in the elementary stages of one’s carrier path by including heterogeneous and homogeneous cooperative learning styles. As a necessity, it will seek to bring out the summative and formative classroom assessment by using flip classrooms or homeschooling as examples. Finally, the paper will advise on what the best alternative forms of instructions and guidelines would work well at the elementary level when applying tracking system. Tracking system has proved to be the acceptable and most viable learning system over the years. Various attributes contribute towards making it reliable. For one, this system has been effective in meeting the needs of gifted pupils within a regular classroom. The main advantage is that it provides the opportunity for the students to associate with their intellectual peers. According to Powell, (2000), this interaction mainly influenced their emotional, social, and intellectual well-being. On the other hand, tracking allowed students to feel lesser isolation and reduced stress levels because of their grouping with students with the same level of abilities. In addition, Epple et al (2000) found that working in a cluster was better than working alone as the group challenged individuals to give quality outputs. On the other hand, the average students have also been beneficiaries of this system through one way or another. For instance, clustering of these students is effective in identifying new leaders when the high performing students move to the high ability classrooms (Gentry 1996). However, high performing students shared a classroom with the middle cluster to widen their educational opportunities in their strong areas. Financially speaking, researchers found out that these groupings offer an advantage as they required minimal additional expenditure to facilitate a gifted program within a district. They found out that districts were able to finance students with the daily educational experiences that they required except for tutor training. This was possible without requiring any additional funding for proper implementation. In summation, cluster grouping is the suitable learning system for both the gifted and the average performing students as it involves the individual factoring in of capabilities as per their abilities. The overall advantage is that students are able to pick challenging tasks within their individual clusters to promote their intellectual strength and stability. In contrast, segregation of students as per their educational abilities also does have its limitations towards its effective implementation. For one, critics have drawn a major line to distinguish between cluster grouping and tracking (Meier & Schutz, 2007). Within the tracking system, student grouping was per their intellectual abilities, and they remained in these tracks for the most part of their school days. On the other hand, cluster grouped students share the group with other gifted students as per their different abilities. Therefore, cluster grouping enables gifted students to learn due to their grouping as per their strong areas. Another challenge on this form of learning was the training of the group’s teachers. The teachers who tutored these students ought to have vast training in order for them to pass as able to handle these children. Overly, their good and specific prior training would translate in the success of the gifted grouping through their appropriate application of the required curriculum. In addition, teachers within a specified cluster group had greater workload as compared to the teachers within the general classroom environment (Epple, et al 2000). They had to plan their learning sessions without which it was uneasy to run their classrooms. Essentially, tracking of students should begin at their mid stages in life, with the elementary level included. Tracking at such an age will help in the molding of a child’s career by realizing their talent and skill and nurturing it to fruition. Ideally, the society as a whole needs to embrace tracking as a learning tool as it avoids the split concentration on all the subjects, which may at times, is irrelevant in one’s carrier path. For instance, the traditional system of education requires that a child take up all the subjects within the set curriculum irrespective of their carrier choice. Arguably, a child’s interest may vary as they grow up, but this does not warrant enslavement to the education system (Epple, Newlon, & Romano, 2000). Therefore, by applying tracking at a sensible age helps children to start venturing in their carrier paths with ease hence gaining a lot of added experience while they are at it. The trickiest part becomes the determination of the talented and the reasons why they qualify tom join these clusters. Tentatively, the selection process squarely relies on the teachers assertions on the talented and the not so talented. This is highly due to the fact that teaches spend a lot of time with these kids hence it becomes easy to single them out in a pack more than their parents can. Secondly, the observational behavior exhibited by these children also gives an indication towards their talented abilities. For instance, a gifted child will tend to behave as if they do not fit in the average class hence act fidgety or tend to spend most of his or her time with students from his suited class rather than theirs. Thirdly, a student’s personal profile also helps in determining whether a student’s talent level. In essence, students prior testing by another interested party may be substantive, as their abilities would portray in their profile. Finally, the grading that a student gets from the highest tot the lowest helps portray their strengths and their area of interest, which makes it easy for their teachers to spot their most skilled area. As per a case study conducted in Kenya, students placed in classes irrespective their gifts or abilities were equal beneficiaries to the tracking system just like those enrolled in tracking. The performance of those students who joined the class at the middle did not flop in their assigned classes. This trend relied on the newly hired teachers due to their ability to tailor their teaching curricular to the weeds of their students. Most recently, Kenya made improvements towards the realization of free education for its population. This led to an increase in the new admissions in to primary schools, which is an eight-year program. The student teacher ratio became challenging with this new adaptation particularly for those in the lower grades. In addition, the classes within the Western region of the country had an average of eighty-three students that made it heterogeneous in a way. For instance, the students’ ages varied which in turn affected their readiness to learn. Additionally, most of the students lacked support from home that made them non-participatory in school related activities. Surprisingly, most of these new students had no prior involvement in basic preschool knowledge. Similarly, the challenges that Kenya face in the rolling out of affordable education are not new to other developing nations. With this in mind, tracking was the most appropriate education system that would meet the individual needs of the students in these schools (Gentry, 1996). The splitting of these classes was unavoidable which in turn translated to the hiring of extra teaching staff through World Bank funding. The two classes were the bottom class for lowest performing students and the top class to other students. Tracking proved effective in this part of the world as the teacher presence reflected in the results of the tracked students. They benefited from focused learning because of the teacher presence and effort applied. When assessed, the outcome might either be summative or formative assessments. In essence, summative assessment is periodic evaluation of the student’s level at a particular point in time to ascertain their knowledge level. On the other hand, formative assessment provides the needed information to make adjustments in the learning environment while it is still in progress. The latter’ application is by students and teachers when they need to know the need to make to make the learning in the classroom more effective. However, the former is a measuring scale used as part of accountability and an integral aspect of the grading process. Formative assessment helps teachers to ascertain the next appropriate steps towards the achievement this learning tool (Powell, 2000). For instance, the periodic evaluation does not reflect the overall ability in order for one to receive accreditation. Essentially, the summative assessment becomes the determining factor as it tests one’s current ability without majoring on how they got to their current level. In distinction, the student’s level participation in the two-assessment process tended to differ. For the formative assessment, the level of participation by the students would be low as they will not always be available for all the periodic assessments. However, the summative assessment would experience an influx, as the students will trend to value the final assessment that will majorly determine their grade. When assessed as per the two, tracking can apply both the formative and summative assessment forms to gauge its effectiveness (Meier & Schutz, 2007). Formatively, the gauging process may be useful in the continued assessment of whether the average students are viable to join the gifted cluster. According to Summative assessment, it is essential to determine the overall ability of either the gifted or the average students. In comparison, flip schooling, and home schooling can be forms of tracking. In essence, flip schooling is the learning process by which a child gets education from home but then does his assessment tests from school. On the hand, homeschooling is a learning process that involves learning at home and taking exams set by either the tutors or parents at home. These two can be forms of tracking as they often have varied reasons for choosing them. They offer concentrated individual tutoring where the tutor is able to identify a child’s weaknesses and talents. In addition, they are both effective alternate learning options to the regular classroom kind of learning. This segregation in both instances helps to nurture the children’s abilities and gifts in a surrounding that is more conducive. Mostly, these forms of learning apply during the elementary stages of a child’s life hence making it easy to identify their gifts more easily. In summary, tracking system has over the years slowly blended in to societies across the globe. It has managed to cut across diverse societies that have different moral and social bases. In addition, the continued assessment of students either formative or summative has also managed to make this learning quite a success. As much as people tend to draw close linkages between tracking and cluster groupings there has been an underlying difference that only those keen enough may realize. Finally, this form of learning is the improved learning system as it helps to nurture talents and gifts at a raw age to the advantage of society as a whole. References Duflo E., Dupas P. and Kremer M. Can Tracking Improve Learning? Evidence from Kenya. Retrieved on October 9, 2012 from http://educationnext.org/tracking-improve-learning/ Epple, D., Newlon, E. & Romano, R. (2000). Ability Tracking, School Competition, and the Distribution of Educational Benefits. Retrieved on 9 October 2012, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w7854 Gentry, M. (1996). Total school cluster grouping: An investigation of achievement and identification of elementary school students. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 8-11 Meier, V. & Schutz, G. (2007). The Economics of Tracking and Non-Tracking. Retrieved on 9 October 2012, from http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/1197222.PDF Powell, M. J. (2000). Tracking decisions change lives. Retrieved on 9 October 2012, from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/quick-takes/qt_decisions.pdf Teno K. M (2000). Cluster Grouping Elementary Gifted Students in the Regular Classroom: A Teacher's Perspective. Retrieved on October 9, 2012 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=66cc6378-1900-4907-b429-aa2aa5feb0e5%40sessionmgr104&vid=6&hid=14 Read More