Every so often, the educational literature offers some snippet of intrigue. There I was in a paper about LMSes when the authors - out of Japan - mentioned the use of permanent mixed ability groups in some of their higher education learning. These are groups that are set up to work together through various academic subject matters and courses, and they are of mixed abilities, which means that there are elite high-achieving groups or groups set apart by personalities or same-tier abilities.

Such a mix in the US happens probably in cohort-based program learning. Here, students are learning in one academic track and are of the same class standing (first-year, second-year, etc.). However, most small groups are based around tasks and projects or shorter time periods.

When students self-select groups, they often want "strong" team members, not those who will have little to contribute or who will be a drag on the group's learning and performance.

Online, small groups tend to again be project-based, and many instructors generally don't seem to want to switch groups around in a semester - because there's a kind of persistence in small-group setups in online courses. To re-set up groups technologically may involve more work than most people want to engage.

It tends to be the hardier and more hands-on professors who engage small group work anyway because of the extra efforts that need to be made to make sure these work.

Imagining Persistent Mixed Ability Groups

For me, the extant questions then relate to how well such groups work and if these would be easy to create in an LMS and if these would work in a US higher educational context. Frankly, I don't know any who've done this per se in an e-learning context. I haven't foisted any educational experiments on my students, and they tend to be quarterly ones anyway.

Some early speculations would be that such groups would have to invest in social relationship building because of the long-term interactions. I'd presume that the individuals would get a sense of each other's workstyles. I'd guess that the individuals would form alliances within the small groups, and they'd "buddy-up" particularly with those with whom they may share interests or talents or shared needs. I would assume leaders would evolve from these group mixes. I would think / hope that the leadership would change every now and again depending on the topic areas and the individuals' different areas of expertise.

I'd speculate that dependencies would form over time on particular individuals for particular skills. Habits and comfort levels would form over time. Some friendships may evolve. I'd speculate that members of the group would drop out due to attrition and possibly moves (given the transience of US students).

Another layer of thought might be for what benefits and harms may come from such groups. Having mixed skills may mean that students encounter a wider range of abilities and learning / teaching skills. The learning may be richer, but I can see how frustrations and social relationships may be tougher. There would be a greater need for ongoing icebreakers and social smoothing-over sorts of events. There would be a greater need for potential instructor facilitation which goes beyond the needs of the learning and occasional "rubs" in teamwork.

This is all mental shadowboxing though. Some shared experiences with this would be interesting.