Picture this scene. It's an English literature lesson in a UK school, and the teacher has just read an extract from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet with a class of 15-year-olds. He's given some of the students copies of No Fear Shakespeare, a kid-friendly translation of the original. For three students, even these literacy demands are beyond them. Another girl simply can't focus and he gives her pens and paper to draw with. The teacher can ask the No Fear group to identify the key characters and maybe provide a tentative plot summary. He can ask most of the class about character development, and five of them might be able to support their statements with textual evidence. Now two curious students are wondering whether Shakespeare dvocates living a life of moderation or one of passionate engagement.

想象一下这个场景。这是英国一所学校的一堂英语文学课，老师刚刚为一个 15 岁的班级朗读了莎士比亚的《罗密欧与朱丽叶》节选。他给一些学生发了一本《不怕莎士比亚》，这是一本适合儿童阅读的原著译本。对于三名学生来说，即使是这些识字要求也无法满足他们。另一个女孩根本无法集中注意力，他就给她笔和纸让她画画。老师可以要求 “无畏 ”小组找出关键人物，或许还可以提供一个初步的情节概要。他可以询问班上大部分学生有关人物性格发展的问题，其中五人或许可以用文本证据来支持他们的陈述。现在有两个好奇的学生想知道莎士比亚提倡的是节制的生活还是热情的参与。

As a teacher myself, I'd think my lesson would be going rather well if the discussion went as described above. But wouldn't this kind of class work better if there weren't a such a huge gap between the top and the bottom? If we put all the kids who needed literacy support into one class, and all the students who want to discuss the virtue of moderation into another?

作为一名教师，我认为如果讨论情况如上所述，我的课就会上得很好。但是，如果上下层之间没有那么大的差距，这样的课堂不是会更好吗？如果我们把所有需要识字辅导的孩子放到一个班级，而把所有想讨论 “节制 ”美德的学生放到另一个班级，这样的课堂会不会更好？

The practice of 'streaming', or 'tracking', involves separating students into classes depending on their diagnosed levels of attainment. At a macro level, it requires the establishment of academically selective schools for the brightest students, and comprehensive schools for the rest. Within schools, it means selecting students into a 'stream' of general ability, or 'sets' of subject specific ability. The practice is intuitively appealing to almost every stakeholder.

分流 “或 ”跟踪 "的做法是根据学生的成绩诊断水平将他们分到不同的班级。在宏观层面上，这要求为最聪明的学生建立学术上的选择性学校，为其他学生建立综合性学校。在学校内部，这意味着将学生按综合能力 “分流”，或按具体学科能力 “分组”。这种做法对几乎所有利益相关者都具有直观的吸引力。

I have heard the mixed-ability model attacked by way of analogy: a group hike. The fittest in the group take the lead and set a brisk pace, only to have to stop and wait every 20 minutes. This is frustrating, and their enthusiasm wanes. Meanwhile, the slowest ones are not only embarrassed but physically struggling to keep up. What's worse, they never get a long enough break. They honestly just want to quit. Hiking, they feel, is not for them. 

我曾听过有人用一个比喻来攻击混合能力模式：集体远足。队伍中体能最好的人率先出发，步伐轻快，但每隔 20 分钟就得停下来等待。这令人沮丧，他们的热情也随之减退。与此同时，最慢的人不仅感到尴尬，而且体力也跟不上。更糟糕的是，他们从来没有得到过足够长的休息时间。老实说，他们只想放弃。他们觉得远足不适合他们。

Mixed-ability classes bore students, frustrate parents and burn out teachers. The brightest ones will never summit Mount Qomolangma, and the stragglers won't enjoy the lovely stroll in the park they are perhaps more suited to. Individuals suffer at the demands of the collective, mediocrity prevails. So: is learning like hiking?

混合能力班会让学生厌烦，让家长沮丧，让老师疲惫。最聪明的学生永远也登不上珠穆朗玛峰，而落伍的学生则享受不到他们也许更适合的公园漫步。个人因集体的要求而受苦，平庸盛行。那么：学习就像登山吗？

The current pedagogical paradigm is arguably that of constructivism, which emerged out of the work of psychologist Lev Vygotsky. In the 1930s, Vygotsky emphasised the importance of targeting a student's specific 'zone of proximal development' (ZPD). This is the gap between what they can achieve only with support – teachers, textbooks, worked examples, parents and so on – and what they can achieve independently. The purpose of teaching is to provide and then gradually remove this 'scaffolding' until they are autonomous. If we accept this model, it follows that streaming students with similar ZPDs would be an efficient and effective solution. And that forcing everyone on the same hike – regardless of aptitude – would be madness.

当前的教学范式可以说是建构主义的范式，它产生于心理学家列夫-维果茨基（Lev Vygotsky）的研究成果。20 世纪 30 年代，维果茨基强调了针对学生特定的 “近发展区”（ZPD）的重要性。这是指学生在教师、教科书、工作范例、家长等支持下才能实现的目标与他们独立实现的目标之间的差距。教学的目的就是提供并逐渐移除这种 “支架”，直到他们能够独立自主。如果我们接受这种模式，那么将 ZPD 相近的学生进行分流将是一个高效且有效的解决方案。而强迫每个人--无论能力如何--都走同样的路，则是疯狂之举。

Despite all this, there is limited empirical evidence to suggest that streaming results in better outcomes for students. Professor John Hattie, director of the Melbourne Education Research Institute, notes that 'tracking has minimal effects on learning outcomes'. What is more, streaming appears to significantly – and negatively – affect those students assigned to the lowest sets. These students tend to have much higher representation of low socioeconomic class. Less significant is the small benefit for those lucky clever students in the higher sets. The overall result is that the smart stay smart and the dumb get dumber, further entrenching the social divide.

尽管如此，只有有限的经验证据表明，分流能为学生带来更好的学习成绩。墨尔本教育研究所所长约翰-哈蒂（John Hattie）教授指出，“分流对学习成绩的影响微乎其微”。更重要的是，分流似乎对那些被分配到最低组别的学生产生了明显的负面影响。这些学生中往往有更多的低社会经济阶层。对于那些幸运地被分到高年级的聪明学生来说，影响较小。总体结果是，聪明的继续聪明，笨的变得更笨，进一步巩固了社会鸿沟。

In the latest update of Hattie's influential meta-analysis of factors influencing student achievement, one of the most significant factors is the teachers' estimate of achievement. Streaming students by diagnosed achievement automatically limits what the teacher feels the student is capable of. Meanwhile, in a mixed environment, teachers' estimates need to be more diverse and flexible.

哈蒂对影响学生成绩的因素进行了具有影响力的元分析，在最新更新的分析中，最重要的因素之一是教师对成绩的估计。根据诊断结果对学生进行分流，会自动限制教师认为学生能够达到的水平。与此同时，在混合环境中，教师的估计需要更加多样化和灵活。

While streaming might seem to help teachers effectively target a student's ZPD, it can underestimate the importance of peer-to-peer learning. A crucial aspect of constructivist theory is the role of the MKO – 'moreknowledgeable other' – in knowledge construction. While teachers are traditionally the MKOs in classrooms, the value of knowledgeable student peers must not go unrecognised either.

虽然分流似乎可以帮助教师有效地针对学生的自定发展目标进行教学，但它可能低估了同伴间学习的重要性。建构主义理论的一个重要方面是 MKO（“更有知识的他人”）在知识建构中的作用。虽然传统上教师是课堂上的 MKO，但知识渊博的学生同伴的价值也不容忽视。

I find it amazing to watch students get over an idea to their peers in ways that I would never think of. They operate with different language tools and different social tools from teachers and, having just learnt it themselves, they possess similar cognitive structures to their struggling classmates. There is also something exciting about passing on skills and knowledge that you yourself have just mastered – a certain pride and zeal, a certain freshness to the interaction between 'teacher' and 'learner' that is often lost by the expert for whom the steps are obvious and the joy of discovery forgotten. 

看着学生们用我从未想到过的方式向他们的同龄人传授知识，我觉得非常神奇。他们使用的语言工具和社交工具与教师不同，而且他们自己也刚刚学会，与学习有困难的同学拥有相似的认知结构。将自己刚刚掌握的技能和知识传授给学生，也是一件令人兴奋的事情--“教师 ”和 “学生 ”之间的互动有一种自豪感和热情，有一种新鲜感。

Having a variety of different abilities in a collaborative learning environment provides valuable resources for helping students meet their learning needs, not to mention improving their communication and social skills. And today, more than ever, we need the many to flourish – not suffer at the expense of a few bright stars. Once a year, I go on a hike with my class, a mixed bunch of students. It is challenging. The fittest students realise they need to encourage the reluctant. There are lookouts who report back, and extra items to carry for others. We make it – together.

在合作学习的环境中，各种不同能力的学生可以提供宝贵的资源，帮助学生满足学习需求，更不用说提高他们的沟通和社交能力了。今天，我们比以往任何时候都更需要让更多的人茁壮成长，而不是以牺牲少数耀眼的明星为代价。每年，我都会带着我的班级--一群混杂的学生--去远足。这很有挑战性。体质最好的学生意识到他们需要鼓励不情愿的学生。有人负责放哨，有人负责汇报情况，还有人需要为其他人携带额外的物品。我们一起成功了。