Managing Group Dynamics and Mixed-Ability Classes in ELT: Theory-Informed Reflections from TeachingEnglish

Introduction

Group work and mixed-ability instruction are now central to communicative language teaching (CLT), yet they remain among the most demanding aspects of classroom management. While collaborative learning promises increased interaction, learner autonomy, and meaningful language use, it also generates challenges related to participation, conflict, learner behavior, and uneven contribution. Module 1, Unit 3 of the British Council’s TeachingEnglish: Managing learners and resources foregrounds these tensions through authentic teacher scenarios and practical recommendations.

This essay, my 517^th post in my reflective journaling blog, integrates those insights with established ELT theory and my own professional reflections as Jonathan Acuña. Drawing on scholars such as Harmer, Scrivener, Dörnyei, Johnson and Johnson, and Vygotsky, the paper argues that effective management of group dynamics and mixed-ability classes requires principled task design, explicit role allocation, socio-affective awareness, and a theoretically informed understanding of learner diversity.

Group Work, Task Structure, and Off-Task Behavior

One of the most common problems in group work is learners drifting into off-task conversation. As described in Teacher 1’s scenario in this British Council’s course, unfocused interaction often results from unclear task design rather than learner indiscipline. Scrivener (2011) emphasizes that “many discipline problems are actually planning problems” (p. 85). When learners do not fully understand what they are expected to produce, they naturally fill the gap with social talk.

The British Council’s recommendation that tasks have a clear structure, visible instructions, and a defined outcome aligns with task-based learning principles. Ellis (2003) defines a pedagogical task as one in which “the primary focus is on meaning” and where learners work toward a clearly defined outcome (p. 9). Without that outcome, learner attention dissipates.

In addressing off-task behavior during group work, I have come to reflects on the tendency of high-performing learners to disengage in unconventional ways. As I have noted, “These unengaged learners can be top performers who may want to ‘shine in class’ differently, so these students can help you demonstrate what learners have to do during the activity” (Acuña 2026). This observation aligns with Harmer’s (2007) assertion that learner disengagement often signals a need for increased responsibility rather than stricter control.

Conflict, Disagreement, and the Social Nature of Learning

Conflicts arising during group work are often perceived as disruptive. Similarly, when discussing classroom conflict, I have always emphasized the inevitability of disagreement in collaborative learning contexts: “Where there are tasks to be performed in a language classroom, we are to have disagreements” (Acuña 2026). From my practitioner’s +30-year experience in the classroom, respect must be explicitly reinforced through classroom norms and recurring reminders, a stance consistent with Dörnyei and Murphey’s (2003) emphasis on establishing a psychologically safe learning environment. However, sociocultural theory reframes disagreement as a potentially constructive force. Vygotsky (1978) famously argued that learning is fundamentally social, stating that “every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level” (p. 57). From this perspective, disagreement can serve as a catalyst for cognitive development.

Johnson and Johnson (1995), in their work on cooperative learning, assert that “controversy among ideas promotes higher achievement, greater perspective-taking, and more frequent use of higher-level reasoning strategies” (p. 262). This supports the British Council’s recommendation to encourage learners to “agree to disagree” and reflect on how conflict can benefit task outcomes.

Regarding post-conflict group dynamics, my highlight in this area is that the teacher’s role is to mediate beyond linguistic instruction, stating that “as the class administrators and owners, we need to remind our students that in real life… it is always a good idea to find solutions, even with the help of another person” (Acuña 2026). This perspective situates the teacher as a facilitator of social learning, echoing Vygotsky’s (1978) view of learning as inherently social and dialogic. Establishing group contracts reflects what Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) describe as creating “a psychologically safe classroom climate” (p. 72). Such norms reduce the likelihood that conflict becomes personal and help learners recover more easily after disagreements.

Unequal Participation and Role Assignment

Many ELT teachers highlight a persistent issue in group work: unequal participation. Research consistently shows that without structured accountability; group work can lead to social loafing. Johnson and Johnson (1999) stress that effective cooperative learning requires “individual accountability,” ensuring that “each group member is responsible for contributing” (p. 68). Unequal participation is one of those areas that I have also addressed through my participations in teacher conferences, my practitioner insight, drawn from prior TESOL training has taught me that “Assigning the spokesperson role to students who usually struggle forces meaningful engagement and accountability” (Acuña 2026). This strategy operationalizes Johnson and Johnson’s (1999) principle of individual accountability within cooperative learning structures.

The British Council’s emphasis on assigning roles directly reflects this principle. Harmer (2007) notes that roles such as chair, note-taker, and spokesperson “give students a clear reason to participate and a clear understanding of what participation looks like” (p. 166). In my own teaching, assigning the spokesperson role to quieter or weaker learners has proven particularly effective. This practice resonates with Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, where learners perform beyond their current competence with appropriate support.

Monitoring role fulfillment further reinforces accountability. Scrivener (2011) argues that teachers should “listen actively to group work not to control it, but to diagnose learning needs” (p. 98). This diagnostic stance transforms monitoring into a formative, rather than punitive, practice. From my own perspective, this is a way to scaffold learners to have them achieve communication aims and learning objectives.

Managing Learner Behavior and Classroom Roles

Learner behavior cannot be separated from social identity and classroom roles. The British Council’s list of challenging roles, such as the joker or withdrawer, reflects what Dörnyei (2001) describes as learners’ attempts to “negotiate their position within the group” (p. 43). These behaviors often mask deeper needs for recognition, security, or autonomy.

In online university contexts, behavioral management is further complicated by institutional rules. My reflection on enforcing camera policies illustrates the importance of aligning classroom management with institutional frameworks. In relation to learner behavior in online contexts, a policy-informed stance grounded in institutional responsibility is necessary: “This type of behavior is not acceptable and, based on the Student Handbook, students who persist will be considered absent” (Acuña 2026). This institutional approach where I work reflects Harmer’s (2007) argument that effective classroom management depends on a balance between empathy and clearly articulated authority. Harmer (2007) argues that effective teachers balance empathy with authority, noting that “students expect teachers to lead, not abdicate responsibility” (p. 35).

For serious behaviors such as bullying, private intervention is essential. Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) warn that public confrontation can reinforce negative behavior by providing attention. Conversely, silent or withdrawn learners require a supportive approach. As Scrivener (2011) observes, “silence does not necessarily mean disengagement” (p. 67). Offering alternative participation modes acknowledges learner differences without forcing conformity.

Mixed-Ability Classes and Learner Diversity

A foundational premise stated by the British Council is that all classes are mixed-ability classes. This view aligns with contemporary SLA research, which rejects simplistic distinctions between “fast” and “slow” learners. Dörnyei (2005) emphasizes that learner differences stem from a complex interaction of cognitive, affective, and contextual factors, stating that “motivation does not exist in a vacuum but is dynamically shaped by learning environments” (p. 65).

Finally, when reflecting on mixed-ability classes, I have identified a constellation of learner variables including “cognitive load, motivation, study habits, life experience, and work experience” (Acuña 2026), reinforcing Dörnyei’s (2005) claim that learner differences are multidimensional and dynamic rather than reducible to proficiency alone, which closely mirror the British Council’s expanded list. Tomlinson (2014), writing on differentiation, argues that effective teachers “proactively plan varied ways to access content, process ideas, and demonstrate learning” (p. 18). Providing optional extension tasks and choice-based activities allows stronger learners to remain challenged without disadvantaging others.

Factors contributing to being different

personality	age	gender	memory
learning preference	language proficiency	study habits	reasons for learning
preferences for methodology	speeds of working and learning	boredom limits	degree of application and distraction

Taken from the British Council’s course page

https://open.teachingenglish.org.uk/Team/UserProgrammeDetails/676892

Regularly changing groupings further supports social cohesion. Johnson and Johnson (1999) note that rotating groups helps learners develop trust and reduces fixed hierarchies. Encouraging learner autonomy, meanwhile, reflects Holec’s (1981) assertion that autonomy is “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning” (p. 3), a skill essential in mixed-ability contexts.

Conclusion

Managing group dynamics and mixed-ability classes requires more than classroom intuition; it demands theoretically informed decision-making. The British Council’s practical guidance, when viewed through the lens of ELT theory, reveals that challenges such as off-task behavior, conflict, unequal participation, and learner diversity are not failures of group work but inherent features of social learning. By grounding classroom management in principles of cooperative learning, sociocultural theory, motivation research, and differentiation, teachers can transform these challenges into opportunities for deeper engagement. As both research and reflective practice suggest, successful group work depends not on controlling learners, but on designing conditions in which meaningful collaboration can flourish.

San José, Costa Rica

Saturday, January 24, 2026

📚 References

Acuña, J. (January 2026). Professional reflections on group dynamics and mixed-ability instruction. Unpublished reflective coursework for TeachingEnglish: Managing learners and resources, British Council.

British Council. (n.d.). TeachingEnglish: Managing learners and resources. https://open.teachingenglish.org.uk/Team/UserProgrammeDetails/676892

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.

Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English (2nd ed.). Longman.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Creative controversy. Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning teaching (3rd ed.). Macmillan.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.