THE MULTIGRADE CLASSROOM: A RESOURCE HANDBOOK FOR SMALL, RURAL SCHOOLS

Transcription

1

2 THE MULTIGRADE CLASSROOM: A RESOURCE HANDBOOK FOR SMALL, RURAL SCHOOLS Book 1: Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction November 1999 Rura Education Program Based on the September 1989 pubication of the same tite written by Bruce A. Mier Susan Vincent, Editor Joyce Ley, Director Northwest Regiona Educationa Laboratory 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500 Portand, Oregon 97204

3 Acknowedgments The foowing seections have been reprinted with permission: Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous cassroom (pp ). New York, NY: Teachers Coege Press. (Reprinted with permission of pubisher.) Emmer, E.T. (1987). Cassroom management and discipine. In V. Richardson-Koeher & D.C. Beriner (Eds.), Educators handbook: A research perspective (pp ). White Pains, NY: Longman. (Reprinted with permission of pubisher.) Evertson, C.M., Emmer, E.T., Cements, B.S., Sanford, J.P., & Wiiams, E. (1981). Organizing and managing the eementary schoo cassroom. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Research and Deveopment Center for Teacher Education. (Reprinted with permission of Caroyn Evertson, Peabody Coege, Vanderbit University, Nashvie, TN.) Gaustad, J. (1994). Nongraded education: Overcoming obstaces to impementing the mutigrade cassroom [Specia issue]. OSSC Buetin, 38(3 & 4). (Reprinted with permission of author.) Gibbons, M., & Phiips, G. (1978). Heping students through the sefeducation crisis. Phi Deta Kappan, 60(4), (Reprinted with permission of pubisher.) Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative earning: Resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. (Reprinted with permission of pubisher.) Karweit, N. (1987). Diversity, equity, and cassroom processes. In M.T. Hainan (Ed.), Socia organization of schoos: New conceptuaizations of the earning process (pp ). New York, NY: Penum Press. (Reprinted with permission of pubisher.) Kentucky Department of Education. (1996). Neary a Kentucky schoos show improvement in atest KIRIS scores, but midde schoos ag behind [Press reease]. Frankfort, KY: Author. (Reprinted with permission of author.) Murphy, J., Wei, M., & McGrea, T. (1986). The basic practice mode of instruction. Eementary Schoo Journa, 87(1), (Reprinted with permission of the University of Chicago Press.) Oregon Department of Education, & Ackerman Laboratory Schoo. (1994). Mixed-age programs, Saem, OR: Oregon Department of Education. (Reprinted with permission of pubisher.) Pavan, B.N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schoos. Educationa Leadership, 50(2), (Reprinted with permission of author.) ii The Mutigrade Cassroom

4 Savin, R.E. (1987). Abiity grouping and student achievement in eementary schoos: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educationa Research, 57(3), (Reprinted with permission of the American Educationa Research Association.) Savin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in eementary and secondary schoos. Educationa Leadership, 46(1), (Reprinted with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curricuum Deveopment.) Savin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1989). What works for students at risk: A research synthesis. Educationa Leadership, 46(5), (Reprinted with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curricuum Deveopment.) Thomas, J.W., Strage, A., & Curey, R. (1988). Improving students sefdirected earning: Issues and guideines. Eementary Schoo Journa, 88(3), (Reprinted with permission of the University of Chicago.) iii

5 Overview Preface The preface describes the process used in deveoping this handbook, incuding the mutigrade teachers who shared their cassroom strategies and ideas for improving the usefuness of the handbook. Introduction The history of mutigrade cassroom instruction is presented, aong with the background information that describes why mutigrade instruction is an important and compex issue for educators. Book 1: Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction In this book, the research on mutigrade instruction is reviewed in order to answer two questions: (1) What effect does mutigrade instruction have on student performance? and (2) What kind of training is needed in order to teach in a mutigrade cassroom? Detaied information focusing on organizing and teaching in a mutigrade cassroom is aso presented. Book 2: Cassroom Organization This book describes strategies for arranging and organizing instructiona resources and the physica environment of the cassroom. Sampe cassroom ayouts and a design kit for organizing your cassroom are aso incuded. Book 3: Cassroom Management and Discipine Estabishing cear expectations for student behavior and predictabe cassroom routines has been shown to improve student performance. In this book, research reating to cassroom management and discipine are presented, aong with a checkist for panning management routines and discipine procedures. Book 4: Instructiona Organization, Curricuum, and Evauation Research-based guideines for panning, deveoping, and impementing instructiona strategies are presented. This book emphasizes the deveopment of cooperative work norms in the mutigrade cassroom and expains how to match instruction to the needs of students. An overview of curricuum and evauation panning concepts is aso provided. This book is a cose companion piece with book 5: Instructiona Deivery and Grouping. iv The Mutigrade Cassroom

6 Book 5: Instructiona Deivery and Grouping This book emphasizes that instructiona quaity and student grouping are key components for success in the mutigrade cassroom. Instructiona methods such as recitation, discussion, and cooperative earning are reviewed. Panning guides and exampes are aso incuded where appropriate. Strategies for organizing group earning activities across and within grade eves, especiay those that deveop interdependence and cooperation among students, are discussed. Book 6: Sef-Directed Learning Deveoping skis and strategies in students that aow for a high eve of independence and efficiency in earning, either individuay or in combination with other students, is essentia in the mutigrade cassroom. Ideas for deveoping sef-direction are presented in this book. Book 7: Panning and Using Peer Tutoring This book provides guideines for deveoping skis and routines whereby students serve as teachers to other students within and across differing grade eves. The research on what makes for effective tutoring in the cassroom is aso reviewed. v

7 Preface The deveopment of this handbook began in 1987, when a group of peope invoved in rura education raised severa issues regarding mutigrade cassroom instruction. In their discussions, members of the advisory committee for the Northwest Regiona Educationa Laboratory s (NWREL) Rura Education Program agreed that mutigrade teacher training in their respective states was either acking or whoy inadequate. They aso were concerned about the avaiabiity of research and training materias to hep rura mutigrade teachers improve their skis. As a resut of these concerns, the Rura Education Program decided to deveop a handbook to assist the mutigrade teacher. The handbook evoved in severa stages. The first was a comprehensive review, conducted by Dr. Bruce Mier, of the research on mutigrade instruction that incuded artices, books, and research reports from the United States, Canada, Austraia, and other countries. From this review, six topic areas emerged that are considered essentia for effective mutigrade instruction: cassroom organization; cassroom management and discipine; instructiona organization, curricuum, and evauation; instructiona deivery and grouping; sef-directed earning; and panning and using peer tutoring. Dr. Mier deveoped the handbook around these six instructiona areas, and a draft was competed in June 1989, with support from the Office of Educationa Research and Improvement (OERI). The second stage occurred in Juy 1989, when a conference was hed in Ashand, Oregon, with mutigrade teachers who were recommended by educationa eaders from throughout the Northwest and Pacific Isand regions. During the conference, participants were organized into workgroups, each focusing on one of the topic areas. Their tasks were to review the appropriate handbook chapter for carity and content, to suggest aternative and/or additiona instructiona strategies to those presented in the handbook, and to write case descriptions of activities drawn from their cassrooms. For exampe, Joe Anderson from Onion Creek Eementary in Covie, Washington, described how he grouped students for cooperative earning. Darci Shane from Vida, Montana, presented a schoo handbook she had deveoped for parents that incuded a cass schedue and other schoo-reated information. (A fu ist of participants appears at the end of this preface.) The fina handbook was competed by Dr. Mier in September Based on the growing interest and research on mutigrade instruction the handbook was revised and updated in 1999, aso with support from OERI. The fina version, competed with support from the Institute of Internationa Education (IIE), is now composed of a series of seven standaone books. vi The Mutigrade Cassroom

8 Book 1: Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction Book 2: Cassroom Organization Book 3: Cassroom Management and Discipine Book 4: Instructiona Organization, Curricuum, and Evauation Book 5: Instructiona Deivery and Grouping Book 6: Sef-Directed Learning Book 7: Panning and Using Peer Tutoring Purpose and Scope of the Handbook The handbook has been written to serve three genera purposes: To provide an overview of current research on mutigrade instruction To identify key issues teachers face when teaching in a mutigrade setting To provide a set of resource guides to assist novice and experienced mutigrade teachers in improving the quaity of instruction However, because of the compexity of mutigrade instruction and the vast amount of research on effective cassroom instruction, this handbook can ony serve as a starting point for those educators wanting to earn new skis or refine those they aready possess. Each book of the series presents information, strategies, and resources considered important for the mutigrade teacher. Whie a the books are reated, they aso can stand aone as separate documents. For exampe, the books on Cassroom Organization (Book 2) and Cassroom Management and Discipine (Book 3) contain overapping information. Ideay, these two books are best utiized together. The same is true of the books on Instructiona Organization, Curricuum, and Evauation (Book 4) and Instructiona Deivery and Grouping (Book 5). Wherever possibe, these reationships have been noted in the appropriate books. In concusion, the series of books has been designed to be used as a research-based resource guide for the mutigrade teacher. It covers the most important issues the mutigrade teacher must address to be effective in meeting the needs of students. Sampe schedues, cassroom ayouts, resource ists, and strategies aimed at improving instruction have been used throughout. It is our hope that the handbook wi raise questions, provide answers, and direct the mutigrade teacher to resources where answers to other questions can be found. vii

9 Participants in the Mutigrade Conference Kaistus Ngirturong Aimeiik Eementary Babedaob Isand Repubic of Paau Robin Lovec Springdae Schoo Springdae, Montana Anthony Moorow Yap Department of Education Coonia, Yap Chery Mikoajcvyk Kaumakakai, Hawaii Lesie Gordon Pitkas Point Schoo St. Mary s, Aaska James Makphie Majuro, Marsha Isands Edith Nichoas Andrew K. Demoski Schoo Nuato, Aaska Benjamin Bernard Majuro, Marsha Isands Linda Peroy W.W. Jones Eementary Arock, Oregon John Rusyniak Mentasta Lake Schoo Mentasta Lake, Aaska Patricia Reck Brothers Schoo Brothers, Oregon Bi Radtke Engish Bay Schoo Engish Bay, Aaska Phi M. Giies Stone Eementary Maad, Idaho Caro Spackman Park Vaey Schoo Park Vaey, Utah Barbara Robinson Arbon Eementary Schoo Arbon, Idaho Monte Phoenix and Karrie Phoenix Orovada, Nevada Joe Anderson Onion Creek Eementary Covie, Washington Marty Karin Trinity Center Schoo Trinity Center, Caifornia Troy Smith Dixie Eementary Schoo Dixie, Washington Ji Bis Sanders Eementary Schoo Sanders, Arizona Darci Shane Southview Schoo Vida, Montana Eieene Armstrong Merose Eementary Merose, Montana Pam Cunningham Sand Springs Eementary Sand Springs, Montana Jennifer McAister Deerfied Eementary Lewistown, Montana Kimbery Rinda Ayers Eementary Grass Range, Montana Sammy Vickers Grant Eementary Dion, Montana Brian Woter Avon Eementary Avon, Montana viii The Mutigrade Cassroom

10 Introduction In contrast to a historica pattern of chidren deveoping within an agevaried socia system, many chidren today spend a majority of their time in an age-segregated miieu (Katz, Evangeou, & Hartman, 1990; McCean, 1994). The resuts of this pattern of segregation are thought to contribute to a decining socia support system and compromised deveopment of chidren s socia and academic skis. Coeman (1987) suggests the need for a significant institutiona and societa response to support functions traditionay fied by the famiy, such as the deveopment of feeings of beonging and community, emotiona and socia bonding, and nurturance. Increasingy, the schoo has been viewed as one of the most effective and efficient contexts to address chidren s academic, affective, and socia needs before these needs reach crisis proportions. A growing body of research expores the infuence of educationa contexts on chidren s deveopment. Whie interest has focused on the impact of the cassroom environment on chidren s attitudes toward schoo, cognitive growth, and academic deveopment, ess direct attention has been given to the reationship between cassroom context (incuding the structure and content of chidren s peer reationships) and academic and socia deveopment during the eementary years. One approach expored by theoreticians and researchers for encouraging chidren s academic and socia ski deveopment is mutigrade instruction. In mutigrade instruction, chidren of at east a two-year grade span and diverse abiity eves are grouped in a singe cassroom and are encouraged to share experiences invoving inteectua, academic, and socia skis (Goodad & Anderson, 1987; Katz et a., 1990; McCean & Kinsey, 1996). Consistency over time in reationships among teachers, chidren, and parents is viewed as one of the most significant strengths of the mutigrade approach because it encourages greater depth in chidren s socia, academic, and inteectua deveopment. The concept of the cassroom as a famiy is encouraged, eading to expansion of the roes of nurturing and commitment on the part of both students and teacher (Feng, 1994; Haion, 1994; Marshak, 1994). The potentia academic and socia impications of the mutigrade concept of education are strongy supported by extensive research demonstrating the importance of peers in chidren s academic and socia deveopment, and by studies of reciprocity theory, which demonstrate the positive effect on chid academic and socia behavior of sustained cose reationships between chidren and caregivers (Kinsey, 1998; Maccoby, 1992). The adequate impementation of a mutigrade approach to education extends beyond simpy mixing chidren of different grades together. A positive working mode of a mutigrade cassroom aows for the deveopment of academic and socia skis as the teacher encourages cross-age interactions through tutoring and shared discovery. Socia competence deveops ix

11 for oder chidren out of their roes as teachers and nurturers, and for younger chidren out of their opportunity to observe and mode the behavior of their oder cassmates (Katz et a., 1990; Ridgway & Lawton, 1969). The mutigrade cassroom has traditionay been an important and necessary organizationa pattern of education in the United States, notes Mier (1993). Mutigrade education dates back to the one-room schoos that were the norm in this country unti they were phased out in the eary part of the 1900s (Cohen, 1989; Mier, 1993). From the mid-1960s through mid-1970s, a number of schoos impemented open education, ungraded cassrooms, and mutigrade groupings. Athough some schoos continued to refine and deveop the mutigrade concept, many of these programs disappeared from pubic schoos. With the beginning of the industria revoution and arge-scae urban growth, the idea of mass pubic education took root and the practice of graded schoos began in earnest. The graded schoo system provided a means of organizing and cassifying the increased number of urban students of the 1900s. Educators found it easier to manage students by organizing them into age divisions or grades. Other factors, such as the advent of the graded textbook, state-supported education, and the demand for trained teachers, further soidified graded schoo organization (Mier, 1993; Uphoff & Evans, 1993). Critics of the graded schoo were quick to emphasize this deficiency. The reaization that chidren s uneven deveopmenta patterns and differing rates of progress are i-matched to the rigid grade-eve system has resuted in a growing interest in and study of the potentia benefits of mutigrade education in recent years (Mier, 1996). This growing interest is due to a greater focus on the importance of the eary years in efforts to restructure the educationa system (Anderson, 1993; Cohen, 1989; Stone, S.J., 1995; Wiis, 1991) and an awareness of the imitations of graded education. The mutigrade cassroom is abor intensive and requires more panning, coaboration, and professiona deveopment than the conventiona graded cassroom (Cushman, 1993; Gaustad, 1992; Mier, 1996). Sufficient panning time must be avaiabe to meet the needs of both teacher and students. Insufficient panning, staff deveopment, materias, support, and assessment procedures wi have an impact on the success of the mutigrade program (Fox, 1997; Mier, 1996; Nye, 1993). Despite these constraints, there are specia advantages to mutigrade cassrooms. Fexibe schedues can be impemented and unique programs deveoped to meet students individua and group interests and needs. Combined cassrooms aso offer ampe opportunity for students to become resourcefu and independent earners. The mutigrade rura cassroom is usuay ess forma than the singe-grade urban or suburban cassroom. Because of the sma cass size, friendy reationships based on understanding and respect deveop naturay between the students and the teacher. In x The Mutigrade Cassroom

12 this setting, students become we-known by their teacher and a famiy atmosphere often deveops. However, many teachers, administrators, and parents continue to wonder whether mutigrade organization has negative effects on student performance. For most rura educators, mutigrade instruction is not an experiment or a new educationa trend, but a forcefu reaity based on economic and geographic necessity. In a society where educationa environments are dominated by graded organization, the decision to combine grades is often quite difficut. The Rura Education Program of the Northwest Regiona Educationa Laboratory receives numerous requests from rura educators with two overriding concerns regarding mutigrade cassrooms: What effect does mutigrade instruction have on student performance? What kind of preparation or training is needed to be an effective teacher in a mutigrade cassroom? This handbook wi provide answers to these questions and deveop an overview of key issues facing schoo districts and teachers invoved in or contempating mutigrade cassrooms. xi

13

14 Contents Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction...1 Methodoogica Incusion Criteria...2 Quantitative Studies: Student Achievement...3 The Victorian Quaity Schoos Project...9 Resuts...11 Mutigrade Teaching in Peru...14 Mutigrade Teaching in Sri Lanka...15 Mutigrade Teaching in Vietnam...15 Quantitative Studies: Student Attitudes...17 Summary...18 Quaitative Studies: A View From the Inside...20 Estabishing the Needs of the Mutigrade Teacher...22 Impementation of the Program: Getting Started...22 Today...23 Obscured purpose of mutigrade programs...24 Legisative adjustments...24 Fit between the mutigrade program and resuts-based reform..25 Efficacy and teacher beief systems...25 Loca Factors...26 Principa eadership...26 Teacher beiefs...26 Schoo cimate...26 Summary...27 What do teachers need to know?...27 What do administrators need to know?...28 What is the principa's roe?...28 How Important are Sufficient Time and Money?...31 Instruction in a Mutigrade Cassroom With More Than Two Grades...34 Summary...40 Concusion...41 Impications...45 Risks and Concerns...47 References...48 Book 1: Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction xiii

15

16 Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction Any indication that one is invoved in an investigation concerning mutigrade casses arouses intense interest among parents, even grandparents, of preschooers and chidren of primary schoo age. Questions and comments abound. The matter is one of much significance and practica importance to them. It is aso of considerabe professiona interest to educators and of theoretica as we as professiona interest to educationa researchers. For parents, the critica issue is whether the mutigrade cassroom wi provide the kind of positive, satisfying, and productive socia and earning experience they want for their chid in schoo. For teachers and schoo eaders, there are mutipe issues: whether enroment distributions necessitate mutigrade casses; the nature of parenta, teacher, and schoo eader attitudes to mutigrade casses; how best to organize and teach such casses in order to maximize student earning progress and socia deveopment. For researchers, the major focus for many years has been the question of whether student achievement differs in mutigrade and singe-grade casses. The mutigrade cass structure is known by various names in different countries; these incude composite or combination casses, doube casses, spit casses, mixed-age casses and verticay grouped casses (Veenman, 1995). It is defined as a cass in which students of two or more adjacent grade eves are taught in one cassroom by one teacher for most, if not a, of the day. Such mutigrade casses are embedded within the traditiona graded system: students retain their grade-eve abes and are promoted through the schoo with their grade-eve cohort (Mason & Burns, 1996; Veenman, 1995). For Mason and Burns and for Veenman, the definition aso impies that grade-eve curricuum and achievement expectations wi be retained. Both Veenman (1995) and Mason and Burns (1996) distinguish between the mutigrade cass and two other structures: the mutiage cass and the nongraded schoo. The atter two structures have an individuaized, deveopmenta focus and manifest in a continuous progress rather than ock-step, graded curricuum for cass groups of students varying in age. Student groups remain with the same teacher for two or more years. Both researchers view the mutigrade cass structure as arising from administrative and economic necessity (unequa grade-eve enroment numbers, together with fixed staff-student ratios), in contrast to the mutiage grouping, which is seen to resut from a deiberate decision based on a particuar pedagogica and phiosophica approach. This book presents a synthesis of research findings into the cognitive and noncognitive effects of mutigrade and singe-grade cassrooms in eementary schoos. Incuded are studies that invove the evauation of the effects of mutigrade or mutiage grouping. Mutigrade and mutiage grouping have been ceary distinguished in order to avoid an appes and oranges probem at the eve of the independent variabe. The studies have Book 1: Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction 1

17 aso been grouped as reevant to two major dependent variabes: (1) academic or cognitive achievement, and (2) noncognitive growth. The first area of reevance is further divided into the academic subjects addressed; for exampe, reading, anguage, mathematics, science, and socia studies. The second area of reevance is further divided into persona adjustment, socia adjustment, sef-concept, attitudes toward schoo, and motivation. Methodoogica Incusion Criteria Experimenta and contro groups Standard measures Comparabiity of sampes Duration of mutigrade grouping Normaity of sampe Teacher training Number of teachers A studies possessed both experimenta (mutigrade or mutiage) and contro (singe-grade or singe-age) groups. In a studies, standard measures of academic achievement or nonacademic achievement were used. Grades and report card scores were not incuded as achievement variabes because of their subjective nature. Noncognitive variabes were excuded if they were not based on some objective standard of measurement. Ideay, initia comparabiity of the experimenta and contro sampes was estabished by means of matching of schoos or casses, or matching of individua students within casses or schoos. In a of the incuded studies, the mutigrade groups examined had existed for at east one year. A incuded studies invoved sampes of norma students in reguar casses. In a incuded studies, teachers in the experimenta group had not been trained on the dependent measures. At east two experimenta and two contro teachers were invoved in a of the studies incuded in this review. 2 The Mutigrade Cassroom

18 Quantitative Studies: Student Achievement In recent years some significant studies have been pubished that systematize and evauate the research on the effects of mutigrade casses on student achievement, as we as ones that investigate the processes that contribute to these effects. Veenman s (1995) best-evidence synthesis of research concerning the cognitive and noncognitive effects of mutigrade and mutiage casses was a thorough and we-documented meta-anaysis and description of a arge number of studies (45 of which were concerned with mutigrade casses), drawn from a wide range of countries and nations across the word, both deveoped and deveoping. Veenman found that there were no consistent differences in student achievement between mutigrade and singe-grade casses. The overa median effect size for cognitive outcomes was 0.00, whie the overa median effect size for affective outcomes was On the basis of his findings, Veenman drew the concusion that: parents, teachers, and administrators need not worry about the academic progress or socia-emotiona adjustment of students in mutigrade or mutiage casses. These casses are simpy no worse, and simpy no better, than singe grade or singe-age casses (Veenman, 1995). Four factors were proposed by Veenman to hep expain the finding of no difference in student achievement between mutigrade and singe-grade casses: Grouping aone is unikey to have an effect; earning is more dependent on the quaity of teaching than on organizationa structure Bias in seecting more capabe students into mutigrade casses, if it occurs, woud depete the proportion of those students in singe-grade casses, producing nonequivaent sampes for comparison Teachers of mutigrade casses are inadequatey prepared for teaching such casses and do not have avaiabe suitabe materias for their teaching Mutigrade teaching is demanding and eaves teachers with itte energy to pursue potentiay more effective grouping strategies in their teaching, resuting in the use of the same practices as in singe-grade casses The quaity of the research reviewed by Veenman was not consistenty strong, and the justification for incusion of some of the studies in his anaysis is doubtfu. Mason and Burns (1996), having themseves reviewed the research into the differentia effectiveness of mutigrade and singe-grade casses, did not dispute Veenman s finding of nonsignificant differences in achievement and sighty more positive though nonsignificant socia-emotiona Book 1: Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction 3

19 effects of mutigrade casses. However, their concusion was different; they caimed that mutigrade casses have at east a sma negative effect. They argued that mutigrade casses generay have better students and perhaps better teachers aocated to them (a possibiity that Veenman acknowedged in his first paper [1995, pp , 371], but subsequenty caimed was not yet estabished [1996]). These factors shoud produce more positive outcomes for mutigrade casses, both because mutigrade casses woud be systematicay advantaged and aso because singe-grade casses woud consequenty be systematicay deprived of better students and teachers. Why then are there mutigrade casses found to have simiar or sighty negative effects when compared to singe-grade casses? Mason and Burns (1996) asserted that the reason must ie in the more compex and difficut teaching situation that mutigrade casses present, for exampe in terms of the greater workoad and the need for more preparation time and better management skis (factors acknowedged by Veenman [1995, 1996]), together with a consequent increase in teacher stress. Teachers are therefore faced with deivering two different curricua to students of twice the age range in the same amount of time-factors, which make these two structures radicay different. Our question is, why woudn t we expect mutigrade casses to be more difficut for teachers and resut in different and ess effective instructiona practices? (Mason & Burns, 1996) In their view, ower quaity, ess effective teaching is characterized by ess instruction time per grade-eve group, ess time to assist individua students and meet their needs, and reduced curricuum coverage, especiay in areas beyond the basic skis. Mason and Burns argued that the effects of ower quaity instruction in mutigrade casses are offset by the better students and teachers aocated to them, resuting in no significant achievement differences between mutigrade and singe-grade casses. They aso argued that instead of eiminating the potentia negative effects of mutigrade casses on student achievement, the assignment of better students and teachers to these casses actuay masks these effects because it diminishes the quaity of students and teachers in singe-grade casses in the same schoo. The ower achievement outcomes of the disadvantaged singe-grade casses are the ones with which mutigrade outcomes are compared. The Mason and Burns case rests to a arge extent on the question of whether there is a student and teacher seection bias in favor of mutigrade casses. It is somewhat ironic that in a study of Caifornia mutigrade casses conducted by Mason and Burns (1995), there is evidence that major administrative constraints prevent many principas from purposefu pacement of students in mutigrade casses. 4 The Mutigrade Cassroom

20 In one of the argest matched-equivaent studies Rue (1983) examined the effects of mutigrade casses on student achievement in reading and mathematics in grades 3 6 in Arizona. Each mutigrade cass was formed from students at two consecutive grade eves. Three grouping patterns were studied: mutigrade casses, singe-grade casses in mutigrade schoos, and singe-grade casses not in mutigrade schoos. In addition, the achievement eves of students in differing abiity groups were anayzed. Three types of pacement in mutigrade casses were distinguished: high pacement, average/high pacement, and average pacement. Mutigrade casses with high-achieving students incuded students from the upper third in academic achievement, which was primariy a measure of reading achievement for both grades. For exampe, high-achieving second-graders were paced with high-achieving third-graders. A mutigrade average/high cass contained students from the midde and upper thirds in academic achievement in both grades. A mutigrade average cass combined average students from the ower grade with average students from the upper grade. The districts under study were forced to use mutigrade casses in order to economize and to equaize cass oads. Overa, the mutigrade casses did not appear to affect reading and mathematics achievement negativey (tota ES = +.01). The average/high pacement appeared to be best for a grades for reading and for grades 4 6 for mathematics. In a carefuy matched study, Stone (1987) examined the possibe effects of mutigrade cass pacement on mathematics, reading, anguage, science, and socia studies achievement in a arge suburban schoo district in the United States. The mutigrade casses were formed as a resut of unequa enroments and contained students from grades 2 3. The resuts showed no significant differences between the mutigrade students and the singegrade students in overa achievement (tota ES +.20). Kra (1995) examined the effects of mutigrade versus singe-grade casses on mathematics, anguage, and reading performance of second-, fourth-, and sixth-grade students in Denmark. The achievement gains of students in sma schoos (fewer than 110 students) versus arge schoos (more than 250 students) were of particuar interest in this study. The sma (urban and rura) eementary schoos instructed their students in mutigrade casses encompassing two or three grade eves, whie the arge schoos instructed their students in singe-grade casses. As in the study by Brandsma (1993), a mutigrade approach was used and, for the purposes of the present review, the data were reanayzed using ANOCA with pre-achievement, IQ, and socioeconomic status as covariates. No systematic differences were found between the combination and singe-grade cass (tota ES = -.06). Aso, examination of teacher questionnaires and ogs reveaed no differences in the instructiona time devoted to anguage, mathematics, and reading. The number of years spent in mutigrade casses was not found to be associated with differences in achievement. Book 1: Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction 5

21 Barbara Pavan (1992), a researcher and professor of educationa administration at Phiadephia s Tempe University, chose 64 studies conducted after 1967 for her review. Seven descriptors were used to search for the studies: nongraded, continuous progress, mutiunit, individuay guided education, mutigrade, ungraded, and mixed age. To be incuded in this review, students in graded and nongraded schoos with simiar popuations had to be compared using standardized test measures, or nongraded students had to be tested before and after the impementation of a nongraded program. Accepted for anaysis were eementary schoo studies conducted in the United States and Canada for at east one academic year. The studies incuded a subject areas and covered more than one cassroom. Standardized tests were used in 57 of the studies, and the studies usuay reported data from one year. Fifty-two (91 percent) of these studies indicated that for a comparisons, the mutigrade groups performed better than (58 percent) or as we as (33 percent) the graded groups on measures of academic achievement. In ony 9 percent of the studies did the students perform worse. It seems rather remarkabe that pupis in mutigrade schoos scored we. Mutigrade schoos respond to individua differences by adjusting curricuum and thus may not cover what traditiona textbooks do. As such, mutigrade students may not be exposed to a the materia that singegrade students cover. Yet, mutigrade students overwhemingy performed as we as or better than singe-grade students on achievement tests emphasizing mastery of content that is generay the primary focus of the mutigrade schoo. Longitudina studies Whie most of the research studies reported data from one year, 17 studies presented data over a number of years. In those studies, students competing mutigrade primary programs had higher academic achievement than those in singe-grade schoos. More pupis attending mutigrade primary schoos started fourth grade with their entering cass than did chidren from traditiona grade-designated cassrooms. This happens because there is no retention in a primary program. Students in mutigrade intermediate programs had higher or simiar academic achievement, more positive attitudes toward schoo, and simiar sef-esteem than those in singe-grade programs. Seven studies compared students who had spent their entire eementary schoo years in the same mutigrade schoo with those who spent the same years in a traditiona singe-grade schoo. Those studies that reported academic achievement found superior performance by mutigrade students. At-risk students In 18 of the research reports, data were anayzed for various popuations Back students, underachievers, students of ow socioeconomic status, and boys, who seem to experience more difficuty in the eary years of earning and are often considered at risk. With the exception of one study, boys in mutigrade schoos scored better on achievement tests than boys in singegrade schoos. 6 The Mutigrade Cassroom

22 In a 1992 review of research presented at the American Educationa Research Association Conference on the achievement effects of the nongraded eementary schoo, Robert Guiterrez and Robert Savin had findings consistent with those of Barbara Pavan. In addition, they aso compared effect sizes for each study to characterize the strength of the effects, and broke the study into four main categories according to program characteristics. Very different effects were found according to these characteristics. The most positive achievement effects were for the simper forms of nongrading generay evauated during the 1960s, eary in the nongraded movement. They found a median effect size of +.46 for programs in which ony one subject (amost aways reading) was nongraded. These programs strongy resembe the Jopin Pan, cross-grade grouping for reading. They aso cacuated a median effect size of +.34 for nongraded programs that incorporated mutipe subjects but sti primariy invoved cross-grade grouping, not other eements. In 1970, as the mutigrade programs became more compex, they began to incorporate individuaized instruction, and to become more ike open schoos. Thus, the achievement effects began to be much smaer. For programs incorporating individuaized instruction, they found a median effect size of essentiay zero (+.02). Effects of individuay guided education were ony sighty more positive (ES = +.11). In concusion, Guiterrez and Savin s research suggests that the effectiveness of mutigrade eementary programs depends in arge part on the features of the program, especiay the degree to which nongrading is used as a grouping method rather than as a framework for individuaized instruction. It is hard to know how reevant these findings are to the conditions of today, when curricuum and instruction are changing rapidy. Yet, at east they provide a cautionary note. In a simiar study by Barbara Nye (1993), a senior research scientist and executive director of the Research and Poicy Center on Basic Skis at Tennessee State University in Nashvie, 1,500 Tennessee students from kindergarten through fourth grade in mutigrade cassrooms were tracked. In the seven schoos that participated, chidren worked in sma, fexibe groups that were mixed in terms of age and abiity. Students progressed at their own speed, and the earning was more hands-on and ess reiant on textbooks than in traditiona cassrooms. Two years into the study, Nye stated that her anaysis showed that students were doing as we or better in terms of both academics and sef-concept (Viadero, 1996). Based on current and extensive research on mutigrade instruction, three states have aready mandated that the primary schoos become nongraded. Kentucky, Mississippi, and Oregon have mandated mutigrade groupings at the primary eve (Gutoff, 1995), and severa other states are currenty exporing the idea. Book 1: Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction 7

23 Kentucky issued its Education Reform Act, which mandated mutigrade primary schoos, in At the time Kentucky issued the Kentucky Education Reform Act, it was deaing with faiing schoo systems. The Kentucky Department of Education found that by fourth grade, more than 20 percent of its primary popuation had been retained. It aso found that it was not uncommon for schoos to have a 25 percent dropout rate (Steffy, 1993). The department of education fet that drastic measures needed to be taken. This meant researching and revamping the Kentucky education system. The Kentucky Department of Education, after a great dea of research, issued a primary schoo position statement as foows: An appropriate primary program for a chidren recognizes that chidren grow and deveop as a whoe, not one dimension at a time or at the same rate in each dimension. Thus, instructiona practices shoud address socia, emotiona, physica, aesthetic, as we as cognitive needs. The primary program fows naturay from preschoo programs and exhibits deveopmentay appropriate educationa practices. These practices aow chidren to experience success whie progressing according to unique earning needs and aso enabes them to move toward attainment of the educationa goas and capacities of the Kentucky Education Reform Act in an environment which fosters a ove of earning (Steffy, 1993). The Kentucky Education Board decided that the best way to achieve this was through mutigrade instruction. At the time the Kentucky Education Reform Act went into effect, the secondary schoos were unaffected. They fet they first needed to study how these transformations of education woud affect the primary and midde schoo before making changes to the secondary schoos. What does the research that Kentucky and other states ooked into say about mutigrade cassrooms? There sti seem to be many conficting ideas about the benefits of mutigrade instruction. However, most of the research does point to some very positive benefits of mutigrade practices, if they are deat with in the true sense of the word. In Kentucky, resuts from the state s testing program are in after three years of the mandated mutigrade cassrooms. The tests show that fourth-graders reading and writing scores are improving more rapidy than those of eighth- and 12thgraders. Of these three age groups, ony the fourth-graders have been egay required to be taught in mutigrade cassrooms (Viadero, 1996). The University of Louisvie s Center for Gifted Students aso did a study comparing the achievement of four Kentucky primary schoo mutigrade casses with students in out-of-state, traditiona, one-grade settings. Researchers tried to match these casses geographicay and economicay. The study found that 20 percent of the students in the Kentucky cassrooms significanty outscored the out-of-state students on standardized tests in four areas: word identification, reading comprehension, mathematica cacuation, and mathematica probem soving (Viadero, 1996). 8 The Mutigrade Cassroom

24 Two research questions provided the focus for the Victorian Quaity Schoos Project (VQSP), a arge research-and-deveopment project undertaken in Victoria, B.C., from 1992 to The Victorian Quaity Schoos Project What are the characteristics of schoos in which students make rapid and sustained progress in iteracy (Engish) and mathematics, after adjusting for their intake factors and initia eves of achievement? What are the characteristics of schoos in which there are positive student attitudes and behaviors, positive perceptions by teachers of their work environment, and high eves of parent participation and satisfaction with their chid s schooing? Detais of the ongitudina quantitative study and its resuts may be found in Rowe, Hi, & Homes-Smith, 1994, and Rowe, Hi, & Homes- Smith, The study was based on a two-stage stratified probabiity sampe of schoos in the three educationa sectors in Victoria: government, independent, and Cathoic. Schoos were randomy seected at the first stage with probabiity proportiona to their enroment size; at the second stage, the entire cohorts of students in grades K, 2, 4, 7, and 9 in each of the seected schoos were incuded in the sampe. Repeated measures were obtained on these five-year-eve cohorts over a three-year period, resuting in student data for each of the compusory years of schooing. In the first year of the study, useabe data were obtained from 90 (incuding 59 primary schoos) of the 96 schoos that had initiay agreed to participate, with an achieved sampe comprising 13,909 students and 931 teachers. A student sampe attrition rate of about 10 percent occurred between 1992 and 1993, with a subsequent further oss between 1993 and 1994 of 8.5 percent. The fu database for the project is extensive; variabes measured incude students achievement and vaue-added progress in iteracy and mathematics, home background characteristics, student behavior, student attitudes and opinions, cassroom organization, teacher participation in professiona deveopment, parent opinion, teacher affect and perceptions of the work environment, and (in 1993 and 1994) aspects of eadership. The resuts obtained from statistica anaysis of the quantitative data enabed some generaized modes of teacher and schoo effectiveness to be deveoped. A quaitative, foow-up case study was undertaken of seected VQSP schoos in order to vaidate severa aspects of the generaized modes concerning teacher effects on student earning, attitudes, behavior, and eadership effects on teacher attitudes, perceptions, and effectiveness, as we as to iuminate the processes that might be in operation. Because Book 1: Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction 9

25 the quantitative study had produced an interesting and puzzing resut in reation to student achievement in mutigrade casses, this became one of the aspects pursued in the quaitative study. The two reevant research questions were: Does cass composition based on more than one year eve have a negative effect on student progress in Engish and mathematics? Does differentiated teaching reduce the negative effect on student progress in Engish and mathematics of beonging to a cass composed of students at more than one year eve? The intention was to expore teacher and schoo eader understandings and experiences of mutigrade casses to see whether potentia expanations might emerge, which coud then be tested in subsequent quantitative research. A sampe of six primary schoos was seected from among those primary schoos that had participated in the VQSP. The quaitative study was confined to primary schoos for two reasons: First, some of the most interesting and important findings of the VQSP reated to the primary schoo; and second, time/cost demands of the case study approach precuded the investigation of a sampe arge enough to incude both primary and secondary schoos. Seection of the six schoos was based on schoos mean vaue-added earning progress scores in Engish and mathematics for the years and Two schoos were seected that had consistenty high mean achievement scores, two with consistenty ow mean scores, and one with consistenty midde-eve mean scores. The case study coordinator and fiedworkers were bind to the previous performance of the schoos. The sampe comprised schoos from two systems (government and Cathoic), from a range of ocations (urban, outer urban, and semirura), and schoos ranging in size from sma (125 chidren, eight staff) to arge (525 chidren, 27 staff). In each schoo, four schoo eaders (principa, assistant principa, and the two staff members hoding the next most senior positions) and four teachers (teachers of the Year 3 and Year 5 casses that formed the student sampe) were interviewed. Semi-structured interview schedues incuded questions reating to the three main aspects of mutigrade and singe-grade casses: poicy and practice regarding mutigrade casses and their composition, perceptions of the reative ease or difficuty of student earning in mutigrade casses, and teaching/earning strategies used in mutigrade casses. Interview responses were transcribed (not verbatim) from the tape recordings and, foowing the methodoogy of Mies and Huberman (1994), were used to estabish within-site matrices reating to each research question and, subsequenty, across-site matrices. 10 The Mutigrade Cassroom

26 Resuts Amutivariate, mutieve mode of student progress in iteracy (adjusted for grade eve and prior achievement) was deveoped based on the data. It reveaed, among other things, a strong, direct negative effect of being in a mutigrade cass. The standardized coefficient for mutigrade cass in 1993 was , statisticay significant beyond the p <.05 eve by univariate two-taied test. In mathematics the effect, athough negative, was not significant. In contrast to the 1993 resuts, the effect of mutigrade cass on students earning progress in 1994 was not significant, though again sti negative. Detaied information about the intricate and interesting mutieve, mutivariate modeing in which these resuts are embedded may be found in Hi and Rowe (1998). The quantitative study Why was the effect so short-ived or, possiby, so unstabe? The suggested expanation given was that: extended discussions were hed with a participating schoos foowing the finding of a negative effect at the end of 1993 and that as a resut, schoos cosey examined teaching practices in mutigrade casses with a view to identifying ways in which they had become ess effective than singe-grade casses (Hi & Rowe, 1998, p. 326). It was aso pointed out that the 1994 resuts were more in ine with recent research iterature, such as the resuts of the meta-anaysis reported by Veenman (1995). For schoos that must estabish mutigrade casses, it is not sufficient to know whether or not research resuts in genera show a significant or nonsignificant negative effect on earning progress. As indicated earier, many teachers prefer not to teach mutigrade casses and, in genera, parents do not wish to have their chidren taught in mutigrade casses. Regardess of whether these preferences are justified in terms of research resuts about student earning, schoos experience the pressures arising from them. Schoos participating in the VQSP needed to understand the expanation for the short-ived or unstabe effect of mutigrade cassrooms on student earning progress found in the VQSP data. The case studies offered the opportunity to expore schoo perceptions and understandings. In contrast to the sophisticated statistica anayses on which the resuts of the quantitative phase of the VQSP are based, the quaitative resuts are based on the conceptua anaysis of the perceptions, preferences, opinions, and knowedge communicated by individuas during case study interviews. The resuts are expressed in the form of category content, frequencies, and percentages. It is noted that the resuts reating to specific issues were at times based on a reativey imited sampe and on perceptions rather than observations of actua practice, since the purpose of this phase of the study was to deveop potentia understandings and expanations of processes that coud be tested quantitativey at a future time. The resuts are not necessariy representative of Victorian schoos. Book 1: Review of the Research on Mutigrade Instruction 11