Classroom contexts: Connections between class size and within class grouping

Background. There has been a vigorous debate for many years about the educational effects of class size differences, but even if differences have an impact on pupils' academic progress this still leaves unanswered important questions about what mediates the effect. Aims. This paper is informed by a classroom contextual perspective, and examines associations between class size and within class groupings (in terms of size and number of groups, adult presence in groups, and type of interaction between grouping members). Age differences in these relationships are also explored. Samples. The quantitative study is based on analysis of 3157 groupings, from 672 Reception, Year 2 and Year 5 classes in 331 schools. The qualitative study was based on 12 classes in 8 case study schools, and questionnaire responses completed by over 100 class teachers. Methods. Links between size of class and within class groupings were examined on the basis of a 'grouping mapping survey', in which teachers at a given time in the school day provided information on group size and number, adult presence, and type of interaction between pupils, and complementary qualitative analyses of data from teacher-completed questionnaires, and interviews. Results. The number of groups in a class increased with the size of the class. Over all three year groups, small classes had on average just over three groups, while large classes approached six groups. The size of groups in the class decreased with size of class. In class sizes over 25, pupils were more likely to be in a large group of 7-10, while in classes under 25 they were more likely to be in whole class groupings. Qualitative analyses showed that teachers felt that groups of 7-10 pupils had negative educational effects, for example, in terms of the quality and quantity of teaching and children's concentration and contribution in groups. Conclusions. Results suggest that the effects of class size can be best seen as through the size and number of groups, which will then have implications for learning experiences. So while debate about size of class has often been in terms of reduced size of class resulting in pupil academic gains, it is also important educationally to consider within class grouping size and number, and their effects.link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work

In any classroom, pupils will be drawn together for many purposes and we can refer to such within classroom contexts as 'groupings'. The teacher often creates these, and the way that they are set up, and how they are used for particular learning purposes. If the relationships between grouping size, interaction type and learning tasks in groups are planned strategically then learning experiences will be more effective. However, research suggests that the relationships between these elements are often unplanned and the 'social pedagogic' potential of classroom learning is therefore unrealised. In this paper we explore the notion of social pedagogy in relation to group work. It is argued that research and theory relevant to group work in classrooms is limited, and that a new approach, sensitive to group work under everyday classroom conditions is required. This paper identifies key features of a social pedagogy of classroom group work, which can inform effective group work in classrooms. It also describes the background to a current large scale UK project which has been set up to design with teachers a programme of high quality group work in classrooms at both primary and secondary phases. © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Classroom contexts: Connections between class size and within class grouping

Background. There has been a vigorous debate for many years about the educational effects of class size differences, but even if differences have an impact on pupils' academic progress this still leaves unanswered important questions about what mediates the effect. Aims. This paper is informed by a classroom contextual perspective, and examines associations between class size and within class groupings (in terms of size and number of groups, adult presence in groups, and type of interaction between grouping members). Age differences in these relationships are also explored. Samples. The quantitative study is based on analysis of 3157 groupings, from 672 Reception, Year 2 and Year 5 classes in 331 schools. The qualitative study was based on 12 classes in 8 case study schools, and questionnaire responses completed by over 100 class teachers. Methods. Links between size of class and within class groupings were examined on the basis of a 'grouping mapping survey', in which teachers at a given time in the school day provided information on group size and number, adult presence, and type of interaction between pupils, and complementary qualitative analyses of data from teacher-completed questionnaires, and interviews. Results. The number of groups in a class increased with the size of the class. Over all three year groups, small classes had on average just over three groups, while large classes approached six groups. The size of groups in the class decreased with size of class. In class sizes over 25, pupils were more likely to be in a large group of 7-10, while in classes under 25 they were more likely to be in whole class groupings. Qualitative analyses showed that teachers felt that groups of 7-10 pupils had negative educational effects, for example, in terms of the quality and quantity of teaching and children's concentration and contribution in groups. Conclusions. Results suggest that the effects of class size can be best seen as through the size and number of groups, which will then have implications for learning experiences. So while debate about size of class has often been in terms of reduced size of class resulting in pupil academic gains, it is also important educationally to consider within class grouping size and number, and their effects

The incidence and make up of ability grouped sets in the UK primary school

The adoption of setting in the primary school (pupils ability grouped across classes for particular subjects) emerged during the 1990s as a means to raise standards. Recent research based on 8875 children in the Millennium Cohort Study showed that 25.8% of children in Year 2 were set for literacy and mathematics and a further 11.2% of children were set for mathematics or literacy alone. Logistic regression analysis showed that the best predictors of being in the top set for literacy or mathematics were whether the child was born in the Autumn or Winter and cognitive ability scores. Boys were significantly more likely than girls to be in the bottom literacy set. Family circumstances held less importance for setting placement compared with the child’s own characteristics, although they were more important in relation to bottom set placement. Children in bottom sets were significantly more likely to be part of a long-term single parent household, have experienced poverty, and not to have a mother with qualifications at NVQ3 or higher levels. The findings are discussed in relation to earlier research and the implications for schools are set out

Factors deterring schools from mixed attainment teaching practice

Mixed-attainment teaching has strong support from research and yet English schools are far more likely to teach students in ‘ability’ groups. Although research has considered some of the specific benefits of mixed-attainment grouping, there has been little attention to the reasons schools avoid it. This article explores data from the pilot and recruitment phases of a large-scale study into grouping practices and seeks to identify reasons for the low rate of mixed attainment grouping in English secondary schools. We report on our struggle to recruit schools, and explore the different explanations provided by teachers as to why mixed attainment practice is seen as problematic. The difficulties are characterised as a vicious circle where schools are deterred by a paucity of exemplars and resources and the educational climate is characterised as fearful, risk-averse and time-poor. Suggestions are made as to strategies to support schools in taking up mixed attainment practices

Learning to collaborate: Can young children develop better communication strategies through collaboration with a more popular peer

Unpopular children are known to have poor communication skills and experience difficulty in collaborative situations. This study investigated whether pairing unpopular, 5 to 6 year-old, children with a more popular peer would promote more effective collaboration. The study also investigated differences in popular and unpopular children's verbal and non-verbal communication. Thirty-six girls and 36 boys were placed in one of 12 popular, 12 unpopular or 12 mixed pairs. There were no mixed gender pairs. Children were filmed playing a collaborative game. Collaboration in popular pairs was more successful and less disputational than in unpopular pairs. Boys in unpopular pairs broke the rules of the game more often, argued more and did not monitoring their partners' facial expressions effectively. With popular partners they argued less, were more likely to elaborate disagreements, looked at their partner for longer, smiled more and were more likely to offer him a small toy. Unpopular girls' interactions were not markedly disruptive but they clearly benefited from being paired with a child with good communication skills. Popular girls modified their behaviour to take into account an unpopular partner's need for support. These findings suggest that pairing popular and unpopular children may be a useful classroom organisation strategy

Ability grouping and children’s non-cognitive outcomes

The value of ability grouping is often debated despite being adopted in primary and secondary schools across the UK for the past 80 years. Setting is one form of ability grouping which is widely adopted in English schools; it involves dividing pupils from the same cohort into classes according to ability in a specific subject. While the existing evidence identifies a negative effect on cognitive outcomes, especially for low ability pupils, little research has been undertaken to understand the impact of setting on non-cognitive outcomes. This paper provides the first evidence of the effect of setting on non-cognitive outcomes when utilising a nationally representative sample of primary-aged pupils and adopting fixed effects and instrumental variables methodologies. For boys, setting in maths negatively impacts non-cognitive outcomes, driven by a worsening of internalising behaviours. No evidence of a significant impact of lowest set placement on non-cognitive outcomes is identified

Exploring the relative lack of impact of research on ‘ability grouping’ in England: a discourse analytic account

Grouping students by ‘ability’ is a topic of long-standing contention in English education policy, research and practice. While policy-makers have frequently advocated the practice as reflecting educational ‘standards’, research has consistently failed to find significant benefits of ‘ability’ grouping; and indeed has identified disadvantages for some (low-attaining) pupil groups. However, this research evidence has apparently failed to impact on practice in England. This article, contextualised by the authors’ interests in education and social inequality, seeks to do two things. First, it provides a brief analysis of the existing research evidence on the impact of ‘ability’ grouping, with particular reference to socio-economic inequality, identifying seven different explanations for the poorer progress of pupils in low sets that emerge from the literature. Second, it applies Foucaultian ‘analysis of discourse’ to propose potential explanations for the apparent lack of traction of existing research with policy and practice, arguing that practices of ‘ability grouping’ reflect cultural investments in discourses of ‘natural order’ and hierarchy, with particular resonance for the discursive and political habitus of middle-class parents. The authors postulate that investing in a powerful counter-discourse of enlightenment science, illustrated via their current randomised control trial of different approaches to pupil grouping, may offer a means to challenge hegemonic discourses that underpin current classroom practice