Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/effective-group-work-in-primary-school-classrooms-th e-spring-approach-1st-edition-peter-kutnick/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Learning to Teach in the Primary School 3rd Edition Teresa Cremin
https://textbookfull.com/product/learning-to-teach-in-theprimary-school-3rd-edition-teresa-cremin/
Effective group discussion : theory and practice Adams
https://textbookfull.com/product/effective-group-discussiontheory-and-practice-adams/
A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory Peter
Webb
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-course-in-finite-grouprepresentation-theory-peter-webb/
Teaching and Learning About Whole Numbers in Primary School 1st Edition Terezinha Nunes
https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-and-learning-aboutwhole-numbers-in-primary-school-1st-edition-terezinha-nunes/
College Physics Spring 2020 Corrected Edition Paul
Peter
https://textbookfull.com/product/college-physicsspring-2020-corrected-edition-paul-peter/
Geometric and Cohomological Group Theory 1st Edition
Peter H. Kropholler
https://textbookfull.com/product/geometric-and-cohomologicalgroup-theory-1st-edition-peter-h-kropholler/
Group work with populations at risk Fourth Edition
Greif
https://textbookfull.com/product/group-work-with-populations-atrisk-fourth-edition-greif/
An introduction to group work practice Eighth Edition
Toseland
https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-group-workpractice-eighth-edition-toseland/
Becoming an Outstanding Primary School Teacher 2nd Edition Russell Grigg
https://textbookfull.com/product/becoming-an-outstanding-primaryschool-teacher-2nd-edition-russell-grigg/
Professional Learning and Development in Schools and Higher Education 8
Peter Kutnick
Peter Blatchford
Effective Group Work in Primary School Classrooms The SPRinG Approach ProfessionalLearningandDevelopment inSchoolsandHigherEducation Volume8
SeriesEditors
ChristopherDay
JudythSachs
Forfurthervolumes: http://www.springer.com/series/7908
EffectiveGroupWorkin PrimarySchoolClassrooms TheSPRinGApproach PeterKutnick•PeterBlatchford
With EdBaines,InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon And AndrewTolmie,InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon
PeterKutnick
PeterBlatchford FacultyofEducation
TheDepartmentofPsychology UniversityofHongKong andHumanDevelopment
HongKong InstituteofEducation
HongKongSAR
UniversityofLondon
London
UK
ISBN978-94-007-6990-8
ISBN978-94-007-6991-5(eBook) DOI10.1007/978-94-007-6991-5
SpringerDordrechtHeidelbergLondonNewYork
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2013941048
©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaDordrecht2014 Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorby anymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recordingorotherwise,withoutwritten permissionfromthePublisher,withtheexceptionofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurpose ofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Foreword ThebookarisesfromalongcollaborationbetweenPeterKutnickandPeterBlatchfordwhofirststartedworkingtogetherinthemid1990s.Theybothhadabackground indevelopmentalsocialpsychology.PeterKutnick’spreviousresearchwasonchildren’ssocialandmoraldevelopmentwithinclassroomcontexts.PeterBlatchford’s previousresearchwasonpeerrelationsbetweenpupilsatrecess/break-timein schoolsandclassroomfactors,includingteacher’sexpectanciesandclassroominteractions,affectingpupils’educationalprogress.Theywerebothfascinatedbythe classroomasasocialcontextforeducationalandsocialdevelopment.Intheirearly meetingstheybegantodevelopasimpletypeofmethod—theclassroommapping method—asawayofdescribingtheorganizationoftheclassroom.Thismethod informedtwoprojects,fundedbytheUKEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil (ESRC).Thefirsttookplacebetween1997and1999andusedthemappingmethodologytodescribeinasystematicwaythegroupingpracticesinprimaryschoolsin England.Thesecondprojectfollowedimmediatelyafter(1999to2001)andprovidedacomplementarydescriptionofgroupingpracticesatsecondaryschoollevel. ResultsfromthesetwostudiesaresummarizedinBainesetal.(2003)andthework wasconsolidatedinaspecialeditionoftheInternationalJournalofEducational Research—ongroupwork—whichtheyco-editedin2003.Itwasonthebasisof thesetwoprojectsthattheythencollaboratedwithMauriceGalton—oneofthemost prominentclassroomresearchersintheUK,andthedirectorofthewellknown ORACLEstudies(e.g.,Galtonetal.1980)—onasuccessfulbidtotheESRC’s TeachingandLearningResearchProject(TLRP).ThisbodyhandledthelargestGovernmentinvestmentineducationalresearcheverseenintheUK,andtheSPRinG project,asitcametobecalled,wasoneofthelargestempiricalresearchprojectsthey fundedandprobablythelargestsingleprojectongroupworkthathasbeenconducted worldwide.Itranfrom2001to2004andtherewereanumberofalliedandextension projectsthereafter.TheSPRinGprojectthereforebroughttogetherthreeacademics withalongstandinginterestintheclassroomandgroupingpracticesandtheirkey aspirationwiththeSPRinGproject,putboldly,wastoputcollaborativegroupwork onthemap,intheUKatleast.Itisthisprojectwhichisthecentralsourceofdatein thisbook.1
1 MauriceGaltondirectedtheKS3stageoftheprojectinCambridge,i.e.,overthefirstthreeyears ofsecondaryschool.Thisbookconcentratesjustonprimaryschoolsbutreaderscanfindoutabout Maurice’sworkinGalton,Steward,Hargreaves,PellandPage(2009).
TheContentoftheBook:TheSPRinGApproach Thisvolumeisthereforetheresultof20-yearcollaborationbetweenPeterKutnick andPeterBlatchford.Duringthecollaborationasubstantialnumberoftheoretical, methodologicalandpracticaldevelopmentsconcerninggroupworkinclassrooms havetakenplace.Thisbookallowsustheopportunitytobringtogetherthesedevelopmentstoshowhowthefieldhastakenshapeoverthelast25years,toprovidea reviewoftheliteratureoncollaborativegroupworkandinsodoingtopresentthecase forwhatwefeelisaparticularlystrongapproachtogroupwork(theSPRinGproject) andshowhowitenhancesclassroom-basedschoollearningandachievement.
Acentraljustificationforthisbookisthatdebate,policyandpracticerelatedtothe groupingofpupilsforlearningwithinclassroomshasnotbeeninformedbyasound empiricalresearchbase.Tosummarizethegeneralthesisdevelopedinthisbook:in ourearliestjointresearchdescribedabovewefoundthatgroupworkascurrently practicedwasmorelikelytobesetuptoservetheinterestsofclassroomorganization ratherthanprovidingacontextforeffectivelearning.Childreninclassroomswere mostlikelytobefoundseatedinsmallgroupsratherthananyotherseatingpattern. Yet,groupsinclassroomsareoftenformedwithoutastrategicviewoftheirpurpose forlearning,andeventhoughtasksmaybeassignedtogroupsofpupilsthereis littlesupportforinteractionswithingroupstomakelearningeffective.Moreover, pupilsrarelyreceivetrainingintheinterpersonalskillsneededforgroupwork,and teachershavedoubtsabout,andlackeffectivestrategiesforsettingupandmanaging groupworkinclassrooms.Instead,eventhoughseatedingroups,pupilsaremainly required—andexpect—toworkindividuallyorasawholeclass.Giventhissituation, itisnosurpriseiftheyaredrawnoff-taskbysocialtalk!
Thisbookwasdrivenbytheneedtobridgethewidegapbetweenthepotential ofgroupworkanditslimiteduseinpromotingclassroomlearninginschools.We feltthatanewandambitiousapproachtoconceptualizinggroupworkinclassrooms wasneededinordertointegrategroupworkintothefabricoftheschooldayand understanditseffectsovertime.ThisbookdescribestheSPRinG(SocialPedagogic ResearchintoGroupwork)approach,itsclassroom-basedandresearchbackgrounds, aswellasalargescaleevaluationandimplications.
TheSPRinGProjectwasuniqueintermsofitsoriginalityanditsscale.Toexpand onwhatwassaidabove,itinvolvedteamsworkingin:Brighton(KeyStage1;children aged5–7years)ledbyPeterKutnick2 ;London(KeyStage2;childrenaged7–11 years)ledbyPeterBlatchford;andCambridge(KeyStage3;childrenaged12–14 years)ledbyMauriceGalton.3 TheSPRinGprojectwasfurtherstrengthenedbythe Scottishextension(ScotSPRinG)co-directedbyDonaldChristie,ChristineHowe, AllenThurston,AndyTolmieandKeithTopping,whichworkedwithpupilsaged 7–12yearsandwasabletointroduceaddedfeaturesintotheoverallprogramme.
2 PeterKutnickisnowChairProfessorofPsychologyandEducationatTheUniversityofHong Kong.
3 ThisvolumeonlyreportsonKeyStages1and2thatcovertheyearsoftheprimaryschool.The KeyStage3,secondaryschoolstudy,ledbyMauriceGaltonisreportedelsewhere(seeGaltonetal. 2009).
TheSPRinGprojectasawholedeveloped,andsystematicallyevaluated,agroup workprogrammebytrackingpupilprogressoverafullschoolyearandcomparing itwithacontrolgroupintermsof(a)attainment,(b)within-groupinteractionsand (c)motivationforgroupworking.
OnemainresultoftheSPRinGprojectwasthedevelopmentofaHandbook(see Bainesetal.2009)whichwastheresultofthecollaborativeworkofteachersand researchersintheexplorationofhowpupilgroupworkcanbemademoreeffectivein supportofchildren’slearning.‘SPRinG’isbasedupontheviewthateffectivegroup workcanbefacilitatedthroughfourkeydimensions:
1.Carefulattentiontothephysicalandsocialorganizationoftheclassroomand groups
2.Thedevelopmentofpupils’groupworkingskills(baseduponaninclusive relationalapproach)
3.Thecreationandstructuringofchallengingtasksthatlegitimizegroupwork
4.Thesupportiveinvolvementofteachersandotheradults
Theprojectinvolved162classesinprimaryandsecondaryschoolsand4,259pupils aged5–14.TheSPRinGapproachwasparticularlydistinctiveinthatitappliedgroup workacrossthecurriculumandovertheschoolyear.Astrengthoftheevaluationof theSPRinGprogrammewasitslongtermsystematicevaluationofpupilprogress overafullschoolyearwhichincludedcomparisonwithacontrolgroupintermsof objectivemeasuresofattainmentandclassroombehaviour.
Briefly,wefoundthat,farfromimpedinglearning,effectivegroupworkengenderedthroughtheSPRinGprogrammeraisedlevelsofachievement.Intheearlyyears ofprimaryschool,groupworkhelpedtoimproveattainmentinreadingandmathematics.SPRinGactivitiesforolderprimaryschoolpupilsweretargetedatscienceand ledtosignificantlyhigherattainmentanddeeperconceptualunderstandingandinferentialthinking.TheScottishstudyfoundthattheSPRinGprogrammewaseffective outsideoftheEnglishcontextwhereithadbeendeveloped,waseffectiveforchildren inbothruralandurbanclassrooms(whereinitialrelationaldistancesvariedbetween children)andwaseffectiveforchildreninsame-ageaswellasmixed-ageclasses. Further,despitesometeachers’worriesthatgroupworkmightbedisruptive,pupil behaviouractuallyimprovedintheSPRinGclasses.Childrenwereabletotakeon moreresponsibilitiesfortheirownbehaviourandbehaviouroftheirpeers—freeing greateramountsofteachertimetoobserveandreflectuponclassroomactivities. And,groupworkdoubledpupils’levelsofsustained,activeengagementinlearningandmorethandoubledtheamountofhigh-level,thoughtfuldiscussionbetween children.Wealsofoundthat:
•Teachers’professionalskillsandconfidencewereenhancedandtheirteaching repertoirewasextended.Therewerealsounexpectedbenefits–forexample,as pupilsdevelopedgroupworkingskills,teachersfoundtheywere‘freed’from classroomcontrolandwereabletospendmoretimeteaching.
•Groupworkseemedtobemosteffectivewhenadoptedbythewholeschool,rather thantheindividualteacher.
•Teachersworkinginareasofdeprivationorindifficultcircumstancesfoundthat groupworkcouldbeusedsuccessfullyandcanaidclassroomrelationshipsand socialinclusion.
•NotallteachersadaptedtotheSPRinGprogrammeaseffectivelyasothers;classes whereteachersshowedgreatercommitmentwerealsoshowntohavehigherlevels ofcollaborativecommunicationandachievementgain.
Wehopethatasreadersengagewiththisvolumetheywilldevelopanappreciationof theeverydayneglectofgroupworkandanappreciationofitspotential.Theoretically, wedeveloptheterm‘socialpedagogyofeducation’todriveforwardtheideathat learningandteachingwithinclassroomsmusttakeintoconsiderationthesocialcontextwithinwhichlearningmaybepromotedorinhibitedandemphasizethatsocially inclusive,positiverelationshipsamongchildrenisessentialforthedevelopmentof effectivegroupwork.
Itisnotalwayseasytogetthebalancerightbutwearestronglyoftheviewthatthis bookshouldbeofinteresttoacademics,policymakersandpractitioners.Inthebook wedevelopwhatwefeelaresomeconceptuallyandempiricallystrongconclusions aboutgroupworkandsomeprovocativemessagesaboutclassroompracticeand schoolpolicy.Inordertodojusticetothesemessages,andprovidetherationale manyreaderswouldexpect,weneedtodescribetheresultsinsomedetail.Although wehaveincludeddetailsofthemethodologyandanalyses,somereadersmaylike tofollowuptechnicalinformationinthecitedpapersbytheauthors.Otherreaders maybemoreinterestedintheresultsandtheimplicationsforpracticeandpolicy andmayprefertomovequicklythroughthemethodologicaldetails!
AlthoughtheresearchwasconductedinBritain,discussionswithcolleaguesoverseasmakesitclearthatmanyofthekeyissuesandthehugepotentialforgroupwork areapplicabletomanyothercountries.ThisiscertainlythecaseintheUSA,AustraliaandNewZealand,wherecolleagueswork,butisalsolikelyinothercountries. SubsequenttothecompletionoftheSPRinGproject,oneofus—PeterKutnick—has takenupaprofessorialpositionatHongKongUniversity.Thisexperiencehasmade itclearthattheuseofcollaborativeapproachesisbecomingakeypartofeducationaldebateinEastAsia(wherecountrieslikeHongKongarealreadyamongthe highestscorersininternationalcomparisonsofschoolattainment),andwebelieve thatmuchofthecoverageinthisbookisofrelevancethere.Continuingworkinthe CaribbeanbyPeterKutnickandcolleaguesshowsprogressmadebystudentsasa resultofparticipationinSPRinGlikegroupwork,suggestingagainthattheSPRinG programmecanbeappliedtoculturesoutsideoftheUnitedKingdom.
WhotheBookIsIntendedtoReach
Acknowledgements Inthecourseofthiswork,PeterKutnick(inBrighton)andPeterBlatchford(in London)hadthegoodfortunetoworkwithsometalentedandcommittedresearchers. OneofourmostconsistentcolleagueshasbeenEdBaines,whohadaleadingrole intheKS2study(reportedinChap.5inthisbook)andwho,inChap.7,providesan insightfulaccountoftheexperiencesofchildrenandteacherswhentheyusegroup work.Later,afterthestartoftheproject,weweredelightedwhenwewereapproached byAndrewTolmie,ChristineHowe,DonaldChristieandKeithTopping,whowere workinginScotlandandwishedtoextendtheSPRinGprogramme—effectively testingthegeneralizabilityofourfindingstotheculturallydifferentlocationsof urbanandruralclassrooms.Andy’saccountofthisworkisinChap.6.
Wewouldalsoliketoacknowledgeoursincereappreciationoftheinvolvementof overonehundredandfiftyteachers(andgrowing)inthedevelopment,triallingand continuinguseoftheSPRinGapproach.Wefurthernotethattheresearchgreatlybenefitedfromtheideas,helpandsupportofresearchcollaboratorsandresearchofficers. Theseinclude:LuciaBerdondini,AnneChowne,HelenClark,HelenMacIntyre, CathyOta,ChristineRubieDavis,KayLivingstonandEricaJessiman.
Alsointhecourseofourworkwehavehadthegoodfortunetodiscussour workwithcolleaguesfromothercountriesandhavebenefitedfromtheresearchof manypeopleinthisfield.WewouldparticularlyliketomentionNoreenWebbfrom UniversityofCaliforniaLosAngeles,USAandRobynGilliesfromUniversityof Queensland,Australia,whohavebothmadesignificantcontributionstothestudyof groupwork.Wehaveonseveraloccasionstogetherandseparatelypresentedpapers attheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociationAnnualMeetingandwouldliketo thankDavidandRogerJohnsonwhohavesoablychairedtheCooperativeLearning SIG,andactedashoststoarangeofotheracademicsinthisfield.
Andfinally,theresearchthatledtothisvolumewassupportedbythreegrantsfrom theEconomicandSocialResearchCouncilaswellassupplementarygrantsfrom theBritishCouncil,theEsmeeFairbairnFoundationandtheNuffieldFoundation.
SPRinG SocialPedagogicResearchintoGroupwork,theEconomicand SocialResearchCouncilfundedresearchstudyintoeffective groupworkinprimaryandsecondaryschoolclassrooms.
ScotSPRinGSocialPedagogicResearchintoGroupworkundertakenin ScotlandasanextensionandapplicationoftheoriginalSPRinG study.
SPRinGLiteAnexplanationaltermusedtodescribeSPRinGteacherswho werelesscommittedtotheprogrammethantheircolleagues; lowerlevelsofcommitmentwerefoundtobeassociatedwith lesseffectiveattainment,behaviourandmotivationalresults.
PrimarySchoolAcommonlyusedtermacrossEuropetodescribethefirststage ofcompulsoryschoolingforchildrenaged5through11years. InNorthAmericaandotherareas,thissamestageofschooling isreferredtoaselementaryschool.
KeyStage1and2Organizationally,children’sprogressioninEnglishprimary schoolsisdividedintotwoage-basedgroupings,KeyStage1 referstoclassesthatcoverthe5to7yearagerange,andKey Stage2referstoclassesthatcoverthe8–11yearagerange.
Year(1through6)WithintheKeyStages,individualyearsinschoolareidentified asYear1throughYear7;assuchYearinschoolisequivalent toNorthAmerican‘grade’inschool.
SocialpedagogyAtermdevelopedbyPeterKutnickandPeterBlatchfordto exemplifyandexplainthatschool-basedteachingandlearningactivities(thepedagogy)invariablytakesplaceinasocial context.Socialpedagogycanenhanceclassroomlearningas describedintheSPRinGstudies.But,unlessteachersandchildrenaccountforsocialpedagogy,itisjustaslikelytoinhibit learning.
CompositeAScottishschoolingtermthatdenotesmixedagedclassesthat oftencharacterizesmall,ruralschools.
GroupworkAcommonlyusedtermfoundinschool-basedlearning,where anumberofchildren(usuallybetween2and6inagroup)are askedtoworkwithoneanothertocompletealearningactivity. Groupworkhasbeenused(intheliteratureandclassrooms)in anumberofways:fromanaïveassumptionthatanygrouping ofchildrenwillpromotelearning;toplannedlearningtasks thatcharacterizescooperativelearning;dialogue-basedlearningtasksthatcharacterizescollaborativelearning.ForSPRinG purposes,wefocusongroupworkwiththeunderstandingthat childrencanworktogetherasagrouporteamforajointpurpose oroutcome,thatgroupworkcanbeusedacrossallcurriculum areas,andformanydifferenttypesoftask,thatgroupwork requirearangeofsupport,communicationandjointproblemsolvingskillsandthatthebalanceofownershipandcontrol oftheworkshiftstowardthepupilsthemselves(adaptedfrom Bainesetal.2009).
References Baines,E.,Blatchford,P.,&Kutnick,P.(2003).Changesingroupingpracticesoverprimaryand secondaryschool. InternationalJournalofEducationalResearch,39 (1-2),9–34.
Baines,E.,Blatchford,P.,&Kutnick,P.,withChowne,A.,Ota,C.,&Berdondini,L.(2009). Promotingeffectivegroupworkinprimaryschools. London:Routledge.
Galton,M.J.,Simon,B.,&Croll,P.(1980). Insidetheprimaryclassroom.London:Routledge& KeganPaul.
Galton,M.J.,Steward,S.,Hargreaves,L.,Pell,A.,&Page,C.(2009). Motivatingyoursecondary class.London:SAGEPublications.
Kutnick,P.,&Blatchford,P.(Eds.)(2003). InternationalJournalofEducationalResearch,39 (1-2).
1CantheGroupingofChildreninClassroomsAffectTheirLearning;An IntroductiontoSocialPedagogy .................................1 1.1Introduction ...............................................1
1.2HowDoestheClassroomContextAffectLearning? ..............3
1.3GroupingandLearning:APreliminaryView
1.3.1CognitiveProcessesandGroupWorkinSchools
1.3.2PeerRelations .......................................10
1.4SocialProcessesUnderlyingGroupWorkinSchools
1.5RelationshipsamongChildrenasLearnerswithinGroupWork
2.2BackgroundIssuesinPromotingDevelopmentandUnderstanding viaEffectiveGroupWorkinClassrooms:UnderstandingPedagogy andOpeningthe‘BlackBox’
2.3ExperimentalandNaturalisticStudiesofGroupWorkinPrimary SchoolClassrooms
2.3.1ExperimentalResearch
2.3.2NaturalisticStudies
3.2TheSPRinGProject
3.2.1TheSPRinGApproach:BuildingonaSocialPedagogy ofClassroomLearning
3.3EvaluationoftheSPRinGProgramme:TheInterventionand ResearchDesign
3.3.1TheSPRinGProgrammeandHowitwasImplemented
3.4EvaluatingtheSPRinGProject ...............................64
3.4.1ResearchDesign .....................................64
3.4.2Samples ............................................66
3.4.3MethodsofDataCollection:MeasuresofPupilAttainment, ClassroomBehavior,Motivation/AttitudestoLearningand ClassroomImplementation ............................67
3.5TheScottishExtension:ScotSPRinG ..........................74
3.5.1TheSample .........................................75
3.5.2MethodsofDataCollection:ScotSPRinG ................ 75
3.6InsightsintotheImplementationofSPRinG:AQualitativeApproach intoWholeSchoolandWithin-ClassImplementation .............76
3.7ChapterSummary ..........................................76 References .....................................................77
4SPRinGatKeyStage1:EffectiveGroupWorkwithYoungChildren .81
4.1Introduction ...............................................81
4.2IneffectiveGroupWork ......................................81
4.2.1AreChildrentooYoungforGroupWork? ................82
4.2.2QualityofTalkWithinGroups
4.2.3QualityofRelationshipsSupportingGroupWork .........84
4.3ParticularResearchQuestionsConsideredinthisChapter ..........85 4.4Method ...................................................85
4.5ResultsDuringandattheEndoftheGroupWorkProgramme
4.5.1EffectsofSPRinGTrainingOverTime
4.6Discussion ................................................97
4.6.1RelationalTraining ...................................98
4.6.2TheClassroomasConducivetoGroupWorking
4.6.3RoleoftheTeacher
5ImprovingtheEffectivenessofCollaborativeGroupWorkatKS2: EffectsonPupilAttainment,ClassroomBehaviourandAttitudes ....103
5.1Introduction ...............................................103
5.1.1AttainmentintheClassroom ...........................103
5.1.2Pupil-PupilandTeacher-PupilInteractions ...............105
5.1.3SPRinGandPupilAttitudes/Motivation ..................109
5.1.4ParticularResearchQuestionsConsideredinthisChapter...109
5.2Method ...................................................110
5.2.1Sample .............................................110
5.2.2Attainment ..........................................112
5.2.3ObservationMeasuresofPupil-PupilandTeacher-Pupil Interactions .........................................114
5.2.4Motivational/AttitudinalMeasures ......................115
5.3Results ...................................................115
5.3.1Attainment
5.3.2Pupil-PupilandTeacher-PupilInteraction
5.3.3AttitudesandMotivation ..............................120
5.4Discussion ................................................120
5.4.1Attainment
5.4.2SPRinGandPupil-PupilandTeacher-PupilInteraction
5.4.3SPRinGandPupilAttitudes/Motivation
6ScotSPRinG:TheEffectsofGroupWorkinScottishPrimarySchoolson Attainment,InteractionandClassroomRelationships
AndrewTolmie
6.1Introduction ...............................................
6.2.1Sample
6.2.2Intervention:TeacherInductionandSupport
6.2.3Pre-andPost-InterventionMeasurements
6.3DataAnalysis ..............................................138
6.3.1ResultsDuringandattheEndoftheGroupWorkProgramme138
6.4Discussion:ImplicationsfortheApplicabilityoftheSPRinGSupport Programmes ...............................................
7Teachers’ExperiencesofImplementingtheSPRinGProgrammein
7.2.1WholeSchoolApproachtoSPRinGImplementation
7.2.2ImplementingSPRinGintotheClassroomCurriculum
7.2.3KeyPrinciplesandPractices
7.2.4ViewsOntheImpactofSPRinG
7.3DataonTeachers’ViewsandExperiences
7.3.1Interviews
7.4Findings
7.4.1ApproachtotheIntegrationofSPRinGatAWholeSchool
7.4.2TeacherImplementationofSPRinGGroupWorkWithin Classrooms .........................................157
7.4.3SPRinGPrinciplesandPractices
7.5PerceivedImpactofSPRinGonLearningandSkills
7.6Discussion
8Conclusions:TheContributionofSPRinGtoKnowledgeAbout CollaborativeGroupWork ......................................185
8.1Introduction ...............................................185
8.2WhatSPRinGHasContributedtoKnowledgeAboutCollaborative GroupWork ...............................................185
8.3TheContributionoftheSPRinGMethodologytoUnderstanding CollaborativeGroupWork ...................................188
8.4‘Warrant’ ..................................................189
8.4.1SomeMethodologicalIssues:Validitywithina Quasi-ExperimentalDesign ............................189
8.5WhatWeHaveLearnedaboutKeyFeaturesoftheSPRinGProject.191
8.5.1TheRelationalApproach ..............................191
8.5.2RoleoftheTeacher ...................................194
8.5.3ClassroomContext ...................................197
8.5.4CurriculumandGroupWorkActivities ..................199
8.6ThinkingBeyondtheImmediateUseofSPRinG;SomeFurther ConcernsRegardingtheViabilityofGroupWorkintheClassroom.200
8.6.1ThePotentialforPeer-BasedLearningintheClassroom ....200
8.6.2InformalPeerRelations ...............................202
8.6.3TheRoleofOtherAdultsintheClassroomandtheSuccess ofGroupWork ......................................204
8.7TowardaBroaderSocialPedagogyofClassroomLearning ........205
8.7.1ContextualApproach .................................205
8.7.2SocialPedagogicalApproach ..........................206
8.8FinalConclusion ...........................................208
AbouttheAuthors PeterKutnick ProfessorPeterKutnickisChairProfessorofPsychologyandEducationattheUniversityofHongKong,FacultyofEducation.Previously,hehas heldprofessorialpositionsatKing’sCollegeLondonandtheUniversityofBrighton. Hismainareaofinterestissocialandcognitivedevelopmentofschool-agedchildrenwithinclassrooms.Hehasco-developedsocialpsychologyofschoolingasa researcharea,withsupportingtheoreticalconcepts(suchassocialpedagogy)and novelmethodsresearchmethods.Hehaspublishedmorethan10booksandmajor reportsandover50peerreviewedpapers.Hishasresearchedintoeffectivegroup workinpre-schools,primaryandsecondaryschools;andthisresearchhasbeenundertakenintheUK,theCaribbean,acrossWesternEuropeandintheAsianPacific. Heiscurrentlydevelopingfurthergroupworkapproachesformathematicseducation inHongKong.ThisresearchhasreceivedfundingfromtheEconomicandSocial ResearchCouncil(UK),BritishCouncil,LeverhulmeTrust,EsmeeFairbairneTrust, EuropeanUnionandtheResearchGrantsCouncil(HK).Hehascollaboratedand co-directedanumberofresearchprojectswithPeterBlatchford,especiallytheESRC fundedSPRinGproject(alsoco-directedbyMauriceGalton)whichhasformedthe basisforthisbook.
PeterBlatchford ProfessorPeterBlatchfordisProfessorofPsychologyandEducationattheInstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon.Hismainareaofinterest issocialdevelopmentalprocessesinschoolsettings.Hehaspublishedover10books andover70peerreviewedpapers.Herecentlycompleteda5yearstudyoftheDeploymentandImpactofSupportStaff(DISS)inprimary,secondaryandspecialschools inEnglandandWales,fundedbyEnglishandWelshGovernments(2003–2009). ThiswasfollowedbyaEsmeeFairbairnfundedproject(2010–2011)developing andevaluatingalternativewaysofdeployingandpreparingteachingassistantsand aNuffieldfundedprojectontheoverallsupportexperiencedbypupilswithSpecial EducationalNeedsinmainstreamprimaryschools.HedirectedapioneeringUK longitudinallargescaleresearchprojectontheeffectsofclasssizedifferenceson academicattainmentandclassroomandheco-directed(withMauriceGaltonand PeterKutnick)amajorESRCprojectondevelopingandevaluatingaprogrammeto improvetheeffectivenessofpupilgroupworkinclassrooms(theSPRinGproject).
Hehasaninternationalreputationforworkonschoolbreaktimes/recessandpeer relationsinschool.
EdBaines EdBainesisSeniorLecturerinPsychologyandEducationattheInstitute ofEducation,London.Hehasanextendedrecordineducationalandpsychological researchandhasalong-standinginterestinteachingandlearningandpeerinteractionsinclassroomsettings.Hehasundertakenresearchongroupingpracticesin primaryandsecondaryschoolsandwastheprincipalresearcherontheKeyStage2 componentoftheSPRinGproject.Heco-wrotethetrainingandresourcebookfor educatorsonpromotingeffectivegroupworkintheprimaryclassroom.Hehasalso researchedandwrittenaboutpeerrelationsduringbreak-andlunch-timesinschool.
AndrewTolmie ProfessorAndrewTolmieisProfessorofPsychologyandHuman DevelopmentattheInstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon.Heisadevelopmentalpsychologistwithlongstandinginterestsinchildren’sdialogueanditsuses withinformalandinformaleducationalsettingstopromotechangesinskillsand cognitiverepresentations.Hisinterestsalsoincludethequantitativemodelingofthe effectsofdialogue.Muchofthisworkhasfocusedontheexaminationoftutoring andgroupworkprocessesinprimaryschoolscienceeducation.During2009–10, hewasaninvitedmemberoftheWorkingGroupfortheRoyalSociety’sStateof theNationReport3—ScienceandMathematicsEducation,5–14.Hehasreceived researchfundinganddirectedresearchprojectsintheareaofsocio-cognitivedevelopmentHeiscurrentlyDeanoftheDoctoralSchoolattheInstituteofEducation, DeputyDirectoroftheInstituteofEducation/UniversityCollegeLondon/Birkbeck CentreforEducationalNeuroscience,andEditoroftheBritishJournalofEducational Psychology.
Chapter1 CantheGroupingofChildreninClassrooms AffectTheirLearning;AnIntroduction toSocialPedagogy 1.1Introduction
Whenyouwalkintomostwesternprimaryschoolclassrooms,afairlytypicalscenario islaidoutforanyobserver.Asidefromthecolourfuldisplaysandactivitycentres spacedaroundtheroom,therewillbechild-sizedchairsandtables(acommonfeature sincethe1960s),manychildren,ateacherand(possibly)ateachingassistant.A typical‘map’ofaclassroom(seeFig. 1.1)showsacomplexlayoutoffurniturewith singletables,groupsorrowsoftables,differenttypesoflearningactivities,the locationofpupils,andthelocationoftheteacherandherdesk.Onthemapcircles havebeendrawnaroundvarious‘groupings’ofchildrenworkingonparticulartasks, withsomegroupsworkingwithanadultandsomenot.Classroommapsofthissort canprovidethebasisforinsightsintoclassroom-basedactionsthatmaypositively enhanceorinhibitlearningopportunities.Studiesbytheauthorswhichhavemade useofsuchamethodology(Kutnicketal. 2002,KutnickandKington 2005)haveled tothemainfocusofthisbook:thedevelopmentofathoroughlytestedapproachto effectivegroupworkinginclassroomsbaseduponanunderstandingofhowlearning islikelytotakeplacewithintheinteractionsofchildrenandteachersinclassrooms.
ThemapinFig. 1.1 showsthatchildrenarefoundsittingaroundanumberof smalltables,workinginparticularactivitycentres(suchasthecomputertable),and, sometimes,whenthereislimitedclassroomspace,evenworkinginthecorridor. Fromthemapwecanseeavarietyofgroupsizesandcompositions,anddifferent curriculumareasbeingworkeduponsimultaneously(English,science,history).In othermappings,takenatdifferentpointsintime,theremaybeadifferentconstellationofgroupings,activitiesandcurriculumareas,e.g.,thewholeclassmaybe foundworkingwithinasinglecurriculumareaatthesametimeoreachchildcanbe foundundertakinganindividualizedassignment.Whenanumberofdifferentmaps arecollecteditispossibletobuildupageneralpictureofthesocialcontextsand conditionsforlearninginclassrooms.
Afewkeypointsaboutclassroom‘groupings’canbemadefromFig. 1.1: 1.Groupsizesmayvaryatanypointintime—fromchildrenworkingasindividuals (withorwithoutthepresenceofotherchildren,asingroups5and6,butalso
P.Kutnick,P.Blatchford, EffectiveGroupWorkinPrimarySchoolClassrooms, 1 ProfessionalLearningandDevelopmentinSchoolsandHigherEducation8, DOI10.1007/978-94-007-6991-5_1,©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaDordrecht2014
Atypicalclassroom‘map’.(FromKutnicketal. 2002)
groups1,2and3),workinginpairs(groups4and8),andinlargergroups(group 7,withthisgroupsizerangingbetween4and10childrenattimes);
2.Learningtasksbeingundertakenbythechildrenmaybeapproachedindividually (groups1,2,3,5and6)oronaninteractivebasis(groups4and8);
3.Adultsarepresentwithsomegroups(groups7and9)forteachingandremedial purposes;
4.Thereareanumberofgroupsworkingwithoutateacherorotheradultpresent. Whenonefocusesoneachgrouping,otherfeaturesconcerninghowandwhenchildrenlearninclassroomscanbeidentified.Ifonethinksabouttheclassroomasan arenathatcanpromoteordiscouragesocialinclusion,thenamajorityofthesmall groups(1,2and8)inthisclassroomaresingle-sexandmaybefriendship-based.In thissense,children’slearningtimeintheclassroommaybemorelikelytodemonstrateexclusion(onthebasisofproximityandsameness)thaninclusion.Larger groups,especiallythosefoundworkingwithateacher,tendtohaveabroadermixof sexandfriendships.Hence,someofthesmallergroupingsmaybeseenasexclusive (notintegratingtherangeofchildrenintheclassroom)andlargergroupsmaybe moreinclusive(especiallythoselikelytoworkwiththeteacher).Gendermaybethe mostobviouswayinwhichgroupsareexclusive,butthereareothercriteriaaswell. Anotherkeycriterionistheattainmentlevelofchildrenwithingroupingswhichcan demonstrateinclusion(mixedattainmentgroups)orexclusion(sameattainmentlevel withingroups).And,inthebroaderecologicalcontextwithinwhichthisclassroom issituated,theactualcompositionofmembersoftheclasswillbeaffectedbyschool policies(suchassingle-ageormixed-ageclasses),thecommunitysurroundingthe school(whichmaybedescribedintermsofsocialclass,educationaladvantage,etc.)
Fig.1.1
andwhethertheschoolisfoundinacity/townorinaruralarea(whichmayaffectchildren’sfamiliaritywithoneanotherandtypesofout-of-schoolactivitiesengagedin).
TheclassroommapinFig. 1.1 canandwillchangeovertime—especiallywith changesindailylearningroutines,schoolpolicyandcontextoftheschool.Change withinclassroomsislikelytobeassociatedwithlessonphases:fromintroduction tothewholeclass,tocurriculum-basedtasksoftenassociatedwithsmallgroups, towholeclassreviewsattheendofalessonortheschoolday.Changesmaybe associatedwiththetypeofgroupingactivityundertaken,placementoffurniture andqualityofinteractionplannedbetweenchildrenandteacher.Allofthesepoints areessentialtoanunderstandingofwhythegroupingofpupilsmaybesuccessful (learningispromoted)orunsuccessful(learningisinhibited).Whileaclassroommap iseasytodrawbyteachersandbyresearchers,theinformationthatcanbegained aboutthelearningactivitiesinthatclassroomismuchmorecomplex.Learningis anyclassroomcannotbeseensimplyastheteachertransmittinginformationtothe children.Instead,thepromotionoflearninginaclassroommustconsiderwhoisin theclass,thelearningtaskathand,howchildrenaregroupedandwithwhomthe childrencaninteract.Iftheroletheteacherisnotcoordinatedwiththegroupings ofchildren,thetypeoftaskassigned,children’sopportunitiestointeractwithone another,thenthepotentialforlearningislikelytobeinhibited.Aneffectivepedagogy withinclassroomsmustinvolveteachers,pupilsandasupportiveclassroomsetting. Thisbookexploresarangeofissuesassociatedwiththeeffectivegroupingof childrenforsuccessfullearninginclassrooms.Weshowthevalueofasocialpedagogicapproachwhichidentifiesclassroomcontexts,andrelationshipsbetweenkey classroomcontextsthatcanpromoteratherthaninhibitclassroomlearning.Thisapproachtakesintoaccountthecompositionsandrelationshipsamonggroupmembers, actionsandinteractionsbetweenchildrenandtheirteachersandtypesoftaskengagement.Ourunderstandingofhowsocialcontextswithinclassroomsaffectchildren’s learninganddevelopmentisbasedinlargepartonmappingstudiesandthesehave inturnledtoadistinctiveprogramme(theSocialPedagogicResearchintoGrouping [SPRinG]programme),whichisthemainsubjectofthisbookanddescribedindetail inChap.3.
1.2HowDoestheClassroomContextAffectLearning? Manyvisitorstoprimaryschoolclassroomscaneasilyassumethattheclassroom isinsomesenseanaturalenvironmentforthedevelopmentofchildrenandtheir learning.Yettheclassroomenvironmentisfarfrom‘natural’:itishistoricallyand culturallylocatedandhaschangedinlinewitheducationalpolicyandsocialchange. Mostfamously,intheUK,thegroupingofpupilswasdiscussedandpromotedin thePlowdenReport(1967).Incontrasttothepredominanceoftraditional,didactic classrooms,wherechildrenwereseatedatindividualdesksandlistenedtotheteacher orworkedindividually,thePlowdenauthorsarguedthatpupilsmaybeplacedinsmall learninggroupsfortworeasons.First,childrenofsimilarlevelsofattainmentcould
beseatedtogether,allowingateachertoassignlearningtaskstailoredtothechildren’s levelofattainment.Second,ifpupilsareseatedinthesesmallgroupsandundertake similartasks,theteachercouldthenbefreetofocusonparticularchildreninneed ofspecifichelpandsupport.ThePlowdenargumentwasthatchildrenwhoworkin smallgroupswillbemorefocusedintheirlearningactivity,havetheopportunity tohelponeanotheronsimilartasksandwillbelessdependentontheteacherfor supportanddirectionoftheirlearning.Thismovetowardstheteacherinteracting withindividualchildrenaccordingtolevelsoflearningneedbringstheclassroom contextinlinewiththenotionofthe‘ZoneofProximalDevelopment’(Vygotsky 1978),withinwhichtheteachercan‘scaffold’(Woodetal. 1976)herknowledgeto helpthechildmoveforwardintheirunderstanding.
Acorollaryofthisview,ofimportancetothisbookbutnotoneconsideredin anydepthbyPlowden,isthatwhilethechildisreceivingspecificsupportfrom theteacher,theotherpupilsintheclassmusthavetheskillsanddesiretowork asagroup,independentlyoftheteacher.Researchinprimaryschoolsafterthe PlowdenReportsoughttoverifywhetherandhowPlowden’srecommendations wereimplemented.Inoneexampleofthisresearch,Bennettetal.(1984)foundthat childrendidnoteffectivelyengageingroupworkandlargenumbersofchildren remaineddependentontheteacherforproceduraldirections,answerstoquestions, andtheacknowledgementthattheirlearningtaskswerecomplete.Further,Galton etal.(1999)foundlittleevidenceofeffectivegroupworkinginprimaryschoolsover thelast40years.Thusathemedevelopedthroughoutthisbookisthatchildrencannot simplybeleftingroupswiththehopethattheywillworkconstructivelytogether.
ThewaysthatpupilsaregroupedforlearninghasoriginsmuchearlierineducationalhistorythanPlowden.Fromanhistoricalperspective,theclassroomas weknowithasonlycharacterizedtheeducationalexperienceofchildrenforthe latenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies.Priortothistime,onlyafewchildrenwere educatedformally.Educationbeforethe19thcenturywaslikelytotakeplaceina tutorialsituation;thatis,childrenwereprovidedatutorwhowasresponsibleforoneto-oneeducation.Thistutoriallearningsituationrelatedwellwithearlyphilosophies ofeducation—fromPlato’s(2007)dialogues(betweenexpertandnovice),through Rousseau’s(2007)naturaleducationguidedbyatutor.Tutoriallearningappeared toservewellthelimitednumberofindividualsdeemed‘worthy’toreceiveaneducation.Thetutorialsystemisstillstronglyembeddedincertainhighereducation institutionssuchasOxfordandCambridge.Interestingly,tutoriallearningalsoappearstobestronglytiedtothedevelopmentofearlypsychologicaltheoriesoflearning (seeJames 1957;Skinner 1988;Thorndike 1999),andpedagogicapplicationsinthe ZoneofProximalDevelopmentandApprenticeship(Rogoff 1990)andremedialhelp forindividuallearners.
Itshouldbenoted,though,thattutoriallearningwasnotexperiencedbythe greatmassofchildren.Thenotionofabasiceducationforalldidnotariseuntil the1850sintheUK(Grace 2006).Withtheperceivedneedforuniversal,basic education,andforarangeofeconomicandpoliticalreasons,largenumbersof childrenwererequiredtobeeducated.Thishadpracticalconsequencesforthetype of‘school’thatemerged,thatis,onemadeupofclassroomswithmanychildrenand
oneteacher.Initially,theseclassroomsattemptedtomaintainaversionofthetutorial approach—whereteachers‘taught’selecthighattainingpupils.Thesehighattaining pupils,then,tookresponsibilityfortheinstructionofsmallgroupsoflowerattaining pupils.Classmateswereexpectedtobehaveunderatightregimeofdiscipline(see theuseofLancasterandMadrasmethodsinKutnick 1988,Chap.1).Asschooling begantoaffectchildren’slearningexperiencefromthestartofthe20thcentury, socialresearchers(suchasGrace 2006)identifiedarangeofdifferencesbetween schools—especiallyschoolsfoundinurbancitiesandtownsversusruralschools. Childrenfromdifferenttypesofcommunitymaybeoffereddifferentqualitiesin theirlearningexperiences,forexampleinsmallmulti-ageruralschoolsasopposed tolargerandmoreselectiveschoolsfoundintownsandcities.
Theadventofclassroomswasfurtherassociatedwithamovementbeyondthe traditionalconcernsofeducationwithknowledge.Attheturnofthetwentiethcentury,philosophiesofeducationshiftedfromtheirfocusontheindividuallearnerand tutorialteachingmethodstosocialinclusionandsocialdemocracy(forexample, seeDewey 2007 intheUnitedStates;andtheHadowReports 1926, 1931, 1933 intheUnitedKingdom).Psychologicaltheoriesoflearninganddevelopmentalso shiftedbeyondtheindividuallearnerasseenintheearlywritingsofPiaget(1928, 1932),whereconceptsofsocio-cognitiveconflictandsocialexperiencewereconsideredattherootofequilibration,andVygotsky’s(1978)explanationofdevelopment movingfromthe‘interpersonal’tothe‘intrapersonal’withinthe‘ZoneofProximal Development’.
Thus,fromtheturnofthetwentiethcentury,classroomsinschoolsbecamecomplexarenasfortheeducationofmanychildren.Withthisdevelopmentnewconcerns abouttypesofteachingandlearninginalargegroupsituationarose.Themassof childreninanyclassroomcouldnotbetaughttutorially.Classroomsfullofchildren hadtobeorganizedforlearningpurposes1 ,withthepredominantorganizational methodsdeterminedbychildren’sageandability.Inadditiontofindingarangeof childreninanyclassroom,therewasalsoarangeoffurniture(chairs,desksandtables)thatcouldbearrangedtopromotecertaintypesoflearningtasks(seeHastings andChantry 2002;HastingsandSchweiso1995),arangeofwaystoseatchildren (basedonfriendship,attainment;seePollard 1985;PollardandFiler 1995),and variouscombinationsofseatingofchildreningroupsthataredeterminedbythetype ofclassroomfurnitureavailable(Dreeben 1984).Doyle(1986)hasdonemuchto showhowtheclassroomisacomplexsocialcontextwithamultiplicityofactivities andrelationships,towhichteachersandpupilswillhavetoadjust.
Asaresultofthesechanges,manymoreapproachestoteachingandlearning havebeendeveloped,inadditiontothetraditionaltutorialsituation.Someofthese additionalapproachesaredisplayedintheclassroommapinFig. 1.1—whichshows aclassofchildrenundertakingavarietyoflearningandcurriculumexperiences.Yet,
1 Itcanalsobearguedfromasociologicalperspectivethattheseearly20thcenturyclassroomswere organizedforthesocialreproductionofthedominanteconomicsystemasarguedbyBowlesand Gintes(1976)andothersasseeninthesocialclasscompositionoftheschoolandthecommunity wheretheschoolisplaced.
Table1.1 Therelationshipofgroupsizetoeffectiveclassroomlearning
GroupsizeLearningtask
KnowledgerelationshipWorkinginteractions
IndividualPractice,revisionUnequal(teacher:pupil)Individualized, individuated
DyadIncremental,restructuring incremental
TriadIncremental,restructuring withcomputerorother apparatus
Equal(pupil:pupil) unequal(tutor:pupil)
Equal(pupil:pupil)with additionalpupil workingapparatus
SmallGroupEnrichment,restructuringUnequal(pupil:pupil) equal(pupil:pupil)
LargegroupIncremental
WholeclassIncrementalpractice, revision
AdaptedfromKutnick(1994)
Collaborative/co-operative workbrainstorming, jointproblemsolving peertutoring
Collaborativework, brainstorming,joint problemsolving
Co-operativegroupwork collaborativework
Unequal(teacher:pupil)Lecturing,teacherled discussion
Unequal(teacher:pupil) unequal(teacher: pupil)
Interactivelecturing, individualized, individuated
themapdoesnotshowallclassroomexperienceswithinwhichthechild/learnermay beengaged.Ourprimaryschoolvisitorwilloftenfindthewholeclassisgrouped togetherfor‘story-time’,theassignmentofclassroomlearningtasks,physicaleducation,etc.Someclassroomsmaybelaidoutinatraditionalmanner,withinwhich eachchildhasanindividualdeskandalldesksarefacingablack/whiteboard— withtheteacher‘teaching’fromthefrontoftheroom.Childrenmayalsobeseen workingindividuallyattheirowndesksorassignedplacesonatable.Thisrange ofseatingconfigurationsmaychangeinrelationtotypeoflearningtaskbeingundertakenandtimeofdaywithintheclassroom.Therangeoftheseconfigurations furtherdemonstratesthecomplexityandmultiplicity(Doyle 1986)ofteachingand learningsituationsencounteredinclassrooms.
1.3GroupingandLearning:APreliminaryView Atapedagogiclevelthereareanumberofreasonswhyvariousgroupingtypesand sizesmaybeusedintheclassroom.Oneearlyattempttoexplaintheuseofdifferent groupsizeswasprovidedbyKutnick(1994)whenhesynthesizedtheexistingdescriptiveandexperimentalliteratureconcerningsmallgroupsandlearning.Table 1.1 summarizesarangeofrelationshipsbetweengroupsizesandlearningtasksthatmay befoundinprimaryschoolclassrooms.Bothdescriptiveandexperimentalstudies (discussedingreaterdetailinChap.2)foundchildrenseatedandworkinginavariety ofgroupsizes—includingbeingseatedandworkingasindividuals,beingseatedin pairsandworkingasindividualsorcollaborativepairs,beingseatedinsmallgroups of4–6childrenandworkingasindividualsorco-operativegroups,andbeingseated inlargergroupsorwholeclasswithapredominanceofindividualwork.Atthesame
time,therearearangeoflearningtasksthatchildrenmaybeaskedtoundertakewithin theirgroups.Onedescriptionoflearningtasksfoundinclassroomsandcanbeclosely alignedtotypesofpupilgroupinghasbeenoriginallydescribedbyNorman(1978)as: incremental(newcognitiveknowledgeandskills);enriching(providinggreaterapplicationtoexistingknowledge);restructuring(changingtheunderstandingofexistingknowledge);practice;andrevision.Eachoftheselearningtasksimpliesaspecific knowledge/interpersonalworkingrelationship,andevidenceofthecontinuingvalidityofthesedescriptionsisfoundinanumberofstudiesthathaveusedthedescription toanalyzeclassroomlearningactivities(forexample,Edwards 1994;Gorskyand Caspi 2005).Therelationshipmaybedescribedasexpert/novice(asfoundinVygotskiannotionsoftheZoneofProximalDevelopment)orbetweenequallyna¨ ıve pupils(asfoundinPiaget’sconsiderationofsocio-cognitiveconflict)andtheindividualchilddrawingfrompre-existingknowledge.WeintroduceTable 1.1 atthisearly pointinthebooktoindicatethatparticularlearningtaskscanberelatedtospecific groupsizes,andthatwecannotexpectthatallgroupsizesarebestsuitedforthefull rangeoflearningtasks.AviewingofthedataintheTableshouldbeundertakenfrom theperspectivethatmostchildreninUK-basedprimaryschoolswillbeseatedinsmall groupsaroundtablesintheirclassrooms.Wearenotclaimingthattherelationship betweengroupsizeandtaskisanexactone,buttheTableidentifiesthatsomelearningtasksmaybepromotedingroupsofagivensizewhileotherlearningtasksmay beinhibited.Afewgeneralconclusionswhichwederivefromtheliteraturearethat:
•workingasindividualsismosteffectivewithregardtopractice/revisiontasks— puttingthechildintoadyadortriadmaycauselearningdistractionsand‘timeoff-task’forthistypeoflearningtask;
•workingindyads(andsometimestriads)providesaneffectivesettingforincremental/newcognitiveknowledgeinwhichchildrencandiscussandcomparetheir perspectiveswithapartnerinthedevelopmentoffurtherunderstanding;
•workinginsmallgroups(ofaround4–6)helpschildrenextendandenrichtheir existingknowledgewithothers;and
•largegroups,ifwellcontrolled,canrespondtoteacherdirectionsandstimulate newknowledgeorbeusedforcommunicationoflowlevelproceduralinformation.
Wedonotwishtoover-generalizetheinformationdisplayed.Minimally,pupils representedintheTablewereunlikelytobetrainedtointeracteffectivelyasgroup members(Kutnicketal. 2002).Yet,inordertounderstandhoweffectivegroupwork canbepromotedonewillneedtobeawareofpupils’cognitive/learningdevelopment aswellastheirsocialdevelopment.And,aspupilswilloftenbeaskedtositnextto orworkwithotherpupils,anunderstandingoftheiremotional/relationaldevelopmentisalsonecessary.Thesethreetypesofdevelopment(i.e.,cognitive,socialand emotional/relational)areoftenlookedatseparately,buteffectivelearningislikely tobefacilitatediftheyarehandledinanintegratedmannerwithintheclassroom, sothatchildrenmoveseamlesslyfromonetypeofgroupingtoanotheraslearning taskschangeoverthecourseofalesson.
Thenexttwosectionsdescribetwogeneralareasthatunderpintheideasrelatedto groupworkdevelopedinthisbook:cognitiveprocessesandpeerrelations.Wethen
goontointroducesocialprocessesunderlyinggroupworkandwhyteachersand researchersshouldconsiderrelationshipsamongchildrenasafundamentalaspect ofgroupworkandthebasisofeffectiveengagementingroupwork.
1.3.1CognitiveProcessesandGroupWorkinSchools Thisvolumehasnotbeendesignedtoprovideadetailedreviewofcurrentdevelopmentsinthepsychologyofcognitivedevelopmentorpeerrelationshipsin classrooms.Instead,weprovideaselectivelookattheroleofcognitivedevelopmentandpeerrelationsineducationalpractice,andwithregardtothegrouping ofpupilsforlearning.Withregardtocognitivedevelopment,wewilldrawupon currentformulationsoftheory(forexample,GoswamiandBryant 2007;Howeand Mercer 2007).Intheseformulations,thechildisseentobeanactiveagentinthe constructionandco-constructionofknowledge(fromPiagetandInhelder 1972).Developmentisdescribedasprogressingfromsensori-motordominatedprocessesto symbolicandlanguage-basedcognitiveprocesses(GoswamiandBryant 2007),but newevidencechallengeswhetherthisprogressionshouldbeconceptualizedinterms of‘stages’.Advancementofcognitiveunderstandingfollowsaprocessofequilibration,whichisdescribedbyPiagetandInhelder(1972)asadynamicbalancingof existingknowledgeandtheneedtochange/developunderstandingthatwillallow thechildtointegratenewknowledgeintoher/hiscognitiverepertoire.Equilibration isaugmentedviasocialinteraction(alignedwithsocio-cognitiveconflictandother cognitive-basedsocialinteractions)asdescribedbyDoiseetal.(1975)andothers. Theroleoflanguagebecomesincreasinglyintertwinedandimportantwithdevelopment,suchthatit:allowsthechildtofunctionatasymboliclevel(ratherthanneeding full‘hands-on’experiencewithobjects,peopleandconcepts);facilitatesguidancein instruction(fromBruner 1985;Vygotsky 1978);andcanbegeneratedinco-operative andcollaborativeinteractionsaswellasunderguidancebyamoreknowledgeable other(Piaget 1928, 1932).But,whilethesocialinteractionandparticularfocuson languagearedeemedimportantinpromotingcognitivedevelopmentthatunderlies schoollearning,wemakethefurther(perhapssimple)pointthatchildrenmustwant tointeractandcommunicatewithoneanotherforeffectivecognitivedevelopment; theirinteractionsrequirepositiveandsupportiverelationshipsamongallmembers ofaclassroom.
Updatesincognitivedevelopmenttheorycanbeconsideredinrelationtothe useofgroupsofchildreninprimaryschoolclassrooms.Havingmovedawayfrom atheorydominatedbystagesofchildren’sdevelopment,thereisnowastronger beliefthatchildrenshouldbeinvolvedinactivities,especiallywithothers,suchthat theycanmatch,compareandchallengetheresultsoftheseexperiencesinrelation totheirexistingcognitiveunderstanding.Thisbringsaboutequilibrationthatis nolongerdominatedbytheviewthatchildren’sunderstandingislimitedbytheir ‘stage’ofdevelopment.Inparticular,theyoungchildshouldnolongerbedescribed as‘egocentric’orhaveher/hisinteractionandabilitytoundertakecomplexproblems
jointlywithpeerslimitedbytheperceptionthat‘theyaretooyoung’.AsGoswamiand Bryant(2007)explain,experienceliesattherootofcognitivedevelopment.More experienceofferedinaneducationalenvironmentwillcausethechildtoenhance theirneuralandsocialnetworks.And,theynote:‘thefrequencywithwhichlearning eventsareexperiencediscrucialtotheacquisitionofexpertise’.
This‘connectionist’conceptinlearningisfurtheraugmentedandpromotedby sharedactivityofthechildwithadultsandpeers.Learningcannowbeseenasa ‘functionofpriorknowledgeandthecapacitytolearnwiththehelpofothers’.Many oftheexamplesoflearningwiththehelpofothershavedrawnuponthechild’sinteractionswithadults(Rogoff 1990;Wood 1998)andareexpressedinconceptssuchas ‘scaffolding’and‘communitiesoflearners’.Socio-culturalviewsofdevelopmentsee childrenbecomingsocializedintotheircultureandtakingontheeducationalknowledgeandvaluesofthatculture.Classicstudiesoflearningtotalk(Bruner 1983) andlearningtolearn(Rogoff 1990)demonstratethispoint.Socio-culturalstudies stronglyfocusontheroleoftalk/communicationbetweenindividuals;hence,in schools,talkbetweenteacherandchildorbetweenmoreexperiencedpeerandchild providesakeymediumfortheshapingofdevelopmentandunderstanding.Oneintriguingquestionthatextendssocio-culturalviewsisconsideredinChap.6,where themake-upofaclassroomisconsideredwithintheecologicalpoliciesofsame-age andmixed-ageclassesandthe‘relationaldistance/closeness’ofchildrenthatmay characterizeurbanandruralschools.
Atthesametime,childrencananddolearnfromnon-expert,mutualpeers,as demonstratedinsocio-cognitivetheory.Socio-cognitivestudiesofpeerinteraction havebeeninspiredbyPiaget(seePiagetandInhelder 1972)andpost-Piagetians(for example,DoiseandMugny 1984;HoweandTolmie 2003;LightandLittleton 1994; Perret-Clermont 1980;WebbandPalinscar 1996).Thesestudiesaredistinctfrom ‘instructional’interpretationsofVygotskythatfocusontherelationshipbetweenan expert(knower)andnovice(Luria 1976).Thesocio-cognitivestudiesfocusonthe potentialmismatchbetweenknowledge-basedperspectivesofindividualswherein socio-cognitiveconflictbetweenindividuallearnerscanleadtohigherorderunderstanding.AsDamonandPhelps(1989)note,whenpartnersarenotinfluencedby aninequalityinpower/knowledge,theovercomingofdifferencesincognitive-based perspectivesislikelytoleadtomorecomplexunderstandingthaneitherofthepartnerswasabletocontributeoriginally.Hence,cognitivelyadvancedunderstandingis gainedthrough‘mutuality’and‘connectedness’where(peer-based)socialinteractionensuresthatbothpartnersareequallyparticipativeandtheymaintainarelational obligationtoworktogether.Classroomstudieshavealsoshownthatcognitivedevelopmentcanbeenhancedwhenactivitiesareundertakeninpairsorsmallgroupsand childrenareabletoworkindependentlyfromtheirteacher(CohenandLotan 1995; KutnickandThomas 1990)onjointproblemresolution(HoweandTolmie 2003). And,furtherstudiesofhowsocialinteractionamongpeerspromotescognitivedevelopmenthavealsoshownthepeer-basedinteractioncanhelptoovercomesocial classandculturaldifferencesthatofteninhibitchildrenfromdifferentbackgrounds fromworkingtogether(Perret-Clermont 1980).
Cognitivedevelopmentintheclassroomisthusfacilitatedbychildren’sability totalkamongthemselvesandtotheirteachers(MercerandLittleton 2007).Sociocognitiveandsocio-culturaltheoriesandrelatedstudies(Mercer 2000;Webb 1989) notethattalkmustencouragechildren’scommunicationbeyondsimpledescription, confirmationordisagreement.Thisclassroomtalkcanaddnewandchallenging cognitiveperspectivesandclarifyexistinginformation—aslongasthattalkisundertakenatalevelthatis‘elaborated’(forexample,Webb 1989;Wegerifetal. 1999) andchildrenwishtocommunicatewithoneanother.Studiesthatrecognizetheimportanceofelaboratedtalk(GilliesandKahn 2009;MercerandLittleton 2007)also recommendthatchildrencanbeinstructedandsupportedintheuseofthisparticular typeoftalk.Hence,asidentifiedbyWellsandClaxton(2002)andDaniels(2008), developmentandlearning(bothinsideandoutsideoftheclassroom)isshapedand promotedbysocialandcommunicativeinteractions.Knowledgethatmaybeperceivedasbeingpossessedindividuallycanbesaidtobecreatedandsharedamong membersofacommunityofpeersandadults(HoweandMercer 2007).
1.3.2PeerRelations Aswellascognitivedevelopment,asecondgeneraltopicthatunderpinsthework describedinthisbookisthegeneralfieldof‘peerrelations’.Therearenowanumber ofreviewsofresearchonpeerrelations(BlatchfordandBaines 2010;Bukowskietal. 1996;Dunn 1993, 2004;Gifford-SmithandBrownell 2003;Howe 2010;Howeand Mercer 2007;Ladd 2005;Rubinetal. 2006;Rubinetal. 2005)thatprovideacomprehensivecoverageofcurrentknowledge.Muchoftherecentresearchonpeerrelations hasbeenconcernedwithdifficultiesexperiencedwithinpeerrelationsintermsof,for example,peerrejection,bullying,victimizationandwithdrawal.Butthereisalsoa well-establishedpositionthatpeerrelationshaveparticularvalueforsocialandeven cognitivedevelopment(BlatchfordandBaines 2010).Inanearly,influentialbook, Youniss(1980)adaptedthetheoriesofPiaget(1932)andSullivan(1953)toshow howchild-peerrelationsdifferedfromchild-adultrelationsbyshowingequality, cooperation,reciprocityandmutuality—allofwhichmakeacontributiontosocial development.Thispositiveviewhasbeengivenanaddeddimensionwithamore recent(thoughcontested,seeHowe 2010)theoryofsocializationwhichdownplays theroleofparentsandotheradultsinfavouroftheimportantroleofthegroupand particularlythepeergroupindevelopment(Harris 1995).Anunderstandingoftheliteratureonpeerrelationsisimportantwhenconsideringtheclassroomasacontextfor learning.Oneexampleofthisisresearchonchildren’sfriendships.Althoughteachersoftenbelievethatgroupingfriendstogethercanleadtomoreoff-taskbehaviour, researchindicatesthatfriendshipgroupsmaybegoodforsometasksandlearning situations(ZajacandHartup 1997).AsweshallseeinChap.6,friendshipmaintains a‘closerelationaldistance’betweenpeerswhileacquaintances(thatis,childrenwho knowoneanotherbuthavenotdevelopedafriendshiptie)maintainamore‘extended relationaldistance’.Atthesametime,wenotethatfriendstendtobesimilartoeach
otherandthattheremaybeproblemswhenfriendsareantisocial—theymaybemore aggressiveandlessstable(KutnickandKington 2005).Althoughthisbookisnot specificallyaboutpeerrelations,theserelationsprovideamainbackdroptoourinterestineffectivegroupworkandpeerrelationsarearelativelyneglectedforcethat canaffectsocialandcognitivedevelopmentandschoollearning.Childrenneedto interactandrelatepositivelywithoneanotherfordevelopmenttotakeplace.Further discussionoftheimportanceofpositivepeerrelationshipsandhowtheymaybefacilitatedinclassroomsareconsideredlaterinthischapterandformthebasisforour socialpedagogicapproachtoeffectivegroupworkdiscussedinChap.2.Somestrategiesadoptedbyteachersassociatedwiththedevelopmentofpositivepeerrelations andeffectsrelatedtopupillearningandbehaviourarealsodescribedinChap.7.
1.4SocialProcessesUnderlyingGroupWorkinSchools Acleardistinctionbetweencognitiveprocessesandsocialprocessesthatunderlie effectivegroupworkinclassroomsisdifficulttomake.Yettherearedistinctive socialpsychologicalandsocio-culturalargumentsconcerningthevalueofgroup work.Socialpsychologicaltheoriesdrawuponinterdependenceandjointtasksto facilitatemutualworkingtogether(asinco-operativegroupwork;Johnsonand Johnson 2003a;Slavin 1995).Socio-culturaltheoriesalsodrawuponanotionof equality,equityandworkingtogether(Reznitskayaetal. 2009)andmaybedrawn upontoidentifywhyandhowsocialpracticescanbeembeddedintoclassroom activity.Socio-culturaltheoryhasbeendrawnupontoexplainhowthesepractices canenhanceinteractionamongchildrenaswellaswiththeirteachers.Socio-cultural theories(mainlyderivedfromVygotsky 1978;andexplainedbyHoweandMercer 2007)showthatthedevelopmentofgroupsandassociatedclassroomknowledge willhavebeenshapedbyculturalandhistoricalfactors,especiallyregardingwhois presentintheclassroomandhowknowledgeiscontrolled(forexample,seeBarron 2003;Boaler 2000;Kutnicketal. 2005).Wealsointroduceanewanddistinctive ‘relational’theoryasamainpartofourperspectiveonsocialprocessesthatunderlie groupwork,tohelpexplainhowandwhythedevelopmentofpositiverelationships withintheclassroomisfundamentaltochildren’sinteractionsthatsupportcognitive developmentandclassroomlearning(wefurtherexplainrelationaltheoryinChap.2 andshowhowithasbeenappliedintheSPRinGstudiesinChap.3,4,5.6and7).
Viewsconcerningthesupportforthedevelopmentofknowledgeandunderstandinginclassroomsoftenassumethatchildrencan(andwill)talkandinteractwith oneanother.Yet,asseeninthecognitivesectionabove,onlycertaintypesoftalkare associatedwithdevelopmentandlearning.Howe(2010)arguesthatthistalkshould involvecontrastsofopinionamongparticipants,withchildrenhavingtheabilityto shareknowledge,challengeideas,evaluateevidenceandseekarangeofoptions.Interestingly,ifthistypeoftalktakesplaceinaclassroom,childrendonotnecessarily needtocometoaresolutionoftheproblemunderconsideration(HoweandMercer
2007);theirdiscussionscansetabasisforcriticallyreflectingontheiractivitiesand oftenshowahigherlevelofunderstanding after theinteractionhastakenplace. Manystudiesaimedatimprovingchildren’sunderstandingandtalkhavearisen frombothVygotskianandPiagetianperspectivesconcerningsocio-cognitiveand socio-culturaldevelopment(reviewedinmoredetailinChap.2).Thesestudiesoften focusonchildren’scollaborationwhich‘involvesthemutualengagementofparticipantsinacoordinatedefforttosolveproblems’(Dillenbourgetal. 1996).Initial studiesconcerningcollaborationappeartoassumethatchildrencanworktogether by‘sharinginterests,knowledge,personalhistoryandcommitmenttowork’(Barron 2003).Thus,collaborativestudiesrelyonthefactthatchildrencanandwillshare theirunderstandingandexperience.Whiletherehasbeenevidencetosupportthe effectivenessofcollaboration,afewqualificationsmayberequired.Studiesthat observedchildren’snaturalistictalkinclassroomshavereportedthatchildrenwho collaborativelyexplainedandreasonedwithoneanothershowedgreatergainsin theirunderstandingthanchildrenwhodidnotexplain(Howe 2010;Reznitskaya etal. 2009;WebbandPalscinar 1996).Yet,inclassroomswherecollaborativelearningwasintroducedtoenhanceexplanations,notallchildrenwereabletobenefit fromthisformoftalkandinteraction(Barron 2003;Reznitskaya 2009);andchildrenwhodidnotgainfromthecollaborationoftenbecamefrustrated,spenttime off-taskandwerediscouragedfromfurtherparticipationinthisformoflearning (SalomonandGloberson 1989).Moreintensiveandinclusivecollaborativestudies havefurtherexploredhowparticulartypesoflanguageinteractions(seeMerceretal. 1999),interpersonalsupportforquestioning(WebbandFarivar 1994),techniques suchasargumentation(Andersonetal. 1997)andcomputerassistedcollaboration (Crook 1998;Luetal. 2011)canbeintroducedtobenefitlearningandcollaborativeinteraction.Thuscollaboration—aseeminglyidealwaytoenhancechildren’s reasoningandunderstandinginclassrooms—hasbeenfoundtobebeneficialinthe promotionofunderstanding.But,collaborationhasnotbeencharacteristicofall classroomsorofallchildrenwithinaclassroom.Effectivecollaborationhasbeen dependentonteachersencouragingthisformofinteractionamongchildren(Gillies andKhan 2009;WebbandMastergeorge 2003),children’sabilitytoexplainand reasonamongthemselves(Howe 2010)andlearningtasksdesignedtoencourage collaboration(Barron 2003).
Further,topromotetalkandinteractionamongchildren(andbetweenchildren andtheirteachers)the‘relational’approachdescibedbelowemphasizesthatchildren should want toworkwithoneanother,andthisnecessitatestheirmovingtheirconceptofworkpartnersbeyondsimplefriendshippreferencessuchthatallchildrenina classcanshareknowledgeandinteractionwithalloftheirclassmates.Theclassroom context,then,isseentobeimportantsociologicallyaswellascognitively.Inadditiontopeer-basedinteractionstosupportunderstanding,teachersplayanimportant roleinstructuringtheactivitiesandinteractionsintheclassroomtopromotecollaboration.Classroomactivitieshavetobedesignedandsupportedtoallowchildren’s interactionsandteacherswillneedtosupportchildren’sjointinteractions—evenif theirclassroomsmaysound‘noisy’(Barron 2003).Withoutteachers’planningfor
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
