Wireless Transmission of Power - Resonating Planet Earth (Toby Grotz)
Multiage Groupingmultiageteaching.weebly.com/.../2/6/27260881/exit_paper.docx · Web viewTo many...
Transcript of Multiage Groupingmultiageteaching.weebly.com/.../2/6/27260881/exit_paper.docx · Web viewTo many...
Running Head: MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS 1
Multiage Grouping:
Effects on Struggling Learners
Marie Hefferan
Memorial University of Newfoundland
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS2
Abstract
This paper explores published scholarly articles, as well as, edited books that report on results from research conducted in relation to multiage teaching and its effects on struggling students. In order to organize research findings, this paper is divided into six main sections which include introduction, research question, multiage definition, advantages and challenges, effects on struggling learners, and conclusion. This paper seeks to answer how multiage grouping affects struggling learners?
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS3
Multiage Grouping: Effects on Struggling Learners
Introduction
To many educators and parents, resonating in the idea of multiage grouping is the image
of a one room school house. Multiage education, however, goes far beyond students being
grouped together for the mere reason of low student enrolment or rural isolation. Embedded in
the roots of effective multiage teaching is a classroom that values diversity, where learning is
focused toward those differences. Although students may all be working on the same topic, there
is the expectation and acceptance that all students will produce work at varying levels. McClay
(1996) states that multiage “has developed into an actual philosophy of teaching, based upon
developmentally appropriate ideals, where students of various ages, interests, and abilities work
and learn together in a mutual relationship” (p.2). In order to make this philosophy work, an
emphasis is placed on holistic teaching, flexible groupings, and a supportive family atmosphere
where students feel comfortable to progress at their own pace, in a variety of ways.
Multiage, in its most simplistic form, refers to a classroom of learners varying in age. These
students are grouped together for at least a two or three year span with the same teacher or
teaching team. Multiage is not to be confused with multigrade. Mulcahy (2000) described two
structural differences between the two stating the following:
1. Multiage classrooms are intended to be non graded. Traditionally, multi-grade
classrooms have tended to be graded.
2. The intention in a multiage classroom is for students of different ages and grade levels to
be socially and academically integrated into a single learning community. In traditional
multi-grade classrooms each grade level group has tended to maintain (often by official
directive) its distinct identity. (p.3)
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS4
The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to ensuring all students receive a
fair education. The province’s Itinerant Teachers for Inclusive Education, Woodland, B., Smith.
J., and Scott, C.W. (2007) states, “inclusion is an attitude and a value system that promotes the
basic right of all students to receive appropriate and quality educational programming and
services in the company of their peers. Inclusive schools embrace the notion that all children
belong, and that all children will learn if their educational needs are met” (p.2). This policy
focuses on ensuring that all students, including struggling learners, are given the opportunity to
learn in an environment that meets their needs; an environment that allows struggling learners to
be with their peers as much as possible in order to meet educational needs.
The purpose of this paper is to explore how multiage groupings affect struggling learners.
The concept of inclusion goes far beyond just teaching struggling learners. For purposes of this
paper, the relationship between inclusion, multiage teaching, and struggling learners will be
explored. This paper seeks to determine if multiage teaching could be a valuable teaching
method to use, one which benefits struggling learners while still tying into Newfoundland and
Labrador’s inclusionary philosophy.
As Stuart, Connor, Cady and Zweifel (2006) state, a central concern in education today is
“ensuring equitable access to general education for all students, including students with
disabilities, students from diverse cultural backgrounds, and students who speak English as a
second language” (p.1). Surrounding this issue is the concept of inclusion for all whether one is a
gifted or a struggling learner.
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS5
What is Multiage?
Multiage education refers to a classroom of learners consisting of varying age groups.
However, the multiage environment in relation to schooling encompasses much more than that.
Current multiage philosophy traces its roots to the developmental pedagogy of early childhood
education. Multiage, as Pardini (2005) quotes, is “very much a child-centered approach that
assesses children’s understanding and chooses curriculum pieces to fit their needs” (p.23). Thus,
multiage teaching at its finest becomes a combination of organizing a classroom to meet all
diverse learners. It involves careful organization on the part of the teacher which entails paying
very close attention to each child’s strengths and needs regardless of age. In addition, the term
multiage teaching has become known more as a philosophy in which students of various
abilities, ages, and interests work together in a mutual relationship.
The multiage philosophy believes that just as children learn to crawl, talk, and ride a bike
at varying rates, so too is their rate of learning. This philosophy considers the fact that learning is
unique and progresses at different speeds. As McClay (1996) states, “developmentally
appropriate means that each child’s unique progress and growth are used to determine what he
or she is ready to accomplish” (p.3). The multiage approach argues that children should not be
held to time constraints such as grade levels or school years.
In a multiage classroom, students of various ages and abilities work together in the same
room with the same teacher. The role of the teacher shifts away from more of dictating
knowledge on to passive students, to instead, more on arranging an environment that provides
students with opportunities to construct their own knowledge. The student, in this situation,
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS6
becomes an active participant who is recognized and valued for their uniqueness. In a multiage
classroom, the main goal of the teacher is a facilitator who enables students to become explorers,
creating knowledge based on their own interests and uniqueness. Simply put, the teacher’s role
becomes known as a mentor, challenge giver, assessor, encourager or questioner. The student’s
role, conversely, becomes an explorer, answer finder, meaning maker, critical thinker or initiator
(McClay, 1996, p.4). One example of how these roles can work is through the use of learning
centers. Such centers provide an interactive, manageable, hands-on approach that assists teachers
in providing students with a variety of differentiated activities. While students participate at these
learning centers, the teacher is provided with time to work with various roups or individuals for
more individual instruction if needed.
There is no one way to teach in a multiage environment. Teachers possess individual
strengths, weaknesses, and instructional approaches. However, like students, these teachers must
learn to capitalize their strengths, ask for help in areas of weakness and learn from their mistakes.
A multiage classroom is full of diversity. Therefore, it is crucial that all teachers should
recognize the varied abilities and interests among themselves and their students in order to plan
effectively. Due to such diverse needs, effective instructional plans can only take shape after
careful thought, effort, organization and most importantly, reflection upon trial and error.
A multiage classroom is founded on the principle of developmentally appropriate
practices. This means that multiage teachers, who strives to meet the diverse needs in their
classroom, cannot use whole-class instruction for all instruction. Instead, his/her instructional
plan must also be diverse which utilizes a variety of approaches such as individualized, small-
group, and whole group instruction. In addition to structure of instruction, a multiage teacher
must battle the demands of the varying learning styles in the classroom. Thus, this teacher must
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS7
offer a variety of instructional formats that complement these diverse learning styles. For
example, an effective multiage program offers instruction that provides opportunities for
individual work, small-group cooperative activities, and whole-class interactions. In addition, it
allows students variety in terms of auditory, visual, and kinesthetic preferences. As quoted by
Pardini (2005), “key elements of multiage teaching include the use of cooperative learning,
flexible grouping and integrated, thematic units of study” (p.23).
Teachers in a single-age and a multiage classroom can use the same teaching strategies,
however, the degree to which they achieve learner-centeredness varies. As Leier (2007) quotes,
“the social structure of a multiage class significantly enhances the learning environment,
providing a more compatible ‘fit’ with learner-centered teaching strategies (differentiated
instruction, integrated content, authentic assessment, brain-based learning, choice, project-based
learning, etc.)” (p. 3). In the multiage classroom, students are active learners in their environment
through centers, projects, and learning experiences with their peers.
A major feature of multiage classrooms is grouping for instruction. In order to effectively
do this, teachers must consider a number of things. First of all, if a multiage teacher groups
student homogeneously, based solely on age or ability, they would be just as well to keep
students in a single grade environment. Instead, to effectively group students in a multiage
environment, a teacher could consider the following group options: problem-solving, needs-
requirement, reinforcement, interest, or learn-style groups. In order to decide which students
should be grouped together, a teacher must carefully determine the lesson plan and each
individual student needs. Lindstrom and Lindahl (2011) support this argument when they state,
“teaching in an multiage class is to a higher degree organized in small groups, which benefits
low performing students” (p.124). However, in order for a teacher to provide the best possible
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS8
learning environment for his/her students, he/she must find a balance among groupings. The
teacher must also remember that groupings that work for one activity may not work for another.
Interests, strengths, needs, and/or abilities change among students depending on the topic/activity
at hand.
One misconception that many teachers and parents have about teaching multiage is the
idea that teachers must teach separate topics, with different agendas, to numerous students. This,
however, is not the case. If multiage teachers were to try to teach each grade level’s different
curriculum, it would be the same as having single grade classes. Furthermore, teachers in this
type of setting would quickly become overwhelmed by trying to cover each grade’s curriculum
topics. This is not to say that all students are expected to complete the same level/ products of
work. To the contrary, it means that all students can learn the same curriculum topics, however,
when it comes to projects, responses or group work, students will produce different forms of
work depending on their needs, interests, and developmental readiness. As Pardini (2005) states,
“the emphasis is on the child rather than on the curriculum” (p.23). In order to meet the
curriculum goals set forth for each grade level by the district, teachers can look for common
themes among the grades and plan their year with such themes in mind. Another option may be
to focus on one grade level’s curriculum one year, while focusing on the other grade level’s the
next. If this approach is selected, the teacher must choose the highest grade level’s curriculum in
the first year of the program. This will allow the students who will be with the same teacher the
following year to learn themes from the lower grade level curriculum in year number two.
In an effective multiage setting, there is teamwork among all parties involved. Mack
(2008) quotes, “as a team, the teacher, student, and parent agree on the curriculum and support
one another” (p.324). There is a mutual belief in the philosophy of multiage teaching and all
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS9
members strive for success. In order to achieve this connectedness, schools must make sure
parents are aware of the school’s goals and beliefs regarding a multiage setting. Communication
among the two will ensure parents recognize that their concerns are valued and answered. In any
school setting, parents must be viewed as partners in their child’s education. Gaining the trust
and support of parents will assist teachers in creating the best possible environment for their
students. While discussing two multiage schools in Minnesota, Mack (2008) quotes, “the schools
claim to success is parent involvement and highly qualified staff” (p.324). This indicates that
when all parties involved work together, success for all can be achieved.
In examination of the structural dimensions of multiage pedagogy, Mulcahy (2000)
quotes, “a multiage classroom is not two grades put together for convenience, perhaps to
accommodate a population bulge and probably for only a year or two. It is a permanent class
grouping of planned diversity” (p.3). He continues to discuss that multiage classrooms are
intended to be non-graded based on the belief that graded classrooms, graded textbooks, and
standardized tests, ignore the diversity that exists within the classroom. Furthermore, multiage
advocates that graded approaches to education are based on the assumption that all students of
the same age, for the most part, develop and are capable of the same things. The multiage
philosophy believes that this approach is simply not the case and supports the fact that children
develop and learn at great amounts of variability and diversity. Therefore, as Mulcahy (2000)
states, “the intention in a multiage classroom is for students of different ages and grade levels to
be socially and academically integrated into a single learning community” (p.3). In this type of
setting, as highlighted in the multiage philosophy, students would be allowed time to learn and
grow at their own pace. Mulcahy (2000) quotes, “in moving toward a multiage classroom, it is
sometimes difficult to eliminate grade level labels completely, but it is a desirable goal,
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS10
particularly in avoiding the stigma of failure when a child needs an extra year before moving
ahead” (p.4).
In Canada, many small rural schools have been forced to implement either multigrade or
multiage education. Mulcahy (2000) states that his “research has revealed that here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, individual rural teachers, some with endorsement and help of
district personnel, others acting independently and subversively, had the temerity to
breakthrough the rigidity of gradedness” (p.5). These teachers, through reflection of the
challenges presented within multigrade teaching, discovered the need to respond and find ways
to better meet individual needs. As a response, such teachers saw the need for change resulting in
the creation of two different timetables: an official one which was sent to the district office
detailing the required graded format and time allocation and an unofficial timetable, resembling
more of a multiage classroom following a more flexible and responsive approach to student
needs (Mulcahy, 2000, p.5).
Advantages and Challenges
Advantages. As McClay (1996) quotes, “children are born when they are ready. Crawl
when they are ready. They teethe when they are ready. But they go to school…ready or not,
when they are five” (p.9). Like packs of a litter, students are grouped together in single grade
classrooms with, for the most part, the expectation that they can all do the same things. The
multiage philosophy does not confine students to this belief system. Instead, it believes that all
students progress differently and should not be held to time constraints where learning is
concerned. Advocates of multiage teaching highlight many advantages to student learning.
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS11
One of the main advantages of teaching multiage is the fact that it allows students time to
progress at their individual rate. In this type of classroom, students are not expected to learn the
same skills as their peers, at the same pace or by the same instructional method. It recognizes
that each student is different and may need more time than others to acquire various concepts.
This type of setting capitalizes on the student’s strengths and like a scaffold, provides time to
extend and grow.
Lisi (2002) “maintains that student learning is optimized when teachers create an
atmosphere of mutual respect in their classrooms” (p.6). One of the advantages of multiage
teaching is that students are arranged in an environment that strives on cooperative learning. As
students work together in groups arranged by the multiage teacher, they learn how to effectively
problem solve, ask questions, build on each other’s strengths, and respect each other’s opinions.
This type of interacting creates a sense of community among students in the classroom. It also
helps improve on skills that will be needed in any workforce they will enter.
As students learn to cooperatively work together as a team, they are acquiring skills
needed to be active teachers and learners in society. A cooperative classroom environment
enables students to learn from each other through cross-age tutoring. It provides students with
the opportunity to learn and internalize skills as they help their classmates. More importantly, it
helps build self-esteem.
In order to learn and achieve, students need to develop that certain amount of desire that
motivates their learning. The key to this motivation is self-esteem. All students want to learn in
an environment in which they feel valued and respected. Most teachers strive to build the self-
esteem of their students, however, if implemented properly, the multi-age classroom encourages
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS12
this driving force in students naturally. All learning styles and needs are considered in the
everyday planning by multiage teachers. This, in turn, increases the success rate among students
and increases their self-esteem. Students who have this higher sense of self-esteem, in turn,
become risk takers and take on a huge role in their own learning. McClay (1996) quotes
“Students in multi-age classes have more positive attitudes about themselves and their strengths
and weaknesses, and they are more capable of expressing their desired educational outcomes”
(p.7). Students take ownership for their learning and having a desire to do well. They have an
internal desire to succeed, therefore, increasing achievement.
Classrooms that thrive on teamwork have increased opportunities for leadership and the
development of expertise. Students learn from the sharing of each other’s talents while also
learning leadership skills. The multiage classroom provides opportunities for all students to
become role models and teachers. As an example, an older student who has strong skills in math
may help a younger student with something he/she is having trouble with. Conversely, that
younger student may have strong reading abilities and may be able to help that same older
student who struggles with reading. In both cases, the students learn how to lead while also
learning to accept and seek assistance when needed. Furthermore, they gain an appreciation for
diversity and recognize that everyone has strengths in different areas no matter their age.
Students in a multiage setting learn that they do not have to compare themselves to, or compete
with peers their same age. Instead they learn that it is okay to be different and have confidence in
the abilities that they do have.
Another advantage of the multiage classroom is that it provides students with the
opportunity of continuous progress at their own pace. In the multiage classroom, teachers are
with the same students longer and become pros at what students need. Pike (2011) says, “having
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS13
the students for more than one year also allows me to develop deeper relationships with them,
get to know them as learners and develop lessons that are geared toward their needs” (p.3). This
positively impacts learning as less time is wasted getting to know students. More focus can be
put directly into developing lessons to meet student needs. When asked what her favourite part of
teaching in a multiage setting was, Barrington (2011) states, “my favourite part is the ability to
know your students better. I know exactly what each student knows. I am then able to focus my
teaching with that student for the next few years” (p. 8). Thus, instruction becomes very
individualized and tailored to build on the skills students already possess.
In order to accurately assess student knowledge teachers need to use a variety of
assessments. This allows the teacher to see the whole child versus just passing judgement based
on one assessment. In many multiage schools today, portfolios are the mode of assessment and
as Mack (2008) quotes, “are nothing new but are gaining momentum in the assessment world, as
high-stakes testing becomes a looming obstacle” (P.325). Portfolios are a collection of a
students’ work over time. They document such work as self-assessments, drafts, teacher input,
parents assessments and/or, but not limited to, a student’s best work. An advantage to this type of
assessment is that it is non-competitive and instead demonstrates a student’s own individual
progress. As oppose to standardized, high-stake tests, portfolios allow teachers to see the whole
child in a more comprehensive manner. Furthermore, as Mack (2008) quotes, “they allow the
teacher to assess children’s individual learning styles, aides in communication between students
and parents, and helps to fulfill professional requirements of school accountability while feeling
that intentional teaching and learning is taking place” (p.325).
As mentioned previously, assessment practices in a multiage classroom are very
qualitative and authentic through the use of portfolios, anecdotal records, observations, journals,
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS14
etc. This is not unlike assessment practices used in a single grade classroom. The main difference
is that single grade teachers face the burden and pressure of preparing all students for
standardized tests, in addition to, teacher made tests or grade level textbooks tests that are also
common used. In a multiage classroom, the pressure to prepare and rush through the curriculum
in order to be ready for a standardized test is eliminated.
Disadvantages. Research about multiage practices by Pardini (2005) states that, “interest
in the issue has waned, with new research on the topic virtually nonexistent and attendance at
national multiage conferences a fraction of what it once was” (p.22). In addition, schools are
cutting multiage programs and choosing not to implement such classrooms. The question is why?
Some people believe it may be due to President Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ movement and
its emphasis on standardized, grade-level testing. Others, however, blame the decline of multiage
education on the lack of interest in programs that focus on the affective side of children’s
education as do multiage. Still other research indicates that a huge disadvantage to multiage
teaching is the lack of time to launch and implement such divisive, multilayered programs
(Pardini, 2005, p. 22).
As Heins, Tichenor and Coggins (2000) state, multiage “teachers should be given two
years to plan including observing in appropriate sites, experiencing various ages, and creating
unique programs to meet the needs of specific school populations as well as individuals” (p.33).
This, unfortunately, for many teachers is not always possible which makes teaching multiage for
the first time very challenging and overwhelming. Lack of time to plan and learn from
observation makes it hard for new multiage teachers to organize and develop the multiple
strategies and instructional techniques they need to meet all the needs of the diverse learners in
their classroom. As Heins et al. (2000) state, “much time is needed to work out policies and
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS15
procedures, to make curriculum changes, to prepare the community, and to provide appropriate
staff development and training” (p.33). Merely starting a multiage classroom can be a two year
process.
Also, teacher training programs are often considered weak in preparing educators for
multigrade and multiage teaching positions. inservice teachers enrolled in training
receive mostly the same courses which often do not include course work in multiage education.
In addition, professional development is often not available to these teachers in regards to
multiage teaching strategies. When it is available, there are rarely any supports or follow up
offered to these teachers (Kyne-Mulryan, 2007).
Another barrier to multiage teaching is the dissatisfaction and rejection by parents. Many
parents believe that mixing students of various ages together decreases the quality of instruction.
As Song, Spradlin and Plucker (2009) quote, “parents of older students tend to think that their
children will learn less, while those of younger ones worry that their children might be
challenged too intensely and lose confidence in their learning abilities” (p. 6). For whatever the
reason, this creates two problems. The first, being that in order for a multiage program to be
effective, the support of parents is crucial. Secondly, it is often those parents who are active in
the school life of their children who support and understand the philosophy of a multiage
classroom. Therefore, if it is only those parents from privileged and affluent homes that have
their students in a multiage setting, it runs the risk of homogeneous groups which is not aligned
in the multiage philosophy (Song, Spradlin & Plucker, 2009, p. 6).
The issue of standardized grade level assessments also poses a problem for many
administrators dealing with multiage classrooms. As Song et al. (2009) state “because of the
federal and state accountability laws, such as Indiana Public Law 221-1999, students are required
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS16
to take standardized tests by grade level” (p.6). This becomes a problem due to the blurring of
grade level standards in a multiage classroom. Such standardized tests fail to recognize the
differences among students as oppose to the philosophy of a multiage program. As Volante
(2004) states, “each spring teachers throughout Canada are required to administer a series of
provincially mandated tests to students in their classrooms. These standardized tests are often
used to make comparisons across students, schools, and boards of education” (p.1). Instead of
using authentic assessments to guide student’s present learning, these standardized tests often
take months to correct and lack individual benefits for the student.
Effects on Struggling Learners
A common practice for educators today in both Canada and the United States is inclusion
for all. This means equitable access to education for students with disabilities, diverse cultural
backgrounds, and/or students who speak English as a second language. As Stuart, Connor, Cady
and Zweifel (2007) quote, “both the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (U.S.
Department of Education, 2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act (IDEA) of 2004 (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) articulate the school’s responsibility
to ensure that all students are able to access the core curriculum of general education and be
educated in the general education environment whenever possible, with appropriate supports and
services” (p.12).Research into the advantages and disadvantages of multiage education indicates
that, if implemented properly, multiage settings can be very beneficial in offering inclusive
education particularly to struggling students who require more time to acquire various concepts.
Current inclusionary believes, as stated by the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador (2014) suggests that:
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS17
In an inclusive school culture diversity is embraced, learning supports are available and
properly utilized, and flexible learning experiences focus on the individual student. There
is an innovative and creative environment and a collaborative approach is taken. At the
heart of inclusion is committed leadership and a shared direction (Online Database).
Embedded in the foundation of this philosophy are the same underlying key factors of multiage
teaching; students need to be accepted for their differences and be taught in a way supports their
learning abilities and styles. Could multiage classrooms be a way to help Newfoundland fulfill
its inclusion education beliefs?
Limited research in the area of multiage teaching and struggling learners does reveal that
there are advantages to this type of setting for ensuring inclusion for all. In their exploration of
multiage and inclusion, Stuart et al. (2007) states, “in order to be successful, however, schools
must allow for flexible learning environments, with flexible curricula and instruction. Under
ideal conditions, all students work toward the same overall educational outcomes” (p.15). In a
multiage classroom, such a flexible learning environment is encouraged where curricula is suited
to meet student needs. The answer may not be that struggling learners learn best in a multiage
classroom, however, it can be suggested that struggling learners can definitely benefit from the
inclusive setting embraced in a multiage setting.
Many struggling learners simply feel that they do not have enough time to acquire skills
before they are required to move onto a new concept. Similarly, teachers also feel that they do
not have enough time to cover all the curriculum outcomes set forth by district policies. Multiage
teaching, however, is one option that can help alleviate this time constraint. Data analysis from a
study of three multiage teachers indicated that all felt that their classrooms were very student-
centered (Krockover, Pekarek & Riggs,1999). All three teachers felt they implemented practical
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS18
assessment formats such as portfolios, journal writing, reading logs, anecdotal notes, peer
evaluations, and open-ended projects that provided students with ample opportunities to
demonstrate their learning. As Krockover et al. (1999) quote, “information gained from these
assessments pieces helped determine when to move on to the next concept or theme” (p.69).
Although such assessment practices can be implemented in the traditional, single grade
classroom, the multiage setting is not limited to time constraints pushing teachers and students to
move on to the next concept. A student can have on average up to three years with the same
teacher to perfect and review various skills that they may be facing difficulty with.
Students who face struggles in their learning often develop lower self –esteem and self-
concepts of themselves. This directly affects their learning as they lose motivation and often
develop learned helplessness. In a study of a multiage classroom at Crabapple Middle School in
Roswell, Georgia, a young girl with a learning disability, who was receiving pull-out special
education help, had always felt different. When it came time for fire drill practice at her school,
she dreaded to go out in the playground where her peers would see her standing with her special
education teacher. Eventually this child was placed under the direction of an inclusive, multiage
team where a special education teacher and classroom teacher implemented the multiage
philosophy. As a result, Hopping (2000) quotes that same student stating, “we had a fire drill
today, and I went outside with all the other classes, and it was okay because I am not different
anymore” (p.272). Evident in this statement is the fact that this multiage setting helped this chid
feel that her learning differences did not make her ‘different’. In addition, her self-esteem was
increased.
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS19
Conclusion
If implemented properly, multiage education embraces students’ different learning styles
and individual knowledge. Differences are celebrated and valued in ways that promote a
collaborative learning environment. As Kolstad and McFadden (1998) argue, “proponents of
multiage classroom instruction claim that students perform better academically than do their
single-age classroom counterparts. Educators report advantages in the areas of academia, self-
esteem, and socialization skills. Furthermore, teachers and parents benefit from a sense of
continuity that multiage classrooms provide” (p. 14).
Ultimately, however, arranging students in a multiage setting does not guarantee a quality
educational program. Many factors come into play that affects the efficiency of instruction such
as planning time, variety of instructional methods used, access to supports such as special
educators and parents, teachers efforts to get to know their students, hands-on activities
implemented, and/or permitted cooperative learning time. If such factors are carefully taken into
consideration by the teacher, the multiage setting can be a valuable atmosphere where struggling
students can grow as learners at their own pace. Such students would feel that it is okay to have
difficulties in various areas and that it is our differences that make us unique and special.
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS20
References
Barrington, S. (Interviewer) & Unknown (Interviewee). (2011). The Wisdom of Experience [Interview transcript]. Retrieved from Memorial University’s Online Course Web site: http://online.mun.ca/d2l/common/popup/popup.d2l?ou=86517&queryString=ou%3D86517%26postId%3D1601137%26topicId%3D107589%26isPopup%3D1%26actId%3D0&footerMsg=&popBodySrc=/d2l/lms/discussions/messageLists/message_preview.d2l&popFooterSrc=footer.d2l&width=900&height=855&hasStatusBar=false&hasAutoScroll=true&p=d2l_cntl_aafad2ac39e540c6b12444f5e3bf9d15_1
Bingham, A. A., Dorta, P., McClaskey, M., & O’Keefe, J. (1995). Exploring the multiage classroom. York, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.
Chase, P., & Doan, J. (1994). Full circle: A new look at multiage education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cohen, D. L. (1990). A look at multi-age classrooms. Education Digest, 55, 20-23.
Daniel, T. C., & Terry, K. W. (1995). Multiage classrooms by design: beyond the one-room school. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Edwards, S., Blaise, M., & Hammer, M. (2009). Beyond developmentalism? Early childhood teachers' understandings of multiage grouping in early childhood education and care. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(4), 55-63.
Ford, B. E. (1977). Multiage grouping in the elementary school and children's affective development: a review of recent research. Elementary School Journal,78 (2), 149-159. DOI: 10.1086/461096
Grant, J., & Johnson, B. (1995). A common sense guide to multiage practices: Primary level. Columbus, Ohio: Teacher's Pub. Group.
Goodlad, J. I., & Anderson, R.H. (1987). The nongraded elementary school.New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2014). Inclusive school culture [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/inclusion.html
Hawkins, G. G. (1996). Multiage grouping: back to the future? Catalyst for Change, 25, 15-17.
Heins, E. D., Tichenor, M.S., & Coggins, C. J. (2000). Multiage classrooms: putting theory into practice. Contemporary Education, 71(3), 30-35.
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS21
Hopping, L. (2000). Multi-age teaming: a real-life approach to the middle school. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (4), 270-292.
Howell, K., Georgeson, J., & Wickett, K. (2012). Without walls. Nursery World, 112 (4285), 20-22.
Hunter, M. C. (1992). How to change to a nongraded school. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kasten, W. C. (1998). One learner, two paradigms: A case study of a special education student in a multiage primary classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14 (4), 335-353.
Kasten, W. C., & Clarke, B. K. (1993). The multi-age classroom: A family of learners.Katonah, N.Y.: Richard C. Owen Publishers.
Keer, H.V., & Vanderlinde, R. (2010). The impact of cross-age peer tutoring on third and sixth graders’ reading strategy awareness, reading strategy use, and reading comprehension. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(1), 33-45.
Kolstad, R. K., & McFadden, A. (1998). Multiage classrooms: an age-old educational strategy revisited. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 14-18.
Krockover, G.H.,Pekarek, R.M., & Riggs, C. G.(1999). How well do multiage intermediate classrooms foster successful learning for children? Educational Forum, 64 (1), 67-74. DOI: 10.1080/00131729908984727
Kyne-Mulryan, C. (2007). The preparation of teachers for multigrade teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 501-514.
Leeds, A., & Marshak, D. (2002). Teaching and learning in the intermediate multiage classroom. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.
Leirer, M. (2007). Multiage learning environments have many benefits. Retrieved from http://www.choosingmultiage.com/marions_resources/multiage_learning%20environments_have_many_benefits.pdf
Lindstrom, E., & Lindahl, E. (2011). The effect of mixed-age classes in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 121-144. DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2011.554692
Lisi, R.D. (2002). From marbles to instant messenger: implications of Piaget’s ideas about peer learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 5-12.
Mack, J. (2008). Continuous progress schools see the “whole child”. Education, 129 (2), 324-326.
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS22
McClay, J. L. (1996). The multi-age classroom. Westminster, CA: Teacher Created Materials.
Miller, B. A.(1996). What works in multiage instruction. Education Digest, 61(9), 4-8.
Mulcahy, D. M. (2000). Multiage and multi-grade: similarities and differences [PDF document]. Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Web site: http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/win2000/mulcahy.html
Nishida, Y. (2008). The challenge of multiage primary education in public education: case studies in Australia, Canada and the USA. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 38 (4), 513-513. DOI: 10.1080/03057920802259809
Papay, J. P., Hedl, J. J., & Spielberger, C. D. (2005). Effects of anxiety on communication tasks for children in traditional and individualized-multiage classrooms. Psychological Reports, 96 (1), 57-66. DOI: 10.2466/PR0.96.1.57-66
Pardini, P. (2005). The slowdown of the multiage classroom. School Administrator, 62 (3), 22-30.
Pike, E. (Interviewer) & Susan (Interviewee). (2011). The Wisdom of Experience [Interview transcript]. Retrieved from Memorial University’s Online Course Web site: http://online.mun.ca/d2l/common/popup/popup.d2l?ou=86517&queryString=ou%3D86517%26postId%3D1598238%26topicId%3D107589%26isPopup%3D1%26actId%3D0&footerMsg=&popBodySrc=/d2l/lms/discussions/messageLists/message_preview.d2l&popFooterSrc=footer.d2l&width=900&height=855&hasStatusBar=false&hasAutoScroll=true&p=d2l_cntl_a44e2f1abe7740a6be57239c9bb74062_2
Politano, C., & Davies, A. (1994). Multi-age and more. Winnipeg: Peguis Publishers.
Rathbone, C. (1993). Multiage portraits: Teaching and learning in mixed-age classrooms. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.
Reinisch, S. (1996). Multi-age classrooms: one school's experience. Lutheran Education, 131, 201-204.
Song, R., Spradlin, T.E., & Plucker, J. A. (2009).The advantages and disadvantages of multiage classrooms in the era of NCLB accountability. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 7 (1), 1-8.
Stuart, S. K., Connor, M., Cady, K., & Zweifel, A. (2007). Multiage instruction and inclusion: a collaborative approach. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(1), 12-26.
Stone, S. J. (1996). Creating the multiage classroom. Glenview, IL.: GoodYear Books.
MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS23
Torrence, M. (2012). An idea whose time has come? Montessori Life, 24(2), 18-23.
Volante, L. (2004).Teaching to the test: what every educator and policy-maker should know. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 35. Retrieved from http://umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/volante.html
Voltz, D. L. (2003). Personalized contextual instruction. Preventing School Failure, 47(3), 138-143. DOI: 10.1080/10459880309604442
Woodland, B., Smith. J., & Scott, C.W. (2007). Achievement for all: professional development for inclusive education [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://www.esdnl.ca/programs/inclusion/newsletters/achievementforall.pdf