i

COMPARISON OF MULTI-GRADE TEACHING

WITH MONO-GRADE TEACHING

AT PRIMARY LEVEL

By

Ghulam Nasir ul Haq

(09-NUN-0066)

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Education

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Northern, University Nowshera

Pakistan, 2017

ii

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I Ghulam Naseer ul Haq hereby state that my Ph. D. thesis titled, “Comparison of

Multi-grade Teaching with Mono-grade Teaching at Primary Level”, is my own

work and has not been submitted previously by me for taking any degree from this

University (Northern University, Nowshera) or anywhere else in the country/world.

At any time if my statement is found to be incorrect even after my graduation the

university has the right to withdraw my Ph. D. degree.

Name of Student: ________________________

(Ghulam Naseer ul Haq)

Date: _______________

iii

PLAGIARISM UNDERTAKING

I solemnly declare that research work presented in the thesis titled,

“Comparison of Multi-grade Teaching with Mono-grade Teaching at Primary

Level,” is solely my research work with no significant contribution from any other

person. Small contribution/help whenever taken has been duly acknowledged and

that complete thesis has been written by me.

I understand the zero tolerance policy of the Higher Education Commission

and the Northern University, Nowshera towards plagiarism. Therefore, I as an

Author of the above titled thesis declare that no portion of my thesis has been

plagiarized and any material used as reference is properly referred/cited.

I understand that if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above

titled thesis even after award of Ph. D, degree, the university reserves the right to

withdraw/revoke my Ph. D. degree and that Higher Education Commission and the

university have the right to publish my name on the HEC/University Website on

which names of those students are placed who submitted plagiarized thesis.

Student/Author Signature: ___________________________

Name: ___________________________

(Ghulam Naseer ul Haq)

iv

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

This is to certify that the research work presented in this thesis, titled, “Comparison

of Multi-grade Teaching with Mono-grade Teaching at Primary Level,” was

conducted by Ghulam Naseer ul Haq under the supervision of Prof. Dr. R.A. Farooq.

No part of this thesis has been submitted anywhere else for any other degree. This

thesis is submitted to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (Northern University,

Nowshera) in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy in the field of Education, Department of Education Northern University

Nowshera.

Student Name: Ghulam Naseer ul Haq Signature:_________________

Examination Committee:

a) External Examiner 1: Name Signature:GülsünKurubacak

(Designation & Office Address)

Prof. Dr. Gulsun KURUBACAK

Anadolu University College of Open Education

Group Coordinator of R&D and International Relations, Office #313

Yunusemre Campus, Eskisehir 26470, TURKEY

b) External Examiner 2: Name Signature:Nilgün Tosun

(Designation & Office Address)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nilgun Tosun

Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology

Faculty of Education, Trakya University, Kosova Campus

Edirne - TURKIYE

c) Internal Examiner : Name Signature:__________________

(Designation & Office Address)

Prof. Dr. Wazim Khan

Dean, Faculty of Education

Qurtaba University of Science and Information Technology,

Hayatabad, Peshawar (Pakistan)

Supervisor Name: Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq Signature:____________________

Co-Supervisor Name: Prof. Dr. Rabia Tabassum Signature: _________________

Name of Dean/HOD: Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq Signature:____________________

v

DEDICATION

To my beloved family (Razia Khanum, Atta and Gul, Laila and

Waqar, Jawad and Saman, Kaneez Aaminah and Kaneez Fatimah,

Haider waqar and Umer Atta) whose share of time I have utilized in my

study.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements x

Abstract xi

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 2

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 3

1.3 HYPOTHESES 3

1.4 DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY 4

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 4

1.6 METHOD AND PROCEDURE 5

1.6.1 Population 5

1.6.2 Sample 5

1.6.3 Research Instruments 5

1.6.4 Data Collection 6

1.6.5 Analysis of Data 6

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 7

2.1 EDUCATION AND MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 7

2.2 MULTI-GRADE TEACHING IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 9

2.3 MULTI-GRADE TEACHING IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE 13

2.4 RATIONALE BEHIND MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 14

2.5 MODELS OF MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 15

2.5.1 Quasi Mono-grade Curriculum Model 15

2.5.2 Differentiated Curriculum Model 17

2.5.3 Multi-year Curriculum Cycle Model 17

2.5.4 Learner and Materials Centered Curriculum Models 18

2.6 SITUATIONS FOR MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 19

2.7 TEACHING STRATEGIES IN MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 21

2.7.1 Thematic Teaching 22

2.7.2 Grouping Techniques 22

2.7.3 Cooperative Learning 22

2.7.4 Whole Group Teaching 23

2.7.5 Small Groups 23

2.8 ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 24

2.9 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES 28

2.9.1 Advantages of Multi-grade Teaching 28

vii

2.9.2 Disadvantages of Multi-grade Teaching 30

2.10 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS 31

2.11 TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 33

2.12 EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 36

2.12.1 Classroom Management Techniques 36

2.12.2 Instructional Strategies 36

2.12.3 Planning for Curriculum 37

2.12.4. Instructional Materials 38

2.12.5 School and Community 39

2.13 PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS 40

2.13.1 Characteristics of Performance of Students 41

2.13.2 Methods of Performance Assessment of Students 41

2.13.3 Role of Teacher Performance 42

2.13.4 Developing Classroom Performance 43

2.13.5 Goals and Objectives of Students’ Performance 44

2.13.6 Assessment of Students’ Performance 44

2.13.7 Validity in Performance 45

2.14 REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCHES 46

3. METHOD AND PROCEDURE 64

3.1 Population 64

3.2 Sample 64

3.3 Research Instruments 64

3.3.1 Validity 65

3.3.2 Reliability 65

3.4 Research Design 65

3.5 Treatment 66

3.6 Data Collection 69

3.7 Analysis of Data 69

4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 72

4.1 Analysis and Interpretation of Data of Class-IV 72

4.2 Analysis and Interpretation of Data of Class-V 78

Discussion 83

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 88

5.1 Summary 88

5.2 Conclusions 89

viii

5.3. Recommendations 90

BIBLIOGRAPHY 91

ANNEXURES 104

Annex-A Pre-test for Class-V 104

Annex-B Pre-test for Class-IV 105

Annex-C Post-test for Class-V 106

Annex-D Post-test for Class-IV 107

Annex-E Lesson Plan for Mono-grade Teaching for Class-V 108

Annex F Lesson Plan for Mono-grade Teaching for Class-IV 109

Annex G Lesson Plan for Multi-grade Teachimg 110

Annex H Results 111

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Comparison of mean scores of experimental and control groups of class-

IV on pre-test.

63

2. Comparison of mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control rol

groups of class-IV on pre -test.

64

3. Comparison of mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control rol

groups of class-IV on pre -test.

64

4. Comparison of mean scores of experimental and control groups of class-

IV on pos-test.

65

5. Comparison of mean achievement scores of low achievers of

experimental and control groups of class-IV on post-test.

66

6. Comparison of mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control

groups of class-IV on post-test.

66

7. Comparison between pre-test post-test achievement scores of control group

of of class-IV.

67

8. Comparison between pre-test post-test achievement scores of

E experimenital group of class-IV.

68

9. Comparison of mean scores of experimental and control groups of class-V on

on pre-test. .

68

10. Comparison mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control

groups of class-V on pre-test.

69

11. Comparison mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control

groups of class-V on pre-test.

70

12. Comparison between the post-test mean achievement scores of

experimental and control groups of class-V on pre-test.

70

13. Comparison of of mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control

groups of class-V on post-test.

71

14. Comparison of of mean scores of high achievers of experimental and

control groups of class-V on post-test.

72

15. Comparison between pre-test post-test achievements scores of

control group of class-V.

73

16. Comparison between pre-test and post-test achievement scores of

experimental group of class-V.

73

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, the researcher offers his sincerest gratitude to his supervisor

Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq, Dean Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Nothern

University, Nowshera, who has supported him throughout his research project with

his patience and knowledge whilst allowing him room to work in his own way. The

researcher attributes the completion of this research project to his encouragement and

effort and without him this research project would not have been completed or

written, one simply could not wish for a better or friendlier supervisor.

The researcher feels highly indebted to Prof. Dr. Rabia Tabassum, a

distinguished scholar, motherly teacher, who generously guided the researcher and

the researcher is thankful to Prof. Dr. Jamil Sawar for his valuable tips during the

research work. The researcher is also thankful to Dr. Muhammad Idrees, Syed Ehsan

naqwi, Dr. Eid Akbar, Dr. Muhammad Nasir, Dr. Ayaz Ahmad, Mr. Zafar Iqbal,

Controller of Examinations, Muhammad Malik, Deputy Registrar, Mr. Maqsood and

all other staff who help him. The researcher is also thankful to Mr. Habib ur Rahman

Gilani, Managing Director OPF, Mr. Israr Khan Jamali, Deputy Managing Director,

Mr. Ahmed Yar Bhuttar, Executive Director, Mr. Saifur Rahman, Director General,

Hafiz Khalid Saeed, Laeeqa Ambreen, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Naseem,

Directors OPF. The researcher is also thankful to Mrs. Nafees Zahra, Mr. Wajid Ali,

Mr. Farooq Sadiq, Mr. Zeeshan Sheikh, Syeda Warda, Raja Ayub, Raja Shahid Ali,

Babar Ali and all my colleagues who inspired and persuaded him to complete the

study.

Ghulam Nasir ul Haq

xi

ABSTRACT

Multi-grade teaching is a situation where a single teacher is incharge of more

than one grade levels at a time in one classroom. In multi-grade classrooms in

Pakistan, children of varying ages sit together in one classroom and are

simultaneously taught the same subject material. Multi-grade teaching can be

compared with its counterpart mono-grade teaching where classrooms are pre-

arranged grade wise. The study was aimed at comparing multi-grade teaching with

mono-grade teaching at primary level. The major objectives of the study were: (1)

To investigate the effect of multi-grade strategy on the performance of primary

school children in the subject of English; (2) To compare multi-grade teaching

strategy with mono-grade teaching strategy at primary level; (3) To find out the

effectiveness of multi-grade teaching at primary level; and (4) To give

recommendations to suggest suitable method of teaching English through multi-

grade teaching at primary level.

To achieve the above mentioned objectives, following null hypotheses were

tested: (1) There is no significant difference between the mean scores of

experimental and control groups on pre-test; (2) There is no significant difference

between the mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control groups on

pre-test; (3) There is no significant difference between the mean scores of high

achievers of experimental and control groups on pre-test; (4) There is no significant

difference between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups on post-

test; (5) There is no significant difference between the mean scores of low achievers

of experimental and control groups on post-test; (6) There is no significant difference

between the mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control groups on

post-test.

Sample of the study included 60 students of classes IV and V of Army public

School Noshera (Class IV=30; class V=30). These students were divided into two

xii

groups,i.e. experimental (multi-grade teaching) and control group (mono-grade

teaching. Each group had 30 students (Class IV=15; class V=15). The sample

students were divided into experimental and control groups on the basis of two pre-

tests (separate for class IV and V) scores through pair random sampling. “Pre-test

Post-test Equivalent Group Design” was used for this study. Experimental group was

taught by multi-grade teaching strategy whereas mono-grade teaching approach was

applied in control group. Treatment continued for six weeks. Data were collected by

administering two post-tests (separate for class IV and V) at the end of treatment.

Data obtained through pre-tests and post-tests were tabulated, analyzed and

interpreted by applying t-test. In the light of data analysis and findings, it was

concluded that the performance of control group (mono-grade) was significantly

better than that of experimental group (multi-grade). It was recommended that if at

all multi-grade is to be continued the teachers should be equipped with mult-grade

strategy through in-service training. For pre-service education of teachers the teacher

education curriculum be revised accordingly.