PUPIL GROUPINGS WITHIN CLASSROOMS: SOCIAL PEDAGOGY WITHIN CULTURAL CONTEXTS

Peter Kutnick, University of Brighton1

Peter Blatchford, Institute of Education, University of LondonEd Baines, Institute of Education, University of London

Paper presented at the International Society for Cultural Research and Activity Theory Conference, Amsterdam 2002

This research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council R000237255

1 Address for correspondence:Prof. Peter KutnickEducation Research CentreUniversity of BrightonFalmer, Brighton BN1 9PH

1

Pupil Groupings in Primary School Classrooms: sites for learning and social pedagogy?

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

There have been many studies of teaching and learning in classrooms, for example, involving

teaching approaches and styles, learning or broad classroom level structures (e.g. age of

pupils, ability, curriculum). These studies offer insights into teaching effectiveness, patterns

of learning and broad explanations of classroom effects, yet they add little insight into the

complex ecology that characterises children’s development in school contexts. Studies of

teaching and learning within classrooms rarely consider the multi-layered effects of social

context, for example involving within-class groupings. The importance of this neglect lies in

the fact that all pupils in classes are placed in some form of grouping throughout their

classroom life. For this paper, naturalistically occurring pupil groupings in the classroom can

be seen in ecological or activity perspective as providing:

1. A social context for learning and development

2. A basis of social relationships that can promote or inhibit school-based learning,

3. A site for socio-cultural activity, but

4. Beyond social activity and appropriation (etc.), a base for the potential of change.

2

Existing studies of groupings within the classroom tend to fall into two camps:

1. Naturalistic descriptions of classroom activity (e.g. Galton et al, 1980; 1999; Pollard et al,

2000) which have shown the lack of correspondence between small group seating and

cognitive learning tasks;

a. Teacher confidence and support (Cowie & Rudduck, 1988)

b. Pupil ability to interact with other pupils (Galton, 1990)

c. Classroom organisation and structure (Dreeben, 1984)

d. Seating v. working (Tizard et al, 1988; Hastings & Schweiso, 1995)

e. Quality of pupil talk (Bennett et al, 1984; Mercer et al., 1999; Webb, 1989)

f. Friendship (Webb, et al., 1997; Kutnick & Kingston, in prep; Hartup various)

2. Experimental studies designed to show the effectiveness of co-operative and collaborative

grouping for synthesis and discussion tasks (e.g. co-operation: Slavin, 1990; Johnson &

Johnson, 1987; and collaboration: Webb, 1989; Mercer et al, 1999)

Both camps offer limited insight into the teaching and learning potential of groupings as they

naturally occur in classrooms. These studies were not designed to explore the full range of

group sizes (usually focusing on individuals, small groups and whole classes) and learning

tasks commonly found in classrooms, and general social/cultural/contextual features that may

be considered fundamental elements of activity theory.

3

In general, naturalistic classroom studies have not examined key features of within class

groupings in detail. This paper seeks to move forward an understanding of within class

groupings in real classrooms by acknowledging the multidimensional nature of classroom

groups.

The current study sets out to question whether being placed in a group is likely to promote

social interactional or learning potentials often ascribed to groups in the theoretical literature.

This view emphasises what we have described as a ‘social pedagogy’ of classroom groups,

part of which would be structuring and matching of classroom contexts and groupings for the

enhancement of teaching and learning purposes.

An Example

Each grouping in a classroom can be viewed in terms of a number of dimensions. We term

these dimensions as ‘core themes’ in grouping. The themes are central to pupils’ and

teachers’ experiences of classrooms, and the grouping contexts will impact in different ways

with implications for learning and teaching. Little attention has been paid to the systematic

description of these core themes in everyday classroom settings, and there is little knowledge

of the inter-relationships between the themes.

4

THE FIVE CORE THEMES

1. Group size: These studies suggest that:

interaction involving all members of a group is more likely in small groups than in large

groups (Bossert et al, 1985; and Nasasti & Clements, 1991); and

large groupings may diffuse responsibility amongst group members which hinders their

participation in discussions (Webb, 1989).

Small-scale experimental research further insights concerning:

Individualised groupings

Dyadic (paired) groupings

Triadic groupings

Groupings of 4 to 8 pupils

Whole class grouping

1. Group composition, especially with regard to:

Gender

Ability

Friendship

3. Tasks and curriculum area: see Table

4. Interaction between pupils and with teachers: Research has suggested that it is

common for pupils to be seated in groups but not actually interact with other group members:

When placed in a group, how dependent is that group on the presence and interaction with

a teacher (see below)

In the few instances when group members interact with one another, what types of

interaction are found?

5. Adult presence in the classroom and support of groups

5

Summary of the aims of this study

The study is planned to provide a representative, systematic, and multidimensional

description of pupil groupings and social pedagogic uses of these groupings in primary

classrooms.

It explores connections between the theme of grouping size and the four other core themes

- composition, types of learning tasks assigned to various groupings, patterns of pupil-pupil

and pupil-teacher interaction within groupings, and types of adult support offered to

groupings.

METHOD

This phenomenographic objective will provide broad descriptive evidence of grouping, it

is not designed to obtain in-depth explanations of the data on grouping.

A compromise of methodological approaches, which would not be too labour intensive

for teachers, asked teachers to draw a map of their classrooms during normal classroom

work time.

On the map, teachers identified individual pupils and each pupil grouping, drawing circles

around each pupil grouping.

After the teaching session, the teacher completed a short questionnaire for each identified

grouping - describing composition (sex of pupils, ability and friendship mix of group, size

of group), activities being undertaken (including learning task, curriculum area and type

of within group interaction) and presence of teacher or other adult. Analytic categories for

each of these grouping criteria were developed through pre-pilot observations and pilot

studies (Blatchford, Kutnick & Baines, 1999).

Additional questions concerning teachers’ views on different types of grouping practices

and training provided for working in groups were also included.

6

Sample:

Five LEAs agreed to participate in the study and 111 schools agreed to participate.

Each school was asked to randomly select one teacher from a Year 2 and a Year 5 class to

complete the map.

187 teachers returned questionnaires for analysis. Approximately equal numbers of

mapping returns came from Year 2 (49%) and 5 (51%) classes.

Over 1000 groupings were described in the mappings (Year 2: 483 groupings; Year 5: 580

groupings).

Nearly all of the pupil groupings were created by the class teacher (91% composed by

teacher, 9% composed by pupils); although exact seating position within the group may

have been left to the child.

7

RESULTS

CORE THEMES:

Size of groupings within classrooms

A variety of different group sizes were found in classes. The most common size (nearly 50% of

all groupings) that children were likely to experience was the small group of 4-6 pupils (Table

2, bottom row). Very large groupings of more than 10 pupils (usually whole classes) were also

frequently experienced by over 20% of pupils.

TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE

Group composition

Most groupings were of mixed sex and consisted of (approximately) equal numbers of boys

and girls (see Table 2, total column). Males were more likely than females to be assigned to

single sex groupings – when they existed. Children were more likely to experience similar than

mixed ability groupings (56% v 44%). Friendship grouping was rare and only accounted for

20% of groupings.

Curriculum area and learning tasks

Most groupings identified by teachers were within the core areas of English and Maths

(accounting for 71% of all groupings; see Table 3; total column – probably accounted for in

literacy and numeracy hours). Table 3 also shows that most groupings worked on tasks

involving the practise or revision of skills/ knowledge followed by the application of existing

skills/ knowledge to new areas. Children were least likely to work on tasks involving the

introduction of new knowledge.

TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE

Number of adults in classes and adult role in relation to groupings

On average there were between 1 and 2 adults in classes. In addition to the teacher presence,

32% of classes had at least one classroom assistant present and 15% had at least one other type

8

of adult present (parent helper, student teacher, etc.). It was found that adults were present with

36% of groupings (see Table 3; total column).

Type of interactions within groupings

The most common type of action found within groupings was individuated work, and this

characterised 63% of activities (see Table 3; total column). Whole class interactive teaching

accounted for a further 25% of classroom interactions. Co-operative and collaborative work on

joint tasks was rare (12%) as was individualised work (1%).

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE CORE THEMES.

Group size in relation to group composition

With regard to ability, Table 2 shows that most grouping sizes were of similar ability except

very large groupings. Individuals were most likely to be of low or middle ability; dyads,

triads, small and large groupings were predominantly mixed ability; and groupings of 4-6

pupils and 7-10 pupils were likely to be composed of middle and high ability respectively

(2(15)=1134; p<0.001).

Group size in relation to curriculum area

Table 3 shows that grouping sizes did not vary dramatically according to the curriculum area.

Very large groupings were most likely to be used in mathematics and other (non-core)

curricula (2(15)=269; p<0.001). Individual, dyad and triad groupings were virtually unused in

any of the curriculum areas.

Group size in relation to learning task

Table 3 shows that all types of learning tasks were undertaken in all group sizes - with some

grouping sizes undertaking some tasks with a higher frequency than others (2(15)=691;

p<0.001). Three findings stand out:

9

Dyads and triads were proportionally more likely to undertake tasks involving the

application of existing knowledge to new areas than other grouping sizes.

Large groupings of 7-10s were more likely to undertake tasks involving the introduction of

new information than other grouping sizes.

Individuals were proportionally most likely to undertake practise/ revision tasks than other

grouping sizes.

Group number, size and composition in relation to adult presence

The relationship between the number and size of groups and adult presence is revealing about

the effect adult support has on the organisation of the class, the way teachers allocate their

time among the groupings, and the function of different group sizes.

The number of adults in classes increased with the number of groups in that class

(r=0.154; n=187; p<0.05).

Adults were increasingly likely to be present with groupings as group size increased (with

the exception of individuals) (2(5)=2162; p<0.001).

However, adults were found, at most, in 33% of the groupings below the size ‘11 to whole

class’. In this circumstance, the 26% adult presence with individual children represents a

very high proportion of adult class presence. Further, these findings indicate that dyads

(and to some extent triads) are the main group size where pupils are likely to work

independently of an adult. Teachers appear to target larger groupings and individuals for

the provision of support.

When adults were present in pupil groupings (36% of all groupings), they were most likely

to spend time with same ability groups (75%) as opposed to mixed ability groups (25%).

Low ability groups (which were mainly composed of males) were the most likely ability

grouping to have an adult present (X2(6) = 95.374, p<0.001). When low ability groupings

had an adult present, that adult was not a teacher in 42% of these instances. By contrast, in

10

the high ability groupings (predominantly composed of females) with an adult present,

75% of these instances were with the class teacher.

Adult presence in relation to learning tasks

Teacher presence was not consistent across learning tasks being carried out by pupil groupings

(2(3)=378; p<0.001; see Table 4). Teachers were most likely to support groupings when

introducing new skills and practising skills. Teachers appeared as the main source of

information and new knowledge for pupils as well as a source of behavioural or attention

control and support during the numerous practice-based classroom activities.

TABLE FOUR ABOUT HERE

Group size in relation to interaction type

All group sizes were engaged primarily in individuated work (where children worked alone

on a task that might be shared with a group or the rest of the class).

In a small proportion of groupings (approximately 25%) pupils appeared to be placed in

active situations most likely to promote their learning and understanding (as outlined in

Table 1).

Approximately one-third of individuals sitting alone were assigned individual work.

Very large groups interacted with the teacher – often as a whole-class; but it is unclear

what type of learning task was being undertaken.

Interaction type in relation to task type

Task types were not associated with types of interaction in any systematic manner (see Table

4). All types of learning task were assigned, predominantly, at an individuated action level.

Training for group work in classrooms

When asked whether the teachers had provided training or specific encouragement for their

pupils to engage in any form of group work, only 26% of the teachers replied positively; the

majority of those training pupils simply stated that they used ‘circle time’.

11

DISCUSSION

In studying teachers’ use of pupil groupings in primary schools the authors have used a

‘nested’ ecological approach. Descriptively, these results are in agreement with other current

studies of primary school classrooms (e.g. Galton et al, 1999; Osborn et al, 2000). The

originality of our findings lies in the relationships between the core themes. Here, we identify

some social pedagogic concerns for effective teaching and learning in classrooms. These

concerns are summarised in Table 5 and each column will now be explored.

TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE

Group size and sex mix

A larger proportion of boys (than girls) were assigned to work alone, which may reflect

issues of behaviour/attention control and special needs considerations - a possibility further

highlighted by the high level of adult presence (teacher and non-teacher) with these

groupings. The predominance of triads with a male majority may indicate another cause for

concern given that established research suggests that this may allow two pupils to ‘gang-up’

on a third (Cullingford, 1988). In situations where there are 2 boys to 1 girl this problem is

further exacerbated (Tann, 1981; Webb, 1991).

Group size and ability mix

One of the most surprising findings in this study was the predominant use of same-ability

level within groupings. While frequently recommended in government policy, this grouping

may work to the disadvantage of low ability children, especially boys. When undertaking

learning (especially cognitive) tasks in small groups, low ability pupils rarely have the range

of cognitive insight to challenge other’s ideas or elaborate on their own ideas (Webb, 1989).

Even if low ability pupils were asked to undertake individual practise tasks within their small

groupings, this social context may draw pupils off-task and limit their concentration.

Additionally, in this study many of the low ability pupils (mainly boys) who were assigned

12

individual tasks had an adult present - but the adult was not the teacher. In contrast, when an

adult worked with high ability pupils (mainly girls), there was a much greater likelihood that

the adult was the teacher.

Group size and friendship

Although Zajac & Hartup (1997) recommended that friendship provides a supportive context

for children to undertake cognitive problems, in this study it was found that teachers rarely

group pupils by friendship. It appears that ability is the predominant basis for the composition

of groupings (also found in Pollard et al, 2000) – with teachers forgoing the prospect that

friendship may provide supportive relationships that allow cognitive interchange and

dialogue to reign within groupings (Zajac & Hartup, 1997; Mercer et al, 1999).

Group size and task

Generally, there was no clear cut evidence that a group size was related to any particular

learning task. The lack of correspondence between group size, learning and interactive task

also suggests situations where classroom learning may not be maximised.

In cases where pupils are seated in small groups and assigned individuated tasks, pupils

may be drawn ‘off task’ due to the amount of social talk likely to take place around them

(Hastings & Schweiso, 1995).

When large groupings (whole class) are used for interactive lecturing, it is unlikely that

all pupils will be involved in the learning process – for teachers can only focus and

interact with a few children at one time.

It also appears that teachers rarely set-up or support an environment to encourage peer-

peer interaction; hence creating a dynamic where learning of new knowledge is dependent

on teacher scaffolding and foregoing the possible benefits of peer co-operation.

13

Group size and adult presence

Adults were most likely to target larger groupings and individuals for their ‘support’. Dyads

and to some extent triads were the main group size where pupils worked independently of an

adult. These findings also indicate that:

a) teachers may attempt to gain maximum impact and control by dealing with as many

children as possible (in very large groups) and individuals – although the effectiveness of

this approach has been challenged by having too many children to focus upon at one time

and lack of teaching impact for low ability children;

b) small groups (4-6) often have an adult present, but these groups are assigned

practice/revision tasks – where a teacher may not be needed; and

c) teachers/adults were least likely to be found with dyads and triads, the only group sizes

assigned cognitive tasks – which need to be structured for and be supportive of interactive

pupil involvement.

Interaction type in relation to task type

Different learning tasks were associated with different types of interaction. Groupings

working on practice tasks were (slightly) more likely to engage in individuated work.

Groupings that applied skills/knowledge were most likely to work collectively to produce a

joint outcome. Tasks involving the introduction of new skills/ knowledge and other tasks

most often involved groupings listening to, and interacting with, the teacher. However, it is

still unclear whether these interaction by task types are a serendipitous result of specific

combinations of task type and grouping or teachers’ strategic promotion of these types of

learning and interaction.

Overall, the results of this study suggest that the role of the teacher in creating,

organising and supporting classroom grouping needs further consideration:

14

Teachers used small groups as a predominant seating arrangement but rarely provided

their pupils with the training to encourage actual group work. The mapping questionnaire

indicated that teachers rarely organise groupings (by size or composition) for specific

learning tasks.

Teachers, themselves, were present in all types of learning task. While it is expected that

teacher presence may facilitate the introduction and application of new knowledge, it may

be redundant for, and even inhibit, practice tasks. Teacher presence in these situations

may be interpreted as controlling pupils’ behaviour and may limit pedagogic opportunity.

Research needs to further assess whether constant teacher presence actually promotes

group-based learning.

This study presents an initial description of a social pedagogy of pupil groupings

within authentic classrooms; a field of research that should be further developed. Findings

indicate that teachers should give greater consideration to the pupil group as a main site for

pupils’ learning experience. We do not want these findings to be interpreted as a criticism of

teachers. Changes in the structure of initial teacher education programmes in England and

Wales have focused on students’ development of curriculum knowledge at the expense of

classroom pedagogy (Kutnick, 1997); and classroom teachers are under pressure to produce

curriculum-oriented ‘results’ in formally tested situations (DfEE, 1997). Further research

should be undertaken to indicate ways within which classroom groupings can be supported to

work more effectively and ways to support teachers to develop these pedagogically effective

groupings within their everyday classrooms.

Note: While various researchers and practitioners appear to use the words ‘ability’ and ‘attainment’ interchangeably when referring to children’s classroom performance, the authors have chosen to use ‘ability’ in this manuscript. Choice of the word is not indicative of a political or policy decision, rather it is practical – the majority of teachers that we worked with used ability to describe the performance of their pupils and the rationale for their classroom grouping.

15

Table 1: The relationship of group size to effective classroom learning.

Group size Learning task Knowledge relationship

Social relationship

Working interactions

Individual practice, revision unequal (teacher: pupil) Hierarchical individualised, individuated

Dyad incremental, restructuring

incremental

equal (pupil: pupil)

unequal (tutor: pupil)

Mutual

Mutual

collaborative/ co-operative work brainstorming, joint problem solving

peer tutoring

Triad Incremental, restructuring with computer or other apparatus

equal (pupil: pupil) with additional pupil working apparatus

Mutual collaborative work, brainstorming, joint problem solving

Small Group enrichment, restructuring unequal (pupil: pupil)

equal (pupil: pupil)

Mutual

Mutual

co-operative group work

collaborative work

Large group Incremental unequal (teacher: pupil) Hierarchical lecturing, teacher led discussion

Whole class Incremental

practice, revision

unequal (teacher: pupil)

unequal (teacher: pupil)

Hierarchical

Hierarchical

interactive lecturing,

individualised, individuatedAdapted from Kutnick (1994)

16

Table 2: Group size in relation to group composition

Group SizeIndividuals Dyads Triads Small group

(4-6 pupils)Large group(7-10 pupils)

Very large group (11

pupils to whole class)

Total

SEX MIX Pred. Male 65% 34% 59% 37% 24% 18% 33% Equal Sex - 38% - 30% 49% 64% 38% Pred Female 35% 28% 41% 33% 27% 18% 29%ABILITY MIXSimilar ability 100% 64% 64% 68% 70% 13% 56% Low ability 37% 16% 22% 16% 20% 6% 15% Middle ability 41% 32% 23% 29% 22% 3% 23% High ability 22% 16% 19% 23% 28% 3% 18%Mixed ability -- 36% 36% 32% 30% 87% 44%FRIENDSHIP MIX Friends - 19% 28% 19% 26% 18% 19% Not friends 100% 81% 72% 81% 74% 82% 81%

Percentage of data set

2% 10% 7% 49% 11% 21%

17

18

Table 3: Group size in relation to Adult presence, Curriculum area, Task type and Interaction type (percentages reported by column except for Curriculum and Percentage of data set)

Group SizeIndividuals Dyads Triads 4-6s 7-10s 11+ Total

ADULT Adult present 26% 5% 15% 21% 33% 96% 36% Not present 74% 95% 85% 79% 67% 4% 64%LEARNING TASK Apply tasks 29% 44% 44% 34% 27% 26% 33% New tasks 20% 19% 23% 24% 34% 28% 25% Practice tasks 45% 36% 33% 41% 39% 30% 38% Other tasks 6% 1% 0% 0% 0% 17% 4%INTERACTIndividualised 33% -- -- -- -- -- 1%Individuated 67% 76% 67% 81% 80% 5% 63%Peer Interactive

-- 24% 31% 14% 5% 0% 12%

Whole class/ group interact with teacher

-- 1% 3% 5% 16% 95% 25%

CURRIC. Maths 2% 9% 6% 48% 9% 26% 27% English 2% 12% 9% 50% 13% 14% 44% Science 2% 9% 6% 62% 10% 11% 11% Other 2% 6% 5% 40% 13% 35% 18%Percentage of data set

2% 10% 7% 49% 11% 21%

19

Table 4: Adult presence and interaction type in relation to curriculum area and task type

Adult presence Interaction typeAdult

PresentNot

presentIndividualised Individuated Peer interactive Whole class/

group interact with teacher

Total

CURRIC. Maths 38% 62% 0% 69% 5% 26% 27% English 34% 66% 1% 68% 12% 19% 44% Science 25% 75% 0% 59% 28% 13% 11% Other 45% 55% 1% 47% 13% 40% 18%LEARNING TASK Apply tasks 24% 76% 0% 66% 18% 15% 33% New tasks 42% 58% 0% 57% 11% 32% 25% Practice tasks 36% 65% 1% 71% 9% 20% 38% Other tasks 93% 7% 3% 4% 2% 91% 4%

Percentage of data set

36% 64% 1% 63% 12% 24% 100%

20

Table 5: Summary relationships between group size, and predominant features of composition and task variables [next most likely feature in brackets]

Composition Task VariablesSex Mix Ability Mix Friendship Adult presence Task Type Interaction type

IndividualsBoys (mainly) -- -- Yes (26%) Practice/revision Individuated

DyadsEqual mix Similar ability No No Applying Existing

KnowledgeIndividuated

[Interactive]Triads

Boys (mainly) Similar ability No No Applying Existing Knowledge

Individuated

[Interactive]4-6s

Equal mix Similar ability No Yes (21%) Practice/revision Individuated

7-10sEqual mix Similar ability

NoYes (33%) Practice/revision Individuated

11+Equal mix Mixed ability No Yes (96%) Practice/revision

[New Knowledge]

Whole group/class interaction with

Teacher

NOTE – some columns use weighted data (interaction type in relation to group size and ability) and some do not.

21