Research Literature on Multigrade Classes.

As evidenced in the figures presented above, multigrade teaching is still very common in both developed and developing countries throughout the world. However, despite its high prevalence, it is somewhat surprising to note that the literature on multigrade teaching is limited. Furthermore, the policy and practice of multigrade research varies from country to country and this has implications for the way in which research is conducted and the results obtained (Little, 2001). However, some significant studies do exist.

Cognitive and Non Cognitive Effects of Multigrade Settings

The research literature on multigrade classes has often been focussed on whether or not being taught in a multigrade class has an effect on a pupil’s attainment. Over the past twenty years there have been five significant studies of multigrade teaching which systematise and evaluate research on the effects of multigrade classes on student achievement as well as ones which investigate the processes that contribute to these effects. These include Pratt, (1986); Miller, (1991); Gayfer (1991); Veenman,

(1995) and Mason and Burns (1997). The general evidence on the cognitive and non- cognitive outcomes of multigrade compared with single grade classes which emerges from these studies would suggest that there is no difference between the performances of children in either setting (Galton and Patrick, 1990; Miller, 1991; Pratt, 1986; Veenman, 1995, 1996; Mason and Burns, 1996). One of the reasons for this is that there are many variables likely to influence student achievement levels and class composition is not the strongest of these. In fact, Veenman, (1995) suggests that grouping alone is unlikely to have an effect on student outcome as learning is more dependent on the quality of teaching than on organisational structure. Other more recent research including Wilkinson and Hamilton’s (2003) research on learning to read in a multigrade class in New Zealand concur with Vennman’s (1995) findings.

Having reviewed experimental studies conducted between 1948 and 1983 in the USA and Canada, Pratt (1986) concluded that there was no consistent pattern to the findings on cognitive outcomes (achievement in Maths and English). While the pattern of findings on non-cognitive outcomes (friendship patterns, self-concept, self- esteem, social development) was more consistent, researchers either reported in favour of multigrade classes or reported no difference. In his review of multigrade research from the USA, Miller (1991) confirms Pratt’s (1986) findings that pupils in multigrade classes tended to perform as well as those in single grade classes. Gayfer (1991, p. 367) reports the positive findings of many Canadian studies and the achievement of students in multigrade classes which were found to be at least equal to those in single grades, concluding that ‘students are sometimes better off in multigrade classes than in single grade classes’. Gayfer (1991) reported that students in multi grade classes out performed their peers in single grade classes on independence, dependability, confidence, responsibility, co-operation with others, interaction skills and positive attitude towards schools.

In Irish primary schools, the National Assessment of Mathematics Achievement (Shiel and Kelly, 1999) found no significant differences between the achievement of pupils in single grade and multigrade classes. However, just over ten years later, the National Assessment of Mathematics and Reading (Eivers et al. (2010), reported that Second Class pupils in multigrade schools had lower than average reading scores than those in single grade classes. No significant differences were found in this study for Second Class mathematics or Sixth Class mathematics or

reading. However, these analyses demonstrate average differences and do not allow us to determine differences in reading and maths scores comparing ‘like with like’.

Veenman’s (1995) extensive and rigorous review of available research worldwide distinguishes results in different types of multigrade school and class. Veenman (1995) conducted a ‘best evidence synthesis’ and generally found that ‘students in multigrade classes learn as much as their counterparts in single age classes’ (Veenman, 1995, p. 350). Mason and Burns (1997) and Veenman (1995) disagreed about specific inclusion criteria for studies in their reviews. Mason and Burns (1996, p. 315) who carried out research mainly in combination classes disagree with the findings of ‘no difference in achievement’ for pupils in multigrade classes. They suggested that principals, in an effort to create a more favourable classroom environment for combination classes, operate a ‘selection bias’ placing more able, more independent and more cooperative students in multigrade classes’ and there is also evidence to suggest that better teachers are assigned to teach these classes. Veenman and Mason continued to critique each others work, (Veenmann 1995, 1996; Mason and Burns, 1996, 1997; Mason and Doepner, 1998; Mason and Good, 1996) but their overall findings in this area were similar.

Quail and Smith (2014) employed the first wave of the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) millennium cohort study to explore the impact of being taught in a multigrade class on behavioural adjustment, intellectual status and perceived popularity. In particular, the findings of Quail and Smith’s (2014) study suggest that younger children had more negative views of their own intellectual abilities as it was felt that the presence of older children as a group which the younger children looked up to made the younger children feel that they should be doing schoolwork at the same standard as the older children. In further analyses which investigated for potential differences in outcomes for boys and girls, younger girls were found to be more affected by being in a multigrade class than boys. For example, younger girls in multigrade classes with older children had poorer behavioural adjustment and were much less likely to see themselves as popular with their peers. The younger girls also scored significantly worse in reading and maths tests than their counterparts in single grade classes. These findings point to the necessity for teachers to consider the gender dynamics of the classroom in order to prevent potentially negative effects on girls’ self-image and performance.

Teaching Strategies in Multigrade Classes

The quality of teaching and the nature of teaching strategies employed in multigrade classes are critical issues. This section explores the type of teaching strategies that are likely to be practised by multigrade teachers and how they organise teaching in ways which help them cope with a wide range of pupil age and abilities. While there is agreement in the literature that extra demands are placed on teachers in multigrade settings as compared with single grade settings (Daniel, 1988; Mason and Doepner, 1998; Mason and Burns, 1997; Veenman, 1995, 1996; Joyce, 2014), there is not general agreement about whether this influences the actual quality of teaching in multigrade classes (Russell et al., 1998). Teachers in Irish multigrade schools report that there were some advantages to teaching in multigrade schools where teachers could facilitate a wide range of methodologies and get to know children very well as they were with these children over a long period (Mulryan-Kyne, 2004).

Small multigrade schools require forms of pedagogy and curriculum organisation suited to their scale and their mixed-age classes (Guttierez and Slavin, 1992; Veenman, 1992). These are naturally different from, and more complex than, those employed in single-age classes. Instructional disadvantages related to multigrade classes are connected to the inappropriate suitability of the curriculum for multiple grades, the time factor, inadequate availability of teaching materials and the lack of adult assistance available in the classroom for teachers (Morgan and Ó Slatara, 2004; Kaloaja and Pietarinen, 2009). The impact of these additional challenges is that some multigrade teachers report greater levels of job stress than their colleagues in single grade classes (Darmody and Smith, 2011)

Veenman (1995) indicated in his best evidence synthesis of research on multigrade and multi-age education, that research on specific instructional processes used by teachers is largely neglected. In fact, most of the studies Veenman’s (1995) review concluded there was little or no understanding of teaching processes used in multigrade or multi-age settings. Much of the research compares teaching approaches in multigrade and single-age classes. Berry and Little (2006) indicated that a significant number of teachers in their study on inner city London schools said their practices in single-age and multigrade classes were the same. Other researchers found that teachers do not adapt their teaching styles to meet the needs of multigrade classes (Mason and Good, 1996; Veenmann, 1995)

Although now somewhat dated, Galton’s large scale research carried out in small rural schools provides a very comprehensive picture of curriculum implementation and classroom processes. It includes the study of Curriculum Provision in Small Schools (PRISMS) (Galton and Patrick, 1990), the Rural Schools Curriculum Enhancement National Evaluation (SCENE) (Galton, 1993; Galton, Fogelman, Hargreaves, and Cavendish, 1991) and a longitudinal study of small rural schools’ clustering and the National Curriculum in the Midlands (INCSS) (Galton, Hargreaves, and Comber, 1998; Hargreaves, Comber, and Galton, 1996). Their findings have challenged presumptions that there were fundamental difficulties in curriculum coverage in small schools. Similarly, the research on multigrade schools in Finland highlights positive instructional characteristics as: the potential for individualised instruction; pupils working independently; a secure atmosphere in the classroom and pupil-centred teaching all of which support the development of pupils self concept (Vulliamy, Kimonen, Nevalainen and Webb, 1997). Another study of curriculum implementation in small schools notes that small schools success in pupil achievement may partly be due to curriculum leadership of headteachers who themselves have a teaching involvement (Vulliamy and Webb, 1995). However, they also highlighted differences in curriculum provision in schools as well as in schools’ abilities to exploit the potential advantages of small classes and the longer term relationships that could develop among children.

It is also acknowledged throughout the research that teaching in a multigrade class is a complex activity requiring a wide range of organisation and instruction skills (Mason and Good, 1996). Gaustad (1995) identified some characteristics of successful teachers of multigrade classes. These included teachers having a deep understanding of child development, an ability to use a wide variety of instructional strategies as well as a facility to manage homogenous and heterogeneous groupings within the classroom.

Given the pivotal role of the teacher in determining the nature and quality of the education that children receive, it is important to ensure that teacher education is of the highest possible quality. Mulryan-Kyne, (2007) identified some difficulties in relation to initial teacher education for multigrade contexts and pointed to the need to establish education programmes which introduce teachers to important aspects of the available knowledge base in multigrade education, knowledge which enables them to make informed judgements about their classroom practices. Wilson, (2003) reported

that because teachers are trained in single grade methods, they tend to avoid multigrade classes if possible perceiving them as having extra workload in planning and delivery of curriculum

In addition, the need for multigrade teachers to have access to ongoing support in curricular areas which is specific to their mixed-age context is highlighted (Turner, 2008). Contact and interaction with fellow professionals in the context of one's work is an important form of continuing professional development and a problem which arises is the need to access better professional development, share best practice and come to terms with curricular reform (Vulliamy and Webb, 1995). Since many multigrade schools are located in geographically isolated areas, a practice of clustering addresses difficulties associated with continuous professional development, assisting principals and teachers with curriculum planning and policy development (Wilson and McPake, 1998). In the Irish context, principals highlighted increased feelings of collegiality and greater professional support which clustering brings. However, principals also indicated that clustering does not inevitably reduce the workload of the teaching principal (Morgan and Ó Slatara, 2005).

3.7 Grouping Arrangements.