1
1 Address for correspondence:
Prof. Peter Kutnick
Education Research Centre
University of Brighton
Falmer, Brighton BN1 9PH
1

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 ( X 2
(6) = 95.374, p<0.001). When low ability groupings
10

had an adult present, that adult was not a teacher in 42% of these instances. By contrast, in 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
11

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’.
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).
12

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 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.
13


It also appears that teachers rarely set-up or support an environment to encourage peerpeer interaction; hence creating a dynamic where learning of new knowledge is dependent on teacher scaffolding and foregoing the possible benefits of peer co-operation.
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.
14

Overall, the results of this study suggest that the role of the teacher in creating, organising and supporting classroom grouping needs further consideration:

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 (D f EE, 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
15

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.
Individual
unequal (teacher: pupil) Hierarchical
individualised, individuated
Dyad
Triad practice, revision incremental, restructuring incremental
Incremental, restructuring with computer or other apparatus
Small Group enrichment, restructuring
Large group Incremental
Whole class Incremental practice, revision
equal (pupil: pupil) unequal (tutor: pupil) equal (pupil: pupil) with additional pupil working apparatus unequal (pupil: pupil) equal (pupil: pupil) unequal (teacher: pupil) Hierarchical unequal (teacher: pupil) unequal (teacher: pupil)
Mutual
Mutual
Mutual
Mutual
Mutual
Hierarchical
Hierarchical collaborative/ co-operative work brainstorming, joint problem solving peer tutoring collaborative work, brainstorming, joint problem solving co-operative group work collaborative work lecturing, teacher led discussion interactive lecturing, individualised, individuated
16

SEX MIX
Pred. Male
Equal Sex
Pred Female
ABILITY MIX
Similar ability
Low ability
Middle ability
High ability
Mixed ability
FRIENDSHIP
MIX
Friends
Not friends
Percentage of data set
65%
-
35%
100%
37%
41%
22%
--
-
100%
2%
Individuals
34%
38%
28%
64%
16%
32%
16%
36%
19%
81%
10%
Dyads
59%
-
41%
64%
22%
23%
19%
36%
28%
72%
7%
Triads
Group Size
Small group
(4-6 pupils)
Large group
(7-10 pupils)
37%
30%
33%
68%
16%
29%
23%
32%
24%
49%
27%
70%
20%
22%
28%
30%
Very large group (11 pupils to whole class)
18%
64%
18%
13%
6%
3%
3%
87%
19%
81%
49%
26%
74%
11%
18%
82%
21%
17
Total
33%
38%
29%
56%
15%
23%
18%
44%
19%
81%

18

ADULT
Adult present
Not present
LEARNING
TASK
Apply tasks
New tasks
Practice tasks
Other tasks
INTERACT
Individualised
Individuated
Peer
Interactive
Whole class/ group interact with teacher
Individuals
26%
74%
29%
20%
45%
6%
33%
67%
--
--
Dyads
5%
95%
44%
19%
36%
1%
--
76%
24%
1%
Triads
15%
85%
44%
23%
33%
0%
--
67%
31%
3%
Group Size
4-6s
21%
79%
34%
24%
41%
0%
--
81%
14%
5%
7-10s
33%
67%
27%
34%
39%
0%
--
80%
5%
16%
11+
96%
4%
26%
28%
30%
17%
--
5%
0%
95%
Total
36%
64%
33%
25%
38%
4%
1%
63%
12%
25%
CURRIC.
Maths
English
Science
Other
Percentage of data set
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
9%
12%
9%
6%
10%
6%
9%
6%
5%
7%
19
48%
50%
62%
40%
49%
9%
13%
10%
13%
11%
26%
14%
11%
35%
21%
27%
44%
11%
18%

CURRIC.
Maths
English
Science
Other
LEARNING
TASK
Apply tasks
New tasks
Practice tasks
Other tasks
Percentage of data set
Adult presence
Adult Not
Present present
38%
34%
25%
45%
24%
42%
36%
93%
36%
62%
66%
75%
55%
76%
58%
65%
7%
64%
Interaction type
Individualised Individuated Peer interactive Whole class/ group interact with teacher
0%
1%
0%
1%
69%
68%
59%
47%
5%
12%
28%
13%
26%
19%
13%
40%
0%
0%
1%
3%
1%
66%
57%
71%
4%
63%
18%
11%
9%
2%
12%
15%
32%
20%
91%
24%
Total
27%
44%
11%
18%
33%
25%
38%
4%
100%
20

Individuals
Dyads
Triads
4-6s
7-10s
Sex Mix
Boys (mainly)
Equal mix
Boys (mainly)
Equal mix
Equal mix
Ability Mix
--
Composition
Similar ability
Similar ability
Similar ability
Similar ability
Friendship
--
No
No
No
No
Adult presence
Yes (26%)
No
No
Yes (21%)
Yes (33%)
Task Variables
Task Type Interaction type
Practice/revision Individuated
Applying Existing
Knowledge
Individuated
[Interactive]
Applying Existing
Knowledge
Practice/revision
Practice/revision
11+
Equal mix Mixed ability No
21
Yes (96%) Practice/revision
[New
Knowledge]
NOTE – some columns use weighted data (interaction type in relation to group size and ability) and some do not.
Individuated
[Interactive]
Individuated
Individuated
Whole group/class interaction with
Teacher