Multigrade Instruction
Multigrade Instruction
Final Exam
Betty Krygsheld
Seattle Pacific University
Edu 6524 School Curriculm
Summer On-line 2006
1
Multigrade Instruction
2
Multigrade instruction; is it an option for fostering academic growth in today’s society?
Scholars as notable as Piaget (1973) have weighed in on the subject. Studies have been
done by Veenman, (1996) Mason &Burns,(1996) Vincent ( 1999 )and Miller.(1991) It
seems as through there is not a clear consensus as to the validity of multigrade instruction
and academic achievement.
Multigrade instruction has a long history in the U, S. and around the world. In the early
part of our nation’s history the one-room school house was the norm. In general, the
1800 and early 1900s were characterized by rural living. Towns and settlements were
small. Often there were not enough children in an area to set up a school on a singlegrade basis. In 1918 there were 196,037 one-room schoolhouses, representing 70.8
percent of all public schools in the U.S. By 1980 less than 1,000 of these schools
remained. (Muse, Smith, &Barker, 1987) Often in the one-room schoolhouse, children
moved through school grades based on their mastery of the subjects. As the 1900s
progressed, the number of students increased, particularly in urban areas. It simply was
easier to organized large numbers of students into age divisions or grades. To a large
extent, children progressed through the grades based on their age. In most states today,
fewer than three percent of the classes are organized in a multigrade fashion.
At this point in our nation’s educational history there has developed a distinction between
multiage, and multigrade classrooms. Both multiage and multigrade instruction combine
different grade or age levels of students within one classroom. Multiage instruction
typically exists because schools deliberately group the students together believing that the
range and diversity of the students in the group will benefit the student. Multiage
classrooms typically are non-graded and have a focus on individual development.
Students progress through the curriculum at their own pace rather than whole class
progression. The benefits of multiage instruction lie in the interaction of the younger and
older students. Younger students use older students to develop skills and gain
knowledge. Older students take responsibility for helping younger students. Students
are also able to find others of matching abilities in these classes, creating less alienation
of the student within a class.
Multigrade classes, on the other hand, are generally formed because of economic
necessity. Rural schools simply do not have a large enough population for single-grade
classes. Urban schools use multigrade instruction because of fluctuating population.
Multigrade classes are defined in research as those classes in which two or more adjacent
grades levels are taught in one classroom, by one teacher for most or all of the day.
Multigrade classes fall into the graded tradition. Students retain their grade level and are
promoted with their grade level. Basic skills, reading, mathematics, and language, are
generally taught at separate grade levels, meaning the teacher has to prepare a separate
lesson for each grade level. The other subjects are often taught as a whole class.
(Veenman1996, Mason & Burns 1996)
Multigrade classrooms are regarded with skepticism, especially by parents. The
classroom organization is not in keeping with mainstream education and is thought of as
Multigrade Instruction
3
a ‘second-best’ solution. The question simply is ‘Are multigrade classrooms as effective,
academically, as single grade classrooms?’
This is a straightforward question with several different answers. Research is simply not
conclusive one way or another. Veenman (1996) claims that there is no difference
academically between single-grade and multigrade class achievement. Miller (1990) also
concluded that there was no difference between the achievement levels of the two.
Mason and Burn(1996) however, noting the difficult teaching situation that is present in
multigrade classes suggests that this finding is simply not logical.
Miller’s study compared the outcomes of multiage and multigrade classrooms to the
classrooms of single grades. He concluded that multiage/ multigrade teaching did not
negatively affect academic outcomes. His work is seriously limited however since it does
not make a distinction between multiage and multigrade. With our state policies at
present stressing grade level curriculum outcomes, the distinction must be made. If
children are required to be working at a specific grade level, then individualization is not
in step with current policies. Thus to combine these two categories into one is quite
misleading.
Veenman avoided Miller’s pitfalls by making a clear distinction between multiage and
multigrade instruction. Veenman’s ‘best evidence synthesis’ required ‘locating all
research on a given topic, establishing well-specified criteria of methodological adequacy
and germaneness to the topic, and then reviewing this best evidence with attention to the
substantive and methodological contributions of each study.’ (Veenman 1996) His study
included schools from 12 different countries and was carried out mainly in two-grade
multigrade classrooms in schools that were predominantly single-grade. Veenman found
that, in general, teachers of multigrade classroom tend to 1)teach each grade in their
classroom separately with one group receiving instruction while the other group works on
seatwork. 2) Collaborative work was not used and peer tutoring was not used to any
significant degree. 3) Children have less direct instruction time from their teacher and
less time on task. In spite of these drawbacks, Veenman reported no differences between
single-graded and multigraded classrooms in cognitive outcomes. Even though Veenman
found no difference between multigrade and single-grade classrooms academically, he
was critical of the teaching methods in the multigrade classroom. He suggests that the
multigrade teachers use the opportunity to use grouping strategies more efficiently,
including across-grade teaching, cross-grade tutoring and peer tutoring to make their
teaching more effective. Veenman suggest that these aspects are lacking because
multigrade teachers lack adequate appropriate training for working with multiage
classrooms. Veenman seems to suggest that if multigrade classrooms are needed, they
should be taught using multiage methods. This kind of individualization could cause
problems for school districts. If testing is linked to accountability, educators are less
likely to use individualized methods.
Several other researchers agree with the idea of using multiage methods in a multigrade
classroom. Maccoby (1992) refers to Piaget’s Social Theory in noting the importance of
peers in children’s academic and social development. He points out the connection
Multigrade Instruction
4
between the theory of reciprocity and the positive effect on child academic and social
behavior when close relationships are established between children and caregivers.
Piaget viewed moral development as the result of interpersonal interactions through
which individuals work out resolutions. Piaget claimed that a child must work and
rework adult commands to construct new and personal norms and achieve moral
autonomy. As the child becomes morally autonomous, he is more energized toward
intellectual development. Reciprocity in peer relations can provide the psychological
foundation that enables a child to consider more than one point of view, and therefore
enables the child to move toward moral autonomy. Children, Piaget claims, are more
easily able to think and act autonomously with other children than with other adults.
Piaget spoke about affectivity in a broad sense as the energetic source on which the
functioning of intelligence depends. ((Nucci 2005) The idea of a multiage/multigrade
classroom provides consistency over time in relationships between the teachers, children
and parents, and thus provides the groundwork for a child’s affective development.
Not all researchers agree that multigrade classrooms have no effect on academic
achievement. In answer to Veenman’s 1996 article, Simply No Worse, and Simply No
Better, Mason and Burns wrote the article “Simply No Worse, and Simply No Better”
May Simply Be Wrong: A Critique of Veenman’s Conclusion About Multigrade Classes.
As the title suggests, Mason and Burns conclude that multigrade classes do have a slight
negative effect on achievement. Further they suggest that confounding variables in
Veenman’s research should be included as part of the explanation for his no-difference
finding. Mason and Burns point out that the research was flawed on the basis of
selection. Veenman used multigrade classes that were part of schools that were
predominantly single-grade schools. The reason for this was to control the variable of
school atmosphere. It would have been invalid to compare a small, rural, multi-grade
school to an urban single-grade school. Thus Veenman makes the choice to use
multigrade classes from predominantly single-grade schools. However nearly always
when a single-grade school must set up a multigrade classroom, students are purposefully
selected for the multigrade classroom. The students who are selected are able students
and capable of independent work. Teachers are also selected on the basis of capability.
So although Mason and Burns’ findings were similar to Veenman’s, they suggest that
there is a slight negative effect on achievement based on their further categorization of
studies into purposeful assignment and nonpurposeful assignment groups.
Mason and Burns went on to suggest that teaching in the multigrade environment was
complex and generally disadvantageous. It required extra effort and time on the teacher’s
part as well as adapting the schedule by taking time away from those subjects that were
considered less essential. Whereas Veenman suggests that multigrade teachers simply
must readjust the teaching style, Mason and Burn seem to be pointing to the idea of
teacher efficacy. Teacher efficacy in this sense is defined as a teacher’s perceived
expectation of succeeding at a task (the task of affecting student learning) through
personal effort. (Lee, Dedrick& Smith 1991) Mason and Burns’ study showed that
teachers of multigrade classes felt they were unable to give the individual help the
students needed because their time was so limited.. Teachers knew what ought to be
done, but they were unable to do it. This also brings about pressure from concerned
parents. Under these circumstances, the teacher’s sense of efficacy is likely to be
Multigrade Instruction
5
diminished. Diminished teacher efficacy has been linked to negative student
achievement. (Ashton &Webb 1986) To sum up this idea of multigrade instruction and
teacher efficacy Mason and Burns say:
Although progressive teaching practices may indeed make multigrade and
multiage classrooms exciting and challenging learning environments, and there
are teachers that thrive on such challenges, we think teachers will require
considerable support and will need to expend considerable effort to reap rewards
from these classrooms. Lacking such support, most teachers find multigrade
classes to be difficult classroom environments to manage…
(Mason &Burns 1996)
The curricular issue I am writing about for my final exam then, is one that faced me in
August of 2005. The school in which I teach had 18 fifth graders and 11 fourth graders
enrolled. The board was faced with deciding whether to combine the fourth and fifth
grade. Although my opinion was not asked, I had a great many reservations about this
multigrade class. Mason &Burn as well as Veenman agree on several key issues
concerning the formation of a multigrade class. They suggest that if class size grows any
larger than 25, negative academic growth will be seen. They also suggest the number of
students with learning disabilities should be somewhat limited. Since neither of these
factors was limited, I was quite concerned about this combination. However if the former
issues had not presented themselves, would combining the classes have been a good idea?
I do not believe that combining classes on the basis of fluctuating population is a good
idea. I understand the value of multiage classes within a school. If the school board
wants to create a multiage class for the purpose of experimenting with the effect of close,
long-term relationships between teachers and students, I believe the outcome could be
very positive. I think Piaget is correct when he suggests that affectivity is the fuel that
makes the motor of intelligence go. (Nucci 2005) Multiage instruction is a wonderful
environment for encouraging a child’s affective development.
Multigrade decisions made by a school board however, often have little to do with child
development. In general the decision is made to combine classes for economic reasons.
Since school population fluctuates greatly in small private schools, as soon as the
population in those grade levels increases, the grades will again become single-grade
classes. The benefits from multiage instruction are simply not realized under these
circumstances. It is my belief that classes should be combined only if the school wishes
to leave them in combination for at least two years. If multigrade classes are not kept in
tact for at least two years, the benefits of multiage instruction will not be realized. If the
benefits are not realized, all that is left are the disadvantages. Parents as well as teachers
are left unhappy with the situation.
Sources
Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R. B., (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy
and student achievement. New York: Longman.
Multigrade Instruction
6
Lee, V., Dedick, R., & Smith, J. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools
on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190-208.
Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The adequate implication of a multigrade approach.
Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006-1017.
Mason, D.A. & Burns, R.B. (1996). Simply no worse and simply no better” may simply
be wrong : A critique of Veenman’s conclusion about multigrade classes. Review
of educational Research, 66 (3), 307-322.
Miller B. (1991). Review of qualitative research on multigrade instruction. Research in
Rural Education 7 (2), 3-12.
Muse, I., Smith R. & Barker, B. (1987). The one-teacher schoolhouse in the 1980s. Las
Cruces, NM: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC
Document Service No. ED287646.
Piaget. (1981). Intelligence and Affection: their Relation During Child Development.
Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and non-cognitive effects of multigrade and multi-age
classes: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 319381.
Veenman, S. (1996). Effects of multigrade and multi-age classes reconsidered. Review of
Educational Research, 66(3), 323-340.
Vincent, S. (1999). Book 1,a Review of research on multigrade instruction. Northwest
Educational Laboratory. Portland, OR.