Multiage Groupingmultiageteaching.weebly.com/.../2/6/27260881/exit_paper.docx · Web viewTo many...

Running Head: MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS 1

Multiage Grouping:

Effects on Struggling Learners

Marie Hefferan

Memorial University of Newfoundland

MULTIAGE GROUPING: EFFECTS ON STRUGGLING LEARNERS2

Abstract

This paper explores published scholarly articles, as well as, edited books that report on results from research conducted in relation to multiage teaching and its effects on struggling students. In order to organize research findings, this paper is divided into six main sections which include introduction, research question, multiage definition, advantages and challenges, effects on struggling learners, and conclusion. This paper seeks to answer how multiage grouping affects struggling learners?


Multiage Grouping: Effects on Struggling Learners

Introduction

To many educators and parents, resonating in the idea of multiage grouping is the image

of a one room school house. Multiage education, however, goes far beyond students being

grouped together for the mere reason of low student enrolment or rural isolation. Embedded in

the roots of effective multiage teaching is a classroom that values diversity, where learning is

focused toward those differences. Although students may all be working on the same topic, there

is the expectation and acceptance that all students will produce work at varying levels. McClay

(1996) states that multiage “has developed into an actual philosophy of teaching, based upon

developmentally appropriate ideals, where students of various ages, interests, and abilities work

and learn together in a mutual relationship” (p.2). In order to make this philosophy work, an

emphasis is placed on holistic teaching, flexible groupings, and a supportive family atmosphere

where students feel comfortable to progress at their own pace, in a variety of ways.

Multiage, in its most simplistic form, refers to a classroom of learners varying in age. These

students are grouped together for at least a two or three year span with the same teacher or

teaching team. Multiage is not to be confused with multigrade. Mulcahy (2000) described two

structural differences between the two stating the following:

1. Multiage classrooms are intended to be non graded. Traditionally, multi-grade

classrooms have tended to be graded.

2. The intention in a multiage classroom is for students of different ages and grade levels to

be socially and academically integrated into a single learning community. In traditional

multi-grade classrooms each grade level group has tended to maintain (often by official

directive) its distinct identity. (p.3)

http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/win2000/mulcahy.html#Non-g


The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to ensuring all students receive a

fair education. The province’s Itinerant Teachers for Inclusive Education, Woodland, B., Smith.

J., and Scott, C.W. (2007) states, “inclusion is an attitude and a value system that promotes the

basic right of all students to receive appropriate and quality educational programming and

services in the company of their peers. Inclusive schools embrace the notion that all children

belong, and that all children will learn if their educational needs are met” (p.2). This policy

focuses on ensuring that all students, including struggling learners, are given the opportunity to

learn in an environment that meets their needs; an environment that allows struggling learners to

be with their peers as much as possible in order to meet educational needs.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how multiage groupings affect struggling learners.

The concept of inclusion goes far beyond just teaching struggling learners. For purposes of this

paper, the relationship between inclusion, multiage teaching, and struggling learners will be

explored. This paper seeks to determine if multiage teaching could be a valuable teaching

method to use, one which benefits struggling learners while still tying into Newfoundland and

Labrador’s inclusionary philosophy.

As Stuart, Connor, Cady and Zweifel (2006) state, a central concern in education today is

“ensuring equitable access to general education for all students, including students with

disabilities, students from diverse cultural backgrounds, and students who speak English as a

second language” (p.1). Surrounding this issue is the concept of inclusion for all whether one is a

gifted or a struggling learner.


What is Multiage?

Multiage education refers to a classroom of learners consisting of varying age groups.

However, the multiage environment in relation to schooling encompasses much more than that.

Current multiage philosophy traces its roots to the developmental pedagogy of early childhood

education. Multiage, as Pardini (2005) quotes, is “very much a child-centered approach that

assesses children’s understanding and chooses curriculum pieces to fit their needs” (p.23). Thus,

multiage teaching at its finest becomes a combination of organizing a classroom to meet all

diverse learners. It involves careful organization on the part of the teacher which entails paying

very close attention to each child’s strengths and needs regardless of age. In addition, the term

multiage teaching has become known more as a philosophy in which students of various

abilities, ages, and interests work together in a mutual relationship.

The multiage philosophy believes that just as children learn to crawl, talk, and ride a bike

at varying rates, so too is their rate of learning. This philosophy considers the fact that learning is

unique and progresses at different speeds. As McClay (1996) states, “developmentally

appropriate means that each child’s unique progress and growth are used to determine what he

or she is ready to accomplish” (p.3). The multiage approach argues that children should not be

held to time constraints such as grade levels or school years.

In a multiage classroom, students of various ages and abilities work together in the same

room with the same teacher. The role of the teacher shifts away from more of dictating

knowledge on to passive students, to instead, more on arranging an environment that provides

students with opportunities to construct their own knowledge. The student, in this situation,


becomes an active participant who is recognized and valued for their uniqueness. In a multiage

classroom, the main goal of the teacher is a facilitator who enables students to become explorers,

creating knowledge based on their own interests and uniqueness. Simply put, the teacher’s role

becomes known as a mentor, challenge giver, assessor, encourager or questioner. The student’s

role, conversely, becomes an explorer, answer finder, meaning maker, critical thinker or initiator

(McClay, 1996, p.4). One example of how these roles can work is through the use of learning

centers. Such centers provide an interactive, manageable, hands-on approach that assists teachers

in providing students with a variety of differentiated activities. While students participate at these

learning centers, the teacher is provided with time to work with various roups or individuals for

more individual instruction if needed.

There is no one way to teach in a multiage environment. Teachers possess individual

strengths, weaknesses, and instructional approaches. However, like students, these teachers must

learn to capitalize their strengths, ask for help in areas of weakness and learn from their mistakes.

A multiage classroom is full of diversity. Therefore, it is crucial that all teachers should

recognize the varied abilities and interests among themselves and their students in order to plan

effectively. Due to such diverse needs, effective instructional plans can only take shape after

careful thought, effort, organization and most importantly, reflection upon trial and error.

A multiage classroom is founded on the principle of developmentally appropriate

practices. This means that multiage teachers, who strives to meet the diverse needs in their

classroom, cannot use whole-class instruction for all instruction. Instead, his/her instructional

plan must also be diverse which utilizes a variety of approaches such as individualized, small-

group, and whole group instruction. In addition to structure of instruction, a multiage teacher

must battle the demands of the varying learning styles in the classroom. Thus, this teacher must


offer a variety of instructional formats that complement these diverse learning styles. For

example, an effective multiage program offers instruction that provides opportunities for

individual work, small-group cooperative activities, and whole-class interactions. In addition, it

allows students variety in terms of auditory, visual, and kinesthetic preferences. As quoted by

Pardini (2005), “key elements of multiage teaching include the use of cooperative learning,

flexible grouping and integrated, thematic units of study” (p.23).

Teachers in a single-age and a multiage classroom can use the same teaching strategies,

however, the degree to which they achieve learner-centeredness varies. As Leier (2007) quotes,

“the social structure of a multiage class significantly enhances the learning environment,

providing a more compatible ‘fit’ with learner-centered teaching strategies (differentiated

instruction, integrated content, authentic assessment, brain-based learning, choice, project-based

learning, etc.)” (p. 3). In the multiage classroom, students are active learners in their environment

through centers, projects, and learning experiences with their peers.

A major feature of multiage classrooms is grouping for instruction. In order to effectively

do this, teachers must consider a number of things. First of all, if a multiage teacher groups

student homogeneously, based solely on age or ability, they would be just as well to keep

students in a single grade environment. Instead, to effectively group students in a multiage

environment, a teacher could consider the following group options: problem-solving, needs-

requirement, reinforcement, interest, or learn-style groups. In order to decide which students

should be grouped together, a teacher must carefully determine the lesson plan and each

individual student needs. Lindstrom and Lindahl (2011) support this argument when they state,

“teaching in an multiage class is to a higher degree organized in small groups, which benefits

low performing students” (p.124). However, in order for a teacher to provide the best possible


learning environment for his/her students, he/she must find a balance among groupings. The

teacher must also remember that groupings that work for one activity may not work for another.

Interests, strengths, needs, and/or abilities change among students depending on the topic/activity

at hand.

One misconception that many teachers and parents have about teaching multiage is the

idea that teachers must teach separate topics, with different agendas, to numerous students. This,

however, is not the case. If multiage teachers were to try to teach each grade level’s different

curriculum, it would be the same as having single grade classes. Furthermore, teachers in this

type of setting would quickly become overwhelmed by trying to cover each grade’s curriculum

topics. This is not to say that all students are expected to complete the same level/ products of

work. To the contrary, it means that all students can learn the same curriculum topics, however,

when it comes to projects, responses or group work, students will produce different forms of

work depending on their needs, interests, and developmental readiness. As Pardini (2005) states,

“the emphasis is on the child rather than on the curriculum” (p.23). In order to meet the

curriculum goals set forth for each grade level by the district, teachers can look for common

themes among the grades and plan their year with such themes in mind. Another option may be

to focus on one grade level’s curriculum one year, while focusing on the other grade level’s the

next. If this approach is selected, the teacher must choose the highest grade level’s curriculum in

the first year of the program. This will allow the students who will be with the same teacher the

following year to learn themes from the lower grade level curriculum in year number two.

In an effective multiage setting, there is teamwork among all parties involved. Mack

(2008) quotes, “as a team, the teacher, student, and parent agree on the curriculum and support

one another” (p.324). There is a mutual belief in the philosophy of multiage teaching and all


members strive for success. In order to achieve this connectedness, schools must make sure

parents are aware of the school’s goals and beliefs regarding a multiage setting. Communication

among the two will ensure parents recognize that their concerns are valued and answered. In any

school setting, parents must be viewed as partners in their child’s education. Gaining the trust

and support of parents will assist teachers in creating the best possible environment for their

students. While discussing two multiage schools in Minnesota, Mack (2008) quotes, “the schools

claim to success is parent involvement and highly qualified staff” (p.324). This indicates that

when all parties involved work together, success for all can be achieved.

In examination of the structural dimensions of multiage pedagogy, Mulcahy (2000)

quotes, “a multiage classroom is not two grades put together for convenience, perhaps to

accommodate a population bulge and probably for only a year or two. It is a permanent class

grouping of planned diversity” (p.3). He continues to discuss that multiage classrooms are

intended to be non-graded based on the belief that graded classrooms, graded textbooks, and

standardized tests, ignore the diversity that exists within the classroom. Furthermore, multiage

advocates that graded approaches to education are based on the assumption that all students of

the same age, for the most part, develop and are capable of the same things. The multiage

philosophy believes that this approach is simply not the case and supports the fact that children

develop and learn at great amounts of variability and diversity. Therefore, as Mulcahy (2000)

states, “the intention in a multiage classroom is for students of different ages and grade levels to

be socially and academically integrated into a single learning community” (p.3). In this type of

setting, as highlighted in the multiage philosophy, students would be allowed time to learn and

grow at their own pace. Mulcahy (2000) quotes, “in moving toward a multiage classroom, it is

sometimes difficult to eliminate grade level labels completely, but it is a desirable goal,


particularly in avoiding the stigma of failure when a child needs an extra year before moving

ahead” (p.4).

In Canada, many small rural schools have been forced to implement either multigrade or

multiage education. Mulcahy (2000) states that his “research has revealed that here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, individual rural teachers, some with endorsement and help of

district personnel, others acting independently and subversively, had the temerity to

breakthrough the rigidity of gradedness” (p.5). These teachers, through reflection of the

challenges presented within multigrade teaching, discovered the need to respond and find ways

to better meet individual needs. As a response, such teachers saw the need for change resulting in

the creation of two different timetables: an official one which was sent to the district office

detailing the required graded format and time allocation and an unofficial timetable, resembling

more of a multiage classroom following a more flexible and responsive approach to student

needs (Mulcahy, 2000, p.5).

Advantages and Challenges

Advantages. As McClay (1996) quotes, “children are born when they are ready. Crawl

when they are ready. They teethe when they are ready. But they go to school…ready or not,

when they are five” (p.9). Like packs of a litter, students are grouped together in single grade

classrooms with, for the most part, the expectation that they can all do the same things. The

multiage philosophy does not confine students to this belief system. Instead, it believes that all

students progress differently and should not be held to time constraints where learning is

concerned. Advocates of multiage teaching highlight many advantages to student learning.


One of the main advantages of teaching multiage is the fact that it allows students time to

progress at their individual rate. In this type of classroom, students are not expected to learn the

same skills as their peers, at the same pace or by the same instructional method. It recognizes

that each student is different and may need more time than others to acquire various concepts.

This type of setting capitalizes on the student’s strengths and like a scaffold, provides time to

extend and grow.

Lisi (2002) “maintains that student learning is optimized when teachers create an

atmosphere of mutual respect in their classrooms” (p.6). One of the advantages of multiage

teaching is that students are arranged in an environment that strives on cooperative learning. As

students work together in groups arranged by the multiage teacher, they learn how to effectively

problem solve, ask questions, build on each other’s strengths, and respect each other’s opinions.

This type of interacting creates a sense of community among students in the classroom. It also

helps improve on skills that will be needed in any workforce they will enter.

As students learn to cooperatively work together as a team, they are acquiring skills

needed to be active teachers and learners in society. A cooperative classroom environment

enables students to learn from each other through cross-age tutoring. It provides students with

the opportunity to learn and internalize skills as they help their classmates. More importantly, it

helps build self-esteem.

In order to learn and achieve, students need to develop that certain amount of desire that

motivates their learning. The key to this motivation is self-esteem. All students want to learn in

an environment in which they feel valued and respected. Most teachers strive to build the self-

esteem of their students, however, if implemented properly, the multi-age classroom encourages


this driving force in students naturally. All learning styles and needs are considered in the

everyday planning by multiage teachers. This, in turn, increases the success rate among students

and increases their self-esteem. Students who have this higher sense of self-esteem, in turn,

become risk takers and take on a huge role in their own learning. McClay (1996) quotes

“Students in multi-age classes have more positive attitudes about themselves and their strengths

and weaknesses, and they are more capable of expressing their desired educational outcomes”

(p.7). Students take ownership for their learning and having a desire to do well. They have an

internal desire to succeed, therefore, increasing achievement.

Classrooms that thrive on teamwork have increased opportunities for leadership and the

development of expertise. Students learn from the sharing of each other’s talents while also

learning leadership skills. The multiage classroom provides opportunities for all students to

become role models and teachers. As an example, an older student who has strong skills in math

may help a younger student with something he/she is having trouble with. Conversely, that

younger student may have strong reading abilities and may be able to help that same older

student who struggles with reading. In both cases, the students learn how to lead while also

learning to accept and seek assistance when needed. Furthermore, they gain an appreciation for

diversity and recognize that everyone has strengths in different areas no matter their age.

Students in a multiage setting learn that they do not have to compare themselves to, or compete

with peers their same age. Instead they learn that it is okay to be different and have confidence in

the abilities that they do have.

Another advantage of the multiage classroom is that it provides students with the

opportunity of continuous progress at their own pace. In the multiage classroom, teachers are

with the same students longer and become pros at what students need. Pike (2011) says, “having


the students for more than one year also allows me to develop deeper relationships with them,

get to know them as learners and develop lessons that are geared toward their needs” (p.3). This

positively impacts learning as less time is wasted getting to know students. More focus can be

put directly into developing lessons to meet student needs. When asked what her favourite part of

teaching in a multiage setting was, Barrington (2011) states, “my favourite part is the ability to

know your students better. I know exactly what each student knows. I am then able to focus my

teaching with that student for the next few years” (p. 8). Thus, instruction becomes very

individualized and tailored to build on the skills students already possess.

In order to accurately assess student knowledge teachers need to use a variety of

assessments. This allows the teacher to see the whole child versus just passing judgement based

on one assessment. In many multiage schools today, portfolios are the mode of assessment and

as Mack (2008) quotes, “are nothing new but are gaining momentum in the assessment world, as

high-stakes testing becomes a looming obstacle” (P.325). Portfolios are a collection of a

students’ work over time. They document such work as self-assessments, drafts, teacher input,

parents assessments and/or, but not limited to, a student’s best work. An advantage to this type of

assessment is that it is non-competitive and instead demonstrates a student’s own individual

progress. As oppose to standardized, high-stake tests, portfolios allow teachers to see the whole

child in a more comprehensive manner. Furthermore, as Mack (2008) quotes, “they allow the

teacher to assess children’s individual learning styles, aides in communication between students

and parents, and helps to fulfill professional requirements of school accountability while feeling

that intentional teaching and learning is taking place” (p.325).

As mentioned previously, assessment practices in a multiage classroom are very

qualitative and authentic through the use of portfolios, anecdotal records, observations, journals,


etc. This is not unlike assessment practices used in a single grade classroom. The main difference

is that single grade teachers face the burden and pressure of preparing all students for

standardized tests, in addition to, teacher made tests or grade level textbooks tests that are also

common used. In a multiage classroom, the pressure to prepare and rush through the curriculum

in order to be ready for a standardized test is eliminated.

Disadvantages. Research about multiage practices by Pardini (2005) states that, “interest

in the issue has waned, with new research on the topic virtually nonexistent and attendance at

national multiage conferences a fraction of what it once was” (p.22). In addition, schools are

cutting multiage programs and choosing not to implement such classrooms. The question is why?

Some people believe it may be due to President Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ movement and

its emphasis on standardized, grade-level testing. Others, however, blame the decline of multiage

education on the lack of interest in programs that focus on the affective side of children’s

education as do multiage. Still other research indicates that a huge disadvantage to multiage

teaching is the lack of time to launch and implement such divisive, multilayered programs

(Pardini, 2005, p. 22).

As Heins, Tichenor and Coggins (2000) state, multiage “teachers should be given two

years to plan including observing in appropriate sites, experiencing various ages, and creating

unique programs to meet the needs of specific school populations as well as individuals” (p.33).

This, unfortunately, for many teachers is not always possible which makes teaching multiage for

the first time very challenging and overwhelming. Lack of time to plan and learn from

observation makes it hard for new multiage teachers to organize and develop the multiple

strategies and instructional techniques they need to meet all the needs of the diverse learners in

their classroom. As Heins et al. (2000) state, “much time is needed to work out policies and


procedures, to make curriculum changes, to prepare the community, and to provide appropriate

staff development and training” (p.33). Merely starting a multiage classroom can be a two year

process.

Also, teacher training programs are often considered weak in preparing educators for

multigrade and multiage teaching positions. inservice teachers enrolled in training

receive mostly the same courses which often do not include course work in multiage education.

In addition, professional development is often not available to these teachers in regards to

multiage teaching strategies. When it is available, there are rarely any supports or follow up

offered to these teachers (Kyne-Mulryan, 2007).

Another barrier to multiage teaching is the dissatisfaction and rejection by parents. Many

parents believe that mixing students of various ages together decreases the quality of instruction.

As Song, Spradlin and Plucker (2009) quote, “parents of older students tend to think that their

children will learn less, while those of younger ones worry that their children might be

challenged too intensely and lose confidence in their learning abilities” (p. 6). For whatever the

reason, this creates two problems. The first, being that in order for a multiage program to be

effective, the support of parents is crucial. Secondly, it is often those parents who are active in

the school life of their children who support and understand the philosophy of a multiage

classroom. Therefore, if it is only those parents from privileged and affluent homes that have

their students in a multiage setting, it runs the risk of homogeneous groups which is not aligned

in the multiage philosophy (Song, Spradlin & Plucker, 2009, p. 6).

The issue of standardized grade level assessments also poses a problem for many

administrators dealing with multiage classrooms. As Song et al. (2009) state “because of the

federal and state accountability laws, such as Indiana Public Law 221-1999, students are required


to take standardized tests by grade level” (p.6). This becomes a problem due to the blurring of

grade level standards in a multiage classroom. Such standardized tests fail to recognize the

differences among students as oppose to the philosophy of a multiage program. As Volante

(2004) states, “each spring teachers throughout Canada are required to administer a series of

provincially mandated tests to students in their classrooms. These standardized tests are often

used to make comparisons across students, schools, and boards of education” (p.1). Instead of

using authentic assessments to guide student’s present learning, these standardized tests often

take months to correct and lack individual benefits for the student.

Effects on Struggling Learners

A common practice for educators today in both Canada and the United States is inclusion

for all. This means equitable access to education for students with disabilities, diverse cultural

backgrounds, and/or students who speak English as a second language. As Stuart, Connor, Cady

and Zweifel (2007) quote, “both the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (U.S.

Department of Education, 2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement

Act (IDEA) of 2004 (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) articulate the school’s responsibility

to ensure that all students are able to access the core curriculum of general education and be

educated in the general education environment whenever possible, with appropriate supports and

services” (p.12).Research into the advantages and disadvantages of multiage education indicates

that, if implemented properly, multiage settings can be very beneficial in offering inclusive

education particularly to struggling students who require more time to acquire various concepts.

Current inclusionary believes, as stated by the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador (2014) suggests that:


In an inclusive school culture diversity is embraced, learning supports are available and

properly utilized, and flexible learning experiences focus on the individual student. There

is an innovative and creative environment and a collaborative approach is taken. At the

heart of inclusion is committed leadership and a shared direction (Online Database).

Embedded in the foundation of this philosophy are the same underlying key factors of multiage

teaching; students need to be accepted for their differences and be taught in a way supports their

learning abilities and styles. Could multiage classrooms be a way to help Newfoundland fulfill

its inclusion education beliefs?

Limited research in the area of multiage teaching and struggling learners does reveal that

there are advantages to this type of setting for ensuring inclusion for all. In their exploration of

multiage and inclusion, Stuart et al. (2007) states, “in order to be successful, however, schools

must allow for flexible learning environments, with flexible curricula and instruction. Under

ideal conditions, all students work toward the same overall educational outcomes” (p.15). In a

multiage classroom, such a flexible learning environment is encouraged where curricula is suited

to meet student needs. The answer may not be that struggling learners learn best in a multiage

classroom, however, it can be suggested that struggling learners can definitely benefit from the

inclusive setting embraced in a multiage setting.

Many struggling learners simply feel that they do not have enough time to acquire skills

before they are required to move onto a new concept. Similarly, teachers also feel that they do

not have enough time to cover all the curriculum outcomes set forth by district policies. Multiage

teaching, however, is one option that can help alleviate this time constraint. Data analysis from a

study of three multiage teachers indicated that all felt that their classrooms were very student-

centered (Krockover, Pekarek & Riggs,1999). All three teachers felt they implemented practical


assessment formats such as portfolios, journal writing, reading logs, anecdotal notes, peer

evaluations, and open-ended projects that provided students with ample opportunities to

demonstrate their learning. As Krockover et al. (1999) quote, “information gained from these

assessments pieces helped determine when to move on to the next concept or theme” (p.69).

Although such assessment practices can be implemented in the traditional, single grade

classroom, the multiage setting is not limited to time constraints pushing teachers and students to

move on to the next concept. A student can have on average up to three years with the same

teacher to perfect and review various skills that they may be facing difficulty with.

Students who face struggles in their learning often develop lower self –esteem and self-

concepts of themselves. This directly affects their learning as they lose motivation and often

develop learned helplessness. In a study of a multiage classroom at Crabapple Middle School in

Roswell, Georgia, a young girl with a learning disability, who was receiving pull-out special

education help, had always felt different. When it came time for fire drill practice at her school,

she dreaded to go out in the playground where her peers would see her standing with her special

education teacher. Eventually this child was placed under the direction of an inclusive, multiage

team where a special education teacher and classroom teacher implemented the multiage

philosophy. As a result, Hopping (2000) quotes that same student stating, “we had a fire drill

today, and I went outside with all the other classes, and it was okay because I am not different

anymore” (p.272). Evident in this statement is the fact that this multiage setting helped this chid

feel that her learning differences did not make her ‘different’. In addition, her self-esteem was

increased.


Conclusion

If implemented properly, multiage education embraces students’ different learning styles

and individual knowledge. Differences are celebrated and valued in ways that promote a

collaborative learning environment. As Kolstad and McFadden (1998) argue, “proponents of

multiage classroom instruction claim that students perform better academically than do their

single-age classroom counterparts. Educators report advantages in the areas of academia, self-

esteem, and socialization skills. Furthermore, teachers and parents benefit from a sense of

continuity that multiage classrooms provide” (p. 14).

Ultimately, however, arranging students in a multiage setting does not guarantee a quality

educational program. Many factors come into play that affects the efficiency of instruction such

as planning time, variety of instructional methods used, access to supports such as special

educators and parents, teachers efforts to get to know their students, hands-on activities

implemented, and/or permitted cooperative learning time. If such factors are carefully taken into

consideration by the teacher, the multiage setting can be a valuable atmosphere where struggling

students can grow as learners at their own pace. Such students would feel that it is okay to have

difficulties in various areas and that it is our differences that make us unique and special.


References

Barrington, S. (Interviewer) & Unknown (Interviewee). (2011). The Wisdom of Experience [Interview transcript]. Retrieved from Memorial University’s Online Course Web site: http://online.mun.ca/d2l/common/popup/popup.d2l?ou=86517&queryString=ou%3D86517%26postId%3D1601137%26topicId%3D107589%26isPopup%3D1%26actId%3D0&footerMsg=&popBodySrc=/d2l/lms/discussions/messageLists/message_preview.d2l&popFooterSrc=footer.d2l&width=900&height=855&hasStatusBar=false&hasAutoScroll=true&p=d2l_cntl_aafad2ac39e540c6b12444f5e3bf9d15_1

Bingham, A. A., Dorta, P., McClaskey, M., & O’Keefe, J. (1995). Exploring the multiage classroom. York, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Chase, P., & Doan, J. (1994). Full circle: A new look at multiage education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cohen, D. L. (1990). A look at multi-age classrooms. Education Digest, 55, 20-23.

Daniel, T. C., & Terry, K. W. (1995). Multiage classrooms by design: beyond the one-room school. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

Edwards, S., Blaise, M., & Hammer, M. (2009). Beyond developmentalism? Early childhood teachers' understandings of multiage grouping in early childhood education and care. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(4), 55-63.

Ford, B. E. (1977). Multiage grouping in the elementary school and children's affective development: a review of recent research. Elementary School Journal,78 (2), 149-159. DOI: 10.1086/461096

Grant, J., & Johnson, B. (1995). A common sense guide to multiage practices: Primary level. Columbus, Ohio: Teacher's Pub. Group.

Goodlad, J. I., & Anderson, R.H. (1987). The nongraded elementary school.New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2014). Inclusive school culture [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/inclusion.html

Hawkins, G. G. (1996). Multiage grouping: back to the future? Catalyst for Change, 25, 15-17.

Heins, E. D., Tichenor, M.S., & Coggins, C. J. (2000). Multiage classrooms: putting theory into practice. Contemporary Education, 71(3), 30-35.

http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/inclusion.html

http://online.mun.ca/d2l/common/popup/popup.d2l?ou=86517&queryString=ou%3D865


Hopping, L. (2000). Multi-age teaming: a real-life approach to the middle school. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (4), 270-292.

Howell, K., Georgeson, J., & Wickett, K. (2012). Without walls. Nursery World, 112 (4285), 20-22.

Hunter, M. C. (1992). How to change to a nongraded school. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kasten, W. C. (1998). One learner, two paradigms: A case study of a special education student in a multiage primary classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14 (4), 335-353.

Kasten, W. C., & Clarke, B. K. (1993). The multi-age classroom: A family of learners.Katonah, N.Y.: Richard C. Owen Publishers.

Keer, H.V., & Vanderlinde, R. (2010). The impact of cross-age peer tutoring on third and sixth graders’ reading strategy awareness, reading strategy use, and reading comprehension. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(1), 33-45.

Kolstad, R. K., & McFadden, A. (1998). Multiage classrooms: an age-old educational strategy revisited. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 14-18.

Krockover, G.H.,Pekarek, R.M., & Riggs, C. G.(1999). How well do multiage intermediate classrooms foster successful learning for children? Educational Forum, 64 (1), 67-74. DOI: 10.1080/00131729908984727

Kyne-Mulryan, C. (2007). The preparation of teachers for multigrade teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 501-514.

Leeds, A., & Marshak, D. (2002). Teaching and learning in the intermediate multiage classroom. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.

Leirer, M. (2007). Multiage learning environments have many benefits. Retrieved from http://www.choosingmultiage.com/marions_resources/multiage_learning%20environments_have_many_benefits.pdf

Lindstrom, E., & Lindahl, E. (2011). The effect of mixed-age classes in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 121-144. DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2011.554692

Lisi, R.D. (2002). From marbles to instant messenger: implications of Piaget’s ideas about peer learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 5-12.

Mack, J. (2008). Continuous progress schools see the “whole child”. Education, 129 (2), 324-326.

http://www.choosingmultiage.com/marions_resources/multiage_learning%20environmen%09ts_ha

http://www.choosingmultiage.com/marions_resources/multiage_learning%20environmen%09ts_ha


McClay, J. L. (1996). The multi-age classroom. Westminster, CA: Teacher Created Materials.

Miller, B. A.(1996). What works in multiage instruction. Education Digest, 61(9), 4-8.

Mulcahy, D. M. (2000). Multiage and multi-grade: similarities and differences [PDF document]. Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Web site: http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/win2000/mulcahy.html

Nishida, Y. (2008). The challenge of multiage primary education in public education: case studies in Australia, Canada and the USA. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 38 (4), 513-513. DOI: 10.1080/03057920802259809

Papay, J. P., Hedl, J. J., & Spielberger, C. D. (2005). Effects of anxiety on communication tasks for children in traditional and individualized-multiage classrooms. Psychological Reports, 96 (1), 57-66. DOI: 10.2466/PR0.96.1.57-66

Pardini, P. (2005). The slowdown of the multiage classroom. School Administrator, 62 (3), 22-30.

Pike, E. (Interviewer) & Susan (Interviewee). (2011). The Wisdom of Experience [Interview transcript]. Retrieved from Memorial University’s Online Course Web site: http://online.mun.ca/d2l/common/popup/popup.d2l?ou=86517&queryString=ou%3D86517%26postId%3D1598238%26topicId%3D107589%26isPopup%3D1%26actId%3D0&footerMsg=&popBodySrc=/d2l/lms/discussions/messageLists/message_preview.d2l&popFooterSrc=footer.d2l&width=900&height=855&hasStatusBar=false&hasAutoScroll=true&p=d2l_cntl_a44e2f1abe7740a6be57239c9bb74062_2

Politano, C., & Davies, A. (1994). Multi-age and more. Winnipeg: Peguis Publishers.

Rathbone, C. (1993). Multiage portraits: Teaching and learning in mixed-age classrooms. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.

Reinisch, S. (1996). Multi-age classrooms: one school's experience. Lutheran Education, 131, 201-204.

Song, R., Spradlin, T.E., & Plucker, J. A. (2009).The advantages and disadvantages of multiage classrooms in the era of NCLB accountability. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 7 (1), 1-8.

Stuart, S. K., Connor, M., Cady, K., & Zweifel, A. (2007). Multiage instruction and inclusion: a collaborative approach. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(1), 12-26.

Stone, S. J. (1996). Creating the multiage classroom. Glenview, IL.: GoodYear Books.

http://online.mun.ca/d2l/common/popup/popup.d2l?ou=86517&queryString=ou%3D865%0917%26postId%3D1598238%26topicId%3D107589%26isPopup%3D1%26actId%3D0&f%09ooterMsg=&popBodySrc=/d2l/lms/discussions/messageLists/message_preview.d2l&pop%09FooterSrc=footer.d2l&width=900&height=855&hasStatusBar=false&hasAutoScroll=true%09&p=d2l_cntl_a44e2f1abe7740a6be57239c9bb74062_2



http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/win2000/mulcahy.html


Torrence, M. (2012). An idea whose time has come? Montessori Life, 24(2), 18-23.

Volante, L. (2004).Teaching to the test: what every educator and policy-maker should know. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 35. Retrieved from http://umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/volante.html

Voltz, D. L. (2003). Personalized contextual instruction. Preventing School Failure, 47(3), 138-143. DOI: 10.1080/10459880309604442

Woodland, B., Smith. J., & Scott, C.W. (2007). Achievement for all: professional development for inclusive education [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://www.esdnl.ca/programs/inclusion/newsletters/achievementforall.pdf


Date post:	16-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamkhuong
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Multiage Groupingmultiageteaching.weebly.com/.../2/6/27260881/exit_paper.docx · Web viewTo many...

Documents