Download The effectiveness of pupil group work at KS2

SPRinG
Improving the effectiveness of pupil
groupwork: effects on pupil-pupil
interaction, teacher-pupil interaction and
classroom engagement
Peter Blatchford*, Ed Baines*, Christine Rubie-Davies**,
Paul Bassett* & Anne Chowne*
*Institute of Education, University of London
**University of Auckland
www.spring-project.org.uk
Presented at AERA 2006 – San Francisco
The SPRinG Project Teams:
KS1 Team: Peter Kutnick, Lucia Berdondini & Cathy Ota
KS2 Team: Peter Blatchford, Ed Baines & Anne Chowne
KS3 Team: Maurice Galton, Linda Hargreaves, Charlotte Page, Tony Pell & Susan Steward
ScotSPRinG Team: Donald Christie, Christine Howe, Andy Tolmie & Keith Topping
Example: Who should get the pay rise?
SPRinG
Group of four: 2 girls and 2 boys (Year 4)
This group are discussing whether Helen should get the pay rise.
Helen is a 19 year old woman, unmarried with one child. She also looks
after her ill mother. She has worked for the company for 6 months and
packs the crisps into boxes when they come off the conveyer belt. Her work
and attendance are poor.
1: And she’s unmarried and she’s got one child to look after.
3: But she has only been there for six months.
1: I know but...
3: Yeah but she still will need it [pay rise] because...
2: Yeah but she’s only just started.
Example: Who should get the pay rise? (cont.)
SPRinG
3: Yeah but she’ll go nutty and crazy.
1: Yeah, I know but...
2: She’ll go nutty and crazy when she gets the pay rise.
1: I’ve got one, I’ve got one objection. I, I see that she’s nineteen, she’s
young, she’s got a child, she’s unmarried, she’s got a sick mother but she’s
been working there for six months and she, they probably think, oh, we’re
going to put her on an easy job because she’s starting and then probably
when she’s been there for like one, two or three years, they’ll probably
move her up into a much higher job where she’ll get more money.
3: Yeah, but she’s quite young and she needs a good start.
2: Yeah but..
1: I suppose so.
3: And she needs to buy herself a good flat … (??)
Example: Who should get the pay rise? (cont.)
SPRinG
1: And that, yeah, and she needs to get medicine for her mother. Yeah I
think she should get it then.
4: Well, maybe the boyfriend, her boyfriend could give her money.
1: But she’s unmarried.
4: So?
3: And, and boyfriends don’t normally give much money.
1: No boyfriends don’t.
4: Yeah, I understand that.
1: Okay, let’s...
2: They just run off.
SPRinG
The promise of group work: what
might it be good for?
• Group work can enhance conceptual development and
reasoning
• Group work can enhance pupils’ motivation and
attitudes to work
• Group work can aid social and communication skills
SPRinG
The reality of group work
Research shows that:
– Pupils often sit in groups but don’t work AS groups
– Group work is rare and often of low quality
– Teachers and pupils are unsure about the value of group work,
and not prepared or trained for it
– It is not part of teachers’ preferred pedagogy (which stresses the
individual learner)
– There is little strategic planning of pupil grouping in primary and
secondary schools
– Group work does not have the recognition it deserves e.g. in
policy
SPRinG
Resistances to group work
• Teachers and schools worry that group work will interrupt
coverage of the curriculum
• Belief that children can't work as a group
• Belief that bad behaviour is worsened by group work
• Teachers believe they already do group work
SPRinG
Limitations of previous research
Previous research on cooperative and collaborative group
work in UK:
1. Has established group work to be effective in controlled
conditions but not yet tested if group work is effective in real
everyday classroom contexts
2. Provides insufficient information for teachers to use group
work systematically across the curriculum and to prepare
pupils for doing high quality group work as part of everyday
classroom activities
SPRinG
Research was therefore needed
1. To identify the problems teachers experience when
managing group work and ways teachers can
overcome these problems to use group work
systematically across the curriculum
2. To test if group work can be effectively
implemented into everyday classroom contexts
and whether its use leads to positive educational
outcomes
The SPRinG Study
SPRinG
Addressed the gap between the potential of group-work vs.
its limited use in school classrooms.
It had two aims:
• To develop and implement with teachers a general
approach to incorporate group-work into curriculum and
everyday school activities
• To evaluate this programme over one year relative to a
control group in terms of academic progress, behavioural
interaction and dialogue, and attitudes and motivation
towards learning
SPRinG
What is group work?
There is more to group work than sitting
students in groups.
1. By group work we mean pupils working together as a group or
team.
2. the balance of ownership and control of the work shifts toward
the pupils themselves.
3. Group work involves children as co-learners
SPRinG
What is distinctive about SPRinG?
• General programme, to cover whole
curriculum, across school year
• Combines conceptual and scripted approach
• Takes on teachers’ and pupils’ concerns
• Developed with teachers
• Systematic evaluation over full school year
• Applications of group work also developed
• Based on three key principles
SPRinG
SPRinG Key Principles
1. Relational approach
2. Involving teachers in the design of the project and
group work
3. Creating the classroom context for group work
1. Relational approach
SPRinG
•
Group work skills have to be developed
•
Requires skills but also trust and respect; ability to plan and
organise work independently in groups; ability to engage in high
level talk involving explanation, counter arguments; willingness
to reflect on how the group is working, and involve all in the
group
•
Organised around developmental sequence: social skills;
communications skills; ‘advanced’ group working skills
•
Strategies to ensure conflict, composition and personalities in
the group do not dictate whether it is successful
SPRinG
2. Involving teachers in the design of the
project and group work
•
Need to be involved in design as well as implementation
•
Need to think strategically about their role in group:
–
–
–
Supporting lessons - briefing and debriefing
Supporting interaction – scaffolding, modelling
reinforcing group work
Observing interaction - monitoring group work
Guide on the side (not sage on the stage)
and
SPRinG
3. Creating the classroom context for
group work
Need to develop group work in relation to wider context of
the classroom:
a. ‘fixed’ factors such as classroom and class size
and seating arrangements in the classroom
b. characteristics of groups such as their size and
number, their composition, and their stability
over time
c. group work tasks and activities
d. the curriculum
SPRinG
SPRinG Programme:
‘The Handbook’
Guidance on:
1. setting up the classroom and groups
2. developing pupils’ group working skills
3. supporting pupils doing group work
4. organizing group work activities
5. evaluating group work
6. ‘troubleshooting’
7. group work activities and lesson plans
8. Integrating group work into the curriculum and science
Evaluation - research design
SPRinG
Aim
To test the effectiveness of the SPRinG programme
relative to control
Design
•
Experimental vs. control group comparisons
•
Longitudinal comparisons over time within SPRinG
and control classrooms.
Research questions
SPRinG
The main research question was whether the group-work programme led
to increases in three main outcomes:
1.
learning/attainment (conceptual understanding) (Damon & Phelps,
1989; Howe et al., 2000)
2.
behavioural and dialogue patterns supportive of learning (Galton
& Williamson, 1992; Howe & Tolmie, 1998; Wegerif et al. 1999;
Webb & Palincsar, 1996)
- More group work
- More on-task during pupil-pupil interaction
- More sustained interactions
- More high level talk
- Less adult intervention and more monitoring
3.
more ‘favourable’ motivational patterns and attitudes to learning
and group work (positive attitudes to group work and intrinsic
motivation - see Damon & Phelps, 1989)
Phase 3: Intervention & evaluation
SPRinG
Intervention
Training pupils in:
Social skills
Autumn
Communication skills
term
‘Advanced’ group work
skills
Implementation of group
work into the curriculum
Spring
term
SPRinG lesson plans on
Evaporation (2-3 sessions)
Data collection
Macro attainment assessments
Attitude questionnaires
Systematic observations
Micro science pre and post
intervention assessments
Systematic observations
Systematic observations
Implementation of group
work into the curriculum
Summer
term
SPRinG lesson plans on
Forces (2-3 sessions)
Video observations
Attitude questionnaires
Macro and micro attainment
assessments
SPRinG
SPRinG
Control
SPRinG KS2 Sample
Year
4
5
6
Total
4
5
6
Total
Data includes * = 3xY5/6
Schools
17
19
+
= 1xY4/5
Classes
11+
13*+
13*
32
21&
22&
0
40
& = 3xY4/5
Pupils
265
295
289
849
486
541
0
1027
Details of experimental and control samples
SPRinG
Schools
Classes
Pupils
Number of
observations
Groups within
classes
12
21
135
7023
-
7
9
96
1665
31
On-the-spot observation
15
32
179
5938
-
Video observation
7
13
113
1671
29
Experimental group
On-the-spot observation
Video observation
Control group
Research tools
SPRinG
1. learning/attainment
– General tests in Science (Sc3&4) & end of Y6 SATs – start and
end of year.
– Micro pre and post tests on evaporation and forces before and 2
weeks after coverage of the topic – spring and summer terms.
2. behavioural and dialogue patterns supportive of
learning
– Systematic ‘on the spot’ observations of a focal child’s
behaviour and interaction in class – 3 times in year.
– Video observations of groups working on a group work
activity - filmed during the summer term.
3. motivational patterns and attitudes to learning and group
work
– Pupil questionnaire comprising 50 Questions – 10 scales –
completed at the start and end of the year.
Adjusted means (by pre-test) for Macro Science data.
SPRinG vs Control
SPRinG
KS2
Macro Science Posttest
Mean a
Evap Macro Post-test
items
Mean a
Forces Macro post-test
items
Mean a
SPRinG
52.5**
48.46**
57.60**
Control
48.7**
37.27**
49.80**
0.20
0.44
0.29
Effect sizes*
a= Macro Pre-test items as covariate
** = P≤0.01, as = p<0.075
* = effect sizes in terms of Cohen’s d
Adjusted means (by pre-test) for Micro attainment data.
SPRinG vs. Control
SPRinG
KS2
Evaporation Micro
Post-test
Mean b
Forces Micro
Post-test
Mean b
Evaporation Macro posttest items
Mean c
SPRinG
45.9**
56.00
48.96**
Control
38.1**
na
40.72**
0.57
na
0.21
Effect sizes*
b= Micro Pre-test as covariate c= Micro Evap Post-test as covariate
** = P≤0.01,
* = effect sizes in terms of Cohen’s d
SPRinG
‘On the spot’ classroom observations
• Each SPRinG classroom was visited at least 3 times over the year
(control – 2 times).
• 6 pupils per class observed – 8 scans per observation period.
• Systematic time sampling: 20 sec windows – 5 secs to tune in/
contextualise, 10 secs observation, 5 secs to code
• 208 SPRinG pupils observed an average of 46.52 times
• 179 Control pupils observed an average of 33.17 times
• Total observations: SPRinG = 9,642 Control = 5,938
SPRinG
Main observation categories
•Teacher expected work setting: Individual, peer co-learning, adult led
group, whole class, pupil plenary, other
•Subject: Maths, English, Science, Other
•Individual task behaviour: On task, task prep., proced/routin, off task
active, off task passive, other
•Adult-pupil interaction: Type of adult, Adult’s audience (tgt focus, tgt
audience), Adult’s activity (on task, Task prep., monitor-observe, social,
other), Target to teacher interaction (Begins, responds, sustains, attend
listen, other), Target activity (On task, etc.)
•Pupil-pupil interaction: Pupil-pupil interaction - (On task, etc.),
Pupil-pupil involvement (substantial, intermittent, attend listen, nonverbal, other), Pupil-pupil conversation (Sustained, not sustained),
Pupil-pupil talk quality (high level, low level/uncodeable)
Classroom observation: results 1
SPRinG
Analysed using multi-level logistic regression (3 levels)
Learning context

SPRinG teachers more often used group work and SPRinG pupils were more often
engaged in group work (34% vs 16%)

Control pupils were more often engaged in individual work (11% vs 34%)
Pupil-Pupil interaction and dialogue

SPRinG pupils were more on task (70% vs 50%)

Control pupils were more off task (actively rather than passively) (16% vs 35%)

SPRinG pupils were more actively engaged during on-task interactions (71% vs
47%)

Control pupils more actively engaged during off task interactions.

SPRinG pupils were more likely to have sustained conversations (particularly
when on task), and increasingly over the year (39% vs 16%)

SPRinG pupils were more likely to engage in high level talk (11% vs 2%)
Classroom observation: results 2
SPRinG
Teacher pupil interaction
 There were no pupil ‘engagement’ differences
in Teacher-pupil work settings
 Control teachers engaged in more direct on task
teaching and interaction with individuals
 SPRinG teachers were more likely to monitor
pupils & groups (11% vs 3%).
Video observations
SPRinG
• 31 SPRinG and 29 Control groups were filmed in
class working on a group-work activity
• Blind coded
• Interaction was coded every 20 secs
• Categories – 4 category sets
– Engagement (all engaged, some passive, split, some off task
active/passive, all disengaged)
– Socio-affective nature of the group (group maintenance and/or
blocking)
– Discourse topic sequences (sustained, changeable, other/off task)
– Type of talk (collab discussion (inferential vs evidence), meta
group talk, sharing information, disputational, reading task,
procedural, off task talk)
Video observation results 1
SPRinG
SPRinG
Mean
SD
Participation and engagement
All actively involved 65.20**
5.26
All involved, some passive
0.12
All involved split
9.03
Some uninvolved – off task passive
Some uninvolved - off task active 15.62
4.37
All off-task
Socio-emotional ethos
Group maintenance 10.94
3.53
Group blocking
N
24.83
31
8.42
31
0.47
31
8.82
31
16.2
31
7.21
31
6.76
31
6.13
31
Control
Mean
SD
N
35.85
8.31
1.15*
9.90
30.89**
9.25
22.04
29
11.45
29
2.56
29
10.76
29
19.86
29
12.91
29
12.13
13.35**
9.71
29
14.78
29
Video observation results 2
SPRinG
SPRinG
Mean
SD
Discourse topic
Sustained topic focus
Changeable topic
Other/No talk
Type of dialogue
Higher order - inferential
Higher order – text based
Meta-group talk
Sharing information
Disputational talk
Reading out task
Procedural talk
Off task talk
Other/No talk
Total observations
22.91**
30.58
44.94**
N
Control
Mean
SD
N
14.33
44.70**
36.05
12.11
29
21.18
29
17.97
29
8.57
29
8.85
29
10.01
29
14.58
29
1.89
29
3.52
29
8.51
29
16.21
29
31
9.20
12.62
11.31
25.26*
1.06*
1.94
12.74**
17.40**
4.05
4.5
29
31
57.62
14.80
29
13.1
31
12.59
31
18.34
31
25.19**
12.00
11.24
17.4
0.16
11.38**
7.66
5.60
8.85*
16.42
31
7.11
31
8.5
31
9.11
31
0.88
31
6.64
31
5.42
31
9
31
8.74
53.72
14.24
Video observation: results
SPRinG
Engagement
• SPRinG groups were more often fully engaged in the activity.
• Control groups more often had members actively disengaged from the
activity.
Socio-affective nature of the group
• Control groups were more likely to block group effort
Discourse topic
• SPRinG groups were more likely to sustain the topic of conversation
• Control groups were more likely to change the topic of conversation
Type of talk
• SPRinG trained groups engaged in more high level collaborative
discussion, involving more synthesis of information and generation of
understanding.
• Control groups engaged in more sharing of information, procedural
talk, disputational talk and off task talk.
Attitude data: results
SPRinG
Few differences between SPRinG and control in:
• The ‘value of group work’, ‘liking group work’, ‘peer relations’,
‘liking English’ and ‘liking maths’.
But
• Confidence in ‘ability to work well as a group’ decreased for
control pupils but remained constant for SPRinG pupils.
• Subject attitudes for all subjects decreased over the year except
that SPRinG pupils continued to ‘like Science’.
• SPRinG pupils’ ‘intrinsic motivation’ increased over the year.
Summary of Results
SPRinG
Despite teachers worries that group work could negatively affect
attainment and behaviour:
•
SPRinG pupils attained more in general science tests and specific
tests directly relatable to experience
•
Classroom Behaviour and Interactions:
– They were more actively engaged in task related
interactions
– They engaged in more sustained and focused interactions on
the topic
– They engaged in more high level talk, talk showing more
reasoning and more inferential thinking
•
There were benefits for all groups of pupils, e.g., in terms of
prior attainment and gender
Other findings
SPRinG
•
•
•
•
•
Teachers professional skills and confidence enhanced. Teaching
repertoire extended and unexpected benefits:
– pupils’ new group working skills ‘freed’ teachers from
procedural duties
– classroom control was easier
– able to spend more strategic time on teaching
Group work most effective when adopted by the whole school,
rather than by individuals, and this integrated principles of
group learning across the school experience
Teachers working in areas of deprivation or in difficult
circumstances found that group work could be used successfully,
and could aid classroom relationships and integration.
Pupils’ relational and communication skills provided a key
foundation for achieving both educational and socio-emotional
benefits, emphasizing the importance of teambuilding and
development work
Effects were consistent across a range of school sizes, school
locations (urban vs rural), and class compositions (mixed vs
single age bands)
Implications
SPRinG
• Group work can be implemented successfully and used on a
regular basis in everyday classroom settings
• First study in the UK to show a range of positive effects associated
with the use of group-work in everyday classroom settings
• Given time to develop pupils’ group working skills, teachers can
bring about a transformation in the teaching and learning
environment
• Group work can contribute to national concerns about attitudes to
work and classroom behaviour. It can encourage active learning
and improve attainment
• Relational approach important for providing the basis for the
group to function productively
• Suggested that it can provide: ‘psychological safety’,
‘connectedness’ and ‘co-regulation’ within the group
• We need to rethink current pedagogical theories, which favour
teacher-led situations and individual work
• Group work deserves to be given a much more central role in
educational policy and school practice
Issues arising
SPRinG
• It remains unclear exactly what features of SPRinG
caused pupils to make greater progress (e.g. training,
the principles, frequency of use and so on).
• Hawthorne effect? The status of controls in real
research settings.
• Some dangers, eg, ‘SPRinG-lite’ - thus:
– Importance of a whole school approach to the use of
group work.
– Needs to be greater use of group work encouraged at ITT
and professional development levels.
• Current views of pedagogy and policy still limit
implementation of group work.
SPRinG Publications
SPRinG
• There are a number of publications from the project
• See Teaching and Learning Research Briefing No 11 ‘Improving
Pupil Group Work in classrooms: a new approach to increasing
engagement and learning in everyday classroom settings at Key
Stages 1,2 and 3’
• Available through www.spring-project.org.uk
• Or www.tlrp.org