Download THanks for coming todya

Teaching and Learning Research Programme
Annual Conference Papers
5th Annual Conference, 22-24 November 2004
Cardiff Marriott Hotel
Improving the effectiveness of pupil group work. Report on first
results from the TLRP Phase 2 SPRinG project
Peter Blatchford
Institute of Education, University of London
Maurice Galton
Homerton College, University of Cambridge
Peter Kutnick
University of Brighton
NB: This paper was presented at an internal TLRP conference; if you wish to
quote from it please contact the authors directly for permission. Contact
details for each project and thematic initiative can be found on our website
(www.tlrp.org).
Improving the effectiveness of pupil group work. Report on first results from the
TLRP Phase 2 SPRinG project
Paper to Annual ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, November 2004
Peter Blatchford, Maurice Galton and Peter Kutnick
There are three main contexts for learning in classrooms. Pupils can interact with the teacher.
They can work on their own. Or they can be work with each other. This project is based on the
view that there is a huge and unrealised potential for this third context. Our view is that debate
and policy on grouping is not yet informed by good empirical research. In particular, research
to date has shown limited pedagogic value for learning in groups, but not assessed how the
effectiveness of group work in normal classroom contexts can be improved.
What is group work?
There is more to group work than sitting students in groups. By group work we mean pupils
working together as a group or team. They may be working on a practical task, on a problem
that requires one solution, or discussing views on a local issue, about which views are strong,
but none actually more right than others. We argue that group work can be used across all
curriculum areas, and for many different types of task. The teacher may be involved at various
stages but the particular feature of group work is that the balance of ownership and control of
the work shifts toward the pupils themselves. Group work involves children as co-learners, not
just one student helping another.
The promise of group work
There is now a quite extensive literature on the benefits of group work in schools. We can
summarise these into three main benefits. First, group work is likely to be most relevant to
conceptual development, thinking, reasoning and problem solving. Group work is probably
best suited to learning processes which involve giving up or transcending current levels of
understanding to reach a new perspective, rather than learning processes which involve the
acquisition of new skills or strategies (which are best furthered in contexts involving more
skilful partners). Second, group work can affect pupils’ motivation and attitudes to work. This
is consistent with reviews of the effect of group work on areas such as self-esteem, a belief
that students can control their own academic success through effort, and positive attitudes
toward other students. Third, group work can affect interactive and dialogic features of peer
interaction. Consistent with other research we expect group work to affect pupil on-task
behaviour in groups, quality of dialogue in groups (for example, more giving and receiving
help, more joint construction of ideas) and more sustained interactions in groups. We expect
advances in social and communication skills, reflected in positive relations between pupils.
There are two main theories used to explain why group work is beneficial. One view is that
children's conceptual development can be facilitated by coming up against the views of others at
about the same level of development but whose views may be different. The ‘cognitive conflict’
this causes can force children to adjust and develop their own way of seeing things and hence
promote learning and conceptual development. A different view is that when children work
together they can arrive at solutions to problems, and understandings of concepts, that would not
have been possible if they had worked alone. A review of existing theory suggests that it does
not do justice to either the reality or the huge potential of group work. A related problem is
that current notions of 'pedagogy' tend to have at their heart the teacher child relation. We argue
that the concept of pedagogy needs to be extended to other social relations, in particular that
involving co-learners or peers, and to see these social relations as contexts that may promote or
inhibit learning. Existing theoretical approaches are not necessarily appropriate to contexts
involving co-learning between people at a similar stage of understanding or knowledge. Also,
we need an appreciation of group work in authentic classroom contexts - of group work as
part of a teacher's general approach to classroom organisation and learning. In so doing, theory
in regard to classroom learning will develop and benefit and become more fully a view of social
pedagogy that reflects and serves the realities of classrooms.
The current situation: groupwork in schools
A central tenet of the SPRinG project, described below, is that group work does not have the
place it deserves in the school curriculum. Moreover, it does not figure very clearly in
educational policy and advice, or at most has a very minor role. Recent government legislation
and advice, e.g., on literacy and numeracy strategies, and on science at KS3 (11-14 years),
rarely mention group work. When it is mentioned, e.g., in the suggested format for the
‘literacy hour’ in primary schools, it is in effect a teacher or adult led context, little different
pedagogically from whole class teaching.
Research on the use of groups in classrooms, particularly in the UK, demonstrates that there
is little strategic planning of pupil grouping in primary schools, and that it is viewed by many
teachers as problematic. In an often quoted finding, Galton showed that within the majority
of primary classrooms children sit in groups but rarely interact and work as groups. Instead,
pupils work individually or as a whole class. Blatchford, Kutnick and Baines in a programme
of research in both primary and secondary schools in England found little sign of a systematic
relationship between features of groupings such as group size and learning purposes or tasks.
Teachers’ approach to group work was to a large extent an adaptation to the demands of
maintaining student attention and classroom control, and to classroom layout. In short, teachers
showed little awareness of the social pedagogic potential of various grouping arrangements.
Overall, teachers had little faith in student’s ability to work in groups.
A number of other studies also indicate that teachers and pupils have doubts about, and
difficulties implementing, group work in classrooms. We have also documented teachers’
worries about group work – which can lead to what we call ‘resistances’ to group work.
Teachers’ concerns include: loss of control, increased disruption and off task behaviour,
beliefs that children are unable to learn from one another, that group-work is overtly time
consuming, that group work will encroach on time needed for curriculum areas, that groupwork means that brighter children just end up helping the less able pupils, and that assessing
children when working in interactive groups is problematic. Pupils can be assigned to groups
with the emphasis on the task outcome rather than on the processes whereby the outcome
could be achieved. Low attaining pupils, in particular, can be placed in groupings likely to
inhibit their learning. Blatchford, Kutnick and Baines found a sizeable number of pupils and
teachers who did not appear to have specific preparation in the use of group work.
Research on groups
We argue that much research is limited in its usefulness for teachers in everyday classroom
situations. Experimental research on the effectiveness of within-class groupings has
demonstrated positive, albeit modest effects on student achievement, better attitudes
(particularly in multi-cultural settings) and improved social climate within classrooms. This
research is mainly based on small groups, predominantly explores the effects of a highly
structured co-operative framework, experimentally restructures classes into grouped (or non-
grouped) situations, and typically provides a specific short-term mandatory training
programme for teachers in the management of co-operative groups. Importantly, these
imposed structures and methods may not always meet the needs of teachers operating in more
‘authentic’ classroom settings where multiple groups and learning tasks may be undertaken
simultaneously. If, therefore, undue consideration is given to these experimental accounts, a
far greater social pedagogic understanding of the potential of classroom groupings may be
hindered. In addition, much research on grouping has adopted a ‘black box’ approach so that
the processes by which these groupings achieve their effects are not fully explored, and
teachers can assume that any form of pupil grouping in their classroom will lead to
cooperation.
More recent research has extended understanding of specific aspects of working in groups, for
example, help seeking and information giving (Webb), Howe and colleagues on consensus in
science tasks, and Mercer and colleagues on different categories of pupil talk. From the point of
view of this paper, these studies are valuable but do not in themselves provide the basis for
teachers to adopt group work across the curriculum and over school year. We need, in other
words, an inclusive view of classroom groups that recognises these contributions but seeks to
put them together in a more general application.
The SPRinG Project: Improving the effectiveness of pupil group work in classrooms
The main impetus for the SPRinG (Social Pedagogic Research into Group work) project was to
address the wide gap between the potential of group work to influence learning, motivation and
attitudes to learning and relationships, on the one hand, and the limited use of group work in
schools, on the other hand. It was also driven by the concerns of teachers and pupils, that they
were not able to get as much out of group work as they would like. The situation suggested to us
that a new approach to conceptualising group work in classrooms was needed. The SPRinG
approach is designed to raise levels of conceptual understanding, encourage a belief in students
that success at school work can come through their own efforts and application, rather than from
instruction, and to encourage pupils to engage in higher levels of talk in groups.
Key assumptions behind SPRinG
In line with ESRC TLR Programme, it is designed to have a real effect on achievement and
motivation.

Value of careful research evidence on group-work (evidence based practice).

Need to research everyday ‘authentic’ classroom settings and curriculum, not artificial
contexts as in much research.

Needs to be something teachers can use and would want to use. Not replace what they
do, but extend their repertoire.

Needs to be applicable and usable in all curriculum areas.

Needs to be developed WITH teachers and schools and LEAs – all users.

Results need to be generalisable, sustainable, and widely applicable: three sites
emphasising KS1,2 and 3, Years 1,5 and 7

It should contribute to theory. Need for a social pedagogy of classrooms
The SPRinG project was set up to develop an approach to group work that could be used in
primary and secondary schools. Approaches and materials were developed on three sites - KS1
(5-7 years) at the University of Brighton, KS2 (7-11 years) at the Institute of Education in
London, and KS3 (11 – 14 years) at the Homerton College, University of Cambridge.
The development stage of the initiative (Phase 2) was a year long collaboration between the
research teams and a group of teachers at each of the three sites. The collaboration involved
regular meetings with teachers, activities constructed by the team being tried out and
evaluated by teachers and pupils, discussion of emerging principles concerning effective
group work, visits to classes to observe and give feedback on groupwork, and continuous
feedback on activities and further work to improve them. Though the teams made use of some
existing materials and classroom strategies much was developed from scratch. In the course
of the year valuable lessons were learned about, for example, group sizes, group composition,
what activities worked well and what strategies needed to be adopted to encourage good
working habits in groups. The updated SPRinG programme used in Phase 3 consisted of two
main parts. The first, the ‘principles and practices’ is structured around four key themes. The
second main part is a programme of classroom activities for developing pupils’ group work
skills, as well as suggestions about how to bring these skills into the curriculum and what
interactions and behaviours to look out for when pupils are doing group-work. These were
compiled into a ‘Handbook’ for each site. The programme of activities follow a particular
structure which supports pupils’ learning through opportunities for reflection, application,
evaluation and adaptation of skills. This is achieved through briefing and debriefing with
opportunities for applying skills in group work situations in between.
The four key themes
The SPRinG project is based on the project directors’ earlier research, and is built around a
social pedagogical approach which involves a framework with four key themes:1.The
classroom context: Preparing the classroom and the groups; 2.Interactions between pupils:
Preparing and developing pupil skills; 3.The teacher’s role: Preparing yourself for working
with groups; 4.Tasks: Preparing the lessons and group work activities. Every act of group work
can be analysed in terms of these four themes, and they are the basis of the principles and
activities in the SPRinG programme.The suggested principles and advice for teachers are
based where possible on evidence from research, though there are many areas where research
is lacking. The advice to teachers was developed on the basis of Phase 2. Key aspects of the
themes are as follows.
1.The classroom context: Preparing the classroom and the groups
Class seating arrangements. The seating and working arrangements can have a profound
effect on communication and work in groups. Using the physical layout and space in a
flexible way to encourage pupil interaction in different working situations is important.
Group Size. An understanding of the role of group size in relation to classroom processes as a
whole is needed. The size of groups will also need to be appropriate to the age and experience of
pupils, the purpose of group-work and the task at hand. But, in general, the main advice we offer
to teachers is that small groups are usually better to begin with and group sizes can be expanded
once group working skills are in place.
Group stability. This has not been researched, probably because it reflects an interest in group
functioning over time, rather than a focus on short term interventions. But the stability of groups
has emerged in our work as an aspect of successful group work By changing group membership
there is risk that groups do not overcome insecurities and conflict.
Group composition. Group work necessarily involves a certain amount of ability mixing, though
how much will be affected by the ability mix of the whole class. It may be best under many
circumstances to put high ability and middle ability pupils together and low ability and middle
ability pupils together. One message that has emerged strongly from our work is that it is
important not to allow personality types to dictate the success or not of groups. Pupils should be
encouraged to work in groups whatever the personality types involved, and interpersonal conflicts
reported in previous research appear to be much reduced with development of group work skills.
2. Interactions between pupils: Preparing and developing pupil skills for group work
Perhaps the main conclusion we have drawn is that group work skills have to be developed:
we can’t just expect group work to be successful without a lot of hard work and preparation.
Pupils need to have the skills to engage with each other while trusting and respecting their
colleagues, as well as being able to communicate effectively through listening, explaining and
sharing ideas. They also need skills on how to plan and organise their group work with the aim
of working more autonomously and engaging actively in learning. So the programme is
organised around a developmental sequence, with an emphasis on relational skills, followed by
communication skills, leading to more advanced problem solving activities.
3. The teacher’s role: Preparing teachers for working with groups
One way that teachers can seek to make group work productive is to lower the risk for pupils
and make it fun (at least some of the time). Another is in terms of creating situations so that the
risk is lowered but the challenge remains high and this can be achieved through a process of
‘scaffolding’. It can be helpful to think of the teacher as a ‘guide on the side, not a sage on the
stage’. Lessons that involve group-work should include briefing and debriefing to enhance
reflection and help develop skills.
4. Tasks : Preparing lessons and group work activities
Designing tasks that encourage group work is difficult. It is important that the task is set up in
a way that encourages all members to talk and work together, and does not actually encourage
individual working. From our experience, once relational skills are developed within the
classroom, teachers can quickly extend and adapt these skills into areas of the curriculum
being studied.
Evaluation of SPRinG progamme
The main aim of Phase 3 is to test the effectiveness of SPRING by comparing pupils trained in
SPRinG with groups who are not. The main research question was whether the group-work
programme led to increases in 1. learning/attainment, 2. more ‘favourable’ motivational
patterns and attitudes to learning and group work, and 3. behavioural and dialogue patterns
supportive of learning. A second research question concerns whether any effects of group
work can be explained by changes in classroom behaviour and dialogue patterns, and
motivational patterns and attitudes to learning.
The exact designs, as well as samples and measures varied somewhat between sites but at all
sites the group training programme extended over time and pupil outcomes were assessed in
terms of the three outcomes just cited. Academic/ learning measures varied between sites, in
relation to different ages of pupils, and are described in more detail below.
Motivational/attitudinal measures at each KS came from pupil self completed questionnaires
with rated items which, when added, formed the following scales: value of group work, liking
group work, working well as a group, peer relations, liking subjects – maths, English and
science, academic motivation. The scales were based on conceptualization of likely effects of
group work, a review of previous work and theory, and pilot work. Alpha coefficents were good
to satisfactory. Classroom behaviour measures at each KS came from on-the-spot systematic
time sample observations of pupil behaviour and interactions when with other children, the
teacher and when working alone. The schedule was based on those used in previous research by
the directors.
In the interests of time, and analyses completed, only selected results will be presented.
Effects of SPRinG on academic outcomes: initial results from KS2
A control group was set up in the 2003-4 school year and learning, observation and
motivation measures collected to cover Years 4 and 5. This control group also allowed the
collection of data in service of a research project on peer relations in primary classrooms.
Numbers of pupils in SPRinG were around 800, and in the control group around 1000.
‘Macro’ measures were collected at the end of the school year (Year 3-6). Previous end of year
measures acted as beginning of next year measures. Maths and English QCA optional test and
end of Year 6 SAT scores covered areas of work covered by QCA schemes of work in those
subjects. They were teacher administered. These did not exist for science and so a specially
designed test was constructed. This was based on QCA items. Emphasis was on items covered
in successive years at different degrees of difficulty. Topics varied each year in line with QCA
schemes of work but all related to physical processes and materials and their properties. Topics
included: electricity, magnetism, liquids, solids and gases, heat, dissolving, temperature, earth
and the moon. Items were included each year on the two areas covered in the ‘micro’ activities
(see below) - evaporation/condensation and forces.
Although the SPRinG programme is designed to be relevant to the whole curriculum, as
described above, for the purposes of the evaluation at KS2, activities and teachers’ notes were
also specially constructed for the science topics of evaporation/condensation and forces. These
were drawn from QCA curriculum guidance and consistent with expected coverage of these
topics, but we gave a central place to group work activities. Science was chosen because of the
coverage of separate topics, easily defined, and the relatively easy way in which group work can
be introduced. In order to get a focused evaluation of the extent to which SPRinG group work
activities improved knowledge/understanding in particular science areas, ‘micro’ tests were
designed to assess progress during the time spent on the evaporation and forces. The two
activities extended over two and a half lessons, and pre and post tests were separated by about
three weeks. Test items were carefully developed on the basis of work in QCA, Robin Millar,
Christine Howe and colleagues, and the SPACE project.
Teachers in control classes covered similar science topics to those in the SPRinG group,
including evaporation and forces (because they follow QCA schemes of work), but the main
difference is that the same topics were taught in a different way to group work, and the pupils
did not receive relational skills training. Group work may have been used to some extent but
not as extensively as in the SPRinG sample.
It was found that pupils in the SPRinG classes showed greater progress over the year than
pupils in the control group in the overall science test, and sub sections in the macro tests
covering evaporation and forces. They also made more progress during the ‘micro’
evaporation activity (but not forces).
Effects of SPRinG on classroom behaviour – initial results from KS1 and 2
First results from the analyses of main systematic observation data indicate that pupils in
SPRinG classrooms at both KS1 and KS2 engaged in more groupwork overall. They also,
especially at KS2, engaged in more interactions with other pupils and more of these were ontask. Conversely, at both KS1 and KS2, less pupil-pupil interaction was off-task. At KS2,
pupil-pupil interactions also tended to be longer.
At KS1 teachers did not develop specific curriculum activities for either of the year groups,
but we found teachers more likely to use group work as a setting for learning over the year.
Teachers and pupil adapted concept maps to present learning within a curriculum area in the
spring and summer terms. Concept maps were undertaken individually and in pairs and the
paired working (in spring and summer terms) was video recorded and analysed for ‘on task’
and ‘reciprocated’ interactions. Pupils showed higher levels of on-task and more reciprocated
communication in SPRinG than control classes. And, within SPRinG classes, teachers who
were more committed to the use of SPRinG principles in class (assessed by end of term
ratings) were associated with higher levels of pupil on-task and reciprocated communication.
Pupil attitudes to group work: initial results from KS3
At KS 3 the project offers a different set of challenges. Apart from the obvious differences
between the phases (classroom organisation, generalist v specialist teachers, division of
curriculum time, mixed ability v setting etc.) there are also fundamental differences in the
type and severity of problems faced by teachers in coping with pupils. Recent surveys (have
shown that discipline and control are the paramount concern of secondary teachers,
particularly since the adoption of inclusion policies and the more stringent procedure for
exclusion. Teachers complain that they don’t have time to teach because so much of the effort
is taken up in maintaining control. Recent research on transfer (Galton et al 2004) has
documented a continuing decline in pupils’ positive attitudes to schooling and specifically to
the core subjects, English, mathematics and science.
There were also practical reasons which, in part, dictated that the research strategy had to
differ from that adopted in the primary phase. In Years 7 and 8 there has been little take up of
the optional national tests so that we were forced to develop a series of ‘mini tests’ based
around the various KS3 curriculum units. In science, for example, we selected particles,
forces, living cells and electrical circuits. Half the teachers taking part in the project were
randomly assigned to teach one of the units using a high proportion of group activity while
the other half followed the whole class interactive approach of the Key stage 3 strategy. The
situation was then reversed for the second unit. All teachers were observed while teaching
their selected topic. The sample consisted of 12 English, 19 mathematics and 14 science
teachers. In the case of English comparisons were made in 2002-2003 and repeated in 2003 2004.
Initial analysis has concentrated on the attitude changes in the course of the year. There are
significant gains, particularly for girls in liking group work with pupils in Year 7 being the
more positive. However, when pupils were asked, “how well they work as a group” the
scores, overall, show a significant decline over the year although there are wide variations
between classes. In science, more able pupils are likely to become more dissatisfied. Greater
use of group work appears to have slowed down the decline in attitudes towards core subjects
but it has not succeeded in arresting it.
Combining the attitude data with that for personality and motivation has allowed the
development of a number of ‘pupil profiles’. About 43% of the sample (753 pupils) exhibit
positive attitudes to group work and high achievement mastery. In contrast some 33% exhibit
a strong ‘anti school, ant learning culture’ which is well documented in the literature. They
have very negative subject attitudes and although liking group work admit that their
behaviour during group activity declines during the school year as they become less
motivated. In between these extremes are six smaller clusters each representing between 3%
and 5% of the sample. Most of these have positive attitudes to group work but are largely
passive with the groups, “letting others do the work”.
Currently we are looking at the distribution of these pupil profiles across classes by subject
and by gender. There is a mass of supporting qualitative data concerning the classroom
climate, task organisation, group size, as well as pupils and teachers interviews, which
hopefully will illuminate the above findings. Having identified criteria, which appear to
sustain positive attitudes, we intend to seek further validation by looking at the systematic
observation and attainment data.