Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.