THE MULTIGRADE CLASSROOM:

A RESOURCE HANDBOOK FOR SMALL,

RURAL SCHOOLS
Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction

November 1999

Rural Education Program

Based on the September 1989 publication

of the same title written by Bruce A. Miller

Susan Vincent, Editor

Joyce Ley, Director

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97204
Acknowledgments

The following selections have been reprinted with permission:

Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous class-
room (pp. 207–209). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Emmer, E.T. (1987). Classroom management and discipline. In V.
Richardson-Koehler & D.C. Berliner (Eds.), Educators’ handbook:
A research perspective (pp. 233-258). White Plains, NY: Longman.
(Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Evertson, C.M., Emmer, E.T., Clements, B.S., Sanford, J.P., & Williams, E.
(1981). Organizing and managing the elementary school classroom. Austin,
TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education. (Reprinted with permission of Carolyn Evertson, Peabody
College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.)
Gaustad, J. (1994). Nongraded education: Overcoming obstacles to imple-
menting the multigrade classroom [Special issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 38(3
& 4). (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Gibbons, M., & Phillips, G. (1978). Helping students through the self-
education crisis. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(4), 296–300. (Reprinted with
permission of publisher.)
Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. (Reprinted with permission
of publisher.)
Karweit, N. (1987). Diversity, equity, and classroom processes. In M.T.
Hallinan (Ed.), Social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of the
learning process (pp. 71–102). New York, NY: Plenum Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Kentucky Department of Education. (1996). Nearly all Kentucky schools show
improvement in latest KIRIS scores, but middle schools lag behind [Press
release]. Frankfort, KY: Author. (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Murphy, J., Weil, M., & McGreal, T. (1986). The basic practice model of
instruction. Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 83–96. (Reprinted with
permission of the University of Chicago Press.)
Oregon Department of Education, & Ackerman Laboratory School. (1994).
Mixed-age programs, 1993–94. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Education. (Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Pavan, B.N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational
Leadership, 50(2), 22–25. (Reprinted with permission of author.)

ii The Multigrade Classroom

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elemen-
tary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 293–336. (Reprinted with permission of the American
Educational Research Association.)
Slavin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and
secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67–77. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1989). What works for students at risk:
A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4–13. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Thomas, J.W., Strage, A., & Curley, R. (1988). Improving students’ self-
directed learning: Issues and guidelines. Elementary School Journal, 88(3),
313–326. (Reprinted with permission of the University of Chicago.)

iii
Overview

Preface
The preface describes the process used in developing this handbook,
including the multigrade teachers who shared their classroom strategies
and ideas for improving the usefulness of the handbook.
Introduction
The history of multigrade classroom instruction is presented, along
with the background information that describes why multigrade
instruction is an important and complex issue for educators.
Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
In this book, the research on multigrade instruction is reviewed
in order to answer two questions: (1) What effect does multigrade
instruction have on student performance? and (2) What kind of train-
ing is needed in order to teach in a multigrade classroom? Detailed
information focusing on organizing and teaching in a multigrade class-
room is also presented.
Book 2: Classroom Organization
This book describes strategies for arranging and organizing instruc-
tional resources and the physical environment of the classroom. Sample
classroom layouts and a “design kit” for organizing your classroom are
also included.
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Establishing clear expectations for student behavior and predictable
classroom routines has been shown to improve student performance.
In this book, research relating to classroom management and discipline
are presented, along with a checklist for planning management routines
and discipline procedures.
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Research-based guidelines for planning, developing, and implementing
instructional strategies are presented. This book emphasizes the devel-
opment of cooperative work norms in the multigrade classroom and
explains how to match instruction to the needs of students. An overview
of curriculum and evaluation planning concepts is also provided. This
book is a close companion piece with book 5: Instructional Delivery
and Grouping.

iv The Multigrade Classroom

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
This book emphasizes that instructional quality and student grouping
are key components for success in the multigrade classroom.
Instructional methods such as recitation, discussion, and cooperative
learning are reviewed. Planning guides and examples are also included
where appropriate. Strategies for organizing group learning activities
across and within grade levels, especially those that develop interde-
pendence and cooperation among students, are discussed.
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Developing skills and strategies in students that allow for a high level
of independence and efficiency in learning, either individually or in
combination with other students, is essential in the multigrade class-
room. Ideas for developing self-direction are presented in this book.
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring
This book provides guidelines for developing skills and routines whereby
students serve as “teachers” to other students within and across differ-
ing grade levels. The research on what makes for effective tutoring in
the classroom is also reviewed.

v
Preface

he development of this handbook began in 1987, when a group

T of people involved in rural education raised several issues regarding

multigrade classroom instruction.
In their discussions, members of the advisory committee for the
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s (NWREL) Rural Education
Program agreed that multigrade teacher training in their respective states
was either lacking or wholly inadequate. They also were concerned about
the availability of research and training materials to help rural multigrade
teachers improve their skills.
As a result of these concerns, the Rural Education Program decided to
develop a handbook to assist the multigrade teacher. The handbook evolved
in several stages. The first was a comprehensive review, conducted by Dr.
Bruce Miller, of the research on multigrade instruction that included articles,
books, and research reports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and
other countries.
From this review, six topic areas emerged that are considered essential for
effective multigrade instruction: classroom organization; classroom manage-
ment and discipline; instructional organization, curriculum, and evaluation;
instructional delivery and grouping; self-directed learning; and planning and
using peer tutoring. Dr. Miller developed the handbook around these six
instructional areas, and a draft was completed in June 1989, with support
from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).
The second stage occurred in July 1989, when a conference was held in
Ashland, Oregon, with multigrade teachers who were recommended by educa-
tional leaders from throughout the Northwest and Pacific Island regions.
During the conference, participants were organized into workgroups,
each focusing on one of the topic areas. Their tasks were to review the
appropriate handbook chapter for clarity and content, to suggest alternative
and/or additional instructional strategies to those presented in the handbook,
and to write case descriptions of activities drawn from their classrooms.
For example, Joel Anderson from Onion Creek Elementary in Colville,
Washington, described how he grouped students for cooperative learning.
Darci Shane from Vida, Montana, presented a school handbook she had
developed for parents that included a class schedule and other school-related
information. (A full list of participants appears at the end of this preface.)
The final handbook was completed by Dr. Miller in September 1989.
Based on the growing interest and research on multigrade instruction
the handbook was revised and updated in 1999, also with support from
OERI. The final version, completed with support from the Institute of
International Education (IIE), is now composed of a series of seven stand-
alone books.

vi The Multigrade Classroom

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
Book 2: Classroom Organization
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring

Purpose and Scope of the Handbook

he handbook has been written to serve three general purposes:

T l To provide an overview of current research on multigrade

instruction
l To identify key issues teachers face when teaching in a multi-
grade setting
l To provide a set of resource guides to assist novice and
experienced multigrade teachers in improving the quality
of instruction
However, because of the complexity of multigrade instruction and the
vast amount of research on effective classroom instruction, this handbook
can only serve as a starting point for those educators wanting to learn new
skills or refine those they already possess.
Each book of the series presents information, strategies, and resources
considered important for the multigrade teacher. While all the books are
related, they also can stand alone as separate documents. For example, the
books on Classroom Organization (Book 2) and Classroom Management
and Discipline (Book 3) contain overlapping information. Ideally, these
two books are best utilized together. The same is true of the books on
Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation (Book 4) and
Instructional Delivery and Grouping (Book 5). Wherever possible, these
relationships have been noted in the appropriate books.
In conclusion, the series of books has been designed to be used as
a research-based resource guide for the multigrade teacher. It covers the
most important issues the multigrade teacher must address to be effective
in meeting the needs of students. Sample schedules, classroom layouts,
resource lists, and strategies aimed at improving instruction have been used
throughout. It is our hope that the handbook will raise questions, provide
answers, and direct the multigrade teacher to resources where answers to
other questions can be found.

vii
Participants in the Multigrade Conference

Kalistus Ngirturong Barbara Robinson

Aimeliik Elementary Arbon Elementary School
Babeldaob Island Arbon, Idaho
Republic of Palau
Monte Phoenix and Karrie
Robin Lovec Phoenix
Springdale School Orovada, Nevada
Springdale, Montana
Joel Anderson
Anthony Moorow Onion Creek Elementary
Yap Department of Education Colville, Washington
Colonia, Yap
Marty Karlin
Cheryl Mikolajcvyk Trinity Center School
Kaumakakai, Hawaii Trinity Center, California

Leslie Gordon Troy Smith

Pitkas Point School Dixie Elementary School
St. Mary’s, Alaska Dixie, Washington

James Makphie Jill Bills

Majuro, Marshall Islands Sanders Elementary School
Sanders, Arizona
Edith Nicholas
Andrew K. Demoski School Darci Shane
Nulato, Alaska Southview School
Vida, Montana
Benjamin Bernard
Majuro, Marshall Islands Eileene Armstrong
Melrose Elementary
Linda Pelroy Melrose, Montana
W.W. Jones Elementary
Arock, Oregon Pam Cunningham
Sand Springs Elementary
John Rusyniak Sand Springs, Montana
Mentasta Lake School
Mentasta Lake, Alaska Jennifer McAllister
Deerfield Elementary
Patricia Reck Lewistown, Montana
Brothers School
Brothers, Oregon Kimberly Rindal
Ayers Elementary
Bill Radtke Grass Range, Montana
English Bay School
English Bay, Alaska Sammy Vickers
Grant Elementary
Phil M. Gillies Dillon, Montana
Stone Elementary
Malad, Idaho Brian Wolter
Avon Elementary
Carol Spackman Avon, Montana
Park Valley School
Park Valley, Utah

viii The Multigrade Classroom

 Introduction

n contrast to a historical pattern of children developing within an age-

I varied social system, many children today spend a majority of their

time in an age-segregated milieu (Katz, Evangelou, & Hartman, 1990;
McClellan, 1994). The results of this pattern of segregation are thought to
contribute to a declining social support system and compromised develop-
ment of children’s social and academic skills.
Coleman (1987) suggests the need for a significant institutional and
societal response to support functions traditionally filled by the family, such
as the development of feelings of belonging and community, emotional and
social bonding, and nurturance. Increasingly, the school has been viewed as
one of the most effective and efficient contexts to address children’s academic,
affective, and social needs before these needs reach crisis proportions.
A growing body of research explores the influence of educational
contexts on children’s development. While interest has focused on the
impact of the classroom environment on children’s attitudes toward school,
cognitive growth, and academic development, less direct attention has been
given to the relationship between classroom context (including the structure
and content of children’s peer relationships) and academic and social devel-
opment during the elementary years. One approach explored by theoreti-
cians and researchers for encouraging children’s academic and social skill
development is multigrade instruction.
In multigrade instruction, children of at least a two-year grade span
and diverse ability levels are grouped in a single classroom and are encour-
aged to share experiences involving intellectual, academic, and social skills
(Goodlad & Anderson, 1987; Katz et al., 1990; McClellan & Kinsey,
1996). Consistency over time in relationships among teachers, children,
and parents is viewed as one of the most significant strengths of the multi-
grade approach because it encourages greater depth in children’s social,
academic, and intellectual development. The concept of the classroom as a
“family” is encouraged, leading to expansion of the roles of nurturing and
commitment on the part of both students and teacher (Feng, 1994;
Hallion, 1994; Marshak, 1994).
The potential academic and social implications of the multigrade
concept of education are strongly supported by extensive research demon-
strating the importance of peers in children’s academic and social develop-
ment, and by studies of reciprocity theory, which demonstrate the positive
effect on child academic and social behavior of sustained close relationships
between children and caregivers (Kinsey, 1998; Maccoby, 1992).
The adequate implementation of a multigrade approach to education
extends beyond simply mixing children of different grades together. A
positive working model of a multigrade classroom allows for the develop-
ment of academic and social skills as the teacher encourages cross-age inter-
actions through tutoring and shared discovery. Social competence develops

ix
 for older children out of their roles as teachers and nurturers, and for
younger children out of their opportunity to observe and model the behav-
ior of their older classmates (Katz et al., 1990; Ridgway & Lawton, 1969).
The multigrade classroom has traditionally been an important and
necessary organizational pattern of education in the United States, notes
Miller (1993). Multigrade education dates back to the one-room schools
that were the norm in this country until they were phased out in the early
part of the 1900s (Cohen, 1989; Miller, 1993). From the mid-1960s
through mid-1970s, a number of schools implemented open education,
ungraded classrooms, and multigrade groupings. Although some schools
continued to refine and develop the multigrade concept, many of these
programs disappeared from public schools. With the beginning of the
industrial revolution and large-scale urban growth, the ideal of mass public
education took root and the practice of graded schools began in earnest.
The graded school system provided a means of organizing and classify-
ing the increased number of urban students of the 1900s. Educators found
it easier to manage students by organizing them into age divisions or grades.
Other factors, such as the advent of the graded textbook, state-supported
education, and the demand for trained teachers, further solidified graded
school organization (Miller, 1993; Uphoff & Evans, 1993). Critics of the
graded school were quick to emphasize this deficiency. The realization that
children’s uneven developmental patterns and differing rates of progress are
ill-matched to the rigid grade-level system has resulted in a growing interest
in and study of the potential benefits of multigrade education in recent years
(Miller, 1996). This growing interest is due to a greater focus on the impor-
tance of the early years in efforts to restructure the educational system
(Anderson, 1993; Cohen, 1989; Stone, S.J., 1995; Willis, 1991) and
an awareness of the limitations of graded education.
The multigrade classroom is labor intensive and requires more planning,
collaboration, and professional development than the conventional graded
classroom (Cushman, 1993; Gaustad, 1992; Miller, 1996). Sufficient
planning time must be available to meet the needs of both teacher and
students. Insufficient planning, staff development, materials, support, and
assessment procedures will have an impact on the success of the multigrade
program (Fox, 1997; Miller, 1996; Nye, 1993).
Despite these constraints, there are special advantages to multigrade
classrooms. Flexible schedules can be implemented and unique programs
developed to meet students’ individual and group interests and needs.
Combined classrooms also offer ample opportunity for students to become
resourceful and independent learners. The multigrade rural classroom is
usually less formal than the single-grade urban or suburban classroom.
Because of the small class size, friendly relationships based on understand-
ing and respect develop naturally between the students and the teacher. In

x The Multigrade Classroom

this setting, students become well-known by their teacher and a family
atmosphere often develops.
However, many teachers, administrators, and parents continue to
wonder whether multigrade organization has negative effects on student
performance. For most rural educators, multigrade instruction is not an
experiment or a new educational trend, but a forceful reality based on
economic and geographic necessity. In a society where educational environ-
ments are dominated by graded organization, the decision to combine grades
is often quite difficult. The Rural Education Program of the Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory receives numerous requests from rural
educators with two overriding concerns regarding multigrade classrooms:
l What effect does multigrade instruction have on student
performance?
l What kind of preparation or training is needed to be an effec-
tive teacher in a multigrade classroom?
This handbook will provide answers to these questions and develop
an overview of key issues facing school districts and teachers involved in
or contemplating multigrade classrooms.

xi
 Contents

Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction ....................................1

Methodological Inclusion Criteria ....................................................2
Quantitative Studies: Student Achievement................................................3
The Victorian Quality Schools Project ..............................................9
Results ............................................................................................11
Multigrade Teaching in Peru ..........................................................14
Multigrade Teaching in Sri Lanka....................................................15
Multigrade Teaching in Vietnam ....................................................15
Quantitative Studies: Student Attitudes ...................................................17
Summary ........................................................................................18
Qualitative Studies: A View From the Inside ............................................20
Establishing the Needs of the Multigrade Teacher....................................22
Implementation of the Program: Getting Started ............................22
Today........................................................................................23
Obscured purpose of multigrade programs ..............................24
Legislative adjustments ............................................................24
Fit between the multigrade program and results-based reform ..25
Efficacy and teacher belief systems ............................................25
Local Factors ..................................................................................26
Principal leadership ..................................................................26
Teacher beliefs ..........................................................................26
School climate ..........................................................................26
Summary ........................................................................................27
What do teachers need to know? ..............................................27
What do administrators need to know? ....................................28
What is the principal's role? ......................................................28
How Important are Sufficient Time and Money? ..........................31
Instruction in a Multigrade Classroom With More Than Two Grades ..........34
Summary ................................................................................................40
Conclusion ............................................................................................41
Implications ..........................................................................................45
Risks and Concerns ................................................................................47
References .............................................................................................48

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction xiii

 Review of the Research on
Multigrade Instruction

ny indication that one is involved in an investigation concerning

A multigrade classes arouses intense interest among parents, even grand-

parents, of preschoolers and children of primary school age. Questions
and comments abound. The matter is one of much significance and practi-
cal importance to them. It is also of considerable professional interest to
educators and of theoretical as well as professional interest to educational
researchers. For parents, the critical issue is whether the multigrade class-
room will provide the kind of positive, satisfying, and productive social and
learning experience they want for their child in school. For teachers and
school leaders, there are multiple issues: whether enrollment distributions
necessitate multigrade classes; the nature of parental, teacher, and school
leader attitudes to multigrade classes; how best to organize and teach such
classes in order to maximize student learning progress and social develop-
ment. For researchers, the major focus for many years has been the question
of whether student achievement differs in multigrade and single-grade
classes.
The multigrade class structure is known by various names in different
countries; these include “composite” or “combination” classes, “double”
classes, “split” classes, “mixed-age” classes and “vertically grouped” classes
(Veenman, 1995). It is defined as a class in which students of two or more
adjacent grade levels are taught in one classroom by one teacher for most,
if not all, of the day. Such multigrade classes are embedded within the
traditional graded system: students retain their grade-level labels and are
promoted through the school with their grade-level cohort (Mason &
Burns, 1996; Veenman, 1995). For Mason and Burns and for Veenman,
the definition also implies that grade-level curriculum and achievement
expectations will be retained.
Both Veenman (1995) and Mason and Burns (1996) distinguish
between the multigrade class and two other structures: the multiage class
and the nongraded school. The latter two structures have an individualized,
developmental focus and manifest in a continuous progress rather than
lock-step, graded curriculum for class groups of students varying in age.
Student groups remain with the same teacher for two or more years. Both
researchers view the multigrade class structure as arising from administra-
tive and economic necessity (unequal grade-level enrollment numbers,
together with fixed staff-student ratios), in contrast to the multiage group-
ing, which is seen to result from a deliberate decision based on a particular
pedagogical and philosophical approach.
This book presents a synthesis of research findings into the cognitive
and noncognitive effects of multigrade and single-grade classrooms in
elementary schools. Included are studies that involve the evaluation of
the effects of multigrade or multiage grouping. Multigrade and multiage
grouping have been clearly distinguished in order to avoid an “apples and
oranges” problem at the level of the independent variable. The studies have

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 1

 also been grouped as relevant to two major dependent variables:
(1) academic or cognitive achievement, and (2) noncognitive growth. The
first area of relevance is further divided into the academic subjects addressed;
for example, reading, language, mathematics, science, and social studies.
The second area of relevance is further divided into personal adjustment,
social adjustment, self-concept, attitudes toward school, and motivation.

Methodological Inclusion Criteria

Experimental and control groups All studies possessed both experimental (multigrade or multiage) and
control (single-grade or single-age) groups.
Standard measures In all studies, standard measures of academic achievement or nonacademic
achievement were used. Grades and report card scores were not included
as achievement variables because of their subjective nature. Noncognitive
variables were excluded if they were not based on some objective standard
of measurement.
Comparability of samples Ideally, initial comparability of the experimental and control samples was
established by means of matching of schools or classes, or matching of
individual students within classes or schools.
Duration of multigrade grouping In all of the included studies, the multigrade groups examined had existed
for at least one year.
Normality of sample All included studies involved samples of normal students in regular classes.
Teacher training In all included studies, teachers in the experimental group had not been
trained on the dependent measures.
Number of teachers At least two experimental and two control teachers were involved in all of
the studies included in this review.

2 The Multigrade Classroom

 Quantitative Studies: Student Achievement

n recent years some significant studies have been published that system-

I atize and evaluate the research on the effects of multigrade classes on

student achievement, as well as ones that investigate the processes that
contribute to these effects. Veenman’s (1995) best-evidence synthesis of
research concerning the cognitive and noncognitive effects of multigrade
and multiage classes was a thorough and well-documented meta-analysis
and description of a large number of studies (45 of which were concerned
with multigrade classes), drawn from a wide range of countries and nations
across the world, both developed and developing.
Veenman found that there were no consistent differences in student
achievement between multigrade and single-grade classes. The overall median
effect size for cognitive outcomes was 0.00, while the overall median effect
size for affective outcomes was +0.10. On the basis of his findings, Veenman
drew the conclusion that:

… parents, teachers, and administrators need not worry about the academic progress or
social-emotional adjustment of students in multigrade or multiage classes. These classes are
simply no worse, and simply no better, than single grade or single-age classes (Veenman,
1995).

Four factors were proposed by Veenman to help explain the finding of

no difference in student achievement between multigrade and single-grade
classes:
l Grouping alone is unlikely to have an effect; learning is more
dependent on the quality of teaching than on organizational
structure
l Bias in selecting more capable students into multigrade classes,
if it occurs, would deplete the proportion of those students in
single-grade classes, producing nonequivalent samples for
comparison
l Teachers of multigrade classes are inadequately prepared for
teaching such classes and do not have available suitable materi-
als for their teaching
l Multigrade teaching is demanding and leaves teachers with
little energy to pursue potentially more effective grouping
strategies in their teaching, resulting in the use of the same
practices as in single-grade classes
The quality of the research reviewed by Veenman was not consistently
strong, and the justification for inclusion of some of the studies in his analy-
sis is doubtful. Mason and Burns (1996), having themselves reviewed the
research into the differential effectiveness of multigrade and single-grade
classes, did not dispute Veenman’s finding of nonsignificant differences in
achievement and slightly more positive though nonsignificant social-emotional

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 3

 effects of multigrade classes. However, their conclusion was different; they
claimed that multigrade classes have at least a small negative effect.
They argued that multigrade classes generally have better students
and perhaps better teachers allocated to them (a possibility that Veenman
acknowledged in his first paper [1995, pp. 327–328, 371], but subse-
quently claimed was not yet established [1996]). These factors should
produce more positive outcomes for multigrade classes, both because
multigrade classes would be systematically advantaged and also because
single-grade classes would consequently be systematically deprived of better
students and teachers. Why then are there multigrade classes found to have
similar or slightly negative effects when compared to single-grade classes?
Mason and Burns (1996) asserted that the reason must lie in the more
complex and difficult teaching situation that multigrade classes present, for
example in terms of the greater workload and the need for more preparation
time and better management skills (factors acknowledged by Veenman
[1995, 1996]), together with a consequent increase in teacher stress.

Teachers are therefore faced with delivering two different curricula to students of twice the
age range in the same amount of time-factors, which make these two structures radically
different. Our question is, why wouldn’t we expect multigrade classes to be more difficult
for teachers and result in different and less effective instructional practices? (Mason &
Burns, 1996)

In their view, lower quality, less effective teaching is characterized by

less instruction time per grade-level group, less time to assist individual
students and meet their needs, and reduced curriculum coverage, especially
in areas beyond the basic skills.
Mason and Burns argued that the effects of lower quality instruction in
multigrade classes are offset by the better students and teachers allocated to
them, resulting in no significant achievement differences between multigrade
and single-grade classes. They also argued that instead of eliminating the
potential negative effects of multigrade classes on student achievement, the
assignment of better students and teachers to these classes actually masks
these effects because it diminishes the quality of students and teachers in
single-grade classes in the same school. The lower achievement outcomes of
the disadvantaged single-grade classes are the ones with which multigrade
outcomes are compared.
The Mason and Burns case rests to a large extent on the question of
whether there is a student and teacher selection bias in favor of multigrade
classes. It is somewhat ironic that in a study of California multigrade classes
conducted by Mason and Burns (1995), there is evidence that major admin-
istrative constraints prevent many principals from purposeful placement of
students in multigrade classes.

4 The Multigrade Classroom

 In one of the largest matched-equivalent studies Rule (1983) examined
the effects of multigrade classes on student achievement in reading and
mathematics in grades 3–6 in Arizona. Each multigrade class was formed
from students at two consecutive grade levels. Three grouping patterns were
studied: multigrade classes, single-grade classes in multigrade schools, and
single-grade classes not in multigrade schools. In addition, the achievement
levels of students in differing ability groups were analyzed. Three types
of placement in multigrade classes were distinguished: high placement,
average/high placement, and average placement. Multigrade classes with
high-achieving students included students from the upper third in academic
achievement, which was primarily a measure of reading achievement for
both grades. For example, high-achieving second-graders were placed with
high-achieving third-graders. A multigrade average/high class contained
students from the middle and upper thirds in academic achievement in both
grades. A multigrade average class combined average students from the
lower grade with average students from the upper grade. The districts under
study were forced to use multigrade classes in order to economize and to
equalize class loads. Overall, the multigrade classes did not appear to affect
reading and mathematics achievement negatively (total ES = + .01). The
average/high placement appeared to be best for all grades for reading and
for grades 4–6 for mathematics.
In a carefully matched study, Stone (1987) examined the possible effects
of multigrade class placement on mathematics, reading, language, science,
and social studies achievement in a large suburban school district in the
United States. The multigrade classes were formed as a result of unequal
enrollments and contained students from grades 2–3. The results showed
no significant differences between the multigrade students and the single-
grade students in overall achievement (total ES +.20).
Kral (1995) examined the effects of multigrade versus single-grade
classes on mathematics, language, and reading performance of second-,
fourth-, and sixth-grade students in Denmark. The achievement gains of
students in small schools (fewer than 110 students) versus large schools
(more than 250 students) were of particular interest in this study. The small
(urban and rural) elementary schools instructed their students in multigrade
classes encompassing two or three grade levels, while the large schools
instructed their students in single-grade classes. As in the study by Brandsma
(1993), a multigrade approach was used and, for the purposes of the present
review, the data were reanalyzed using ANOCA with pre-achievement, IQ,
and socioeconomic status as covariates. No systematic differences were found
between the combination and single-grade class (total ES = -.06). Also,
examination of teacher questionnaires and logs revealed no differences in
the instructional time devoted to language, mathematics, and reading. The
number of years spent in multigrade classes was not found to be associated
with differences in achievement.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 5

 Barbara Pavan (1992), a researcher and professor of educational adminis-
tration at Philadelphia’s Temple University, chose 64 studies conducted
after 1967 for her review. Seven descriptors were used to search for the
studies: nongraded, continuous progress, multiunit, individually guided
education, multigrade, ungraded, and mixed age. To be included in this
review, students in graded and nongraded schools with similar populations
had to be compared using standardized test measures, or nongraded students
had to be tested before and after the implementation of a nongraded
program. Accepted for analysis were elementary school studies conducted
in the United States and Canada for at least one academic year. The studies
included all subject areas and covered more than one classroom.
Standardized tests were used in 57 of the studies, and the studies
usually reported data from one year. Fifty-two (91 percent) of these studies
indicated that for all comparisons, the multigrade groups performed better
than (58 percent) or as well as (33 percent) the graded groups on measures
of academic achievement. In only 9 percent of the studies did the students
perform worse. It seems rather remarkable that pupils in multigrade schools
scored well. Multigrade schools respond to individual differences by adjust-
ing curriculum and thus may not cover what traditional textbooks do. As
such, multigrade students may not be exposed to all the material that single-
grade students cover. Yet, multigrade students overwhelmingly performed
as well as or better than single-grade students on achievement tests empha-
sizing mastery of content that is generally the primary focus of the multi-
grade school.
Longitudinal studies While most of the research studies reported data from one year, 17 studies
presented data over a number of years. In those studies, students completing
multigrade primary programs had higher academic achievement than those
in single-grade schools. More pupils attending multigrade primary schools
started fourth grade with their entering class than did children from tradi-
tional grade-designated classrooms. This happens because there is no reten-
tion in a primary program. Students in multigrade intermediate programs
had higher or similar academic achievement, more positive attitudes toward
school, and similar self-esteem than those in single-grade programs.
Seven studies compared students who had spent their entire elementary
school years in the same multigrade school with those who spent the same
years in a traditional single-grade school. Those studies that reported academic
achievement found superior performance by multigrade students.

At-risk students In 18 of the research reports, data were analyzed for various populations—
Black students, underachievers, students of low socioeconomic status, and
boys, who seem to experience more difficulty in the early years of learning
and are often considered at risk. With the exception of one study, boys in
multigrade schools scored better on achievement tests than boys in single-
grade schools.

6 The Multigrade Classroom

 In a 1992 review of research presented at the American Educational
Research Association Conference on the achievement effects of the nongraded
elementary school, Robert Guiterrez and Robert Slavin had findings
consistent with those of Barbara Pavan. In addition, they also compared
effect sizes for each study to characterize the strength of the effects, and
broke the study into four main categories according to program characteris-
tics. Very different effects were found according to these characteristics.
The most positive achievement effects were for the simpler forms of
nongrading generally evaluated during the 1960s, early in the nongraded
movement. They found a median effect size of +.46 for programs in which
only one subject (almost always reading) was nongraded. These programs
strongly resemble the Joplin Plan, cross-grade grouping for reading. They
also calculated a median effect size of +.34 for nongraded programs that
incorporated multiple subjects but still primarily involved cross-grade
grouping, not other elements.
In 1970, as the multigrade programs became more complex, they
began to incorporate individualized instruction, and to become more like
open schools. Thus, the achievement effects began to be much smaller. For
programs incorporating individualized instruction, they found a median
effect size of essentially zero (+.02). Effects of individually guided educa-
tion were only slightly more positive (ES = + .11).
In conclusion, Guiterrez and Slavin’s research suggests that the effec-
tiveness of multigrade elementary programs depends in large part on the
features of the program, especially the degree to which nongrading is used
as a grouping method rather than as a framework for individualized instruc-
tion. It is hard to know how relevant these findings are to the conditions of
today, when curriculum and instruction are changing rapidly. Yet, at least
they provide a cautionary note.
In a similar study by Barbara Nye (1993), a senior research scientist
and executive director of the Research and Policy Center on Basic Skills at
Tennessee State University in Nashville, 1,500 Tennessee students from
kindergarten through fourth grade in multigrade classrooms were tracked.
In the seven schools that participated, children worked in small, flexible
groups that were mixed in terms of age and ability. Students progressed at
their own speed, and the learning was more hands-on and less reliant on
textbooks than in traditional classrooms. Two years into the study, Nye
stated that her analysis showed that students were doing as well or better
in terms of both academics and self-concept (Viadero, 1996).
Based on current and extensive research on multigrade instruction, three
states have already mandated that the primary schools become nongraded.
Kentucky, Mississippi, and Oregon have mandated multigrade groupings
at the primary level (Gutloff, 1995), and several other states are currently
exploring the idea.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 7

 Kentucky issued its Education Reform Act, which mandated multigrade
primary schools, in 1990. At the time Kentucky issued the Kentucky
Education Reform Act, it was dealing with failing school systems. The
Kentucky Department of Education found that by fourth grade, more than
20 percent of its primary population had been retained. It also found that
it was not uncommon for schools to have a 25 percent dropout rate (Steffy,
1993). The department of education felt that drastic measures needed to be
taken. This meant researching and revamping the Kentucky education
system. The Kentucky Department of Education, after a great deal of
research, issued a primary school position statement as follows:

An appropriate primary program for all children recognizes that children grow and
develop as a “whole,” not one dimension at a time or at the same rate in each dimension.
Thus, instructional practices should address social, emotional, physical, aesthetic, as well
as cognitive needs. The primary program flows naturally from preschool programs and
exhibits developmentally appropriate educational practices. These practices allow children
to experience success while progressing according to unique learning needs and also enables
them to move toward attainment of the educational goals and capacities of the Kentucky
Education Reform Act in an environment which fosters a love of learning (Steffy, 1993).

The Kentucky Education Board decided that the best way to achieve
this was through multigrade instruction. At the time the Kentucky Education
Reform Act went into effect, the secondary schools were unaffected. They
felt they first needed to study how these transformations of education would
affect the primary and middle school before making changes to the second-
ary schools.
What does the research that Kentucky and other states looked into
say about multigrade classrooms? There still seem to be many conflicting
ideas about the benefits of multigrade instruction. However, most of the
research does point to some very positive benefits of multigrade practices,
if they are dealt with in the true sense of the word. In Kentucky, results
from the state’s testing program are in after three years of the mandated
multigrade classrooms. The tests show that fourth-graders’ reading and
writing scores are improving more rapidly than those of eighth- and 12th-
graders. Of these three age groups, only the fourth-graders have been
legally required to be taught in multigrade classrooms (Viadero, 1996).
The University of Louisville’s Center for Gifted Students also did a
study comparing the achievement of four Kentucky primary school multi-
grade classes with students in out-of-state, traditional, one-grade settings.
Researchers tried to match these classes geographically and economically.
The study found that 20 percent of the students in the Kentucky classrooms
significantly outscored the out-of-state students on standardized tests in four
areas: word identification, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation,
and mathematical problem solving (Viadero, 1996).

8 The Multigrade Classroom

 The Victorian Quality Schools Project
wo research questions provided the focus for the Victorian Quality

T Schools Project (VQSP), a large research-and-development project

undertaken in Victoria, B.C., from 1992 to 1995.
l What are the characteristics of schools in which students make
rapid and sustained progress in literacy (English) and mathe-
matics, after adjusting for their intake factors and initial levels
of achievement?
l What are the characteristics of schools in which there are positive
student attitudes and behaviors, positive perceptions by teachers
of their work environment, and high levels of parent participa-
tion and satisfaction with their child’s schooling?
Details of the longitudinal quantitative study and its results may be
found in Rowe, Hill, & Holmes-Smith, 1994, and Rowe, Hill, & Holmes-
Smith, 1995.
The study was based on a two-stage stratified probability sample of
schools in the three educational sectors in Victoria: government, independ-
ent, and Catholic. Schools were randomly selected at the first stage with
probability proportional to their enrollment size; at the second stage, the
entire cohorts of students in grades K, 2, 4, 7, and 9 in each of the selected
schools were included in the sample. Repeated measures were obtained on
these five-year-level cohorts over a three-year period, resulting in student
data for each of the compulsory years of schooling. In the first year of the
study, useable data were obtained from 90 (including 59 primary schools)
of the 96 schools that had initially agreed to participate, with an achieved
sample comprising 13,909 students and 931 teachers. A student sample
attrition rate of about 10 percent occurred between 1992 and 1993, with
a subsequent further loss between 1993 and 1994 of 8.5 percent.
The full database for the project is extensive; variables measured include
students’ achievement and value-added progress in literacy and mathematics,
home background characteristics, student behavior, student attitudes and
opinions, classroom organization, teacher participation in professional
development, parent opinion, teacher affect and perceptions of the work
environment, and (in 1993 and 1994) aspects of leadership. The results
obtained from statistical analysis of the quantitative data enabled some
generalized models of teacher and school effectiveness to be developed.
A qualitative, follow-up case study was undertaken of selected VQSP
schools in order to “validate” several aspects of the generalized models
concerning teacher effects on student learning, attitudes, behavior, and
leadership effects on teacher attitudes, perceptions, and effectiveness, as
well as to illuminate the processes that might be in operation. Because

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 9

 the quantitative study had produced an interesting and puzzling result in
relation to student achievement in multigrade classes, this became one of
the aspects pursued in the qualitative study. The two relevant research
questions were:
l Does class composition based on more than one year level
have a negative effect on student progress in English and
mathematics?
l Does differentiated teaching reduce the negative effect on
student progress in English and mathematics of belonging
to a class composed of students at more than one year level?
The intention was to explore teacher and school leader understandings
and experiences of multigrade classes to see whether potential explanations
might emerge, which could then be tested in subsequent quantitative
research.
A sample of six primary schools was selected from among those
primary schools that had participated in the VQSP. The qualitative study
was confined to primary schools for two reasons: First, some of the most
interesting and important findings of the VQSP related to the primary
school; and second, time/cost demands of the case study approach precluded
the investigation of a sample large enough to include both primary and
secondary schools. Selection of the six schools was based on schools’ mean
value-added learning progress scores in English and mathematics for the
years 1992–93 and 1993–94. Two schools were selected that had consis-
tently high mean achievement scores, two with consistently low mean scores,
and one with consistently middle-level mean scores. The case study coordi-
nator and fieldworkers were blind to the previous performance of the
schools. The sample comprised schools from two systems (government
and Catholic), from a range of locations (urban, outer urban, and semi-
rural), and schools ranging in size from small (125 children, eight staff)
to large (525 children, 27 staff).
In each school, four school leaders (principal, assistant principal, and
the two staff members holding the next most senior positions) and four
teachers (teachers of the Year 3 and Year 5 classes that formed the student
sample) were interviewed. Semi-structured interview schedules included
questions relating to the three main aspects of multigrade and single-grade
classes: policy and practice regarding multigrade classes and their composi-
tion, perceptions of the relative ease or difficulty of student learning in multi-
grade classes, and teaching/learning strategies used in multigrade classes.
Interview responses were transcribed (not verbatim) from the tape
recordings and, following the methodology of Miles and Huberman (1994),
were used to establish within-site matrices relating to each research question
and, subsequently, across-site matrices.

10 The Multigrade Classroom

 Results
multivariate, multilevel model of student progress in literacy (adjusted

A
The quantitative study
for grade level and prior achievement) was developed based on the
1992–93 data. It revealed, among other things, a strong, direct
negative effect of being in a multigrade class. The standardized coefficient
for multigrade class in 1993 was -0.271, statistically significant beyond
the p < .05 level by univariate two-tailed test. In mathematics the effect,
although negative, was not significant. In contrast to the 1993 results, the
effect of multigrade class on students’ learning progress in 1994 was not
significant, though again still negative. Detailed information about the
intricate and interesting multilevel, multivariate modeling in which these
results are embedded may be found in Hill and Rowe (1998).
Why was the effect so short-lived or, possibly, so unstable? The
suggested explanation given was that:

… extended discussions were held with all participating schools following the finding of a
negative effect at the end of 1993 and that as a result, schools closely examined teaching
practices in multigrade classes with a view to identifying ways in which they had become
less effective than single-grade classes (Hill & Rowe, 1998, p. 326).

It was also pointed out that the 1994 results were more in line with
recent research literature, such as the results of the meta-analysis reported
by Veenman (1995). For schools that must establish multigrade classes, it
is not sufficient to know whether or not research results in general show
a significant or nonsignificant negative effect on learning progress. As
indicated earlier, many teachers prefer not to teach multigrade classes and,
in general, parents do not wish to have their children taught in multigrade
classes. Regardless of whether these preferences are justified in terms of
research results about student learning, schools experience the pressures
arising from them. Schools participating in the VQSP needed to understand
the explanation for the short-lived or unstable effect of multigrade classrooms
on student learning progress found in the VQSP data. The case studies
offered the opportunity to explore school perceptions and understandings.
In contrast to the sophisticated statistical analyses on which the results of
the quantitative phase of the VQSP are based, the qualitative results are
based on the conceptual analysis of the perceptions, preferences, opinions,
and knowledge communicated by individuals during case study interviews.
The results are expressed in the form of category content, frequencies, and
percentages. It is noted that the results relating to specific issues were at
times based on a relatively limited sample and on perceptions rather than
observations of actual practice, since the purpose of this phase of the study
was to develop potential understandings and explanations of processes that
could be tested quantitatively at a future time. The results are not necessar-
ily representative of Victorian schools.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 11

The qualitative study The complexity of multigrade instruction is even more pronounced in
developing nations. In 1988, United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) held a conference with representatives
from India, Korea, Maldives, Nepal, Thailand, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and
Indonesia. The conference focused on innovative approaches to teaching
disadvantaged groups and teaching in the multigrade classroom. The
problems and learning difficulties created by multigrade instruction were
nearly similar for each country. Differences primarily related to financial,
geographic, and demographic variables.
Multigrade classes in these countries tend to have large numbers of
students and few teachers. The most common pattern of organization is
the two-grade combination class. However, three or more grades per class-
room were common to all countries. Of the eight countries represented,
none indicated they had “single-grade” schools with more than four grades.
For example, an individual teacher may have a classroom of 30 fourth-
graders and 27 fifth-graders or a classroom of 35 students in grades 3–6.
Teachers in these situations face a formidable teaching situation.
During the conference, five general problem areas emerged
(UNESCO, 1988):
1. Inadequately trained teachers
2. Scarcity of varied levels and types of materials
3. Lack of flexible and special types of curriculum organization
for multigrade classes
4. Inadequate school facilities
5. Lack of incentives for teachers of multiple classes
Similar to preservice training in the United States, all countries partici-
pating in the conference reported that the teacher preparation for working
in multigrade classrooms was identical to that provided for teachers of
single-grade classrooms. In other words, individuals going into teaching
were not prepared for teaching multigrade classrooms.
Ironically, the concerns and depiction of problems in these developing
countries echo many of the concerns voiced in the United States and Canada
by multigrade classroom teachers and rural educators. The most prominent
similarities are the need for curriculum and program modifications that
reflect the culture of the local community, and the needs of students within
the demands created by the multigrade organization. In this regard, two
recommendations emerged from the conference.
First, curriculum needs to be restructured so that it is community
based. UNESCO (1988) concluded that the environment in which the
community lives, the history and culture, and the utilization of skilled

12 The Multigrade Classroom

persons in the community for improving the quality of education should
be emphasized.
Second, innovative programs have a difficult time because the existing
educational system is traditional, and this constrains perceptions of what may
be possible. According to UNESCO (1988), the four walls of the class-
room and the long periods demanded by programs in different countries
somewhat inhibit and restrict the child’s activities. Outdoor activities should
be encouraged and experiences outside the classroom should be given a
place in the curriculum.
Currently, the Education and International Development (EID) Group
at the Institute of Education, London University, is carrying out research
designed to raise awareness among policymakers, planners, and practition-
ers of the extent, problems, and needs of the multigrade teaching and
learning environment. As the research proceeds, new findings will be
posted on their Web page (www.ioe.ac.uk/multigrade/).
The project’s objectives are to:
• Describe the extent of multigrade practice and the associated
problems in Peru, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam
• Describe in detail how teachers currently organize teaching
and learning in multigrade primary schools
• Conduct an intervention study with teachers on the organiza-
tion and management of the multigrade classroom
• Make recommendations on multigrade teaching policy and
practice
The project duration is from September 1998 to September 2001. In
September 1999, the first workshop was held in the United Kingdom. The
whole research team shared experiences, research findings, and expectations
with each other, and contributions were made to the Oxford Conference
on Education and Development as well as visits to multigrade schools in
Wales. In September 2000, the researchers will reconvene in Vietman and
Sri Lanka. Research related to each of the three countries is ongoing. A
profile of each follows.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 13

Multigrade Teaching in Peru
urrently, Peru has approximately 21,500 primary multigrade schools,

C 96 percent of which are located in rural areas. In terms of teachers,

41,000 teach in rural primary schools with multigrade classrooms,
representing 69 percent of the total rural teaching force. Most of the schools
in the countryside are multigrade (89 percent), which testifies to the impor-
tance of this type of school for improving the educational level of the rural
population.
Among the most important characteristics affecting education are:
l The dispersion and isolation of the rural population.
l The poverty of the villages (60 percent of the population
in rural areas are poor and 37 percent live in situations of
extreme poverty).
l The family economy, which requires and includes children’s
work, as members of the family.
l Linguistic and cultural diversity (Spanish, Quechua, and
Aymara are spoken as well as approximately 40 Amazonian
languages). However, despite this diversity, the language of
school is Spanish, and bilingual education programs have very
limited coverage.
l In rural areas children begin school late, have a high rate of
repetition, have periodic interruptions in their studies, and so
forth, all of which increases the heterogeneity of the multi-
grade class.
The schools have severe deficiencies in infrastructure, access to services,
availability of classroom furniture, equipment, and materials for teaching,
and educational support. The teachers live in precarious conditions (no
electricity, pure water, furniture, or adequate space in which to prepare
their classes or to cook food); they have scarce incentives (a bonus of $13
per month), and scarce support and attention from high-level offices. Formal
teacher training does not instruct teachers in multigrade methodology, and
often teachers do not speak the students’ language.

14 The Multigrade Classroom

 Multigrade Teaching in Sri Lanka
ultigrade teaching in Sri Lanka is common. It is common in rural

M and plantation schools where there are very few human and physical
resources. A range of reasons for multigrade teaching could be
identified in the Sri Lankan context, the most significant reason being
nonavailability of one teacher per grade in these schools. The difficulty
in access, sparse pupil populations that restrict the appointment of one
teacher per grade, and difficult living conditions are the major factors
contributing to teacher scarcity. Most of these schools have student numbers
ranging from 50 to 150. According to the latest school census data by the
Ministry of Education, there are 1,252 schools out of the 10,120 schools
in Sri Lanka that have fewer than three teachers. Even the schools in urban
areas face the challenge of organizing the teaching-learning situations
similar to a multigrade setting during some parts of the day or during
some days for various reasons (such as teacher absenteeism, teachers
attending inservice training sessions, and so forth).
The national primary school curriculum is organized toward teaching in
single-grade schools. Teachers in multigrade classrooms face the difficulty of
organizing the national curriculum to suit their teaching and learning needs.
Teachers are not given training to address such situations, as there is no
provision in the teacher education curriculum for multigrade teaching
methodology. Thus, the teaching in these schools is of very low quality.
The student dropout rate is very high in these schools. Since the 1980s,
the Department of Primary Education has attempted to try out multigrade
teaching strategies in some selected schools under the UNICEF-assisted
program for quality development of primary education. Very little research
has been conducted on multigrade teaching in Sri Lanka.

Multigrade Teaching in Vietnam

here are many forms of multigrade classes in Vietnam, with two,

T three, four, or five different levels in any one class. So far, multigrade
schools are quite widely used in ethnic minority areas with the purpose
of providing primary education to disadvantaged children by bringing
schools closer to communities where children live. Currently there are
2,162 primary schools with multigrade classes, accounting for 1.8 percent
of total primary schools, and there are 143,693 students learning in multi-
grade classes, accounting for 1.38 percent of the school population.
Some problems include:
l There is a serious shortage of teachers, especially skilled teach-
ers for multigrade teaching.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 15

 l Teachers of multigrade classes are working in difficult and
isolated conditions.
l The training of teachers for multigrade classes does not meet
the requirement in either quality or quantity.
l Teaching methods of the ethnic minority schools are very poor
and unsuccessful. Students are not encouraged to be involved
actively in the teaching-learning process.
l Most of the multigrade schools lack textbooks, guidebooks,
and reference materials for students and teachers. Teaching
equipment is very simple. Many multigrade classes are in very
bad condition.
l Pupils face language barriers in learning and regular interrup-
tion in their education.

16 The Multigrade Classroom

 Quantitative Studies: Student Attitudes

any affective gains have also been documented in multigrade

M research. Students show increased self-esteem, more cooperative

behavior, better attitudes toward school in general, increased pro-
social (caring, tolerant, patient, supportive) behavior, enriched personal
relationships, increased personal responsibility, and a decline in discipline
problems (Anderson & Pavan, 1993; Gutierrez & Slavin, 1992; Mackey,
Johnson, & Wood, 1995; Miller, 1993; Pratt & Treacey, 1986; Stone, S.J.,
1995; Uphoff & Evans, 1993). For example, preliminary results of an
investigation by McClellan and Kinsey (1996) suggest that multigrade
grouping helps children develop social skills and a sense of belonging.
These affective gains are due in part to the fact that competition is
minimized as children progress at their own pace and individual differences
are celebrated (Anderson & Pavan, 1993; Kral, 1995; Stone, S.J., 1995).
Older students in particular develop mentoring and leadership skills as a
result of serving as role models and helping the younger children (Nye,
1993; Stone, S.J., 1995).
In her research, Barbara Pavan included a mental health component
in 42 of the studies. These measures presented data on school anxiety and
other attitudes toward school, self-esteem, and self-concept. While the results
on school anxiety were unclear, pupils in multigrade classrooms had more
positive attitudes than those in single-grade classrooms, although they were
likely to laugh more and were less likely to raise their hands to get permis-
sion to speak. Students in multigrade classrooms scored higher than single-
grade students on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, except in one
study with no significant differences. The same pattern was noted in studies
that used the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale.
Overall on mental health and school attitudes, 52 percent of the studies
indicated multigrade schools were better for students. Forty-three percent
indicated single and multigrade schools had a similar influence on students.
Only 5 percent found multigrade worse than graded schools. Students in
multigrade schools were more likely to have positive self-concept, high self-
esteem, and good attitudes toward school than students in single-grade
classrooms.
On mental health measures, students from multigrade settings felt more Longitudinal studies
positive or the same as graded students. After five years in one multigrade,
open-space program, significantly fewer multigrade students were referred
for discipline in junior high school.
Underachievers in multigrade schools had better self-concept, attitudes At-risk students
toward school, and academic achievement than underachievers in graded
schools. Students of lower socioeconomic status also showed greater
academic achievement when placed in multigrade schools.
Kathleen Cotton, a researcher funded by the U.S. Department of
Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement, researched

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 17

 several educational studies in regard to developmentally appropriate practice
and multigrade education. This included a 1993 analysis of 46 documents.
Nine of the documents dealt with research on child development and learn-
ing; 11 focused on critiques of graded programs, descriptions of nongraded
programs, and obstacles to implementing nongraded programs; and 26
reported the results of empirical research on the effects of nongraded group-
ing. She found that in general, the empirical research supported the use of
nongraded programs. Cotton (1993) pointed out that most of the studies
found that achievement in multigrade classrooms appeared to be no differ-
ent than achievement in a single-grade classroom. The big differences were
in attitude, behavior, social skill development, leadership skills, and parental
attitudes. The studies that Cotton looked at all pointed to the multigrade
classroom as providing significantly more positive outcomes. In addition,
Cotton found that multigrade arrangements lend themselves to integrated
curriculum, cooperative learning, cross-age tutoring, and learning in a more
naturalistic setting.
Variation in grades, time of year, quality of instruction, and socioeco-
nomic status, to mention only a few key variables, mediate student percep-
tions. Educational researchers studying student attitudes often have
difficulty setting up studies where these variables can be adequately
controlled. One compensating strategy is the aggregation of studies across
setting and time. Practitioners can have greater confidence when many
studies indicate similar results.
Viewed as a whole, the studies presented clearly indicate that students
in multigrade classrooms tend to have significantly more positive attitudes
toward themselves and school. A trend toward more positive social
relationships is also indicated.

Summary
learly, these studies indicate that being a student in a multigrade class-

C room does not negatively affect academic performance, student social

relationships, or attitudes. In terms of academic achievement, the data
clearly support the multigrade classroom as a viable and equally effective
organizational alternative to single-grade instruction. When it comes to
student affect, the case for multigrade organization appears much stronger,
with multigrade students out-performing single-grade students in more
than 75 percent of the measures used. One wonders, then, why we do not
have more schools organized into multigrade classrooms.
One response to this question is that we have nearly always organized
classrooms by grade levels—that history and tradition dictate graded class-
rooms. This response seems a bit ironic, given the early dominance of the

18 The Multigrade Classroom

multigrade school in U.S. education. However, there is a related but more
compelling answer that can be found in the classrooms themselves and in
information drawn from classroom practitioners.
The majority of quantitative studies reviewed focused on numerical
student outcome data (i.e., test scores). Detailed contextual information
describing what actually occurs in the classroom was not collected in these
studies. We do not learn how teachers plan, prepare, and teach with multi-
ple grades. As a result, we do not know how teachers feel and respond to
being assigned to a combined classroom. How are students grouped? Are
classroom management and organization different? Are there different
strategies for teaching specific subjects? These are just a few of the impor-
tant questions that must be understood in light of the multigrade environ-
ment in order to understand why multigrade classrooms are not more
prominent. Answers to these questions will also provide insight into the
requirements and training needs of the multigrade teacher.
The next section of this book will address these questions through a
review of qualitative studies, which allow us to see the multigrade class-
room from the practitioner’s point of view.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 19

Qualitative Studies:
A View From the Inside

here is widespread agreement in the literature that negative attitudes

T to and perceptions of multigrade classes prevail. In general, teachers

are said to prefer single grades because multigrade classes mean more
planning, preparation, organization, and work; catering to a wider range of
abilities and maturity levels; less time for meeting individual student needs
and for remediation; less time for reflection on teaching; lack of relevant
professional training; and less satisfaction with their work (Mason & Burns,
1995, 1996; Veenman, 1995, 1996). Some positive perceptions have been
identified. These usually concern students’ social skill development, oppor-
tunities for the enhancement of learning by the lower grade-level group
through exposure to upper grade-level work, reinforcement of earlier learn-
ing for the upper grade-level students, and opportunities for children to
learn through peer tutoring (Mason & Burns, 1995; Veenman, 1995).
Parent perceptions are also reported to be negative in general (Veenman,
1995), though more so in urban as opposed to rural communities. The
chief parental concern is said to be about the level of student achievement.
One of the reasons principals prefer to have single grades is the degree of
parental concern about multigrade classes and the time and energy spent in
dealing with those concerns (Mason & Doepner, 1998).
While principals’ attitudes have also been reported to be negative in
general, Mason and Doepner (1998) found principals to be not as strongly
opposed to multigrade classes as teachers. Given their role in supporting
system policy and dealing with the reality of student numbers, principals’
actual perceptions might have been more negative than those they
expressed. The chief disadvantages perceived by principals were the neces-
sity for teachers to prepare two curricula, the strength of parental concerns,
and the negative attitude of teachers. The advantages mentioned empha-
sized administrative ease in coping with student numbers, but also included
comments about social skill development and learning from peers.
This section will begin by presenting and reviewing a study by
Appalachia Educational Laboratory on the development and implementa-
tion of multigrade programs in four rural districts in Kentucky, from 1991
to 1995. The study sample of six schools and a specific cohort of students
included two schools in central Kentucky, two in western Kentucky, and
two in eastern Kentucky. Four of the schools are located in towns, while
two are in outlying communities or rural areas. Five are located in county
districts; one is in a small, independent school district. The schools range
in size from about 80 students to about 500 students. One of the schools
has fewer than 30 percent of students on free or reduced-priced lunch; the
remainder range from 50 to 60 percent.
The study relies on interviews, observations, and review of documents
to provide information. Principals and primary teachers at all levels were
interviewed. Preliminary findings were later shared with administrators and

20 The Multigrade Classroom

primary teachers at small group meetings. Input obtained during these
meetings provided some new information and helped refine the analysis.
At the end of the school year, a set of overall findings across the schools,
as well as findings specific to each of the case study schools, was generated.
In addition, lesson plans were analyzed to determine what content teachers
covered and with what frequency each subject area was covered in the
lesson plans.
This section, based on the entirety of teachers’ work in each school,
provides an overview of the problems and needs of rural school teachers
in multigrade classrooms. The second section will focus on the multigrade
classroom where three or more grades are combined and taught in a single
classroom.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 21

Establishing the Needs of the
Multigrade Teacher

o understand multigrade program implementation in the study schools,

T one must recognize that Kentucky’s primary program is but one compo-
nent of a massive restructuring of the state’s education system—one
that reflects a new philosophy known as “systemic reform” (Murphy, 1990;
Smith & O’Day, 1990). The Kentucky Educational Reform Act mandates
that grades K–3 be replaced with a nongraded primary program. The
rationale behind the nongraded program is that students will progress at
their own rate through the primary years without experiencing the stigma
of early school failure. This reform package shifted the focus from teacher
input to student results. It gave schools autonomy to decide how to help
students achieve reform goals, but held them accountable for student
performance as measured by a performance-based assessment instrument,
the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Thus,
while primary teachers were required to implement new instructional,
assessment, and grouping practices, they and their colleagues in higher
grades were also held accountable for student performance. Schools, through
their school-based decisionmaking councils, were given autonomy to decide
how to help students achieve Kentucky Educational Reform Act goals.

Implementation of the Program: Getting Started

adical change is a difficult and often messy process, an observation

R well-documented by the education change literature (Fullan, 1996).

The implementation of the multigrade program in the study districts
was no exception. With increased professional development, primary teach-
ers made many positive changes in the early years. They were hampered,
however, by uneven implementation timelines and lack of guidance from a
state department undergoing reorganization. The multigrade program was
implemented on schedule but without some of the supports built into the
law. For instance, in three schools, the multigrade program was well under-
way before family resource centers were established. The extended school
services program was available early on, but in most of the study schools it
was offered only to students in the fourth or higher grades.
The early professional development available to primary teachers offered
a variety of instructional approaches from which to choose. In addition, the
state department offered some early “multigrade institutes” that focused on
the philosophy behind the program. Teachers at these sessions, however,
expressed impatience with discussions of the multigrade program philoso-
phy. Because they were required to have a program up and running by the
next school year, they wanted help with the practicalities of day-to-day
operation of a multigrade classroom. Perhaps in response to such complaints,
professional development soon began to focus almost exclusively on instruc-
tional practices in multigrade settings and was conducted by a variety of

22 The Multigrade Classroom

providers, some of whom gave conflicting information as to what was
appropriate multigrade practice. Because everyone (council members,
principals, and teachers) was equally unsure as to what actually constituted
appropriate practice, certain “myths” (“you can never use textbooks again,”
“you can’t teach spelling or phonics,” “you can’t drill students on math
facts”) became prevalent and were implemented for a time.
In addition to the multigrade institutes, the state department of educa-
tion provided early guidance to primary teachers with the publication of
two documents that included both philosophical and practical information
(Kentucky Department of Education, 1991, 1993). Because the depart-
ment was reorganizing simultaneously with multigrade program implemen-
tation, consistent guidance from the state was difficult to maintain. Continual
shifting of state department personnel responsible for the multigrade
program added to the difficulty.
The changes in multigrade classrooms have not been readily accepted
by all teachers. Many teachers feared that movement away from the tradi-
tional, teacher-directed scope-and-sequence approach to instruction would
result in the young students learning less. Some teachers may have inter-
preted “allows [students] to progress at their own rate” to mean that
students should not be challenged academically. As soon as the first group
of primary students entered fourth grade, comparisons of them to previous
fourth-graders were made. Parents and teachers often remarked that students
coming out of the multigrade programs had weak spelling skills and hadn’t
memorized their math facts. To balance those complaints, parents and
fourth-grade teachers also said that the exiting primary students were
“better thinkers,” asked more questions, and were better creative writers.
However, a lingering perception among upper-grade teachers that the
multigrade program does not adequately prepare students for the fourth
grade persists.

Changes in multigrade classrooms have been substantial, but movement Today

toward greater implementation of the program has slowed considerably in
the study schools. Generally, multigrade teachers seem to have settled into
an approach comfortable for them, whether it equates to multigrade
program implementation or not. The reasons vary from one school to the
next. Four factors are prevalent at most schools: (1) emphasis on the criti-
cal attributes rather than on the overall purpose of the multigrade program,
(2) legislative adjustments to the multigrade program, (3) lack of perceived
fit between the multigrade program and results-based reform in grades
4–12, and (4) questions of efficacy, linked to teacher belief systems.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 23

 Obscured purpose of A basic problem that plagued implementation of the multigrade program
multigrade programs at the study schools from the beginning was that the program’s overall
goal quickly became lost in the single-minded focus on implementing the
Kentucky Educational Reform Act’s goals and attributes. Rather than using
the goals as tools to help students progress at their own rate in preparation
for fourth grade, many teachers in the study schools became preoccupied
with the multigrade component of the program; they found it difficult to
manage logistically. In addition, they did not appear to link multigrade
grouping to a broader purpose. They did not view it as a tool to achieve
continuous progress, but as an end in itself and one they did not necessar-
ily agree with or know how to manage. Without a clear understanding of
the purpose of multigrade/multiability grouping, many primary teachers
lacked the motivation and skills to work through the organizational and
management problems inherent in this approach. The more common
practice, however, was to return to more traditional grouping practices.

Legislative adjustments At the same time that primary teachers were struggling to figure out how
to implement the multigrade program and why they should do so, legisla-
tive changes influenced program implementation. The unintended effect
of the new timeline adopted in 1992, coupled with the educational goals
becoming statutory requirements, was that teachers were thrust into the
overwhelming demands of multigrade classrooms before the state provided
them with curriculum guidance. They had received ample training in new
instructional approaches, but had little time to reflect on them and figure
out how to weave challenging content into multigrade settings in ways to
help students learn. The result was that primary teachers worked feverishly
to fashion a program that demonstrated implementation of the goals, but,
under the surface, many fundamental issues—such as the program's philos-
ophy and how the curriculum should align—had not been worked out.
The teachers studied were experiencing difficulty by the 1993–94
school year, their second year of multigrade program implementation.
Teachers doubted the new methods they were using. They feared students
might not be learning the basics, now that many primary teachers no longer
relied on textbooks as the main curriculum and no clear curriculum had
emerged to replace them. At the same time, primary teachers were under
pressure from some parents who did not understand the new ways of
reporting and from intermediate teachers who reported that students were
coming to them unable to work independently and without mastery of
important basic skills. Multigrade teachers were also struggling to manage
a wide range of abilities and age levels in their classrooms, often without
knowing how or appreciating the purpose of doing so. Thus, multigrade
teachers had reached a point by the end of the 1993–94 school year where
they strongly needed a boost of some sort if they were to push forward
toward greater multigrade implementation.

24 The Multigrade Classroom

From the inception of the reform, teachers in the study schools expressed Fit between the
the view that the multigrade program was out of synch with what happens multigrade program
in grades 4–12. This confusion was a result of the different orientations and results-based reform
of the reform at the primary level and in grades 4–12, and of the lack of
understanding as to how the two approaches to reform were meant to
work in harmony. In the multigrade program, the focus had been on elimi-
nating student failure and on building student self-esteem and love of
learning. This was accomplished through mandates about how multigrade
classrooms should operate. In grades 4–12, the focus was on student acqui-
sition of Kentucky Educational Reform Act (KERA) goals and expectations.
Classroom practices were not mandated, but students demonstrate their
learning on KIRIS. So multigrade classrooms focused on process, while
grades 4–12 were more focused on content. Both sets of teachers experi-
enced frustration over the orientation of the reforms. Multigrade teachers
agonized about what students should learn before progressing to the fourth
grade, while upper-grade teachers wondered how to teach to KERA goals
and expectations.

Why would teachers return to more traditional instructional approaches to Efficacy and teacher
prepare students for a test that is designed to measure higher-order skills? belief systems
Two factors seem to bear on this issue. First is the question of efficacy: to
make a change of this magnitude, teachers need some evidence that the
program will produce results that are significantly better than those produced
by more traditional methods. Statewide assessment results suggest that
the primary program produces higher Kentucky Instructional Results
Information System (KIRIS) results, given that “elementary schools that
include the primary program continue to set the pace for school improve-
ment” (Kentucky Department of Education, 1996). Yet, there is no clear
evidence that high KIRIS scores are linked to full implementation of
the multigrade program. Moreover, non-academic benefits of ungraded
programs such as improved student attitudes toward self, peers, and school
(Miller, 1990; Pavan, 1992; Veenman, 1995) may not be immediately
apparent in assessments (although they may be reflected in the future on
measures of achievement or noncognitive factors, such as reduced dropout
rate and improved school attendance). Thus, teachers currently lack solid
evidence that faithful implementation of the multigrade program will
produce better results for students.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 25

 Local Factors
he preceding sections share some of the findings observed across study

T schools. It should be noted, however, that the multigrade program

evolved differently in each of the schools studied. In some schools, the
faculty eagerly took advantage of new resources provided through KERA
to make many changes intended to produce a multigrade, multiability, and
continuous progress program. In other schools, the faculty members were
wary about abandoning practices that had been successful for them, and
the changes they made were cautious and exploratory. In all the study
schools, educators have arrived at a comfortable mix of innovative and
traditional practices, although the mix is different from school to school.
Four factors were influential in the development of the multigrade program
at the local level: principal leadership, teacher beliefs, school climate, and
the school’s performance on the state assessment program. At some schools,
these factors facilitated innovation in the multigrade program; at others,
the factors operated in ways that hindered implementation.
Principal leadership The principal’s ability to foster a common vision among the faculty and
to build a supportive environment was a key factor in how multigrade
programs were implemented. Stability was also important, with frequent
changes in principals undermining school improvement, even when
individual principals were strong.

Teacher beliefs Whether or not teachers shared common beliefs about multigrade educa-
tion, and what those beliefs were, strongly influenced the development of a
school’s multigrade program. Where teachers were united in their approach
to the multigrade program and in having high expectations for students,
the program generally appeared successful, whether the school was imple-
menting the letter of the law or not. If teachers held widely varying beliefs,
they had difficulty developing a common commitment to a primary
program that might contribute to overall school improvement.
School climate School climate refers to the general atmosphere of and mood at the school,
including relations between teachers and administrators, camaraderie among
staff and faculty, expectations for students, and attitude toward parents. In
the study schools, a variety of situations producing positive school climates
were observed. These included a tradition of academic excellence; strong
principal leadership willingly accepted by teachers, students, and parents;
“laissez-faire” principal oversight combined with strong teacher leadership;
and active parent support or passive acceptance by parents of what the
school was doing. Schools with less positive school climates exhibited
characteristics such as poor relations between the principal and teachers
and lack of camaraderie among teachers. In such schools, it was difficult
for the faculty to maintain coordinated, consistent efforts to improve
education.

26 The Multigrade Classroom

 Summary

he previous study illustrates that bringing all teachers on board with

T the philosophy underlying the multigrade program has been no small

task. In some of the studies, the educators and parents alike support a
traditional approach, have had success with it, and are unlikely to change
that approach. In other schools, local conflicts and leadership issues have
hindered the development of consistency in instructional approaches.
Some of the national researchers involved with previous multigrade
primary programs have addressed the philosophical issue that is seen at
work in the study schools. Pavan (1992), Anderson (1993), and Goodlad
and Anderson (1987) all mention that “multigrade” is more a philosophy
than a practice. Thus, teachers’ beliefs must be aligned with the multigrade
philosophy to have a successful multigrade program. Anderson goes so far
as to say, “if too many teachers are uncomfortable with the philosophy and
practices associated with multigrade, there is little point in taking the
plunge.” Tyack and Cuban (1995) suggest that structures such as graded
schools have been in place so long that they are viewed as emblematic of a
“real school.” The support of parents, school boards, and the public must
be enlisted to change something as deeply entrenched as the graded system
of education.
During a training workshop for multigrade teachers in Oregon, several
teacher and administrative practices supporting multigrade classroom
implementation were identified. References to time and money as the most
essential ingredients in creating multigrade classrooms were often made.
To meet the varied needs of multigrade students, teachers need indepth What do teachers
knowledge of child development and learning and a larger repertoire of need to know?
instructional strategies than most single-grade teachers possess. They must
be able to design open-ended, divergent learning experiences accessible to
students functioning at different levels. They must know when and how to
use homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping and how to design cooper-
ative group tasks. They must be proficient in assessing, evaluating, and
recording student progress using qualitative methods such as portfolios
and anecdotal reports.
Multigrade teachers must be able to facilitate positive group interaction
and to teach social skills and independent learning skills to individual
students. They must know how to plan and work cooperatively with
colleagues, as team teaching is commonly combined with multigrade
organization. Finally, they must be able to explain multigrade practices
to parents and other community members, building understanding and
support for their use.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 27

 The critical judgment and common sense of teachers are essential
ingredients in successful implementation. Methods that sound promising in
theory may need considerable adaptation to be effective in practice. Ideally,
teachers should have opportunities to observe competent models demon-
strating multigrade methods, try them out in the classroom, receive feedback
on their efforts, reflect on the experience, revise their plans, and try again.
What do Administrators should understand the principles underlying multigrade
administrators organization and developmentally appropriate instructional practices. In
need to know? planning for implementation, however, knowledge about the change process
may be even more valuable. Innovations often fail because policymakers give
teachers insufficient time, training, and psychological support (Hord, et al.,
1987). Effectively implementing a single innovation requires several years
and multigrade teaching involves multiple, complex innovations.
Administrators must realize that many of the underlying assumptions of
multigrade teaching conflict with deeply ingrained assumptions underlying
traditional age-graded instructional methods. Miller (1994) observes that
for many teachers, “unlearning powerfully held notions about how children
learn” is an essential part of implementing multigrade practices. This process
is demanding, even for the most receptive and flexible individuals.
Multigrade instructional and organizational skills differ greatly from
those used in the single-grade classroom. Veterans may feel as insecure as
first-year teachers as they struggle to learn these new skills. In one school,
Miller found that teachers with more experience seemed to feel even
greater frustration in the early stages of change.
To help teachers weather this stressful transition process, administrators
must provide psychological support as well as technical assistance. They
must create a school culture that supports teacher learning, an environment
in which it is safe to risk making mistakes. Without such support, many
teachers will retreat to safe, familiar, age-graded methods.
What is the The principal plays a key role in creating this supportive school culture.
principal’s role? The principal must provide teachers with opportunities to learn multigrade
teaching methods, monitor the progress of implementation, and give teach-
ers praise, feedback, and suggestions. He or she should be adept at facilitat-
ing positive, cooperative interactions among teaching team members.
The principal must ensure that all teachers feel supported and endeavor
to maintain a sense of community within the school. Innovative efforts
by small groups of teachers can threaten to split teaching staff into “pro”
and “con” subgroups; avoiding intra-school strife can resemble a delicate
tightrope walk. The principal must also deal with teachers who are unwill-
ing or unable to make the transition. Finally, the principal must build
support for multiage practices in the larger community.

28 The Multigrade Classroom

 Facilitating this transition requires sophisticated leadership and inter-
personal skills, as well as personal characteristics such as patience and
empathy. But most administrators receive little or no formal training in
these skills. Those who possess them have generally learned them from
experience, says Fullan (1996). Principals need opportunities for profes-
sional development and for interaction with colleagues who are facing
similar challenges. They need support from district administrators as they
develop these facilitative skills.
Table 1 provides a summary of the implications for multigrade instruc-
tion drawn from the studies. Many other studies conducted both in the
United States and abroad have produced similar findings.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 29

 TABLE 1: Implications for Teaching in a Multigrade Classroom

What do teachers What is the What do administrators

need to know? principal’s role? need to know?

1. Indepth knowledge of 1. Creating a supportive 1. A good understanding of the

child development school culture principles underlying
multigrade organization and
developmentally appropriate
instructional practices

2. Larger repertoire of 2. Provide teachers with 2. Knowledge about the change

instructional strategies opportunities to learn process
than most single-grade multigrade teaching
teachers possess methods

3. Ability to design open- 3. Monitor implementation 3. Provide teachers with

ended divergent learning progress, and give teachers psychological support as well
experiences accessible praise, feedback, and as technical assistance
to students functioning suggestions
at different levels

4. Understand and use 4. Build support for multigrade 4. Create a school culture that
homogeneous and practices in the larger supports teacher learning, an
heterogeneous grouping community environment in which it is
safe to risk making mistakes

5. How to design
cooperative group tasks

6. Proficient in assessing,
evaluating, and
recording student
progress using
qualitative methods
such as portfolios and
anecdotal reports

30 The Multigrade Classroom

 How Important Are Sufficient Time and Money?
ufficient time and money are essential ingredients in creating and

S maintaining the multigrade classroom. Multigrade teaching takes years

to master, and long-term staff development is expensive. So is hiring
substitutes to enable teachers to attend workshops and plan changes with
their colleagues. Other expenses include developmentally appropriate
instructional materials for children, books and videotapes for adult learners,
and outreach efforts to build community support.
Effective multigrade teaching is more time-consuming than age-graded
teaching. One group of Oregon teachers listed daily preparation time,
weekly team planning time, monthly inservice and curriculum development
time, and occasional staff development time as essential on an ongoing
basis (Oregon Department of Education and Ackerman Laboratory School,
1994). Creative scheduling can free up some time, but hiring additional
teachers or paraprofessionals will likely be necessary. Raths and Fanning
(1993) also suggest teachers be given computers for the “incredibly labor-
intensive” clerical aspects of qualitative assessment.
Simply telling teachers to “squeeze it all in somehow” is not an option.
Teachers often donate immense amounts of unpaid personal time during
implementation, but few can maintain such sacrifice on a long-term basis,
nor should they be asked to. Administrators must accept the challenge of
communicating to the public that educational quality cannot exist without
adequate financial support, and enlist their aid in providing these resources.
The Evergreen Elementary School in Holmen, Wisconsin, recently
incorporated some multigrade classrooms. The school has some multigrade
classrooms, mixed with some traditional graded classrooms. It began a multi-
grade program called Project K.I.D. (Kids Independently Developing) in
1994. The teachers involved were sent to inservice training programs around
the area where they could learn more about multigrade teaching. They read
and did research on what would be involved in becoming multigrade teach-
ers. After a year of learning more about multigrade classrooms, they felt
they were ready to try. They then began a journey that, while not without
its pitfalls, ended very successfully. From this journey, they put together a
summer inservice in 1995 for other teachers interested in embarking down
the same path.
During the 1995 Project K.I.D. summer inservice, the instructing
teachers and participating administrators were very enthusiastic about their
programs. They spent two days promoting multigrade education as another
way to reach children in the classroom. They were excited about their teach-
ing and excited about sharing it with those who would attend their inservice.
They listed a 10-step process for setting up a multigrade program (Project

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 31

 K.I.D., 1995). These steps are very helpful to new schools, administrators,
and teachers who are looking into setting up multigrade classrooms.
1. Understand what multigrade means. Do the research.
2. Discuss multigrading with administrators, parents, and other
teachers.
3. Determine the age breakdown for each classroom unit.
4. Condense the curriculum into a one-year, realistic set of goals.
Concentrate on mandated goals and objectives for the oldest
child in the room.
5. Match eligible children into each age unit. Be conscious of
social and emotional growth as well as cognitive growth.
6. Check the heterogeneity of the classroom mixture. Each room
must contain a mixture of ages, ability levels, and social needs.
7. Avoid placing all discipline problems or lower level children
in the same classroom.
8. Determine the teaching strategies that will best serve the
mixture of students. These will change as class groupings
change.
9. Design special project areas or learning centers that can cover
a wide range of ability levels. These should be problem-solving,
hands-on experiences.
10. Determine three evaluation strategies that will provide
authentic, diagnostic information for you and the parents.
Be selective in trying everything that is new.
Multigrade classroom instruction places greater demands on teachers
than teaching in a single grade. To be effective, teachers need to spend more
time in planning and preparation. This often means modifying existing
grade-level materials to ensure that students will be successful. In addition,
there are many demands that are simply conditions of rural life. Although
rural living can have many rewards, these demands, as described in Table 2,
affect the rural teacher. When considered along with the requirements of the
multigrade classroom, it is clear that the rural, multigrade classroom teacher
has a demanding, but potentially very rewarding, job.

32 The Multigrade Classroom

 TABLE 2. Educational Issues Unique to Rural, Small Schools

Classroom Factors l Classes are often made up of more than one grade level
l The student-teacher ratio is often smaller
l Teachers typically have three to five different preparations daily
l Teachers often teach classes for areas in which they are
not prepared
l Equipment, instructional materials, and supplies are limited
or dated
l Resources for student use (media and library related) are limited
l Lack of support exists for teachers in dealing with
special needs children

School Factors l Teachers are often responsible for extensive administrative,

supervisory, extracurricular, and maintenance responsibilities
l Junior and senior high schools are often combined
l Budgets are often poor (supplies and materials are outdated)
l Teachers are more isolated from ongoing staff
development opportunities
l Little or no inservice support is provided
l Limited professional development information exists nearby
l There are fewer defined rules and policies
(a more informal administrative style)
l Salaries are often lower

Socio-Cultural l Adequate housing may not be available.

Factors
l Buying and selling property is more difficult.
l Private lives are more open to scrutiny.
l Cultural and geographical isolation and/or cultural/linguistic
isolation are more prevalent. Services such as medical and
shopping may be quite distant.
l Parents have high expectations for teacher involvement in
community activities.
l Greater emphasis is placed on informal and personal
communications.
l Loneliness
Adapted from (Miller,
1988, p. 3) l Adjustment to extreme weather conditions

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 33

Instruction in a Multigrade Classroom
With More Than Two Grades

f the combination classroom seems like a formidable challenge to most

I teachers, then the classroom or school that combines three or more grades
must appear to be an insurmountable obstacle. How can one teacher
juggle all those grades, with their wide levels of student maturity, ability, and
motivation? How can one teacher possibly prepare for the many curricular
areas, meet individual student needs, and have the time to eat lunch? Teaching
a broad range of grade levels in the same classroom is complex and demand-
ing. But there are many successful teachers and students who are living proof
that mixed-grade classes are a viable organizational structure for learning.
Although empirical studies of these classrooms are quite scarce, enough
descriptive literature has been compiled to illustrate both the complexity
and the rewards of the multigrade classroom.
Dodendorf (1983) conducted a study of a rural Midwestern two-room
school where 35 students spanning five grades were taught. The classroom
was organized into two rooms. The “lower” room contained students in
grades K–4, while the “upper” room contained students in grades 5–8. All
aspects of classroom life were carefully observed, and students’ achievement
test scores were compared with those from urban schools. Five positive
environmental characteristics emerged from the observational data:
1. School routines: These were structured so that children began
the day, completed workbook assignments, met in small groups,
went to the library, told stories, and so forth, with a minimum
amount of noise and disruption. In part, this was due to a
scheduling tree where each student’s assignment was posted. It
was also due to the highly predictable nature of class routines.
For example, spelling tests were given all at once with the
unique words for each grade given in turn.
2. Group learning: Each grade met with the teacher twice a day.
When nongrouped students needed help, they sought out an
older student first and then waited at the teacher’s station.
Aides from the community might have been helpful, but the
teacher felt that confidentiality was a problem.
3. Interdependence: This area was found to be the most striking
quality in the school. Younger children often approached older
children for help. Mixing of ages and grades was seen both in
the classroom and at recess.
4. Independence: Observed work habits of children indicated a
high degree of self-discipline. They had specific assignments
and timelines to meet. They passed out corrected workbooks
without teacher prompting.
5. Community involvement: Community members frequently
visited the school. Mothers cooked hot lunch once a month

34 The Multigrade Classroom

 and planned holiday parties. The board chairman stopped by
to see if there were any needs. There did not appear to be a
clear demarcation between the school and the community.
Student attitudes toward new people entering the classroom
were always hospitable and friendly. An example was the way
kindergartners were welcomed into the classroom. Older
students were warm and helped them, frequently explaining
what was being worked on.
Results were favorable for the rural school. In terms of academics,
students performed nearly the same as their urban counterparts. Only on a
social studies subtest was there any significant difference. In terms of class-
room climate and social relationships, the author noted that:

Several advantages accrued for children and their parents in this rural school. The
observed positive qualities far outweighed the disadvantages, and, more importantly, the
values emphasized in the school reflected the community’s values. This match of values is
rarely achieved in heterogeneous urban schools. Value congruence between home and school
certainly fostered a secure, stable world for these children to grow up in (p. 103).

Clearly, Dodendorf ’s study suggests that the five-grade classroom can

be a socially and academically effective learning environment for students.
The implication, however, is that success depends on the ability of the
teacher to organize and manage instruction so that cooperation, independ-
ence, and a motivation to learn become environmental norms.
Martha Young, a county superintendent with Mid-Rivers School
District, describes the history of Montana’s country schools since the early
1900s. Of particular interest is her description of two very small one- and
two-room schools. Mid-Rivers School has nine students covering a span of
six grades. Students are given responsibility for a large share of housekeep-
ing tasks on a rotating basis: keeping the room clean (janitor), taking care
of paper and supplies (supply clerk), checking out books (librarian), ringing
the bell, monitoring play equipment, organizing the calendar, leading the
flag salute, and sharpening pencils. Each week a student is honored by not
having duties for the week. Developing self-reliance, responsibility, and
independence in students enables the teacher to better meet individual
student needs. It also develops a strong sense of community and coopera-
tion within the classroom (personal communication).
In order to meet the needs of all students at their respective instruc-
tional levels, the teacher relies heavily on scheduling and cross-age tutoring.
For example, the student who is the acting librarian that week reads a daily
story to younger children while the teacher works with the older students.
Students might also work together to complete tasks while the teacher
meets with students individually. Reading, math, English, and spelling are

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 35

 handled in this individualized manner. All other subjects are taught as a
group, with each student working at his or her particular level; art, social
studies, science, and music projects are frequently employed. The entire
school also sings together, plays recorders, has a marching band, and
publishes a school newspaper. Because the school is so isolated, it serves as
the center of the community. Parents provide help with track meets, field
trips, and special programs.
Sand Springs School is slightly larger than Mid-Rivers with two teach-
ers serving grades K–10. Students are divided into a K–4 class and a 5–10
class. There is an aide in the lower level who teaches kindergarten under
the teacher’s supervision. This frees the teacher to work with the older
students. An additional aide comes in several times a week and provides
time for the teacher to work on academic subjects. On the aide’s days off,
the teacher works on music, arts, crafts, and physical education. A similar
pattern of organization is followed with the upper-level class. Because of
the complexity of subject matter in the upper-level class, three aides work
under the teacher’s supervision.
In the lower-level class, the teacher organizes instruction around key
concepts that can be introduced to all students and then individualized to
the different levels in the class. For example, time was explained to all the
students. The youngest ones drew hands on clocks while the teacher gave
instruction on minutes to other students. Special activities also serve as
basis for total grouping activities: fire prevention week led to a play,
Valentine’s Day led to an all-school party, and the Christmas program
involved everyone. For Columbus Day and Thanksgiving, students all
worked together on special projects. Students were also grouped by ability
so that the talented second-grader could work with the fourth-grader, or
the slower student could work with younger students for special skills.
In both schools, the teachers have taken full advantage of the flexibility
afforded by a multigrade classroom. The teachers have used a two-phased
approach to group instruction. In the first phase, they introduced a concept
to the entire class (across all grade levels). This allowed for cross-grade
interaction with the concurrent benefits of younger students learning from
older ones. It also is a more efficient use of teacher time. In the second
phase, the teacher has students engaged in closed-task activities at their
respective ability levels. Students can also be easily moved from one ability
level to another as needed, without feeling the stigma that is usually associ-
ated with out-of-grade placements.
Special events such as holidays, field trips, or any activity that does not
require strict grouping by ability (such as closed-task skills) are organized
around total class participation. Every member of the class contributes and
shares in the successes of everyone else. Students also learn to be responsi-
ble and self-directed, to work independently, to provide help to others, and

36 The Multigrade Classroom

to receive help when needed. This independence is critically important
because it enables the teacher to work individually with students.
Betsy Bryan’s (1986) story is unique. She completed her teaching
degree in 1980 from an Eastern college. While getting her teaching degree,
she student taught in a small, rural two-room school and became convinced
that she wanted to teach in a similar situation. Unable to secure a position
on the East Coast, she went to New Mexico and obtained a position as a
K–1 teacher (so she was told by the school board). With difficulty, she found
a house to live in and then school began. However, things had changed
since her interview with the school board. She now had a class of 18
students ranging from ages five to nine:

Developmentally they ranged from kids who barely spoke and still wet their pants to children
who were ready for third-grade work. Some spoke Spanish and some didn’t. There were
child neglect cases and others who came from caring homes. A few had learning disabilities
while most learned easily and delighted in it (p. 3).

To make matters even more formidable, Bryan had no “professional

direction or support, limited materials, and little experience” (p. 3). She was
not supervised or expected to maintain grade-level differences. However,
she had student taught with two master rural teachers who provided
examples upon which she could pattern her own teaching.
At first, in order to provide structure and order, she stuck to the basal
reader and the other available materials. As the year progressed and she
developed a relationship with her class, Bryan began developing her own
materials, “scrounging through garage sales for children’s books, and visiting
a teacher center 100 miles away to get ideas and supplies.” Unfortunately,
Bryan does not provide sufficient detail to allow the reader to know how
she managed instruction or curriculum. She does tell us that national test
scores revealed her students were performing above the national average.
Although positive about her first teaching experience, Bryan left after only
one year.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 37

 Unlike the Dodendorf (1983) study or the description of the two rural
Utah schools, Bryan found herself an outsider in an unknown teaching
situation. She faced difficulty finding housing, a sudden change in her
teaching assignment, feelings of isolation from other teachers and the
community. If Bryan had remained, would her experience have turned out
more like that described by Dodendorf? From her own words, it seems as
if conditions in the school and community preempted that possibility:

It appears that the district [I] taught in [was] full of conflict and lacked leaders who
could solve these conflicts. The staff were from diverse backgrounds and had widely differ-
ent motivations and philosophies. There were bound to be problems and yet neither the
community nor the administration nor the teachers were able to resolve them. [The district]
lacked a sense of direction and demonstrated little concern for their teachers. Other factors
that influenced [my] decision to leave included living conditions and the loneliness [I] felt
trying to fit into [a] rural close-knit community (p. 5).

Ann Hoffman’s (1982) story is quite different from that of Betsy

Bryan (1986). Hoffman’s school was smaller than Bryan’s, but her class
size and range of students were similar. When Hoffman first began to teach
in the Kingvale, Utah, two-room school, she had 15 students in grades
K–3 and no aide, but after three years her class grew to 27 students and an
aide was hired. Hoffman says that when she first began teaching in Kingvale,
“we had a wonderful time. In the past two years the class load has grown.
We still have a wonderful time but a lot noisier one!”
Hoffman (1982) describes in detail how she organized her classroom
to accommodate student needs. Clearly, her planning and organization are
well in advance of instruction. Before school begins, she reviews science
and social studies texts for upper-grade students and makes a list of what
must be covered, by week, for the entire year. Materials and films are ordered
at this time. She believes preparation must be done well in advance of the
students.
Hoffman distinguishes between those subjects that lend themselves to
total class instruction and those that must be taught on a more individual-
ized or graded basis. For example, health, storytime, literature, drama, and
music can be taught to the entire class. These subjects are also considered
“elastic” in that they can be altered, combined, or skipped depending on
circumstances. Consistent time is scheduled for high-priority, skill-based
subjects such as reading and math. For example, reading and math are
taught in the morning, with students working independently while the
teacher holds conferences with and instructs other students. First grade is
taught as a group, but the other grades are primarily individualized. Index
cards are used to track individual progress. Reading is taught for 70
minutes daily.

38 The Multigrade Classroom

 What is clear from Hoffman’s account of her classroom is that she is
well organized and has a clear structure for the way instructional events
unfold. Students know what is expected, and classroom routines are well
established. There is also a sense of the novel and interesting. There are
daily student oral presentations (across grades) of stories, poems, reports,
and current events. A learning center on magnets and a center with special
books for students can be found. Friends drop into the classroom and may
become part of a lesson. Hoffman says she tries to keep her room interest-
ing, but she notes the multigrade environment is not all roses:

I can’t pass a problem child on to another teacher the next year. I can’t use the same old
art ideas year after year. Science, social studies, music, … every subject has to be completely
revamped each year.
Films are boring when seen for several years in a row and so have to be changed. Room
decorations must be new and different. I can’t get new ideas from the teachers next door.
I have to be super-prepared or I’m in for a very hectic day (p. 45).

Yet, despite these challenges, Hoffman stresses that the strengths far
outweigh the disadvantages:

It is a most satisfying feeling to watch a kindergartner mature into a hard working third-
grader. A child can easily be placed ahead or back in areas in which he excels or is having
trouble. Older children can work with the younger children. We have a ski program for
physical education. The parents are friendly and helpful (p. 45).

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 39

Summary

he multigrade classroom and one-room school are alive and well in

T rural America. Stories like Ann Hoffman’s from Kingvale abound if

someone is there to hear them. Unfortunately, the story told by Betsy
Bryan is often heard instead. Problems of inadequate facilities, poor leader-
ship, and limited resources have been used as evidence for seeking consoli-
dation. Without question, teaching in a multigrade classroom with more
than two grades is a demanding task requiring a special type of individual.
But it also requires training, community understanding, and support.
Many educators mistakenly think multigrade grouping is the first—
or even the only—element that needs to be changed. But according to
Anita McClanahan, early childhood education coordinator for the Oregon
Department of Education, mixing ages isn’t the magic key to improve-
ment. “You have to change your methods of instruction. It’s what we do
with the groups of children that makes a difference” (Gaustad, 1994).
As evidenced in the descriptions presented, the multigrade teacher
must be well-organized and put in lots of preparation time. Educators
have much to learn from these teachers about classroom management and
instructional organization.
The multigrade classroom is an environment where routines are clearly
understood and followed. Students learn to be self-directed learners, often
working alone or in small groups. They must also be able to help others
and serve as positive role models. A positive, family-like atmosphere often
must be developed—one in which cooperation and solidarity among all
students predominate. Without these elements, a multigrade teacher could
not manage the vast variability in student needs. Bruce Barker (1986) does
an excellent job summarizing the characteristics and working conditions
that the multigrade classroom teacher faces:

She lives in a remote setting in either the Midwest or far West, enjoys teaching in a small
school … she teaches an average of 11 students ranging in grades one through eight, works
an average of about nine hours a day in tasks related to instruction, yet is also the school
custodian and school secretary. She may even prepare the school lunch and drive the school
bus. The assignment to teach in a one-teacher school may be the most demanding of all
positions in the profession, but for those who love young people and enjoy teaching, it could
well be the most rewarding (p. 150).

40 The Multigrade Classroom

 Conclusion

T
his review of the research on multigrade classroom instruction
focused on answering two questions:
1. What effect does multigrade instruction have on student
performance?
2. What kind of teacher preparation or training is needed to be
an effective teacher in a multigrade classroom?
In addition, these two questions implicitly ask what implications the
research literature has for districts currently operating or considering multi-
grade classrooms.
In terms of academic achievement, multigrade students do not appear
to fare any better or worse than single-grade students. Some research
evidence does suggest there may be significant differences depending on
subject and/or grade level. Primarily, these studies reflect the complex and
variable nature of school life. However, there are not enough of these
studies to make safe generalizations regarding which subjects or grade
levels are best for multigrade instruction.
The evidence drawn from research focusing on affective student
measures provides a strong case supporting multigrade instruction. Student
attitudes toward school and self tend to be more positive in the mixed-grade
classrooms. Multigrade students also interact more with students of other
ages and have more positive attitudes toward peers than single-grade
students. Several factors appear to play a part in these differences.
In the multigrade classroom, student developmental and academic
differences can be handled more easily than in a single-grade class. Multi-
grade students regularly interact with a wide range of students. This increases
the likelihood that individual students can find an academic or develop-
mental match in their class. For example, the immature upper-grade student
may find a lower grade student to befriend without the stigma generally
associated with “hanging around with younger students.”
In a similar manner, the teacher can have lower-performing students
from an upper grade work with students in the lower grade without the
burden associated with out-of-grade-level placement. Students also learn
the advantages inherent in behaving cooperatively with older and younger
students, and they have a greater opportunity to develop responsibility by
modeling and helping other students.
On face value, students in multigrade classrooms would appear to be
better off than students in a single-grade classroom. However, the evidence
suggests that from the point of view of school organizational norms and
levels of teacher preparedness, the multigrade classroom generally serves
as a temporary remedy to school enrollment and financial concerns.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 41

 In other words, most multigrade (especially combined-grades) class-
rooms are viewed as temporary remedies to be endured for a year (or so)
until things return to “normal.” Lest we too quickly forget our educational
heritage in the district school, there are still more than 1,000 one-room
schools where three or more grades are taught together (Murphy, 1990).
But the tide of teacher and administrative opinion strongly favors organiz-
ing schools by grade level.
Graded classes are believed to be more efficient and easier for the
teacher. This assumption is based on the notion that students at a given
administrative grade level are all at the same ability level. In other words,
a fourth-grade teacher only has students functioning at the fourth-grade
ability level. Most educators know that at any given grade level there is a
span of student ability (Pratt & Treacey, 1986). This variability can often
be seen in the form of multiple math and reading groups with most other
subjects being taught at the grade level. In larger metropolitan schools,
ability differences are even further distinguishable by those students who
attend Title I, special education, or talented and gifted programs. In still
other classrooms, no distinctions may be made. Instead, all students are
taught as if they were at the same ability level. In reality, many single-grade
classrooms are quite similar to the multigrade classroom. Except in those
rare cases of tight homogeneity of the student population in a community,
there may be more similarities than differences between multigrade and
single-grade classrooms.
The skills needed to effectively teach the multigrade and the single-
grade (multilevel) classroom appear to be quite similar. The differences
between the two classrooms may be more a product of socialization and
expectation than of fact. Clearly, students are harmed when the teacher fails
to recognize and teach to the individual differences in a classroom. It also
is apparent that teachers are harmed when they have not been adequately
prepared to teach students with varying ages and abilities. Wragg (1984)
does an excellent job summarizing these instructional implications when
he describes the results of a large-scale study of teaching skills:

There seemed to be much less confidence among teachers about how best to teach bright
pupils and slow learners in mixed-ability classes than in any other aspect of professional
work we studied during the project. Most mixed-ability teaching was to the whole class,
and some schools made almost no use at all of cooperative groupwork. Even the teachers
we studied who were regarded as successful found it very exacting to teach a mixed-ability
class well, and were less sure about their teaching of bright pupils than about other aspects
(p. 197).

What does the research tell us regarding the skills required of the
multigrade teacher? Pratt and Treacey’s (1986) observation suggests that
the skills needed in the single-grade, multiability classroom are similar to
those of the multigrade teacher. With an increase in the number of grades

42 The Multigrade Classroom

taught in a single classroom, a greater demand is placed on teacher resources,
both cognitive and emotional. Six key variables affecting successful multi-
grade teaching were identified from the research:
1. Classroom organization: arranging and organizing instruc-
tional resources and the physical environment in order to facil-
itate student learning, independence, and interdependence
2. Classroom management and discipline: developing and imple-
menting classroom schedules and routines that promote clear,
predictable instructional patterns, especially those that enhance
student responsibility for their own learning; developing
independence and interdependence is also stressed
3. Instructional organization and curriculum: planning, develop-
ing, and implementing instructional strategies and routines
that allow for a maximum of cooperative and self-directed
student learning based on diagnosed student needs; also
includes the effective use of time
4. Instructional delivery and grouping: instructional methods
that will improve the quality of instruction, including strate-
gies for organizing group learning activities across and within
grade levels, especially those that develop interdependence and
cooperation among students
5. Self-directed learning: developing skills and strategies in
students that allow for a high level of independence and
efficiency in learning, individually or in combination with
other students
6. Peer tutoring: developing skills and routines whereby students
serve as “teachers” to other students within and across differ-
ing grade levels
In the multigrade classroom, more time must be spent in organizing
and planning for instruction. This is required if the teacher wants to meet
the individual needs of students and to successfully monitor student progress.
Extra materials and strategies must be developed so that students will be
meaningfully engaged. This allows the teacher to meet with small groups
or individuals.
Since the teacher cannot be everywhere or with every student at the
same time, the teacher shares instructional responsibilities with students
within a context of clear rules and routines. Students know what is expected.
They know what assignments to work on, when they are due, how to get
them graded, how to get extra help, and where to turn them in.
Students learn how to help one another and themselves. At an early
age, students are expected to develop independence. The effective multi-

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 43

 grade teacher establishes a climate to promote and develop this indepen-
dence. For example, when kindergarten students enter the classroom for
the first time, they receive help and guidance not only from the teacher, but
also from older students. Soon, they learn to be self-directed learners capable
of solving many of their own problems. They become self-sufficient.
Kindergartners see how other students behave, and they learn what is
expected of them. Because older students willingly help them, kindergart-
ners also learn cooperation and that the teacher is not the only source of
knowledge.
Instructional grouping practices also play an important role in the
successful multigrade classroom. Grouping is a strategy for meeting teacher
and student needs. The teacher emphasizes the similarities among the
different grades and teaches to them, thus conserving valuable teacher time.
For example, whole-class (across grades) instruction is often used because
the teacher can have contact with more students. However, whole-class
instruction in the effective multigrade classroom differs from what one
generally finds in a single-grade class.
Multigrade teachers recognize that whole-class instruction must revolve
around open-task activities if all students are to be engaged. For example,
a teacher can introduce a writing assignment through topic development
where all students brainstorm for ideas. In this context, students from first
through eighth grade can discuss and share their different perspectives.
Students soon learn how to listen to and respect the opinions of others.
For the older students, first-graders are not simply “those little kids from
the primary grades down the hall.” They are classmates. Learning coopera-
tion is a survival skill—a necessary condition of life in the multigrade class-
room. Everyone depends on each other, and this interdependency extends
beyond the walls of the school to include the community.
But teaching in the multigrade classroom also has many problems.
It is more complex and demanding than the single-grade classroom. A
teacher cannot ignore developmental differences in students or be ill-
prepared for a day’s instruction. Demands on teacher time require well-
developed organizational skills. Clearly, the multigrade classroom is not
for the timid, inexperienced, or untrained teacher.

44 The Multigrade Classroom

 Implications

F
or districts or schools contemplating or currently operating multi-
grade classrooms, there are important implications drawn from the
research:
1. Student performance:
l Students in multigrade classrooms perform academically as
well as students from single grades.
l Students in multigrade classrooms generally have more favor-
able attitudes toward their peers and school than students
from single-grade classrooms.
l Student performance is mediated by the level of teacher
expertise. In other words, multigrade instruction requires a
high level of skill in classroom management and instructional
organization, and a broad repertoire of instructional strategies.
Without adequate training and experience, student perform-
ance will likely suffer.
2. Training in how to teach in a multigrade classroom is critically
important for success. However, training should be grounded in
a field-based experience where the novice has the opportunity to
observe and teach with an effective model. This should be coupled
with ongoing staff development.
3. The concept of multigrade instruction is more likely to be seen
as important if linked to the concept of the multilevel class. For
example, prospective teachers are more likely to take a course
entitled “teaching multiple ability levels in the classroom” than
“teaching in the multigrade classroom.” When most new teachers
seek employment, they expect to work with a single grade level.
However, circumstance can change that and place the teacher in
a combined classroom.
4. The skills of the effective multigrade teacher are worth emulating
in the single-grade classroom.
5. If a district deems it necessary to combine grades, administrators
should be apprised of how roles will change and what is to be
expected, especially in the following areas:
l Increase in planning and materials preparation
l Increased level of stress because there is less time to reflect
on teaching
l Support and guidance regarding curriculum alignment
l Potential for increased pressure from parents

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 45

 l Importance of communicating to the teacher what is expected
in terms of planning and grade differentiation
l The effect of grade differentiation versus the development
of across-grade solidarity and cooperation
l Importance of ongoing support for success
l Value of recognizing teacher efforts
6. Multigrade instruction has a long, successful tradition and, based
on research evidence, is a viable approach to school organization.
7. There are definite characteristics of successful multigrade teachers
that should be considered in teacher selection:
l Well-organized
l Creative and flexible
l Willing to work hard
l Resourceful and self-directed
l Willing to work closely with the community
l Strong belief in the importance of cooperation and personal
responsibility in the classroom with the ability to develop
these characteristics in students
l Prior successful experience at the grade levels to be taught

46 The Multigrade Classroom

 Risks and Concerns

very method of grouping children has risks. One concern with multi-

E grade grouping is ensuring that younger children are not overwhelmed

by older or more competent students, in any class. Teachers have an
important role to play in maximizing the potential benefits of age and
ability mixture. For example, they can encourage children to turn to each
other for explanations, directions, and comfort in times of stress. They can
turn to older students to read words, paragraphs, and stories to younger
children, and to listen to younger students read.
In addition, teachers can encourage older children to take responsibility,
either for an individual younger child or for younger children in general.
Teachers can encourage older children not to gloat over their superior skills,
but to take satisfaction in their competence in reading to younger children,
in writing things down for them, in explaining things, in showing them how
to use the computer, in helping them find something, in helping them get
dressed to go outdoors, and so forth.
Teachers can show older children how to protect themselves from
being pestered by younger children, for example, by saying to the younger
children, “I can’t help you right this minute, but I will as soon as I finish
what I am doing.” Teachers can also help younger children learn to accept
their own limitations and their place in the total scheme of things, as well
as encourage older children to think of roles and suitable levels that younger
students could take in their work or activities. The basic requirement is that
the children be respectful of each other.
When teachers discourage older children from calling younger ones “cry
babies” or “little dummies,” they help resist the temptation of age stereotyp-
ing. Every once in a while a teacher says to a misbehaving first-grader
something like “that behavior belongs in kindergarten.” The teacher then
expects them to be kind and helpful to the kindergartners during recess,
when they’ve just heard that kindergartners are a lower form of life! A
mixed-age group can be a context in which to teach children not only to
appreciate where they themselves so recently were, but also to prize their
own progress and to develop a sense of the continuity of development.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 47

References

Anderson, R.H. (1993). The return of the nongraded classroom. Principal,

72(3), 9–12.
Anderson, R.H., & Pavan, B.N. (1993). Nongradedness: Helping it to
happen. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Barker, B.O. (1986). Teachers in the nation’s surviving one-room schools.
Contemporary Education, 57(3), 148–150.
Brandsma, H.P. (1993). Characteristics of primary schools and the quality
of instruction. Groningen, The Netherlands: RION, Instituut Voor
Onderwijsonderzoek.
Bryan, B. (1986). Rural teachers’ experiences: Lessons for today. Rural
Educator, 7(3), 1–5.
Cohen, D.L. (1989, December 6). First stirrings of a new trend: Multi-age
classrooms gain favor. Education Week, 9(14), 1, 13–14.
Coleman, J.S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16(6),
32–38.
Cotton, K. (1993). Nongraded primary education (Close-up No.14).
Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved
May 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web: www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/7/
cu14.html
Cushman, K. (1993). The case for mixed-age grouping. Harvard, MA: Author.
Dodendorf, D.M. (1983). A unique rural school environment. Psychology in
the Schools, 20(1), 99–104.
Feng, J. (1994). Issues and trends in early childhood education. Unpublished
manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 841)
Fox, M. (1997, April). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the National Association of
Elementary School Principals Association, San Antonio, TX.
Fullan, M.G. (1996). Turning systematic thinking on its head. Phi Delta
Kappan, 77(6), 420–423.
Gaustad, J. (1992). Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and
developmentally appropriate education for primary children [Special
issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 35(7).
Gaustad, J. (1994). Nongraded education: Overcoming obstacles to imple-
menting the multigrade classroom [Special issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 38
(3 & 4).
Goodlad, J.I., & Anderson, R.H. (1987). The nongraded elementary school
(Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

48 The Multigrade Classroom

Gutierrez, R., & Slavin, R.E. (1992). Achievement effects of the nongraded
elementary schools: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational
Research, 62(4), 333–376.
Gutloff, K. (Ed.). (1995). Multi-age classrooms. West Haven, CT: National
Education Association (NEA) Professional Library.
Hallion, A.M. (1994, March). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association
of Elementary School Principals Association, Orlando, FL.
Hill, P.W., & Rowe, K.J. (1998). Modelling student progress in studies of
educational effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvements,
9(3), 310–333.
Hoffman, L.R. (1982). Multiage grouping and team-teaching: Implications
for adaptive instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh,
1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(8), 3510.
Hord, S.M., Rutherford, W.L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G.E. (1987).
Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Katz, L., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J.A. (1990). The case for mixed-age
grouping in early education. Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Kentucky Department of Education. (1991). Kentucky’s primary school: The
wonder years. Frankfort, KY: Author.
Kentucky Department of Education. (1993). State regulations and recom-
mended best practices for Kentucky’s primary program. Frankfort, KY: Author.
Kentucky Department of Education. (1996, October 23). Nearly all Kentucky
schools show improvement in latest KIRIS scores, but middle schools lag
behind [Press release]. Frankfort, KY: Author.
Kinsey, S. (1998). Observations of student and teacher behaviors in the multi-
age classroom. Unpublished manuscript.
Kral, M. (1995). Effects of school size: Effectiveness of combination classes and
single grade classes in primary education. Nijmegen, The Netherlands:
Institute for Applied Social Research.
Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children:
An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006–1017.
Mackey, B., Johnson, R.J., & Wood, T. (1995). Cognitive and affective
outcomes in a multi-age language arts program. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 10(1), 49–61.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 49

 Marshak, D. (1994, March). From teachers’ perspectives: The social and psycho-
logical benefits of multiage elementary classrooms. Paper presented at the
annual conference “Emerging Images of Learning: World Perspectives
for the New Millennium,” Chicago, IL.
Mason, D.A., & Burns, R.B. (1995). Teachers’ views of combination
classes. Journal of Educational Research, 89(1), 36–45.
Mason, D.A., & Burns, R.B. (1996). “Simply no worse and simply no
better” may simply be wrong: A critique of Veenman’s conclusion about
multigrade classes. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 307–322.
Mason, D.A., & Doepner, R.W., III. (1998). Principals’ views of combina-
tion classes. Journal of Educational Research, 91(3), 160–172.
Mason, D.A., & Good, T.L. (1996). Mathematics instruction in combina-
tion and single-grade classes: An exploratory investigation. Teachers
College Record, 98(2), 236–265.
McClellan, D.E. (1994). Multiage grouping: Implications for education. In
P. Chase & J. Doan (Eds.), Full circle: A new look at multiage education
(pp. 147–166). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McClellan, D., & Kinsey, S. (1996). Mixed-age grouping helps children
develop social skills and a sense of belonging. The MAGnet Newsletter
on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 5(1), 1–3.
Retrieved May 8, 2000 from the World Wide Web: www.ericeece.org/
pubs/mag/magfal96.html#a
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, B.A. (1988). Teacher preparation for rural schools. Portland, OR:
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Miller, B.A. (1990). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade
instruction. Research in Rural Eduction, 7(1), 1–8.
Miller, B.A. (1991). A review of the qualitative research on multigrade
instruction. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 7(2), 3–12.
Miller, B.A. (1993). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade
instruction. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of
America’s schools. The multiage resource book (pp. 65–83). Peterborough,
NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Miller, B.A. (1994). Children at the center: Implementing the multiage class-
room. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, &
Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 544)

50 The Multigrade Classroom

Miller, B.A. (1996). A basic understanding of multiage grouping. School
Administrator, 53(1), 12–17.
Murphy, J. (1990). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: A
comprehensive analysis. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational reform
movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and cases (pp. 3–55). Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
Nye, B. (1993). Some questions and answers about multiage grouping.
ERS Spectrum, 11(3), 38–45.
Oregon Department of Education & Ackerman Laboratory School. (1994).
Mixed-age programs, 1993–94. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Education.
Pavan, B.N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational
Leadership, 50(2), 22–25.
Pratt, C., & Treacy, K. (1986). A study of student grouping practices in
early childhood classes in western Australian government primary schools
(Cooperative Research Series No. 9). Nedlands, Australia: Education
Department of Western Australia.
Project K.I.D. (1995, July). Kids independently developing [Teacher inservice].
Holmen, WI: Evergreen Elementary School.
Raths, J., & Fanning, J. (1993). Primary program reform in Kentucky
revisited. In Second year reports to the Prichard committee (pp. 1–23).
Lexington, KY: The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.
Ridgway, L., & Lawton, I. (1969). Family grouping in the primary school
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Rowe, K.J., Hill, P.W., & Holmes-Smith, P. (1994, January). The Victorian
Quality Schools Project: A report on the first stage of a longitudinal study
of school and teacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the Seventh
International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement,
Melbourne, Australia.
Rowe, K.J., Hill, P.W., & Holmes-Smith, P. (1995). Methodological issues
in educational performance and school effectiveness research: A discus-
sion with worked examples. Australian Journal of Education, 39(3),
217–248.
Rule, J.G. (1983). Effects of multigrade grouping on elementary student
achievement in reading and mathematics (Doctoral dissertation,
Northern Arizona University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International,
44(3), 662.

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction 51

 Smith, M.S., & O’Day, J.A. (1990). Systemic school reform. In S.H.
Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing:
The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 223–267).
Bristoal, PA: Falmer Press.
Steffy, B.E. (1993). The Kentucky educational reform: Lessons for America.
Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Stone, S.J. (1995). The primary multiage classroom: Changing schools for
children. Unpublished manuscript.
Stone, W.M. (1987). A study of the relationships between multigrading
and academic progress of elementary school students (Doctoral disser-
tation, Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University, 1986).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(1), 45.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public
school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO). (1988). Education of disadvantaged groups and multiple
class teaching: Studies and innovative approaches. Jakarta, India: Author.
Uphoff, J.K., & Evans, D.A. (1993). The country school comes to town:
A case study of multiage grouping and teaching. In D. Sumner (Ed.),
Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America’s schools. The multiage
resource book (pp. 36–38). Peterborough, NH: Society for
Developmental Education.
Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive effects of multigrade and
multi-age classes: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational
Research, 65(4), 319–381.
Veenman, S. (1996). Effects of multigrade and multi-age classes reconsid-
ered. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 323–340.
Viadero, D. (1996). Research. Pedagogy: Mixed bag. Teacher Magazine,
9(1), 20–23.
Willis, S. (1991). Breaking down grade barriers: Interest on nongraded
classrooms on the raise. ASCD update, 33(3), 4.
Wragg, E.C. (1984). Teaching skills. In E.C. Wragg (Ed.), Classroom teach-
ing skills: The research findings of the Teacher Education Project (pp. 1–20).
New York, NY: Nichols.

52 The Multigrade Classroom

 THE MULTIGRADE CLASSROOM:
A RESOURCE HANDBOOK FOR SMALL,
RURAL SCHOOLS
Book 2: Classroom Organization

November 1999
Rural Education Program

Based on the September 1989 publication

of the same title written by Bruce A. Miller

Susan Vincent, Editor

Joyce Ley, Director

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97204
Acknowledgments

The following selections have been reprinted with permission:

Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous class-
room (pp. 207–209). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Emmer, E.T. (1987). Classroom management and discipline. In V.
Richardson-Koehler & D.C. Berliner (Eds.), Educators’ handbook:
A research perspective (pp. 233-258). White Plains, NY: Longman.
(Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Evertson, C.M., Emmer, E.T., Clements, B.S., Sanford, J.P., & Williams, E.
(1981). Organizing and managing the elementary school classroom. Austin,
TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education. (Reprinted with permission of Carolyn Evertson, Peabody
College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.)
Gaustad, J. (1994). Nongraded education: Overcoming obstacles to imple-
menting the multigrade classroom [Special issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 38(3
& 4). (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Gibbons, M., & Phillips, G. (1978). Helping students through the self-
education crisis. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(4), 296–300. (Reprinted with
permission of publisher.)
Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. (Reprinted with permission
of publisher.)
Karweit, N. (1987). Diversity, equity, and classroom processes. In M.T.
Hallinan (Ed.), Social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of the
learning process (pp. 71–102). New York, NY: Plenum Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Kentucky Department of Education. (1996). Nearly all Kentucky schools show
improvement in latest KIRIS scores, but middle schools lag behind [Press
release]. Frankfort, KY: Author. (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Murphy, J., Weil, M., & McGreal, T. (1986). The basic practice model of
instruction. Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 83–96. (Reprinted with
permission of the University of Chicago Press.)
Oregon Department of Education, & Ackerman Laboratory School. (1994).
Mixed-age programs, 1993–94. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Education. (Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Pavan, B.N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational
Leadership, 50(2), 22–25. (Reprinted with permission of author.)

ii The Multigrade Classroom

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elemen-
tary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 293–336. (Reprinted with permission of the American
Educational Research Association.)
Slavin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and
secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67–77. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1989). What works for students at risk:
A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4–13. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Thomas, J.W., Strage, A., & Curley, R. (1988). Improving students’ self-
directed learning: Issues and guidelines. Elementary School Journal, 88(3),
313–326. (Reprinted with permission of the University of Chicago.)

iii
Overview

Preface
The preface describes the process used in developing this handbook,
including the multigrade teachers who shared their classroom strategies
and ideas for improving the usefulness of the handbook.
Introduction
The history of multigrade classroom instruction is presented, along
with the background information that describes why multigrade
instruction is an important and complex issue for educators.
Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
In this book, the research on multigrade instruction is reviewed
in order to answer two questions: (1) What effect does multigrade
instruction have on student performance? and (2) What kind of train-
ing is needed in order to teach in a multigrade classroom? Detailed
information focusing on organizing and teaching in a multigrade class-
room is also presented.
Book 2: Classroom Organization
This book describes strategies for arranging and organizing instruc-
tional resources and the physical environment of the classroom. Sample
classroom layouts and a “design kit” for organizing your classroom are
also included.
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Establishing clear expectations for student behavior and predictable
classroom routines has been shown to improve student performance.
In this book, research relating to classroom management and discipline
are presented, along with a checklist for planning management routines
and discipline procedures.
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Research-based guidelines for planning, developing, and implementing
instructional strategies are presented. This book emphasizes the devel-
opment of cooperative work norms in the multigrade classroom and
explains how to match instruction to the needs of students. An overview
of curriculum and evaluation planning concepts is also provided. This
book is a close companion piece with book 5: Instructional Delivery
and Grouping.

iv The Multigrade Classroom

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
This book emphasizes that instructional quality and student grouping
are key components for success in the multigrade classroom.
Instructional methods such as recitation, discussion, and cooperative
learning are reviewed. Planning guides and examples are also included
where appropriate. Strategies for organizing group learning activities
across and within grade levels, especially those that develop interde-
pendence and cooperation among students, are discussed.
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Developing skills and strategies in students that allow for a high level
of independence and efficiency in learning, either individually or in
combination with other students, is essential in the multigrade class-
room. Ideas for developing self-direction are presented in this book.
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring
This book provides guidelines for developing skills and routines whereby
students serve as “teachers” to other students within and across differ-
ing grade levels. The research on what makes for effective tutoring in
the classroom is also reviewed.

v
Preface

he development of this handbook began in 1987, when a group

T of people involved in rural education raised several issues regarding

multigrade classroom instruction.
In their discussions, members of the advisory committee for the
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s (NWREL) Rural Education
Program agreed that multigrade teacher training in their respective states
was either lacking or wholly inadequate. They also were concerned about
the availability of research and training materials to help rural multigrade
teachers improve their skills.
As a result of these concerns, the Rural Education Program decided to
develop a handbook to assist the multigrade teacher. The handbook evolved
in several stages. The first was a comprehensive review, conducted by Dr.
Bruce Miller, of the research on multigrade instruction that included articles,
books, and research reports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and
other countries.
From this review, six topic areas emerged that are considered essential for
effective multigrade instruction: classroom organization; classroom manage-
ment and discipline; instructional organization, curriculum, and evaluation;
instructional delivery and grouping; self-directed learning; and planning and
using peer tutoring. Dr. Miller developed the handbook around these six
instructional areas, and a draft was completed in June 1989, with support
from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).
The second stage occurred in July 1989, when a conference was held in
Ashland, Oregon, with multigrade teachers who were recommended by educa-
tional leaders from throughout the Northwest and Pacific Island regions.
During the conference, participants were organized into workgroups,
each focusing on one of the topic areas. Their tasks were to review the
appropriate handbook chapter for clarity and content, to suggest alternative
and/or additional instructional strategies to those presented in the handbook,
and to write case descriptions of activities drawn from their classrooms.
For example, Joel Anderson from Onion Creek Elementary in Colville,
Washington, described how he grouped students for cooperative learning.
Darci Shane from Vida, Montana, presented a school handbook she had
developed for parents that included a class schedule and other school-related
information. (A full list of participants appears at the end of this preface.)
The final handbook was completed by Dr. Miller in September 1989.
Based on the growing interest and research on multigrade instruction
the handbook was revised and updated in 1999, also with support from
OERI. The final version, completed with support from the Institute of
International Education (IIE), is now composed of a series of seven stand-
alone books.

vi The Multigrade Classroom

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
Book 2: Classroom Organization
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring

Purpose and Scope of the Handbook

he handbook has been written to serve three general purposes:

T l To provide an overview of current research on multigrade

instruction
l To identify key issues teachers face when teaching in a multi-
grade setting
l To provide a set of resource guides to assist novice and
experienced multigrade teachers in improving the quality
of instruction
However, because of the complexity of multigrade instruction and the
vast amount of research on effective classroom instruction, this handbook
can only serve as a starting point for those educators wanting to learn new
skills or refine those they already possess.
Each book of the series presents information, strategies, and resources
considered important for the multigrade teacher. While all the books are
related, they also can stand alone as separate documents. For example, the
books on Classroom Organization (Book 2) and Classroom Management
and Discipline (Book 3) contain overlapping information. Ideally, these
two books are best utilized together. The same is true of the books on
Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation (Book 4) and
Instructional Delivery and Grouping (Book 5). Wherever possible, these
relationships have been noted in the appropriate books.
In conclusion, the series of books has been designed to be used as
a research-based resource guide for the multigrade teacher. It covers the
most important issues the multigrade teacher must address to be effective
in meeting the needs of students. Sample schedules, classroom layouts,
resource lists, and strategies aimed at improving instruction have been used
throughout. It is our hope that the handbook will raise questions, provide
answers, and direct the multigrade teacher to resources where answers to
other questions can be found.

vii
Participants in the Multigrade Conference

Kalistus Ngirturong Barbara Robinson

Aimeliik Elementary Arbon Elementary School
Babeldaob Island Arbon, Idaho
Republic of Palau
Monte Phoenix and Karrie
Robin Lovec Phoenix
Springdale School Orovada, Nevada
Springdale, Montana
Joel Anderson
Anthony Moorow Onion Creek Elementary
Yap Department of Education Colville, Washington
Colonia, Yap
Marty Karlin
Cheryl Mikolajcvyk Trinity Center School
Kaumakakai, Hawaii Trinity Center, California

Leslie Gordon Troy Smith

Pitkas Point School Dixie Elementary School
St. Mary’s, Alaska Dixie, Washington

James Makphie Jill Bills

Majuro, Marshall Islands Sanders Elementary School
Sanders, Arizona
Edith Nicholas
Andrew K. Demoski School Darci Shane
Nulato, Alaska Southview School
Vida, Montana
Benjamin Bernard
Majuro, Marshall Islands Eileene Armstrong
Melrose Elementary
Linda Pelroy Melrose, Montana
W.W. Jones Elementary
Arock, Oregon Pam Cunningham
Sand Springs Elementary
John Rusyniak Sand Springs, Montana
Mentasta Lake School
Mentasta Lake, Alaska Jennifer McAllister
Deerfield Elementary
Patricia Reck Lewistown, Montana
Brothers School
Brothers, Oregon Kimberly Rindal
Ayers Elementary
Bill Radtke Grass Range, Montana
English Bay School
English Bay, Alaska Sammy Vickers
Grant Elementary
Phil M. Gillies Dillon, Montana
Stone Elementary
Malad, Idaho Brian Wolter
Avon Elementary
Carol Spackman Avon, Montana
Park Valley School
Park Valley, Utah

viii The Multigrade Classroom

 Introduction

n contrast to a historical pattern of children developing within an age-

I varied social system, many children today spend a majority of their

time in an age-segregated milieu (Katz, Evangelou, & Hartman, 1990;
McClellan, 1994). The results of this pattern of segregation are thought to
contribute to a declining social support system and compromised develop-
ment of children’s social and academic skills.
Coleman (1987) suggests the need for a significant institutional and
societal response to support functions traditionally filled by the family, such
as the development of feelings of belonging and community, emotional and
social bonding, and nurturance. Increasingly, the school has been viewed as
one of the most effective and efficient contexts to address children’s academic,
affective, and social needs before these needs reach crisis proportions.
A growing body of research explores the influence of educational
contexts on children’s development. While interest has focused on the
impact of the classroom environment on children’s attitudes toward school,
cognitive growth, and academic development, less direct attention has been
given to the relationship between classroom context (including the structure
and content of children’s peer relationships) and academic and social devel-
opment during the elementary years. One approach explored by theoreti-
cians and researchers for encouraging children’s academic and social skill
development is multigrade instruction.
In multigrade instruction, children of at least a two-year grade span
and diverse ability levels are grouped in a single classroom and are encour-
aged to share experiences involving intellectual, academic, and social skills
(Goodlad & Anderson, 1987; Katz et al., 1990; McClellan & Kinsey,
1996). Consistency over time in relationships among teachers, children,
and parents is viewed as one of the most significant strengths of the multi-
grade approach because it encourages greater depth in children’s social,
academic, and intellectual development. The concept of the classroom as a
“family” is encouraged, leading to expansion of the roles of nurturing and
commitment on the part of both students and teacher (Feng, 1994;
Hallion, 1994; Marshak, 1994).
The potential academic and social implications of the multigrade
concept of education are strongly supported by extensive research demon-
strating the importance of peers in children’s academic and social develop-
ment, and by studies of reciprocity theory, which demonstrate the positive
effect on child academic and social behavior of sustained close relationships
between children and caregivers (Kinsey, 1998; Maccoby, 1992).
The adequate implementation of a multigrade approach to education
extends beyond simply mixing children of different grades together. A
positive working model of a multigrade classroom allows for the develop-
ment of academic and social skills as the teacher encourages cross-age

ix
 interactions through tutoring and shared discovery. Social competence
develops for older children out of their roles as teachers and nurturers, and
for younger children out of their opportunity to observe and model the
behavior of their older classmates (Katz et al., 1990; Ridgway & Lawton,
1969).
The multigrade classroom has traditionally been an important and
necessary organizational pattern of education in the United States, notes
Miller (1993). Multigrade education dates back to the one-room schools
that were the norm in this country until they were phased out in the early
part of the 1900s (Cohen, 1989; Miller, 1993). From the mid-1960s
through mid-1970s, a number of schools implemented open education,
ungraded classrooms, and multigrade groupings. Although some schools
continued to refine and develop the multigrade concept, many of these
programs disappeared from public schools. With the beginning of the
industrial revolution and large-scale urban growth, the ideal of mass public
education took root and the practice of graded schools began in earnest.
The graded school system provided a means of organizing and classify-
ing the increased number of urban students of the 1900s. Educators found
it easier to manage students by organizing them into age divisions or grades.
Other factors, such as the advent of the graded textbook, state-supported
education, and the demand for trained teachers, further solidified graded
school organization (Miller, 1993; Uphoff & Evans, 1993). Critics of the
graded school were quick to emphasize this deficiency. The realization that
children’s uneven developmental patterns and differing rates of progress are
ill-matched to the rigid grade-level system has resulted in a growing interest
in and study of the potential benefits of multigrade education in recent years
(Miller, 1996). This growing interest is due to a greater focus on the impor-
tance of the early years in efforts to restructure the educational system
(Anderson, 1993; Cohen, 1989; Stone, S.J., 1995; Willis, 1991) and an
awareness of the limitations of graded education.
The multigrade classroom is labor intensive and requires more planning,
collaboration, and professional development than the conventional graded
classroom (Cushman, 1993; Gaustad, 1992; Miller, 1996). Sufficient
planning time must be available to meet the needs of both teacher and
students. Insufficient planning, staff development, materials, support, and
assessment procedures will have an impact on the success of the multigrade
program (Fox, 1997; Miller, 1996; Nye, 1993).
Despite these constraints, there are special advantages to multigrade
classrooms. Flexible schedules can be implemented and unique programs
developed to meet students’ individual and group interests and needs.
Combined classrooms also offer ample opportunity for students to become
resourceful and independent learners. The multigrade rural classroom is

x The Multigrade Classroom

usually less formal than the single-grade urban or suburban classroom.
Because of the small class size, friendly relationships based on understand-
ing and respect develop naturally between the students and the teacher. In
this setting, students become well-known by their teacher and a family
atmosphere often develops.
However, many teachers, administrators, and parents continue to
wonder whether multigrade organization has negative effects on student
performance. For most rural educators, multigrade instruction is not an
experiment or a new educational trend, but a forceful reality based on
economic and geographic necessity. In a society where educational environ-
ments are dominated by graded organization, the decision to combine grades
is often quite difficult. The Rural Education Program of the Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory receives numerous requests from rural
educators with two overriding concerns regarding multigrade classrooms:
l What effect does multigrade instruction have on student
performance?
l What kind of preparation or training is needed to be an effec-
tive teacher in a multigrade classroom?
This handbook will provide answers to these questions and develop an
overview of key issues facing school districts and teachers involved in or
contemplating multigrade classrooms.

xi
 Contents

Classroom Organization ............................................................................1

The Activity Centers Approach ..................................................................1
General Considerations When Planning ............................................2
Activity and noise level ..............................................................2
Using visual barriers to define activity areas................................4
Teacher resources ........................................................................4
Student resources........................................................................4
Traffic patterns............................................................................4
Specifying activity centers for students........................................5
Accommodating age differences..................................................5
Student belongings ....................................................................6
Explaining Your Room Arrangement ..........................................................7
Floor Plan Design......................................................................................8
Figure 1: Self-contained classroom (organized by areas of activity) ..9
Figure 2: Self-contained classroom (organized for cooperative
learning) .........................................................................10
Figure 3: Comprehensive classroom layout......................................11
Figure 4: Self-contained classroom (organized for flexibility) ..........12
Designing Your Own Room ......................................................................13
Three-Step Design ..................................................................................14
Step 1: Describing the way it is now ................................................15
Step 2: Deciding on the types of activities that will occur ................16
Step 3: Drawing the final plan..........................................................17
Conclusion ............................................................................................18
References ............................................................................................18
Resources ..............................................................................................21

Book 2: Classroom Organization xiii

 Classroom Organization

n the typical multigrade classroom, where multiple activities are likely

I to occur at the same time, classroom organization is a critical factor in

developing smooth, predictable routines. We also know from research on
effective classroom practice that when students have a clear understanding
of classroom structure, procedures, and rules, they are more likely to follow
them, especially if they have had some involvement in decisionmaking.
Although there is no single “best” way to arrange your classroom, there
are some general guidelines that apply to most multigrade settings. Sample
classroom floor plans and a planning kit have been included to aid you in
laying out your own classroom.

The Activity Centers Approach

n activity center can be defined as any discernible pattern of student or

A teacher behavior that can be clearly described and labeled. One common
example is seatwork, where students work independently at a desk.
Another example is pairwork, where two students work together. Three or
more students working together is generally characterized as groupwork. A
classroom may also have areas designated for art, audio-visual equipment,
computers, and other instructional resources. Each example reflects a type of
activity where expectations for behavior may be clearly defined. An activity
center is best described as an area of the classroom that the teacher has desig-
nated for a specific purpose.
Two other types of centers need to be distinguished from an activity
center. A learning center is a term used to describe a self-instruction
learning activity that has been placed in a clearly defined area of the class-
room. It can be in any subject and generally includes objectives, instructions,
and evaluation (see Book 5, Instructional Delivery and Grouping, for more
detail).
Another type of center is a subject area resource center. This is an
area where student resources relating to a specific subject are located. For
example, resources relating to the study of science may all be located in one
well-marked area of the classroom.
What types of activities normally occur in your classroom? What types
of activities would you like to occur? Do you have group projects? Are there
students who tutor? Do you meet with individual students and small groups?

Book 2: Classroom Organization 1

 Is it important for students to be self-directed, or to be able to help
themselves with little teacher interruption? Answers to these questions
should help you decide how to arrange your classroom in terms of the
activities that engage students.
There are seven general types of activities found in most classrooms:
1. Quiet or individual study
2. Testing
3. Whole-class instruction
4. Partner work
5. Group discussions
6. Audiovisual and reference work
7. Teacher tutoring or small-group instruction
Furniture and equipment should be arranged to create activity centers
appropriate to the type of activity you intend to occur.
In the multigrade classroom there may be many different kinds of
activities going on at the same time. Some students in fourth and fifth
grade might be working on a group art project while two students may
be peer tutoring in math. Two first-graders may meet with the teacher, and
several students might be completing independent assignments requiring
the use of a tape recorder and the computer. The teacher’s task is to arrange
the classroom so that all these activities can take place at the same time with
a minimum of disruption and of teacher direction and supervision.

General Considerations When Planning

hen deciding how you would like your classroom organized, you

W must consider the types of behaviors that are appropriate during

teacher instruction, student independent study, or small-group work
and how the arrangement of your classroom will foster these different
learning activities. Topics to consider when making decisions regarding
classroom arrangement include the following:

Activity and When deciding how you will arrange your room in order to accommodate
noise level different learning activities, you must consider the level of activity and
noise that is likely to occur. If students work together on a group activity,
they are likely to make more noise than if they are independently complet-
ing a report or taking a test. Obviously, you would not want to have these
two activities happening side by side. Therefore, you should try to arrange
centers from quiet (e.g., independent study) to noisier level (e.g., group

2 The Multigrade Classroom

discussion) activities. For example, in one corner of your room you might
have students working independently. At the opposite corner, students
could be holding a discussion group.
It is helpful to label these different activity areas in your classroom
as “centers.” As you define the different learning centers, you will want to
specify the type of behavior appropriate for each area. If you have a reading
center, for example, you might, in consultation with students, decide that
books will be returned after use, that quiet reading is expected, and that
only a certain number of students can be there at a time.
Janet Banks (1997), a multigrade teacher in the Chimacum School
District in Washington state, describes one of the ways she controls the
noise level in her classroom:

I created a “noise meter” poster that I stick to the chalkboard in front of my class. The
chalkboard is magnetized and I move a refrigerator magnet on the poster to indicate the
acceptable level of noise. The levels are labeled: 0-No Voices; 1-Whisper or “Buddy” Voices;
2-Table Voices (can only be heard clearly at the student’s table); and 3-Classroom Voices
(can be heard clearly across the room, useful during whole-class discussions). At the first of
the year we practice these different noise levels. In addition, we discuss when the different
levels are appropriate and why. Many times during the day I let the students choose which
noise level they wish to work at; sometimes I limit choice to a couple of different levels and
sometimes I don’t.

The noise meter, as shown below, is a visual reminder of the agreed-

upon or appropriate noise level. If the students’ noise gets too far above
this, they are reminded to work more quietly. If it is necessary to do this
again, the children practice saying a phrase in the appropriate voice and
volume. This way the students get to practice what their voices should
sound like, and they get to hear what it should sound like in the classroom
as a whole.

Book 2: Classroom Organization 3

 Using visual When you decide on your activity centers, it is quite helpful to use your
barriers to define furniture as a means of defining the boundaries of different work areas.
activity areas Bulletin boards, portable blackboards, bookshelves, and file cabinets work
well as dividers. These visual barriers help define the different centers and
help isolate the different levels of activity. However, it is quite important
that you can see what is occurring at each center from your teacher work
area. This will make it much easier to monitor student behavior. For
example, if you see that a student is working with another student in the
independent area, you can request they work independently or move to a
center where talking is allowed.
Teacher resources It is important to give some thought to the idea of a teacher resource center.
This is an area for teacher-controlled resources such as tests, teacher manuals,
and assignment files. In addition, this area serves as a place where the teacher
meets with individuals or small groups of students. Most teachers simply
put a table, bookshelves, file cabinets, and a blackboard in the center.

Student resources You may wish to place resources used by students in a central location.
These may include textbooks, encyclopedias, library books, dictionaries,
and student storage. These materials need to be arranged so that students
can find and return them independently. This area should be accessible
from any center in the room with a minimum of disruption.

Traffic patterns Once you have identified your activity centers and made some tentative
decisions regarding their placement, you must review your floor plan with
an eye toward student traffic patterns. Your goal is to enable students to
move freely from one activity center to another with minimum disruption.
If a student needs a book from the resource center, will he or she have to
walk through the quiet area? You should make sure that audiovisual equip-
ment is near an electrical outlet and that science materials needed for an
assignment are located in the appropriate areas. Of course, you must also
consider that there is clear and safe access to emergency exits.
Pat Reck, a multigrade teacher from Brothers, Oregon, describes how
she has organized her classroom to accommodate student traffic:

The drinking fountain, pencil sharpener, and bathroom privileges account for the most
out-of-seat traffic jams. Therefore, these are allocated on the same wall and direction
[corner] of the room. It seemed reasonable to put paper and pencil supplies and baskets
for finished work on top of a bookshelf in this same area and focus study group tables, the
teacher resource area, and quiet reading corners on opposite walls so there would be limited
traffic, noise, and distractions.

4 The Multigrade Classroom

When arranging your classroom, ensure that activities that will occur at Specifying activity
each work area will be supported by the equipment and materials available. centers for students
In the individual study area, this means you might use student desks
separated from one another to discourage talking; in the pairwork area you
could place two student desks together to encourage sharing. You do not
want students wandering through different centers seeking electric outlets
or water. Furnishings need to be appropriate to the type of activity that
will occur at each center.
In multigrade classrooms, it is important to consider the age and size Accommodating
differences among students. For example, consideration should be given to age differences
the procedures for finding materials and to the size of the furniture. If you
intend to use a materials resource center, then some thought should be
given to primary-grade students who may not be able to read. This is quite
important if you want to have students find materials independent of the
teacher. Several strategies are worth considering. Subject areas could be
color-coded and pictures could be used instead of words. Older student
helpers could also be used. Remember, your purpose in using centers is
to encourage and develop independence.
The physical size differences of students should also be considered. If
you have a range of students in your classroom from grades 1 to 7, then the
same size furniture will not accommodate these size differences. When review-
ing your room arrangement, you might ask yourself whether the different
activity areas will work with the range of students in your classroom. For
example, are the desks in the independent study area of differing sizes? Can
a range of age levels use the discussion area without having to make changes?
When planning your floor plan, keep the students you teach in mind—their
age and developmental and physical characteristics. Reck from Brothers
illustrates the importance of this when she describes how she adjusts to
student needs to create a sense of personal space:

Children respond to ownership and territorial bases in a multigrade situation. I created

a “kindergarten” corner with a floor rug for cut and paste, free reading, coloring, and
sprawling! There were tubs of learning games, headsets with children’s literature, and lots
of manipulatives. This area was for “free” time after curriculum and times when I was
one-on-one with others. My sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-graders felt they needed a “lions
den” where they could get away. So the computer room became a large study-table area
where they could go and work in pairs and have some freedom from the younger ones.
This area should reflect junior high in posters, charts, art work, and visuals appropriate
to their age.

Book 2: Classroom Organization 5

Student belongings Flexibility is the key to organizing your multigrade classroom. Students are
moving from one working group to another throughout the day. Frequently
they are also working on an individual task. Due to the flexibility this kind
of movement requires, traditional classroom arrangements may not work.
For example, assigned seats can limit flexibility. However, it is important
that students have a place to store their belongings. Numerous ideas have
been developed for storing student belongings. Traditionally, individual
desks are used for student storage. However, in the multigrade classroom
this may not be appropriate. Some teachers have used tote trays, lockers,
or stacked boxes.
Janet Banks shares some of the ways her students arrange and store
their belongings:

My students are moving from one working group to another throughout the day. Frequently
they are also working on an individual task. Due to the flexibility this kind of movement
requires, I have chosen to use tables throughout the classroom instead of student desks.
Because students have no desk in which to keep their supplies, I converted a number of lower
bookshelves into student cubbies. The local hospital donated numerous dishpans that serve
as the main container for supplies such as crayons, pencils, scissors, and other small items.
Below the “Pink Tubs,” as the students call them, are kept their three-ring binder, spiral
notebook, and clipboard. This system has worked very well for me. However, student cubbies
will get a bit too messy from time to time just as desks do. In response to this I have a hand-
drawn poster that I have the students color at the first of the year. Additionally, I remind
them routinely that being organized will help them with their school work and that a
clean cubby is part of being organized.
Another part of my system that has helped with students having the right stuff at the right
time of the day is the use of three-ring binders. They carry these with them most of the day
as they include nearly everything they need, organized in various sections. The “Pee-Chee”
type folders I have them bring at the first of school are turned inside-out and punched with
a three-hole punch. They are then labeled (mostly by subject) and used as pocket dividers in
their binders. I also ask that students bring a pencil pouch to keep snapped into their
binders. This helps them keep track of their pencils.

6 The Multigrade Classroom

 Explaining Your Room Arrangement

owever you choose to arrange your room, you will need to explain

H the rationale to students and parents. It is often helpful to label each

activity center and to include a few simple rules regarding the appro-
priate behavior for each center. If students help develop the rules and make
the signs for the different centers, they are more likely to understand and
follow the rules.
If you clearly define each activity center and specify behavior standards,
students will have a much easier time. This does not mean that you have a
set of strict rules governing the entire classroom. It does mean that you have
rules that reflect the purpose of the different areas in the room. For example,
you might post a sign over the pairwork area that states the name of the
area and explains that only students working quietly in pairs are allowed. It
means that in the independent work area, there is no talking, only working
independently. However, students need to be introduced to the room, and
their behavior needs to be consistently monitored. Robin Lovec, a multi-
grade teacher from Montana, outlines what is expected of students. This is
done very early in the year. She explains:

The teacher should be the model and let students watch while you act out the role of the
student. Let them hear your thought process as you go through what is expected within the
guidelines established for the classroom, and what would happen if you went outside those
guidelines.

Book 2: Classroom Organization 7

Floor Plan Design

he principles of classroom design should be clear. You must decide on

T several key factors:

l What types of activities will occur in your classroom?
l How will you arrange the room to accommodate these
activities?
l How will you communicate to students the different activity
areas of your room?
l What behavior is desired in each area? Will students help
decide?
l How will you teach students what will be expected in each
area and why?
Figures 1 and 2 on the following pages are examples of floor plans
organized around the concept of activity centers and cooperative learning
centers. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate a semicontained classroom that allows for
expansion and reorganization as needed. The following questions may be
useful in reviewing these classroom organization plans:
l What activity centers are there? How are they organized in
relationship to one another?
l How have the different activity centers been defined? Are the
furnishings for each center appropriate for the activities that
will occur?
l What effect will traffic patterns have on the intended activities
for each center?
l How have the principles of noise and activity level been used
in laying out the room?
l What changes would you make if this were your room?
l Will you need to separate the class into two equal parts for
“half-class” instruction at any time?

8 The Multigrade Classroom

 FIGURE 1: Self-Contained Classroom (Organized by Areas of Activity)

BULLETIN BOARD

BULLETIN BOARD

Book 2: Classroom Organization 9

FIGURE 2: Self-Contained Classroom (Organized for Cooperative Learning)

10 The Multigrade Classroom

 FIGURE 3: Comprehensive Classroom Layout
DOOR TO

STUDENT CUBBIES
HALL

AND MAILBOXES
STUDENT
COMPUTERS
COAT RACK

STUDENT
DESK

MANIPULATIVES
DOOR TO
OUTSIDE

MATH
ATTENDANCE

PROJECTOR
OVERHEAD
PINS

Book 2: Classroom Organization 11

 The Multigrade Classroom
FIGURE 4: Self-Contained Classroom (Organized for Flexibility)

Class Meeting Area

CHILDREN’S
LITERATURE

STUDENT
MAILBOXES

READING
AREA
FOLDING WALL

STUDENT
MAILBOXES

DOOR TO COAT RACK DOOR TO ATTENDANCE

HALL OUTSIDE PINS

12
 Designing Your Own Room

ith a clear understanding of what types of learning you would like

W to see in your classroom, you are ready to begin laying out your
floor plan. Beth Conant (1997), a multigrade classroom teacher
and early childhood educator from Washington state, identifies six basic
principles to help guide multigrade teachers in designing their classrooms
for more efficient instruction. Conant emphasizes the need to look at the
physical arrangement of furniture and materials to ensure that it directs
how the children are to use the room. Although this is only one way to
organize your classroom, it does provide an excellent place to begin.
Conant’s six guiding principles are:
1. The efficient classroom is a center of learning activities. Furniture
and materials in the classroom should directly support the types of
learning that occur.
l Use shelving and furniture to define and separate learning
areas. Shelving should be pulled away from and placed at right
angles to walls in order to provide barriers to define space.
Children stay focused on activities better when they are not
distracted by other activities visible in the room.
2. The use of subject-area resource centers is an efficient method of
organizing classroom resources. For example, organizing reading
materials into a reading center makes sense for several reasons:
l Pictures of each item or examples of the small items themselves
should be taped to the shelf or container where materials are
stored. Pictures provide visual cues that help children remem-
ber where items belong. Clean-up becomes a learning experi-
ence. Later in the year, pictures may be paired with the printed
work so that children begin to naturally develop sight-word
associations with materials and picture symbols.
l Display materials simply with a few items on each shelf. A
large number of materials on a shelf may be distracting to
children who are not used to making choices. Group similar
materials in proximity to each other. For example, tubs of
small manipulative materials might be shelved together in
one unit, and puzzles displayed on shelves of another. With
materials in one area, no time is lost trying to locate materials
scattered about the room.
l The arrangement of the center (books, table, chairs, pencils,
paper, rug, blackboard, etc.) encourages reading behavior.
3. Classroom arrangement must be flexible to accommodate new learn-
ing activities. Learning centers can be rearranged or changed entirely
to support the learning activities desired by the teacher. Subject-area
center materials are often changed to reflect new units of study.

Book 2: Classroom Organization 13

 4. Involve the children in decisions about room arrangement. After
you have gotten to know your group and they have become accus-
tomed to you and the classroom, hold a group meeting to discuss
with the children how the room is working.
5. Place a picture chart of the sequence of daily activities in a promi-
nent place in the room. The chart helps children to remember what
comes next, providing them with a sense of security and control.
6. Quiet and noisy activities need to be in opposing areas of the room.
Wet areas such as the sand and water table and art areas need to be
well-separated from dry areas such as books, manipulatives, and
toys. Housekeeping and block corner, which encourage dramatic
play, may complement each other if placed nearby.

Three-Step Design

n laying out your floor plan, you might want to refer to the sample plans

I introduced earlier. Some teachers have found it beneficial to use small

pieces of paper to represent the different types of furnishings. These can
then be moved around as desired. Feel free to cut out and use the furnish-
ings found in the sample plan. Be sure to include doorways, sinks, counters,
and other permanent structures. If the spaces provided for designing your
floor plan are too small, use a blank sheet of paper.

14 The Multigrade Classroom

 Step 1: Describing the way it is now

raw a floor plan of the room you will be teaching in. This may be the classroom you taught in

D last year or a new one.

Book 2: Classroom Organization 15

Step 2: Deciding on the types of activities that will occur

dentify the specific learning activities that will take place in your room and write them on the lines

Ibelow. It may be helpful to jot down the types of behavior you expect for each activity. You may
want to refer to earlier sections entitled, The Activity Centers Approach and General Considerations
When Planning.

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

I.

16 The Multigrade Classroom

 Step 3: Drawing the final plan

eview your drawing of the classroom in which you will be teaching in terms of the activities

R you have listed in Step 2. Now, lay out your classroom to promote the learning activities you
desire, noting the placement of furnishings, materials, and storage areas.

Book 2: Classroom Organization 17

Conclusion

hether you choose to organize your classroom around activity centers

W or not, remember that your floor plan should reflect regular class-
room activities. If, for example, you offer lots of cooperative learn-
ing activities, you may design your room with several group discussion
areas. If you do lots of teaching to large groups, then you will likely have
an area where all the students can be seated together.
If your goal is to revise your classroom around activity centers, keep in
mind that you don’t have to do it all at once. You can allow the classroom
to evolve over the year, adding a center at a time as both you and the
students become more comfortable with small-group, self-directed learning
activities.

References

Anderson, R.H. (1993). The return of the nongraded classroom. Principal,

72(3), 9–12.
Banks, J. (1997). Managing classroom noise: The Noise Meter. Downloaded
September 1, 2000, from the World Wide Web: www.chimacum.
wednet.edu/multiage/noisemeter.html.
Cohen, D.L. (1989, December 6). First stirrings of a new trend: Multi-age
classrooms gain favor. Education Week, 9(14), 1, 13–14.
Coleman, J.S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16(6),
32–38.
Conant, B. (1997). Room arrangement: The basics. Downloaded September
1, 2000, from the World Wide Web: www.nauticom.net/www/cokids/
roomdesign.html
Cushman, K. (1993). The case for mixed-age grouping. Harvard, MA: Author.
Feng, J. (1994). Issues and trends in early childhood education. Unpublished
manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 841)
Fox, M. (1997, April). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the National Association of
Elementary School Principals Association, San Antonio, TX.

18 The Multigrade Classroom

Gaustad, J. (1992). Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and
developmentally appropriate education for primary children [Special
issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 35(7).
Goodlad, J.I., & Anderson, R.H. (1987). The nongraded elementary school
(Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hallion, A.M. (1994, March). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association
of Elementary School Principals Association, Orlando, FL.
Katz, L., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J.A. (1990). The case for mixed-age
grouping in early education. Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Kinsey, S. (1998). Observations of student and teacher behaviors in the multi-
age classroom. Unpublished manuscript.
Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children:
An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006–1017.
Marshak, D. (1994, March). From teachers’ perspectives: The social and psycho-
logical benefits of multiage elementary classrooms. Paper presented at the
annual conference “Emerging Images of Learning: World Perspectives
for the New Millennium,” Chicago, IL.
McClellan, D.E. (1994). Multiage grouping: Implications for education. In
P. Chase & J. Doan (Eds.), Full circle: A new look at multiage education
(pp. 147–166). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McClellan, D., & Kinsey, S. (1996). Mixed-age grouping helps children
develop social skills and a sense of belonging. The MAGnet Newsletter
on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 5(1), 1–3.
Retrieved May 8, 2000 from the World Wide Web: www.ericeece.org/
pubs/mag/magfal96.html#a
Miller, B.A. (1993). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade
instruction. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of
America’s schools. The multiage resource book (pp. 65–83). Peterborough,
NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Miller, B.A. (1996). A basic understanding of multiage grouping. School
Administrator, 53(1), 12–17.
Nye, B. (1993). Some questions and answers about multiage grouping.
ERS Spectrum, 11(3), 38–45.
Ridgway, L., & Lawton, I. (1969). Family grouping in the primary school
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Stone, S.J. (1995). Teaching strategies: Strategies for teaching children in
multiage classrooms. Childhood Education, 71(2), 102–105.

Book 2: Classroom Organization 19

 Uphoff, J.K., & Evans, D.A. (1993). The country school comes to town:
A case study of multiage grouping and teaching. In D. Sumner (Ed.),
Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America’s schools. The multiage
resource book (pp. 36–38). Peterborough, NH: Society for
Developmental Education.
Willis, S. (1991). Breaking down grade barriers: Interest on nongraded
classrooms on the raise. ASCD update, 33(3), 4.

20 The Multigrade Classroom

 Resources

Bingham, A.A., Dorta, P., McClaskey, M., & O’Keefe, J. (1995).

Exploring the multiage classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse.
If you are planning to move into multiage grouping or have already made
the transition from a conventional classroom, you will welcome the honest,
practical advice that makes Exploring the Multiage Classroom a genuine
handbook: comprehensive, realistic, and accessible. You will see what
teachers find rewarding in multiage teaching and why it works so well for
children who can learn from the models provided by the literacy and learn-
ing of other children around them.

Available from: Stenhouse Publishers

P.O. Box 360
York, ME 03909

Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis.

Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
This is the third edition of a research synthesis that was first published by
NWREL in 1984 and updated in 1990. This edition reflects educational
research literature published within the past five years, together with
inquiries into topical areas not investigated previously. Like its predeces-
sors, this synthesis cites classroom, school, and district practices that
research has shown to foster positive student achievement, attitudes,
and social behavior.

Available from: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204-3297

Dennison, B., Hose, G., Johnson, M., Large, R., Quinn, M., & Fogarty,
M. (1978). Rearranging the traditional two-teacher school to fit the
linear multiple-area plan. Teachers’ Forum (Australia), 1(2), 5–7.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 229 182)
This article describes a plan for converting a traditional two-room school
into an open teaching space in which two teachers teach cooperatively. A
sample floor plan is presented.

Available from: DynEDRS, Inc.

7420 Fullerton Road, Suite 110
Springfield, VA 22153-2852

Book 2: Classroom Organization 21

 Yates, R. (n.d.). Keeping organized: Student cubbies and binders.
Chimacum, WA: Chimacum Elementary School. Retrieved
September 27, 2000, from the World Wide Web: www.
chimacum.wednet.edu/multiage/sorganiz.html
Students are moving from one working group to another throughout the
day. Frequently they are also working on an individual task. Due to the
flexibility this kind of movement requires, it is important to use tables
throughout the classroom instead of student desks. This book shares ideas
on how to organize and manage student belongings.

Available from: Chimacum Elementary School

91 West Valley Road
Chimacum, WA 98325

Yates, R. (n.d.). Resources for multiage education web site. Chimacum,

WA: Chimacum Elementary School. Retrieved September 27, 2000,
from the World Wide Web: www.chimacum.wednet.edu/multiage/
This Web site is dedicated to helping teachers and administrators interested
in multiage education find and gather relevant resources. Here you will
find materials that educators have collected, created, or modified along
with links to other places on the Web and references to print material that
are especially helpful. Of course, this reflects just some of the ways a multi-
age program can be set up.

22 The Multigrade Classroom

 THE MULTIGRADE CLASSROOM:
A RESOURCE HANDBOOK FOR SMALL,
RURAL SCHOOLS
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline

November 1999
Rural Education Program

Based on the September 1989 publication

of the same title written by Bruce A. Miller

Susan Vincent, Editor

Joyce Ley, Director

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97204
Acknowledgments

The following selections have been reprinted with permission:

Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous class-
room (pp. 207–209). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Emmer, E.T. (1987). Classroom management and discipline. In V.
Richardson-Koehler & D.C. Berliner (Eds.), Educators’ handbook:
A research perspective (pp. 233-258). White Plains, NY: Longman.
(Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Evertson, C.M., Emmer, E.T., Clements, B.S., Sanford, J.P., & Williams, E.
(1981). Organizing and managing the elementary school classroom. Austin,
TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education. (Reprinted with permission of Carolyn Evertson, Peabody
College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.)
Gaustad, J. (1994). Nongraded education: Overcoming obstacles to imple-
menting the multigrade classroom [Special issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 38(3
& 4). (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Gibbons, M., & Phillips, G. (1978). Helping students through the self-
education crisis. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(4), 296–300. (Reprinted with
permission of publisher.)
Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. (Reprinted with permission
of publisher.)
Karweit, N. (1987). Diversity, equity, and classroom processes. In M.T.
Hallinan (Ed.), Social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of the
learning process (pp. 71–102). New York, NY: Plenum Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Kentucky Department of Education. (1996). Nearly all Kentucky schools show
improvement in latest KIRIS scores, but middle schools lag behind [Press
release]. Frankfort, KY: Author. (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Murphy, J., Weil, M., & McGreal, T. (1986). The basic practice model of
instruction. Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 83–96. (Reprinted with
permission of the University of Chicago Press.)
Oregon Department of Education, & Ackerman Laboratory School. (1994).
Mixed-age programs, 1993–94. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Education. (Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Pavan, B.N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational
Leadership, 50(2), 22–25. (Reprinted with permission of author.)

ii The Multigrade Classroom

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elemen-
tary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 293–336. (Reprinted with permission of the American
Educational Research Association.)
Slavin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and
secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67–77. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1989). What works for students at risk:
A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4–13. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Thomas, J.W., Strage, A., & Curley, R. (1988). Improving students’ self-
directed learning: Issues and guidelines. Elementary School Journal, 88(3),
313–326. (Reprinted with permission of the University of Chicago.)

iii
Overview

Preface
The preface describes the process used in developing this handbook,
including the multigrade teachers who shared their classroom strategies
and ideas for improving the usefulness of the handbook.
Introduction
The history of multigrade classroom instruction is presented, along
with the background information that describes why multigrade
instruction is an important and complex issue for educators.
Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
In this book, the research on multigrade instruction is reviewed
in order to answer two questions: (1) What effect does multigrade
instruction have on student performance? and (2) What kind of train-
ing is needed in order to teach in a multigrade classroom? Detailed
information focusing on organizing and teaching in a multigrade class-
room is also presented.
Book 2: Classroom Organization
This book describes strategies for arranging and organizing instruc-
tional resources and the physical environment of the classroom. Sample
classroom layouts and a “design kit” for organizing your classroom are
also included.
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Establishing clear expectations for student behavior and predictable
classroom routines has been shown to improve student performance.
In this book, research relating to classroom management and discipline
are presented, along with a checklist for planning management routines
and discipline procedures.
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Research-based guidelines for planning, developing, and implementing
instructional strategies are presented. This book emphasizes the devel-
opment of cooperative work norms in the multigrade classroom and
explains how to match instruction to the needs of students. An overview
of curriculum and evaluation planning concepts is also provided. This
book is a close companion piece with book 5: Instructional Delivery
and Grouping.

iv The Multigrade Classroom

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
This book emphasizes that instructional quality and student grouping
are key components for success in the multigrade classroom.
Instructional methods such as recitation, discussion, and cooperative
learning are reviewed. Planning guides and examples are also included
where appropriate. Strategies for organizing group learning activities
across and within grade levels, especially those that develop interde-
pendence and cooperation among students, are discussed.
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Developing skills and strategies in students that allow for a high level
of independence and efficiency in learning, either individually or in
combination with other students, is essential in the multigrade class-
room. Ideas for developing self-direction are presented in this book.
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring
This book provides guidelines for developing skills and routines whereby
students serve as “teachers” to other students within and across differ-
ing grade levels. The research on what makes for effective tutoring in
the classroom is also reviewed.

v
Preface

he development of this handbook began in 1987, when a group

T of people involved in rural education raised several issues regarding

multigrade classroom instruction.
In their discussions, members of the advisory committee for the
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s (NWREL) Rural Education
Program agreed that multigrade teacher training in their respective states
was either lacking or wholly inadequate. They also were concerned about
the availability of research and training materials to help rural multigrade
teachers improve their skills.
As a result of these concerns, the Rural Education Program decided to
develop a handbook to assist the multigrade teacher. The handbook evolved
in several stages. The first was a comprehensive review, conducted by Dr.
Bruce Miller, of the research on multigrade instruction that included articles,
books, and research reports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and
other countries.
From this review, six topic areas emerged that are considered essential for
effective multigrade instruction: classroom organization; classroom manage-
ment and discipline; instructional organization, curriculum, and evaluation;
instructional delivery and grouping; self-directed learning; and planning and
using peer tutoring. Dr. Miller developed the handbook around these six
instructional areas, and a draft was completed in June 1989, with support
from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).
The second stage occurred in July 1989, when a conference was held in
Ashland, Oregon, with multigrade teachers who were recommended by educa-
tional leaders from throughout the Northwest and Pacific Island regions.
During the conference, participants were organized into workgroups,
each focusing on one of the topic areas. Their tasks were to review the
appropriate handbook chapter for clarity and content, to suggest alternative
and/or additional instructional strategies to those presented in the handbook,
and to write case descriptions of activities drawn from their classrooms.
For example, Joel Anderson from Onion Creek Elementary in Colville,
Washington, described how he grouped students for cooperative learning.
Darci Shane from Vida, Montana, presented a school handbook she had
developed for parents that included a class schedule and other school-related
information. (A full list of participants appears at the end of this preface.)
The final handbook was completed by Dr. Miller in September 1989.
Based on the growing interest and research on multigrade instruction
the handbook was revised and updated in 1999, also with support from
OERI. The final version, completed with support from the Institute of
International Education (IIE), is now composed of a series of seven stand-
alone books.

vi The Multigrade Classroom

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
Book 2: Classroom Organization
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring

Purpose and Scope of the Handbook

he handbook has been written to serve three general purposes:

T l To provide an overview of current research on multigrade

instruction
l To identify key issues teachers face when teaching in a multi-
grade setting
l To provide a set of resource guides to assist novice and
experienced multigrade teachers in improving the quality
of instruction
However, because of the complexity of multigrade instruction and the
vast amount of research on effective classroom instruction, this handbook
can only serve as a starting point for those educators wanting to learn new
skills or refine those they already possess.
Each book of the series presents information, strategies, and resources
considered important for the multigrade teacher. While all the books are
related, they also can stand alone as separate documents. For example, the
books on Classroom Organization (Book 2) and Classroom Management
and Discipline (Book 3) contain overlapping information. Ideally, these
two books are best utilized together. The same is true of the books on
Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation (Book 4) and
Instructional Delivery and Grouping (Book 5). Wherever possible, these
relationships have been noted in the appropriate books.
In conclusion, the series of books has been designed to be used as
a research-based resource guide for the multigrade teacher. It covers the
most important issues the multigrade teacher must address to be effective
in meeting the needs of students. Sample schedules, classroom layouts,
resource lists, and strategies aimed at improving instruction have been used
throughout. It is our hope that the handbook will raise questions, provide
answers, and direct the multigrade teacher to resources where answers to
other questions can be found.

vii
Participants in the Multigrade Conference

Kalistus Ngirturong Barbara Robinson

Aimeliik Elementary Arbon Elementary School
Babeldaob Island Arbon, Idaho
Republic of Palau
Monte Phoenix and Karrie
Robin Lovec Phoenix
Springdale School Orovada, Nevada
Springdale, Montana
Joel Anderson
Anthony Moorow Onion Creek Elementary
Yap Department of Education Colville, Washington
Colonia, Yap
Marty Karlin
Cheryl Mikolajcvyk Trinity Center School
Kaumakakai, Hawaii Trinity Center, California

Leslie Gordon Troy Smith

Pitkas Point School Dixie Elementary School
St. Mary’s, Alaska Dixie, Washington

James Makphie Jill Bills

Majuro, Marshall Islands Sanders Elementary School
Sanders, Arizona
Edith Nicholas
Andrew K. Demoski School Darci Shane
Nulato, Alaska Southview School
Vida, Montana
Benjamin Bernard
Majuro, Marshall Islands Eileene Armstrong
Melrose Elementary
Linda Pelroy Melrose, Montana
W.W. Jones Elementary
Arock, Oregon Pam Cunningham
Sand Springs Elementary
John Rusyniak Sand Springs, Montana
Mentasta Lake School
Mentasta Lake, Alaska Jennifer McAllister
Deerfield Elementary
Patricia Reck Lewistown, Montana
Brothers School
Brothers, Oregon Kimberly Rindal
Ayers Elementary
Bill Radtke Grass Range, Montana
English Bay School
English Bay, Alaska Sammy Vickers
Grant Elementary
Phil M. Gillies Dillon, Montana
Stone Elementary
Malad, Idaho Brian Wolter
Avon Elementary
Carol Spackman Avon, Montana
Park Valley School
Park Valley, Utah

viii The Multigrade Classroom

 Introduction

n contrast to a historical pattern of children developing within an age-

I varied social system, many children today spend a majority of their

time in an age-segregated milieu (Katz, Evangelou, & Hartman, 1990;
McClellan, 1994). The results of this pattern of segregation are thought to
contribute to a declining social support system and compromised develop-
ment of children’s social and academic skills.
Coleman (1987) suggests the need for a significant institutional and
societal response to support functions traditionally filled by the family, such
as the development of feelings of belonging and community, emotional and
social bonding, and nurturance. Increasingly, the school has been viewed as
one of the most effective and efficient contexts to address children’s academic,
affective, and social needs before these needs reach crisis proportions.
A growing body of research explores the influence of educational
contexts on children’s development. While interest has focused on the
impact of the classroom environment on children’s attitudes toward school,
cognitive growth, and academic development, less direct attention has been
given to the relationship between classroom context (including the structure
and content of children’s peer relationships) and academic and social devel-
opment during the elementary years. One approach explored by theoreti-
cians and researchers for encouraging children’s academic and social skill
development is multigrade instruction.
In multigrade instruction, children of at least a two-year grade span
and diverse ability levels are grouped in a single classroom and are encour-
aged to share experiences involving intellectual, academic, and social skills
(Goodlad & Anderson, 1987; Katz et al., 1990; McClellan & Kinsey,
1996). Consistency over time in relationships among teachers, children,
and parents is viewed as one of the most significant strengths of the multi-
grade approach because it encourages greater depth in children’s social,
academic, and intellectual development. The concept of the classroom as a
“family” is encouraged, leading to expansion of the roles of nurturing and
commitment on the part of both students and teacher (Feng, 1994;
Hallion, 1994; Marshak, 1994).
The potential academic and social implications of the multigrade
concept of education are strongly supported by extensive research demon-
strating the importance of peers in children’s academic and social develop-
ment, and by studies of reciprocity theory, which demonstrate the positive
effect on child academic and social behavior of sustained close relationships
between children and caregivers (Kinsey, 1998; Maccoby, 1992).
The adequate implementation of a multigrade approach to education
extends beyond simply mixing children of different grades together. A
positive working model of a multigrade classroom allows for the develop-
ment of academic and social skills as the teacher encourages cross-age

ix
 interactions through tutoring and shared discovery. Social competence
develops for older children out of their roles as teachers and nurturers, and
for younger children out of their opportunity to observe and model the
behavior of their older classmates (Katz et al., 1990; Ridgway & Lawton,
1969).
The multigrade classroom has traditionally been an important and
necessary organizational pattern of education in the United States, notes
Miller (1993). Multigrade education dates back to the one-room schools
that were the norm in this country until they were phased out in the early
part of the 1900s (Cohen, 1989; Miller, 1993). From the mid-1960s
through mid-1970s, a number of schools implemented open education,
ungraded classrooms, and multigrade groupings. Although some schools
continued to refine and develop the multigrade concept, many of these
programs disappeared from public schools. With the beginning of the
industrial revolution and large-scale urban growth, the ideal of mass public
education took root and the practice of graded schools began in earnest.
The graded school system provided a means of organizing and classify-
ing the increased number of urban students of the 1900s. Educators found
it easier to manage students by organizing them into age divisions or grades.
Other factors, such as the advent of the graded textbook, state-supported
education, and the demand for trained teachers, further solidified graded
school organization (Miller, 1993; Uphoff & Evans, 1993). Critics of the
graded school were quick to emphasize this deficiency. The realization that
children’s uneven developmental patterns and differing rates of progress are
ill-matched to the rigid grade-level system has resulted in a growing interest
in and study of the potential benefits of multigrade education in recent years
(Miller, 1996). This growing interest is due to a greater focus on the impor-
tance of the early years in efforts to restructure the educational system
(Anderson, 1993; Cohen, 1989; Stone, S.J., 1995; Willis, 1991) and
an awareness of the limitations of graded education.
The multigrade classroom is labor intensive and requires more planning,
collaboration, and professional development than the conventional graded
classroom (Cushman, 1993; Gaustad, 1992; Miller, 1996). Sufficient
planning time must be available to meet the needs of both teacher and
students. Insufficient planning, staff development, materials, support, and
assessment procedures will have an impact on the success of the multigrade
program (Fox, 1997; Miller, 1996; Nye, 1993).
Despite these constraints, there are special advantages to multigrade
classrooms. Flexible schedules can be implemented and unique programs
developed to meet students’ individual and group interests and needs.
Combined classrooms also offer ample opportunity for students to become
resourceful and independent learners. The multigrade rural classroom is

x The Multigrade Classroom

usually less formal than the single-grade urban or suburban classroom.
Because of the small class size, friendly relationships based on understand-
ing and respect develop naturally between the students and the teacher. In
this setting, students become well-known by their teacher and a family
atmosphere often develops.
However, many teachers, administrators, and parents continue to
wonder whether multigrade organization has negative effects on student
performance. For most rural educators, multigrade instruction is not an
experiment or a new educational trend, but a forceful reality based on
economic and geographic necessity. In a society where educational environ-
ments are dominated by graded organization, the decision to combine grades
is often quite difficult. The Rural Education Program of the Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory receives numerous requests from rural
educators with two overriding concerns regarding multigrade classrooms:
l What effect does multigrade instruction have on student
performance?
l What kind of preparation or training is needed to be an effec-
tive teacher in a multigrade classroom?
This handbook will provide answers to these questions and develop
an overview of key issues facing school districts and teachers involved in
or contemplating multigrade classrooms.

xi
 Contents

Classroom Management and Discipline......................................................1

Three Phases of Classroom Management and Discipline ............................1
Phase 1: Preparing for the Beginning of School ................................1
Phase 2: Beginning the School Year ..................................................3
Phase 3: Maintaining Good Discipline ..............................................4
Organizing Your Classroom and the Materials in It....................................11
Storing Personal Belongings............................................................11
The General Classroom: Curriculum Materials and Supplies ..........12
Organizing Teacher Activities in the Classroom ........................................17
Attendance and Other Managerial Procedures ................................17
Daily Announcements ....................................................................18
Student Strategies for Obtaining Help ............................................19
Organizing Student Activities ..................................................................21
Guide for Students ..........................................................................21
Establishing Procedures and Rules in Your Classroom ..............................24
Guidelines for Planning Procedures and Rules for the Classroom..............26
References ............................................................................................31
Resources ..............................................................................................33

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline xiii

 Classroom Management and Discipline

he following information is meant only as a starting point—something

T you will want to add to, modify, and use in the way that best meets
your needs. Managing the classroom is a critical element in successful
instruction and requires good organizational ability and consistency. Students
come into the classroom expecting the teacher to give them guidance and
direction about rules and procedures and how the classroom is organized
for instructional use. Having a uniform and predictable set of rules and
procedures simplifies the task of being successful. Having clear and efficient
routines makes classroom life run smoothly. Because there are so many differ-
ent levels in a multigrade classroom, the need for clear, consistent rules and
procedures is even more critical than in traditional, single-grade classrooms.

Three Phases of Classroom

Management and Discipline

ffective teachers have been consistently observed by researchers to

E engage in three distinct phases of classroom management and discipline:

(1) planning before school begins, (2) implementing plans, and
(3) maintenance (Emmer, 1987). Each phase will be presented in this
book, along with examples of what effective teachers do during each phase.

Phase 1: Preparing for the Beginning of School

ffective teachers make their expectations explicit through clear rules

E and procedures that are consistently taught and enforced. The first few
weeks of school are used to establish these expectations. Therefore, early
planning and preparation before school begins is critical for starting the
school year right. As one multigrade teacher noted, “Teachers must have
their own idea of what the classroom will look like and how it will function
before the first day of school.” In other words, before the students arrive,
the teacher must develop a vision of classroom life: how students will behave
and relate to one another, where they will work, how resources will be
organized, and other important classroom considerations.

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 1

 During Phase 1, teachers focus on planning the arrangement of the
classroom, organizing supplies and materials, and planning instructional
activities for the first few days of school. In a review of seven different
studies of teacher planning for the beginning of the school year, Emmer
(1987) identify several key areas for teacher attention:
Arranging the Effective teachers focus on organizing furnishings and materials in order
classroom to facilitate instruction in several general ways: (1) student seating should
be easy to monitor by the teacher and not distracting to the students;
(2) well-used areas of the room should be easily accessible; and (3) materials
and equipment should be quite accessible by students and the teacher.
Identifying expectations Establishing productive norms for student behavior can make the difference
for behavior between success and failure for a classroom teacher. These norms are best
set early in the year in a variety of ways, such as “teacher praise for appro-
priate behavior, corrective feedback, formally presented rules, establishing
procedures that regulate behavior during classroom activities, and academic
work requirements” (Emmer, 1987, pp. 236–237). Students must learn
how to behave in a wide variety of work and social situations. If the teacher
can lay out in advance the desired expectations for some of these situations,
it is more likely that students will behave in the desired manner. Some of
the activities that must be planned for are:
l Whole-class instruction
l Teacher-led small groups
l Independent, small, cooperative workgroups
l Individual seatwork
l Transitions between activities
l Room and equipment use
l Tutoring students
l Giving and receiving assignments

Planning consequences Once a teacher develops clear expectations for student behavior in different
learning and social areas, the next step is to decide on consequences for
students who follow or do not follow these expectations. Consequences
may be divided into two general areas: rewards and punishment. Stickers,
awards, prizes, or privileges are examples of commonly used extrinsic
rewards. Emmer (1987) suggest that punishments “be reserved for behav-
iors that are easily observable and relatively infrequent [otherwise] incon-
sistent teacher use of punishment is much more likely” (p. 238). When
students are successful and receive teacher feedback, approval, and recogni-
tion, the need for extrinsic rewards is minimal. In other words, teacher
behavior and instructional quality have a bigger impact on producing

2 The Multigrade Classroom

positive student behavior than the reward and punishment consequences a
teacher may establish (see Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum,
and Evaluation for more information on establishing a positive instructional
climate).
Consequences should be consistently maintained and administered, and
they should be the same for everyone. Students who have disabilities will
break the rules like anyone else, and they should receive similar consequences.
Student participation in creating the best learning environment will create a Student participation
class that manages lessons and time well. As students become more capable
and able to take on responsibility, they will want to voice their opinions on
aspects of school life. Teachers should be able to listen to their ideas and
implement them.
Additional areas will be presented toward the end of this book in the
planning guide for classroom procedures and rules.

Phase 2: Beginning the School Year

uring this phase, the teacher seeks to put into practice plans that have

D been developed prior to the start of school. This is the time when
norms are established and students develop a view of how “their
particular class will operate.” Emmer (1987) identifies four principles
that can help the teacher get off to a good start:
Teach rules and expectations as if they were academic content. For example, 1. Teach students to behave
if you use cooperative workgroups, be sure students know what it looks
like to cooperate and give them the opportunity to practice. Students should
know from the teacher exactly what is expected for the different types of
classroom activities. A recently completed five-year study of a program
designed to teach elementary students prosocial behaviors demonstrated
the effectiveness of treating rules and expectations as academic content.
Children in the program displayed more spontaneous prosocial behavior
toward one another, and were more supportive, friendly, and helpful than
students in a group of comparison schools (Villa, Thousand, & Stainback,
1992). However, it was not only teaching desired social skills and behavior
that produced the results, but also structuring the learning environment
and teacher modeling.
It is important to recognize that students may be anxious or nervous about 2. Consider students’
their new environment. They may have concerns about being successful, concerns
getting along well with others socially, and doing the “right” thing. By
being supportive and encouraging and providing activities with high
success rates, you can alleviate some of these fears.

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 3

 3. Lead the class Research has demonstrated that the most effective teachers maintain a highly
central role in the classroom. They are not authoritarian tyrants, but they do
not turn the class over to the students. They make decisions aimed at achiev-
ing specific purposes, and they monitor their decisions for effectiveness. For
example, if they want students to work in small problem-solving groups, they
make sure students know how to work cooperatively and that the assignment
is clearly understood. Then they monitor group progress to ensure that
students are successful in carrying out their assignment.
4. The teacher as It is important to teach students that how we act and interact with others
role model is our own responsibility. As a teacher, maintain a positive classroom climate.
All students must be taught how to interact with others and, of course,
teachers must model respect for them with an impartial and caring attitude.
No amount of teaching can overshadow our own actions and behavior. All
students will benefit from a good role model, particularly in a teacher’s
interactions with students who have challenges.

Phase 3: Maintaining Good Discipline

nce the school year is underway and positive student social and

O academic norms have been established, the teacher must seek to

maintain these norms. In this phase, the teacher’s role shifts toward
keeping high levels of student engagement and preventing disruptions of
the learning environment. Emmer (1987) divides this phase into two key
areas:
1. Monitoring and Effective teachers are good managers who do not ignore large amounts
handling inappropriate of inappropriate behavior. They monitor classroom norms continuously,
behavior stopping and then redirecting incidents of unacceptable behavior in a prompt
and timely manner. However, these teachers are not negative or sarcastic
toward student misbehavior, and they respond in ways that do not call
attention to the problem at hand. For example, when a student is observed
off task, the teacher moves closer to the student but says nothing as an
alternative to verbally reprimanding the student.
Shane teaches in a single-room school in eastern Montana and uses
several strategies to keep students on task. Shane says that when kids run
out of things to do, they are likely to disturb others. To avoid this situa-
tion, she keeps a running list of things for them to do when their work is
finished. Students are encouraged to add ideas to the list. Some of the
activities on her list include:
l Reading Ranger Rick or World magazine
l Listening to tapes
l Free reading: encyclopedias, library books, and so forth

4 The Multigrade Classroom

 l Looking up words in the dictionary
l Helping the teacher
l Journal writing
l Writing a penpal
l Reading to a younger student
Russell Yates, a multigrade teacher in the Chimacum School District in
Washington state, uses a problem-solving form, as shown in Figure 1, to
control behavior and maintain discipline. He explains:

When individual students make a behavior mistake in my classroom, I have them complete
a problem-solving form. This process not only gently reminds the student of the expected
behavior, it also directs them to find their own workable solution. When I ask the student
to “please fill out a problem-solving form,” he or she will walk back to the “problem-solving
desk,” complete the form including pictures of the problem and solution at the bottom of
the form, place it in a specific paper tray, and then appropriately rejoin the class or activity.
At my convenience (usually the next recess), I use the completed form to discuss the problem
and solution with the student.

Following are additional techniques that teachers can use in their class-
room to help them achieve effective group management and control. They
have been adapted from “A Primer on Classroom Discipline: Principles Old
and New,” by Thomas R. McDaniel (1986).
Be sure you have the attention of everyone in your classroom before you Focusing
start your lesson. Don’t attempt to teach over the chatter of students who are
not paying attention. Inexperienced teachers sometimes think that by begin-
ning their lesson, the class will settle down. The children will see that things
are underway now and understand that it is time to go to work. Sometimes
this works, but the children are also going to think that you are willing to
compete with them. You don’t mind talking while they talk. You are willing
to speak louder so that they can finish their conversation even after you have
started the lesson. They get the idea that you accept their inattention and
that it is permissible to talk while you are presenting a lesson.
The focusing technique means that teachers will demand students’
attention before beginning, that you will wait and not start until everyone
has settled down. Experienced teachers know that silence on their part is
very effective. They will punctuate their waiting by extending it five to 10
seconds after the classroom is completely quiet. Then they begin their
lesson using a quieter voice than normal.
A soft-spoken teacher often has a calmer, quieter classroom than one
with a stronger voice. Her students sit still in order to hear what she says.

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 5

FIGURE 1: Problem-Solving Form

Problem-Solving Form
My problem is:

My solution is:

Student signature: Date:

Teacher signature: Date:

Problem Solution

6 The Multigrade Classroom

Uncertainty increases the level of excitement in the classroom. The technique Direct instruction
of direct instruction is to begin each class by telling the students exactly what
will be happening. The teacher outlines what he and the students will be
doing this period. Time limits for some tasks may be set.
An effective way to marry this technique with the first one is to include
time at the end of the period for students to do activities of their choosing.
The teacher may finish the description of the hour’s activities with: “And I
think we will have some time at the end of the period for you to chat with
your friends, go to the library, or catch up on work for other classes.”
A teacher is more willing to wait for class attention when he knows there
is extra time to meet his goals and objectives. The students soon realize
that the more time the teacher waits for their attention, the less free time
they have at the end of the hour.
The key to this principle is to circulate. Get up and move around the room. Monitoring
While your students are working, make the rounds. Check on their progress.
An effective teacher will make a pass through the whole room about two
minutes after the students have started a written assignment. She checks that
each student has started, that the children are on the correct page, and that
everyone has put their name on their papers. The delay is important. She
wants her students to have a problem or two finished so she can check that
answers are correctly labeled or in complete sentences. She provides individu-
alized instruction as needed. Students who are not yet quite on task will be
quick to get going as they see her approach. Those who are distracted or
slow to get started can be nudged along.
The teacher does not interrupt the class or try to make general
announcements unless she notices that several students have difficulty with
the same thing. The teacher uses a quiet voice, and her students appreciate
her personal and positive attention.
McDaniel tells us of a saying that goes, “Values are caught, not taught.” Modeling
Teachers who are courteous, prompt, enthusiastic, in control, patient, and
organized provide examples for their students through their own behavior.
The “do as I say, not as I do” teachers send mixed messages that confuse
students and invite misbehavior.
If you want students to use quiet voices in your classroom while
they work, you too will use a quiet voice as you move through the room
helping youngsters.
A standard item in the classroom of the 1950s was the clerk’s bell. A shiny Nonverbal cuing
nickel bell sat on the teacher’s desk. With one tap of the button on top, he
had everyone’s attention. Teachers have shown a lot of ingenuity over the
years in making use of nonverbal cues in the classroom. Some flip light
switches. Others keep clickers in their pockets.

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 7

 Nonverbal cues can also be facial expressions, body posture, and hand
signals. Care should be given in choosing the types of cues you use in your
classroom. Take time to explain what you want the student to do when you
use your cues.
Environmental control A classroom can be a warm, cheery place. Students enjoy an environment
that changes periodically. Study centers with pictures and color invite
enthusiasm for your subject.
Young people like to know about you and your interests. Include
personal items in your classroom. A family picture or a few items from a
hobby or collection on your desk will trigger personal conversations with
your students. As they get to know you better, you will see fewer problems
with discipline.
Just as you may want to enrich your classroom, there are times when
you may want to impoverish it as well. You may need a quiet corner with
few distractions. Some students will get caught up in visual exploration.
For them, the splash and color act as a siren that pulls them off task. They
may need more “vanilla” and less “rocky road.” Have a place to which you
can steer these youngsters. Let them get their work done first, then come
back to explore and enjoy the rest of the room.

Low-profile intervention Most students are sent to the principal’s office as a result of confrontational
escalation. The teacher has called them on a lesser offense, but in the
moments that follow, the student and the teacher are swept up in a verbal
maelstrom. Much of this can be avoided when the teacher’s intervention is
quiet and calm.
An effective teacher will take care that the student is not rewarded for
misbehavior by becoming the focus of attention. She moves around and
monitors the activity in her classroom. She anticipates problems before they
occur. Her approach to a misbehaving student is inconspicuous. Others in
the class are not distracted.
While lecturing to her class this teacher makes effective use of name-
dropping. If she sees a student talking or off task, she simply drops the
youngster’s name into her dialogue in a natural way: “And you see, David,
we carry the one to the tens column.” David hears his name and is drawn
back on task. The rest of the class doesn’t seem to notice.
Assertive discipline This is traditional limit-setting authoritarianism. When executed it includes
a good mix of praise. This is high-profile discipline. The teacher is the boss,
and no child has the right to interfere with the learning of any student.
Clear rules are laid out and consistently enforced.
Assertive I-messages A component of assertive discipline, I-messages are statements that the
teacher uses when confronting a student who is misbehaving. They are
intended to be clear descriptions of what the student is supposed to do.

8 The Multigrade Classroom

The teacher who makes good use of this technique will focus the child’s
attention first and foremost on the behavior he wants, not on the misbe-
havior. (“I want you to …” or “I need you to …” or “I expect you to …”)
The inexperienced teacher may incorrectly try “I want you to stop …”,
only to discover that this usually triggers confrontation and denial. The focus
is on the misbehavior, and the student is quick to retort, “I wasn’t doing
anything!” or “It wasn’t my fault!” or “Since when is there a rule against
…”, and escalation has begun.
These I-messages are expressions of our feelings. Thomas Gordon, creator Humanistic I-messages
of Teacher Effectiveness Training (TET), tells us to structure these messages
in three parts. First, describe the child’s behavior (“When you talk while
I talk …”). Second, state the effect this behavior has on the teacher (“… I
have to stop my teaching …”). And third, state the feeling that it generates
in the teacher (“… which frustrates me”).
One teacher, distracted by a student who was constantly talking while
he tried to teach, one day expressed his feelings quite powerfully: “I cannot
imagine what I have done to you that I do not deserve the respect from you
that I get from the others in this class. If I have been rude to you or incon-
siderate in any way, please let me know. I feel as though I have somehow
offended you, and now you are unwilling to show me respect.” The student
did not talk during his lectures again for many weeks.
Use classroom rules that describe the behaviors you want instead of listing Positive discipline
things the students cannot do. Instead of “no running in the room,” use
“move through the building in an orderly manner.” Instead of “no fighting,”
use “settle conflicts appropriately.” Instead of “no gum chewing,” use “leave
gum at home.” Refer to your rules as expectations. Let your students know
this is how you expect them to behave in your classroom.
Praise students frequently. When you see good behavior, acknowledge
it. This can be done verbally, of course, but it doesn’t have to be. A nod, a
smile, or a “thumbs up” will reinforce the behavior.

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 9

 2. Organizing and Activities that are well-planned, clearly sequenced and presented, and provide
conducting learning for high levels of student success tend to produce a high degree of student
activities engagement. When students are actively learning, they are less likely to
become involved in inappropriate behavior. Effective teachers also organize
the learning environment to reduce the amount of influences that can disrupt
the flow of instruction, whether in teacher-led groups, small workgroups,
or during independent seatwork.
The remaining information in this chapter has been divided into five
parts, each one focusing on a different aspect of classroom management:
1. Organizing your classroom and the materials in it
2. Organizing your activities in the classroom
3. Organizing student activities
4. Establishing rules and procedures
5. A classroom guide for planning rules and procedures

10 The Multigrade Classroom

 Organizing Your Classroom
and the Materials in It

lear guidelines and procedures are necessary from the time the students

C walk through the door in the morning until they pick up their jackets
and leave for home. (See Book 2: Classroom Organization for
additional information on planning your classroom.)

Storing Personal Belongings

xperienced teachers use a variety of techniques for helping students

E organize their materials. Depending on the availability of materials

and space, the following ideas have been useful:
l Use shelf space and divide it so that each student has an
assigned section or cubbyhole for his or her materials.
l Provide a plastic tub or wooden tote box for each student. If
these containers are uniform in size, they can easily be stacked
and stored on shelves, windowsills, above coat hooks, and so
forth, and students can take them along as they move to
different areas in the room. (One advantage some teachers
have using this system is that they can easily take attendance
by looking on the shelves, windowsills, etc., to see which tote
boxes are left.)
l Students can decorate large ice cream containers, which then
serve as cubbies. Cubbies can be lined up along a wall, on a
shelf, and so forth.
l Use fruit boxes as storage containers by stacking them on their
sides. Students can share if space is limited. Provide students
with folders or binders to keep assignments in.
l Make a bound book containing six or eight file folder pockets.
To make the booklet, staple five folders together. Tape the
bottom and part of the side of each folder to make separate
pockets. Each student could have a booklet. Include a place
for completed assignments and a place for lost papers.

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 11

The General Classroom: Curriculum Materials and Supplies

any different approaches have been used by teachers for storing and

M locating instructional materials. In the multigrade classroom, it is

important that these materials be located and labeled so that students
can function independently of the teacher. Often, in classrooms organized
for individualized instruction, teachers organize materials into resource
centers. The following ideas identified during a meeting in 1997 by the
Professional Multiage Teachers Association of Western Washington have
been used successfully:
l Locate all materials relating to a particular subject in one area
of the room. Then, whenever a child wants to work on math,
for example, he will know to go to the math center. This system
has several management offshoots. If the children work in
specific subject areas in the classroom, then it is easier for
them to find partners, and it is also easier for the teacher
to keep track of who is working on what subjects.
l Divide the classroom into functional areas: a quiet study area,
a place for partner work, a place to have discussions, and a
place to use audiovisual equipment. Have specific subject
resource centers, and then divide the areas by function. For
example, have partner and group discussion space in the science
and social studies area; have individual and quiet study space
in the mathematics and reading centers. (For a visual example
of a classroom, see Book 2: Classroom Organization.)
l Hang labeled and color-coded mobiles in each area. A quiet
study area could have a sign hanging above the area saying,
“Quiet Study Area.” Under the area name, rules for the area
could also be listed: “whisper voice only” or “no talking,
please.” For a subject area, a sign could say, “Social Studies
Resources” or “Art Area.”
The students often enjoy making these mobiles themselves.
Some teachers have small groups of children make the mobiles
as an art activity during the first few days of school. It is an
easy way to involve students in setting up the room or area. In
addition, clear labeling can reduce the demands students make
on teachers for help.
l Make a quiet area for reading, thinking, and resting. This may
be a rug in the corner, a beanbag chair, a cardboard house, and
so forth.
l Make an art or project area.

12 The Multigrade Classroom

 l Provide a special place where students can learn about new
individual assignments. This might be a bulletin board tree
where students can find new individual assignments written
on index cards and pinned on the limbs. Library pockets glued
on the outside of a file folder could also be used.
Put library card pockets or hand-made construction paper
pockets on a large oak-tag board or corkboard. Student
names on the outside of the pockets make refilling easier.
Have a series of file boxes, organized by grade or level, that
contain work assignment folders for each student.
l Students working independently must know what to do with
their completed assignments, otherwise, the teacher will be
handed a variety of projects all day long. Here are some ideas:
Have boxes or file cabinets at the teacher center. Color
code or label each compartment to correspond with
different subjects.
Specify a cubby or tote box for completed assignments
or projects.
Each student could have a folder at the teacher center.
When a child completes an assignment, he could put it
in his folder and leave the folder in a specified place,
depending on what he was going to do next. Bill
Radtke, a multigrade teacher from English Bay, Alaska,
has developed a system for student assignments. He
explains:

I use a one-drawer cabinet, a fruit box would do fine, and put a file in for each subject
area in math, science, English, and social studies. Students then put every assignment into
the file. Each night, all files are corrected and papers are placed in an out basket. The
students can then pick up their corrected work the next morning.

l Call students together frequently during the first weeks

of school to talk about the advantages of keeping materials
organized so that people can find things easily when they want
them. Provide positive reinforcement to students for keeping
their materials and room areas organized.
l Involve students in the organization of the art and activity
centers, subject matter shelves, and so forth. If they help set
things up, they are more likely to keep them organized.

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 13

 l Make up a game that involves points, fun activities, or some-
thing your students will like. Give them a score whenever
materials areas are especially well taken care of. For example,
many teachers have found that students enjoy being read to,
and they use this as positive reinforcement throughout the
year. Intermediate students can get involved in mysteries,
some of the classics, and so forth.
l Devise a system for sending complete assignments home. Some
teachers attach a ditto such as the following example to ensure
that the assignment gets home and is discussed. This ensures
that every parent is communicated with every week and has an
opportunity to be involved with his or her child’s education.

Student’s Name: ____________________________ Subject: ______________________

Assignment: __________________________________________________________________

Start Date: __________________________ Finish Date: __________________________

Comments: __________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Teacher’s Signature: __________________________________________________________

Parent’s Signature: ____________________________________________________________

Student’s Signature: __________________________________________________________

14 The Multigrade Classroom

 l Elect or select student helpers who are to be responsible for
certain sections of the room. Rotate these helpers periodically.
It is also helpful to schedule cleanup times and post the sched-
ule. Some teachers use card pocket charts that are labeled with
the different areas or helper roles in the classroom. Cards with
student names are placed in each pocket. Helpers can be
rotated weekly.
Linda Pelroy from Arock, Oregon, uses helpers extensively in
her multigrade classroom. She shares the following job chart
with a description of each helper’s role:
JOB CHART
W.W. Jones Cowhand Helpers
Flag ................................................Elisa Eiguren
Calendar ........................................Tony Barrett
Librarian ......................................Chris Henry
Line Leader ................................Sam Stoddart
Caller ........................................Katie Larruesea
Boards ........................................Bobby Grenke
Equipment ................................Troy Lequerica
Floors ........................................Harold Largent
Books ........................................Heather Pelroy
Papers ....................................Angelica Benites
Erasers ..............................................Chris Dent
Computer ..............................Raime Lequerica

Flag: Student goes to the front of room and says, “Flag salute, Descriptions
please stand. Ready, begin.”
Calendar: Student tells what yesterday was, what today is, and what
tomorrow will be. Example: Yesterday was Tuesday,
May 16, 1989. Today is Wednesday, May 17, 1989.
Tomorrow will be Thursday, May 18, 1989.
Librarian: Checks out books to students and reads a book to others
during Story Time.
Line Leader: This student receives the privilege of being first in “Line”
this week.
Caller: This student, at recess time, looks to see who is sitting
quietly and orderly and calls them by name to line up at
the door.
Boards: Student erases everything on the board at the end of the day.

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 15

 Equipment: Student makes sure that all equipment has been picked up
from inside and outside before leaving for home each day.
Floors: Student makes sure that the floor is clear of paper and
trash.
Books: Student passes corrected books back to the students each
morning.
Papers: Student passes corrected Morning Work Papers back to
the students each morning.
Erasers: Student takes erasers outside and dusts them off, and then
brings them back and puts them in the right places.
Computer: Student copies given list onto computer board each day
for that week. Student also makes sure the computer is
covered up each day and that the screen is clean for the
next day.

16 The Multigrade Classroom

 Organizing Teacher Activities
in the Classroom

ll teacher managerial activities require time. When that time is taken

A from instruction, students suffer. A common example is when the

teacher takes attendance while students wait. Another common
example, especially important in the multigrade classroom, occurs when
individual students need help while the teacher is engaged in instruction
with another student or a small group. Without a procedure for managing
this incidental help, instructional time can be seriously disrupted.

Attendance and Other Managerial Procedures

eeping daily attendance and the morning lunch count are a require-

K ment in most schools. Depending on the number of students, these

can consume a small amount of time each day. Several suggestions
follow that may increase teacher efficiency:
l Prepare a dittoed class list. Students complete their own atten-
dance sheet by drawing a self-portrait or making a check on
the space by their name. For lunch count, students can mark
an appropriate “yes” box for hot lunch or milk.
l If tote boxes are used, look at the names on boxes left on
the shelf. These students should make up the absentee list.
l Set up an attendance lunch count board or pocket chart.
Students remove their names as they come in. Students
whose names are left should make up the absentee list.
An especially promising strategy for protecting instructional time
during attendance and related managerial duties has been identified by a
number of multigrade teachers. This popular strategy is the “entry task.”
When students first enter the classroom in the morning, after lunch, or
any other time, they encounter an entry task written on the board. Troy
Smith, a multigrade teacher in Oregon, describes the value, purpose, and
procedures for the entry task:
l Entry task is used to develop a mind-set and to maximize the
use of time in the classroom. It quickly gets the students ready
to enter the learning environment. An entry task has many
uses. It can review or help teach a skill.
l When students arrive at school or come in from recess, an entry
task notebook is waiting on their desk. The entry task is on
the chalkboard ready for the students to begin. They write the
date and the task for the day. It may include challenge problems
on the board for advanced students. The students know the
routine and begin to work immediately. Most of the time an
entry task takes about five minutes, thus freeing the teacher
for classroom routines such as lunch count.

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 17

 l The before-school entry task is math. I use review problems
because I have found that my students have performed better
in math with extra skill review throughout the year. I also use
a commercial product called Daily Oral Language after recess.
The students are given sentences, addresses, and letters written
with mistakes. The students make the corrections. Usually I
select a student to make the correction on the board. Students
then correct their own work. I collect their notebooks every
week or so to check their progress.
There are many different types of entry tasks. Some possibilities include:
l Math problems
l Thinking skills
l Language
l Geography
l Silent reading
l Journal writing

Daily Announcements
n the morning before beginning instruction, some teachers set aside time

I for making announcements regarding the day’s activities and special

events. Announcements can be used to facilitate discussion or develop
oral language skills if students are invited to become involved. Several
examples that might be used are:
l Schedule a daily class meeting sometime during the day. All
general classroom business is discussed at this time.
l Post information or write messages on a special area of the
chalkboard.

18 The Multigrade Classroom

 Student Strategies for Obtaining Help
ne of the problems that multigrade teachers face is providing individ-

O ual help for students while the teacher is engaged in tutoring or small-
group instruction. A successful technique is to develop procedures
that clearly spell out what is expected when one needs help and the teacher
is busy. These are called “help systems.” Students need to understand that
not being able to get immediate attention from the teacher is not an excuse
to do nothing. Using a help system can reduce student dependency on the
teacher and help build self-direction in students. Several help strategies
have been found to be useful:
l Have students use a sign-up system, as shown below, that
enables them to be specific about the type of help needed.
For example, you could have the following four areas on
the chalkboard:

Assignments Need Don’t

Bathroom
Completed Materials Understand

Or you could copy similar forms and keep them at the teacher center
or on a bulletin board. By using this format, you can plan your time to
meet tutoring needs at the opportune moment.
l Colored cones can be used to signal for help. The student puts
a red cone in front of him and continues to work until you
come to help. Different colors can stand for a different problem
(materials request, not understanding, and so forth).
l Secure a two-colored tag to each desk or table. One side of the
tag means “progressing alone” and the other indicates “help
needed,” or one color indicates an immediate need while the
other color indicates a tutoring need that can be temporarily
postponed.

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 19

 l Larger, two-colored cards may be placed flat on the desks or in
a folded “tepee” shape. When the student needs help the teacher
can see this cue when scanning the room. Various colors can
be used to indicate the need for different types of assistance.
l Use a card file system for locating peer tutors. File the students’
names under the Subject Area on which they will tutor.
Students who are to be “mini-teachers” should be asked to
rehearse their methods of tutoring with you. They should
understand that a tutor stresses the use of questioning (in
contrast to telling), the use of diagrams or manipulative
materials, and the use of verbal praise. Ask potential student
tutors to observe one of your tutoring sessions after they have
discussed tutoring techniques. (See Book 7: Planning and
Using Peer Tutoring for more information.)
Robin Lovec, who teaches in a one-room school in Montana, uses a
help strategy called the “helping hand.” She has an outline of a hand with
a magnet on the back. In the center of the hand she places a picture of the
helping student for that day. The hand is placed in a central location in the
room. Students needing help go to the person whose picture is on the
helping hand. Lovec developed this strategy so her prereading students
could get help with written instruction without disturbing the teacher.

20 The Multigrade Classroom

 Organizing Student Activities

ne goal for students in the multigrade classroom is that they become

O involved in selecting and managing their own educational experiences.

Successful multigrade teachers have found it critically important that
students learn to manage their own time, make decisions, and evaluate
what has been happening to them. Students who successfully manage their
time tend to:
l Bring only essential things to school
l Clean out cubicles, lockers, or tote boxes once a week
l Keep multigrade papers in a binder or folder
l Use a planning schedule to help them keep track of what to do

Guide for Students

t is critically important to establish clear expectations for students if your

I class is to be successfully managed. Students need to know what you

expect in simple but direct terms. In developing a set of guidelines for
students, you may wish to involve them. This will help to develop student
understanding, motivation, and ownership. However, it is essential that
once a list is set up, students are taught the rules and then systematically
monitored to determine how well they are working.
When developing a list of classroom rules, it is helpful to begin with
one’s beliefs or principles about classroom behavior. The following examples
of behavior principles, adapted from Kagan (1990), can serve as guidelines
for developing a set of classroom rules. By asking students to describe what
each principle might look like in terms of action, the teacher can develop a
set of specific classroom rules. There are several advantages to this. First, by
involving students, the teacher can develop a sense of student ownership.
Second, by starting with a set of principles, the teacher can ensure that the
rules reflect teacher values.
l Be respectful Examples of behavior
principles
l Be courteous
l Be prepared
l Treat others as you wish to be treated
l Try your best at all times

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 21

 Two sets of classroom rules are presented that represent different orien-
tations to classroom life. Set A reflects a generic list of rules a teacher might
wish to use for multigrade students while Set B focuses on rules developed
to specifically foster cooperative learning workgroups.
SET A: l Follow directions
Classroom Rules
l Complete all assignments
l Do not leave the classroom without permission
l Keep hands, feet, and objects to oneself
l Be cooperative and helpful to others

SET B: Individual Responsibility

Rules for
I am responsible for:
Cooperative Learning
Trying ............................................................Improvement counts
Asking ..........Requesting help, and clarification from teammates
Helping............................Teammates, classmates, and the teacher

Filling Different Roles

l Checker (checking for understanding and agreement)
l Praiser/encourager (praising effort, ideas, help, roles)
l Recorder (recording ideas, decisions, processing, products)
l Taskmaster (bringing us back to the task)
l Gatekeeper (making sure everyone participates; no bullying,
no loafing)
l Gofer (getting materials, books, pencil sharpening)
l Reporter (sharing with other teams, the class, the teacher)

22 The Multigrade Classroom

Team Responsibility
We are responsible for:
l Solving our own problems
l Team questions only
l Consulting with other teams and the teacher
l Helping teammates, other teams, the teacher (if asked)
l Inner voice, heard by teammates but not classmates

Quiet Signal
l Hand up, stop talking, stop doing
l Eyes on the teacher
l Signal teammates
l Signal other teams
l Listen

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 23

Establishing Procedures and Rules
in Your Classroom

areful attention to planning and carrying out plans will make impor-

C tant differences in student learning. Observations of effective teachers

have produced accounts of what these teachers do in managing their
classrooms. Table 1 and the following set of guidelines for planning proce-
dures and rules for the classroom are designed to be used together. In Table
1, the results of five experimental studies on classroom management are
presented. Only those variables that were measured and that demonstrated
statistically significant differences in two or more studies have been included.
This table provides an overview of general areas of classroom management
worth considering when planning for instruction.

24 The Multigrade Classroom

 TABLE 1: Results from Experimental Studies on
Classroom Management Procedures

Independent Variables
I. Readying the Classroom VII. Organizing Instruction
a. Classroom ready for school a. Attention span considered in lesson
b. Student success in class lessons
II. Planning Rules and Procedures c. Appropriate pacing
a. Efficient administrative routines d. Low amount of dead time
b. Uses appropriate general procedures e. Encourages student analysis

III. Consequences VIII. Student Accountability

a. Rewards appropriate behavior a. Monitors student understanding
b. Consistent management of behavior b. Consistently enforces work standards
c. Suitable routines for checking and
IV. Teacher Rules and Procedures collecting work
(first week) d. Maintains student responsibility
a. Signals appropriate behavior for work
b. Presents, reviews, and discusses rules e. Monitors progress in completing
and procedures assignments
c. Presents rationales and explanations f. Task-oriented focus
for rules and procedures g. Plans enough work for students
d. Rehearsal practice included h. Lessons are at a suitable level
in presentation of difficulty
e. Teaches rules and procedures well:
presentation, review, correctives, IX. Instructional Clarity
reminders a. Describes objectives clearly
b. Clear directions
V. Monitoring Procedures c. Clear expectations and
a. Effective monitoring presentations
b. Effectively monitors transitions d. Checks student understanding
during directions
VI. Stopping Inappropriate Behavior
a. Stops disruptive behavior quickly
b. Stops inappropriate behavior quickly
c. High percent of students on task

(adapted from School Improvement Program, 1987)

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 25

Guidelines for Planning Procedures
and Rules for the Classroom

(Adapted and revised from Evertson, et al., 1981, p. 28–55)

Questions To Ask Yourself

I. Inside the Classroom Procedures

A. Desks, Tables, and Storage
1. What are your expectations regarding the use of chairs and
desks?
2. If students use tote trays for materials, what rules are needed
for when and how these areas are to be used?
3. What standards do you want to establish about upkeep of
desks and storage areas?

B. Learning and Activity Centers

1. How many students will be allowed in each area?
2. What rules and procedures will you establish for the care and
use of materials?
3. What rules will students be expected to follow for each center
in the classroom?
4. What guidelines do you want to establish for when students
can use the centers?
5. How will students know what the rules and procedures are?

C. Student Resource Areas: Materials, Books, and Supplies

1. What are student responsibilities for taking care of these items?
2. What rules need to be established for when and how these
areas will be used?

D. Teacher Resource Center (Desk Area)

1. What rules do you want to establish regarding teacher
resources? Your desk area?

26 The Multigrade Classroom

 E. Drinking Fountain, Sink, Pencil Sharpener, and Bathroom
1. How many students can be in these areas at one time?
2. What rules do you want to establish concerning when and
how these areas are to be used?
3. What cleanliness standards for the bathroom will you set in
order to ensure that it is kept clean?

II. Procedures for Other Areas of the School

A. Outside the Classroom Area: Bathrooms, Office, Library
1. When and how will students have access to these areas?
2. How will students be monitored?
3. How will students behave in these areas? Get to and from
them?
4. What procedures will you establish for lining up and going
places as a group (recess, lunch, etc.)?
5. What safety rules do you need to establish for the playground
and equipment?
6. What standards will be established for eating lunch (manners,
noise level, behavior, etc.)?

III. Procedures During Whole-Class Activities and Seatwork

A. Student Participation in Class Discussion
1. How and when do you want students to address questions
and responses (e.g., raising hands, calling out, etc.)?

B. Cues or Signals for Getting Students’ Attention

1. How will you signal or cue the class when you want every-
one’s attention (blinking lights, hand signal, bell, etc.)?

C. Talk Among Students

1. What do you expect and desire about noise levels?
2. What cue or signal will you use to let students know the noise
level is unacceptable?
3. What procedures and guidelines will you establish for students
working together?

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 27

 D. Making Assignments
1. How will students know what their assignments are?
2. When and how will you give instructions for assignments?
3. How will you monitor progress on assignments?

E. Passing Out Books, Materials, Supplies

1. How will students obtain the materials they need for
assignments?
2. Will there be materials that must be passed out? What types?
3. Who will pass them out and when will they be passed out?
4. What will students be doing when materials are being passed
out?

F. Students Correcting and Turning in Work

1. How will assignments get corrected? Will students have access
to answer keys?
2. What procedures will you have for turning in assignments?
Consider where and when.
3. What rules will you have for turning work in to you while you
are engaged in instruction with individuals or small groups?
4. How will you keep track of work completed and turned in?

G. Handing Back Assignments

1. How quickly will assignments be returned?
2. What procedure will you use for returning work?

H. Makeup Work
1. How will you monitor who misses instruction and assignments?
2. How and when do you plan to have makeup work completed?

28 The Multigrade Classroom

 I. Out-of-Seat Guidelines
1. For what reasons can students leave their seats during teacher-
directed instruction?
2. For what reasons can students leave their seats during
seatwork?

J. What To Do When Seatwork Is Finished

1. What activities are acceptable to do when all work is finished?
2. What procedures will be needed for using extra materials and
supplies (e.g., reading books, art supplies, games, etc.)?
3. Will students be allowed to work together and, if so, what will
be your guidelines?

IV. Procedures During Small Groups

A. Movement into and out of Groups
1. How will students know when to come to their groups?
2. What procedures, rules, and teacher signals (cues) will need to
be taught to students regarding movement to and from small
groups?
3. What will students do with materials used prior to coming to
a group?

B. Bringing Materials to the Group

1. What materials or supplies should students bring or not bring
to the group and how will you explain this beforehand?

C. Expected Behavior in Small Groups

1. How and when can students ask questions and give responses?
2. What expectations do you have for how students are to work
together and how will you convey your expectations so
students learn these?

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 29

 D. Expected Behavior of Students Not Meeting in a Group with the
Teacher

1. What will the rest of the class be doing while you are meeting
with a small group?
2. What do you expect regarding noise levels and student access
to you?
3. How will students learn your expectations regarding behavior
when not in a teacher group (getting help, noise, leaving the
room, etc.)?

V. Other Procedures that Must Be Considered

A. Beginning the School Day
1. What routines do you plan to establish for opening each
school day?
l Attendance?
l Date?
l Lunch count?
l Sharing?
l Day’s schedule?
l Special events?
2. What constraints will affect these routines (e.g., student arrival
times)?

B. End of School
1. What routines will be established for ending the day?
l Homework?
l Positive feedback?
l Stacking chairs?
l Cleaning?
2. Will you use a system of student helpers? What constraints
should be considered (e.g., leaving school early)?
3. What standards will you set for student helpers in carrying out
their roles?
4. What consequences and rewards will you use for student
helpers?

30 The Multigrade Classroom

 References

Anderson, R.H. (1993). The return of the nongraded classroom. Principal,

72(3), 9–12.
Cohen, D.L. (1989, December 6). First stirrings of a new trend: Multi-age
classrooms gain favor. Education Week, 9(14), 1, 13–14.
Coleman, J.S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16(6),
32–38.
Cushman, K. (1993). The case for mixed-age grouping. Harvard, MA: Author.
Emmer, E.T. (1987). Classroom management and discipline. In V.
Richardson-Koehler & D.C. Berliner (Eds.), Educators’ handbook:
A research perspective (pp. 233–258). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Evertson, C.M., Emmer, E.T., Clements, B.S., Sanford, J.P., & Williams, E.
(1981). Organizing and managing the elementary school classroom. Austin,
TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education. (Reprinted with permission of Carolyn Evertson, Peabody
College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.)
Feng, J. (1994). Issues and trends in early childhood education. Unpublished
manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 841)
Fox, M. (1997, April). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the National Association of
Elementary School Principals Association, San Antonio, TX.
Gaustad, J. (1992). Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and
developmentally appropriate education for primary children [Special
issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 35(7).
Goodlad, J.I., & Anderson, R.H. (1987). The nongraded elementary school
(Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hallion, A.M. (1994, March). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association
of Elementary School Principals Association, Orlando, FL.
Kagan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.
Katz, L., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J.A. (1990). The case for mixed-age
grouping in early education. Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Kinsey, S. (1998). Observations of student and teacher behaviors in the multi-
age classroom. Unpublished manuscript.
Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children:
An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006–1017.

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 31

 Marshak, D. (1994, March). From teachers’ perspectives: The social and psycho-
logical benefits of multiage elementary classrooms. Paper presented at the
annual conference “Emerging Images of Learning: World Perspectives
for the New Millennium,” Chicago, IL.
McClellan, D.E. (1994). Multiage grouping: Implications for education. In
P. Chase & J. Doan (Eds.), Full circle: A new look at multiage education
(pp. 147–166). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McClellan, D., & Kinsey, S. (1996). Mixed-age grouping helps children
develop social skills and a sense of belonging. The MAGnet Newsletter
on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 5(1), 1–3.
Retrieved May 8, 2000 from the World Wide Web: www.ericeece.org/
pubs/mag/magfal96.html#a
McDaniel, T.R. (1986). A primer on classroom discipline: The principles
old and new. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(1), 63–67.
Miller, B.A. (1993). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade
instruction. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of
America’s schools. The multiage resource book (pp. 65–83). Peterborough,
NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Miller, B.A. (1996). A basic understanding of multiage grouping. School
Administrator, 53(1), 12–17.
Nye, B. (1993). Some questions and answers about multiage grouping.
ERS Spectrum, 11(3), 38–45.
Ridgway, L., & Lawton, I. (1969). Family grouping in the primary school
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
School Improvement Program. (1987). Onward to excellence training manual
for workshop 4: Prescription development. Portland, OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory.
Stone, S.J. (1995). The primary multiage classroom: Changing schools for
children. Unpublished manuscript.
Uphoff, J.K., & Evans, D.A. (1993). The country school comes to town:
A case study of multiage grouping and teaching. In D. Sumner (Ed.),
Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America’s schools. The multiage
resource book (pp. 36–38). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental
Education.
Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., & Stainback, W. (Eds.). (1992). Restructuring
for caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating
heterogeneous schools. Baltimore, MD: P.H. Brookes.
Willis, S. (1991). Breaking down grade barriers: Interest on nongraded
classrooms on the raise. ASCD update, 33(3), 4.

32 The Multigrade Classroom

 Resources

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1997). Lee Canter’s assertive discipline: Positive
behavior management for today’s classroom. Santa Monica, CA: Canter
and Associates.
Lee Canter has popularized an approach to classroom discipline called
assertive discipline. His program provides detailed training materials,
including lesson plan books, charts, sample rules and consequences,
and specific ideas for rewarding positive behavior.

Available from: Canter and Associates Inc.

PO Box 64517
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Curwin, R.L., & Mendler, A.M. (1988). Discipline with dignity. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
This book presents research-based processes and strategies for developing
positive classroom behavior. It begins by focusing on the dignity of the
student and recasts the teacher from being a “police officer” to being an
individual who mediates learning. Excellent sets of guidelines, observation
instruments, and resources are included.

Available from: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development
1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714

Evertson, C.M., Emmer, E.T., Clements, B.S., Sanford, J.P., & Worsham,
M.E. (1989). Classroom management for elementary teachers (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
This “how-to” guide provides research-based, step-by-step activities and
principles for planning and organizing the elementary classroom.

Available from: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07458

Gaustad, J. (1992, December). School discipline. ERIC Digest 78.

This monograph describes how to develop a comprehensive discipline
program, including many models that can be easity adapted and used.

Available from: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational

Management
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5207

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 33

 Gaustad, J. (1995). Implementing the multigrade classroom (ERIC Digest
No. 97). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 869)
Multiage grouping and related instructional practices such as continuous-
progress learning, developmentally appropriate practices, integrated instruc-
tion, and cooperative learning are being implemented with increasing
frequency in classrooms across the nation. This book identifies important
roles and responsibilities for teachers and administrators and promises
success—if implementation is carefully and knowledgeably planned.
Perfunctory planning that ignores the magnitude and complexity of
the change can produce disastrous results.

Available from: ERIC Clearinghouse on

Educational Management
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5207

Grant, J., Johnson, B., & Richardson, I. (1996). Our best advice: The multi-
age problem solving handbook. Peterborough, NJ: Crystal Springs.
This book reviews the research on classroom management and discipline,
provides practical strategies, and presents background information useful
to anyone desiring to improve classroom management skills.

Available from: K-Crystal Springs Books

10 Sharon Road
PO Box 500
Peterborough, NJ 07003

Grossnickle, D.R., & Sesko, F.P. (1994). Promoting effective discipline in

school and classroom (Rev. ed.). Reston, VA: National Association of
Secondary School Principals.
This monograph describes how to develop a comprehensive discipline
program, including many models that can be easily adapted and used.

Available from: National Association of Secondary

School Principals
1904 Association Drive
Reston, VA 20191

34 The Multigrade Classroom

Kagan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.
This resource provides detailed guidelines for planning and implementing
cooperative learning in the classroom. Included are references and sample
classroom management guidelines.

Available from: Resources for Teachers

27134 Paseo Espada #202
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

Miller, B.A. (1994). Children at the center: Implementing the multiage class-
room. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, &
Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 544)
In a richly descriptive book, Miller examines multiage programs at four
elementary schools. Developed by the Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory and the ERIC Clearinghouse, the book shares firsthand
insights of teachers and administrators who made the change from graded
to multiage classrooms. In addition, it draws upon survey responses from
participants in a national multiage conference and offers guidelines for a
smooth transition to a multiage structure.

Available from: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational

Management
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5207

Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline 35

 THE MULTIGRADE CLASSROOM:
A RESOURCE HANDBOOK FOR SMALL,
RURAL SCHOOLS
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation

November 1999

Rural Education Program

Based on the September 1989 publication

of the same title written by Bruce A. Miller

Susan Vincent, Editor

Joyce Ley, Director

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97204
Acknowledgments

The following selections have been reprinted with permission:

Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous class-
room (pp. 207–209). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Emmer, E.T. (1987). Classroom management and discipline. In V.
Richardson-Koehler & D.C. Berliner (Eds.), Educators’ handbook:
A research perspective (pp. 233-258). White Plains, NY: Longman.
(Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Evertson, C.M., Emmer, E.T., Clements, B.S., Sanford, J.P., & Williams, E.
(1981). Organizing and managing the elementary school classroom. Austin,
TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education. (Reprinted with permission of Carolyn Evertson, Peabody
College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.)
Gaustad, J. (1994). Nongraded education: Overcoming obstacles to imple-
menting the multigrade classroom [Special issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 38(3
& 4). (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Gibbons, M., & Phillips, G. (1978). Helping students through the self-
education crisis. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(4), 296–300. (Reprinted with
permission of publisher.)
Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. (Reprinted with permission
of publisher.)
Karweit, N. (1987). Diversity, equity, and classroom processes. In M.T.
Hallinan (Ed.), Social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of the
learning process (pp. 71–102). New York, NY: Plenum Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Kentucky Department of Education. (1996). Nearly all Kentucky schools show
improvement in latest KIRIS scores, but middle schools lag behind [Press
release]. Frankfort, KY: Author. (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Murphy, J., Weil, M., & McGreal, T. (1986). The basic practice model of
instruction. Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 83–96. (Reprinted with
permission of the University of Chicago Press.)
Oregon Department of Education, & Ackerman Laboratory School. (1994).
Mixed-age programs, 1993–94. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Education. (Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Pavan, B.N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational
Leadership, 50(2), 22–25. (Reprinted with permission of author.)

ii The Multigrade Classroom

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elemen-
tary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 293–336. (Reprinted with permission of the American
Educational Research Association.)
Slavin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and
secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67–77. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1989). What works for students at risk:
A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4–13. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Thomas, J.W., Strage, A., & Curley, R. (1988). Improving students’ self-
directed learning: Issues and guidelines. Elementary School Journal, 88(3),
313–326. (Reprinted with permission of the University of Chicago.)

iii
Overview

Preface
The preface describes the process used in developing this handbook,
including the multigrade teachers who shared their classroom strategies
and ideas for improving the usefulness of the handbook.
Introduction
The history of multigrade classroom instruction is presented, along
with the background information that describes why multigrade
instruction is an important and complex issue for educators.
Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
In this book, the research on multigrade instruction is reviewed
in order to answer two questions: (1) What effect does multigrade
instruction have on student performance? and (2) What kind of train-
ing is needed in order to teach in a multigrade classroom? Detailed
information focusing on organizing and teaching in a multigrade class-
room is also presented.
Book 2: Classroom Organization
This book describes strategies for arranging and organizing instruc-
tional resources and the physical environment of the classroom. Sample
classroom layouts and a “design kit” for organizing your classroom are
also included.
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Establishing clear expectations for student behavior and predictable
classroom routines has been shown to improve student performance.
In this book, research relating to classroom management and discipline
are presented, along with a checklist for planning management routines
and discipline procedures.
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Research-based guidelines for planning, developing, and implementing
instructional strategies are presented. This book emphasizes the devel-
opment of cooperative work norms in the multigrade classroom and
explains how to match instruction to the needs of students. An overview
of curriculum and evaluation planning concepts is also provided. This
book is a close companion piece with book 5: Instructional Delivery
and Grouping.

iv The Multigrade Classroom

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
This book emphasizes that instructional quality and student grouping
are key components for success in the multigrade classroom.
Instructional methods such as recitation, discussion, and cooperative
learning are reviewed. Planning guides and examples are also included
where appropriate. Strategies for organizing group learning activities
across and within grade levels, especially those that develop interde-
pendence and cooperation among students, are discussed.
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Developing skills and strategies in students that allow for a high level
of independence and efficiency in learning, either individually or in
combination with other students, is essential in the multigrade class-
room. Ideas for developing self-direction are presented in this book.
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring
This book provides guidelines for developing skills and routines whereby
students serve as “teachers” to other students within and across differ-
ing grade levels. The research on what makes for effective tutoring in
the classroom is also reviewed.

v
Preface

he development of this handbook began in 1987, when a group

T of people involved in rural education raised several issues regarding

multigrade classroom instruction.
In their discussions, members of the advisory committee for the
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s (NWREL) Rural Education
Program agreed that multigrade teacher training in their respective states
was either lacking or wholly inadequate. They also were concerned about
the availability of research and training materials to help rural multigrade
teachers improve their skills.
As a result of these concerns, the Rural Education Program decided to
develop a handbook to assist the multigrade teacher. The handbook evolved
in several stages. The first was a comprehensive review, conducted by Dr.
Bruce Miller, of the research on multigrade instruction that included articles,
books, and research reports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and
other countries.
From this review, six topic areas emerged that are considered essential for
effective multigrade instruction: classroom organization; classroom manage-
ment and discipline; instructional organization, curriculum, and evaluation;
instructional delivery and grouping; self-directed learning; and planning and
using peer tutoring. Dr. Miller developed the handbook around these six
instructional areas, and a draft was completed in June 1989, with support
from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).
The second stage occurred in July 1989, when a conference was held in
Ashland, Oregon, with multigrade teachers who were recommended by educa-
tional leaders from throughout the Northwest and Pacific Island regions.
During the conference, participants were organized into workgroups,
each focusing on one of the topic areas. Their tasks were to review the
appropriate handbook chapter for clarity and content, to suggest alternative
and/or additional instructional strategies to those presented in the handbook,
and to write case descriptions of activities drawn from their classrooms.
For example, Joel Anderson from Onion Creek Elementary in Colville,
Washington, described how he grouped students for cooperative learning.
Darci Shane from Vida, Montana, presented a school handbook she had
developed for parents that included a class schedule and other school-related
information. (A full list of participants appears at the end of this preface.)
The final handbook was completed by Dr. Miller in September 1989.
Based on the growing interest and research on multigrade instruction
the handbook was revised and updated in 1999, also with support from
OERI. The final version, completed with support from the Institute of
International Education (IIE), is now composed of a series of seven stand-
alone books.

vi The Multigrade Classroom

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
Book 2: Classroom Organization
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring

Purpose and Scope of the Handbook

he handbook has been written to serve three general purposes:

T l To provide an overview of current research on multigrade

instruction
l To identify key issues teachers face when teaching in a multi-
grade setting
l To provide a set of resource guides to assist novice and
experienced multigrade teachers in improving the quality
of instruction
However, because of the complexity of multigrade instruction and the
vast amount of research on effective classroom instruction, this handbook
can only serve as a starting point for those educators wanting to learn new
skills or refine those they already possess.
Each book of the series presents information, strategies, and resources
considered important for the multigrade teacher. While all the books are
related, they also can stand alone as separate documents. For example, the
books on Classroom Organization (Book 2) and Classroom Management
and Discipline (Book 3) contain overlapping information. Ideally, these
two books are best utilized together. The same is true of the books on
Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation (Book 4) and
Instructional Delivery and Grouping (Book 5). Wherever possible, these
relationships have been noted in the appropriate books.
In conclusion, the series of books has been designed to be used as
a research-based resource guide for the multigrade teacher. It covers the
most important issues the multigrade teacher must address to be effective
in meeting the needs of students. Sample schedules, classroom layouts,
resource lists, and strategies aimed at improving instruction have been used
throughout. It is our hope that the handbook will raise questions, provide
answers, and direct the multigrade teacher to resources where answers to
other questions can be found.

vii
Participants in the Multigrade Conference

Kalistus Ngirturong Barbara Robinson

Aimeliik Elementary Arbon Elementary School
Babeldaob Island Arbon, Idaho
Republic of Palau
Monte Phoenix and Karrie
Robin Lovec Phoenix
Springdale School Orovada, Nevada
Springdale, Montana
Joel Anderson
Anthony Moorow Onion Creek Elementary
Yap Department of Education Colville, Washington
Colonia, Yap
Marty Karlin
Cheryl Mikolajcvyk Trinity Center School
Kaumakakai, Hawaii Trinity Center, California

Leslie Gordon Troy Smith

Pitkas Point School Dixie Elementary School
St. Mary’s, Alaska Dixie, Washington

James Makphie Jill Bills

Majuro, Marshall Islands Sanders Elementary School
Sanders, Arizona
Edith Nicholas
Andrew K. Demoski School Darci Shane
Nulato, Alaska Southview School
Vida, Montana
Benjamin Bernard
Majuro, Marshall Islands Eileene Armstrong
Melrose Elementary
Linda Pelroy Melrose, Montana
W.W. Jones Elementary
Arock, Oregon Pam Cunningham
Sand Springs Elementary
John Rusyniak Sand Springs, Montana
Mentasta Lake School
Mentasta Lake, Alaska Jennifer McAllister
Deerfield Elementary
Patricia Reck Lewistown, Montana
Brothers School
Brothers, Oregon Kimberly Rindal
Ayers Elementary
Bill Radtke Grass Range, Montana
English Bay School
English Bay, Alaska Sammy Vickers
Grant Elementary
Phil M. Gillies Dillon, Montana
Stone Elementary
Malad, Idaho Brian Wolter
Avon Elementary
Carol Spackman Avon, Montana
Park Valley School
Park Valley, Utah

viii The Multigrade Classroom

 Introduction

n contrast to a historical pattern of children developing within an age-

I varied social system, many children today spend a majority of their

time in an age-segregated milieu (Katz, Evangelou, & Hartman, 1990;
McClellan, 1994). The results of this pattern of segregation are thought to
contribute to a declining social support system and compromised develop-
ment of children’s social and academic skills.
Coleman (1987) suggests the need for a significant institutional and
societal response to support functions traditionally filled by the family, such
as the development of feelings of belonging and community, emotional and
social bonding, and nurturance. Increasingly, the school has been viewed as
one of the most effective and efficient contexts to address children’s academic,
affective, and social needs before these needs reach crisis proportions.
A growing body of research explores the influence of educational
contexts on children’s development. While interest has focused on the
impact of the classroom environment on children’s attitudes toward school,
cognitive growth, and academic development, less direct attention has been
given to the relationship between classroom context (including the structure
and content of children’s peer relationships) and academic and social devel-
opment during the elementary years. One approach explored by theoreti-
cians and researchers for encouraging children’s academic and social skill
development is multigrade instruction.
In multigrade instruction, children of at least a two-year grade span
and diverse ability levels are grouped in a single classroom and are encour-
aged to share experiences involving intellectual, academic, and social skills
(Goodlad & Anderson, 1987; Katz et al., 1990; McClellan & Kinsey,
1996). Consistency over time in relationships among teachers, children,
and parents is viewed as one of the most significant strengths of the multi-
grade approach because it encourages greater depth in children’s social,
academic, and intellectual development. The concept of the classroom as a
“family” is encouraged, leading to expansion of the roles of nurturing and
commitment on the part of both students and teacher (Feng, 1994;
Hallion, 1994; Marshak, 1994).
The potential academic and social implications of the multigrade
concept of education are strongly supported by extensive research demon-
strating the importance of peers in children’s academic and social develop-
ment, and by studies of reciprocity theory, which demonstrate the positive
effect on child academic and social behavior of sustained close relationships
between children and caregivers (Kinsey, 1998; Maccoby, 1992).
The adequate implementation of a multigrade approach to education
extends beyond simply mixing children of different grades together. A
positive working model of a multigrade classroom allows for the develop-
ment of academic and social skills as the teacher encourages cross-age inter-
actions through tutoring and shared discovery. Social competence develops

ix
 for older children out of their roles as teachers and nurturers, and for
younger children out of their opportunity to observe and model the behav-
ior of their older classmates (Katz et al., 1990; Ridgway & Lawton, 1969).
The multigrade classroom has traditionally been an important and
necessary organizational pattern of education in the United States, notes
Miller (1993). Multigrade education dates back to the one-room schools
that were the norm in this country until they were phased out in the early
part of the 1900s (Cohen, 1989; Miller, 1993). From the mid-1960s
through mid-1970s, a number of schools implemented open education,
ungraded classrooms, and multigrade groupings. Although some schools
continued to refine and develop the multigrade concept, many of these
programs disappeared from public schools. With the beginning of the
industrial revolution and large-scale urban growth, the ideal of mass public
education took root and the practice of graded schools began in earnest.
The graded school system provided a means of organizing and classify-
ing the increased number of urban students of the 1900s. Educators found
it easier to manage students by organizing them into age divisions or grades.
Other factors, such as the advent of the graded textbook, state-supported
education, and the demand for trained teachers, further solidified graded
school organization (Miller, 1993; Uphoff & Evans, 1993). Critics of the
graded school were quick to emphasize this deficiency. The realization that
children’s uneven developmental patterns and differing rates of progress are
ill-matched to the rigid grade-level system has resulted in a growing interest
in and study of the potential benefits of multigrade education in recent years
(Miller, 1996). This growing interest is due to a greater focus on the impor-
tance of the early years in efforts to restructure the educational system
(Anderson, 1993; Cohen, 1989; Stone, S.J., 1995; Willis, 1991) and
an awareness of the limitations of graded education.
The multigrade classroom is labor intensive and requires more planning,
collaboration, and professional development than the conventional graded
classroom (Cushman, 1993; Gaustad, 1992; Miller, 1996). Sufficient
planning time must be available to meet the needs of both teacher and
students. Insufficient planning, staff development, materials, support, and
assessment procedures will have an impact on the success of the multigrade
program (Fox, 1997; Miller, 1996; Nye, 1993).
Despite these constraints, there are special advantages to multigrade
classrooms. Flexible schedules can be implemented and unique programs
developed to meet students’ individual and group interests and needs.
Combined classrooms also offer ample opportunity for students to become
resourceful and independent learners. The multigrade rural classroom is
usually less formal than the single-grade urban or suburban classroom.
Because of the small class size, friendly relationships based on understand-
ing and respect develop naturally between the students and the teacher. In

x The Multigrade Classroom

this setting, students become well-known by their teacher and a family
atmosphere often develops.
However, many teachers, administrators, and parents continue to
wonder whether multigrade organization has negative effects on student
performance. For most rural educators, multigrade instruction is not an
experiment or a new educational trend, but a forceful reality based on
economic and geographic necessity. In a society where educational environ-
ments are dominated by graded organization, the decision to combine grades
is often quite difficult. The Rural Education Program of the Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory receives numerous requests from rural
educators with two overriding concerns regarding multigrade classrooms:
l What effect does multigrade instruction have on student
performance?
l What kind of preparation or training is needed to be an effec-
tive teacher in a multigrade classroom?
This handbook will provide answers to these questions and develop
an overview of key issues facing school districts and teachers involved in
or contemplating multigrade classrooms.

xi
 Contents

Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation ..............................1

Time and Achievement in the Classroom ....................................................1
Summary and Implications ........................................................................5
Instructional Quality and Student Effort ..................................................11
Student Effort ................................................................................11
The Goal Structure of Different Types of Instructional Organization ..........13
Competitive Goal Structure ............................................................13
Individualistic Goal Structure ..........................................................13
Cooperative Goal Structure ............................................................14
Matching Instructional Organization With the Needs of Students ..............16
The Unidimensional Classroom ......................................................18
The Multidimensional/Multiability Classroom ................................20
Implications ..........................................................................................22
Task Structure and the Effective Teacher ................................................23
Strategies for Instructional Organization ........................................26
Altering Existing Practice ................................................................26
Curriculum..............................................................................................28
The Hidden Curriculum..................................................................28
The Planned Curriculum ................................................................29
What Do Students Need to Know? ............................................................31
How Will I Help Them Learn? ......................................................32
What Resources Will I Use? ............................................................32
Evaluation: How Will I Know If the Students Have Learned? ......................34
Spiral Evaluation ............................................................................34
Webbed Evaluation ........................................................................35
Bridged Evaluation..........................................................................35
Summary ................................................................................................42
Implications ..........................................................................................42
The Standards Movement in Small, Rural Multigrade Schools ..................43
Summary ........................................................................................44
References ............................................................................................45
Resources ..............................................................................................49

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation xiii

 Instructional Organization, Curriculum,
and Evaluation

here is greater diversity of achievement and developmental levels in

T the multigrade classroom than in the typical single-grade classroom.

This diversity creates a greater demand on teacher time. Therefore,
teachers often find themselves having to rely more on students to work
independently and to help one another than the single-grade teacher. This
means that students need to be self-directed, motivated, and responsible
learners. They need to be able to help one another, set and complete learn-
ing goals, follow teacher directions, and stay on task with a minimum of
teacher supervision. Observations of effective multigrade classrooms demon-
strate that student behaviors such as independence, cooperation, and self-
direction are essential for instructional success. Interestingly, a body of
research evidence suggests that student self-esteem and achievement are
enhanced by classrooms that facilitate the development of these behaviors
(Anderson & Pavan, 1993).
Research on instructional organization, curriculum, and evaluation is
immense, and no attempt will be made to review the entire body of material.
Instead, several models of instructional organization and evaluation and how
they affect student performance will be introduced. These models will aid
in determining how to organize classroom instruction and evaluation and
analyzing the effect of this instruction on students. In addition, issues relat-
ing to scheduling instruction and sequencing curriculum will be presented.

Time and Achievement in the Classroom

esearch has demonstrated that the time students spend engaged in

R learning relates to how much they learn. However, the factors that
affect learning time are seldom viewed systematically. For example,
how often have you sat down and figured how much time is actually spent
on instruction and how much time involves transitions, disruptions, and
management? Figure 1 provides an illustration of this question. For example,
to determine the actual amount of time devoted to math instruction, a
teacher would deduct from the math period the time spent for non-instruc-
tional activities such as taking roll, doing the lunch count, finding papers,
passing out books, and so forth. What remains is the actual math learning
time.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 1

FIGURE 1. Formula for Determining Actual Learning Time

Time Allocated
for Learning

Noninstructional Time:
transitions, behavior,
routines, or socializing

Academic Learning
Time

Goodlad and his colleagues, in their observation of more than 1,000

classrooms, documented that about 70 percent of class time is spent on
instruction. Of the remaining time, about 20 percent is spent on classroom
routines, 5 percent on behavior, and 3 percent on social activities (these
figures vary with grade level). These findings are not surprising. However,
the variation across schools was substantial: 63 percent to 79 percent at the
lower elementary and 63 percent to 84 percent at the upper elementary.
This means that the amount of learning a student achieves depends a great
deal on the school he or she attends. When Goodlad’s data are broken down
by subject area and type of instructional activity, the picture is quite dismal.
Table 1 provides an overview of the dominant instructional activities
occurring at the elementary level, demonstrating that in traditional single-
grade classrooms, instructional activities are dominated by seatwork and
teacher talk, with little interactive learning (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).

2 The Multigrade Classroom

 TABLE 1. Average Observation Data on Student Activities
at the Elementary Level

Activity % of Total Time

Written work 29.35
Listening to explanation/lectures 19.50
Preparation for assignments 12.70
Reading 5.75
Discussion 4.39
Watching demonstrations 1.96

In Table 1, “Reading” represents the amount of time students spent

outside traditional “round robin” reading groups. Clearly, students spent
very little time practicing reading outside the context of textbook instruc-
tion. This was also the case with writing. Students were seldom observed
actually engaged in the composing process. Most written work related to
completion of workbook and textbook-related assignments. However, the
time allocated for the basic skills areas of language arts/English and math
was more encouraging. On the average, Goodlad found that 1.59 hours
a day were spent on reading and language arts instruction and about one
hour a day on math. But the amount of allocated instructional time tells
only part of the story. A more important consideration is the actual time
students are effectively engaged in learning (i.e., effective learning time).
Karweit (1987) provides an excellent model for understanding effective
learning time. Figure 2 depicts effective learning time as a formula incorpo-
rating three key instructional elements: learning time (the actual time used
for instruction), quality of instruction (teacher effort and the appropriate-
ness of curriculum and method), and student engagement (student effort
and motivation).

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 3

FIGURE 2. Formula for Determining Effective Learning Time

Learning x Quality of x Student = Effective

Time Instruction Engagement Learning Time

60 minutes 50% of the time 90% of the time 27 minutes

of math x instruction is x the student is = effective
instruction appropriate engaged learning time

In the example presented in Figure 2, it can be seen that this particular

student has an effective learning time of approximately 27 minutes (45
percent efficiency). If one thinks about teaching a group of 20 students,
ranging in ability across three grade levels, then those students who receive
instruction appropriate to their level of ability will spend the most time effec-
tively engaged. However, for those students outside the target range of
instruction, minimal desired learning will take place because the quality of
instruction and student engagement will be barely appropriate. This is often
the case when basic skills are taught to an entire class with a wide range of
student ability levels. In such a situation, it is likely that students outside
the range of instruction (high- and low-performing students) will not be
motivated to learn and may even become disruptive, causing classroom
management and discipline problems and further reducing effective learn-
ing time. In the multigrade classroom, teachers have successfully dealt with
this problem by tailoring assignments to match the unique needs of each
student and grouping students where common needs have been identified.

4 The Multigrade Classroom

 Summary and Implications

ime is a crucial element in student learning, but time alone does not

T produce learning. In this book, a formula was described for determining

the amount of learning time (allocated time minus non-instructional
time), and a model was presented for understanding the key dimensions of
effective learning time (learning time x instructional quality x student effort).
How can this information be used to improve student learning? There
are several planning issues where this information can be beneficial. First,
if you want to improve student learning, there are three target areas for
affecting change: use of time, quality of instruction, and student effort and
motivation. This book focuses on the use of time. Second, using the infor-
mation on time allocation, you can develop a schedule to ensure that instruc-
tional priorities are met. There are three general steps to consider in
developing an instructional schedule:
1. Determine how much time is available for instruction per
day (amount of time students are in school minus noninstruc-
tional activities).
Number of minutes students are in school 360
Minus lunch time -40
320
Minus recess and break time -30
290
Minus dismissal/room duty time -15

Available Instructional Minutes = 275

2. Decide on instructional priorities and allocate the available

time accordingly. There are several sources to consider in
determining priorities: the needs of students, research evidence,
governmental departments of education, and school board
policy. The example that follows is based on elementary school
data taken from more than 600 schools (Goodlad & Anderson,
1987).

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 5

 Subject Minutes Weekly (Hours)

English /Language Arts 666 (11.10)

Mathematics 230 (3.83)
Social Studies 120 (2.00)
Science 100 (1.67)
Art, Music, Drama, P.E., etc. 260 (4.33)

Total Time: 275 (4.58)

3. Schedule instruction according to the time allocation for each

curriculum area. The sample schedules that follow reflect two
different approaches to scheduling. Schedule A describes the
school day in terms of the time devoted to each grade and for
each subject being taught. Schedule B, on the other hand,
focuses on activities and uses much larger blocks of time.
It is important to remember that establishing a schedule for a multi-
grade classroom is a very personal process that reflects the experience and
training of the teacher and the unique needs of students. There is no “best”
schedule. As members of the multigrade conference group on instructional
organization point out, “Teachers have many different styles for establishing
a schedule. It’s what works best for you (and the students). And remember,
it’s OK to change as you learn yourself—most great teachers learn from
mistakes.” The sample schedule that follows will provide you with two
models to follow. Change or modify them to fit your own unique situation.

6 The Multigrade Classroom

 Multigrade Schedule A for Grades 1–3
9:00 Job Chart, Flag Salute, Calendar, Sharing, Questions Box,
and Vocabulary
9:20 Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) or Art
9:40 Pass out papers and correct and return assignments
9:50 Math: Total group lesson presentation and assignments given
10:10 Daily Oral Language (DOL)
10:20 English (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) and Music (Tuesday
and Thursday.)
10:40 Recess Language Game
10:50 Morning work (all students review previously
taught concepts)
11:00 Computer time begins (a schedule is posted, giving each
student 10 minutes)
11:05 Reading Group 1 meets with the teacher. The remaining
students work independently on Morning Work or on the
computer. If students have problems, they seek help from
another student or go on to their next assignment.
11:25 Reading Group 2
11:45 Reading Group 3
12:00 Lunch Language Game
12:45 Story or film
1:00 Spelling: Total group instruction with individual work
assignments
1:20 Handwriting: Total group instruction with individual work
assignments
1:40 Physical Education with the total group
2:00 Science with the total group (Monday and Wednesday),
Social Studies with total group (Tuesday and Thursday),
Health with the total group (Friday)
2:30 Dismissal
This schedule was developed by Linda Pelroy, a multigrade teacher from
Arock, Oregon. It reflects a schedule structured around specific subject areas.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 7

 In this classroom, Pelory meets with different grade levels in small
groups for reading, while the remaining students are assigned independent
or art tasks. For most other academic subjects, instruction begins with the
total group and ends with appropriate individual assignments. An especially
important element in this schedule is that students know what will occur
during the day.

8 The Multigrade Classroom

 Multigrade Schedule B for Grades 1–8

SUBJECT PURPOSE ACTIVITIES

9:00 Introductory Beginning the day together Planning the day s work:
(30) activities Building up a favorable singing, music, news,
working tone health, poetry

9:30 Learning center Intellectual and social Free choice activities: center
(65) of choice development of interest in social studies,
science, or health
Developmental Practice language Language through
period skills discussion and presentation
10:35 RECESS / BREAK
(15)
10:50 Language Formal and informal Instructional reading and
(60) instruction in language reading activities, language
activities and language skills,
spelling, handwriting, and
printing

11:50 LUNCH
(40)
12:30 Mathematics Improvement of math skills Whole-class, group, or
(50) independent work
11:50
(40) Physical education

1:40
(15) RECESS / BREAK

1:55 Social studies, Enlarging students Topics may be integrated

(50) science, health, experiences in social studies, (or not), with emphasis on
art, drama, science, health, or the arts individual research and
language, sport, discussion (making notes,
gardening records, or charts, etc.,
could be done in
center of interest )

2:45 ROOM DUTY / CLEAN-UP

(15)
(Wellington Department of Education, 1984)

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 9

 When developing a schedule, keep several points in mind:
1. Schedules need to be displayed clearly so they will be under-
stood by students.
2. Provide sufficient time for working with each maturity level
(primary grade, middle grade, etc.)
3. Ensure that curriculum areas of high priority receive adequate
time.
4. Organization is simplest if all grades work on the same subject
at the same time (at least initially as the teacher learns what
best meets the needs of students).
5. In general, a schedule or routine should make the daily and
weekly instructional activities as predictable as possible for
students.
6. Don’t confuse daily schedules with weekly schedules. Be
flexible.
Once instructional priorities are determined and scheduled, it is imper-
ative to focus on what Karweit (1987) has described as instructional quality
(teacher effort and the appropriateness of curriculum and method) and
student engagement (student effort and motivation). In the remainder
of this book, we will discuss issues surrounding instructional quality and
student effort, paying close attention to how student effort, motivation,
and self-perceptions of ability are affected by the choices teachers make
regarding learning activities and student evaluation. In addition, the subtle
ways students are reinforced by the social and academic structure of learn-
ing will be discussed.

10 The Multigrade Classroom

 Instructional Quality and Student Effort

f we had an ideal classroom, one where all students function at the same

I achievement level and exert a similar amount of effort, it would be easier

for the teacher to effectively instruct all students at the same time with
similar strategies and materials. However, in the real world, students vary
considerably within most single-grade classrooms, and teachers are forced
by necessity to deal with different ability levels. In the multigrade environ-
ment, differences in ability are even more pronounced, requiring increased
planning and organization. The most common strategies for handling
differences in ability are whole-class instruction (where differences may
often be ignored), ability grouping (where differences often become insti-
tutionalized), and pull-out programs (where students are removed from
their regular classroom for specific subjects). The research evidence to date
suggests that these methods are not necessarily effective, especially for low-
achieving students (Banks, 1997).

Student Effort
tudent effort relates to the amount of perseverance and commitment a

S student brings to a learning task. In the typical U.S. school, students

begin in the primary grades believing that their performance and ability
are a direct result of their effort. One can imagine a kindergartner respond-
ing to a task not completed accurately by saying, “That did not work too
good, I will try again.”
By the time a student reaches the sixth grade, effort, performance, and
ability become reversed so that students believe ability is a capacity that
affects effort and performance. Ability is viewed as a kind of fixed quantity
that determines the degree to which effort can alter performance (Holloway,
1988). In other words, a “smart” student (one with high ability) gets good
grades with minimal effort, while the “slow” student (one with low ability)
puts out lots of effort with poor results.
For example, a sixth-grade student from a low-performing math group
is likely to comment after receiving a poor grade on a test: “Why try? I’m
no good at math.” The high-performance student is likely to say, “I received
a good grade because I studied and learned the material.” The low-perform-
ing student believes effort (how hard “I” try) will have no effect on perform-
ance because he or she does not have the ability (i.e., “no good at math”).
Consequently, the low-performing student is not motivated to try. The
high-performing student believes that the good grade was deserved because
he or she learned the material.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 11

 The student who believes that increased effort will have no effect on
one’s ability to learn will likely be difficult to motivate. Here is where the
chief problem lies. The U.S. school as a place for learning helps to develop
in students a belief that ability, not effort, is the key to success (Holloway,
1988). Although it may not be a deliberate and premeditated strategy, the
type of instructional organization utilized will directly affect student views
of themselves as successful learners. Figure 3 provides a model of how
the organization of instruction, coupled with the teacher’s expectation
of students, molds student self-perceptions. Teachers organize instruction
based upon their beliefs about student learning. These teacher expectations
tend to be fulfilled by students, which in turn reinforces the teacher beliefs
about student learning. Thus, teachers’ beliefs and understanding of the
effects of instructional organization become crucial to the success of learning.
Three patterns of instructional organization have been identified by Ames
and Ames (1984) as contributing to student perceptions of themselves as
learners.

FIGURE 3. The Effects of Instructional Organization and Teacher

Expectation on Student Self-Perceptions

Teacher expects
specific behavior and
performance
Teacher beliefs
Student ability Teacher organizes
about learning and
and background instruction
intelligence Teacher behaves
differently toward
individuals and
Task structure
groups
influences student
Teacher expectations beliefs about effort
are fulfilled, beliefs and performance
reinforced

Consistent
treatment molds Student effort, attitude,
student self- and performance are
perceptions affected

12 The Multigrade Classroom

 The Goal Structure of Different Types of
Instructional Organization

ecent research has focused on the goal structure of different types of

R instructional organization. Goal structure refers to the way in which

instruction is organized to reward student performance. Three distinct
methods of instructional organization have been identified and researched
by Ames and Ames (1984).

Competitive Goal Structure

n this organizational structure students receive rewards on a competitive

I basis with their peers. In a typical competitive classroom, students are

engaged in whole-class or small- or ability-group instruction. Learning
tasks and activities are generally the same, with minor adjustments made
for differences in ability. For example, during math instruction, all students
are introduced to a concept and then given a seatwork assignment. All
students are likely to be working on identical assignments. Evaluation of
student performance is a public activity where students have knowledge of
how they performed in relation to their peers. Social comparison informa-
tion is the primary cue for success.

Individualistic Goal Structure

nlike competitive goal structures, an individualistic structure places

U a major emphasis on self-improvement. Students are individually

rewarded for gains they make over past levels of performance. This
type of organization is characterized by students working on individual
learning programs tailored to their unique needs. Usually, some form of
assessment has been given to each student. The results indicate areas where
the student is performing below a given standard. When a student can
achieve to the standard, he or she is rewarded with successful completion.
In this setting, it is likely that students would be working on different assign-
ments and activities at the same time. Student success is based on individ-
ual comparisons with past and present performance, not on a comparison
with other students.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 13

Cooperative Goal Structure
ooperation is the third type of goal structure. It differs from both the

C competitive and individualistic patterns of organization because it

emphasizes a positive interdependence among students for success
or reward. Students depend on each other for task completion. Research
evidence demonstrates that cooperative strategies enhance student self-
concept and motivation (Bouchard, 1991; Pavan, 1992; Stone, 1995).
Many teachers use cooperative learning strategies. In art class, the teacher
might form the class into small groups in order to complete a group mural
that depicts a theme in social studies. Less common are cooperative strate-
gies used in academic areas such as reading and math. However, recent
trends toward cooperative learning have generated a number of highly
effective “packaged” training programs (see the Resource Section at the
end of this book for more information).
In many multigrade classrooms, teachers have learned to rely primarily
on individualized and cooperative learning because they are natural out-
growths of the way rural multigrade classrooms are organized. Students
learn to cooperate and depend on one another and to work on tasks tailored
to their individual needs. The teacher encourages and utilizes cooperation
among students in order to extend learning. However, there is also a
tendency to rely on competitive structures because they are the dominant
educational practice beginning teachers learn.
Multigrade conference participants who worked on instructional organi-
zation identified a set of advantages and disadvantages for each goal struc-
ture, along with a list of their appropriate instructional uses. Table 2 on the
following page presents an overview of their ideas.

14 The Multigrade Classroom

 TABLE 2. Advantages, Disadvantages, and Applications
for Three Classroom Goal Structures

Competitive Goal Structure

Reflects structure Produces winners Some sports activities

of society and losers When competing against
Familiar to students Can lower self-esteem oneself or an external goal
Familiar to teachers

Individualistic Goal Structure

Can improve self-esteem Increased amount of When there is a wide range
Students can work at teacher preparation of ability
their own level and pace Students may not know To maximize student potential
Students compete only how they stand in
against themselves relation to others

Cooperative Goal Structure

Students learn to cooperate Must teach cooperative Group projects

Develops feelings skills To tie a group together and
of belonging Some students may not form bonds
Increases peer interaction put forth maximum When there is a wide range
and learning effort of abilities
High-performing students
may dominate
cooperative groups
Slower students slip by
without producing

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 15

Matching Instructional Organization
With the Needs of Students

eachers faced with a classroom of students must learn to balance the

T needs of students with the time and energy necessary to meet those
needs. A body of research on teaching and instructional organization
describes practices and strategies that have proven effective in striking this
balance. In so doing, this research has also illuminated a sobering reality
that many instructional practices believed to be good for students may have
undesirable effects on student efforts to learn. As discussed earlier, the shift
in student attitudes from a belief that effort makes a difference in learning
to a belief that only ability counts is a case in point. The good news is that
the multigrade classroom, with its flexible structure and cooperative learn-
ing climate, appears to provide an ideal environment for counteracting this
damaging tendency. Why the multigrade setting may facilitate student effort
will become clearer as we review the effects of instructional organization on
students.
In structuring the classroom for instruction, teachers nearly always use
some form of grouping (the one exception may be a completely independent
study program). Either they teach to the entire class (whole-group instruc-
tion), or they configure the class into different types of groups. For what
purpose are different forms of group structure used?
Traditionally, grouping has served a management purpose in classrooms.
In a similar fashion to the early evolution of the graded school, grouping
has served as a means of sorting and organizing students into manageable
units for efficiency purposes. An underlying belief is that instruction will
be more effective with smaller numbers of students grouped by ability.
However, studies of ability grouping have clearly shown that the liabilities
for low-achieving students may often be substantial and, except for mathe-
matics, ability grouping does not appear to serve any advantage for students
(Slavin, 1988). The only exception may be in those cases where groups are
temporarily formed for specific purposes such as peer editing.
Bossert, Barnett, and Filby (1984) developed a model for describing
the different patterns of instructional organization commonly found in
schools along two continuums: activity structure (students engaged in the
same activity versus engagement in different activities) and student work
relationships (students working independently versus working interdepend-
ently). Table 3 illustrates these two dimensions.

16 The Multigrade Classroom

 TABLE 3. Typical Classroom Instructional Activities

Work Activity Structure

Relationships

Independent (1) Whole-class (2) Separate reading (3) Separate

worksheet groups individualized
program

Interactive (4) Whole-class (5) Separate reading (6) Common

with cooperation groups with individualized
cooperative tasks program

Interdependent (7) Common group (8) Common group (9) Coordinated

projects projects group task

The following examples (which correspond to the numbers for each

classroom activity) illustrate the kinds of tasks students would commonly
be engaged in:

1. A common worksheet for a class, where students must work

alone and are graded individually

2. Reading groups with different textbooks, where students within

each group complete identical assignments individually

3. An individualized program where all students are expected to

complete the same assignments independently but at different
rates

4. Whole-class recitation or a common worksheet, where

students are allowed to interact, but each child completes
a separate worksheet

5. Reading groups with different textbooks, where students can

interact while completing their separate but identical assignments

6. An individualized program where students may work together

on assignments, but each child must produce a separate product

7. Small groups or the entire class work on a common assignment,

and individual products are not demanded

8. Different groups within a class do different assignments, and

a group product, not individual products, is required

9. Different roles (either within small groups or the entire

class) for students that require coordination to produce the
joint product

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 17

 Activity 1 (whole-class worksheets) illustrates a situation where
students work independently from one another and are dependent on
the teacher for direction, instruction, materials, and reinforcement. Such
dependency counters the need for student self-direction and independence
required in the multigrade classroom. In addition, students all work on the
same task; thus, there is only one dimension for demonstrating competence
(i.e., speed and accuracy of worksheet completion). On the other hand,
Activity 9 reflects a learning situation where students work in small groups
and are highly dependent on one another because they must produce a
joint product. Further, students do not all do the same thing, but have an
opportunity to demonstrate competence and achieve success in a variety
of roles (writer, illustrator, researcher, etc.) and activities.

The Unidimensional Classroom

raditional classroom organization resembles those dimensions closest

T to Activities 1 and 2. Classrooms consistently organized to promote

Activities 1 and 2 create powerful norms that are quite problematic
for many students, especially for those achieving below grade level in
reading (Clark, 1996) and those of a minority group status (Caine &
Caine, 1991). This form of instructional organization has been character-
ized as unidimensional or single ability. Alternative instructional organi-
zation patterns have been successfully implemented that counteract the
negative effects of the single-ability learning environment. Table 4 describes
the characteristics and norms associated with these two dimensions.

18 The Multigrade Classroom

 TABLE 4. Comparison of Teacher and Student Norms in Unidimensional
and Multidimensional Classrooms

Classroom Norms Unidimensional Classroom Multidimensional Classroom

Belief About Competence and ability are viewed along There are many different dimensions to
Student Ability a single dimension where ability is ability. Every child can demonstrate
treated as a fixed entity. Some students competence and ability on some
possess the ability for high academic instructional task. Therefore, many
performance while other students only different tasks are used.
have low-performance ability.

Teacher Role Presenter of curriculum content, grader Problem solver, tutor, and facilitator,
of student accomplishment, manager of who promotes all children to achieve
resources, and controller of student learning objectives and to excel across a
behavior. broad range of competency areas.
Learner Role Listen, respond, study, and take tests. Study, participate and discuss, take tests,
lead groups, problem solve, and tutor.

Basis for Determining Reading ability is used as the primary Competence and ability are recognized in
Competence gauge of competence and ability. a variety of areas. Students demonstrate
competence in reasoning, art, music, idea
generation, cooperative group skills, etc.

Task Structure A narrow range of activities is used for Wide range of different activities for learning
learning. These activities are whole- where students can demonstrate a variety of
group instruction, independent study, competencies. This includes individual, pair,
seatwork, or small, stable ability groups. and small-group and large-group activities.

Learner Grades are arbitrarily curved and Focus is on identifying student performance
Assessment and normally distributed, which ranks and strengths and needs across a wide variety of
Evaluation labels learners. Evaluation is highly instructional areas and tasks. Growth is
visible and comparative. measured by skill mastery, and evaluation
procedures are private and individual.

Effects on Learners For lower-achieving students there is a Student academic self-concept, sense of
negative effect on self-concept, efficacy (personal control), achievement,
motivation, and work effort. High and motivation are enhanced. Students
achievers are reinforced and given greater learn that everyone has ability and can
opportunities to learn. Students also demonstrate competence in some area.
develop a dependence on the teacher. Self-direction and independence
are developed.

In the unidimensional classroom, single-task learning structure and

evaluation procedures combine to produce a view of academic ability based
on student comparison and consensus (i.e., competitive goal structure). This
social comparison tends to produce feelings of inferiority, low aspirations,
lack of motivation, interpersonal hostility, and competitiveness in low achiev-
ers (Marshall & Weinstein, 1984). A process occurs in these competitively
structured classrooms that produces “losers” and “winners” and generates a
status system that favors students with the highest reading ability. In other
words, students who read the best are seen as being of the highest ability;
they receive positions of high status in the classroom.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 19

 Even when high-status students are placed in different subject-area
groups (e.g., math, science, or social studies), they are viewed by fellow
group members as having the most ability (“being the smartest”). In mixed-
ability groups, higher-status students (usually determined by reading ability)
receive the greatest opportunities to learn, regardless of the subject matter.
They do this through dominating discussion and by being credited with
high-ability status by fellow students (Cohen, 1986; Rosenholtz, 1979).
A main reason for this dominance is the place accorded verbal skills in
conventional school curriculum. As Rosenholtz points out:
Conventional curriculum taps a very narrow range of skills, concentrat-
Conventional curriculum taps a very narrow range of skills, concentrating almost solely on
ing almost solely on reading and verbal skills, such as speaking and writing,
reading and verbal skills, such as speaking and writing, yet rarely emphasizing alternative
yet rarely emphasizing alternative intellectual abilities in art, athletics,
intellectual abilities in art, athletics, creativity, and thinking (p. 78).

As a result, learning opportunities for lower-performing students are

significantly curtailed.

The Multidimensional/Multiability Classroom

lizabeth Cohen (1980) provides an excellent definition of the multi-

E dimensional/multiability classroom:

A multidimensional/multiability classroom is one in which there are many dimensions of

intellectual competence. No individual is likely to be treated highly on all these dimensions.
Thus there are no students who are generally expected to be incompetent at new tasks and
no students who are generally expected to be superior regardless of the nature of the task.
In a multidimensional/multiability classroom, one’s skill in reading represents only one
important competence; it is not an index of general expectations for success at all classroom
tasks (p. 231).

In the multidimensional/multiability classroom, there is a shift in both

student and teacher roles that is designed to increase learning opportunities
and successes for all students. This is accomplished, in part, by changing
and/or expanding instructional strategies to include cooperative work groups
where students learn from each other and by increasing the array of areas
where students can demonstrate competence. Marshall and Weinstein (1984)
identify four components of task or activity structure that enhance student
self-perceptions and performance:
1. A variety of tasks occur simultaneously:
l Variety in the tasks allows students to demonstrate their ability
in several areas rather than along a single dimension. Variety
allows students to feel competent in some areas.

20 The Multigrade Classroom

 l Task variety reduces social comparison because evaluation is
less visible.
2. A divergence in the process and products of the task:
l Divergent process is made up of tasks that can be pursued in a
variety of ways.
l Divergent products have no specific right answers; results may
be good in different ways. This allows for a variety of student
experiences of success. Divergent tasks reduce the basis for
comparative evaluation.
3. Differences exist in the sequence and pace of tasks for different
individuals:
l Completion time requirements (pace) can harm the effects of
divergent task activities if students are required to complete
their tasks at the same time (i.e., those completing first are
smarter).
4. Level of task difficulty and content coverage varies:
l Varying the amount of content and the difficulty of content
for different students can communicate comparative evaluation
information. (Students perceive that high achievers receive
harder work.)
l Comparison can be reduced if the teacher conveys the belief
that everyone is learning, but at different paces and in different
ways.
l Teacher expectations of ability tend to convey a belief that
ability level determines the quality and quantity of tasks
assigned. When this is made public, students internalize the
values and judge their own ability. Low-ability students get
easier tasks and more of the “same stuff.”

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 21

Implications

ow can this information on task structure, evaluation, and student

H status differences be of use to the multigrade classroom teacher? What

norms should a multigrade teacher attempt to put in place? What
instructional organization appears to be best for multigrade students? And
what can the teacher do to implement the most beneficial instructional
organization for students?
Clearly, there are no simple answers to these questions. In the multi-
grade setting, the need to balance teacher time and efficiency with the best
interest of students is a continual struggle. The implications of the research
information reviewed thus far tends to strongly contradict the dominant
organization typically found in many single-grade classrooms. This research
tends to support the successful practices reported by many multigrade class-
room teachers. In other words, interdependency, cooperation, multiple task
activities, individualized learning, and heterogeneous grouping appear to
have emerged out of the requirements of coping with multiple grade levels
in a single room. This viewpoint was substantiated by the majority of
teachers participating in a 1989 multigrade conference held in Ashland,
Oregon. Barbara Robinson from Arbon, Idaho, reported that she quickly
modified the traditional grade segregated groups in favor of cross-grade
grouping because it provided for more instructional flexibility.
However, the norms characteristics of the “unidimensional” learning
environment are powerful forces that have shaped the ways in which many
teachers organize instruction, even in a multigrade setting. Recent research
on effective teaching and instructional organization strategies describe class-
room practices that appear to consistently counteract these forces (see Cohen,
1986; Marshall & Weinstein, 1984; Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1984).

22 The Multigrade Classroom

 Task Structure and the Effective Teacher

everal factors play a role in determining whether an organizational

S structure (whole-class, small-group, etc.) enhances student learning.

Teacher awareness of effective teaching practices and the ability to apply
them to different organizational structures can overcome some of the inher-
ent limitations of a particular structure. For example, in whole-class instruc-
tion there is a tendency to call on those students who are the brightest
(selective attention). This reduces the opportunity to learn for slower and
average students. An effective teacher might allow for cooperative student
responses (students respond in pairs), request responses from a wide variety
of students, give students time to think before they answer (wait time), or
have every student write out a response.
Other examples that are especially relevant to the multigrade environ-
ment are the characteristics of the learning activities and the grouping
structure used to apply them. There are two general activity categories
teachers must consider. First are those convergent or closed learning activi-
ties with only one correct answer, such as completing a math problem
(e.g.; 3 + 4 = __ ; 9 - 4 = __; 24/5 =__ ), a workbook page in reading
(e.g., circle the word that means ___); or engaging in recitation with the
teacher on the names of countries in western Europe. Given the range of
abilities in the multigrade classroom, it is quite difficult to use closed activi-
ties with the entire classroom of students. In addition, closed activities allow
for greater evaluative comparison. Students can quickly judge who is right
and who is wrong.
Divergent or open-task activities have no single correct answer, but
provide students with the opportunity to respond to the task in their own
unique way and at their own level. Table 5 provides an overview of nine
common instructional structures, along with an example of a language arts
task. Writing a letter to a friend, brainstorming a list of words to be used in
a story, or describing a favorite story character reflect divergent or open tasks.
Using these types of tasks, the multigrade teacher can plan a whole-class
instruction for a wide span of ability levels. Divergence also benefits students
because it makes comparative evaluation difficult. Since there is no one
correct answer, students cannot judge their success by the failure of their
neighbor or by how quickly the same answer was achieved. But one should
not equate divergent tasks with a lack of standards. In writing, for example,
a teacher may establish standards for clarity, format, or length, but still
encourage a divergence of thought and expression.
It is important to realize that no task structure is better than another,
but that each has a specific use depending on the learning goals, composi-
tion of students, and how instruction is organized (cooperative work-groups,
individualized instruction, etc.). In fact, effective teachers often use both
convergent and divergent structures within the same lesson. In addition, the
amount of comparative evaluation likely to occur is indicated in parentheses.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 23

 TABLE 5. Appropriateness of Organizational Structures for Student
Learning Activities Using Language Arts Goals as Examples

Structure Convergent (single correct answer) Divergent (multiple answers)

Whole-class Every student memorizes the same list of Each student writes down 10 descriptive
(same assignment/task) adjectives and writes down their definitions. words. These are compiled into a word
(Strong comparative evaluation; inappropriate bank and stories are written.
with multiple levels.)

Whole-class Every student works with a neighbor to Each student writes down six descriptive
(same memorize the same list of descriptive words. words and then trades three words with a
In pairs, students cooperatively write neighbor. Students then use each word in
definitions. (Strong comparative evaluation; a sentence and read to their neighbor.
inappropriate with multiple levels.)

Ability grouping Each ability group has a different set of Students find five descriptive words they
(w/out cooperation) descriptive words to learn. Students work like from their reading text. A word bank
independently, writing the meaning of each is created. Students independently write a
word using the dictionary. A worksheet is story using words from the word bank.
then completed using the words. (Strong
evaluative comparison within group.)
Ability grouping Students work together to define a set of Students brainstorm a descriptive set of
(w/cooperation) descriptive words and to complete the words to be used in a story. Students then
teacher worksheet. Each group has a begin a "round robin" story using the
different set of words based on reading words from the new word bank.
levels. (Moderate evaluative comparison
within group.)
Separate individualized Students complete a set of lessons on Student A completes lesson #2 (picking
instruction (same descriptive words at their own pace. Student descriptive words from a story and using
assignments, different A is working on lesson #2 (defining words) them in a letter to a friend) while Student
pace) while Student B is on lesson #5 (sentence B completes lesson #5 (writing an
completion worksheet). (Moderate advertisement using words from the
evaluation based on pace.) word bank).

24 The Multigrade Classroom

Structure Convergent (single correct answer) Divergent (multiple answers)

Common Students A and C work together to Students A and B work together,

individualized memorize the descriptive words in lesson #2. editing each other’s story. Stories
instruction (cooperation They work together to complete a crossword are rewritten.
w/different products) puzzle using their new words. Each turns in
a separate completed lesson. (Some
evaluative comparison may occur.)

Common group Students all read the same story and Three separate groups are required
project (common complete a worksheet together on to complete the same assignment.
assignment descriptive word definitions. After reading a story without an
w/group product) ending, students write a new ending
using the class word bank.

Group product Three separate groups complete different sets Three separate groups complete
(different groups of worksheets on descriptive words. Group A different assignments. Group A
and assignments turns in one set of completed worksheets that produces a word bank of
w/group products) include sentence completion, crossword adventure story words.
puzzles, and word definitions. (Little
comparative evaluation.)

Coordinated (within) Group A defines a set of 10 words and Group produces a historical
group (multiple groups completes a sentence-completion worksheet newspaper about the first
with different roles and a crossword puzzle using the new explorations of North America.
within groups and words. Roles are assigned: researcher Students are assigned different
common products for defines words, editor corrects writing roles: reporter, editor, printer,
each group) errors, poet completes sentence. (Little designer, and artist.
comparative evaluation.)

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 25

Strategies for Instructional Organization
ffective strategies have been implemented to counteract the negative

E effects of organizing instruction along a single-ability dimension. Both

students and teachers are trained to view ability as multifaceted, not a
fixed entity possessed by only a few. In the traditional single-ability class-
room, reading is generally viewed as a prerequisite for all other tasks. Few
activities are offered where other forms of ability, such as reasoning, decision-
making, idea development, and observational skill, can be tested and verified
(Rosenholtz & Cohen, 1983). Cohen (1980) identifies three key areas for
altering unidimensional classroom structure in order to change student and
teacher views of intelligence and ability: increasing learning opportunities,
increasing opportunities for success, and changing evaluation practices. The
following guidelines, adapted from Cohen, provide a set of practices for
planning multiability activities:

Altering Existing Practice

n order to alter existing practice, three important instructional variables

I must be considered:

I. Opportunities for active academic participation. This can be accom-

plished by:
A. Using heterogeneous small groups rather than large groups.
B. Using guidelines for equal participation of all members of
small groups.
C. Using leadership roles and opportunities for all students in
small groups. (Grouping strategies are discussed in greater
detail in Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping).
II. Opportunities for success on academic tasks can be increased for
all students by expanding the definition of ability and competence
through:
A. Using academic tasks requiring multiple intellectual abilities.
1. Try using multimedia activities that accommodate individ-
ual learning styles.
2. Try publicly defining the separate intellectual skills required
for completing given tasks such as reasoning, observation,
creativity, and so on.

26 The Multigrade Classroom

 3. Try role playing.
B. Individualizing in conventional academic areas, thereby
allowing students with weak skills to work on tasks that
are not too easy and not too difficult.
C. Having small groups share skills so that the student with
specific skill problems is not prevented from attaining
success on tasks.
III.Pay special attention to evaluation procedures that produce damag-
ing evaluative comparisons by:
A. Making infrequent use of marks and grades that allow
comparison between individuals on a single dimension.
B. Providing systematic, individualized feedback to each student
on how well he or she is attaining objectives and which partic-
ular skills require further work.
C. Avoiding public evaluation in recitation.
D. Avoiding standardized tasks that make comparison easy on
how well or fast a student is completing the task.
E. When using groupwork, evaluating the group product rather
than the contribution of the individual to the group.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 27

Curriculum

iscussion has focused mainly on how different instructional practices

D affect student performance and self-perceptions of learning. It was

found that consistent whole-class instruction and inflexible ability
grouping tend to emphasize competition through public comparative
evaluation practices. In these types of learning environments, student
ability becomes quickly stratified along a single dimension where reading
performance generally reflects the primary index of competence. Unless
effective teaching practices are implemented to counteract this prevailing
trend, students, especially lower-achieving ones, will be negatively affected.
On the other hand, individualized programs and cooperative workgroups
place major emphasis on personal growth and group performance, thereby
increasing student opportunities for demonstrating competence and
improved peer relations. The following sections will focus on instructional
organization within the context of curriculum, describing the elements and
responsibilities of curriculum organization.

The Hidden Curriculum

hat has been presented thus far reflects an area of schooling often

W referred to as the “hidden” or “unstudied” curriculum. This includes

such areas as tracking and grouping practices, scheduling and the
allocation of time, disciplinary practices, the physical environment, school
norms and values, and human relationships. These areas of schooling are
hidden because they affect student learning in powerful, but often unintended,
ways. We also influence how students learn to relate to each other and the
teacher in accomplishing tasks—a social norm that the students may well carry
with them throughout their adult lives. As educators, we need to become
aware of the hidden curriculum and its effects on students, and consciously
modify these practices to enhance student learning.
The remaining curriculum is referred to as the studied or planned
curriculum and can be divided into two general areas: essential learning
skills and enrichment. The following section will focus on the planned
curriculum, providing a brief overview of its structure and basic planning
consideration for use in the multigrade classroom.

28 The Multigrade Classroom

 The Planned Curriculum
he “planned” curriculum can be described as consisting of four key

T elements: goals, resources, activities, and assessment. Translated into

teacher terms, curriculum can be described as a series of questions:
l What do students need to know?
l How will I help them learn it?
l What resources will I use?
l How will I know if the students have learned it?
Table 6 provides an overview of these four questions in terms of
curriculum levels and responsibilities generally found in most school
districts.
In larger districts and schools, all curriculum levels, from philosophy to
assessment, are often clearly defined. The single-grade teacher in a metro-
politan school district would likely be required to follow a specified set of
goals and learning objectives while using district-adopted materials and
tests. Multigrade teachers, on the other hand, may often find themselves
in the role of answering these questions with little guidance from a central
school district or governmental agency. Even in those cases where the state
or a central educational service district provides guidance for the multi-
grade school, isolation and small size will often reduce the amount of direct
service. Even more confounding, curriculum goals, guides, and texts are
conventionally organized by “grade level,” placing the teacher in the
dilemma of how to achieve expected learning goals when the instructional
organization may well be inappropriate. Rural multigrade teachers often
find themselves operating on their own.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 29

 TABLE 6. Overview of Curriculum Levels and Responsibilities

Curriculum Level Grade Level Example: Language Arts Responsibility

District philosophy All grades All graduates will read, write, Community and school
and purposes and speak effectively. board
Curriculum All grades Writing: The student is able to Department of education,
write out of his own experience, community, school board,
internal as well as external. administration, and teachers
Learner Grade specific Grades 1 2: The student is able Department of education,
to write a complete sentence. The community, school board,
student can write two or more administration, and teachers
related sentences.

Resources (guides, Grade specific Grades 1 2: Curriculum guide, Administration and teachers
texts, handouts, daily writing journal, textbook,
etc.) and teacher-developed materials.

Methods and Grade specific Grades 1 2: Administration and teachers

activities a) Students complete sentences
with the teacher.
b) Students orally give examples
of sentences to the teacher.
c) Students write sentences in
their writing journals.

Assessment Grade specific Grades 1 2: Sentence Department of education,

completion, review journals, community, school board,
or oral review. administration, and teachers

30 The Multigrade Classroom

 What Do Students Need To Know?

hen a teacher enters a classroom with a new group of students, the

W teacher’s most pressing concern generally revolves around determin-

ing what the students already know and what they may need to
learn. Ideally, there should be student records that provide an overview of
individual student progress. These generally include standardized achieve-
ment test results, report cards, and diagnostic testing information for reading
and math programs. However, this type of information is not often kept
systematically. In addition, if students are returning from a summer vacation,
they may have regressed from the previous year’s testing.
The best way to determine what students know is through direct
assessment:
Conduct an interest survey or conduct interviews. Learn the types of learn- Talk to students
ing students find motivating. Students can also tell what textbooks, learning
kits, or instructional materials they worked with the previous year. Students
are an often overlooked source of firsthand information.
Set up learning activities where you can watch how students perform in Observe students
different subject areas and how they relate with peers. Make note of what working and interacting
you learn.
Using grade-level placement information gathered from student records, as Use diagnostic
well as other information sources (such as colleagues or the community), procedures
plan lessons for diagnostic purposes. These might include writing activities,
completing a series of math problems, or individually reading to the teacher.
Results from these lessons can be used to determine student strengths and
needs. Basal textbooks generally include diagnostic materials for placement
purposes.
When planning for diagnosis, it is important to set curricular priorities.
In other words, what content is essential for all students to master, and in
what order?
If the district has established learning goals or adopted a curriculum,
then these can be used to guide your decisions. However, if there do not
appear to be any established guidelines, then you should use what classroom
resources you can find and work with community members to help identify
goals they have for their children. There are many curriculum guides devel-
oped by state departments of education that may be obtained by contacting
them directly or by using ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center)
to find curriculum guides and curriculum models. Finally, do not forget to
use your own common sense to decide what the students need to learn.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 31

How Will I Help Them Learn?
etermining how you plan to organize your classroom for instruction

D and the types of activities you plan to use will depend on many factors.
What materials are available? What different levels will you be teaching?
How many students will you have? Will you have adult help? What strengths
do you bring to the classroom? It is also important to ask what methods
and strategies are likely to be the most effective.
Many excellent resources have been written on effective teaching. Several
of these have been listed in the Resources section at the end of this book.
However, it is safe to say that a sound principle to follow in developing
instructional activities is that “demonstrating” or “discovering” is better than
“telling.” Students learn best when they can see and directly experience the
desired learning, then follow it by opportunities to practice. This holds true
for social as well as academic goals.

What Resources Will I Use?

ne of the first tasks upon entering a new classroom is to take stock

O of what resources are available. The following guidelines provide an

outline of ideas for collecting and assessing curriculum materials:
1. Determine what the school has that you can use:
l Workbooks (old or new)
l Worksheet masters
l Textbooks (old or new)
l Idea/activity books
l Learning kits
l Any type of hands-on materials
2. Determine whether there is any discretionary money for
buying materials
3. Ask other school personnel what resources may be available
4. Check the local library for books, magazines, and Internet sites
that will go with units of study
5. Examine teachers’ manuals and note worksheets, games, devices,
or other suggested learning activities

32 The Multigrade Classroom

 6. Collect materials that may be of use (such as magazines, maps,
wallpaper books, carpet squares, milk cartons, etc.)
7. Look for simulations, games, and other social/interactive
learning activities, especially in social sciences
8. Robin Lovec, a multigrade teacher from Montana, says she
finds lots of useful materials at garage sales

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 33

Evaluation: How Will I Know If the
Students Have Learned?

he last area of curriculum is evaluation. Unlike diagnosis, where the

T aim is to determine what students need to know, evaluation focuses

on ascertaining whether students have learned what they were taught.
Assessment should be considered an ongoing activity, occurring at each
phase of instruction. When you measure student progress toward achieving
a goal, you are also assessing how well you taught or organized instruction.
The results of your evaluation should become the basis for altering the
course of instruction.
Ideas about evaluation in multigrade classrooms rest on several premises.
The first is that if students and teachers remain together for several years,
teachers are able to ascertain what students know and do not know well,
how they learn, and the best ways to teach them. The second premise is
that if students progress through the curriculum less restrained by chrono-
logical age, then evaluation should accommodate their current knowledge
and their need to grow. Evaluation systems should track students’ long-term
learning within and across subject areas. This entails multilevel assessments,
informal and formal peer modeling by older students, and challenging
activities and assessments.
Based on the above premise, three multigrade teachers in Alpharetta,
Georgia, identify and describe three significant metaphors that should
describe the intent and extent of evaluation in a multigrade classroom:
evaluation as a spiral over time, as a web across subject areas, and as a
bridge to reach students’ perspectives of what they are learning.

Spiral Evaluation
he goal of spiral evaluation is to examine long-term learning over a

T three-year span. There are two ways in which evaluation “spirals.” First,
there is an upward spiral toward more conceptual complexity. Second,
by revisiting certain aspects of the curriculum each year, students will experi-
ence long-term learning. By using spiral evaluation, teachers and students
know what has been taught and learned over a three-year time span. There
are three years to work toward transfer of concepts, information, and skills
to new situations.
Spiral evaluation also has a positive impact on students’ sense of security
and the development of leadership. “Old” students (seventh- and eighth-
graders) can explain a concept from the prior year to “new” students (sixth-
graders). For example, older students this fall explained to the incoming
sixth-graders the multiple purposes of our Agri-habitat and demonstrated
how to work in the gardens. The old ones felt comfortable sharing what they
had learned. They were mentoring at the same time that they were review-
ing and determining what they knew. One of our purposes for evaluation is
to help students become “lead-learners.”

34 The Multigrade Classroom

 Webbed Evaluation
ultigrade, multiyear, interrelated curriculum also means that learning

M should be evaluated across the curriculum. Teachers should conceive

of their curriculum and the evaluation of student learning as a “web”
that crosses the hall from classroom to classroom. The web unites teachers
in a common effort to secure student understanding in many contexts.
For example, writing skills are evaluated across the curriculum in every
subject area. Spelling words in language arts are taken from other subjects,
and examples of sentences for learning new writing skills are taken from
social studies texts. Math word problems frequently relate to information
from social studies and science.

Bridged Evaluation
he bridge represents a means of understanding students’ perspectives;

T we are trying to evaluate what students believe they are learning, and
how they are learning, over the three-year program. Bridges to student
understandings are built on day-to-day interaction. Bridges are also erected
through the systematic collection and analysis of research data.
For example, one set of our data involves student performance on
standardized tests. We analyze national Iowa Test of Basic Skills scores and
state Curriculum-Based Assessment of Writing Skills, both general and
within certain domains of writing. We also survey students’ attitudes toward
school, other students, and the curriculum; hold large- and small-group
discussions with students to gain a picture of what the students value and
whether they support our program’s goals; and collect, analyze, and respond
to student journals. Together, we analyze data and write up what we have
learned, and then determine how to change what we do.
Learning from assessment requires the willingness and the courage
to examine your own effectiveness. It especially matters to a multigrade
team that they know how to spiral, web, and bridge assessment practices.
Students’ academic shortcomings cannot be blamed on some other anony-
mous teacher; for three years multigrade teachers are responsible.
Montana multigrade teachers attending an Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) workshop on new state mathematics and reading
standards submitted the following ideas related to student assessment. They
suggest that teachers consider many different strategies and issues, among
them:

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 35

 l The commitment to the idea of natural assessment, which
means that multigrade teachers attempt to integrate learning,
teaching, and evaluating into daily activities.
l Opportunities for informal and formal evaluation for children
to express themselves.
l Use of student self-evaluation and self-direction. Students set
personal academic goals, guide teachers in developing curricula,
help to direct the course of thematic studies, engage in research,
and decide what individual work to do during their investiga-
tions, communications, and math workshops. Students develop
into independent, self-motivated learners as they discover how
to make appropriate choices for themselves and assume owner-
ship of their classroom.
l Use of evaluation strategies that look at the environment, the
teacher, and the materials, as well as the child.
l A look at the concept of uniformity versus diversity. Do the
materials (books, basal, etc.) enhance uniformity or diversity?
Is there uniformity or diversity among the children in the
classroom? Is the teacher becoming more diverse in her own
awareness and thinking, or more uniform?
Pam Cunningham, a one-room multigrade schoolhouse teacher at Sand
Springs Elementary in Montana, shared some of the techniques she uses to
evaluate her class. Her students range in age and ability and span three grade
levels. Ultimately she believes that children need to express themselves orally,
as well as have opportunities to learn from others within the classroom.
Talking Journal To begin the day the children assemble with us on the rug. Children and
adults take turns telling the group something of personal importance.
Sometimes children share special articles brought from home. Active listen-
ing is an important part of Talking Journal time. Students are encouraged
to comment and ask questions.

Evaluation of We take note of the frequency and nature of the children’s talk as well as
Talking Journal their comments and questions. Some behaviors we watch for are: clear,
audible voice; eagerness to share; ability to speak without a prop; interest
in others’ presentations; quality of questions and comments; and ability to
actively listen.

36 The Multigrade Classroom

A message to the children is written on large chart paper and presented to Morning Message
the combined classes. Five or six words are left partially blank with only
the beginning sound or blend given. We read the message aloud, deciding
together which words will make sense in the blanks. The message often
suggests the focus of the day’s activities. As we discuss the content of the
message, we note word meanings and usage, conventions of grammar, and
other stylistic features of the writing. Next, students volunteer to spell the
missing words. As we spell we discuss the sound/symbol correspondence
of standard spelling. We compare “sound spellings” to the conventional
spellings of words. As we review the message, we invite children to point
out interesting things they have noticed. The students’ observations lead to
discussions on a wide variety of literacy concepts: word patterns, rhymes,
homophones, vowel combinations, blends, mechanical features of punctua-
tion and capitalization, and so forth. A copy of the message is sent home
each day for homework and to provide information about daily school
activities to parents.
As one of the teachers is leading the Morning Message discussion, the other Evaluation of
is noting on a checklist which children are actively listening and contribut- Morning Message
ing to the chart discussion. We document on sticky notes when individual
children suggest words for the message, provide sound spellings, supply
conventional spellings, or notice significant things on the message. The
children take turns being the student observer. Each day the student observer
is also writing notable occurrences on sticky notes. At the end of the message
discussion, both the teacher and student observers comment on the discov-
eries or behaviors of several of the children. Each day the sticky notes are
filed in the class record book. We encourage parents to interact with their
children while children are doing their homework. Through the course of
the year, parents, children, and teachers can evaluate reading and spelling
development through the homework.
The daily Choice Time is a valued part of our program. As the children enter Choice Time
our classrooms in the morning, they sign up for an activity to do later at
Choice Time. There are a wide variety of choices; some of them are teacher
ideas and others have been suggested by the children. Some examples of
choices include: blocks, puzzles, games, reading, writing, drawing, painting,
constructions, clay, math tubs, dramatic play in the Little Room, and so
forth. The Choice Time period is structured so that children may work and
play either independently or in groups. It offers children opportunities to
make decisions, to work on relationships, and to learn on their own. Choice
Time also gives children the freedom to acquire skills, to attain concepts,
and to practice in academic areas of their choice. Once every two weeks
each student is scheduled to meet with the teacher for a goal-setting
conference during Choice Time.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 37

 Evaluation of We find that children learn best when they have input into their learning.
Choice Time Choice Time has proven to be the setting for abundant growth and wide-
spread learning among our students. As we observe the children during
Choice Time, we note both social and academic development. Over time,
we note the quality and degree of self-direction, creativity, decisionmaking
skills, problem-solving ability, cooperation, and responsibility for materials
that each student is exhibiting. We also note individual gains in reading,
writing, math, and other content areas.
Investigations We offer Investigations Workshops three times a week. During this 45-
Workshop minute period the students work on math and science through theme-
related activities. The themes studied are based on a three-year cycle of the
district’s science curriculum for the kindergarten, first, and second grades.
The workshops include large-group, small-group, and individual projects.
Sometimes the teachers determine the groupings; other times the students
choose the group or activity in which they wish to participate. Hands-on
activities that demand that the students problem solve, experiment, and
do research are a major component of the Investigations Workshops. Each
child has an Investigations Log in which she or he records significant
learnings.
Evaluation of The teachers observe the problem-solving and research strategies used by
Investigations each student during the Investigations Workshop. We recognize and record
Workshop incidences of scientific curiosity. We also note student choices of collaborative
groupings and how each group conducts its investigations. Student-selected
research projects may be included in the students’ portfolios. The student
Investigations Log serves as a record of individual learning.
Literature Groups Literature Groups are groups of five to seven students and one adult who
meet together to enjoy and discuss a book of their choice. The teachers
select examples of quality literature, as many titles as there are groups.
On sign-up day the teachers give short book talks to introduce the students
to the upcoming Literature Group selections. The teachers make up the
Literature Groups according to the students’ choices. We study a variety of
genres throughout the year. The make-up of the groups changes, with each
new series of books. The Literature Groups meet for two, 45-minute sessions
each week. Groups meet for four weeks, for a total of eight sessions. During
the sessions the groups work on listening and speaking goals, as well as a
variety of literacy activities. Some possible Literature Group activities are:
reading and comparing different versions of the story; listening to related
books; partner reading; studying character, plot, setting, and style; vocabu-
lary study; and retellings. Finally, the group works together to plan a culmi-
nating project to share with the other Literature Groups.

38 The Multigrade Classroom

Leaders evaluate reading and listening comprehension, as well as the use of Evaluation of
reading and writing strategies, during Literature Group activities. During Literature Groups
discussions, the leaders also observe the quality and frequency of students’
participation. Collaboration and cooperation in the group are also noted.
Group members also evaluate themselves on their participation.
The students are grouped developmentally for math class three days a week. Math
Large-group lessons, small-group lessons, and individual work are all compo-
nents of these classes. This developmental grouping allows the teachers to
group children at similar stages for instruction in basic math concepts. The
remaining two days a week are spent in Math Workshop. The students are
offered a choice of problem-solving situations to work on. As much as possi-
ble these problems will be related to real-life situations. For example, the
children might be asked to decide how much pumpkin seed we need of
each variety for next year’s planting. They will then compute the needed
garden space and design how the pumpkin patch could be laid out. Problems
developed by students are also used. The workshop time gives the students
the opportunity to problem solve in multiage collaborative groups, as well
as on an individual basis. The work in the math classes and the Math
Workshop is based on the district’s math curriculum.
Teachers observe problem-solving strategies as the children are working. Evaluation of Math
We watch for successful collaborations. We note the degree of understand-
ing of mathematical concepts. Through math goal-setting conferences, we
help children to recognize their strengths and to set further learning goals.
Students take the district’s math assessment test for concepts they have
studied; the results are recorded on each child’s math card.
Communications Workshop occurs every afternoon. It is a large block of Communications
time in which we are all engaged in a variety of literacy activities. We focus Workshop
on the fundamentals of literacy: reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
Students and teachers make choices within these areas during Communi-
cations Workshop. Students work on the personal literacy goals that they
developed for themselves during goal-setting conferences with the teachers.
The structure of the workshop follows:
We begin the workshop with a read-aloud of a picture book or a contin-
uing chapter book. Students have input into the book selection. Quiet
reading is next. Students and adults choose books, magazines, newspapers,
and other materials to read independently. After the quiet reading time, the
reading segment of Communications Workshop continues with a variety
of activities. Some students enjoy partner reading. Friends pair up to share
books they have been reading. Sharing includes showing pictures, inventing
a story to go with the pictures, talking about the book, or reading the book
aloud. Some students listen to tape recordings of books at the listening
center at this time. Others continue to read independently or to conduct
research on self-chosen topics. A teacher-directed mini-lesson follows the

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 39

 reading time. The mini-lessons focus on reading and writing skills and strate-
gies and on procedural elements of the workshop. After a break for gym,
music, art, library, or computer instruction, the Communications Workshop
resumes with quiet writing in daybooks. All children and adults write at this
time; we choose topics of personal importance to write about in our day-
books. After quiet writing, students engage in a variety of writing pursuits
as they continue the writing segment of Communications Workshop. Some
writing possibilities include: personal writing (letters, notes, poems, songs,
stories, etc.), collaborative writing, individual research, editing, illustrating
their published works, and book responses. Several days a week we will end
Communications Workshop with a sharing time. At this time, students and
adults may read their writing or tell about a book they have enjoyed during
Workshop. Listeners offer their comments and questions.
Evaluation of Every two weeks, regularly scheduled conferences during Choice Time help
Communications the students set appropriate literacy goals. We encourage them to balance
Workshop their goals so that they are working on both skills and strategies in reading
and writing. During Communications Workshop we work individually with
children to monitor their progress on the literacy goals they have chosen.
From time to time during the workshop, we question the children: What
are your reading goals? What writing goals are you working on? Show me
how you worked on your goals in your daybook today. How did you help
yourself to be a better reader today? During the reading segment of the
workshop we discuss books with children and listen to them read, noting
their use of reading strategies. We evaluate strengths and weaknesses in word
attack and comprehension, and we help the students in applying reading
strategies. We assist them in choosing appropriate books. We evaluate as we
talk with students about their writing, noting their attention to their goals,
their facility with sound spelling and conventional spelling, their vocabulary
growth, and the development of stylistic features in their writing. Most of
our time during Communications Workshop is spent in helping individual
students in specific areas of their literacy development.

End of the Day Circle The last 10 minutes of our school day are reserved for guided reflection on
our work of that day. The question for the day is posted on the board all
day for the children to reflect on. At End of the Day Circle, a child reads
the question, and those who wish to respond are called on. Some possibili-
ties for questions are: What do you value about your work today? What did
you do today to help yourself become a better reader? A better writer? A
better mathematician? What did you do today to help someone else? What
will you tell your family about what you did in school today? The children’s
comments are written down by the teacher and later transcribed in the End
of the Day Question Book. This book is kept on a low shelf where the
children can get it to read over their own and others’ responses.
The teachers note the frequency with which students choose to respond
to the questions, as well as the type of question that elicits the response.

40 The Multigrade Classroom

The children’s abilities to express their thoughts clearly and audibly are also Evaluation of End
noted. The End of the Day Question Book offers a permanent record of of the Day Circle
the children’s reflections.
As we learn from our students, our ideas about evaluation change. We
try to assess our students’ strengths and to show each student what she or
he can do and how to build on that knowledge. We believe that evaluation
is not for comparison; evaluation is qualitative, not quantitative. The purpose
of evaluation is to value the child. Our progress report is an attempt to
inform parents of their child’s growth in a nonthreatening, informal manner.
However, we feel that the best way to share our knowledge of children is
to talk with their parents. To this end, we hold formal conferences with
parents two or three times a year. We also encourage parents to frequently
visit the classroom or call us to discuss their children’s educational growth.
We hope to encourage parents to see their children’s strengths and to work
as partners with us to provide their children with the best learning environ-
ment possible.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 41

Summary

n the multigrade class, different abilities from different ages are expected.

I It is very important to know the curriculum expectation for each age

group and how to determine if a student is working at “grade level.”
Teachers must know the curriculum guides well for assessment. Curriculum
outcomes should be of prime importance when deciding what to teach and,
therefore, what and how we intend to assess.

Implications

ultigrade groupings provide an opportunity to assess a child over

M years instead of months in their life. Teachers meet the child’s family
again and again and watch the student grow. Teachers work hard
on behavior problems and see long-term results instead of hearing how
a student pulled the same “stunts” on next year’s teacher. These are the
advantages of following a multilevel group and measuring growth.
What about teachers who have a split or multigrade classroom as a
temporary measure? This still allows an opportunity to see students as
individuals and to value their differences. Students have a chance to work
with another ability group for lessons and to learn from older students.
Older students can model and teach younger ones. As part of the evaluation
process, the teacher gets to overhear and observe the student’s knowledge
in action, the teacher knows that students have truly learned it because they
see them use their knowledge and pass it on. Younger students or novices
become “experts” and have a true sense of what will be expected of them in
the future. Evaluation in the multigrade classroom reports how individuals
are progressing over years and indicates where they fit on the learning
continuum.

42 The Multigrade Classroom

 The Standards Movement in
Small, Rural Multigrade Schools

he beginning of the standards movement can be traced back to the

T 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk by the National Commission on

Excellence in Education (Marzano & Kendall, 1996). Harshly critical
of the public school system, the report focused America’s attention on educa-
tion like no single event since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957.
In turn, education become a greater priority among state and national
leaders, who until then had paid limited attention to the topic (Toch, 1991).
Since the early days of the standards movement, substantial effort
has gone into developing standards at the local, state, and national levels.
Evidence of this work can be seen in the voluminous standards documents
that have been generated. Although the standards movement has consider-
able support among policymakers and the public, small-school teachers raise
important questions about the implementation of standards. Their concerns
can be grouped under four broad headings: (1) resource and equity issues;
(2) relationship to previous failed reforms; (3) objectionable content in the
standards; and (4) volume of the materials (Marzano & Kendall, 1996).
A common complaint among educators is that developing and imple-
menting standards places a substantial drain on school resources. In rural
areas, small-school faculties are already overburdened, and developing
standards seems like an insurmountable task. Nor do small schools typically
have the resources to hire outside consultants to guide their standards-writing
process. Thus, resources given to standards writing and implementation must
be taken from other areas, which may affect some types of students more
than others. Such reallocation of resources raises serious equity questions.
Another criticism is that the standards movement is simply another way
of packaging previously failed reform efforts. Some see similarities between
the standards movement and the efficiency movement of the 1900s (Eisner,
1995), as well as the behavioral objectives movement of the 1960s. This
perception leads to resistance among educators who see the standards
movement as just another so-called innovation that will eventually go away.
A third concern lies in what some consider to be objectionable content in
the standards. For example, some teachers have argued that history standards
portray a biased, unflattering view of U.S. history and neglect traditional
American figures.
The fourth concern regards the volume of material to be covered by
the standards. Reformers initially envisioned a relatively small number of
standards that teachers could use to guide their instruction. Unfortunately,
the professional organizations that developed the standards undertook the
task with great zeal. The result is that there is no possible way that teach-
ers, and in particular multigrade teachers, could teach the vast number of
standards that professional organizations have outlined and still meet the
varied needs of students in their classrooms.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 43

 Despite similar concerns, multigrade teachers at the ESEA workshop
felt that the multigrade classroom context was conducive to standards
implementation and improved student achievement. Consistency over time
in relationships among teachers, children, and parents was viewed as one of
the most significant strengths of the multigrade approach because it encour-
ages greater depth in children’s social, academic, and intellectual develop-
ment. Second, the concept of the classroom as a “family” leads to the
expansion of the roles of nurturing and commitment to excellence on the
part of the students and teachers. Cross-age interactions through tutoring
and the repeated exposure to educational content also result in improved
understanding and mastery. Social competence develops for older children
out of their roles as teachers and nurturers, and for younger children out of
their opportunity to observe and model the behavior of their older classmates.

Summary
ultigrade teachers have stated that high standards are good, and

M have been coveted by most educators. However, the quest for them
in the present atmosphere is generating powerful policies and
practices that often seem to be too simple, too centralized, and generally
unquestioned. To succeed, multigrade teachers state that the movement
for higher standards must engage and be informed by local schools and
communities; it must recognize the competence and concern of the major-
ity of teachers; and it must do justice, not harm, to children of poverty.

44 The Multigrade Classroom

 References

Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Goal structures and motivation. Elementary
School Journal, 85(1), 39–52.
Anderson, R.H. (1993). The return of the nongraded classroom. Principal,
72(3), 9–12.
Anderson, R.H., & Pavan, B.N. (1993). Nongradedness: Helping it to happen.
Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Banks, J.C. (1997). Student success and self-image in a multi-age classroom.
Edmonds,WA: CATS Publications. Retrieved September 20, 2000,
from the World Wide Web: www.chimacum.wednet.edu/multiage/
stsuccess.html
Bossert, S.T., Barnett, B.G., & Filby, N.N. (1984). Grouping and instruc-
tional organization. In P.L. Peterson, L.C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan
(Eds.), The social context of instruction: Group organization and group
processes (pp. 39–51). New York, NY: Academic Press. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 268 075)
Bouchard, L.L. (1991). Mixed aged grouping for gifted students. Gifted
Child Today, 14(5), 30–35.
Caine, R.N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and
the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Clark, A. (1996). Special-needs children and mixed-age grouping. MAGnet
Newsletter on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings,
5(1), 3–4. Retrieved September 20, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
www.ericeece.org/pubs/mag/magfal96.html#b
Cohen, D.L. (1989, December 6). First stirrings of a new trend: Multi-age
classrooms gain favor. Education Week, 9(14), 1, 13–14.
Cohen, E.G. (1980, September). A multi-ability approach to the integrated
classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 196 989)
Cohen, E.G. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous
classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Coleman, J.S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16(6),
32–38.
Cushman, K. (1993). The case for mixed-age grouping. Harvard, MA: Author.
Eisner, E.W. (1995). Standards for American schools: Help or hindrance?
Phi Delta Kappan, 76(10), 758–764.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 45

 Feng, J. (1994). Issues and trends in early childhood education. Unpublished
manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 841)
Fox, M. (1997, April). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the National Association of
Elementary School Principals Association, San Antonio, TX.
Gaustad, J. (1992). Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and
developmentally appropriate education for primary children [Special
issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 35(7).
Goodlad, J.I., & Anderson, R.H. (1987). The nongraded elementary school
(Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hallion, A.M. (1994, March). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association
of Elementary School Principals Association, Orlando, FL.
Holloway, S.D. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and the
United States. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 327–345.
Karweit, N. (1987). Diversity, equity, and classroom processes. In M.T.
Hallinan (Ed.), Social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of
the learning process (pp. 71–102). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Katz, L., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J.A. (1990). The case for mixed-age
grouping in early education. Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Kinsey, S. (1998). Observations of student and teacher behaviors in the multi-
age classroom. Unpublished manuscript.
Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children:
An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006–1017.
Marshak, D. (1994, March). From teachers’ perspectives: The social and psycho-
logical benefits of multiage elementary classrooms. Paper presented at the
annual conference “Emerging Images of Learning: World Perspectives
for the New Millennium,” Chicago, IL.
Marshall, H., & Weinstein, R. (1984). Ecology of student achievement expec-
tations: Final report. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 257 820)
Marzano, R.J., & Kendall, J.S. (1996). A comprehensive guide to designing
standards-based districts, schools, and classrooms. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McClellan, D., & Kinsey, S. (1996). Mixed-age grouping helps children
develop social skills and a sense of belonging. The MAGnet Newsletter
on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 5(1), 1–3.
Retrieved May 8, 2000 from the World Wide Web: www.ericeece.org/
pubs/mag/magfal96.html#a

46 The Multigrade Classroom

McClellan, D.E. (1994). Multiage grouping: Implications for education. In
P. Chase & J. Doan (Eds.), Full circle: A new look at multiage education
(pp. 147–166). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Miller, B.A. (1993). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade
instruction. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of
America’s schools. The multiage resource book (pp. 65–83). Peterborough,
NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Miller, B.A. (1996). A basic understanding of multiage grouping. School
Administrator, 53(1), 12–17.
Nye, B. (1993). Some questions and answers about multiage grouping.
ERS Spectrum, 11(3), 38–45.
Pavan, B.N. (1992, April). School effectiveness and nongraded schools. Paper
presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 346 608)
Ridgway, L., & Lawton, I. (1969). Family grouping in the primary school
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Rosenholtz, S.J. (1979). The classroom equalizer. Teacher, 97(l), 78–79.
Rosenholtz, S.J., & Cohen, E.G. (1983). Back to basics and the desegre-
gated school. Elementary School Journal, 83(5), 515–527.
Rosenholtz, S., & Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability concep-
tions: Developmental trend or social construction? Review of Educational
Research, 54(1), 31–63.
Slavin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and
secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67–77.
Stone, S.J. (1995). The primary multiage classroom: Changing schools for
children. Unpublished manuscript.
Toch, T. (1991). In the name of excellence: The struggle to reform the nation’s
schools, why it’s failing, and what should be done. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Uphoff, J.K., & Evans, D.A. (1993). The country school comes to town:
A case study of multiage grouping and teaching. In D. Sumner (Ed.),
Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America’s schools. The multiage
resource book (pp. 36–38). Peterborough, NH: Society for
Developmental Education.
Wellington Department of Education. (1984). The rural school. Wellington,
New Zealand: E.C. Keating, Government Printer.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 47

 Willis, S. (1991). Breaking down grade barriers: Interest on nongraded
classrooms on the raise. ASCD update, 33(3), 4.

48 The Multigrade Classroom

 Resources

Cohen, E.G. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous

classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
This book provides detailed strategies for starting groupwork in your class-
room and describes the research supporting cooperative workgroups. The
book is written in a direct, clear style that makes it easy to follow and
useful to the classroom teacher.

Available from: Teachers College Press

Columbia University
New York, NY 10027

Cohen, E.G. (1980). Teacher application pamphlet: Designing change for

the classroom. Final report. Status equalization project: Changing expec-
tations in the integrated classroom. Stanford, CA: Stanford University,
Center for Educational Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 211 501)
This study provides a theoretical rationale for using small groups, direc-
tions on how to train children in small-group behavior and specific activi-
ties to be used during training, and information on adapting existing
curriculum for small-group work.

Available from: ERIC

3900 Wheeler Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22304-6409

Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis.

Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
This research synthesis describes characteristics and practices identified
by research as associated with improvements in student performance.
Findings are cited within three sections, each focused on one level of
organization: the classroom, the school, and the district. Groups of
practices derived from the research have been organized into practice
clusters (such as “Teachers Use a Preplanned Curriculum to Guide
Instruction”) and then into cluster groupings (such as “Instruction”
and “Assessment”).

Available from: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 49

 Johnson, D., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E.J., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of
learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
The authors present the underlying concepts regarding cooperative learn-
ing. Steps for implementing cooperation in your classroom and the
research supporting it are also presented.

Available from: Interaction Book Company

125 N. West Street
Edina, MN 09874

Kagan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan

Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.
This book provides a detailed guide for implementing the structural
approach to cooperative learning. It includes a guide to resources in
cooperative learning and an overview of cooperative learning research.
There is a wealth of concrete strategies for teachers to use.

Available from: Resources for Teachers

27134 Paseo Espada #202
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

Novick, R. (1996). Developmentally appropriate and culturally responsive

education: Theory in practice. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory.
Available from: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204

Slavin, R.E. (1986). Using student team learning (3rd ed.). Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary
and Middle Schools.
This teacher’s manual describes a set of practical instructional techniques
that involve students in cooperative activities built around the learning of
school subjects. These are techniques developed and researched at Johns
Hopkins University, plus related methods developed elsewhere.

Available from: The Johns Hopkins Team Learning Project

Center for Research on Elementary and
Middle Schools
Johns Hopkins University
3505 North Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218

50 The Multigrade Classroom

 Yates, R. (updated February 2000). Resources for multiage classrooms.
Retrieved September 27, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
www.chimacum.wednet.edu/multiage/
This Web site is dedicated to helping teachers and administrators interested
in multiage/multigrade education find and gather relevant resources such
as curriculum evaluation samples. Here you will also find materials that
reflect some of the ways multiage programs can be set up. There are many,
many more possibilities.

Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation 51

 THE MULTIGRADE CLASSROOM:
A RESOURCE HANDBOOK FOR SMALL,
RURAL SCHOOLS
Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping

November 1999

Rural Education Program

Based on the September 1989 publication

of the same title written by Bruce A. Miller

Susan Vincent, Editor

Joyce Ley, Director

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97204
Acknowledgments

The following selections have been reprinted with permission:

Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous class-
room (pp. 207–209). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Emmer, E.T. (1987). Classroom management and discipline. In V.
Richardson-Koehler & D.C. Berliner (Eds.), Educators’ handbook:
A research perspective (pp. 233-258). White Plains, NY: Longman.
(Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Evertson, C.M., Emmer, E.T., Clements, B.S., Sanford, J.P., & Williams, E.
(1981). Organizing and managing the elementary school classroom. Austin,
TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education. (Reprinted with permission of Carolyn Evertson, Peabody
College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.)
Gaustad, J. (1994). Nongraded education: Overcoming obstacles to imple-
menting the multigrade classroom [Special issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 38(3
& 4). (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Gibbons, M., & Phillips, G. (1978). Helping students through the self-
education crisis. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(4), 296–300. (Reprinted with
permission of publisher.)
Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. (Reprinted with permission
of publisher.)
Karweit, N. (1987). Diversity, equity, and classroom processes. In M.T.
Hallinan (Ed.), Social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of the
learning process (pp. 71–102). New York, NY: Plenum Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Kentucky Department of Education. (1996). Nearly all Kentucky schools show
improvement in latest KIRIS scores, but middle schools lag behind [Press
release]. Frankfort, KY: Author. (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Murphy, J., Weil, M., & McGreal, T. (1986). The basic practice model of
instruction. Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 83–96. (Reprinted with
permission of the University of Chicago Press.)
Oregon Department of Education, & Ackerman Laboratory School. (1994).
Mixed-age programs, 1993–94. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Education. (Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Pavan, B.N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational
Leadership, 50(2), 22–25. (Reprinted with permission of author.)

ii The Multigrade Classroom

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elemen-
tary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 293–336. (Reprinted with permission of the American
Educational Research Association.)
Slavin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and
secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67–77. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1989). What works for students at risk:
A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4–13. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Thomas, J.W., Strage, A., & Curley, R. (1988). Improving students’ self-
directed learning: Issues and guidelines. Elementary School Journal, 88(3),
313–326. (Reprinted with permission of the University of Chicago.)

iii
Overview

Preface
The preface describes the process used in developing this handbook,
including the multigrade teachers who shared their classroom strategies
and ideas for improving the usefulness of the handbook.
Introduction
The history of multigrade classroom instruction is presented, along
with the background information that describes why multigrade
instruction is an important and complex issue for educators.
Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
In this book, the research on multigrade instruction is reviewed
in order to answer two questions: (1) What effect does multigrade
instruction have on student performance? and (2) What kind of train-
ing is needed in order to teach in a multigrade classroom? Detailed
information focusing on organizing and teaching in a multigrade class-
room is also presented.
Book 2: Classroom Organization
This book describes strategies for arranging and organizing instruc-
tional resources and the physical environment of the classroom. Sample
classroom layouts and a “design kit” for organizing your classroom are
also included.
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Establishing clear expectations for student behavior and predictable
classroom routines has been shown to improve student performance.
In this book, research relating to classroom management and discipline
are presented, along with a checklist for planning management routines
and discipline procedures.
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Research-based guidelines for planning, developing, and implementing
instructional strategies are presented. This book emphasizes the devel-
opment of cooperative work norms in the multigrade classroom and
explains how to match instruction to the needs of students. An overview
of curriculum and evaluation planning concepts is also provided. This
book is a close companion piece with book 5: Instructional Delivery
and Grouping.

iv The Multigrade Classroom

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
This book emphasizes that instructional quality and student grouping
are key components for success in the multigrade classroom.
Instructional methods such as recitation, discussion, and cooperative
learning are reviewed. Planning guides and examples are also included
where appropriate. Strategies for organizing group learning activities
across and within grade levels, especially those that develop interde-
pendence and cooperation among students, are discussed.
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Developing skills and strategies in students that allow for a high level
of independence and efficiency in learning, either individually or in
combination with other students, is essential in the multigrade class-
room. Ideas for developing self-direction are presented in this book.
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring
This book provides guidelines for developing skills and routines whereby
students serve as “teachers” to other students within and across differ-
ing grade levels. The research on what makes for effective tutoring in
the classroom is also reviewed.

v
Preface

he development of this handbook began in 1987, when a group

T of people involved in rural education raised several issues regarding

multigrade classroom instruction.
In their discussions, members of the advisory committee for the
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s (NWREL) Rural Education
Program agreed that multigrade teacher training in their respective states
was either lacking or wholly inadequate. They also were concerned about
the availability of research and training materials to help rural multigrade
teachers improve their skills.
As a result of these concerns, the Rural Education Program decided to
develop a handbook to assist the multigrade teacher. The handbook evolved
in several stages. The first was a comprehensive review, conducted by Dr.
Bruce Miller, of the research on multigrade instruction that included articles,
books, and research reports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and
other countries.
From this review, six topic areas emerged that are considered essential for
effective multigrade instruction: classroom organization; classroom manage-
ment and discipline; instructional organization, curriculum, and evaluation;
instructional delivery and grouping; self-directed learning; and planning and
using peer tutoring. Dr. Miller developed the handbook around these six
instructional areas, and a draft was completed in June 1989, with support
from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).
The second stage occurred in July 1989, when a conference was held in
Ashland, Oregon, with multigrade teachers who were recommended by educa-
tional leaders from throughout the Northwest and Pacific Island regions.
During the conference, participants were organized into workgroups,
each focusing on one of the topic areas. Their tasks were to review the
appropriate handbook chapter for clarity and content, to suggest alternative
and/or additional instructional strategies to those presented in the handbook,
and to write case descriptions of activities drawn from their classrooms.
For example, Joel Anderson from Onion Creek Elementary in Colville,
Washington, described how he grouped students for cooperative learning.
Darci Shane from Vida, Montana, presented a school handbook she had
developed for parents that included a class schedule and other school-related
information. (A full list of participants appears at the end of this preface.)
The final handbook was completed by Dr. Miller in September 1989.
Based on the growing interest and research on multigrade instruction
the handbook was revised and updated in 1999, also with support from
OERI. The final version, completed with support from the Institute of
International Education (IIE), is now composed of a series of seven stand-
alone books.

vi The Multigrade Classroom

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
Book 2: Classroom Organization
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring

Purpose and Scope of the Handbook

he handbook has been written to serve three general purposes:

T l To provide an overview of current research on multigrade

instruction
l To identify key issues teachers face when teaching in a multi-
grade setting
l To provide a set of resource guides to assist novice and
experienced multigrade teachers in improving the quality
of instruction
However, because of the complexity of multigrade instruction and the
vast amount of research on effective classroom instruction, this handbook
can only serve as a starting point for those educators wanting to learn new
skills or refine those they already possess.
Each book of the series presents information, strategies, and resources
considered important for the multigrade teacher. While all the books are
related, they also can stand alone as separate documents. For example, the
books on Classroom Organization (Book 2) and Classroom Management
and Discipline (Book 3) contain overlapping information. Ideally, these
two books are best utilized together. The same is true of the books on
Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation (Book 4) and
Instructional Delivery and Grouping (Book 5). Wherever possible, these
relationships have been noted in the appropriate books.
In conclusion, the series of books has been designed to be used as
a research-based resource guide for the multigrade teacher. It covers the
most important issues the multigrade teacher must address to be effective
in meeting the needs of students. Sample schedules, classroom layouts,
resource lists, and strategies aimed at improving instruction have been used
throughout. It is our hope that the handbook will raise questions, provide
answers, and direct the multigrade teacher to resources where answers to
other questions can be found.

vii
Participants in the Multigrade Conference

Kalistus Ngirturong Barbara Robinson

Aimeliik Elementary Arbon Elementary School
Babeldaob Island Arbon, Idaho
Republic of Palau
Monte Phoenix and Karrie
Robin Lovec Phoenix
Springdale School Orovada, Nevada
Springdale, Montana
Joel Anderson
Anthony Moorow Onion Creek Elementary
Yap Department of Education Colville, Washington
Colonia, Yap
Marty Karlin
Cheryl Mikolajcvyk Trinity Center School
Kaumakakai, Hawaii Trinity Center, California

Leslie Gordon Troy Smith

Pitkas Point School Dixie Elementary School
St. Mary’s, Alaska Dixie, Washington

James Makphie Jill Bills

Majuro, Marshall Islands Sanders Elementary School
Sanders, Arizona
Edith Nicholas
Andrew K. Demoski School Darci Shane
Nulato, Alaska Southview School
Vida, Montana
Benjamin Bernard
Majuro, Marshall Islands Eileene Armstrong
Melrose Elementary
Linda Pelroy Melrose, Montana
W.W. Jones Elementary
Arock, Oregon Pam Cunningham
Sand Springs Elementary
John Rusyniak Sand Springs, Montana
Mentasta Lake School
Mentasta Lake, Alaska Jennifer McAllister
Deerfield Elementary
Patricia Reck Lewistown, Montana
Brothers School
Brothers, Oregon Kimberly Rindal
Ayers Elementary
Bill Radtke Grass Range, Montana
English Bay School
English Bay, Alaska Sammy Vickers
Grant Elementary
Phil M. Gillies Dillon, Montana
Stone Elementary
Malad, Idaho Brian Wolter
Avon Elementary
Carol Spackman Avon, Montana
Park Valley School
Park Valley, Utah

viii The Multigrade Classroom

 Introduction

n contrast to a historical pattern of children developing within an age-

I varied social system, many children today spend a majority of their

time in an age-segregated milieu (Katz, Evangelou, & Hartman, 1990;
McClellan, 1994). The results of this pattern of segregation are thought to
contribute to a declining social support system and compromised develop-
ment of children’s social and academic skills.
Coleman (1987) suggests the need for a significant institutional and
societal response to support functions traditionally filled by the family, such
as the development of feelings of belonging and community, emotional and
social bonding, and nurturance. Increasingly, the school has been viewed as
one of the most effective and efficient contexts to address children’s academic,
affective, and social needs before these needs reach crisis proportions.
A growing body of research explores the influence of educational
contexts on children’s development. While interest has focused on the
impact of the classroom environment on children’s attitudes toward school,
cognitive growth, and academic development, less direct attention has been
given to the relationship between classroom context (including the structure
and content of children’s peer relationships) and academic and social devel-
opment during the elementary years. One approach explored by theoreti-
cians and researchers for encouraging children’s academic and social skill
development is multigrade instruction.
In multigrade instruction, children of at least a two-year grade span
and diverse ability levels are grouped in a single classroom and are encour-
aged to share experiences involving intellectual, academic, and social skills
(Goodlad & Anderson, 1987; Katz et al., 1990; McClellan & Kinsey,
1996). Consistency over time in relationships among teachers, children,
and parents is viewed as one of the most significant strengths of the multi-
grade approach because it encourages greater depth in children’s social,
academic, and intellectual development. The concept of the classroom as a
“family” is encouraged, leading to expansion of the roles of nurturing and
commitment on the part of both students and teacher (Feng, 1994;
Hallion, 1994; Marshak, 1994).
The potential academic and social implications of the multigrade
concept of education are strongly supported by extensive research demon-
strating the importance of peers in children’s academic and social develop-
ment, and by studies of reciprocity theory, which demonstrate the positive
effect on child academic and social behavior of sustained close relationships
between children and caregivers (Kinsey, 1998; Maccoby, 1992).
The adequate implementation of a multigrade approach to education
extends beyond simply mixing children of different grades together. A
positive working model of a multigrade classroom allows for the develop-
ment of academic and social skills as the teacher encourages cross-age inter-
actions through tutoring and shared discovery. Social competence develops

ix
 for older children out of their roles as teachers and nurturers, and for
younger children out of their opportunity to observe and model the behav-
ior of their older classmates (Katz et al., 1990; Ridgway & Lawton, 1969).
The multigrade classroom has traditionally been an important and
necessary organizational pattern of education in the United States, notes
Miller (1993). Multigrade education dates back to the one-room schools
that were the norm in this country until they were phased out in the early
part of the 1900s (Cohen, 1989; Miller, 1993). From the mid-1960s
through mid-1970s, a number of schools implemented open education,
ungraded classrooms, and multigrade groupings. Although some schools
continued to refine and develop the multigrade concept, many of these
programs disappeared from public schools. With the beginning of the
industrial revolution and large-scale urban growth, the ideal of mass public
education took root and the practice of graded schools began in earnest.
The graded school system provided a means of organizing and classify-
ing the increased number of urban students of the 1900s. Educators found
it easier to manage students by organizing them into age divisions or grades.
Other factors, such as the advent of the graded textbook, state-supported
education, and the demand for trained teachers, further solidified graded
school organization (Miller, 1993; Uphoff & Evans, 1993). Critics of the
graded school were quick to emphasize this deficiency. The realization that
children’s uneven developmental patterns and differing rates of progress are
ill-matched to the rigid grade-level system has resulted in a growing interest
in and study of the potential benefits of multigrade education in recent years
(Miller, 1996). This growing interest is due to a greater focus on the impor-
tance of the early years in efforts to restructure the educational system
(Anderson, 1993; Cohen, 1989; Stone, S.J., 1995; Willis, 1991) and
an awareness of the limitations of graded education.
The multigrade classroom is labor intensive and requires more planning,
collaboration, and professional development than the conventional graded
classroom (Cushman, 1993; Gaustad, 1992; Miller, 1996). Sufficient
planning time must be available to meet the needs of both teacher and
students. Insufficient planning, staff development, materials, support, and
assessment procedures will have an impact on the success of the multigrade
program (Fox, 1997; Miller, 1996; Nye, 1993).
Despite these constraints, there are special advantages to multigrade
classrooms. Flexible schedules can be implemented and unique programs
developed to meet students’ individual and group interests and needs.
Combined classrooms also offer ample opportunity for students to become
resourceful and independent learners. The multigrade rural classroom is
usually less formal than the single-grade urban or suburban classroom.
Because of the small class size, friendly relationships based on understand-
ing and respect develop naturally between the students and the teacher. In

x The Multigrade Classroom

this setting, students become well-known by their teacher and a family
atmosphere often develops.
However, many teachers, administrators, and parents continue to
wonder whether multigrade organization has negative effects on student
performance. For most rural educators, multigrade instruction is not an
experiment or a new educational trend, but a forceful reality based on
economic and geographic necessity. In a society where educational environ-
ments are dominated by graded organization, the decision to combine grades
is often quite difficult. The Rural Education Program of the Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory receives numerous requests from rural
educators with two overriding concerns regarding multigrade classrooms:
l What effect does multigrade instruction have on student
performance?
l What kind of preparation or training is needed to be an effec-
tive teacher in a multigrade classroom?
This handbook will provide answers to these questions and develop
an overview of key issues facing school districts and teachers involved in
or contemplating multigrade classrooms.

xi
 Contents

Instructional Delivery and Grouping ..........................................................1

Methods Teachers Commonly Use ..............................................................2
Recitation ..........................................................................................4
Discussion ..........................................................................................7
Practice Model of Instruction..................................................................10
The Learning Environment ..............................................................10
Teacher authority ......................................................................10
Task orientation ........................................................................10
Positive expectation ..................................................................10
Student cooperation and accountability ....................................11
Nonnegative affect ....................................................................11
Established structure ................................................................11
The Learning Activities ..........................................................................12
Establishing a Framework for the Lesson ........................................12
Teacher-Student Interactions ............................................................12
Monitoring ......................................................................................14
Independent Study and Individualized Instruction ....................................16
Using Computers as an Instructional Tool ................................................19
Common Uses of the Computer in Education ............................................20
Using the Internet in the Primary Classroom: Research Projects ......20
Publications ......................................................................................21
Collaborative Projects ......................................................................23
Communication................................................................................24
Grouping as an Instructional Strategy ......................................................26
Working With Whole-Class, Mixed-Ability Groups ..........................26
Planning for Whole-Class Instruction ..............................................27
Instructions ..............................................................................28
Ability grouping ......................................................................30
Ability grouping within classes ................................................31
Ability grouping—streaming classes..........................................32
An Analysis of the Research on Ability Grouping: Historical
and Contemporary Perspectives ..........................................33
Guidelines ........................................................................................34
Implications for the Multigrade Classroom ..............................................35
Learning Centers ..............................................................................35

xiii
 Management of Learning Centers ....................................................35
Putting It All Together ............................................................................37
Case Example 1: History and Philosophy on Grouping at
Onion Creek School ..........................................................38
Case Example 2: Instructional Grouping at Arbon
Elementary School ............................................................43
Collaborative Learning ............................................................................45
Characteristics of a Collaborative Classroom ....................................45
Shared knowledge among teachers and students ......................45
Shared authority among teachers and students..........................46
Teachers as mediators ..............................................................46
Heterogeneous groupings of students ......................................46
Teacher Roles in a Collaborative Classroom......................................47
Facilitator ................................................................................47
Model ......................................................................................48
Coach ......................................................................................49
Student Roles in a Collaborative Classroom ....................................50
Goal setting ..............................................................................50
Designing learning tasks and monitoring..................................50
Assessment ..............................................................................51
Challenges and Conflicts ........................................................................52
Classroom control ....................................................................52
Preparation time for collaborative learning................................52
Individual differences among students ......................................52
Individual responsibility for learning ........................................53
Conflict of values ......................................................................53
What is the Research Base for Collaborative Learning?
Vygotskian Theory....................................................................54
Inner speech ............................................................................54
Scaffolding and development ....................................................55
Connecting school learning to everyday life ..............................55
Planning Groupwork ................................................................................57
Conclusion ............................................................................................59
References ............................................................................................61
Resources ..............................................................................................65

xiv The Multigrade Classroom

 Instructional Delivery and Grouping

very method a teacher uses has advantages and disadvantages, and

E requires some preliminary preparation. So, what else is new? Three

broad categories of instructional methods are teacher talk, student talk,
and student-teacher interactive talk. Often, a particular method will naturally
flow into another within the same lesson. Which instructional method is
“right” for a particular lesson depends on many things, and among them
are the age and developmental levels of the students; what the students
already know; what they need to know to succeed with the lesson; the
subject-matter content; the objective of the lesson; the available people,
time, space, and material resources; and the physical setting. Another, more
difficult problem, is to select an instructional method that best fits one’s
particular teaching style and the lesson situation. There is no one right
method for teaching a particular lesson, but there are some criteria that
pertain to each that can help a teacher make the best decision possible.
In this book, the most commonly used methods will be briefly
described, along with research-based evidence indicating their potential
impact on students. In addition, methods found to be most beneficial for
multigrade instruction will be discussed in greater detail, indicating how
they might be used and where further information may be obtained.
Because cooperation and peer support play such a key role in multigrade
instruction, a major emphasis will be placed on groupwork: how to form
groups, how to structure learning experiences, and what skills are needed
for successful cooperation. It is important to keep in mind that instructional
delivery and classroom environments are extremely complex. Information
presented here provides only a sampling of possibilities. References and
resources are included at the end of the book for those seeking more detailed
information.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 1

Methods Teachers Commonly Use

rom our early experiences as students, we generally remember a class-

F room characterized by the teacher in front of the room or in front of

our reading group, “teaching.” After the lesson, we often completed
worksheets at our individual desks while the teacher worked at her desk. A
test was often given sometime later to determine what we learned. If asked
what our favorite subject was, we jokingly would say, “recess.”
Not much has changed for a great majority of students. Based on
current research, this pattern of instruction is alive and well in a majority of
classrooms in the United States, despite evidence that there may be more
effective methods of learning and ones that better meet our schools’ goals
for democratic citizenship. One of the most extensive studies of schooling
practices ever undertaken was presented by John Goodlad (1984) in A
Place Called School. In his discussion of the data taken from student and
teacher interviews and observations of more than 1,000 classrooms,
Goodlad’s research presents a rather bland picture of student learning
experiences:

Four elements of classroom life in the schools of our sample come through loud and clear
from our data. First, the vehicle for teaching learning is the total group. Second, the teacher
is the strategic, pivotal figure in this group. Third, the norms governing the group derive
primarily from what is required to maintain the teacher’s strategic role. Fourth, the
emotional tone is neither harsh and punitive nor warm and joyful; it might be described
most accurately as flat.
No matter how we approach the classroom in an effort to describe and understand what
goes on, the teacher comes through as coach, quarterback, referee, and even rule-maker.
But there the analogy must stop because there is no team. There is little or nothing about
classroom life as it is conducted, so far as I am able to determine, that suggests the existence
of or need for norms of group cohesion and cooperation for achievement of a shared purpose
(p. 108).

Not surprisingly, the most dominant form of instruction was a lecture-

recitation format, where the teacher presented the information to be learned,
asked questions to check understanding, and then gave seatwork. The
frequency of these activities increased progressively from the primary grades
through high school. Goodlad found little evidence of instructional methods
that used active modes of instruction (discussion, demonstrations, small-
group projects, etc.).
Figure 1 presents a summary of five instructional practice areas in
primary through high school classes drawn from Goodlad’s research.

2 The Multigrade Classroom

 FIGURE 1. Snapshot Observations of Instructional Practices
From A Place Called School

40 Primary
Middle Elementary
30.4
28.3

30 Junior High

25.3
20.7
High School
21.9

20.1
Percent

18.2

15.9
20
15.1

12.8
12.7
11.5

7.7
10

5.3

5.1
4.2

1.5
1.0
1.5
1.6
0
Written Work Listening / Prepare for Discussion Watching
Lecture Assignments Demonstrations

More than 60 percent of student time is involved in passive activities

where students either listen to the teacher or do seatwork assignments. The
remaining percentage of instruction (not shown on the graph) reflects more
active forms of learning, such as practice in verbal performance (average
for all levels = 4.6 percent), nontextbook reading (average for all levels =
4 percent), and simulation/role play (average for all levels = 2 percent). No
data were obtained indicating that students worked cooperatively on group
projects, tutored, or were involved in inquiry forms of instruction.
Goodlad’s research demonstrates that the most common form of
instruction employs a lecture-recitation format, where students tend to be
passive participants for a large part of the learning process. Many reasons
account for this reliance on lecture-recitation: It is the way most of us were
taught as children; It is the predominant instructional method in schools;
It is the primary form of instruction in teacher preparation classes; And it
provides for greater teacher control.
If we want to develop cooperative, self-directed learners, then other
instructional methods must be used as well. In addition, recent research on
effective teaching sheds new light on the use of recitation. Teachers whose
students show significant growth in achievement have strengthened the
recitation method so that it is a powerful tool for teaching basic skills. This
method has been called by numerous names: direct instruction, explicit
instruction, and the practice model of instruction. Even with these improve-
ments, teachers must use a variety of methods if student attention and
motivation are to be maintained (Good & Brophy, 1987). It also must be
recognized that some types of learning concept development—how to work
in small groups, developing self-direction, or building skills as a writer—
require different instructional methods.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 3

Recitation
ecitation gained its name from the early 19th-century practice of a

R single student reciting a lesson to the teacher. With the rise of graded
classroom instruction, the term has come to mean a “whole-class format
characterized by question-answer drills over content” (Doyle, 1986, p. 403).
Lecture-recitation has three distinct parts:
1. Explanatory presentations of organized information (often
by teacher presentation or independent study)
2. Monitoring student “learning” through questions requiring
a single, correct-answer response
3. Publicly evaluating student responses for correctness
There are many variations of these three steps. They may be used in
small or large groups, or they may be used with individuals. Generally,
research indicates that recitation is most commonly used with large, whole-
class groups. A typical recitation involves a teacher questioning students
in a fast-paced manner. Students publicly answer, and their responses are
evaluated for correctness. Recitation tends to work best with factual or
convergent type information and with students of the same ability level.
A typical scenario is described below:
Teacher: We have just presented information on using adjectives
to sharpen your writing skills. Let’s review to see how
much you learned. What job does an adjective play in
a sentence?
Student: It serves to describe a noun.
Teacher: Excellent. Who can give me an example?
Student: Old.
Teacher: That’s correct.
Student: Run!
Teacher: No, that’s an action word.
Notice that the teacher has just completed a presentation on adjectives
and begun to question students to check their understanding. When a
student gave a wrong answer, the teacher said it was incorrect.
Recitation can be used to gain feedback on student knowledge.
However, when used with groups, public evaluation of student responses
and the equitable distribution of questions can be problematic for many
students, especially low achievers. During recitation, students quickly learn

4 The Multigrade Classroom

who the “smart” students are by who gets asked questions and who has the
correct answers. The long-term effect on many students is to dampen their
desire to answer questions. Students learn it is better to be quiet and let the
“smart” students do the talking. This method of teaching can stifle a teacher’s
creativity. It requires well-organized content preparation and good oral
communication skills, which, depending on the age level of students, may
vary. Steps must be followed in a prescribed order, hindering the possibilities
of exploration. This method encourages memorization of facts and does
not encourage or allow for the development of higher-order thinking skills.
If a teacher uses recitation, what can be done to reduce or eliminate
the negative effects? In his book on questioning, Dillon (1988) provides
some strategies and guidelines for increasing student involvement and
reducing the negative impact of public evaluation. Dillon suggests that
students also prepare convergent questions to be used during recitation.
Instead of the teacher using the students’ questions, students pair up and
ask each other the questions. Table 1 provides an overview of the key
elements in planning and carrying out recitation.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 5

TABLE 1. Planning Guide for Recitation

Teacher Asking Questions Student Asking Questions

Prepare the questions to ask: Preparation:

1. Write them down Have each student prepare five written
2. Arrange them in a questions and answers, while you
purposeful order prepare 10 questions
3. Try them out on friends,
then revise Exchange:
Help students orally exchange their
Ask questions slowly: questions and answers, while you listen
1. Stop and think before asking and comment
2. Ask and wait patiently for
a response 1. Student A asks a question
2. Student B gives an answer
Listen intently to the answers: 3. Student A evaluates the answer
1. Show interest in the student response 4. Student B asks the next question
2. Listen to all of the response
3. Listen to right and wrong answers, Quiz:
from slow and fast students Contribute a few of your questions
to be answered orally or in writing

Evaluation:
Evaluate the question-answers,
correcting the questions and teaching
students to use questions for learning

(adapted from Dillon, 1988, p. 98)

Other strategies have been effectively used to counteract these negative

effects (Good & Brophy, 1987; Kagan, 1990):
l Extend wait time after a question to three to five seconds
l Keep a tally of who has been called on to ensure that all
students get an equal opportunity to respond
l Use cooperative learning structures that allow students to
confer with one another before answering
l Have students write answers down and hold them up when
responding

6 The Multigrade Classroom

 Dillon (1988) suggests that careful planning, patience, and a show of
interest (listening) are central to effectiveness. He also suggests that recitation
is based on an explicit set of behaviors that should be followed consistently.
In other words, don’t use tricky questions when students expect right-or-
wrong–type questions.
In terms of evaluation, be clear if the response is correct or incorrect,
and then praise and elaborate. Corrective feedback has been shown to
improve student achievement (Barell, 1995; Good & Brophy, 1987).
For the multigrade teacher, recitation must be used judiciously. It is
not a method that lends itself to whole-class instruction, where multiple
performance levels have been combined. Recitation is most effective when
used for basic skills instruction, where all students are learning the same
skill and are at the same performance level.

Discussion
oth discussion and recitation use questions, but discussion is quite

B different in its purpose and the types of questions used. As you may
remember, recitation uses convergent questions (only one right answer).
Discussion, on the other hand, uses a few well-thought-out, divergent
questions aimed at perplexing students, in order to stimulate thought and
conversation. Whereas recitation asks many questions with single answers,
discussion asks fewer questions that generally have more than one right
answer.
The role of the teacher is quite different in discussion as well. The
teacher does not talk at every turn of the questioning, but yields the floor
to students who speak at considerable length, respond to observations
made by their peers, and bring in outside information to illustrate their
points of view. Consider the following scenario:
Teacher: If you found $10 on the way to school, what do you
think you would do with it?
Student 1: I would keep it. If it was just blowing along the ground,
there would be no way to know whose money it was.
Student 2: I am not sure. I would like to keep it, but then maybe
the person who lost it really needed it. I am not sure
how to find the person who lost it.
Teacher: That is an interesting point. How would you find the
person who lost the money?

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 7

 As the example illustrates, discussion begins with a perplexing question
that engages student interest and thought. As students express their view-
points, a diverse set of responses begins to emerge that often raises additional
questions. The teacher’s role is to keep discussion moving by raising probing,
but related, questions.
Table 2 provides an overview of the key elements in planning for a
discussion. Since discussion involves divergent questions, where no single
answer is correct, students from many different levels of achievement can
participate. However, students need to be trained in how to listen and
support their peers during discussion.

TABLE 2. Planning Guide for Discussion

Prepare the question for discussion:

Develop a question based on your intended purpose and write it down.

Decide how you will present it to students: orally, on the blackboard, or as a handout.

Be sure your question perplexes students:

Review the question with students until they understand it the way you do. Use
non-questioning techniques to facilitate discussion. There are four general approaches that
can be used after a student has just finished speaking:
Statements If you have questions you would like to ask in order to facilitate
discussion, rethink them as statements. For example, instead of saying, Do you
believe all people feel that way? you might say, I know several people who have
different feelings about that. You can also use a restatement of what you think a
student may be saying. The point here is to avoid falling into a central teacher
questioning role and to keep the discussion going among the students.

Student Questions Provide for a student or the class a question regarding what a
speaker has contributed. For example, a student has just said that people who make
lots of money are insensitive to the poor. Other students could be encouraged to ask:
Can you tell us why you believe that?

Signal Signal your reception of what the student is saying without taking or
holding the floor yourself. You might use phrases such as, That is interesting,
Oh, I had not thought of that before, or Wow, Amazing, and so forth.

Silences Say nothing at all but maintain a deliberate, appreciative silence for
three seconds or so, until the original speaker resumes or another student enters.
If the silence is too long, act quickly.

8 The Multigrade Classroom

 In summary, discussion, unlike recitation, begins with a teacher question
aimed at perplexing students and thereby engaging them in student-to-
student dialogue. The teacher’s role is not to control and direct student
responses toward single “correct” answers, but to facilitate student explo-
ration of the topic. Discussion may be used with a wide range of student
levels and is an excellent method for stimulating ideas for writing. Because
it works well with multiple achievement levels, it is ideal for total class
instruction in the multigrade classroom.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 9

 Practice Model of Instruction

he Basic Practice Model of Instruction (Murphy, Weil, & McGreal,

T 1986) exemplifies a direct-instruction method that embodies the

research on effective teaching in a meaningful framework for teachers.
The research supporting this model has been collected from real-life classes
where students have shown significantly high academic achievement. In
developing the model, two areas of learning were focused on: the learning
environment and the learning activities. The crucial variables relating to
each of these areas will be presented on the following pages along with
the research supporting their effectiveness (as cited in Murphy, et al.). This
model is most beneficial to the multigrade teacher for use in basic skills
instruction. However, elements of the model have wide implications for
effective teaching with most subjects.

The Learning Environment

esearch has identified six essential variables affecting the learning

R environment that are under teacher control and related to student

achievement in basic academic subjects. Each variable will be
presented along with its identifying characteristics and the associated
teaching behaviors.
Teacher authority Strong teacher direction and control are associated with student achievement
in basic skill subjects. This occurs because the teacher maintains greater
student involvement and more on-task student behavior through the follow-
ing activities:
l Controlling and maintaining a dominant role in discussion
l Assigning children to seats and learning groups and arranging
the learning environment so children do not have to get up to
secure materials
l Organizing instruction around teacher questions and using
questions that require specific answers in a recitation format
Task orientation The learning environment is characterized by a primary emphasis on the
assignment and completion of academic tasks. Students are more engaged
and learn more when teachers maintain a strong academic orientation rather
than a strong emotional/self-esteem focus. Students who have success on
academic tasks generally have better self-concepts than those who do poorly.

Positive expectation The teacher shows a positive concern for each student by demanding
academic excellence and mature behavior conducive to academic progress.
Teachers expect more work and quality work because they believe that all
students can learn.

10 The Multigrade Classroom

Teachers who expect students to work together and cooperate on academic Student cooperation
tasks produce higher student performance than teachers who do not empha- and accountability
size cooperation. Effective teachers:
l Expect students to cooperate in completing academic tasks
l Hold students accountable for their work
l Use well-thought-out reward systems for reinforcing
cooperation
Teachers should emphasize academics through positive reinforcement and Nonnegative affect
avoid such negative behaviors and attitudes as criticism of student behavior,
yelling or screaming at students, using sarcasm with students, scolding
students for inappropriate behavior, and ridiculing students to facilitate
learning.
Teachers who establish a clear learning structure, including norms for student Established structure
behavior and predictable patterns of activity, produce greater student learn-
ing than those teachers who do not establish a well-defined structure. The
establishment of structure involves:
l Developing clear class rules and procedures that are taught and
monitored
l Establishing clear class routines and ensuring that all students
understand them

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 11

The Learning Activities

he sequencing of activities in a lesson and the types of activities the

T teacher chooses to emphasize have a direct relationship to student

academic achievement in basic skills. The following three topic areas
have been associated with effective planning and instruction.

Establishing a Framework for the Lesson

efore the lesson begins, the teacher establishes a framework for instruc-

B tion that helps students understand how information will be presented.

Effective teaching research has identified six key teacher behaviors:
l Organizing learning materials in advance
l Providing clear, explicit direction about the work to be done
l Telling students about the materials they will use and the
activities in which they will be involved
l Conducting pretests, revealing, discussing the objective
of the lesson
l Providing an overview of the lesson
l Relating new materials to what students have already learned

Teacher-Student Interactions
his part of the lesson is often referred to as the direct instruction compo-

T nent, where the teacher presents materials to the students and solicits
their reactions. There are two distinct phases in this part of the lesson.
In Phase 1, the teacher:
l Presents the skill or concept in the form of a model that demon-
strates how the parts of a skill are connected and works through
several examples.
In Phase 2, the teacher:
l Conducts recitation to check for student understanding.
During this phase of instruction, research has demonstrated
the effectiveness of specific teacher questioning behaviors.
—Teachers dominate the questioning process by asking
questions rather than answering them

12 The Multigrade Classroom

 — Teachers remain active by constantly rephrasing or asking
new questions
— Questions are phrased in terms of the academic objective
of the lesson
— Questions are phrased in order to ensure a high level of
student success
— Teachers use factual questions with single answers when
teaching basic skills
Research has also demonstrated the effectiveness of certain types of
teacher response:
l Teacher responds to incorrect or unclear answers by probing
in order to have students clarify or improve their answers
l Teacher provides additional information or reteaching for
incorrect or unclear responses
l Teacher avoids criticism
l Teacher gives specific and personalized praise
l Teacher gives mostly academic-related praise
l Praise is dependent on the quality and nature of the student
response
Finally, three teaching behaviors have demonstrated their effectiveness
in structuring student attention toward key lesson elements:
l Teacher alerts students to the key parts or skills of the lesson
l Teacher sums up subparts of the lesson and the entire lesson
at the end of instruction
l Teacher informs students of transitions during the lesson
Both the teacher presentation and recitation phases of the lesson have
been strongly associated with student on-task behavior, higher cognitive
response abilities, and more favorable attitudes toward the subject.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 13

Monitoring
onitoring refers to that part of instruction that occurs after the

M direct instruction. During this phase, the teacher supervises student

practice to determine skill comprehension and provide additional
assistance. Monitoring has been shown to improve student on-task behavior
and increase achievement. Monitoring helps to hold students accountable
for learning. During monitoring, the teacher should:
l Prepare students for seatwork by making sure they can
perform the work
l Maintain a dominant position, deciding who receives feedback
and help
l Provide feedback on specific subskills of the lesson in small,
manageable portions that last a few seconds rather than long
periods
When this effective teaching research is put together into the Practice
Model of Instruction, it provides a clear and sequential set of steps for
teaching basic academic skills to students. Table 3 provides an overview
of the four phases of the model and their related steps.
The Practice Model of Instruction reflects the accumulation of effective
teaching research. It is important to keep in mind, however, that this body
of research reflects a primary focus on the teaching of basic skills in reading
and math. From another perspective, this research reflects what the most
effective teachers have done using a teacher-directed recitation method of
instruction. Clearly, this model is not applicable to all types of learning and
should be used with this caution in mind. (For a detailed, online guide for
using different models of instruction, see www.proteacher.com/html).

14 The Multigrade Classroom

 TABLE 3. The Basic Practice Model of Instruction

Phase Steps
1. Orientation l Teacher establishes goals, procedures, and content of lesson
2. Development l Teacher explains concept or skill
l Teacher provides model/demonstration
l Teacher checks for understanding
3. Structured Practice l Teacher leads group through practice examples
l Students respond with answers
l Teacher provides corrective feedback
4. Guided Practice l Students practice new concept or skill as seatwork
l Teacher monitors student seatwork
l Students practice new skill concept as homework

(Murphy, Weil, & McGreal, 1986, p. 91)

The research-based components are especially strong features of the

Practice Model. In addition to their use with this model, many of them can
be applied across a wide range of instructional methods in the multigrade
classroom.
For example, in whatever method you use, it is beneficial to be explicit
with students regarding academic and behavior expectations. It also makes
sound educational sense to monitor learning in order to adjust instruction
and to indicate to students that learning is important.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 15

Independent Study and
Individualized Instruction

ndependent study and individualized instruction are terms that have often

I been used to mean the same thing: students working independently from
one another and from the teacher in order to achieve individual learning
goals. However, there are differences between independent study and individ-
ualized instruction that can be illustrated on a continuum (Figure 2) in terms
of student control and responsibility over the learning process (Klein, 1982).

FIGURE 2. Degree of Student Responsibility

and Decisionmaking About Learning

Little Much

Class-centered Individualized Audio-tutorial Independent study

instruction formats
Teacher-controlled, Student-controlled,
large-group lectures somewhat independent
of class organization
Structures of content
developed externally Structures of content
from the student developed internally
by the student

(Klein, 1982, p. 836)

Generally, independent study is associated with high school and college-

level education where students work with an advisor in setting up a program
of study that is independent of classroom or course organization.
More recently, independent study has been used at the elementary level
with gifted students who are highly motivated and self-directed learners. In
both situations, there is a trend toward students setting their own learning
goals, choosing an approach to achieving their goal, and conducting periodic
self-monitoring.
It is also important to distinguish this concept of independent study
from the common elementary practice called independent seatwork, where
students work independently on learning activities that are related to a
teacher-directed lesson. Students may have some choice in materials or
activities, but the teacher maintains primary control of learning.

16 The Multigrade Classroom

 Individualized instruction, like independent learning, has come to mean
many different things. However, several key features distinguish it from
other instructional methods. Wang and Lindval (cited in Good & Brophy,
1987, pp. 360–361) identify seven features that distinguish individualized
instruction from other methods of learning:
1. Instruction is based on the assessed capabilities of each student.
2. Materials and procedures are used that permit each student to
progress at a pace suited to his or her abilities and interests.
3. Periodic evaluations are used to inform the student regarding
mastery of learning goals.
4. Students assume responsibility for diagnosing present needs
and abilities, planning learning activities, and evaluating their
progress toward mastery.
5. Alternative activities and materials are available for aiding
student acquisitions of essential academic skills and content.
6. Provisions for student choice in selecting educational goals,
outcomes, and activities exist.
7. Students assist one another in pursuing individual goals and
demonstrate cooperation in achieving group goals.
Although few individualized programs contain all seven elements, most
contain provisions for diagnosing student needs, organizing learning materi-
als and experiences, evaluating progress, and creating alternative learning
materials for students who need reteaching.
In summary, the greatest variation between individualized instruction
and independent study centers on the degree of student control and respon-
sibility, with independent study requiring the most. Clearly, teachers must
begin by teaching students to handle responsibility and self-direction before
assigning them to one of these strategies, and then doing so only when
they are ready.
The research on these two methods of instruction is uneven and incon-
sistent. In part, this is due to the wide range of individualized programs
implemented and variations in how educators define their methods. However,
it is safe to say there have been significant gains in academic achievement
when the programs have been designed and implemented using effective
learning principles (Good & Brophy, 1987).
A central problem for the multigrade teacher is working with individu-
als or small groups while ensuring that the remainder of the students are
meaningfully engaged in learning. Individualized instruction and indepen-
dent study provide useful methods for solving this problem. For example,

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 17

 while the teacher instructs a group of primary-level students in reading
skills, students at the upper levels could be engaged in individual or group
learning activities that have been developed and written down in advance.
The types of individual learning activities depend on the needs of
students, available resources, and the maturity of the students. Some students
might require tightly sequenced and structured learning materials, while
others may be self-directed enough to establish their own learning goals,
choose the learning activities, and keep track of their own progress. Learning
centers, computerized learning programs, and learning kits have been used
extensively to aid in individualization. However, teachers have usually used
them as an extension of existing lessons rather than as a unique program of
studies. Problems associated with individualized instruction tend to support
this teacher practice.
Good and Brophy (1987) identify several issues or concerns surrounding
the use of individualized instruction that should be considered when using
this method in the multigrade classroom:
l Research on teaching has found that active, direct instruction
produces higher rates of academic achievement for basic skills
than other instructional methods. Individualization eliminates
this active teaching element from learning.
l Higher cognitive processes such as problem solving, creativity,
and thinking strategies are not easily taught without the direct
involvement of the teacher.
l Students are too often left on their own to learn, leaving
the materials to provide the instruction. This often leads to
mastery of skills without the ability to apply them.
l The principles of individualization require that pacing, materi-
als, and strategies be developed and tailored for each student.
This is not feasible for most teachers in terms of resources of
time and materials.
In summary, Good and Brophy (1987) do not recommend individual-
izing instruction if it means that students will spend most of their time
working alone trying to learn from materials. Instead, they suggest using
individualization when the teacher “attempts to accommodate individuals’
needs within the group context and to achieve an appropriate balance of
instructional activities (whole-class instruction, small group instruction and
cooperative learning activities, individual work)” (p. 374).
This means that the multigrade teacher needs to maintain a central role
in student learning, but one that encourages and enhances the development
of self-direction and responsibility without abdicating responsibility for
student learning.

18 The Multigrade Classroom

 Using Computers as an Instructional Tool

ost six-year-olds can’t wait to go to school on the first day in

M September. However, for an alarmingly large number of these

children, boredom, anxiety, and fear of learning quickly set in (Shank
& Cleary, 1995). A teacher lecturing to a classroom of 30 students goes
against everything researchers have discovered about the way children learn.
Our schools suffer from the assumptions that learning can be disassociated
from doing, that every child must conform to a standard curriculum, and
that accumulating facts is as important as learning processes. Compared to
the rapid technological change our society has undergone in the last century,
the rate of change in our educational institutions has been at a near standstill.
Nicholas Negroponte, Mitchel Resnick, and Justine Cassell, professors
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argue in Creating a Learning
Revolution (n.d.) that digital technologies can enable students to become
more active and independent learners. The Internet will allow new “knowl-
edge-building communities” in which children and adults from around the
globe can collaborate and learn from each other. One of the most potentially
powerful tools for facilitating instruction in the multigrade classroom is the
use of microcomputers. Computers will allow students to take charge of their
own learning through direct exploration, expression, and experience. This
shifts the student’s role from “being taught” to “learning” and the teacher’s
role from “expert” to “collaborator” or “guide.” These ideas are an integral
part of constructivism, an ideal strategy for the varied ability and age levels
of a multigrade classroom.
Constructivism is both a theory of learning and a strategy for education.
It builds on the “constructivist” theories of child psychologist Jean Piaget
and asserts that knowledge is not simply transmitted from teacher to student,
but rather is actively constructed in the mind of the learner. This theory
suggests a strong connection between doing and learning. It asserts that
activities such as making, building, and programming provide a rich context
for learning (Kafai & Resnick, 1996).
In order to allow students to take more responsibility for their learning,
they must be allowed to put concepts into a personally meaningful context.
Students retain more information and have more fun learning when material
is presented in this way. Computers make these meaningful contexts possible
by providing students with highly individualized education.
Another important application of computer technology is simulation.
Computer simulation allows students, especially in small, rural schools, to
explore phenomena that would otherwise be too expensive or too impracti-
cal. Simulations are effective because they provide a guiding context for
students to integrate what they learn. They learn details in the context of
a larger task and are not faced with decontextualized facts that have no
relevance to their lives or goals (Shank & Cleary, 1995).

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 19

Common Uses of the Computer
in Education

Using the Internet in the Primary Classroom: Research Projects

his is the starting place for most schools. The children have a theme or

T topic to work on, and a series of World Wide Web sites are suggested
for research, or a Web search is suggested to find extra information. As
teachers who make effective use of computers in their classrooms know, this
means a little extra work for the teacher. Do not send the children somewhere
you haven’t been yourself. Giving children carte blanche to perform Web
searches is inviting trouble into your classroom and life.
The main skill involved is the gathering of information. Students who
have been taught to ask questions can use them to accomplish this immedi-
ate assignment and to lay the groundwork for doing research, which begins
with a question. The “go find out about it” research project can begin with
students asking questions. Ask them, “What questions can you ask about
how to do this assignment?” They may ask such things as:
l Where do I find out about it?
l Where do I start?
l Which references are very general to give the big ideas?
l Which references are too detailed for what I want to know?
l What resources can I use besides books?
l How will I know what is important about the topic?
l How will I know how to organize the ideas?
Notice that these kinds of questions lead students to develop a plan
based on a clarification of their goals and what they know about available
resources. The essence of this type of research assignment is finding enough
information to give a general description. “A” papers hit all the high points
on the topic, and are well-organized and well-written. Every student can be
guided by the questions that produce a quality description if we give them
the proper questioning tools.
A more meaningful, curiosity-driven version of the research project
begins with student questions. Students should be able to guide research.
The teacher can require types of questions that cannot be answered directly
from a book. For example, if a student asks, “Which Civil War general was
the best?” the gathering of information eventually leads to a student judgment
based upon criteria. This evaluation task involves the student seeking infor-
mation for the purpose of answering a question—he or she posed a very
lifelike and lifelong activity. Instead of an assignment in a high school health
class to “go find out about a topic in human sexuality,” students discuss
dilemmas in human sexuality such as parenting, birth control, and parent/

20 The Multigrade Classroom

teen conflict. Their research paper assignment is to choose a dilemma to
address in detail, presenting both sides of the issue and drawing a personal
conclusion. Under the careful guidance of a teacher, and with support for
answering questions they care about, students may find that research papers
can become a source of great satisfaction.

Publications
aving a “net presence” is quite different from having “net access.” Since

H the earliest days of the Internet, one of its endearing features has been
the concept of information sharing. While many corporations and
others charge for their information and services, there is still a substantial
“free Internet,” and this is where schools (and private users) find themselves.
Sharing implies giving as well as receiving, and anyone who has been a net
user for more than a short time knows how difficult it can be to stay out of
a discussion in a newsgroup or mailing list. Instead of children and teach-
ers just taking information from the Internet and using its resources, they
could show what has been done with the resources used and directing
others to worthwhile and useful sources of information.
Publishing a school Web page can be a daunting task, especially for
someone with little prior experience in computer use or page-design software.
What do you put up on the page? What don’t you put up on a school
Web page?
First, a decision needs to be made as to why you even want a Web page.
Is it to encourage new enrollments? Is it to show off to the world how great
you are as a school? Is it so the designer can display his or her HTML skills?
Is it so the students can publish their writing, which all the world wants to
read? (Probably not.) Is it because the principal knows that a rival school
has a Web page and you don’t? Once you have decided why you want a
Web page, you are better able to work out what should be included.
For starters, don’t include too many big graphics. If you want to
include a photograph (a good idea), use thumbnails or links rather than
having them embedded in the page. Make the site navigable: allow visitors
to find what they want and to easily get from page to page. If you want to
include students’ work, have a reason for it. Respect privacy and copyright
laws. Make somebody responsible for the content, ensuring that it is appro-
priate for your school and keeping in mind your reasons for establishing
the Web page.
The following list of recommendations stemmed from some post-
graduate students’ research into school Web pages in the United States:

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 21

 1. Share the work of school Web site development. If a school is
determined to create a Web site, plans should be developed for the
creation and maintenance process. Someone (or a team) should have
ongoing responsibility for general oversight. If students contribute
to the school pages, the individual (or team) should monitor, and
accept responsibility for, the quality and appropriateness of student
contributions.
2. Encourage teachers to create their own pages. Since they are most
familiar with the content of classroom curriculum and activities, they
are more likely to include descriptions of those on their pages. If
students contribute to teachers’ pages, the teachers should monitor,
and accept responsibility for, the quality and appropriateness of
student contributions.
3. Limit the number of links to external resources in the following ways:
l Choose only a few of the best links to include, so that teachers
don’t get discouraged searching through an extensive list.
l Describe the linked site.
l Review links regularly and discard or update links, which can
change.
l Teachers should include links that can be of use to students,
organized according to a class project, topic, or activity.
Describe what students are expected to do with the informa-
tion or activity contained at the linked resource.
4. Display student work purposefully. Describe the unit that resulted
in the product. Protect students’ privacy by including only their first
names, without photos, except for class photos without names. Have
students annotate their work with a description of what they did,
what they learned, and how using the Internet (or other techonolo-
gies) was helpful.
5. Be courteous in the use of graphics. Bear in mind that most schools
and homes are still modem-based. Keep graphic file size small, and
restrict the use of animated graphics. Include graphics only to enhance
the meaning of the site. Experiment with new technologies on work
pages that are not publicly displayed. Use Java only to facilitate
dynamic data collection.
For more information check out:www.teacherzone.com/specialreports/
onmenu/onmenu06.html.

22 The Multigrade Classroom

 Collaborative Projects
here are two types of collaborative learning: local and remote.

T
Teachers often send groups of students off to the library to find information Local collaboration
on a topic. It is likely that if four groups go, they will come back with four
different perspectives and differing information. If we think of the World
Wide Web as a huge, disorganized library, then it is a safe bet that groups
of students using the Web for research will return with great variety in their
findings.
Sharing of information and resources between groups (collaboration)
can cut down the research time needed by each group. This type of informa-
tion searching also opens up some valuable teaching time for the teacher.
Questions may arise such as: How do we know this is right? Why don’t
these documents agree on basic information? Teachers must be prepared
to answer these questions.
Around the fourth grade, it is a good idea to introduce the concept
of triangulation and cross-checking information. Likewise, what do you do
when a child performs a Web search that returns 200,000 hits? Most people
don’t want to wade through the results. Boolean logic for conducting searches
can be taught at this time. These children know the difference between “and,”
“or,” and “not.” They can understand that putting a title inside quotation
marks will result in a search for the title as a whole as opposed to a search
for each word in the title. It is a good idea to first practice these searches
off-line using a CD encyclopedia or similar resource.
Students can also connect with students in other places to work together Remote collaboration
on a project. These sorts of projects include “Travel Buddies,” where teddy
bears are swapped by a pair of classes. The bear then writes home by e-mail
every day (with the help of the children in the host class) and tells of its
adventures—the things it has seen, the places it has gone, new experiences,
as seen through the eyes of the children of the host class. Travel Buddies
can be powerful and exciting learning experiences, especially for younger
children.
Other remote collaborations include gathering weather information,
comparing tastes in chocolate bars, growing “grass-heads” (and posting the
results as photos on the Web), and comparing differing cultural perspectives
on matters of global history such as political events and wars.
The Global Schoolhouse (www.gsn.org/project/index.html), the Aussie
schoolhouse (www.ash.org.au/cprojects/) and Oz-Teachers (rite.ed.qut.edu.au/
oz-teachernet/projects/oz-projects.html), are just three places where a start
can be made.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 23

Communication
-mail is easy. You don’t even need a powerful computer to send and

E receive messages. Children (not to mention adults) love the immediacy

of e-mail, and receiving mail from anywhere, but especially from a
foreign country, excites and motivates learners.
Here are some ideas that teachers have used successfully:
l Connect kids of different environments: country with city,
isolated with crowded, and so forth.
l Exchange designs written in Logo.
l Exchange information regarding local culture and customs.
For example, Australian kids might request information
regarding Halloween, and Canadians might be interested
in ANZAC Day.
l Create “Imagination Network,” describing the place where
you live and what it’s like to live there.
l Swap information on current playground crazes and games:
What games do we have in common? Can you describe a
game well enough so that someone can play it from your
description?
l Discuss local issues: What are the people in your town or city
fighting for?
l Compare newspapers: What’s on the front page of your local
paper today? Your state or national paper?
l Correspond in a second language, with native speakers, perhaps.
l Share local history and anecdotes: What do we have in common?
l Collect and share weather information on a particular day
at a particular time.
l Describe the view from your window.
l Describe what you will do this weekend.
l Ask the other class what they can do to find out about where
I live.
l Investigate immigration and multiculturalism.

24 The Multigrade Classroom

 l Compare and contrast local legends (Aboriginal, Maori, Inuit,
Native American, etc.).
l Conduct a simulation of ground control/space explorers: one
group gives commands, the others respond as if they have
completed the orders.
l Co-write a story.
Using e-mail, as opposed to the postal service, allows the exchanges to
become a little less formal and more frequent. There are good points and
bad points about this. More e-mail generally means higher motivation, and
if used and coached well, the pen-pal experience can involve some real cross-
cultural learning. Frequent, informal exchanges can also lead to discussions
dissolving into banal trivia.
This site (www.epals.com/) provides students with an opportunity to meet ePALS
and correspond with other students from around the world. Search the Classroom Exchange
online database of classrooms or add yours to the search engine.
Mailing lists are provided by St. Olaf College (www.stolaf.edu/network/iecc) Intercultural e-mail
as a free service to help teachers and classes link with partners in other classroom connections
countries and cultures for e-mail classroom pen-pal and project exchanges.
There are plenty of other places that offer these services as well.
Ask yourself some questions before you begin an online project. What
experience do the children in your class have of using the Internet to do
these things? Can they write and send e-mail? Do they have any research or
note-taking skills? Can they use the sort of program they need to produce
Web pages?

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 25

Grouping as an Instructional Strategy

n traditional, single-graded classrooms, the teacher is responsible for

I trying to meet the various needs of 20 to 30 students. In the multigrade

setting, these needs are even more numerous. To manage both the number
of students and their range in ability, grouping strategies have been consis-
tently used.
The Nebraska and Iowa Departments of Education (1993) describe
grouping patterns at the primary level:

In grouping for learning, teachers consider the needs of both individuals and the group.
Teachers organize children into various grouping patterns—for example, whole class, large
groups, small groups, triads, pairs, and/or children working individually.
Teachers choose a grouping strategy which is appropriate to the situation and facilitates
optimum learning. The composition of groups affects not only how and what children learn,
but also the way children feel about themselves and the way they relate to each other.
Heterogeneous (mixed-ability) grouping is the most effective way to maximize student
success. Long-term, static ability grouping affects children negatively.
Although long-term ability grouping is not acceptable as a constant, grouping children for
short periods of time to meet specific instructional needs is appropriate. This type of group-
ing provides for individualization in that it focuses instruction on the needs of each learner.
Individualized instruction does not mean teaching the same lesson over and over again to
each child in isolation; it means focusing on the learning needs of the individual, recogniz-
ing that more than one child may have similar needs at the same time.
Flexible grouping allows the teacher to instruct children on the basis of interests and learn-
ing needs. When children are grouped according to interests, not ability, the opportunities
to learn from each other are maximized. Children need opportunities to learn cooperatively
and to experience the value of collaboration. Ultimately, social interaction leads to better
understanding and a consolidation of learning (p. 30).

Working With Whole-Class, Mixed-Ability Groups

hat subjects and strategies are appropriate with mixed-ability groups?

W And what advantages are there for students and teachers in working
with these groups in a whole-class format?
Like adults, students benefit from working in group situations where
many different competencies, ages, and points of view are represented. The
old saying, “Two heads are better than one,” applies here. Students also
gain by increased contact with the teacher. In a similar manner, the teacher
benefits by having more contact with all the students. Material preparation,
monitoring student progress and behavior, and increased student engage-
ment may be realized in working with the whole class.

26 The Multigrade Classroom

 Further, whole-class instruction, where students of differing abilities
and ages work together, leads to improved student relations. When students
are organized and taught by grade levels, a status hierarchy often occurs
between the grades. When grades are combined and taught together, this
hierarchy breaks down, provided that instruction is organized around
principles of cooperation.
As mentioned earlier, using recitation to teach basic skills to the whole
class is ineffective because a wide range of abilities cannot be successfully
accommodated. In addition, the negative effects of public evaluation using
convergent questions stigmatizes lower-performing students. However,
several activities work well when instructing to a mixed-ability class:
l Speaking before the group (book reports, sharing, speeches,
etc.)
l Enhancing ideas during group discussion
l Unit introductions and reviews, followed by level-specific
materials
l Demonstrations of experiments
l Some types of information exchange
l Dramatic presentations and stories
l Problem-solving games
l Managerial issues such as classroom rules, scheduling,
and planning
l Use of equipment
l Sponge or anticipatory activities

Planning for Whole-Class Instruction

n preparing to teach a lesson to an entire multigrade class, careful planning

I and preparation are necessary. Figure 3 illustrates an example of a whole-

class planning form for learning about sea creatures. The teacher would
follow three general steps:
1. Choose a concept, theme, or skill determined to be important
to all students.
2. Decide on an activity to introduce the concept to the whole class.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 27

 3. Develop appropriate activities for each instructional level and pay
special attention to:
l Subject integration (writing, reading, science, math, etc.)
l Needed resources
l References students can use
l How each level will be introduced to their activities
l How students will be evaluated
If a teacher has a narrower range of levels to teach, then several grades
could complete the same activity. Another approach when working with a
narrow range of student levels is to require the same general activity, but
add requirements for higher-performing students.
Figure 3 illustrates a process for integrating or combining different
subjects into one lesson. Although this lesson focuses on science, students
are also engaged in writing, problem solving, art, and research skills. Without
integrating subject areas, multigrade teachers would not be able to allocate
sufficient time to each subject area.
Instructions The whole class can be taught together when a common topic can be identi-
fied that cuts across the different levels. In general, divergent or open-
ended tasks are most appropriate.
1. Determine something all students need and write it in the box
entitled, General Presentation Topic or Concept.
2. Decide how you will present the topic or concept—games
format, discussion, sharing session, and so forth—and put
this in your lesson.
3. Enter the activities for each level into the Level/Group boxes.
If your lesson is quite detailed, you may wish to use a separate
sheet of paper for filling in the details for each level.
4. Prepare the activities and decide how each will be introduced
to the different levels. For younger children, you may need to
teach the activity directly, but for older, more self-directed
students, the instruction may be written.

28 The Multigrade Classroom

 FIGURE 3. Whole-Class Planning Form

General Presentation Topic or Concept

Discover and discuss various characteristics of sea creatures

Brainstorm and group according to common features.

Color and label sea creature book.

Activity for Level/Group 1 and 2

Read the story A Day in the Life of Walley

Whale. Draw a picture of Walley and write
five characteristics you learned about whales.
Activity for Level/Group 3

Create a sea creature book by drawing each

creature discussed and writing two or more
facts about each one.
Activity for Level/Group 4

Research a sea creature of your choice and

write a short report. Use illustrations.
Activity for Level/Group 5 and 6
(adapted from Fogarty, 1979)

Cathy Griswold (1987), a multigrade teacher from Oregon, has devel-

oped a planning process for the integration of different subject areas. Using
a process called clustering, Griswold picks a theme and then elaborates
different related topics. When clustering, the teacher should keep in mind
how topics relate to different subject areas. Figure 4 presents an example
of clustering around the theme of whales. From the web of whale-related
themes, Griswold suggests that the teacher select topics for lesson develop-
ment, and then develop objectives and activities appropriate for each level.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 29

FIGURE 4. An Example of Topic Development

clay stuffed cooperative

reports

songs and sounds

whale models
life cycle food
different whales
laws protecting
Whale Ways
endangered Research
migratory paths

interview maps
Whale History WHALES a whale

whaling
Measure
estimate
current past
actual length
graph
Native Americans compare to
other animals
scale
legends
pattern books

(adapted from Griswold, 1987, Whale Lesson)

Ability grouping Grouping strategies based on ability are used in various forms in schools
and classrooms worldwide, and are certain to arouse discussion, though
this is less so in sports and musical areas. The extremes of the debate are
probably epitomized on the one hand by students labeled at enrollment
to the point that their educational paths are fully determined, and on the
other by students clearly in need of a particular educational program but
denied it on the basis that all students, no matter how different they and
their needs may be, should be provided with the “same” education.
Beneath this often heated debate, the research provides strong support
for ability grouping. Grouping on the basis of ability “with appropriate
differentiated instruction” is clearly beneficial, not only to high-ability
students but also to average and low-ability students (Allan, 1991).

30 The Multigrade Classroom

 Grouping strategies can be usefully divided into categories:
l Within-class ability grouping
l “Streaming” classes
Some criticism of ability grouping is based on the supposed negative
impact on self-esteem for those students placed in low-ability groups. This
does not, in fact, appear to be the case (Allan, 1991), with ability grouping
having minor, generally positive effects. Indeed, there appear to be positive
effects on the self-esteem of slower learners when instruction is received in
homogeneously streamed groups. This is partly offset by slight negative
effects for high-ability learners in high-ability groups. The negative effects
of labeling seem to be overshadowed by the actual daily comparison
students make with others in their classroom.
The negative effects of labeling can be reduced by minimizing any
conspicuous nature of the labeling involved (for example, using colors or
names of famous people to name groups rather than “advanced,” “normal,”
and “remedial”) and by retaining as much flexibility as possible in terms
of group selection and revision. The “role model” argument in favor of
heterogeneous groups appears flawed, as children of low or average ability
do not model themselves on fast learners even when they are in the same
class (Schunk, 1987).
The weight of argument in favor of ability grouping appears strong
with questions now appropriately shifting to how such ability grouping
can be most appropriately handled and whether it should be across all
ability levels or targeted largely at the gifted and talented.
Such groupings within mixed-ability classrooms clearly benefit students Ability grouping
(Slavin, 1986a). Kulik and Kulik (1987) consider both the within-class within classes
ability grouping strategies designed for all students and those targeting only
academically talented students. They find the former benefits all students to
a small extent, while the latter shows particularly strong advantages for
academically talented students.
The problems of self-fulfilling “labeling” of students in terms of ability
level can be minimized by:
l Avoiding conspicuous labeling altogether, allowing groups just to
be groups with non-judgmental identifiers if identifiers are required
l Adopting a student-centered approach to learning where expecta-
tions are student-initiated rather than teacher-imposed
l Not setting group compositions in concrete, but allowing different
students to enter and exit as appropriate, including a degree of self-
selection and other broad identification procedures

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 31

 l Facilitating different groups for different curriculum areas
or units
There are a multitude of ways to devise and use ability groups, depending
on the teacher, class, and subject area. They can range from teacher-
nominated to those with large degrees of self-selection based on predeter-
mined tasks with clearly different levels of ability and motivation required.
Ability grouping— Kulik and Kulik (1982) found that students permanently streamed in
streaming classes classes based on ability slightly outperformed students in nonstreamed
classes, with the effect strongest in high-ability classes, weaker (but still
positive) in middle-level classes, and making no difference in low-ability
classes. Slavin (1986b) found no significant positive or negative effects
for such permanent streaming.
Looking solely at gifted and talented programs, Kulik and Kulik (1987)
found that these students performed significantly better than comparable
students in mixed-ability classes.
The research is more uniformly supportive of class ability grouping for
specific subject areas. This selective streaming is often applied in mathematics
and language arts. Slavin (1986b) suggests this can be particularly effective:
l When it is done for only one or two subject areas
l When it reduces the range of subject skill levels in each group
l When the group composition is frequently reviewed
l When teachers vary the teaching pace accordingly
Kulik and Kulik (1987) found selective streaming advantageous even
without these constraints.

32 The Multigrade Classroom

 An Analysis of the Research on Ability Grouping:
Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
esearchers have struggled for decades to find answers to questions

R about ability grouping. Does anyone benefit from it? Who benefits
most? Does grouping harm anyone? How? How much? Why? Research
reviewers have never reached agreement about the findings. For every
research reviewer who has concluded that grouping is helpful, another
has concluded that it is harmful.
Today, however, reviewers are using statistical methods to organize and
interpret the research literature on grouping, and they are more hopeful than
ever before of coming to a consensus on what the research says. They have
painstakingly catalogued the features and results of hundreds of studies, and,
with the help of new statistical methods, they are now drawing a compos-
ite picture of the studies and findings on grouping.
Reviews have already shown that the effects of grouping programs
depend on their features. Some grouping programs have little or no effect
on students; other programs have moderate effects; and still other programs
have large effects. The key distinction is among (1) programs in which all
ability groups follow the same curriculum, (2) programs in which all groups
follow curricula adjusted to their ability, and (3) programs that make curric-
ular and other adjustments for the special needs of highly talented learners.
Programs that entail only minor adjustment of course content for ability
groups usually have little or no effect on student achievement. In some
grouping programs, for example, school administrators assign students by
test scores and school records to high, middle, and low classes, and they
expect all groups to follow the same basic curriculum. The traditional name
for this approach is XYZ grouping. Pupils in middle and lower classes in
XYZ programs learn the same amount as equivalent pupils do in mixed
classes. Students in the top classes in XYZ programs outperform equivalent
pupils from mixed classes by about one month on a grade-equivalent scale.
Self-esteem of lower aptitude students rises slightly and self-esteem of
higher aptitude students drops slightly in XYZ classes.
Grouping programs that entail more substantial adjustment of curricu-
lum to ability have clear positive effects on children. Cross-grade and within-
class programs, for example, provide both grouping and curricular adjustment
in reading and arithmetic for elementary school pupils. Pupils in such group-
ing programs outperform equivalent control students from mixed-ability
classes by two to three months on a grade-equivalent scale.
Programs of enrichment and acceleration, which usually involve the
greatest amount of curricular adjustment, have the largest effects on student
learning. In typical evaluation studies, talented students from accelerated

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 33

 classes outperform non-accelerates of the same age and IQ by almost one
full year on achievement tests. Talented students from enriched classes
outperform initially equivalent students from conventional classes by four
to five months on grade-equivalent scales.

Guidelines
1. Although some school programs that group children by ability have
only small effects, other grouping programs help children a great deal.
Schools should therefore resist calls for the wholesale elimination of
ability grouping.
2. Highly talented youngsters profit greatly from work in accelerated
classes. Schools should therefore try to maintain programs of acceler-
ated work.
3. Highly talented youngsters also profit greatly from an enriched curricu-
lum designed to broaden and deepen their learning. Schools should
therefore try to maintain programs of enrichment.
4. Bright, average, and slow youngsters profit from grouping programs
that adjust the curriculum to the aptitude levels of the groups. Schools
should try to use ability grouping in this way.
5. Benefits are slight from programs that group children by ability but
prescribe common curricular experiences for all ability groups. Schools
should not expect student achievement to change dramatically with
either establishment or elimination of such programs.

34 The Multigrade Classroom

 Implications for the Multigrade Classroom

any of these findings on ability grouping need to be interpreted

M in light of the unique organizational patterns found in multigrade

settings. Taken as a whole, this research evidence strongly supports
mixed-ability classroom organization, which is normal in the multigrade
classroom. Although this body of research does not reflect the extreme
variation in student ability found in multigrade settings, it does provide
guidelines for using ability grouping while maintaining the integrity of
the heterogeneous class.

Learning Centers
earning centers are independent stations set up throughout the classroom

L to cover a variety of academic subjects (math, writing, music). All the

learning centers are thematically designed. Many themes can last between
three and nine weeks. This makes learning more indepth and meaningful
for the children, and the planning and implementation more user-friendly
for the teacher.
Center activities are open-ended whenever possible to encourage explor-
ing subjects to a satisfying conclusion. Centers are used for reinforcement,
enrichment, remediation, and review. The learning center block of time in
an instructional day is often the meat of the program. While students are
engaged in independent learning activities, the teacher is allowed to work
with students in small groups to teach specific language areas or math skills
and to assess the students’ progress. In this environment, the teacher is the
facilitator of learning rather than the dictator of it. Students are allowed to
learn on their own developmental timeline, construct their own meaning,
and experience success at their own levels.

Management of Learning Centers

anagement is the key when using learning centers. The number of

M centers in a classroom varies between teachers and classroom size.

Many teachers have 20 or more centers in the room at a given time.
These centers are both fluid and constant to meet academic requirements
while allowing for specific learning experiences only available within the
given theme.
The constant (or generic) centers are the centers that always exist in the
classroom. These would be centers like Poetry, Math, Reference, Big Book,
Art, Science, and Publishing. These centers are located in the same part of
the room all year, so it is important to make sure they are strategically placed
(e.g., Art Center next to the sink or Library Center in a quiet corner).

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 35

 These centers do not change, but new content is often added and old content
is removed. The fluid centers are activities set up by the teacher that relate
specifically to the theme of study. For example, if the class is studying a unit
on Native American culture, a special center might be created to sample
foods or weave a miniature Navajo rug.
In this type of environment the children play a big part in managing
the classroom. Children plan their own day, and teachers are there to facili-
tate the learning. In many rooms children use planning sheets or contracts
to ensure that they are getting a well-rounded learning experience. These
planning sheets or contracts can be kept in folders that the student can refer
to and keep completed work in. Some rooms have “Must Do” centers and
“Choice” time, and credit will be given to students for quality and/or
quantity of work.
Because of this, material preparation requires careful planning and
organization. The following steps have been identified as important for
learning centers to be effective:
1. Select a subject area. Example: Reading
2. Determine the skill or concept to be taught, reinforced, or enriched.
Example: To teach the skill of rhyming
3. Develop the skill or concept into a learning activity: manipulating
(cutting, pasting, matching), experimenting (observing, charting,
keeping a log), listening, or viewing. Example: Students will learn
about rhyming by listening to a tape of rhymes and matching rhyming
words to rhyming pictures.
4. Prepare the skill or concept into an applying activity: filling in, arrang-
ing in order, putting together, taking apart, listing, classifying, match-
ing, tracing, writing, locating, or labeling. Example: Student will apply
the rhyming skill to games or worksheets which ask them to fill in the
rhying words, list works which rhyme, and classify words with the same
rhyming sounds.
5. Incorporate the skill or concept into an extending activity: comparing,
developing your own, researching, reconstructing, finding what other,
or deciding what if. Example: Students will extend their skill or rhyming
by writing their own poem, finding out about Edgar Allan Poe, or rewrit-
ing a nursery rhyme.
6. Place all the games, worksheets, charts, etc., together in one area of
the room for children to use in a self-selected manner.
7. Develop some form of record keeping and evaluation so that both
students and the teacher can account for time spent and learning
accomplished at the learning center.

36 The Multigrade Classroom

 Putting It All Together

sing various grouping patterns for reading instruction, a weekly sched-

U ule might take on a quite different appearance than the one described
earlier.

Time Subject Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

8:30 to Reading Textbook Textbook Multilevel Learning Review &

10:30 (by level) (by level) skill centers & interest
grouping teacher groups
conferences

Many variations of this sample schedule are possible, keeping in mind

the need to balance available teacher time, teacher experience, student needs,
and maturity levels. Most important, it is better to go slow and plan well
than to leap into a new strategy and have it fail.
The two case examples of grouping that follow were submitted by two Two case examples
multigrade teachers during the Ashland, Oregon, conference on multigrade
instruction. The first example comes from Joel Anderson, who teaches
grades 4–6 at the Onion Creek School in northeast Washington. Anderson’s
example is especially interesting because it covers a 15-year period of time,
describing the different changes that have occurred at Onion Creek School
and how they were managed. The second example comes from Barbara
Robinson, a K–3 teacher from southern Idaho. Robinson’s example illus-
trates how the community can help ease the demands of grouping across
four grade levels. Both case examples illustrate, with rich detail, the ingenu-
ity and creativity of effective multigrade teachers.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 37

Case Example 1: History and Philosophy on
Grouping at Onion Creek School
By Joel Anderson, Multigrade Teacher, Grades 4–6

hen I came to Onion Creek School 15 years ago, it was a one-room

W school. With my wife’s help the school was able to have two teach-
ers (for the price of one), which helped me maintain my sanity. She
taught first through third, and I taught fourth through sixth.
Since then the school has gone through many changes. Enrollment
dropped; my wife found a paying job. I worked for awhile as the only
teacher with the help of an aide. Then enrollment increased and my wife
was hired to teach primary, and I went back to teaching fourth through
sixth. Enrollment increased more; we added kindergarten and another
teacher, so for awhile I taught only fifth and sixth. Now I am back to
teaching fourth through sixth.
From the beginning, I thought I could only teach the students as one
large group, taking into account the individual differences of the students.
So we all worked on the same units. We have very few textbooks in our
class; most all lessons are designed by me. (Exceptions are our current SRA
Spelling series, our Junior Great Books used for interpretive reading discus-
sions, and our Barnell-Loft reading skills series.) Over the years I have
designed and redesigned units on different topics in science and health,
social studies, reading, and so forth. I present a lesson to all my students
together. Some of the topics, especially in language, have been addressed
year after year, though I usually change the form of the lesson. In social
studies and science, I teach topics on a three-year cycle. (A few topics in
social studies that are taught schoolwide to all grades at once are taught on
a six-year cycle.) This way we cover most of the material that is covered in
most schools over the fourth- through sixth-grade span.
Initially my units were designed for individual work. Students usually
did most of the work by themselves. The requirements for each child varied
according to the child’s grade and/or ability level. I had and still have differ-
ent expectations for students of different grades, so everyone in my class
would work on the same topic but the unit requirements would call for less
from the younger students and more from the older ones. Tests and other
evaluative methods would take into account the differences in age and ability.
Currently, I still teach units and make a lot of allowances for individual
differences, but I now encourage much more cooperative work. Students
do much of the work in pairs or small groups. Usually, I choose the group
members, but on some occasions students choose their own partners.
I have come to agree with those supporting cooperative learning that
individualized learning and competitive learning have many negative aspects,
which are especially accentuated in a multigraded class where students are
together for two, three, or more years.
When students are together for so long, they need to learn to respect
and care for each other. There are bound to be large differences in ability,

38 The Multigrade Classroom

especially when there are students from three grades in the class, but when
students work cooperatively with students in higher or lower grades, I find
that they all learn. All students have strengths and weaknesses. Having to
work in small groups with all the other students in the class, children learn
to make use of each other’s skills. They help each other more and share
their talents. They learn to appreciate the strengths that the other students
possess. They learn that in doing so they can best succeed as a group.
Working together they also learn tolerance. They don’t always like each
other, but, again, if they are going to succeed they must be tolerant of
each other’s quirks and weaknesses.

Groups
have my students work in groups as much as possible. Students are seldom

I grouped by age or grade; in most cases they are put in cross-graded

groups. Years ago we got rid of desks and had students sit at tables to
encourage group work. In my class students sit three to a table, and during
the year each child sits and works with practically everyone else in the class
several times. I usually switch seating every two weeks.

How To Organize Groups

I use this method sometimes to arrange my students in tables or to place Draw cards
them in groups. If I want three in a group, I take three cards of each denom-
ination. Then each child draws a card and goes with the other children who
drew the same denomination, say all Aces are in one group, Twos in another,
and so forth. This method results in heterogeneous groups. There may be
three boys in a group, three children from the same grade, or two girls and
a boy each from a different grade. I have found that my students like this
method for placing children at tables as long as they draw new tables every
two weeks and don’t have to sit at the same table or with any of the same
people two times in a row.
Early in the year I wrote the name of each of my students on a little card Draw names from a jar
and placed the card in a jar. I draw names from the jar any number of times
throughout the day. When holding a discussion I might draw names of
students who are asked to respond or I might draw names of children to
respond to a problem; I might draw a name and ask for an answer from
any of the children sitting at that child’s table; or, when playing a game
where children play in pairs, I might draw two names at a time to make
pairs. The randomness of this method helps to ensure that children work
at times with all the other children in the class, so there might be a low-

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 39

 achieving fourth-grader working with a high-achieving sixth-grader. The
children learn to take into account the others’ strengths and weaknesses,
and they learn to work together and help each other.

Teacher-made groups There are a few times when I organize groups. I do this most often when
children are playing simulation games or working on large group projects.
I try to set up the groups so there is a good mix according to age and ability.
Student-made groups There are also a few times when I let the students pick their own groups.
This most often occurs when students are working on projects, say in social
studies or science, and a couple of students want to work together on the
same topic.

Table Groups/Groups of Three or Four

or many of my activities, I organize my students into table groups or

F groups of three. (Marilyn Burns in The Math Solution suggests cooper-

ative groups of four.) I have my students sitting at tables of three
students each. My tables are labeled A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. These labels correspond
to the value of cards, so to place my students I have them draw from a deck
of 18 playing cards. Any time I want to change groups, I have the students
draw again from the deck of cards. To foster cooperation, I have the students
follow three rules (from Marilyn Burns):
1. You are responsible for your own work and behavior.
2. You must be willing to help any group member who asks.
3. You may ask the teacher for help only when everyone in your group
has the same question.
These rules encourage good cooperative skills and help to lessen some
of the demands on me. Students must work together and help each other
(when asked). Rule 3 eliminates many questions about assignments that
I’ve been asked to answer over and over. It also forces students to do more
talking among themselves about the assignments. They get more chances
to express their ideas and clarify their thinking.

40 The Multigrade Classroom

 When I Use Groups in My Class
When working on computation strand work, students most often work on — computation
Math—
their own at their own pace. If two (or more) students are working on the
same level, they may choose to work together. Or if someone is having
problems learning a specific concept, that person may get help from someone
at the same table or from anyone else in the room.
For about half of our math period, we usually all work together. I may present Math— — problem
a short lesson on problem solving, geometry, numbers, and so forth, and may solving, etc.
offer problems to be solved. We may work on them as a class and I might
draw names of students from the jar to get different responses, or I might ask
the students to work on the problems at their table and present one answer
agreed upon by all three students at their table.
I have an individualized reading program where children usually work on Reading
their own. They mostly read graded library books and work on reading
skills from a Barnell-Loft series.
I also use the Junior Great Books series. I use this for teaching critical
reading skills. I group students according to their reading ability into three
groups. I meet with each group once every two weeks for a 45-minute
discussion of a story read.
In the afternoons we have SSR (Sustained Silent Reading). Normally
students read quietly by themselves for the 15-minute period, but sometimes
students pair up with students from the primary class and read with them.
We do a lot of oral work in my class, and students often work together on — storytelling
Language—
these activities. For storytelling, students often work by themselves and then
in pairs. First they learn a story, then they practice it on a partner (usually
of their choosing) until they are ready to tell the story to the class.
We have done plays when studying fairy tales and legends; we have done — plays
Language—
them to show specific incidents in history; and we have done them for fun
and experience. Usually I draw students’ names from a jar to find members
for a group. Aesop in the Afternoon has a number of plays for small and large
groups that are great fun to do.
When studying fairy tales this year, I had the three students at each table
act out a traditional Grimms’ fairy tale. Then as a preliminary exercise for
writing their own fairy tales, the groups made up a fairy tale following tradi-
tional themes. Then they got together and wrote their own versions of the
play they had put on.
My wife has done this activity with my class. At first, my wife chose students Language—
for groups because some stories are easier to do than others. Students had tell-and-draw stories
to learn the stories and practice them for their small groups. Then they had
to practice them in front of their parents. Finally, they did the story for our
class or for the preschool or primary students.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 41

 Language— Most oral presentations or reports are done individually, but sometimes
oral presentations students work in pairs or even in groups of three or four to make special
reports for science or social studies. Sometimes the students choose their
own partners, and sometimes I draw names for groups. The students usually
write out a script so each participant knows what to say.

Language— To help learn grammar, punctuation, and usage skills, we do a daily activity
daily oral language called Daily Oral Language. Two sentences are written on the board with a
number of errors. Students are to rewrite the sentences correctly. They work
together with the other students at their table, comparing and correcting
their papers until they think they have written the sentences correctly. Then
I draw a student’s name from the jar and ask that person to tell me how to
correct the sentence on the board. If the student is correct, all the students
at the table are rewarded. Once a week I collect and correct all the papers,
and all the students at one table get the lowest grade given to any person
at that table.

Science When doing science, all the students in the three grades work on the same
activities. I have found that the TOPS units work great. Students get hands-
on experiences. I usually have students work together in their table groups
so they can interact and help each other out and share their discoveries.
Other times we might have units that require book research and oral or
written reports. Then I often allow two people to work together on the
same topic and make a joint presentation to the class.
Social studies I use a unit approach in social studies. Each student is given a collection of
papers that list the required work expected of the child plus a description
of the activities that may be done. The requirements vary with the ability
level of each child. I expect more from the older students with more ability
than I do from the younger students. The unit usually involves a lot of
individual work, though I allow students to work with each other on parts
of it and to drill each other on such things as map skills. Projects are often
a requirement, and, as in science, some of the projects are designed for two
or more students. In such cases I allow students to work with a friend if
they both chose the same topic, or, if I expect a large group project, I’ll
draw students’ names from the jar to organize them into groups.
I also use simulation games purchased from INTERACT. For these
activities students have to be in large groups, and in most cases I pick the
groups, trying to get a good mixture of students in age and ability.

42 The Multigrade Classroom

 Case Example 2: Instructional Grouping at Arbon Elementary School
By Barbara Robinson, Multigrade Teacher, Grades K–3

rbon Elementary School employs a staff of three: two teachers and

A an aide. We serve children in kindergarten through sixth grade. Our

building has two classrooms, one housing grades K–3 and the other
grades 4–6. We have a large, all-purpose room downstairs. Our aide works
with the kindergartners under the supervision of the primary teacher.
We frequently have two groups in kindergarten in reading. Those who know Reading and language
the letter sounds begin reading a series called Primary Phonics. Those who
don’t know the letters or letter sounds begin in a series Getting Ready to
Read. The first-, second-, and third-graders are cross-grouped according to
reading abilities. There may be as many as seven reading groups, but the
upper-level groups are not met with every day.
One day a week the groups from level 1–2 and up read from an SRA
kit. These groups are for basal readers and supplementary reading. To
decrease interruptions when working with the small groups, we use the
“buddy system.” The students must first check with everyone in their group
to answer their question before they ask the teacher for help. Language
experience activities are taught as a whole-group activity with grades 1–3.
The second half of the year the kindergartners participate also.
Students are grouped according to grade level in math. We use some peer Math and science
tutoring in problem areas but have not used ability grouping in this area.
Science is taught by grouping grades 1–3 and 4–6. For grades 1–3, we
usually use third-grade material. To do reading assignments or worksheets,
we pair up a mature reader with a younger one. Activities and experiments
are done as a whole or in groups. The groups are varied according to the
project.
In the primary room we group the first and second grades together for Social studies
social studies. Third grade is taught separately. This arrangement is for
instruction from a social studies text. For grades 1–3, we also do social
studies units on topics such as Indians, the Lewis and Clark Expedition,
Eskimos, and so forth. These units are taught to the whole primary class.
The fourth through sixth grades have successfully been taught as a group
using a three-year curriculum consisting of Idaho history, United States
history, and world history.
In music we started out using Silver Burdett’s program, second-grade material Music and
for grades 1–3, and fifth-grade material for grades 4–6. This didn’t work physical education
very well for us. We all lost interest in music. Then, one of our musically
talented dads volunteered to teach music, which he did for a year, and that
worked well. He taught grades 1–3 and grades 4–6 as two groups. The next
year we decided to try recorders. Neither of the teachers had ever played
them before, but we both had musical backgrounds, so we thought we’d
give them a try. They have been a great success. We started out just teach-
ing the first, second, and third grades together. The next year we added the
new first-graders. The past two years we’ve taught in two groups, first and

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 43

 second combined and third through sixth. We wrote the music out on large
sheets of paper and pinned it to the board. We directed note by note; that
ensured that everyone was on the right note at the right time. We do
recorders only the second half of the year. In the primary room, the first
half of the year we sing and play musical games. We have discovered there
are many good children’s albums with songs and activities the children enjoy.
To help the children learn the lyrics, we print them on large pieces of paper.
It’s not long before they have them memorized.
In physical education (PE) this past year we have been fortunate in
having had talented volunteers from our community to help with instruction.
For these subjects the students were grouped with grades 1–3 together and
4–6 together. The kindergartners were sometimes grouped with the first-
through third-graders and sometimes worked separately.

Review
rom reviewing these two case examples, you can see that each teacher

F relied heavily on the ability of students to work together. Both teachers

used some form of a “buddy system” where students helped each other
solve problems, thus freeing the teacher to help students without interrup-
tion. Students were also grouped across grade levels and taught as a class in
numerous subjects, such as language arts, science, and social studies. These
are just two of the many strategies multigrade teachers employ to produce
effective instruction with a wide range of student abilities.
However, beneath these strategies lies a complex process of teaching
and socialization. Students do not just help each other and work coopera-
tively because the teacher expects it. Successful multigrade teachers translate
their expectations for cooperation into actions through modeling, creating
opportunities for students to work together, and specifying the characteris-
tics of effective cooperation. During the last 15 years, a growing body of
research on cooperation in the classroom has produced invaluable informa-
tion to aid teachers who want to implement cooperative workgroups in their
classrooms. The following section provides an overview of this research
along with strategies and guidelines for facilitating cooperation.

44 The Multigrade Classroom

 Collaborative Learning

ffective communication and collaboration are essential to becoming a

E successful learner (Tinzman, Jones, Fennimore, Bakker, & Pierce, 1990).

It is primarily through dialogue and examining different perspectives
that students become knowledgeable, strategic, self-determined, and
empathetic. Moreover, involving students in real-world tasks and linking
new information to prior knowledge requires effective communication and
collaboration among teachers, students, and others. Indeed, it is through
dialogue and interaction that curriculum objectives come alive. Collaborative
learning affords students enormous advantages not available from more
traditional instruction because a group, whether it be the whole class or a
learning group within the class, can accomplish meaningful learning and
solve problems better than any individual can alone.
This focus on the collective knowledge and thinking of the group
changes the roles of students and teachers and the way they interact in the
classroom. Significantly, a groundswell of interest exists among practition-
ers to involve students in collaboration in classrooms at all grade levels.

Characteristics of a Collaborative Classroom

ollaborative classrooms seem to have four general characteristics. The

C first two capture changing relationships between teachers and students.

The third characterizes teachers’ new approaches to instruction. The
fourth addresses the composition of a collaborative classroom.
In traditional classrooms, the dominant metaphor for teaching is the teacher Shared knowledge
as information giver; knowledge flows only one way, from teacher to student. among teachers and
In contrast, the metaphor for collaborative classrooms is shared knowledge. students
The teacher has vital knowledge about content, skills, and instruction, and
still provides that information to students. However, collaborative teachers
also value and build upon the knowledge, personal experiences, language,
strategies, and culture that students bring to the learning situation.
Consider a lesson on insect-eating plants, for example. Few students,
and perhaps few teachers, are likely to have direct knowledge about such
plants. Thus, when those students who do have relevant experiences are
given an opportunity to share them, the whole class is enriched. Moreover,
when students see that their experiences and knowledge are valued, they
are motivated to listen and learn in new ways, and they are more likely
to make important connections between their own learning and “school”
learning. They become empowered. This same phenomenon occurs when
the knowledge parents and other community members have is valued and
used within the school.
Additionally, complex thinking about difficult problems, such as world
hunger, begs for multiple ideas about causes, implications, and potential

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 45

 solutions. In fact, nearly all of the new curricular goals are of this nature—
for example, mathematical problem solving—as are new requirements to
teach topics such as AIDS. They require multiple ways to represent and
solve problems and many perspectives on issues.
Shared authority among In collaborative classrooms, teachers share authority with students in specific
teachers and students ways. In most traditional classrooms, the teacher is largely, if not exclusively,
responsible for setting goals, designing learning tasks, and assessing what is
learned.
Collaborative teachers differ in that they invite students to set specific
goals within the framework of what is being taught, provide options for
activities and assignments that capture different student interests and goals,
and encourage students to assess what they learn. Collaborative teachers
encourage students’ use of their own knowledge, ensure that students share
their knowledge and their learning strategies, treat each other respectfully,
and focus on high levels of understanding. They help students listen to
diverse opinions, support knowledge claims with evidence, engage in criti-
cal and creative thinking, and participate in open and meaningful dialogue.
Suppose, for example, the students have just read a chapter on colonial
America and are required to prepare a product on the topic. While a more
traditional teacher might ask all students to write a 10-page essay, the collab-
orative teacher might ask students to define the product themselves. Some
could plan videotape, some could dramatize events in colonial America,
others could investigate original sources that support or do not support the
textbook chapter and draw comparisons among them, and still others could
write a 10-page paper. The point here is twofold: (1) students have oppor-
tunities to ask and investigate questions of personal interest, and (2) they
have a voice in the decisionmaking process. These opportunities are essen-
tial for both self-regulated learning and motivation.
Teachers as mediators As knowledge and authority are shared among teachers and students, the
role of the teacher increasingly emphasizes mediated learning. Successful
mediation helps students connect new information to their experiences and
to learning in other areas, helps students figure out what to do when they
are stumped, and helps them learn how to learn. Above all, the teacher as
mediator adjusts the level of information and support to maximize students’
ability to take responsibility for learning. This characteristic of collaborative
classrooms is so important, we devote a whole section to it below.
Heterogeneous groupings The perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds of all students are important
of students for enriching learning in the classroom. As learning beyond the classroom
increasingly requires understanding diverse perspectives, it is essential to
provide students opportunities to do this in multiple contexts in schools. In
collaborative classrooms where students are engaged in a thinking curricu-
lum, everyone learns from everyone else, and no student is deprived of this
opportunity for making contributions and appreciating the contributions of
others.

46 The Multigrade Classroom

 Thus, a critical characteristic of collaborative classrooms is that students
are not segregated according to supposed ability, achievement, interests, or
any other characteristic. Segregation seriously weakens collaboration and
impoverishes the classroom by depriving all students of opportunities to
learn from and with each other. Students we might label unsuccessful in a
traditional classroom learn from “brighter” students, but, more important,
the so-called brighter students have just as much to learn from their more
average peers. Teachers beginning to teach collaboratively often express
delight when they observe the insights revealed by their supposedly weaker
students.
Shared knowledge and authority, mediated learning, and heterogeneous
groups of students are essential characteristics of collaborative classrooms.
These characteristics, which are described below, necessitate new roles for
teachers and students that lead to interactions different from those in more
traditional classrooms.

Teacher Roles in a Collaborative Classroom

cross this nation, teachers are defining their roles in terms of mediat-

A ing learning through dialogue and collaboration. While mediation has

been defined in different ways, we define mediation here as facilitating,
modeling, and coaching. Most teachers engage in these practices from time
to time. What is important here is that these behaviors (1) drive instruction
in collaborative classrooms, and (2) have specific purposes in collaborative
contexts.
Facilitating involves creating rich environments and activities for linking Facilitator
new information to prior knowledge, providing opportunities for collabo-
rative work and problem solving, and offering students a multiplicity of
authentic learning tasks. This may first involve attention to the physical
environment. For example, teachers move desks so that all students can
see each other, thus establishing a setting that promotes true discussion.
Teachers may also wish to move their desks from the front of the room
to a less prominent space.
Additionally, teachers may structure the resources in the classroom
to provide a diversity of genres and perspectives, to use and build upon
cultural artifacts from the students’ homes and communities, and to orga-
nize various learning activities. Thus, a collaborative classroom often has a
number of projects or activity centers using everyday objects for represent-
ing numerical information in meaningful ways and for conducting experi-
ments that solve real problems. These classrooms also boast a rich variety
of magazines, journals, newspapers, audiotapes, and videos that allow
students to experience and use diverse media for communicating ideas.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 47

 Facilitating in collaborative classrooms also involves people. Inside the
classroom, students are organized into heterogeneous groups with roles such
as team leader, encourager, reteller, recorder, and spokesperson. (See Cohen,
1986, for further elaboration.) Additionally, collaborative teachers work to
involve parents and community members. Examples are: inviting parents to
come and experience the thinking processes involved in conducting experi-
ments using everyday objects so that they can provide such learning experi-
ences at home; involving parents and the community in academic tasks in
which their students are engaged; and performing community services such
as producing a local newspaper.
Another way that teachers facilitate collaborative learning is to estab-
lish classrooms with diverse and flexible social structures that promote the
sort of classroom behavior they deem appropriate for communication and
collaboration among students. These structures are rules and standards of
behavior, fulfilling several functions in group interaction and influencing
group attitudes. Particular rules depend, of course, on the classroom context.
Thus, teachers often develop them collaboratively with students and review
or change them as needed. Examples of rules include giving all members a
chance to participate, valuing others’ comments, and arguing against (or
for) ideas rather than people. Examples of group functions include asking
for information, clarifying, summarizing, encouraging, and relieving tension.
To facilitate high-quality group interaction, teachers may need to teach, and
students may need to practice, rules and functions for group interaction.
Finally, teachers facilitate collaborative learning by creating learning
tasks that encourage diversity but that aim at high standards of performance
for all students. These tasks involve students in high-level thought processes
such as decisionmaking and problem solving, which are best accomplished
in collaboration. These tasks enable students to make connections to real-
world objects, events, and situations in their own and an expanded world,
and tap their diverse perspectives and experiences. Learning tasks foster
students’ confidence and, at the same time, are appropriately challenging.

Model Modeling has been emphasized by many local and state guidelines as sharing
one’s thinking and demonstrating or explaining something. However, in
collaborative classrooms, modeling serves to share with students not only
what one is thinking about the content to be learned, but also the process
of communication and collaborative learning. Modeling may involve think-
ing aloud (sharing thoughts about something), or demonstrating (showing
students how to do something in a step-by-step fashion).
In terms of content, teachers might verbalize the thinking processes
they use to make a prediction about a scientific experiment, to summarize
ideas in a passage, to figure out the meaning of an unfamiliar word, to repre-
sent and solve a problem, to organize complicated information, and so on.

48 The Multigrade Classroom

 Just as important, they may also think aloud about their doubts and
uncertainties. This type of metacognitive thinking and thinking aloud when
things do not go smoothly are invaluable in helping students understand
that learning requires effort and is often difficult for people.
With respect to group process, teachers may share their thinking about
the various roles, rules, and relationships in collaborative classrooms. Consider
leadership, for example. A teacher might model what he or she thinks about
such questions as how to manage the group’s time or how to achieve consen-
sus. Similarly, showing students how to think through tough group situations
and problems of communication is as valuable as modeling how to plan an
approach to an academic problem, monitoring its progress, and assessing
what was learned.
A major challenge in mediating learning is to determine when it is
appropriate to model by thinking aloud and when it is useful to model by
demonstrating. If a teacher is certain that students have little experience with,
say, a mathematical procedure, then it may be appropriate to demonstrate it
before students engage in a learning task. (This is not to say that the teacher
assumes or states that there is only one way to perform the procedure. It is
also important to allow for individual variations in application.) If, on the
other hand, the teacher believes students can come up with the procedure
themselves, then he or she might elect to ask the students to model how
they solved the problem; alternatively, the teacher could give students hints
or cues.
Coaching involves giving hints or cues, providing feedback, redirecting Coach
students’ efforts, and helping them use a strategy. A major principle of
coaching is to provide the right amount of help when students need it—
neither too much nor too little—so that students retain as much responsi-
bility as possible for their own learning.
For example, a collaborative group of junior high students worked on
the economic development of several nations. They accumulated a lot of
information about the countries and decided that the best way to present it
was to compare the countries. But they were stymied as to how to organize
the information so they could write about it in a paper, the product they
chose to produce. Their teacher hinted that they use a matrix—a graphic
organizer they had learned—to organize their information. When the group
finished the matrix, the teacher gave them feedback. In so doing, he did
not tell them it was right or wrong, but asked questions that helped them
verbalize their reasons for completing the matrix as they did. The principle
the teacher followed was to coach enough so that students could continue
to learn by drawing on the ideas of other group members.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 49

 Student Roles in a Collaborative Classroom
tudents also assume new roles in the collaborative classroom. Their

S major roles are collaborator and active participator. It is useful to think

how these new roles influence the processes and activities students
conduct before, during, and after learning. For example, before learning,
students set goals and plan learning tasks; during learning, they work together
to accomplish tasks and monitor their progress; and after learning, they
assess their performance and plan for future learning. As mediator, the
teacher helps students fulfill their new roles.
Goal setting Students prepare for learning in many ways. Especially important is goal
setting, a critical process that helps guide many other before-, during-, and
and after-learning activities. Although teachers still set goals for students,
they often provide students with choices. When students collaborate, they
should talk about their goals. For example, one teacher asked students to
set goals for a unit on garbage. In one group, a student wanted to find out
if garbage is a problem, another wanted to know what happens to garbage,
a third wanted to know what is being done to solve the problem of garbage.
The fourth member could not think of a goal, but agreed that the first three
were important and adopted them. These students became more actively
involved in the unit after their discussion about goals, and at the end of the
unit, could better evaluate whether they had attained them.
Designing learning tasks While teachers plan general learning tasks, for example, to produce a product
and monitoring to illustrate a concept, historical sequence, personal experience, and so on,
students assume much more responsibility in a collaborative classroom for
planning their own learning activities. Ideally, these plans derive in part from
goals students set for themselves. Thoughtful planning by the teacher ensures
that students can work together to attain their own goals and capitalize on
their own abilities, knowledge, and strategies within the parameters set by
the teacher. Students are more likely to engage in these tasks with more
purpose and interest than in traditional classrooms.
Self-regulated learning is important in collaborative classrooms. Students
learn to take responsibility for monitoring, adjusting, self-questioning, and
questioning each other. Such self-regulating activities are critical for students
to learn today, and they are much better learned within a group that shares
responsibility for learning. Monitoring is checking one’s progress toward
goals. Adjusting refers to changes students make, based on monitoring, in
what they are doing to reach their goals. For example, a group of students
decided that the sources of information on the Civil War they selected
initially were not as useful as they had hoped, so they selected new materi-
als. Another group judged that the paper they had planned to write would
not accomplish what they thought it would the way they had organized it,
so they planned a new paper.

50 The Multigrade Classroom

 Students can further develop their self-regulating abilities when each
group shares its ideas with other groups and gets feedback from them. For
example, in the first video conference, elementary students were shown
collaborating in small groups to define and represent math problems. Working
in small groups, the children determined what was being asked in story
problems and thought of ways to solve the problems. Then each group
shared its ideas with the whole class. Members of the class commented on
the ideas. As students developed problem-solving skills with feedback from
other groups, they learned more about regulating their own learning, a skill
they could use in the future.
While teachers have assumed the primary responsibility for assessing students’ Assessment
performance in the past, collaborative classrooms view assessment much
more broadly. That is, a major goal is to guide students from the earliest
school years to evaluate their own learning. Thus, a new responsibility is
self-assessment, a capability that is fostered as students assess group work.
Self-assessment is intimately related to ongoing monitoring of one’s
progress toward achievement of learning goals. In a collaborative classroom,
assessment means more than just assigning a grade. It means evaluating
whether one has learned what one intended to learn, the effectiveness of
learning strategies, the quality of products and decisions about which products
reflect one’s best work, the usefulness of the materials used in a task, and
whether future learning is needed and how that learning might be realized.
Collaborative classrooms are natural places in which to learn self-assess-
ment. And because decisions about materials and group performance are
shared, students feel more free to express doubts, feelings of success, remain-
ing questions, and uncertainties than when they are evaluated only by a
teacher. Furthermore, the sense of cooperation (as opposed to competition)
that is fostered in collaborative work makes assessment less threatening than
in a more traditional assessment situation. Ideally, students learn to evaluate
their own learning from their experiences with group evaluation.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 51

 Challenges and Conflicts

hen teachers and schools move from traditional to collaborative

Classroom control
W instruction, several important issues are likely to arise. They are
important concerns for teachers, administrators, and parents.
Collaborative classrooms tend to be noisier than traditional classrooms. This
is a legitimate issue for a number of people. Some teachers believe that noisy
classrooms indicate lack of discipline or teacher control. In such situations,
they argue, students cannot learn. Collaborative classrooms do not lack
structure. Indeed, structure becomes critical. Students need opportunities
to move about, talk, ask questions, and so on. Thus, we argue that the noise
in a smoothly running collaborative classroom indicates that active learning
is going on. However, students must be taught the parameters within which
they make their choices. Rules and standards must be stressed from the
beginning, probably before any collaboration is initiated, and reviewed
throughout the school year.

Preparation time for Teachers and administrators may believe that new lesson plans must be
collaborative learning formed for these classrooms. To a certain extent, they are correct. But many
teachers already have created engaging units and activities that are easily
implemented in a collaborative classroom. Furthermore, teachers can begin
slowly making changes in one subject area or unit within a subject area,
probably one they are already very comfortable teaching, and then adding
other subjects and units. Teachers can also share their plans with each other.
Indeed, if we expect students to collaborate, we should encourage teachers
to do the same! Principals and curriculum specialists can also collaborate
with teachers to plan effective segments of instruction. Moreover, there is a
trade-off between the extra planning time needed and benefits such as less
time spent correcting lessons, increased student motivation, and fewer
attendance and discipline problems.
Individual differences This information has been touched on in the section on heterogeneous
among students grouping. Nevertheless, many people will still doubt that individual differ-
ences can be better addressed in collaborative classrooms than in traditional
classrooms with homogeneous grouping.
A major question people have concerns the advantage collaboration
affords gifted or high-achieving students. There are two tough issues here.
First, many teachers do not believe that low-achieving students have much
to contribute to the learning situation; in effect, they feel these students
have no prior experiences or knowledge of value. Second, teachers worry
that high-achieving students will be held back.
In response to the first issue, many collaborative teachers have expressed
surprise when seemingly less-able students have had insights and ideas that
went way beyond what teachers expected. Further, if each student contributes
something, the pool of collective knowledge will indeed be rich. In answer
to the second concern, data suggest that high-achieving students gain much
from their exposure to diverse experiences and also from peer tutoring

52 The Multigrade Classroom

(Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Also, students who may be high-achieving in
one area may need help in other areas.
Teachers and others also wonder whether shy students can fully parti-
cipate in a classroom that depends so much on dialogue. We suggest that
these students might feel more comfortable talking in small groups that
share responsibility for learning. Furthermore, interaction between learners
can happen in ways other than oral dialogue; for example, writing and art.
A related concern is that many schools are structured homogeneously,
and so an individual teacher cannot form heterogeneous groups without
involving changes in the entire school. A whole class of “low” readers is
taught by one teacher, “average” by another. High school tracks are even
more systematically entrenched. Clearly, these practices are not conducive
to collaborative learning and require systemwide restructuring. Individual
teachers or groups of teachers can initiate dialogue on the problem,
however.
This concern is a difficult one to solve unless major changes in other areas Individual responsibility
of schooling are also undertaken. Students are used to being graded for for learning
individual work; parents expect to know how their students fare in school.
School staff and state departments of education depend on traditional assess-
ments. In collaborative classrooms, it is often difficult to assign individual
grades. Some teachers give group grades, but many students and parents
are uncomfortable with these. Ideally, assessment practices should be changed
so that they are consistent with collaboration, with a new view of learning,
and with a thinking curriculum.
Many teachers do not feel comfortable allowing students to initiate dialogue, Conflict of values
determine topics, or explore perspectives other than the teacher’s. This
reluctance is in conflict with the way effective caregivers teach their children
in the home. Teachers often have difficulty helping students construct
meaning, especially linking the new information to the prior knowledge
and culture of the students. In part, this is because many teachers believe
that their role is to transmit knowledge; because they are held accountable
for teaching discrete skills. In one poignant example, a student teacher’s
concern for grammar and punctuation prevented her from seeing the
sophistication and meaning in what the child was actually communicating
in a book report.
The reluctance people feel when asked to make major changes in the
way they do things is clearly the most serious issue of those discussed here.
Hardly a person exists who eagerly gives up familiar ways of behaving to
attempt something that is unknown and likely to have many implementa-
tion challenges.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 53

What Is the Research Base for Collaborative Learning? Vygotskian Theory
ev Semenovich, a developmental theorist and researcher who worked in

L the 1920s and early ’30s, has influenced some of the current research on
collaboration among students and teachers and on the role of cultural
learning and schooling. His principal premise is that human beings are
products not only of biology, but also of their human cultures. Intellectual
functioning is the product of our social history, and language is the key mode
by which we learn our cultures and through which we organize our verbal
thinking and regulate our actions. Children learn such higher functioning
from interacting with the adults and other children around them.
Inner speech Children learn when they engage in activities and dialogue with others,
usually adults or more capable peers. Children gradually internalize this
dialogue so that it becomes inner speech, the means by which they direct
their own behavior and thinking. For example, as adults use language such
as, “That piece does not fit there; let’s try it someplace else,” children may
initially just imitate this strategy. However, they gradually use it to regulate
their own behavior in a variety of contexts. Eventually, this dialogue
becomes internalized as inner speech.
There seems to be a general sequence in the development of speech for
oneself. When alone, very young children tend to talk about what they have
done after they complete an activity. Later, they talk as they work. Finally,
they talk to themselves before they engage in an activity. Speech now has
assumed a planning function. Later they internalize this speech. Inner speech
—conversations we carry on with ourselves—begins as a social dialogue
with other people and is a major mode of learning, planning, and self-
regulation.
Various experiments demonstrate this self-regulating function of inner
speech. Vygotsky reasoned that when people are asked to solve difficult
problems or to perform difficult tasks, inner speech will go external, that
is, take its more primitive form. In other words, people frequently talk to
themselves when they face a problem. This externalization of inner speech
is often observed in children. When they engage in familiar, simple activities,
they usually do so without talk, but faced with difficult tasks, they may
whisper or talk out loud to themselves. Adults do this, too. They often talk
themselves through perplexing or unfamiliar tasks such as figuring out how
to work a VCR.
Vygotsky noted that children interacting toward a common goal tend
to regulate each other’s actions. Other researchers (e.g., Forman & Cazden,
1986) have observed that when students work together on complex tasks,
they assist each other in much the same way adults assist children. In such
tasks, dialogue consists of mutual regulation. Together, they can solve diffi-
cult problems they cannot solve working independently.

54 The Multigrade Classroom

Effective caregivers engage in regulating dialogue with children almost Scaffolding and
naturally. A key phenomenon of such interactions is that caregivers maintain development
the dialogue just above the level where children can perform activities
independently. As children learn, adults change the nature of their dialogue
so that they continue to support the child but also give the child increasing
responsibility for the task (for example, the adult might say, “Now see if
you can find the next piece of the puzzle yourself.”). Jerome Bruner and
his colleagues called this scaffolding. It takes place within a child’s zone of
proximal development, a level or range in which a child can perform a task
with help. (Piaget refers to this as “teachable moments” when adults stretch
a child’s capacity, but stay within what they are capable of understanding.)
The zone of proximal development, scaffolding, and dialogue are
especially useful concepts or frameworks for school learning. Vygotsky
observed that effective teachers plan and carry out learning activities within
children’s zones of proximal development, through dialogue and scaffold-
ing. Florio-Ruane drew five maxims from studies of caregiver-child interac-
tions that illustrate these points and should characterize school instruction.
1. Assume the child (learner) is competent
2. Know the child (learner)
3. Share an interest in the task at hand with the child (learner)
4. Follow the child’s (learner’s) lead
5. Capitalize on uncertainty
Very few teachers have the luxury of teaching children on a one-to-one
basis. Fortunately, we now know that tutoring is not, in fact, the only—
or even the best—way for students to learn in most situations. Dialogue,
scaffolding, and working in one’s zone of proximal development can be
accomplished in collaborative classrooms, and are being accomplished in
many classrooms today.
Vygotsky also provides us with a framework for thinking about an impor- Connecting school
tant function of teaching and the multicultural perspective. His research learning to everyday life
suggests that school learning enables students to connect their “everyday
concepts” to “scientific concepts.” In other words, schools help students
draw generalizations and construct meaning from their own experiences,
knowledge, and strategies. Knowledge learned in the community and knowl-
edge gained from school are both valuable. Neither can be ignored if
students are to engage in meaningful learning.
Effective teachers help students make these connections by scaffolding
and dialogue. In fact, these are the essence of mediating. Teachers plan
learning activities at points where students are challenged. Teachers plan
activities and experiments that build on the language of students’ everyday

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 55

 lives through familiar examples and behaviors, analogies and metaphors,
and the use of commonly found materials. Teachers demonstrate, do parts
of the task students cannot do, work collaboratively with students where
they need help, and release responsibility to students when they can perform
the task independently.

56 The Multigrade Classroom

 Planning Groupwork

lanning for cooperative learning activities is absolutely essential if

P cooperative groupwork is to succeed. The end result of a carefully

planned program will well justify the time and effort invested. It is
beyond the scope of this paper to give anything more than a brief overview
of the key issues involved in implementing cooperative work-group learning.
However, at the end of this chapter is a detailed list of resources where
information, research, and training may be obtained.
Five general areas must be considered when planning groupwork
(Cohen, 1986):
Will they work in very structured tutoring pairs? Will they work at learning Deciding on how students
centers? Will they work in small teams? Will they be primarily engaged in will work together
drill and practice, group investigation, group discussion, or problem solving?
How will students learn the necessary cooperative skills? Will they learn Deciding on the training program
cooperation while engaged in a cooperative activity? Or will you try to for developing cooperative skills
prepare them in advance with some direct instruction and modeling?
The tasks you choose will depend on what you want students to learn. Deciding on the actual tasks
However, there are guidelines that will increase the success of your choice. your groups will perform
Select tasks that:
l Have more than one answer or more than one way to solve
the problem
l Are intrinsically interesting and rewarding
l Allow different students to make different contributions
l Use multimedia
l Involve sight, sound, and touch
l Require a variety of skills and behaviors
l Require reading and writing
l Are challenging
Tasks do not work well for groupwork if they:
l Have unchallenging, single right answers
l Can be done more quickly and efficiently by one person than
by a group
l Are too low level
l Involve simple memorization or routine learning
(If you implement cooperative learning through the structural approach
of Kagan [1990], then you could begin with structures that require low-
level learning.)

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 57

 Lay the groundwork How are groups to be composed? How will you physically arrange the
with great care classroom? How and when will you assign students to groups?
Decide on how your Will there be debriefing sessions after each strategy is tried? Will there
cooperative learning will be ongoing observation and feedback to work groups? Will students be
be evaluated interviewed?
The secret to successful implementation lies in clarity—students must
understand what they are supposed to be doing and where they can turn
for help if problems develop. Clarity is attained by having as simple a
system as possible.
Much clarity is achieved through careful planning and by training in
advance for roles and cooperation. The steps for developing such a manage-
ment system are briefly summarized here (Cohen, 1986):
1. Cooperative norms need to be taught so students will know how
they ought to behave and will enforce these behaviors in others.
2. Students should know which group they are in and where that group
is supposed to be meeting; a minimum amount of time should be
wasted in getting across this vital information.
3. Public and specific information about who is to play what role and
what specific behaviors are expected should be available as described
in the previous chapter.
4. Each group should have clear instructions for the task available to
them as they work; this will do much to prevent students from
having to turn to you as a source of knowledge.
5. Students should have a good, brief orientation from the teacher on
the objectives of this task and the criteria for evaluation.

58 The Multigrade Classroom

 Conclusion

dapting the classroom learning environment to the needs of students

A is a complex and demanding task, especially when teaching a multi-

grade class where diversity among classmates is extreme. But outside
the classroom, diversity is the normal condition that characterizes life. People
must learn to work well with a wide variety of individuals in many different
social settings. No single best approach has been defined for problem solving,
getting along with co-workers, or learning something new. People learn and
manage their lives in a variety of ways. The multigrade classroom, with its
wide range of student levels, reflects this real-life diversity better than any
other classroom configuration. It is important that teaching methods and
grouping patterns reflect the variability of the students being taught and
help prepare them to live in our diverse and complex world. Therefore, it is
vital, when planning for instruction, to determine the academic, social, and
cultural needs of students and to devise plans that best meet those needs.
Of course, it is impossible to develop a unique instructional program
that will reflect all these areas and characteristics of each student. But we
can plan and organize instruction that will take into account the variability
of our students. We know from research on classroom teaching that we often
ignore these important student characteristics and forge ahead, teaching the
way we were taught. We know that:
l Thirty to 40 percent of the students we teach need to move around,
touch, or manipulate to learn best. They are kinesthetic or tactile
learners.
l Thirty to 40 percent of the students we teach are visual learners. They
need demonstration because they learn quickly through seeing, photo-
graphing, drawing, watching films, and real events.
l Students have environmental preferences such as time of day, the
need for snacks, light, and placement of furniture, that affect their
motivation, interest, and ability.
l Cultural and family influences can often be overlooked by the teacher.
A child’s language and cultural background can affect the usefulness
of a particular strategy and inhibit the student’s learning. For example,
some Native Americans have customs and traditions that make it
extremely difficult for a child to be selected for whole-class recitation.
Some groups may find it difficult to work in small groups, while
others may have trouble working alone.
And yet, most teaching is primarily auditory, with teaching being “done”
to the students by a lecture-recitation mode of instruction. However, only
about 25 percent of all children learn best by listening (Multnomah
Education Service District, 1983).

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 59

 In this book, we have described a variety of instructional methods
and grouping strategies that should facilitate multigrade (or multiability)
instruction. In no way has this been an exhaustive discussion. For those
interested in more detail, a list of resources and references has been included.
None of the methods and strategies described here are good or bad for all
students, provided they are understood and used in an appropriate manner.
This means careful, thorough planning and implementation using a variety
of methods and strategies. As always, we must continually assess the impact
our instructional practices have on student social and academic growth.

60 The Multigrade Classroom

 References

Allan, S.D. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say

about grouping and the gifted? Educational Leadership, 48(6), 60–65.
Anderson, R.H. (1993). The return of the nongraded classroom. Principal,
72(3), 9–12.
Barell, J. (1995). Teaching for thoughtfulness: Classroom strategies to enhance
intellectual development (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Cohen, D.L. (1989, December 6). First stirrings of a new trend: Multi-age
classrooms gain favor. Education Week, 9(14), 1, 13–14.
Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous class-
room (pp. 207-209). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Coleman, J.S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16(6),
32–38.
Cushman, K. (1993). The case for mixed-age grouping. Harvard, MA: Author.
Dillon, J.T. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 592–431).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Feng, J. (1994). Issues and trends in early childhood education. Unpublished
manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 841)
Fogarty, M. (Ed.). (1979). Small schools: Organization and teaching methods.
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: North Brisbane College of Advanced
Education. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 223 395)
Forman, E.A., & Cazden, C.B. (1986). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives
in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J.V. Wertsch
(Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, M. (1997, April). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the National Association of
Elementary School Principals Association, San Antonio, TX.
Gaustad, J. (1992). Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and
developmentally appropriate education for primary children [Special
issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 35(7).
Good, T.L., & Brophy, J.E. (1987). Looking in classrooms (4th ed.). New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Goodlad, J.L. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 61

 Goodlad, J.I., & Anderson, R.H. (1987). The nongraded elementary school
(Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Griswold, C. (1987). Topic development for multi-level classrooms, K-5:
Incorporating essential learning skills. Salem, OR: Oregon Department
of Education.
Hallion, A.M. (1994, March). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association
of Elementary School Principals Association, Orlando, FL.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory
and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Kafai, Y.B., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism in practice:
Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kagan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.
Katz, L., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J.A. (1990). The case for mixed-age
grouping in early education. Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Kinsey, S. (1998). Observations of student and teacher behaviors in the multi-
age classroom. Unpublished manuscript.
Klein, M.F. (1982). Independent study. In H.E. Mitzel, J.H. Best, & W.
Rabinowitz (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational research: Vol. 2 (5th ed.,
pp. 835–843). New York, NY: Free Press.
Kulik, C.C., & Kulik, J.A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary
school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American
Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 415–428.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student
achievement. Equity and Excellence, 23(1–2), 22–30.
Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children:
An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006–1017.
Marshak, D. (1994, March). From teachers’ perspectives: The social and psycho-
logical benefits of multiage elementary classrooms. Paper presented at the
annual conference “Emerging Images of Learning: World Perspectives
for the New Millennium,” Chicago, IL.
McClellan, D.E. (1994). Multiage grouping: Implications for education. In
P. Chase & J. Doan (Eds.), Full circle: A new look at multiage education
(pp. 147–166). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

62 The Multigrade Classroom

McClellan, D., & Kinsey, S. (1996). Mixed-age grouping helps children
develop social skills and a sense of belonging. The MAGnet Newsletter
on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 5(1), 1–3.
Retrieved May 8, 2000 from the World Wide Web: www.ericeece.org/
pubs/mag/magfal96.html#a
Miller, B.A. (1993). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade
instruction. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of
America’s schools. The multiage resource book (pp. 65–83). Peterborough,
NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Miller, B.A. (1996). A basic understanding of multiage grouping. School
Administrator, 53(1), 12–17.
Multnomah Education Service District. (1983). Goal guide: Tri-county course
development project. Portland, OR: Author.
Murphy, J., Weil, M., & McGreal, T. (1986). The basic practice model of
instruction. Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 83–96.
Nebraska Department of Education & Iowa Department of Education.
(1993). The primary program: Growing and learning in the heartland.
Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Education.
Negroponte, N., Resnick, M., & Cassell, J. (n.d.). Creating a learning
revolution (Opinion Article No. 8). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Media Laboratory. Retrieved September 21,
2000, from the World Wide Web: www.unesco.org/education/
educprog/lwf/doc/portfolio/opinion8.htm
Nye, B. (1993). Some questions and answers about multiage grouping.
ERS Spectrum, 11(3), 38–45.
Ridgway, L., & Lawton, I. (1969). Family grouping in the primary school
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Schunk, D.H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review
of Educational Research, 57(2), 149–174.
Shank, R.C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slavin, R.E. (1986a). Ability grouping and student achievement in elemen-
tary schools: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 293–336.
Slavin, R.E. (1986b). Using student team learning (3rd ed.). Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary
and Middle Schools.
Stone, S.J. (1995). The primary multiage classroom: Changing schools for
children. Unpublished manuscript.

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 63

 Tinzman, B., Jones, B., Fennimore, J., Bakker, C., & Pierce, J. (1990). What
is the collaborative classroom? Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory.
Uphoff, J.K., & Evans, D.A. (1993). The country school comes to town:
A case study of multiage grouping and teaching. In D. Sumner (Ed.),
Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America’s schools. The multiage
resource book (pp. 36–38). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental
Education.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Willis, S. (1991). Breaking down grade barriers: Interest on nongraded
classrooms on the raise. ASCD update, 33(3), 4.

64 The Multigrade Classroom

 Resources

Blackwood, L. (1987). More like a school family than just a teacher and
his/her students: Is a one teacher school for you? Anchorage, AK: L.C.’s
Manner.
This booklet contains one teacher’s opinion on “how to successfully and
effectively teach in a small one-teacher school or other multigraded
settings in rural Alaska.” It also contains useful ideas and strategies that are
beneficial to any multigrade teacher.

Available from: L.C.’s Manner

2440 E. Tudor Road
Suite 950
Anchorage, AK 99507

Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous

classroom (pp. 207–209). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
This handbook provides strategies for starting groupwork in your
classroom and details the research supporting cooperative workgroups.
The book is written in a direct, clear style that makes reading easy.

Available from: Teachers College Press

Columbia University
New York, NY 10027

Dyer, T.A. (1989). Teaching splits: Strategies for combination classrooms.

Unpublished manuscript.
The research paper describes what teachers of combined grades do to
successfully cope with a two-grade classroom. Dyer visited more than 10
combination classrooms and interviewed the teachers. This report sum-
marizes his findings.

Available from: Thomas Dyer

PO Box 47
Bly, OR 97622

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 65

 Good, T.L., & Brophy, J.E. (1987). Looking in classrooms (4th ed.). New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
This book may be one of the most exhaustive collections of effective teach-
ing information to date. Filled with practical, concrete ideas and strategies
drawn from observations of effective teachers, this book is important for
every professional library.

Available from: Harper and Row Publishers

Keystone Industrial Park
Scranton, PA 18512

Griswold, C. (1987). Topic development for multi-level classrooms, K-5:

Incorporating essential learning skills. Salem, OR: Oregon Department
of Education.
This booklet was developed for the Oregon Department of Education as a
resource for helping multigrade teachers integrate essential learning skills
across subject areas. Griswold provides sample integrated lessons along
with a guide for developing your own lessons.

Available from: Oregon Department of Education

Public Service Building
255 Capitol Street NE
Salem, OR 97310

Hornbeck, D. (1990). Recommendations related to curriculum. Frankfort,

KY: Legislative Research Commision.
This handbook focuses on instructional organization within the context of
curriculum, designing the elements and responsibilities of curriculum
organization, its structure, and basic planning consideration for use in the
multigrade classroom.

Available from: Kentucky Department of Education

500 Mero Street, 17th Floor
Frankfort, KY 40601

66 The Multigrade Classroom

 Joyce, B.R., & Weil, M. (1986). Models of teaching. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

This book reviews the most common models of teaching, including

detailed examples and strategies for implementing each model. Examples
of models included are inquiry, concept attainment, inductive thinking,
group investigation, and so forth.

Available from: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

200 Old Tappan Road
Old Tappan, NJ 07675

Kagan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan

Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.
This book provides a detailed guide for implementing the structural
approach to cooperative learning. It includes a guide to resources in
cooperative learning and an overview of cooperative learning research.
There is a wealth of concrete strategies teachers can use.

Available from: Resources for Teachers

27134 Paseo Espada #202
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

Katz, L.G. (1995). The benefits of mixed-age grouping [ERIC digest].

Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early
Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 382 411)
This report addresses issues relating to small school organization. Sections
regarding the teaching of reading, mathematics, social studies, science,
physical education, language arts, and art are presented. Aspects such as
objectives, content, methodologies, organizing time and space, and
resources are also discussed.

Available from: ERIC

3900 Wheeler Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22304-6409

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 67

 Katz, L.G. (1996). Addressing the potential risks of mixed-age group-
ing. MAGnet Newsletter on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and
Elementary Settings, 5(1). Retrieved September 27, 2000, from the
World Wide Web: www.ericeece.org/pubs/mag/magfal96.html#c
Every method of grouping children has risks. One concern with mixed-age
grouping is ensuring that younger children are not overwhelmed by older
or more competent ones. This book discusses the roles and responsibilities
teachers have in maximizing the potential benefits of the age mixture by
encouraging children to turn to each other for explanations, directions,
and comfort. Teachers are also encouraged to let older children read stories
to younger ones, and to listen to younger students read.

Available from: ERIC

3900 Wheeler Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22304-6409

Oldfield, M.J. (1963). Tell and draw stories. Minneapolis, MN: Creative
Storytime Press.
This book was recommended by Joel Anderson, a multigrade teacher from
Onion Creek School in northeast Washington. Anderson says this is an
excellent resource for writing activities.

Available from: Creative Storytime Press

PO Box 572
Minneapolis, MN 55454

Slavin, R.E. (1986). Using student team learning (3rd ed.). Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary
and Middle Schools.
This teacher’s manual describes a set of practical instructional techniques
that involve students in cooperative activities built around the learning of
school subjects. These are techniques developed and researched at Johns
Hopkins University, plus related methods developed elsewhere.

Available from: The Johns Hopkins Team Learning Project

Center for Research on Elementary and
Middle Schools
Johns Hopkins University
3505 North Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218

68 The Multigrade Classroom

 Stone, S.J., & Christie, J.F. (1996). Collaborative literacy: Learning
during sociodramatic play in a multiage (K–12) primary classroom.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10(2), 123–133.
This article reviews collaborative grouping strategies, outlining characteris-
tics of a collaborative classroom, teacher’s roles, and challenges and
conflicts within collaborative classrooms. It provides specific information
on how to develop collaborative partnerships in the classroom.

Vail, N.J., & Papenfuss, J.F. (1982). Daily oral language. Racine, WI:
D.O.L.
Daily Oral Language is recommended by numerous multigrade teachers. It
is a booklet of sentences that need to be edited and rewritten. The teachers
who recommended it said they used them as a daily “sponge” or warm-up
activity before lessons began.

Available from: D.O.L. Publications

1001 Kingston Avenue
Racine, WI 53402

Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (1993). Enhancing success in heterogeneous

classrooms and schools: The powers of partnership. In D. Summer
(Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America’s schools. The
multiage resource book (pp. 51–61). Peterborough, NH: Society for
Developmental Education.
The authors present the underlying concepts regarding cooperative learn-
ing. Steps for implementing cooperation in your classroom and the
research supporting it are also presented.

Available from: Society for Developmental Education

125 N. West Street
Peterborough, NH 63452

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping 69

 THE MULTIGRADE CLASSROOM:
A RESOURCE HANDBOOK FOR SMALL,
RURAL SCHOOLS
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning

November 1999
Rural Education Program

Based on the September 1989 publication

of the same title written by Bruce A. Miller

Susan Vincent, Editor

Joyce Ley, Director

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97204
Acknowledgments

The following selections have been reprinted with permission:

Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous class-
room (pp. 207–209). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Emmer, E.T. (1987). Classroom management and discipline. In V.
Richardson-Koehler & D.C. Berliner (Eds.), Educators’ handbook:
A research perspective (pp. 233-258). White Plains, NY: Longman.
(Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Evertson, C.M., Emmer, E.T., Clements, B.S., Sanford, J.P., & Williams, E.
(1981). Organizing and managing the elementary school classroom. Austin,
TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education. (Reprinted with permission of Carolyn Evertson, Peabody
College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.)
Gaustad, J. (1994). Nongraded education: Overcoming obstacles to imple-
menting the multigrade classroom [Special issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 38(3
& 4). (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Gibbons, M., & Phillips, G. (1978). Helping students through the self-
education crisis. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(4), 296–300. (Reprinted with
permission of publisher.)
Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. (Reprinted with permission
of publisher.)
Karweit, N. (1987). Diversity, equity, and classroom processes. In M.T.
Hallinan (Ed.), Social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of the
learning process (pp. 71–102). New York, NY: Plenum Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Kentucky Department of Education. (1996). Nearly all Kentucky schools show
improvement in latest KIRIS scores, but middle schools lag behind [Press
release]. Frankfort, KY: Author. (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Murphy, J., Weil, M., & McGreal, T. (1986). The basic practice model of
instruction. Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 83–96. (Reprinted with
permission of the University of Chicago Press.)
Oregon Department of Education, & Ackerman Laboratory School. (1994).
Mixed-age programs, 1993–94. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Education. (Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Pavan, B.N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational
Leadership, 50(2), 22–25. (Reprinted with permission of author.)

ii The Multigrade Classroom

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elemen-
tary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 293–336. (Reprinted with permission of the American
Educational Research Association.)
Slavin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and
secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67–77. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1989). What works for students at risk:
A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4–13. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Thomas, J.W., Strage, A., & Curley, R. (1988). Improving students’ self-
directed learning: Issues and guidelines. Elementary School Journal, 88(3),
313–326. (Reprinted with permission of the University of Chicago.)

iii
Overview

Preface
The preface describes the process used in developing this handbook,
including the multigrade teachers who shared their classroom strategies
and ideas for improving the usefulness of the handbook.
Introduction
The history of multigrade classroom instruction is presented, along
with the background information that describes why multigrade
instruction is an important and complex issue for educators.
Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
In this book, the research on multigrade instruction is reviewed
in order to answer two questions: (1) What effect does multigrade
instruction have on student performance? and (2) What kind of train-
ing is needed in order to teach in a multigrade classroom? Detailed
information focusing on organizing and teaching in a multigrade class-
room is also presented.
Book 2: Classroom Organization
This book describes strategies for arranging and organizing instruc-
tional resources and the physical environment of the classroom. Sample
classroom layouts and a “design kit” for organizing your classroom are
also included.
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Establishing clear expectations for student behavior and predictable
classroom routines has been shown to improve student performance.
In this book, research relating to classroom management and discipline
are presented, along with a checklist for planning management routines
and discipline procedures.
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Research-based guidelines for planning, developing, and implementing
instructional strategies are presented. This book emphasizes the devel-
opment of cooperative work norms in the multigrade classroom and
explains how to match instruction to the needs of students. An overview
of curriculum and evaluation planning concepts is also provided. This
book is a close companion piece with book 5: Instructional Delivery
and Grouping.

iv The Multigrade Classroom

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
This book emphasizes that instructional quality and student grouping
are key components for success in the multigrade classroom.
Instructional methods such as recitation, discussion, and cooperative
learning are reviewed. Planning guides and examples are also included
where appropriate. Strategies for organizing group learning activities
across and within grade levels, especially those that develop interde-
pendence and cooperation among students, are discussed.
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Developing skills and strategies in students that allow for a high level
of independence and efficiency in learning, either individually or in
combination with other students, is essential in the multigrade class-
room. Ideas for developing self-direction are presented in this book.
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring
This book provides guidelines for developing skills and routines whereby
students serve as “teachers” to other students within and across differ-
ing grade levels. The research on what makes for effective tutoring in
the classroom is also reviewed.

v
Preface

he development of this handbook began in 1987, when a group

T of people involved in rural education raised several issues regarding

multigrade classroom instruction.
In their discussions, members of the advisory committee for the
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s (NWREL) Rural Education
Program agreed that multigrade teacher training in their respective states
was either lacking or wholly inadequate. They also were concerned about
the availability of research and training materials to help rural multigrade
teachers improve their skills.
As a result of these concerns, the Rural Education Program decided to
develop a handbook to assist the multigrade teacher. The handbook evolved
in several stages. The first was a comprehensive review, conducted by Dr.
Bruce Miller, of the research on multigrade instruction that included articles,
books, and research reports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and
other countries.
From this review, six topic areas emerged that are considered essential for
effective multigrade instruction: classroom organization; classroom manage-
ment and discipline; instructional organization, curriculum, and evaluation;
instructional delivery and grouping; self-directed learning; and planning and
using peer tutoring. Dr. Miller developed the handbook around these six
instructional areas, and a draft was completed in June 1989, with support
from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).
The second stage occurred in July 1989, when a conference was held in
Ashland, Oregon, with multigrade teachers who were recommended by educa-
tional leaders from throughout the Northwest and Pacific Island regions.
During the conference, participants were organized into workgroups,
each focusing on one of the topic areas. Their tasks were to review the
appropriate handbook chapter for clarity and content, to suggest alternative
and/or additional instructional strategies to those presented in the handbook,
and to write case descriptions of activities drawn from their classrooms.
For example, Joel Anderson from Onion Creek Elementary in Colville,
Washington, described how he grouped students for cooperative learning.
Darci Shane from Vida, Montana, presented a school handbook she had
developed for parents that included a class schedule and other school-related
information. (A full list of participants appears at the end of this preface.)
The final handbook was completed by Dr. Miller in September 1989.
Based on the growing interest and research on multigrade instruction
the handbook was revised and updated in 1999, also with support from
OERI. The final version, completed with support from the Institute of
International Education (IIE), is now composed of a series of seven stand-
alone books.

vi The Multigrade Classroom

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
Book 2: Classroom Organization
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring

Purpose and Scope of the Handbook

he handbook has been written to serve three general purposes:

T l To provide an overview of current research on multigrade

instruction
l To identify key issues teachers face when teaching in a multi-
grade setting
l To provide a set of resource guides to assist novice and
experienced multigrade teachers in improving the quality
of instruction
However, because of the complexity of multigrade instruction and the
vast amount of research on effective classroom instruction, this handbook
can only serve as a starting point for those educators wanting to learn new
skills or refine those they already possess.
Each book of the series presents information, strategies, and resources
considered important for the multigrade teacher. While all the books are
related, they also can stand alone as separate documents. For example, the
books on Classroom Organization (Book 2) and Classroom Management
and Discipline (Book 3) contain overlapping information. Ideally, these
two books are best utilized together. The same is true of the books on
Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation (Book 4) and
Instructional Delivery and Grouping (Book 5). Wherever possible, these
relationships have been noted in the appropriate books.
In conclusion, the series of books has been designed to be used as
a research-based resource guide for the multigrade teacher. It covers the
most important issues the multigrade teacher must address to be effective
in meeting the needs of students. Sample schedules, classroom layouts,
resource lists, and strategies aimed at improving instruction have been used
throughout. It is our hope that the handbook will raise questions, provide
answers, and direct the multigrade teacher to resources where answers to
other questions can be found.

vii
Participants in the Multigrade Conference

Kalistus Ngirturong Barbara Robinson

Aimeliik Elementary Arbon Elementary School
Babeldaob Island Arbon, Idaho
Republic of Palau
Monte Phoenix and Karrie
Robin Lovec Phoenix
Springdale School Orovada, Nevada
Springdale, Montana
Joel Anderson
Anthony Moorow Onion Creek Elementary
Yap Department of Education Colville, Washington
Colonia, Yap
Marty Karlin
Cheryl Mikolajcvyk Trinity Center School
Kaumakakai, Hawaii Trinity Center, California

Leslie Gordon Troy Smith

Pitkas Point School Dixie Elementary School
St. Mary’s, Alaska Dixie, Washington

James Makphie Jill Bills

Majuro, Marshall Islands Sanders Elementary School
Sanders, Arizona
Edith Nicholas
Andrew K. Demoski School Darci Shane
Nulato, Alaska Southview School
Vida, Montana
Benjamin Bernard
Majuro, Marshall Islands Eileene Armstrong
Melrose Elementary
Linda Pelroy Melrose, Montana
W.W. Jones Elementary
Arock, Oregon Pam Cunningham
Sand Springs Elementary
John Rusyniak Sand Springs, Montana
Mentasta Lake School
Mentasta Lake, Alaska Jennifer McAllister
Deerfield Elementary
Patricia Reck Lewistown, Montana
Brothers School
Brothers, Oregon Kimberly Rindal
Ayers Elementary
Bill Radtke Grass Range, Montana
English Bay School
English Bay, Alaska Sammy Vickers
Grant Elementary
Phil M. Gillies Dillon, Montana
Stone Elementary
Malad, Idaho Brian Wolter
Avon Elementary
Carol Spackman Avon, Montana
Park Valley School
Park Valley, Utah

viii The Multigrade Classroom

 Introduction

n contrast to a historical pattern of children developing within an age-

I varied social system, many children today spend a majority of their

time in an age-segregated milieu (Katz, Evangelou, & Hartman, 1990;
McClellan, 1994). The results of this pattern of segregation are thought to
contribute to a declining social support system and compromised develop-
ment of children’s social and academic skills.
Coleman (1987) suggests the need for a significant institutional and
societal response to support functions traditionally filled by the family, such
as the development of feelings of belonging and community, emotional and
social bonding, and nurturance. Increasingly, the school has been viewed as
one of the most effective and efficient contexts to address children’s academic,
affective, and social needs before these needs reach crisis proportions.
A growing body of research explores the influence of educational
contexts on children’s development. While interest has focused on the
impact of the classroom environment on children’s attitudes toward school,
cognitive growth, and academic development, less direct attention has been
given to the relationship between classroom context (including the structure
and content of children’s peer relationships) and academic and social devel-
opment during the elementary years. One approach explored by theoreti-
cians and researchers for encouraging children’s academic and social skill
development is multigrade instruction.
In multigrade instruction, children of at least a two-year grade span
and diverse ability levels are grouped in a single classroom and are encour-
aged to share experiences involving intellectual, academic, and social skills
(Goodlad & Anderson, 1987; Katz et al., 1990; McClellan & Kinsey,
1996). Consistency over time in relationships among teachers, children,
and parents is viewed as one of the most significant strengths of the multi-
grade approach because it encourages greater depth in children’s social,
academic, and intellectual development. The concept of the classroom as a
“family” is encouraged, leading to expansion of the roles of nurturing and
commitment on the part of both students and teacher (Feng, 1994;
Hallion, 1994; Marshak, 1994).
The potential academic and social implications of the multigrade
concept of education are strongly supported by extensive research demon-
strating the importance of peers in children’s academic and social develop-
ment, and by studies of reciprocity theory, which demonstrate the positive
effect on child academic and social behavior of sustained close relationships
between children and caregivers (Kinsey, 1998; Maccoby, 1992).
The adequate implementation of a multigrade approach to education
extends beyond simply mixing children of different grades together. A
positive working model of a multigrade classroom allows for the develop-
ment of academic and social skills as the teacher encourages cross-age inter-
actions through tutoring and shared discovery. Social competence develops

ix
 for older children out of their roles as teachers and nurturers, and for
younger children out of their opportunity to observe and model the behav-
ior of their older classmates (Katz et al., 1990; Ridgway & Lawton, 1969).
The multigrade classroom has traditionally been an important and
necessary organizational pattern of education in the United States, notes
Miller (1993). Multigrade education dates back to the one-room schools
that were the norm in this country until they were phased out in the early
part of the 1900s (Cohen, 1989; Miller, 1993). From the mid-1960s
through mid-1970s, a number of schools implemented open education,
ungraded classrooms, and multigrade groupings. Although some schools
continued to refine and develop the multigrade concept, many of these
programs disappeared from public schools. With the beginning of the
industrial revolution and large-scale urban growth, the ideal of mass public
education took root and the practice of graded schools began in earnest.
The graded school system provided a means of organizing and classify-
ing the increased number of urban students of the 1900s. Educators found
it easier to manage students by organizing them into age divisions or grades.
Other factors, such as the advent of the graded textbook, state-supported
education, and the demand for trained teachers, further solidified graded
school organization (Miller, 1993; Uphoff & Evans, 1993). Critics of the
graded school were quick to emphasize this deficiency. The realization that
children’s uneven developmental patterns and differing rates of progress are
ill-matched to the rigid grade-level system has resulted in a growing interest
in and study of the potential benefits of multigrade education in recent years
(Miller, 1996). This growing interest is due to a greater focus on the impor-
tance of the early years in efforts to restructure the educational system
(Anderson, 1993; Cohen, 1989; Stone, S.J., 1995; Willis, 1991) and
an awareness of the limitations of graded education.
The multigrade classroom is labor intensive and requires more planning,
collaboration, and professional development than the conventional graded
classroom (Cushman, 1993; Gaustad, 1992; Miller, 1996). Sufficient
planning time must be available to meet the needs of both teacher and
students. Insufficient planning, staff development, materials, support, and
assessment procedures will have an impact on the success of the multigrade
program (Fox, 1997; Miller, 1996; Nye, 1993).
Despite these constraints, there are special advantages to multigrade
classrooms. Flexible schedules can be implemented and unique programs
developed to meet students’ individual and group interests and needs.
Combined classrooms also offer ample opportunity for students to become
resourceful and independent learners. The multigrade rural classroom is
usually less formal than the single-grade urban or suburban classroom.
Because of the small class size, friendly relationships based on understand-
ing and respect develop naturally between the students and the teacher. In

x The Multigrade Classroom

this setting, students become well-known by their teacher and a family
atmosphere often develops.
However, many teachers, administrators, and parents continue to
wonder whether multigrade organization has negative effects on student
performance. For most rural educators, multigrade instruction is not an
experiment or a new educational trend, but a forceful reality based on
economic and geographic necessity. In a society where educational environ-
ments are dominated by graded organization, the decision to combine grades
is often quite difficult. The Rural Education Program of the Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory receives numerous requests from rural
educators with two overriding concerns regarding multigrade classrooms:
l What effect does multigrade instruction have on student
performance?
l What kind of preparation or training is needed to be an effec-
tive teacher in a multigrade classroom?
This handbook will provide answers to these questions and develop
an overview of key issues facing school districts and teachers involved in
or contemplating multigrade classrooms.

xi
 Contents

What Is Self-Directed Learning? ................................................................1

Conditions That Promote Self-Directed Learning ........................................2
Issues and Concerns ..........................................................................3
Self-Directed Learning Behaviors ..............................................................4
Student Benefits ................................................................................7
Implications for Classrooms ......................................................................8
Activities for Developing Self-Direction ..................................................10
Conclusion ............................................................................................12
References ............................................................................................13
Resources ..............................................................................................16

xiii
 What Is Self-Directed Learning?

he challenge for the multigrade teacher is to meet the individual needs

T of students in a classroom setting characterized by multiple levels of

ability, achievement, and social and physical development. Although
regular, single-grade classrooms also have diverse student levels, differences
found in the multigrade classroom lead to increased demands on teacher
time and effort. Multigrade teachers, therefore, must be well-organized,
resourceful, and able to develop self-direction in students.
A touchstone of effective learning is that students are in charge of their
own learning; essentially, they direct their own learning processes. In a
discussion of indicators of engaged, effective learning, Jones, Valdez,
Nowakowski, and Rasmussen (1995) describe characteristics of students
who are responsible for their own learning. One characteristic is a student’s
ability to shape and manage change, in other words, to be self-directed.
Covey (1989) recognizes the importance of self-directedness, which he calls
proactivity, by including it as one of the habits characterizing highly effec-
tive individuals:

It means more than merely taking initiative. It means that as human beings, we are
responsible for our own lives. Our behavior is a function of our decisions, not our conditions.
We can subordinate feelings to values. We have the initiative and the responsibility to
make things happen (p. 71).

Educators can nurture student self-direction and personal efficacy by

providing students with opportunities before, during, and after instruction
to exercise some control over their own learning. This does not mean
students make all the decisions, and it does not mean reverting to the
curriculum of “personal relevance” of the ’60s or the “child-centered
curriculum” of years ago. An emphasis on student self-direction and
efficacy means that students are taught and engaged in specific strategies
that offer them opportunities to make decisions and solve problems on
their own without being told what to do at all times. It means providing
students with strategies designed to help them process information effec-
tively and be self-confident, believing that they have the ability to succeed.
And perhaps most important, we help students become more reflective
about their thinking and learning processes.
Specific strategies include encouraging students to set their own goals
for personal development and instructional improvement, and planning
ways to achieve these goals. According to Hom and Murphy (1983):

A growing body of research indicates that when students are working on goals they themselves
have set, they are more motivated and efficient, and they achieve more than they do when
working on goals that have been set by the teacher (p. 104).

Book 6: Self-Directed Learning 1

Conditions That Promote
Self-Directed Learning

hat kind of environments have been found to be conducive to the

W development of self-directed learners? Knowles (1975) clarifies the

distinction between traditional, teacher-directed learning environ-
ments and those reflecting an emphasis on self-direction. Table 1 provides
an overview of Knowles’ findings, indicating the underlying assumptions
about the learner and their implications for the learning environment.

TABLE 1. Assumptions Regarding Teacher-Directed Versus Self-Directed

Learning Environments

Assumptions About the Learner Teacher-Directed Environment Self-Directed Environment

View of the learner Dependent Independent
Role of the learner’s Starting point, but Rich resource, essential
experience not essential for learning
Learning readiness Varies by maturity level Develops by tasks and
problems
Learner orientation Subject- or content-centered Task- or problem-centered
Learner motivation External rewards or Intrinsic, curiosity-based
punishments

(Knowles, 1975, p. 60)

As Table 1 emphasizes, incorporating self-directed learning into any

classroom requires more than just shifting to a different instructional
approach. Self-directed learning demands a fresh look at assumptions
about the learner, learning, self-motivation, and the classroom environment.
Despite the apparent value of fostering self-directed learning activities in
any classroom, research on the appropriate methodology for achieving it
is sketchy, but growing rapidly.

2 The Multigrade Classroom

 Issues and Concerns
homas, Strage, and Curley (1988) examine five challenges related to

T self-directed learning:

1. Much is still to be learned about the spontaneous development of

self-directed or autonomous learning behaviors. Research hasn’t
shown, for example, why certain children are more likely to be
successful independent learners than others.
2. What is known about self-directed learning gathered primarily from
laboratory observations suggests that classroom applications can be
powerful, but implementation will be challenging. Developmental
research on learning indicates that independent, self-directed learning
activities are closely tied to physical maturity.
3. Teacher-directed learning has a well-developed repertoire of instruc-
tional strategies and techniques. Self-directed learning has no compa-
rable collection of proven practices.
4. Teachers may have a great deal of difficulty learning how to share
control of instruction with students. Teachers are taught to make
the decisions in the classroom, and helping students make their own
decisions will conflict with some teachers’ learned experiences as well
as their feelings about being in charge. The reorientation toward a
student-owned classroom requires not only a cognitive reorientation
but an affective one, as well. For some teachers this is a most difficult
challenge.
5. Similarly, students who are used to relying on teachers to give them
structure, direction, and information will have to learn to start asking
themselves, “What can I do before I ask an adult?”
Self-directed learning activities are of primary concern to those multi-
grade instructors who have prized self-directed learners and have recognized
the importance of encouraging their development. It could be argued that
one of the highest concerns of education in general is the creation and
nurturing of self-directed learners. An adult who has not incorporated
the skills of independent, self-directed learning will go through life with
a tremendous handicap.
Although research on self-directed learning is still in the formative stage,
guidelines for the development of classroom activities that allow and encour-
age autonomous learning are emerging. Since many students do grow into
independent learners, it is obvious that some current classroom practices do
encourage independent learning. An excellent starting point for developing
self-directed learning is to observe student behaviors.

Book 6: Self-Directed Learning 3

Self-Directed Learning Behaviors

elf-directed learning behaviors can be classified into two broad categories:

S cognitive and behavioral. Behavioral activities, or self-management

activities, include motivation and volition (will or determination), time
management, and maintaining effort. Cognitive activities include mental
processes that select, elaborate, organize, monitor, or otherwise process
information.
Table 2 presents self-directed learning categories related to student self-
management.

TABLE 2. Classes of Self-Directed Learning: Self-Directed

Management Activities

Category Example Activities

Time Management Recognizing time requirements

Keeping track of elapsed time
Scheduling sufficient time
Distributing time according to tasks

Effort Management Establishing a productive study environment

Setting learning and achievement goals
Initiating effort
Finding materials
Maintaining attention

Motivation or Volition Monitoring attention

Assessing strength and weaknesses of study habits
Tracking time- and effort-management activities

(adapted from Jones, et al., 1995)

4 The Multigrade Classroom

 In the multigrade classroom, self-management activities tend to be of
first concern to the teacher. Students who can manage their time, follow
schedules, find needed resources, and stay on task until assignments are
completed facilitate the teacher’s ability to manage the diverse levels found
in the classroom. Successful multigrade teachers create environments that
encourage these skills.
Phil Gillies, a fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade teacher from southern
Idaho, points out that once students develop the work habits necessary for
his classroom, they quickly teach them to younger students. “It was inter-
esting that during the third year as a multigrade teacher, I noticed that those
students I had for two years would say to the new fifth-graders, ‘This is what
you have to do, this is the way we handle the class.’” A process of socializa-
tion occurred in Gillies’ classroom where younger students learned from
older ones what the teacher expected in terms of classroom routines.
Table 3 presents cognitive categories associated with self-direction,
along with example activities for each category. Unfortunately, these skills
are seldom explicitly taught. This is due to a lack of knowledge on the part
of practitioners about how best to teach them and to the failure of instruc-
tional materials to provide direction and activities (Jones, et al., 1995).

Book 6: Self-Directed Learning 5

TABLE 3. Classes of Self-Directed Learning: Cognitive Activities

Category Example Activities

Selection Finding essential information and

rejecting nonessential information
Taking notes
Highlighting main ideas

Comprehension Previewing material

Using context clues
Consulting resources and references

Memory Enhancers Reviewing material

Mnemonic tests
Self-tests
Devising appropriate study strategies

Elaboration Self-questioning
Imagery
Metaphors and analogies

Integration Paraphrasing material

Relational aids (charts, timelines)
Using multiple but related sources
Tapping prior knowledge
Answers that extend beyond requirements

Monitoring Recognizing what hasn’t been mastered

Awareness of personal strengths and weaknesses

(adapted from Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, & Rasmussen, 1995)

6 The Multigrade Classroom

 Student Benefits
reating and maintaining a classroom atmosphere conducive to self-

C directed learning benefits both students and teachers. A self-directed

student or, in simpler terms, a “good” student, enjoys significant advan-
tages over students who are deficient in self-direction. Classrooms with self-
directed students provide superb role models for weaker or younger students
to emulate. This is why multigrade teachers tend to devote the greatest
amount of time to younger students who have not developed self-directed
skills. Therefore, by enhancing students’ self-direction, multigrade teachers
can devote a larger percentage of time to students with the greatest need. In
other words, self-directed learners allow the teacher to work intensively with
small groups or individuals who need additional support.
As the multigrade teacher emphasizes self-directed learning, a more
efficient learning environment is created. One of the benefits of increased
self-directed behavior is the accompanying increase in the amount of academic
learning time. Academic learning time (ALT) is directly related to student
achievement; that is, more academic learning time leads to higher student
achievement.
Encouraging students to have greater control over their learning improves
their feelings of personal effectiveness and increases their motivation to
learn. This bolstered sense of self-control should improve the likelihood
of success in subsequent educational experiences. As the academic demands
placed on students grow, so does the need for an assumption of personal
responsibility for learning.

Book 6: Self-Directed Learning 7

Implications for Classrooms

iven that self-directed learning skills and behaviors are of considerable

G benefit to both students and teachers, what can teachers do to aid their
development? Can assignments and activities be structured so that
students gradually acquire the skills necessary to work independently? What
instructional approaches best augment self-directed skill acquisition?
Before proceeding with general guidelines and suggestions for increasing
the likelihood of self-directed student behaviors, the issue of student maturity
and development must be briefly explored. Teacher expectations for student
competence can be set too high or too low, with equally negative effects.
Students who are overwhelmed by the complexity of an academic task will
protect themselves by opting out of it in the initial stages. Students who are
insufficiently challenged, or who face repetitive tasks with little relevance to
their skill levels, may become bored, disengage themselves from the activity,
or perform half-heartedly. Careful consideration must be given, then, to the
age, maturity, and competence of the student(s) before designing or initiating
self-directed learning activities. Thomas et al. (1988) identify four general
components of instructional activities that enhance self-directed learning:
1. Appropriate academic demands
2. Adequate instructional supports
3. Opportunities to learn and practice effective self-directed learning
activities
4. Appropriate classroom goal structure
Academic demands should be structured so they are challenging but not
frustrating. Expectations should be explicit and specific. That is, they should
build on skills already mastered, yet force or encourage the learner to attempt
new, more advanced skills. An academic task that places limited or no demands
on a student will not reinforce self-directed learning strategies.
Instructional supports are activities or materials that provide feedback
and progress checks or otherwise guide the student toward an academic
goal. These supports should not replace the self-directed learning activities
of the student, but rather should be a framework for the student’s own
efforts. For example, presenting the student with a list of main ideas from
a chapter is not supportive, but presenting the student with the characteris-
tics of a main idea is. Students will, in the latter case, discover the main
ideas on their own and strengthen their cognitive abilities.
The more opportunities provided to students for practicing self-directed
learning, the more likely they are to acquire self-directed learning skills. It is
best, therefore, that the classroom climate emphasize self-directed learning.
This means that students will come to expect that they will monitor their
own progress, be aware of their own skill levels, and be able to identify and
gather the resources required to complete progressively more challenging
academic tasks.

8 The Multigrade Classroom

 Of special interest to multigrade classroom teachers is the emphasis that
self-directed learning places on eliminating the competitive climate from a
classroom and replacing it with a cooperative atmosphere. Self-directed
students must operate in an environment where learning is viewed as a
benefit and a necessity for all, instead of a reward for the talented.
Table 4 displays general conditions for optimizing self-directed learning
activities:

TABLE 4. Conditions That Encourage Self-Directed

Learning and Student Motivation
l Rewards that are contingent on specific outcomes
l Goals and a reward system that are public knowledge
l Feedback that is frequent, immediate, and contingent
on performance
l An individualistic, noncompetitive environment
l Evaluation based on specific, objective criteria
l Evaluation that is private, not public
l Rewards dispensed for effort, not just ability
l Autonomy, including the opportunity for self-scheduling
and reinforcement
l Attribution of success to effort, not natural ability

Multigrade classrooms should be at the forefront of future developments

in self-directed learning activities, methods, and assessments. Multigrade
classrooms, in fact, will be a source for many of the promising practices
identified in this area. It is important to note that all of the four components
of self-directed learning activities—appropriate demands, instructional
supports, adequate opportunity, and appropriate goal structures—must be
in place before self-directed learning will prosper. Demands without support,
or excess support without concomitant demands, will not succeed.

Book 6: Self-Directed Learning 9

Activities for Developing Self-Direction

hat are some specific activities that multigrade teachers can do to

W foster self-direction? Thuy-Kim (n.d.) describes a series of activities

to help students make the transition from teacher-directed learning
to self-directed learning. Although many of these activities were designed
for high school students, they can be easily applied to other levels of
schooling. Table 5 presents activities designed for the teacher, and Table 6
presents those designed for students. In both tables, the activities in the left
column are those that should occur first. As one moves to the right column,
the requirements for student self-direction increase. This means, for example,
that the last activity in Table 6 assumes that the student has a high level of
self-direction.

TABLE 5. Teacher Learning Activities for Fostering

Self-Direction in Students

Help students visualize the experience of self- Establish one-to-one conferences to discuss the
direction. Model self-direction. individual’s learning behavior and progress.
Teach students to value self-directed learning by Clarify the teacher and student roles in a self-
communicating how valuable it is to the teacher. directed learning environment.
Help each student create a self-fulfilling prophecy Provide students with opportunities to be self-
of success as a self-directed learner. During inter- directed and provide support when they need it.
views, conversations, planning sessions, and However, do not “rescue” them.
progress reviews, reinforce growth in self-
direction.
Organize a process such as contracting to struc- Model respect for self-directed learning and
ture time and effort. Set expectations and limits. encourage respect among the students.
Help students explore alternative activities.
Teach the new skills students require, such as Secure written commitment in a detailed learning
goal setting, time management, and locating contract and public commitment in peer groups.
information.
Make opportunities for students to demonstrate Establish work groups where students learn to
their accomplishments. Reward them for their complete tasks and projects cooperatively and
efforts. with minimal teacher supervision.
Model honesty and risk-taking. Reaffirm the value
of challenge, struggle, and personal growth.

(adapted from Thuy-Kim, [n.d.])

10 The Multigrade Classroom

 TABLE 6. Student Learning Activities for Fostering
Self-Direction in Students

Students compile a list of self-directed learners Students practice self-directed skills on new,
and then list their personal characteristics: ways challenging tasks.
of learning and skills common among them.
Produce a profile of the successful self-directed
learner.
Students set goals for how they would like to Peer groups discuss behavioral changes achieved
become more self-directed. List behaviors that and successes accomplished by each individual.
would show progress.
Students assess their progress toward meeting Students write contracts and practice skills. They
their goal. also explore alternative learning activities.
Use heterogeneous, small-group projects to allow Students gain reinforcement by tutoring peers
for modeling leadership in self-directed activities and presenting completed projects as evidence
by successful students. of success.
Students rate themselves on scales of time Students engage in projects where indepth
management, organization, accomplishment, mastery in one area is required.
and resource identification.

(adapted from Thuy-Kim [n.d.])

Book 6: Self-Directed Learning 11

Conclusion

elf-directive behaviors are vitally important in the multigrade classroom.

S Students who can work independently, set goals, manage their time,
and locate needed resources free the teacher to help students with the
most need. However, developing self-direction is difficult and requires a
learning environment different than the traditional, teacher-directed class-
room. Self-direction is best fostered in a classroom where the teacher
structures activities that develop such characteristics as independence, self-
management, and cooperation. Such environments are also characterized
by teacher expectations that reward risk-taking, personal goal-setting, and
task completion. Even though the development of conditions that nurture
self-directed learning may require extra effort and the rethinking of many
assumptions about the learner, the benefits for both the teacher and the
student are significant.

12 The Multigrade Classroom

 References

Anderson, R.H. (1993). The return of the nongraded classroom. Principal,

72(3), 9–12.
Cohen, D.L. (1989, December 6). First stirrings of a new trend: Multi-age
classrooms gain favor. Education Week, 9(14), 1, 13–14.
Coleman, J.S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16(6),
32–38.
Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the char-
acter ethic. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Cushman, K. (1993). The case for mixed-age grouping. Harvard, MA: Author.
Feng, J. (1994). Issues and trends in early childhood education. Unpublished
manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 841)
Fox, M. (1997, April). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the National Association of
Elementary School Principals Association, San Antonio, TX.
Gaustad, J. (1992). Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and
developmentally appropriate education for primary children [Special
issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 35(7).
Goodlad, J.I., & Anderson, R.H. (1987). The nongraded elementary school
(Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hallion, A.M. (1994, March). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association
of Elementary School Principals Association, Orlando, FL.
Hom, H., Jr., & Murphy, M. (1983). Low achiever’s performance: The
positive impact of a self-directed goal. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 11, 275–285.
Jones, B.F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging
in: Choosing and using educational technology. Washington, DC: Council
for Educational Development and Research, & Oak Brook, IL: North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved September 26,
2000, from the World Wide Web: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/edtalk/toc.htm
Katz, L., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J.A. (1990). The case for mixed-age
grouping in early education. Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Kinsey, S. (1998). Observations of student and teacher behaviors in the multi-
age classroom. Unpublished manuscript.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers.
Chicago, IL: Follett.

Book 6: Self-Directed Learning 13

 Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children:
An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006–1017.
Marshak, D. (1994, March). From teachers’ perspectives: The social and psycho-
logical benefits of multiage elementary classrooms. Paper presented at the
annual conference “Emerging Images of Learning: World Perspectives
for the New Millennium,” Chicago, IL.
McClellan, D., & Kinsey, S. (1996). Mixed-age grouping helps children
develop social skills and a sense of belonging. The MAGnet Newsletter
on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 5(1), 1–3.
Retrieved May 8, 2000 from the World Wide Web: www.ericeece.org/
pubs/mag/magfal96.html#a
McClellan, D.E. (1994). Multiage grouping: Implications for education.
In P. Chase & J. Doan (Eds.), Full circle: A new look at multiage educa-
tion (pp. 147–166). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Miller, B.A. (1993). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade
instruction. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of
America’s schools. The multiage resource book (pp. 65–83). Peterborough,
NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Miller, B.A. (1996). A basic understanding of multiage grouping. School
Administrator, 53(1), 12–17.
Nye, B. (1993). Some questions and answers about multiage grouping. ERS
Spectrum, 11(3), 38–45.
Ridgway, L., & Lawton, I. (1969). Family grouping in the primary school
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Stone, S.J. (1995). The primary multiage classroom: Changing schools for
children. Unpublished manuscript.
Thomas, J.W., Strage, A., & Curley, R. (1988). Improving students’ self-
directed learning: Issues and guidelines. Elementary School Journal, 88(3),
313–326.
Thuy-Kim, L.P. (n.d.). Self-directed language learning activities [Adapted
from A manual of self-directed language learning activities by Devon
Woods & Clare Myers]. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University,
Vietnamese Language Program. Retrieved October 10, 2000, from
the World Wide Web: www.public.asu.edu/~ickpl/LearningPlan.htm
Uphoff, J.K., & Evans, D.A. (1993). The country school comes to town:
A case study of multiage grouping and teaching. In D. Sumner (Ed.),
Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America’s schools. The multiage
resource book (pp. 36–38). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental
Education.

14 The Multigrade Classroom

Willis, S. (1991). Breaking down grade barriers: Interest on nongraded
classrooms on the raise. ASCD update, 33(3), 4.

Book 6: Self-Directed Learning 15

Resources

Blakey, E., & Spence, S. (1990). Developing metacognition [ERIC digest].

Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 327 218)
Available from: Eric Clearinghouse on Information Resources
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403

Costa, A.L. (1991). Developing minds. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.
This staff development program is designed to increase students’ true think-
ing time by helping teachers improve their classroom questioning techniques.
Asking more effective classroom questions can encourage all students to
think at higher cognitive levels and ask questions of their own that will
ultimately lead to improved learning.

Available from: Appalachia Educational Laboratory

PO Box 1348
Charleston, WV 25325

Della-Dora, D., & Blanchard, L. (Eds.). (1979). Moving toward self-

directed learning: Highlights of relevant research and of promising
practices. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
This book reviews the research on self-directed learning, provides practical
strategies, and presents background information useful to anyone working
to develop self-directed learning in students.

Available from: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development
225 North Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

McKisson, M. (1983). Chrysalis: Nurturing creative and independent

thought in children. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press Learning Materials.
Chrysalis consists of eight units designed to develop thinking, creativity,
appreciation of self and others, self-reliance, and abilities in independent
learning and research skills.

Available from: Zephyr Press Learning Materials

430 South Essex Lane
Tucson, AZ 85711

16 The Multigrade Classroom

 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1995). Critical issue:
Working toward student self-direction and personal efficacy as educational
goals. Oak Brook, IL: Author. Retrieved September 26, 2000, from
the World Wide Web: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/
learning/lr200.htm
This article describes characteristics of students who are responsible for
their own learning. One characteristic is a student’s ability to shape and
manage change, in other words, self-directed. Great emphasis is placed on
recognizing the importance of self-directedness, which is often referred to
as proactivity. The book encourages teachers to provide opportunities for
students to take initiative. Students should be/are responsible for their own
learning and lives.

Available from: Efficacy Institute

128 Spring Street
Lexington, MA 02173

Piskurich, G.M. (1993). Self-directed learning: A practical guide to design,

development, and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
You will learn how to develop self-directed learning packages that are
applicable in many situations, from basic industrial and technical skills
training to academic classroom training. This detailed but easy-to-use guide
shows you how to match training needs with organizational needs, deter-
mine tasks that must be learned to meet those needs, and develop objec-
tives and design materials that are in line with those needs.

Available from: Jossey-Bass

350 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94104

Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D.
(1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting
to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational
Psychologist, 27(1), 91–109.
This article explores strategies for encouraging self-directed learning.
Students learn more effectively when they already know something about a
content area and when concepts in that area mean something to them and
to their particular background or culture. When teachers link new informa-
tion to the student’s prior knowledge, they activate the student’s interest
and curiosity, and infuse instruction with a sense of purpose.

Available from: North Central Regional Educational

Laboratory
1120 East Diehl Road, Suite 200
Naperville, Illinois 60563-1486

Book 6: Self-Directed Learning 17

 THE MULTIGRADE CLASSROOM:
A RESOURCE HANDBOOK FOR SMALL,
RURAL SCHOOLS
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring

November 1999

Rural Education Program

Based on the September 1989 publication

of the same title written by Bruce A. Miller

Susan Vincent, Editor

Joyce Ley, Director

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97204
Acknowledgments

The following selections have been reprinted with permission:

Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous class-
room (pp. 207–209). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Emmer, E.T. (1987). Classroom management and discipline. In V.
Richardson-Koehler & D.C. Berliner (Eds.), Educators’ handbook:
A research perspective (pp. 233-258). White Plains, NY: Longman.
(Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Evertson, C.M., Emmer, E.T., Clements, B.S., Sanford, J.P., & Williams, E.
(1981). Organizing and managing the elementary school classroom. Austin,
TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education. (Reprinted with permission of Carolyn Evertson, Peabody
College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.)
Gaustad, J. (1994). Nongraded education: Overcoming obstacles to imple-
menting the multigrade classroom [Special issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 38(3
& 4). (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Gibbons, M., & Phillips, G. (1978). Helping students through the self-
education crisis. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(4), 296–300. (Reprinted with
permission of publisher.)
Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. (Reprinted with permission
of publisher.)
Karweit, N. (1987). Diversity, equity, and classroom processes. In M.T.
Hallinan (Ed.), Social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of the
learning process (pp. 71–102). New York, NY: Plenum Press. (Reprinted
with permission of publisher.)
Kentucky Department of Education. (1996). Nearly all Kentucky schools show
improvement in latest KIRIS scores, but middle schools lag behind [Press
release]. Frankfort, KY: Author. (Reprinted with permission of author.)
Murphy, J., Weil, M., & McGreal, T. (1986). The basic practice model of
instruction. Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 83–96. (Reprinted with
permission of the University of Chicago Press.)
Oregon Department of Education, & Ackerman Laboratory School. (1994).
Mixed-age programs, 1993–94. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Education. (Reprinted with permission of publisher.)
Pavan, B.N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational
Leadership, 50(2), 22–25. (Reprinted with permission of author.)

ii The Multigrade Classroom

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elemen-
tary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 293–336. (Reprinted with permission of the American
Educational Research Association.)
Slavin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and
secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67–77. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1989). What works for students at risk:
A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4–13. (Reprinted
with permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.)
Thomas, J.W., Strage, A., & Curley, R. (1988). Improving students’ self-
directed learning: Issues and guidelines. Elementary School Journal, 88(3),
313–326. (Reprinted with permission of the University of Chicago.)

iii
Overview

Preface
The preface describes the process used in developing this handbook,
including the multigrade teachers who shared their classroom strategies
and ideas for improving the usefulness of the handbook.
Introduction
The history of multigrade classroom instruction is presented, along
with the background information that describes why multigrade
instruction is an important and complex issue for educators.
Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
In this book, the research on multigrade instruction is reviewed
in order to answer two questions: (1) What effect does multigrade
instruction have on student performance? and (2) What kind of train-
ing is needed in order to teach in a multigrade classroom? Detailed
information focusing on organizing and teaching in a multigrade class-
room is also presented.
Book 2: Classroom Organization
This book describes strategies for arranging and organizing instruc-
tional resources and the physical environment of the classroom. Sample
classroom layouts and a “design kit” for organizing your classroom are
also included.
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Establishing clear expectations for student behavior and predictable
classroom routines has been shown to improve student performance.
In this book, research relating to classroom management and discipline
are presented, along with a checklist for planning management routines
and discipline procedures.
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Research-based guidelines for planning, developing, and implementing
instructional strategies are presented. This book emphasizes the devel-
opment of cooperative work norms in the multigrade classroom and
explains how to match instruction to the needs of students. An overview
of curriculum and evaluation planning concepts is also provided. This
book is a close companion piece with book 5: Instructional Delivery
and Grouping.

iv The Multigrade Classroom

Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
This book emphasizes that instructional quality and student grouping
are key components for success in the multigrade classroom.
Instructional methods such as recitation, discussion, and cooperative
learning are reviewed. Planning guides and examples are also included
where appropriate. Strategies for organizing group learning activities
across and within grade levels, especially those that develop interde-
pendence and cooperation among students, are discussed.
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Developing skills and strategies in students that allow for a high level
of independence and efficiency in learning, either individually or in
combination with other students, is essential in the multigrade class-
room. Ideas for developing self-direction are presented in this book.
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring
This book provides guidelines for developing skills and routines whereby
students serve as “teachers” to other students within and across differ-
ing grade levels. The research on what makes for effective tutoring in
the classroom is also reviewed.

v
Preface

he development of this handbook began in 1987, when a group

T of people involved in rural education raised several issues regarding

multigrade classroom instruction.
In their discussions, members of the advisory committee for the
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s (NWREL) Rural Education
Program agreed that multigrade teacher training in their respective states
was either lacking or wholly inadequate. They also were concerned about
the availability of research and training materials to help rural multigrade
teachers improve their skills.
As a result of these concerns, the Rural Education Program decided to
develop a handbook to assist the multigrade teacher. The handbook evolved
in several stages. The first was a comprehensive review, conducted by Dr.
Bruce Miller, of the research on multigrade instruction that included articles,
books, and research reports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and
other countries.
From this review, six topic areas emerged that are considered essential for
effective multigrade instruction: classroom organization; classroom manage-
ment and discipline; instructional organization, curriculum, and evaluation;
instructional delivery and grouping; self-directed learning; and planning and
using peer tutoring. Dr. Miller developed the handbook around these six
instructional areas, and a draft was completed in June 1989, with support
from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).
The second stage occurred in July 1989, when a conference was held in
Ashland, Oregon, with multigrade teachers who were recommended by educa-
tional leaders from throughout the Northwest and Pacific Island regions.
During the conference, participants were organized into workgroups,
each focusing on one of the topic areas. Their tasks were to review the
appropriate handbook chapter for clarity and content, to suggest alternative
and/or additional instructional strategies to those presented in the handbook,
and to write case descriptions of activities drawn from their classrooms.
For example, Joel Anderson from Onion Creek Elementary in Colville,
Washington, described how he grouped students for cooperative learning.
Darci Shane from Vida, Montana, presented a school handbook she had
developed for parents that included a class schedule and other school-related
information. (A full list of participants appears at the end of this preface.)
The final handbook was completed by Dr. Miller in September 1989.
Based on the growing interest and research on multigrade instruction
the handbook was revised and updated in 1999, also with support from
OERI. The final version, completed with support from the Institute of
International Education (IIE), is now composed of a series of seven stand-
alone books.

vi The Multigrade Classroom

Book 1: Review of the Research on Multigrade Instruction
Book 2: Classroom Organization
Book 3: Classroom Management and Discipline
Book 4: Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation
Book 5: Instructional Delivery and Grouping
Book 6: Self-Directed Learning
Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring

Purpose and Scope of the Handbook

he handbook has been written to serve three general purposes:

T l To provide an overview of current research on multigrade

instruction
l To identify key issues teachers face when teaching in a multi-
grade setting
l To provide a set of resource guides to assist novice and
experienced multigrade teachers in improving the quality
of instruction
However, because of the complexity of multigrade instruction and the
vast amount of research on effective classroom instruction, this handbook
can only serve as a starting point for those educators wanting to learn new
skills or refine those they already possess.
Each book of the series presents information, strategies, and resources
considered important for the multigrade teacher. While all the books are
related, they also can stand alone as separate documents. For example, the
books on Classroom Organization (Book 2) and Classroom Management
and Discipline (Book 3) contain overlapping information. Ideally, these
two books are best utilized together. The same is true of the books on
Instructional Organization, Curriculum, and Evaluation (Book 4) and
Instructional Delivery and Grouping (Book 5). Wherever possible, these
relationships have been noted in the appropriate books.
In conclusion, the series of books has been designed to be used as
a research-based resource guide for the multigrade teacher. It covers the
most important issues the multigrade teacher must address to be effective
in meeting the needs of students. Sample schedules, classroom layouts,
resource lists, and strategies aimed at improving instruction have been used
throughout. It is our hope that the handbook will raise questions, provide
answers, and direct the multigrade teacher to resources where answers to
other questions can be found.

vii
Participants in the Multigrade Conference

Kalistus Ngirturong Barbara Robinson

Aimeliik Elementary Arbon Elementary School
Babeldaob Island Arbon, Idaho
Republic of Palau
Monte Phoenix and Karrie
Robin Lovec Phoenix
Springdale School Orovada, Nevada
Springdale, Montana
Joel Anderson
Anthony Moorow Onion Creek Elementary
Yap Department of Education Colville, Washington
Colonia, Yap
Marty Karlin
Cheryl Mikolajcvyk Trinity Center School
Kaumakakai, Hawaii Trinity Center, California

Leslie Gordon Troy Smith

Pitkas Point School Dixie Elementary School
St. Mary’s, Alaska Dixie, Washington

James Makphie Jill Bills

Majuro, Marshall Islands Sanders Elementary School
Sanders, Arizona
Edith Nicholas
Andrew K. Demoski School Darci Shane
Nulato, Alaska Southview School
Vida, Montana
Benjamin Bernard
Majuro, Marshall Islands Eileene Armstrong
Melrose Elementary
Linda Pelroy Melrose, Montana
W.W. Jones Elementary
Arock, Oregon Pam Cunningham
Sand Springs Elementary
John Rusyniak Sand Springs, Montana
Mentasta Lake School
Mentasta Lake, Alaska Jennifer McAllister
Deerfield Elementary
Patricia Reck Lewistown, Montana
Brothers School
Brothers, Oregon Kimberly Rindal
Ayers Elementary
Bill Radtke Grass Range, Montana
English Bay School
English Bay, Alaska Sammy Vickers
Grant Elementary
Phil M. Gillies Dillon, Montana
Stone Elementary
Malad, Idaho Brian Wolter
Avon Elementary
Carol Spackman Avon, Montana
Park Valley School
Park Valley, Utah

viii The Multigrade Classroom

 Introduction

n contrast to a historical pattern of children developing within an age-

I varied social system, many children today spend a majority of their

time in an age-segregated milieu (Katz, Evangelou, & Hartman, 1990;
McClellan, 1994). The results of this pattern of segregation are thought to
contribute to a declining social support system and compromised develop-
ment of children’s social and academic skills.
Coleman (1987) suggests the need for a significant institutional and
societal response to support functions traditionally filled by the family, such
as the development of feelings of belonging and community, emotional and
social bonding, and nurturance. Increasingly, the school has been viewed as
one of the most effective and efficient contexts to address children’s academic,
affective, and social needs before these needs reach crisis proportions.
A growing body of research explores the influence of educational
contexts on children’s development. While interest has focused on the
impact of the classroom environment on children’s attitudes toward school,
cognitive growth, and academic development, less direct attention has been
given to the relationship between classroom context (including the structure
and content of children’s peer relationships) and academic and social devel-
opment during the elementary years. One approach explored by theoreti-
cians and researchers for encouraging children’s academic and social skill
development is multigrade instruction.
In multigrade instruction, children of at least a two-year grade span
and diverse ability levels are grouped in a single classroom and are encour-
aged to share experiences involving intellectual, academic, and social skills
(Goodlad & Anderson, 1987; Katz et al., 1990; McClellan & Kinsey,
1996). Consistency over time in relationships among teachers, children,
and parents is viewed as one of the most significant strengths of the multi-
grade approach because it encourages greater depth in children’s social,
academic, and intellectual development. The concept of the classroom as a
“family” is encouraged, leading to expansion of the roles of nurturing and
commitment on the part of both students and teacher (Feng, 1994;
Hallion, 1994; Marshak, 1994).
The potential academic and social implications of the multigrade
concept of education are strongly supported by extensive research demon-
strating the importance of peers in children’s academic and social develop-
ment, and by studies of reciprocity theory, which demonstrate the positive
effect on child academic and social behavior of sustained close relationships
between children and caregivers (Kinsey, 1998; Maccoby, 1992).
The adequate implementation of a multigrade approach to education
extends beyond simply mixing children of different grades together. A
positive working model of a multigrade classroom allows for the develop-
ment of academic and social skills as the teacher encourages cross-age inter-
actions through tutoring and shared discovery. Social competence develops

ix
 for older children out of their roles as teachers and nurturers, and for
younger children out of their opportunity to observe and model the behav-
ior of their older classmates (Katz et al., 1990; Ridgway & Lawton, 1969).
The multigrade classroom has traditionally been an important and
necessary organizational pattern of education in the United States, notes
Miller (1993). Multigrade education dates back to the one-room schools
that were the norm in this country until they were phased out in the early
part of the 1900s (Cohen, 1989; Miller, 1993). From the mid-1960s
through mid-1970s, a number of schools implemented open education,
ungraded classrooms, and multigrade groupings. Although some schools
continued to refine and develop the multigrade concept, many of these
programs disappeared from public schools. With the beginning of the
industrial revolution and large-scale urban growth, the ideal of mass public
education took root and the practice of graded schools began in earnest.
The graded school system provided a means of organizing and classify-
ing the increased number of urban students of the 1900s. Educators found
it easier to manage students by organizing them into age divisions or grades.
Other factors, such as the advent of the graded textbook, state-supported
education, and the demand for trained teachers, further solidified graded
school organization (Miller, 1993; Uphoff & Evans, 1993). Critics of the
graded school were quick to emphasize this deficiency. The realization that
children’s uneven developmental patterns and differing rates of progress are
ill-matched to the rigid grade-level system has resulted in a growing interest
in and study of the potential benefits of multigrade education in recent years
(Miller, 1996). This growing interest is due to a greater focus on the impor-
tance of the early years in efforts to restructure the educational system
(Anderson, 1993; Cohen, 1989; Stone, S.J., 1995; Willis, 1991) and
an awareness of the limitations of graded education.
The multigrade classroom is labor intensive and requires more planning,
collaboration, and professional development than the conventional graded
classroom (Cushman, 1993; Gaustad, 1992b; Miller, 1996). Sufficient
planning time must be available to meet the needs of both teacher and
students. Insufficient planning, staff development, materials, support, and
assessment procedures will have an impact on the success of the multigrade
program (Fox, 1997; Miller, 1996; Nye, 1993).
Despite these constraints, there are special advantages to multigrade
classrooms. Flexible schedules can be implemented and unique programs
developed to meet students’ individual and group interests and needs.
Combined classrooms also offer ample opportunity for students to become
resourceful and independent learners. The multigrade rural classroom is
usually less formal than the single-grade urban or suburban classroom.
Because of the small class size, friendly relationships based on understand-
ing and respect develop naturally between the students and the teacher. In

x The Multigrade Classroom

this setting, students become well-known by their teacher and a family
atmosphere often develops.
However, many teachers, administrators, and parents continue to
wonder whether multigrade organization has negative effects on student
performance. For most rural educators, multigrade instruction is not an
experiment or a new educational trend, but a forceful reality based on
economic and geographic necessity. In a society where educational environ-
ments are dominated by graded organization, the decision to combine grades
is often quite difficult. The Rural Education Program of the Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory receives numerous requests from rural
educators with two overriding concerns regarding multigrade classrooms:
l What effect does multigrade instruction have on student
performance?
l What kind of preparation or training is needed to be an effec-
tive teacher in a multigrade classroom?
This handbook will provide answers to these questions and develop
an overview of key issues facing school districts and teachers involved in
or contemplating multigrade classrooms.

xi
 Contents

What Is Peer Tutoring?..............................................................................1

Incidental Peer Tutoring ....................................................................1
Structured Tutoring ..........................................................................3
What Tutoring Conditions Produce the Greatest Success? ..........................4
What Makes Peer and Cross-Age Tutoring Effective?..................................5
How Do Student Tutors Benefit From Tutoring ............................................6
What Problems Are Commonly Encountered?..............................................7
What Elements Are Necessary for a Successful Program? ..........................8
Developing a Peer Tutoring Program in Your Classroom ..............................9
Setting Goals and Choosing Learning Objectives ..............................9
Deciding Who Will Be Involved in Tutoring ..................................10
Deciding Where Tutoring Will Take Place ......................................12
Scheduling the Tutoring Sessions ....................................................12
Deciding What Subjects Will Be Tutored ........................................13
Deciding on Tutoring Materials, Procedures, and Strategies ............14
Materials ..................................................................................14
Tutor training (Keep it brief) ....................................................14
Tutoring approaches and strategies............................................15
Monitoring/feedback ................................................................15
Evaluation ......................................................................................17
Conclusion ............................................................................................18
References ............................................................................................19
Resources ..............................................................................................22

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring xiii

 What Is Peer Tutoring?

utside of school, children learn from one another as a natural occur-

O rence in daily life. A child having difficulty baiting a fishhook, building

a birdhouse, baking a cake, or understanding model airplane directions
will often rely on a brother, sister, or friend for instruction, which usually
involves both demonstration and explanation. In such situations, peer
tutoring is taking place.
Peer tutoring is cooperation between two or more students, where
one individual imparts knowledge to the other(s). This can occur between
students of the same age or grade (same-age tutoring) or between students
of different ages or grades (cross-age tutoring). For example, when one
student helps another student to learn math facts, we can say peer tutoring
has taken place. This may be a sixth-grade student helping a first-grader or
two first-graders tutoring each other.
In the traditional single-grade classroom, peer tutoring may occur on
an incidental basis as when one student seeks help with a math problem from
his or her neighbor. In the multigrade classroom, this incidental tutoring is
an encouraged and necessary instructional activity. Research evidence specifi-
cally focusing on incidental tutoring in multigrade classrooms is nonexistent.
However, research on structured tutoring programs is abundant and over-
whelmingly positive. Therefore, greater emphasis will be placed on structured
tutoring. In addition, information collected from interviews and discussions
with multigrade teachers supports the belief that underlying successful
incidental tutoring are principles of effective instructional practice. This
book of the multigrade series will describe both incidental and structured
approaches to tutoring, paying special attention to those characteristics
deemed successful by teachers and researchers.

Incidental Peer Tutoring

n the multigrade classroom, peer tutoring provides the teacher with a

I powerful strategy for extending the teacher’s instructional influence. When

teaching two or more different grades in a single classroom, especially
when class size pushes above 15 students, the teacher may have difficulty
directly responding to individual student needs. Multigrade teachers report-
ing on their experiences with peer tutoring indicated a strong dependence
on students helping one another (Ashland Multigrade Conference in 1989).
In nearly all reports, teachers indicated peer tutoring occurred on an inciden-
tal basis. That is, tutoring was not generally a systematically planned activ-
ity. As Carol Spackman, who teaches grades 4–8 in rural Utah, points out,
“Peer tutoring at [my school] is usually spontaneous.” Spackman describes
several examples:

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 1

 l [Jerry] is a very low achiever. His interest span is very low
and he completes very little work without help from someone.
[Sarah] finishes her work quickly so I ask her to let [Jerry]
read to her for 10 minutes a day.
l [I also have students] work out problems together. (How do
we do this math problem?)
l Have two students sit side by side with a newspaper and circle
prepositions. The first [student] will circle three and then have
the other [student] circle three. Each student watches closely
to make sure the learner is correct.
The four teachers at the Ashland Multigrade Conference in Oregon
who participated in the peer tutoring workgroup developed a set of case
examples of how they used peer tutoring in their classrooms. A fictitious
student named Joe is followed through a day in his multigrade school:

English is Joe’s first subject of the day. The class has been assigned to learn the definition of
a noun and write 10 examples. Joe confuses nouns and verbs, so Amy has been assigned to
go outside with Joe and gather 10 things that are nouns. She is to demonstrate, for example,
why he cannot pick up a “jump” or a “run,” but that rocks and sticks are objects, and
therefore, nouns.
Next is math. Joe is struggling with simple addition. He and Bob are going to a quiet corner
with a container of bottle caps. Using these concrete objects, Bob will demonstrate simple
addition to Joe, then assist Joe in working his own problems.
The next opportunity for peer tutoring for Joe is P.E., but with the roles reversed. A young
student is having difficulty doing proper pushups, an exercise Joe is very good at. Joe is asked
to demonstrate a proper pushup, then offer tips in helping the younger student. Joe’s self-
esteem is really boosted by being the “teacher,” and he takes his task very seriously.
During spelling the class is divided into pairs for an individualized spelling program. Joe
quizzes his partner on his word list. The words are checked for spelling errors, then the roles
are reversed.

These multigrade teachers indicated that peer tutoring need “not be

planned in the sense of being written in the plan book, but is part of a good
teacher’s mental arsenal of methods to help students.” It is worth noting
that these teachers each had several years of experience in the multigrade
classroom. As successful multigrade teachers, they learned through experi-
ence to capitalize on the capabilities of their students to help one another.
Seven different uses of peer tutoring in their classrooms were identified:

2 The Multigrade Classroom

 1. Drill each other—spelling, math, and so forth.
2. Help other students develop a skill that the tutor possesses
3. Build self-esteem of the tutor
4. Peer modeling of skills—pushups, songs, dancing, and so forth.
5. Ask a student to explain a concept in “kid language”
6. Let a student (or students) teach a chapter in social studies
7. Help each other with study skills and researching
In addition, the teachers identified a set of instructions that would be
helpful for the tutor to follow:
l Smile.
l Be friendly.
l Speak clearly.
l Keep your voice to a whisper or whatever volume
is appropriate.
l Answer in a positive way. If the child makes a mistake, don’t
say things like, “wrong” or “no, that isn’t right” or “dummy.”
Instead say, “That’s almost correct. Now listen while I repeat
the word, and then you repeat it after me.”
l Acknowledge correct work with a “that’s right,” “good job,”
or some other positive statement or positive gesture.

Structured Tutoring
lthough the incidental tutoring described by the multigrade conference

A participants was described as “spontaneous” and “not something placed

in the teacher’s lesson plan book,” it still has an element of structure.
But the structure is based on years of classroom experience, where the teacher
operates from a “good teacher’s mental arsenal of methods to help students.”
In other words, these teachers are able to match the needs of different
students and apply an appropriate tutoring strategy in a spontaneous manner.
However, when novice teachers enter the multigrade classroom, they gener-
ally do not have the advantage of years of experience. For these teachers,
research-based guidelines for tutoring may prove to be valuable.

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 3

What Tutoring Conditions Produce
the Greatest Success?

everal features of peer tutoring have the greatest effect on student

S achievement and attitude.

1. Structured tutoring is more effective than tutoring on an incidental

basis.
2. Tutoring of shorter (zero to four weeks) duration appears to produce
the best results. When tutoring continues past four weeks, there is a
diminishing return.
3. Tutoring where lower level skills are taught and tested produces the
best student outcomes.
4. Greater results occur in math, followed by reading, than in other
subject areas.
In using these results, remember that these conditions should not be
viewed too narrowly or as absolutely necessary for successful peer tutoring.
A large body of research on tutoring suggests that any organized and focused
tutoring program will likely have a positive impact on student learning (see
research reviews by Bartz & Miller, 1991; Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982;
Gaustad, 1993). The type of tutoring program used should always be closely
monitored to determine if desired changes in the learner are occurring and,
if not, the likely causes. Because rural multigrade classrooms are often more
informal than single-grade classrooms, tutoring activities may be imple-
mented in a less structured, more spontaneous way.

4 The Multigrade Classroom

 What Makes Peer and Cross-Age
Tutoring Effective?

hildren have certain advantages over adults in teaching peers. They may

C more easily understand tutees’ problems because they are cognitively

closer. Allen and Feldman found that third- and sixth-graders were
more accurate than experienced teachers in determining from nonverbal
behavior whether agemates understood lessons (cited in Cazden, 1986;
Gartner & Riessman, 1993; Hedin, 1987). The fact that their “cognitive
framework” is similar may also help peer tutors present subject matter in
terms their tutees understand.
Peer tutors can effectively model study skills such as concentrating on
the material, organizing work habits, and asking questions. Cohen notes
that similarity between model and learner increases the influence of model-
ing. An at-risk child may more easily identify with a student relatively close
in age, particularly one of the same ethnic or social background, than with
an adult. Higher status also promotes the effect of modeling. Cross-age
tutoring takes advantage of the higher status inherent in the age difference
while still retaining considerable similarity.
Tutors who have struggled academically may be more patient and under-
standing than those who haven’t. Empathy contributes greatly to low achiev-
ers’ effectiveness as cross-age tutors. Tutors often “pick up on things teachers
weren’t able to” because they experienced similar problems a few years
earlier (Giesecke, Cartledge, & Gardner, 1993).

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 5

How Do Student Tutors Benefit
From Tutoring?

1. Tutors benefit academically from the time spent reviewing and practic-
ing material with their tutees. Tutors may also experience higher
cognitive gains. Organizing material to teach “facilitates long-term
retention, as well as aiding in the formation of a more comprehensive
and integrated understanding” (Cohen, 1986). Tutoring also provides
opportunities to practice and improve communication skills and
work habits.
2. Tutors’ self-esteem rises as they see their tutees improve. Knowing
they are making a meaningful contribution is a powerful experience.
Many tutors stop skipping classes and behaving disruptively after
they realize they are role models for their tutees (Gaustad, 1992a).

6 The Multigrade Classroom

 What Problems Are Commonly
Encountered?

imply putting two students together won’t result in successful tutoring.

S Untrained tutors, whether adults or students, may resort to threats of

punishment and scornful put-downs. Tutors need training to master
effective tutorial and communication skills.
Another potential problem is that student tutors may not completely
understand the material to be taught. Cohen suggests assessing potential
tutors’ comprehension before assigning them to tutor. However, a tutor need
not be an excellent student, especially in the case of cross-age tutoring. “A
sixth-grader operating at a fourth-grade level can be an excellent helper of a
second-grader who is also operating below grade level,” Foot, Shute, Morgan,
and Barron (1990) point out.
1. One drawback of peer tutoring is that tutees, often labeled as less
capable than tutors, tend to resist being tutored by agemates.
2. Scheduling is a challenge with cross-age tutoring because it requires
coordinating the schedules of two sets of students. Offering tutoring
as a credit class gives tutors a predictable block of time. However,
one period may not provide enough time if tutors and tutees attend
schools some distance apart. Cardenas, Harris, del Refugio Robledo,
and Supik (1991) found that many schools were unwilling to cope
with the logistical problems of cross-age tutoring, despite its effec-
tiveness. He designed the self-contained Companion Reading
Program in response to this problem.

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 7

What Elements Are Necessary
for a Successful Program?

he design of a tutoring program is dictated by its objectives, including

T the targeted age group and subject area, and by the availability of
human, physical, and financial resources.
Establishing specific, measurable objectives permits assessment of
individual progress and evaluation of the program’s success as a whole.
Frequent assessment of student progress gives program staff feedback on
the effectiveness of lessons and encourages both tutor and tutee (Jenkins
& Jenkins, 1987).
Procedures must be established for selecting and matching tutors and
tutees. Examples of tutee selection criteria include test scores and teacher
judgment. Tutors may be screened for desired attitudes or levels of academic
competence. The Valued Youth Program, which recruits students who meet
state at-risk criteria, accepts those with records of minor disciplinary problems
but draws the line at criminal behavior.
Tutors also may be given basic training to accompany carefully struc-
tured materials, as in the Companion Reading Program, or extensive train-
ing that enables them to make more independent decisions. Extensive
training is desirable when tutor progress is the main objective.
Tutors need ongoing supervision and support. Younger tutors will
require more structure and closer supervision. In periodic group meetings,
older tutors gain psychological support by talking about frustrations and
sharing success stories. Tutors can learn from each other’s experiences as
well as from staff suggestions for handling problems.
Support by teachers and administrators is essential for a tutoring
program to succeed in the long run. Foot, et al., (1990) list typical problems
and concerns and recommend openly discussing them beforehand. Parents
and the community should also be informed. Teachers who understand and
believe in a program’s potential to help their children will generally be firm
supporters.
Decades of research have established that well-planned peer tutoring
programs can improve student achievement and self-esteem as well as overall
school climate. The wide variety of programs available should enable every
interested school district to find a format that suits its needs.

8 The Multigrade Classroom

 Developing a Peer Tutoring Program
in Your Classroom

efore a tutoring program is implemented, six important question areas

B need to be reviewed and answered. Without some idea of where you

want to go and how you plan to get there, your chances of ever arriving
are slim. The following questions will serve as a planning guide. You will
also find a checklist consisting of questions and statements that will be
helpful in thinking about what you should do. The checklist is divided into
sections that focus on selecting students, deciding where tutoring will take
place, scheduling, choosing materials and strategies, and evaluation.

Setting Goals and Choosing Learning Objectives

t is important that you specify the goals of your tutoring effort. What do

I you want to happen as a result of tutoring? Do you want to improve

student performance in math or reading? Do you want to develop student
self-direction and responsibility? Do you want to improve tutor self-esteem?
Do you simply want to better manage the many different age levels of your
multigrade classroom? Successful peer tutoring may have positive effects
on many different areas at the same time, but the important thing is to be
clear on your primary purpose for using tutoring. Begin planning your
tutoring program by writing down a few goals you would like to achieve.
To help you write your own tutoring goals, several examples follow:
l Peer tutoring will be used in my classroom to increase achieve-
ment and on-task time in math for first- and second-graders
l Peer tutoring will be used during oral reading to increase
student fluency and motivation
l Peer tutoring will be used to help students perform better
on spelling quizzes
Notice that each goal consists of two common elements: (1) who will
receive the tutoring (first-and second-graders, all reading students, those
performing poorly), and (2) what the tutoring will focus on (math achieve-
ment, on-task time, reading fluency, motivation, and poor spelling perform-
ance). In deciding your goals, be sure to include these two elements.
Equally important is establishing specific objectives (learner outcomes)
for each tutoring pair or group that can be easily assessed. The following
example illustrates how to establish a goal and an objective for tutoring:

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 9

Mrs. M decided to start a tutoring program to help Michael because he was performing
poorly in division. Michael understood how to complete the problems, but his accuracy was
worse and speed was much slower than other students. Mrs. M determined that Michael
did not know basic multiplication facts. He continually used his fingers. Mrs. M decided to
use Bill as a tutor. He got along well with other students and could be counted on to follow
through on activities or tasks he started. Mrs. M described what Michael needed to learn.

Michael’s learning Michael will learn his times tables through the 4’s so that he can finish a
objective mixed-facts worksheet in two minutes without missing more than five
problems.
Mrs. M wrote the learning objective so that it could be easily understood
by Bill and Michael. Note that the objective has several important elements:
1. It is based on the student’s classroom learning needs.
2. It is clear and easy for both the tutor and learner to understand.
3. It is easy to measure.
Remember, in developing plans, be sure you know why you want
to use peer tutoring (tutoring goals) and what specific objective (learner
outcome) tutoring pairs or groups will work on.

Deciding Who Will Be Involved in Tutoring

he selection and matching of tutor and learner is an important task.

T Topping (1988) identifies 10 crucial areas when considering who

should participate in tutoring. These areas will help guide you in
making decisions regarding student participation. Each area is designed
to be used for both the tutor and the learner.
1. How will students be selected?
l Will you ask students or other teachers?
l Will you observe the students?
2. What level of students will be tutored?
l Will you select same-grade/-age tutors, cross-age tutors,
or both?
l What are the advantages and disadvantages of either approach?

10 The Multigrade Classroom

 3. What kind of academic skills will the tutor have?
l Will you select tutors with higher-than-average scholastic ability?
l Will you select students with below-average ability in order
to help them develop their skills?
l Will you select students with the same scholastic ability?
4. Have you thought about student relationships?
l How will you deal with existing positive or negative relation-
ships among students?
l How will you deal with weak and strong personalities?
5. Have you considered the number of students to be tutored?
l Will you begin with tutor-learner pairs or small groups?
l How large will the groups be?
l How many tutors can you effectively monitor?
6. Have you considered student characteristics?
l How independent and responsible is the student?
l What are student work habits like?
l How cooperative is the student?
l Does the student get along well with others?
7. How much consideration do you want to give to student preferences?
l How much will students have to say about who they work with?
l Will you have male-female pairs or only pairs of the same sex?
l Will you mix pairings by culture or race? (Your knowledge of
student working relationships and cultural backgrounds will be
helpful.)
8. How will you handle tutor absenteeism?
l Will you have standby tutors to fill in when one of the regular
tutors is absent or quits?
l How many standbys will you have?
l Will you need to inform parents?
l How much information do parents in your community need
regarding your tutorial program?
l How will you get information to parents if it is needed?

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 11

 10.Do you feel tutors will need special incentives?
l Do you feel it is necessary to reward tutors?
l Should the rewards be extrinsic (e.g., verbal praise, stickers,
privileges)?
l Should the rewards be intrinsic (e.g., personal satisfaction)?

Deciding Where Tutoring Will Take Place

n organizing your classroom for tutoring, you need to consider what else

I will be going on during tutoring. If you choose to have tutoring occur

in pairs during reading time, then the entire room might become a tutor-
ing zone. However, if you have students of several ages in your room at
once and you want older students to tutor younger students in math, you
may need to designate a special area for tutoring. This may be either in the
classroom or outside, depending on available space. Whatever plan you
choose, you should have your expectations for behavior clearly understood
and tutoring areas well defined.

Scheduling the Tutoring Sessions

l Will tutoring occur during class time?
l During breaks or recess? After school?
l For what time periods will tutors work?
l Will it be the same time each day, or will the times vary with
student need?

12 The Multigrade Classroom

 Deciding What Subjects Will Be Tutored

O
ral reading, word recognition, decoding, and comprehension? Reading
Math

Tutor drill activities such as basic facts, or work in conceptual areas such as
computation or problem solving? Language
Tutor in expressive areas such as creative writing and reporting, or emphasize
grammar and mechanics? Spelling
Will students drill in words or in spelling rules?
Which curriculum area you choose will be guided by your knowledge
of student needs, available materials and, ultimately, the success of the tutor.
Generally, there are two possible directions you may choose.
First, you may choose to focus on an academic content area such as
math, where the tutor helps a student learn basic addition facts or assists
the teacher in reinforcing how to add numbers. Or you may choose to focus
on open-ended learning, where the tutor provides help to younger students
who may need a combination of supervision and tutoring in order to
complete an activity.
For example, if the teacher asks the primary grades to complete a series
of plant activities in science that include planting a seed, collecting and label-
ing leaves, and making a plant scrapbook, older students might help the
primary children in completing these tasks. The difference between academic
content and open-ended learning centers on the openness of the tasks. In
the first case there are clearly right and wrong answers, while in the second
case the end results may be quite different for each student. In addition,
open-ended learning places greater emphasis on supervision and support
than does a focus on convergent academic tasks (i.e., where there is only
one correct answer).
Remember, whatever curricular area you choose will be determined by
what you want to accomplish in tutoring and the needs of students.

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 13

Deciding on Tutoring Materials, Procedures, and Strategies
hen deciding how tutoring will take place, several key areas need to

W be addressed: materials, tutoring strategies, tutor training, monitor-

ing/feedback, and evaluation. Using a list adapted from Topping
(1988), each of these areas is outlined below:
Materials 1. Structure l Will materials be highly structured and sequenced
or open-ended?
l Who will prepare structured materials, or can
existing materials be used?
2. Difficulty l Will level of difficulty be controlled by materials?
l Will the skill level of the tutor limit difficulty?
3. Choice l Will the tutor and learner have choices in the
materials used?
l Will they have a choice in how the materials
will be used?
l Will the teacher decide on both materials
and strategies?
4. Sources l What materials are available and where can they
be obtained?
l Will materials have to be teacher-made?
l Will tutors be allowed to make their own materials?
5. Storage l Where will materials be stored?
l Who will have access to them: Tutor? Learner?
6. Progression l Who will determine when the learner should
progress to the next activity, materials, or skill?

Tutor training 1. Expectations l Will you model or role play how to tutor?
(Keep it brief)
l How will you convey the importance of being
positive and supportive in the tutoring relationship?
l How will you make your expectations for behavior
clear?
l Will tutoring procedures (schedules, using
materials, etc.) be in writing?

14 The Multigrade Classroom

 l How often will you meet to work with tutors and
provide feedback on their performance?

1. Packaged l Will tutoring strategies be specified by the choice of Tutoring approaches

approach materials or organization, such as SRA Instructional and strategies
Kits, DISTAR Direct Instruction, cooperative learn-
ing, reading text, or workbooks?
2. Drill and l Will you emphasize the importance of varying activ-
practice ities in order to increase learner motivation?
3. Correction l Will correction procedures be clear and simple? The
procedures tutor needs to either know the correct answers or
where they may be found (e.g., answer sheets
provided by the teacher).
l Will tutors be shown how to correct verbal responses?
4. Praise l How will tutors know how often to give praise and
what to say (“ok,” “good,” “you’re doing great,” etc.)?
l Will tutors be shown how to give both verbal and
nonverbal praise in a genuine manner?
l Will tutors know how to avoid criticism and
sarcasm, either in tone of voice or in words?
5. Social l Will tutors understand how to establish rapport
by relationship, sharing interests, demonstrating
concern, and so forth?

1. Methods l Will you hold group discussions with the tutors? Monitoring/feedback
Learners?
l Will you directly observe the tutor-learner process
(most revealing method)? What will you look for if
you observe?
l Who else might observe and give you feedback?
2. The process l Are the tutoring sessions occurring on schedule?
l Are the materials being used appropriately?
l Are the tutor and the learner working well together,
without friction?

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 15

 3. Tutoring l Was the tutor prepared for the lesson?
l Were materials ready?
l Did the tutor understand what was being taught?
l Did the tutor give clear directions?
l Did the tutor use negative reinforcement?
l Did the tutor use frequent positive reinforcement?
l Did the tutor actively involve the learner in the
lesson?
l Was the tutor enthusiastic?
l Did the tutor keep the learner on task?
l Did the learner appear interested in the lesson?
l Did the learner complete the lesson?
4. The tutor l Will tutors be responsible for keeping track of the
learner’s progress?
l If so, how will this be done (chart, workbook,
graph, etc.)?
l Will the tutor be responsible to report progress to
the teacher?
l If so, how often and in what form?

16 The Multigrade Classroom

 Evaluation
valuation is an essential part of tutoring. How will you know if you

E have achieved your goals unless you have some form of assessment?
Your evaluation should reflect your program goals. If you said you
wanted to use peer tutoring to increase student fluency and motivation in
reading, how would you know if this goal had been achieved? Do students
who received tutoring read more fluently now than when they began tutor-
ing? Do they act more motivated by checking out more books, volunteering
to read during oral reading activities, or choosing reading during free time?
The following list will provide you with some possible sources of infor-
mation to help you assess the effect tutoring has had in your classroom:
l Interview learners
l Review textbook testing materials
l Observe learners and note changes in behavior
l Standardized testing
l Talk to the tutor
l Talk to parents
l Make up a test or use workbook pages

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 17

Conclusion

eer tutoring has been shown to improve student performance for the

P tutor and the learner in a number of important areas such as self-esteem,

academics, and motivation. In the multigrade classroom, tutoring has
a history of extending the teachers’ instructional influence. However, tutor-
ing often appears to be a rather spontaneous, informal activity.
Information presented by multigrade conference participants indicates
both purpose and structure. Because there are so many time demands
placed on multigrade teachers, it is critically important to remember to
keep it simple and collect only what you need in order to make decisions
regarding program change.

18 The Multigrade Classroom

 References

Allen, V.L., & Feldman, R.S. (1976). Studies on the role of tutor. In V.L.
Allen (Ed.), Children as teachers: Theory and research on tutoring. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Anderson, R.H. (1993). The return of the nongraded classroom. Principal,
72(3), 9–12.
Bartz, D.E., & Miller, L.K. (1991). 12 teaching methods to enhance student
learning. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Cardenas, J.A., Harris, R., del Refugio Robledo, M., & Supik, J.D. (1991,
April). Valued youth program dropout prevention strategies for at-risk stu-
dents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Cazden, C.B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 450-451). New York, NY:
MacMillan.
Cohen, J. (1986). Theoretical considerations of peer tutoring. Psychology in
the Schools, 23(2), 175–86.
Cohen, D.L. (1989, December 6). First stirrings of a new trend: Multi-age
classrooms gain favor. Education Week, 9(14), 1, 13–14.
Cohen, P., Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring:
A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal,
19(2), 237–248.
Coleman, J.S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16(6),
32–38.
Cushman, K. (1993). The case for mixed-age grouping. Harvard, MA: Author.
Feng, J. (1994). Issues and trends in early childhood education. Unpublished
manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 841)
Foot, H.C., Shute, R.H., Morgan, M.J., & Barron, A. (1990). Theoretical
issues in peer tutoring. In H.C. Foot, M.J. Morgan, & R.H. Shute
(Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 65–92). New York, NY: John
Wiley and Sons.
Fox, M. (1997, April). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the National Association of
Elementary School Principals Association, San Antonio, TX.
Gartner, A., & Riessman, F. (1993, August). Peer tutoring: Toward a new
model. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching
and Teacher Education.
Gaustad, J. (1992a). Tutoring for at-risk students [Entire issue]. OSSC
Bulletin, 36(3).

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 19

 Gaustad, J. (1992b). Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and
developmentally appropriate education for primary children [Special
issue]. OSSC Bulletin, 35(7).
Gaustad, J. (1993). Peer and cross-age tutoring (ERIC Digest No. 79).
Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 608)
Giesecke, D., Cartledge, G., & Gardner, R. (1993). Low-achieving students
as successful cross-age tutors. Preventing School Failure 37(3), 34–43.
Goodlad, J.I., & Anderson, R.H. (1987). The nongraded elementary school
(Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hallion, A.M. (1994, March). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association
of Elementary School Principals Association, Orlando, FL.
Hedin, D. (1987). Students as teachers: A tool for improving school. Social
Policy 17(3), 42–47.
Jenkins, J.R., & Jenkins, L.M. (1987). Making peer tutoring work.
Educational Leadership 44(6), 64–68.
Katz, L., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J.A. (1990). The case for mixed-age
grouping in early education. Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Kinsey, S. (1998). Observations of student and teacher behaviors in the multiage
classroom. Unpublished manuscript.
Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children:
An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006–1017.
Marshak, D. (1994, March). From teachers’ perspectives: The social and psycho-
logical benefits of multiage elementary classrooms. Paper presented at the
annual conference “Emerging Images of Learning: World Perspectives
for the New Millennium,” Chicago, IL.
McClellan, D.E. (1994). Multiage grouping: Implications for education. In
P. Chase & J. Doan (Eds.), Full circle: A new look at multiage education
(pp. 147–166). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McClellan, D., & Kinsey, S. (1996). Mixed-age grouping helps children
develop social skills and a sense of belonging. The MAGnet Newsletter
on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 5(1), 1–3.
Retrieved May 8, 2000 from the World Wide Web: www.ericeece.org/
pubs/mag/magfal96.html#a

20 The Multigrade Classroom

Miller, B.A. (1993). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade
instruction. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of
America’s schools. The multiage resource book (pp. 65–83). Peterborough,
NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Miller, B.A. (1996). A basic understanding of multiage grouping. School
Administrator, 53(1), 12–17.
Nye, B. (1993). Some questions and answers about multiage grouping. ERS
Spectrum, 11(3), 38–45.
Ridgway, L., & Lawton, I. (1969). Family grouping in the primary school
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Stone, S.J. (1995). The primary multiage classroom: Changing schools for
children. Unpublished manuscript.
Topping, K. (1988). The peer tutoring handbook: Promoting co-operative learn-
ing. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Uphoff, J.K., & Evans, D.A. (1993). The country school comes to town:
A case study of multiage grouping and teaching. In D. Sumner (Ed.),
Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America’s schools. The multiage
resource book (pp. 36–38). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental
Education.
Willis, S. (1991). Breaking down grade barriers: Interest on nongraded
classrooms on the raise. ASCD update, 33(3), 4.

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 21

Resources

Ashley, W., Zahniser, G., Jones, J., & Inks, L. (1986). Peer tutoring: A
guide to program design. Columbus, OH: National Center for Research
in Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 268 372)
This publication presents guidelines for planning, implementing, and
evaluating a peer tutoring program. Benefits, guidelines, and suggestions
with examples for peer tutoring are presented. Resource materials and
sample forms have also been included.

Available from: National Center for Research in Vocational

Education
1960 Kenny Road
Columbus, OH 43210

Greenwood, C.R. (1991). Classwide peer tutoring: Longitudinal effects

on the reading, language, and mathematics achievement of at-risk
students. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities
International, 7(2), 105-123.
This article describes how Classwide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) puts effective
instructional variables into practice and how it improves academic achieve-
ment. The effective instructional variables CWPT utilizes are engaged
time, time-management success rate or successful completion of tasks,
academic learning time, monitoring, structuring, and questioning. It also
reports findings that CWPT, when systematically applied to oral reading,
spelling, and arithmetic facts, increased students’ performance on stand-
ardized measures of reading, language, and mathematics. It discusses two
CWPT drawbacks: first, that most of the evidence of its effectiveness is in
the realm of acquisition of rote skills and, second, that the content for
tutoring sessions must be developed or adapted by the teacher.

Available from: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational

Management
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5207

22 The Multigrade Classroom

 Gartner, A., & Riessman, F. (1993, August). Peer tutoring: Toward a new
model. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Teaching and Teacher Education.
This article describes a study funded by the Kellogg foundation in which
six New York high schools were sites for reciprocal tutoring. Describes
reciprocal tutoring, which may be either cross-age or within grade (with
roles of tutor and tueee alternated).

Available from: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational

Management
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5207

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (Eds.). (1992). Interaction in cooper-

ative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
This publication discusses tutoring concepts and developing a tutoring
program for your classroom. A detailed bibliography is also included.

Available from: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational

Management
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5207

Miller, L., Kohler, F.W., Kohler, H.E., Hoel, K., & Strain, P.S. (1993).
Winning with peer tutoring: A teacher’s guide. Preventing School
Failure, 37(3), 14-18.
This article briefly reviews positive academic outcomes and social benefits
of peer tutoring and describes a systematic process for teachers to use to
plan, implement, and maintain a peer tutoring intervention.

Available from: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational

Manaagement
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5207

Book 7: Planning and Using Peer Tutoring 23

 Thorkildsen, T.A. (1993). Those who can, tutor: High-ability students’
conceptions of fair ways to organize learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(1), 182-190.
The author investigates high-ability and comparison students’ views of the
relative fairness of acceleration for faster learners, peer tutoring, faster
students waiting for slower students to catch up, faster learners setting the
pace for instruction, and enrichment for faster learners. Judged fairest was
abler students tutoring the less able.

Available from: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational

Management
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5207

Topping, K. (1988). The peer tutoring handbook: Promoting co-operative

learning. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
This book discusses the history of tutoring, how to organize and imple-
ment a program, effectiveness of research, and how to evaluate a project.

Available from: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational

Management
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5207

24 The Multigrade Classroom