rc 018 168 teaching combined grade classes: real problems ... · planning the study 1 conducting...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 339 557 RC 018 168

TITLE Teaching Combined Grade Classes: Real Problems andPromising Practices.

INSTITUTION Appalachia Educational Lab., Charleston, W. Va.;Virginia Education Association, Richmond.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE Sep 90

CONTRACT 400-86-0001NOTE 56p.

PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) -- ReferenceMaterials - Bibliographies (131)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Classroom Techniques; Educational Policy;

*Educational Strategies; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Institutional Characteristics; MailSurveys; *Multigraded Classes; Program Evaluation;Small Schools; *Teacher Attitudes; *TeacherCharacteristics

IDENTIFIERS Virginia

ABSTRACTThis study, conducted by a group of teachers,

examined various aspects of multigrade classrooms in Virginia througha mail survey of the state's multivade teachers whose names andaddresses were available (87 responded). A 21-item Grade CombinationTeacher Experience and Perceptions Survey developed by the studygroup was used to collect information. Some of the findings were: (1)the "typical" survey respondent was a veteran teacher who had 2 ormore years experience teaching grade combination classes; (2) themajority of teachers had taught grade combination classes inconsecutive years, and in most cases these classes had been assigned;(3) grade combination classes occurred most frequehtly in smallschools; (4) average grade combination class size ranged from 16 to25 stvdzots; (5) basic skills subjects most frequently requireddoubie preparations; (6) most multigrade teachers arranged fieldtrips for their students; (7) the most frequently mentionedinstructional methods were integrating the curriculum and peertutoring; (8) lack of time was the most frequently cited difficulty;(9) advantages were cited in peer tutoring, integrated curricula,small grouping, enriched academic activities, better socialization,and extra resource and support; (10) there was a diversity of opinionabout appropriate policies for grade comtination teaching; and (11)some recommendations for effective instruction and clasgrommanagement were to be positive, prepared, flexible, and consistent.This document contains an extensive bibliography and an annotatedlist of resources. Appendices include respondents' names, a memo, thesurvey, and a map showing the distribution of multigrade classes inVirginia. (KS)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

BEST COPY AVAI LE

U S DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONent. e of E duit,ona l h and Improvement

t MK A TIONAL RI SOI IRCFS INFORMATIONCI NTFR IERIC

II,S document NIS tmen reprodut pd asrei wved /r-m, the 6lef SOO Of Of ganIZationongtnating .1

Minor f hanues have been made to mproverect,odka bon quattty

_

Point% ,)t v.e l)( Stated th,sdOcu(*lent A, not recesta,4 ,epreser,t offlual01 Ri LLos.t.or, WI( v

TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES:

REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

A JOINT STUDY BY

VEAVIRGINIA EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONN

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

AND

APPALACHIA EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY

CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA

SPTEMBER 1990

FUNDED BY THE

CIER1OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEM ;NT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONWASHINGTON, D. C.

TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

The Appalachia Educational Laboratory (AEL), Inc., works with educators in ongoing R &D-based efforts to improve education and educational opportunity. AEL serves as the Re-gional Educational Laboratory for Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. It alsooperates the ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. AEL works toimprove:

professional quality,curriculum and instruction,community support, andopportunity for access to quality education by all children:

Information about AEL projects, programs, and services is available by writing or callingAEL, Post Office Box 1348, Charleston, West Virginia 25325; 800/624-9120 (outside WV),

800/344-6646 (in WV), and 347-0400 (local); 304/347-0487 (FAX number).

This publication is based on work sponsored wholly or in part by the Office of Educa-tional Research and Improvement, U. S. Departznent of Education, under contract number400-86-0001. Its contents do not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the Department, orany other agency of the U. S. Government.

These materials are issued in draft form for developmental purposes.

ALy.p is an Afflrmatire Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.

II

4


TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

Acknowledgements

INTRODUCTION 1

Planning the Study 1

Conducting the Study 2

Purpose 3

Methodology 3

Help Us Improve this Publication 4

RATIONALE 5

Effects of Multigrade Classes 5

Obstacles to Multigrade Instuctional Organization 6

Teaching Strategies 7

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 9

Teacher Experiencc Characteristics 9

Class and School Characteristics 10

Curriculum and Instructional Strategies Employed 12

Perceived Advantages and Difficulties of Grade Combination Teaching 14

Perceived Assistance Sources and Resources 18

Policy Recommendations 19

Effective Instructional and Classroom Management Strategies 21

REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STUDY GROUP MEMBERS 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY 27

RESOURCES 33

APPENDICESAppendix A: Survey Respondents 41

Appendix 71: Grade Combination Teacher Locater Fonn 45

Appendix C: Oracle Combination Teacher Experience and Perceptions Survey 49

Appendix D: Map Distribution of Grade Combination Classes 57

Iii

r,

TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRAC110ES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Virginia Education Association (VEA)and the Appalachia Educational Laboratory(AEL) wish to thank the following studygroup members who planned and developedTeaching Combined Grade Classes: RealProblems and Promising Practices. Their timeand efforts in survey development, dataanalysis, and writing and editing haveculminated in a document that assistseducators in improving the quality of in-struction in elementary grade combinationclasses.

Annette DashiellArlington County Schools

Wilma LloydLoudoun County Schools

Michele MildenArlington County Schools

Mary Ann PetermanFairfax County Schools

Vanna RuffnerFairfax County Schools

Deborah StranieroFairfax County Schools (formerly)

Also essential to this product were VEAbuilding representatives who identified gradecombination teachers and the Virginia gradecombination teachers who responded to theGrade Combination Teacher Experience and

Perceptions Survey (see Appendix A). Theexperience, perceptions, and recommenda-tions of the teacher respondents provideuseful information for Virginia educators andeducators across AEL's Region.

Dr. Helen Rolfe, Instruction and Profes-sional Development Director for the VirginiaEducation Association, provided importantassistance in nominating study group mem-bers; arranging the printing, distribution,and collection of the survey; and in develop-ing and editing this publication. MarjorieMcCreery and the staff of the NorthernVirginia UniServ office aided the group'swork by making initial contacts of studygroup members and providing a meetingroom.

Finally, AEL staff who handled meetingfacilitation, study group communications,researching, developing selected publicationsections, blending the writing of severalauthors, editing, typesetting, graphic design,and layout contributed greatly to this finalproduct. The authors wish to thank thefollowing AEL staff members:

Becky BurnsPat CahapeMary FarleyKim HambrickJane HangeCarolyn LuzaderCarla McClure

t;

TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACI10ES

INTRODUCTION

AEI. seeks to provide professional devel-opment opportunities to educators by work-ing with and through their associations.Since 1985, one way that the ClassroomInstruction (CI) program has assisted asso-ciations is through the creation of studygroups to assist educators in conducting andusing research.

A study group is composed of educatorswho are organized to conduct a study on aneducational issue and who produce a prod-uct that is useful to their colleagues. Asso-ciations and AEL jointly select topics forstudy groups, although member selection iscompleted by associations. AEL staff partici-pate in meetings as members of the studygroup and usually take a facilitative role. TheVirginia Education Association's (VEA)Instruction and Professional Development(IPD) director assists in facilitating groupmeetings and aids in writing and reviewingsections of each VEA-AEL study groupproduct. AEL provides a small grant to aidthe work of the study group, but the in-kindcontributions that the association andindividual members often make far exceedAEL's grant.

The responsibility for dissemination lieswith both AEL and the association. UsuallyAEL provides dissemination to the otherthree states in its Region, while the associa-tion announces and disseminates the prod-uct in its own state. AEL often provides asmall grant to assist with the disseminationof the product or to sponsor opportunities forstudy group members to share the findingsof their study at state or regional confer-ences.

PIANNING ME STUDY

1

As declining enrollments face manyschools, both rural and urban, the decisionto close small schools and consolidatestudent populations confronts parents,administrators, and teachers. However, thecost of consolidation and the extendedprocess of gaining community approval oftendelay or prevent consolidation. The consoli-dation, as well as the recently establishedclass size mandates restricting enrollment inthe elementary grades in =Any states, fre-quently force the creation of grade combina-tion or multigrade classes, A grade combina-tion class is herein defined as a regular (notspecial) education elementary class com-posed of students of two or mIre grade levelsthat are assigned to one teacher.

In 1989, Virginia teachers with severalyears of grade combination teaching experi-ence discussed the inherent difficulties ofbeing accountable for the education ofstudents in two sets of curricula in fivemajor subjects and special subjects with theVEA IPD director, Helen Rolfe. The gradecombination teachers also brought a relatednew business item before the VEA DelegateAssembly in April 1989. The item, whichwas adopted, stated:

The VEA will recommend that all schoolsystems acknowledge that seir con-tained, grade combination classes meetspecial needs requirements whichinclude aide support, reduced class size,and flexible curriculum requirements.

2ThACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL. PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES1111i,

Further, the difficulties of multigradeteaching were brought before the NationalEducation Association's 1990 RepresentativeAssembly as New Business Item #60. Theitem, introduced by a VEA-AEL study groupmember and adopted, stated:

The NEA shall research the Impact of ele-mentary combination classrooms uponstudent achievement and the possibleneed for guidelines to cover the place-ment of ability groups and class size. Astatus report on the research, develop-ment of guidelines, and the plan forfurther action on this item shall bereported to the 1991 RepresentativeAssembly.

Rolfe responded to the initial request forassistance to grade combination teachers bysoliciting, through an article in the VEA'sJournal of Virginia Education December 1989issue, the interest of other Virginia gradecombination teachers in the formation of astudy group to investigate the issue. TheVEA-AEL Grade Combination Study Groupheld its first meeting February 20, 1990, inFalls Church, Virginia. The six teachers inthe study group, with a combined total of 74years of grade combination teaching experi-ence, planned a publication that wouldinform policymakers of the needs of gradecorn' ination or multigrade teachers and thatwould suggest effective strategies to theseteachers.

The group determined that a survey ofVirginia grade combination teachers couldreveal: the extent of the practice; demo-graphics of grade combination teachingassignments (e.g. class size, most commongrade levels, number of lesson preparations,etc.); advantages and difficulties of thepractice that teachers identify; teacherrecommendations for state, district, orschool policies that could alleviate problems:and instructional strategies survey respon-dents have found effective in teaching multi-grade or grack: combination classes.

CONDUCTING THE STUDY

At their initial meeting, study groupmembers, with the assistance of the VEA IPDdirector and AEL staff, drafted the VEA-AELGrade Combination Teacher Locater Formand the Grade Combination Teacher Experi-ence and Perceptions Survey and coverletters to accompany both (see Appendices Band C). AEL staff reviewed the documentsfor survey design, revised, typeset, andprovided camera-ready masters to the VEAIPD director. VEA staff then copied theLocater Form and cover letter and mailedthese with a stamped, self-addressed enve-lope to each VEA building representativerequesting return by March 28, 1990. Asnames and addresses of grade combinationteachers were returned, VEA staff mailedeach a copy of the group's survey with acover letter requesting return by April 30,1990. In addition, VEA staff mailed a re-minder Grade Combination Teacher LochterForm to all building representatives, whichincreased response rate.

Study group members, in their secondmeeting May 17, 1990, reviewed the 87completed surveys returned, discussedanalysis procedures and reporting of qualita-tive data, and outlined product developmenttasks. Each study group member thenanalyzed responses to a cluster of the surveyquestions and wrote the section of thepublication that summarizes commonalitiesacross responses for each question withinthe cluster (see Findings of the Stud7). TheVEA IPD director developed the section onpolicy recommendations and AEL staff wrotethe Introduction, Rationale, Reflections andRecommendations from Study Group Mem-bers, and Bibliography and Resourcessections.

During their meetings and in individualwork between meetings, study group mem-bers reviewed the literature on multigrade orgrade combination classes and shared thesewith their colleagues. Study group memberspeer edited all sections of the draft document

ThACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

and revised their own work prior to a meld-ing of all sections by AEL staff to form a finaldraft. The VEA president and TPD director.in addition to study group members and anAEL writer/editor, edited this final version ofthe publication and AEL staff incorporatedtheir chariges as appropriate. AEL staff thentypeset the group's final work, developedannouncement flyers for use by AEL andVEA, and provided camera-ready masters ofthe publication and flyers to VEA and AEL'sResource Center. VEA disseminates thepublication upon request to Virginia educa-tors. AEL announces the document and,upon request, provides copies at printingcost to educators in its Region.

PURPOSE OF ME PUBLICATION

Teaching Combined Grade Classes: RealProblems and Promising Practices originatedwith the frustration of several grade combi-nation teachers with the add-on responsibili-ties their assignments entailed. Study groupmembers found this emotion common amongtheir colleagues throughout the state whoresponded to the Grade CombinationTeacher Experience and Perceptions Survey.Yet, therapeutic sharing of widespreadproblems was not the goal and is not the endresult of this study. Study group membersintend that readers learn strategies effectivein dealing with double curricula and varyingchild development levels. The study groupalso believes that the shared wisdom repre-sented in these findings will enable gradecombination teachers to cope with theconsiderable demands on them. In additionto providing instructional practice sugges-tions. the authors, who speak for the surveyrespondents and others with similar teach-ing assignments throughout Virginia, expectthat Teaching Combined Grade Classes: RealProblems and Promising Practices will informpolicy development at the school, district,and state levels. Study group members. VEA,and AEL favor training in strategies thatwill allow multigrade teachers to help allstudents achieve academic success.

Teaching Combined Grade Classes: RealProblems and Promising Practices can servedistrict and school administrators by sug-gesting policies and resources that aidmultigrade teaching. Staff developers canfind specific techniques to incorporate inworkshops for multigrade teachers as well asmechanisms for organizing support groups.Teachers will note teaching strategies theirmultigrade teaching peers have found effec-tive and begin to implement these. Stu-dents, ultimately, should not suffer from lackof attention to their individual needs inmultigrade classes, but should benefitsocially from the increased cooperation andacademically from exposure to new concepts.In school, as in life, we can learn to workwith others of varying age and developmentalperspectives and grow from our associations.

METHODOLOGY

VEA-AEL study group members utilizedsurvey methodology for their investigation forthree purposes: to determine the extent ofthe practice of assigning two or more gradesto one self-contained class: to describe thedemographic characteristics of a typicalgrade combination class (if such exists): andto learn directly from the teachers of suchclasses their most common instructionalpractices, the advantages and disadvantagesessociated with such assignments, and theirrecommendations for most effective instruc-tional and management strategies and forlocal, district, and state policies that couldimprove grade combination or multigradeteaching. Further, an analysis of the GradeCombination Teacher Locator Forms re-turned was used to describe the distributionof grade combination classes throughoutVirginia. See Appendix D for a graphicdistribution depiction and evolanation.

The 21 item Grade Combination Teac, erExperience and Perceptions Survey devel-oped by the study group contains 14 ques-tions asking the grade combination or multi-grade teacher to describe his/her currentassignment, teaching behaviors, and corn-

9

4TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACHCES

Ai

mon instructional practices. The remainingseven questions sample the respondent'sperceptions of difficulties and advantages ofgrade combination or multigrade teaching;most frequently used instructional practices;assistance provided or needed from theschool principal; beneficial professionaldevelopment experiences; recommendationsof needed school, division, or state policiesregarding grade combination or multigradeteaching; and descriptions of strategies mosteffective for this type of teaching assignment.

Study group members reviewed the 87surveys returned to VEA and analyzed themajority of responses those of the 75 gradecombination elementary teachers, the origi-nal focus of this group of teachers withsimilar teaching assignments. The remain-ing 11 responses were received from secon-

dary or special education teachers whosemultigrade teaching assignments, whiledifllcult, are often aided by smaller class sizeor a single curriculum for all grades or agesenrolled in a class. Study group membersdetermined that item analysis of survey datacould best be reported within seven clustersof survey items reported in the Findingssection of this document.

HELP US IMPROVE THIS

PUBLICATION

Readers are requested to complete theproduct evaluation form included within andto fold, staple, and return it to AEL. Sugges-tions for revisions to the document and/orsimilar publications are welcome.

1 (1


RATIONALE

The concept of the multigrade class alsoknown as grade combination, split level,mixed grade, multiage, ungraded, non-graded, vertical, and family grouping is notnew. It has its roots in the one-room schoolof the early days of education in the UnitedStates. Multigrade classes are defined hereas the assignment of two or more gradelevels of students as one teacher's instruc-tional responsibility. Since the term multi-grade class is the one most frequentlydiscussed in the literature, it will be usedthroughout this rationale.

Current trends in demographics andeconomics, such as decreasing studentpopulation and rising costs of buildingconstruction and maintenance, have moti-vated educators to consider school reorgani-zation and consolidation to deal with theproblems of uneven student distribution,limited instructional resources, and inade-quate facilities. Multigrade classes are oftena result of such reorganization.

Recent research findings support multi-grade grouping, indicating it can provideboth cognitive and social benefits for stu-dents (e.g., Pratt & Treacy. 1986; Rule, 1983;Milburn, 1981). In response to the demandsof changing demographics, particularly adecreasing and shifting student population,as well as to recent research, several statelegislatures including Kentucky, Missis-sippi, Florida, and Louisiana have called forimplementation of multigrade programs. Forexample, the Kentucky State Legislature, inits Education Reform Act of 1990, mandatedthe implementation of ungraded primaryprograms (K-3) by September 1992; and theMississippi State Legislature in 1990 man-dated mixed-aged classrooms in elementaryschools to be phased in over the next fewyears.

Although multigrade classes are aneducational reality, and the literature revealspositive effects from this type of instnictionalorganization, little research exists on teacherstrategies for delivering instruction to two ormore grades of students at one time.'Throughout its history the concept of 'non-gradedness' has been presented as an idealto which schools may aspire rather than as aspecific program which they may implement"(Slavin, 1986, p. 47). Consequently, effortsto capture the ideal have been largely unsuc-cessful (Miller. 1989).

EFFECTS OF MULTIGRADE CLASSES

Research indicates no negative effects onsocial relationships and attitudes for stu-dents in multigrade classes. In fact, interms of affective responses, multigradestudents out-perform single-grade studentsin more that_. 75 percent of the measuresused (Miller, 1989, pp. 4-13). Results fromseveral studies reviewed by Miller showpositive effects of multigrade classes whenmeasures of student attitude toward self,school, or peers are compared across a rangeof schools and geographic areas (Pratt &Treacy, 1986; Milburn, 981; SchranIder,1976; Schroeder & Nott, 1974). For ex-ample, Milburn (1981) found that children ofall ages in the multigrade school had a morepositive attitude toward school than did theircounterparts in traditional grade-levelgroups. Schrankler (1976) and Milburn(1981) found multigrade students havesignificantly higher self-concept scores thanstudents in single geades. A trend towardmore positive social relations is indicatedalso (Sherman, 1984; Mycock, 1966; Chace,1961). Shennan (1984) found that multi-

1 1

6TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

grade students felt closer to their multiageclassmates than did single-grade students.Chace (1961) and Mycock (1966) determinedthat multigrade students had significantlybetter teacher-child relationships and bettersocial development than single-grade stu-dents. These studies indicate that studentsin multigrade classes tend to have signifi-cantly more positive attitudes toward them-selves, their peers, and school.

In terms of academic achievement, thedata clearly support the multigrade class asa viable, effective organizational alternativeto single-grade instruction (Miller, 1989, p.

13). Little or no difference in studentachievement In the single or multigade classwas found in the studies. In a study con-ducted in 1983. Rule found in general thatmultigrade students scored higher on stan-dardized achievement tests in reading thandid single-grade students. Milburn (1981)found little difference in basic skills achieve-ment levels between students in multigradeand grade-level groups, but multigradeclasses did score significantly higher on thevocabulary sections of the reading testadministered. To account for this, Milburnconcluded that teachers in multigradeclasses may have placed greater emphasis onoral language, or that teachers working inmultigrade settings may tend to speak at alevel geared to the comprehensive abilities ofthe older children. In all cases in Milburn'sstudy, children in the youngest age group inthe multigrade class scored higher on basicskills tests than thtir age-mates in singlegrade classes. The findings of Milburn'sstudy suggest that multigrade classes maybe of special benefit to slow learners. Suchchildren may profit from the tendency toemulate older students. Also, if they are inthe same classroom with the same teacherfor more than one year, slow learners havemore time to assimilate learning in a familiarenvironment. Furthermore, multigradegrouping enables youngsters to work atdifferent developmental levels without obvi-ous remediation a situation that can causeemotional, social, or intellectual damageand wiLiout special arrangements for accel-eration (Milburn, 1981, pp. 513-514).

A number of other studies indicate that

multigrade grouping can provide remedialbenefits for at-rlsk children. For example, ithas been established that children are morelikely to exhibit prosocial behaviors (Whiting,1983) and offer instnIction (Ludeke &Hartup, 1983) to younger pcers than to age-mates. Brown and Palinscar (1986) makethe point that the cognitive growth stemmingfrom interaction with peers of different levelsof cognitive maturity is not simply a result ofthe less-informed child imitating the moreknowledgeable one. The interaction betweenchildren leads the less-informed member tointernalize new understandings. Along thesame lines, Vygotsky (1978) maintains thatinternalization of new concepts takes placewhen children interact within the "zone ofproximal development, the distance betweenthe actual developmental level and thepotential developmental level as determinedthrough problem solving under adult guid-ance or in collaboration with more capablepeers." Slavin (1987) suggests that thediscrepancy between what an individual cando with and without assistance can be thebasis for cooperative peer efforts that resultin cognitive gains, and that children model incollaborating groups behaviors more ad-vanced than those they could pedorm asindividuals. Brown and Reeve (1985) main-tain that instruction aimed at a wide rangeof abilities allows novices to learn at theirown rate and to manage various cognitivechallenges in the presence of "experts."

OBSTACLES TO MULTIGRADE

INSTRUCTIONAL ORGANIZATION

in view of the advantages to multigradeinstruction cited in the literature, the readermay wonder why more schools have not beenorganized into multigrade classes. Oneresponse is tradition. Although schools ofthe 1800s were nongraded, with the begin-ning of the industrial revolution and largescale urban growth, the practice of gradedschools was established as the norm fororganizing and classifying students. Educa-tors found it easier to manage increasednumbers of students by organizing them into

1 2


graOes or age divisions. Other factors, suchas the advent of graded textbooks, statesupported education, and the demand fortrained teachers, have further solidifiedgraded school organization. The gradedschool system was largely response to aneed for managing large numbers of stu-dents rather than an effort to meet individualstudent needs (Good lad & Anderson, 1963).

Although the graded school developed asa result of demographics and economics, ithas become the predominant way educatorsand parents think about schools. Ironically,changes in demographics and economics arenow necessitating different school organiza-tional patterns. However, the expectationscreated by the norm of graded schools havecreated a handicap for anyone seeking tooperate a multigrade school (Miller, 1989).Also, most teachers receive training forteaching single-grade classes organizedaround whole-class instruction and/or smallability-grouped instruction, which are char-acterized by low student diversity. Differentand more complex skills in classroom man-agement and discipline, classroom organiza-tion, instructional organization and curricu-lum, instructional delivery and grouping,self-directed learning, and peer tutoring areneeded to deliver instruction successfully ina multigrade class (Miller, 1989). Lack ofattention to these skills in teacher educationprograms is a problem to teachers who areassigned multigrade classes (Miller, 1988;Horn, 1983; Jones. 1987; Bandy & Gleadow,1980). Too frequently, the teacher skilldeficit and the need to develop communityunderstar ding and support of multigradeinstruction are overlooked by administratorsor policymakers when decisions to imple-ment multigrade classes are made midteacher assignments to nese classes aregiven.

TEACHING STRATEGIES

The Northwest Regional EducationalLaboratory's (NWREL) Rural Education

Program recognized the need for material toassist thc multigrade teacher in 1987 whenconcerns were raised about the availability ofresearch and training materials to help rural,multigrade teachers improve their skills. Asa result. the Rural Education Programdeveloped a handbook which contains acomprehensive review of the research onmultigrade instruction, key issues teachersface in a multigrade setting, and resourceguides to assist multigrade teachers inimproving the quality of instruction.Twenty-one multigrade teachers reviewed adraft of this handbook and provided feed-back, strategies, and ideas which wereincorporated into the final version completedin September 1989. The Multigrade Teacher:A Resource Handbook For Small, Rum!Schools by Bruce A. Miller has been ofbenefit to the VEA-AEL Study Group inpreparing its study. Particularly helpfulwere the bibliographies and the overview ofcurrent research on the effects of multigradeinstruction on student and teacher perfor-mance.

Teaching a multigrade class is a demand-ing task requiring a special type of individ-ual. It also requires training, communica-tion with parents and community members,and support. Teaching Combined GradeClasses: Real Problems and Promising Prac-tices suggests types of training. resources,and support that facilitate multigrade in-struction; effective strategies and practicesemployed by teachers experienced in multi-grade class instruction; and state and localpolicy initiatives that can support and assistteachers in multigrade class settings. Theteachers who prepared this study, as well asthose who responded to the study group'ssurvey, have experience teaching multigradeclasses. Their suggestions can be valuableto novice teachers in the multigrade ap-proach, to administrators who are reorganiz-ing schools, to those who plan professionaldevelopment activities, and to those whorecommend or initiate educational policy.

9TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES=MA 11V

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Study group members clustered re-sponses from 75 Virginia teacher respon-dents to the Grade Combination TeacherExperience and Perceptions Survey foranalysis of frequency of responses and forcommonalities emerging from the data. Thepurposes and methods of survey analysis aredescribed in the Methodology section. Thesurvey is included as Appendix C. The fol-lowing clusters were based upon questionsimilarities:

Questionr 1, 4, 5, 6Teacher Experience Characteristics

Questions 2, 3, 7, 8, 9Class and School Characteristics

Questions 10, 11, 14, 17Curriculum and Instructional StrategiesEmployed

Questions 15, 16Perceived Advantages and Difficulties ofGrade Combination Teaching

Questions 12, 13, 18, 19Perceived Assistance Sources and Re-sources

Question 20Policy Recommendations

Question 21Effective Instructional and ClassroomManagement Strategies

The following subsections discuss thefindings within the above clusters. Thequestions for each cluster are included herein abbreviated form for reference (see Appen-dix C for the complete survey),

ThACHER EAPERIENCE

CHARACTERISTICS

This topic examines data gathered inresponse to questions 1, 4, 5, and 6 of thesurvey relating to teacher experience. Re-sponses provided information on total yearsof experience in grade combination teachingcontinuity of grade combination teaching,assignment of grade combination classes,and total years teaching experience.

1. Are you currently teaching a gradecombination class?

4. Have you taught grade combina-tion classes in the past? If so,please indicate your years of gradecombination teaching experience.How many total years of teachingexpedence do you hava?

5. Have you requested grade combi-nation class teaching assignmentsor were you assigned a combinedclass?

6. Have you taught combinationclasses in consecutive years?

Ail 75 teachers responding to the surveywere currently teaching grade combinationclasses. Eighty-two percent of the respon-dents reported they previously had taught agrade combination class. Seventy-fivepercent of those teachers who had taught agrade combination class in the past indi-


cated they had between one and six yearsgrade combination teaching experience.Seven percent had seven to nine years ofgrade combination teaching experience, and18 percent had taught grade combinationclasses for 10 or more years.

In reporting total years of teachingexperience, the largest number of respon-dents (41 percent) indicated 16 or moreyears experience. The next highest categoryAn years of teaching experience was 11 to 15years (22 percent), followed by six to 10years (19 percent), and one to five years (18percenti.

The majority of teachers responding hadbeen assigned grade combination classes.Eighteen teachers (24 percent) reported theyhad requested a combined class. Oneteacher explained that school assignmentswere altered each year so a teacher wouldnot be assigned a combined class in con-secutive years. Analysis of the data fromquestion 6 revealed, however, that a majorityof respondents had taught combinationclasses in consecutive 3 tars.

A summary of teacher experience char-acteristics indicates that the "typicar surveyrespondent was a veteran teacher who hadtwo or more years experience teaching gradecombination classes. A majority of theteachers had taught grade combinationclasses iv consecutive years, and in mostcases these classes had been assigned.

CLAss AND SCHOOL

CHAIRAcTERIsncs

Questions 3, 7, 8, and 9 report dataon class and school settings for grade combi-nation teachers who responded. Responsesprovided descriptions of school and classsize, grades most frequently combined, whengrade combination classes were assigned,and composition of grade combinationclasses.

2. if you are currently teaching a gradecombination class, what grades are com-bined In your class?

3, What Is the approximate studentenrollment of your school?

7, How many students are enrolled inyour combination class?

8. What percentage of your studentsare served by "pull-our programs?

9, Was your 1989-90 class a gradecombination class from the first dayof school? lf no, in what month didIt become a grade combinafionclass?

Cited as the most frequently includedgrade in sl combined class was grade five.Eighteen percent of the teachers were cur-rently teaching a combined fourth/fifthgrade class, and another 18 percent wereteaching a combined fifth/sixth grade class.The next most frequently combined gradeswere third/fourth (16 percent), followed byfirst/second (13 percent), and second/third(eight percent). A small number of teachers(five percent) taught a kindergarteh/firstgrade combination or a sixth/seventh combi-nation. One teacher reported teaching aprekindergarten/kindergarten class. Figure1 depicts the frequency of combined grades.

Nine teachers indicated they were teach-ing combined classes with three grade leveln.Four of these teachers taught fourth/fifth/sixth; three taught first/second/third; onetaught fifth/sixth/seventh; and anothertaught pre-kindergarten/kindergarten/second grade.

Ninety-six percent of these classes werein place on the first day of school. However,four percent of the respondents stated thattheir classes became grade combinationslater in the school year, some as late asDecember or January.

Survey data indicated that grade combi-nation classes were most frequently found insmaller schools (300 or fewer students).Thirty-three percent of the respondentsreported teaching in schools with fewer than100 students. Twenty-six percent reportedteaching in schools with enrollments be-tween 101 and 300. Conversely, 29 percent

11


14

13

12

11

10

2 7

6

=111IIME

Figure 1. What Grades are Most Frequently Combined?

PreK PreK K/1/K /K/2

1/2 1/2/3 3/4 4/5 4/5/6 5/6 5/6/7 6/7

Combination Classes Surveyed by Grade Level


reported their school enrollment was be-tween 301 and 600, and only eight percent ofthe respondents taught in schools with astudent enrollment greater than 600.

Of the 75 teachers reporting, 67 percenthad between 16 and 25 students enrolled intheir combined classes. Second most fre-quently reported class size was between 26and 30. Thirteen percent of the teachers hadfewer than 15 students, while only threepercent had more than 30 students.

Diversity in class composition was evi-dent in many of the responses. Fifty-twopercent of the classes described includedstudents that received Learning Disability(LD) resource services, while 47 percentcontained children that were Chapter 1served or qualified. Limited English profi-ciency students were placed in 12 percent ofthe combination classes, and nine percent ofthe classes surveyed had Emotionally Dis-turbed (ED) and LD self-contained students.A few teachers indicated that their combina-tion classes included severely languageimpaired students, Educable MentallyRetarded (EMR) students, blind students, orautistic and physically handicapped stu-dents.

Forty-two percent of the respondentswere teaching combination classes with twoor more of these "special" groups of childrenrepresented. For example, in one class therewere five Chapter 1 students, three learningdisabled students, one severely languageimpaired student, and one student withlimited English proficiency. Another 42percent of the teachers surveyed describedclasses composed of students with a widevariety of learning styles and individualneeds to be met.

In addition, two-thirds of the gradecombination teachers reported that at leastfive percent of their students were served by"pull-out" programs, and approximately one-fourth of these teachers indicated that morethan half of their students were pulled fromtheir classrooms for various programs.

Summary of the data on class/schoolsettings provides a picture of the "typical"instructional environment for teachers whoresponded to the survey. Most frequently,

grade combination classes existed in smallschools (total enrollment under 300). Gener-ally, the grouping originated at the beginningof the school year and combined two con-secutive grades between grade two and gradesix. Average grade combination class sizeranged from 16 to 25 students, many ofwhom were served by special programs suchas LD or Chapter 1. Diversity of needs andlearning styles, as well as frequent move-ment of students in and out of the classroomfor special programs, were characteristic ofthe typical grade combination class de-scribed in this survey.

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL

STRATEGIES EMPLOYED

The questions in this cluster focused onfour concerns: having two or more prepara-tions for basic subjects, having to preparelessons for enrichment or supplementalprograms, handling field trips, and identify-ing instructional methods found to be effec-tive in teaching grade combination classes.An abbreviated version of the questions isincluded below followed by survey findingsrelating to this cluster. The complete ques-tions can be found in Appendix C.

10. For which basic subjects do youhave two or more preparations?

11. For which enrichment or supple-mental subjects do you also pre-pare lessons?

14. Do you take your class on field tripsor send students on grade-assignedfield trips?

17. Which instructional methods haveyou found to be effective in teach-ing a grade combination class?Please rank tile frequency withwhich you use each of these in-structional methods.

Survey findings indicate that basic skillssubjects most frequently required doublepreparations in grade combination classes.

1 7

13


Most respondents cited reading (87 percent)and math (86 percent) as subjects requiringtwo or more preparations. Spelling (79percent) was next in frequency of response.More than half of the teachers also reporteddouble preparations in science (64 percent),social studies (62 percent), health (58 per-cent), handwriting (55 percent), and Englishmechanics (54 percent). Additionally, 45percent of the respondents mentioned doublepreparations for family life and Englishcomposition/developmental writing.

Additionally, respondents reportedpreparing lessons for enrichment or supple-mental subjects. Survey data indicated that49 percent of the teachers prepared lessonsfor art. One teacher noted that art wasintegrated with social studies and English.Approximately one-third of the respondentsreported preparing lessons for physicaleducata on, and one-fourth of the teachersstated that they prepared gifted and talentedenrichment lessons. Only eight percent ofthe teachers reported preparing lessons formusic, and no respondents mentionedforeign language as an additional prepara-tion. Other preparations identified by surveyrespondents included: whole language arts,Quest Program for grades six and seven,human growth and development for gradesfive and six, At-Risk Program, remedialreading, computer, social skills, and minorityachievement math.

Most grade combination teachers re-sponding to the survey reported arrangingfield trips for their students. Fifty-sevenpercent indicated they took their own classon field trips, while 28 percent of the respon-dents both took their own class and alsosent students on grade assigned trips. Oneteacher commented, "Whenever possible.Regular education teachers won't alwaystake Emotionally Disturbed students."Another 14 percent of the respondentsreported only sending students on grade-assigned field trips, while eight percentindicated they neither took their students

11111MIIMMIIMM

nor sent them with other groups on fieldtrips.

In responses to question 17 regardinginstructional methods that grade combina-tion teachers found effective, integrating thecurriculum and peer tutoring were the mostfrequently mentioned strategies. Eighty-twopercent of the respondents reported employ-ing these two methods in their classes. Ofthose who used pin tutoring, approximatelyone-half used wain-grade peer tutoring,while the other one-half employed cross-agetutoring. Cooperative learning was the nextmost frequently mentioned method (62percent), and 39 percent of the teachersindicated team teaching as an effectiveinstructional method in grade combinationclasses.

The following additional effective gradecombination teaching strategies were pro-vided by respondents:

se utilizing parent volunteers;se departmentalizing instruction;

implementing whole group instruction;se being organized;se being flexible (tspecially with grouping

between grades);utilizing a fulltime instructional aide;andnetworking with other educators.

In addition to rating effectiveness ofteaching strategies, respondents were askedto rank the frequency of their use of thesestrategies from one (most frequently used) toftve (least frequently used). Interestinglyenough, the methods that were reported tobe most effective were also the same meth-ods that were used most frequently. Basedon the number of respondents who ranked aparticular strategy one or two, integratingthe curriculum ranked first in frequency ofuse (64 percent). The sect,nd most frequentlyused instructional method was peer tutoring(51 percent), followed by cooperative learning(44 percent) and team teaching (21 percent).

18


PERCEIVED ADVANTAGES AND

DIFFIcuunEs OFGRADE COMBINATION TEACHING

In addition to identifying experiencecharacteristics of grade combination teach-ers, the survey was designed to assessrespondent perceptions of grade combina-tion teaching. Perceived advantages anddifficulties were recorded in response toquestions 15 and 16 of the survey. Follow-ing the questions is a description of respon-dent data.

15. Please describe any difficulties youhave experienced in teaching curric-ula of two grade levels.

16. Please describe advantages you per-ceive to teaching grade combinationclasses.

DIFFICULTIES

The consersms on difficulties experiencedby 83 percent of the respondents can becapsulized in the response "double planning,double teaching, double grading, anddouble record keeping." These teacherscited specific difficulties indicating, as oneteacher stated, 'The time factor Is mostcritical time in terms of covering matetalswith students." The individual difficultiesreported by teachers that relate to the "timefactor" in daily class instruction in order offrequency are as follows:

lack of class time for instruction of twograde levels (71%);insufficient planning time (62%);not enough time for teachers to mastertwo curricula in preparation to teach(48%);insufficient time to effectively cover twosets of curricula (45%);never caught up on written work (38%);insufficient time to remediate or work ona one-to-one basis with a child (24%);and

inability to go beyond basics (e.g., notenough time for science experiments)(7%).

After time, the next most frequently citeddifficulties, identified by 38 percent of therespondents, were fragmentation, schedul-ing, and grouping. Several responses illus-trate these perceived difficulties. Two teach-ers indicated acheduling problems wererelated to the number of pull-out programs.Science and social studies were specificareas mentioned as difficult to schedule.Two teachers noted that in subjects such asfamily life, health, and sex education, thecurriculum for one grade is not appropriatefor the other grade. Therefore, teachers must"farm out" children before they can teachcertain lessons. Three other teachers saidthey could not arrange field trips becausethe subject would not be appropriate forboth grade levels.

The third most frequently experienceddifficulty in teaching curricula of two gradelevels was the inability of one group ofchildren to work independently while theteacher instructed the other grovp (20percent). For example, one teacher statedthere was constant competition between thegroups for the teacher's time, and anotherdescribed problems with children who fit inno group. However, three teachers identifiedproblems related to scheduling for teamteaching and working with teachers who theyfelt were uncooperative.

Respondents als i identified difficultiesrelated to how children were placed incombination classes. Concerns about howchildren were placed in grade combinationclasses were raised by six teachers whospecified that class size was too large; chil-dren were inappropriately added during theyear; children felt isolated from others intheir grade, thus their self-esteem suffered;and children with special needs such asEnglish as a Second Language students wereinappropriately placed in combinationclasses.

Finally, 11 teachers described difficultiesrelated to supports and resources. Threerespondents specified a lack of support from

19

'ftACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL, PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

Difficulties

CF.ck WcT----asstime forQnstruction of two grade leve3ls

rinsufficientq:olanning time

(insufficient time to remediate o--r

work on a one-to-one basiswith a child }

Insufficient time to effectivelycover two sets of curricula

Never caught tilio

on written work'

Constant competition between thegroups for the teachers time

1Double planning, double teaching,olouble grading, and double record keeping)


their principal, and four mentioned concernabout the amount of public relations workrequired to gain parental support. Twoteachers mentioned a lack of support andassistance in general, and two responsesdescribed insufllcient resources and materi-als to teada and to integrate two curriculumlevels.

ADVANTAGES

In describing advantages to teachinggrade combination classes, the consensus of26 percent of the 69 teachers who respondedto this question wcs that peer tutoring is thegreatest benefit. In contrast to a perceiveddisadvantage mentioned by one teacher, 14percent of the teachers who responded tothis question stated that having the childrentwo consecutive years allowed them theadvantages of knowing the children'sstrengths and weaknesses and of being ableto group ahead of time. One teacher re-sponded, "Keeping students for a secondyear is great no lost time!"

Integration of language arts and othercurricula was identified aa an advantage by14 percent of the teachers. Six of these 10responses specified the particular benefitcombination classes had to integrating thereading curricula.

Respondents perceived a wide variety ofother advantages. However, each was men-tioned by only one or two persons. Theseadvantages are categorized below under theheadings of grouping, academic, behavioral,and resource and support advantages.

Grouping advantages:Children are always taught in smallgroups.Gifted and talented programs, differentia-tion, and general grouping are no prob-lem.Class size is always smaller.You get the top notch students academi-cally and no behavior problems.All children can read.

21

Academic advantages:Uppitr grade can review what is taught tothe lower grade.One group motivates the other group.Children in the lower grade get enrich-ment by listening to what is taught to theupper group.Children in the lower grade are betterprepared for the next year.

Behavioral advantages:Different ages learn to socialize.Teacher can observe nine- and 10-year-olds interacting.More independent work habits are devel-oped.Upper grade children act as role modelsfor lower grade children.

Resource and support advantages:I received an extra computer for myroom.Help from an aide was provided.

Although 24 percent of the 69 teacherswho answered this question respondednegatively with "no advantages," one teachernoted, "Kids learn from kids. I use studentsto help other students with word recognition,spelling, math, etc." However, this teacherwent on to say, "This isn't really an advan-tage because this could be done in a one-grade class." Another respondent stated,"After 12 years of teaching combinationgrades, I can see no advantages. Because oftime limitations, you cannot reach all stu-dents and meet their needs. They becomeangry and 'turned off.' Teachers are leftfrustrated and emotionally and physicallydrained."

In summary, a diversity of difficultiesand advantages to grade combination classeswere perceived by s, trvey respondents.Difficulties identified by respondents inteaching cunicula of two grade levels fallinto five categories: time, scheduling/group-ing, children's inability to work indepen-dently, student placement, and supports/resources. Teachers cited specific difficul-ties, most notably lack of planning and

17

TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL. PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRAC110ES

Advantages

ntegration of language artiand other curricula

Different ages(learn to socialize)

(Upper grade can review what it)taught to the lower grade

C. Peer tutoringkids learn from kids/,_.

(Upper grade children act as role.rnodels for lower grade children}

CMore Independent work habitare developed }

(-Children in the lower grade get enrichment bylistening to what Is taught to the upper group

,

ItACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

instructional time, relating to the mostfrequently identified problem time. Incontrast, a number of advantages to gradecombination classes were identified, mostfrequently peer tutoring. Moreover, prob-lems cited by some respondents were per-ceived as advantages by others, althoughthere was greater consensus on specificdifficulties. For example, 83 percent of therespondents identified "double planning,teaching, grading, and record keeping" as adifficulty, while 14 percent identified curricu-lum integration as an advantage. Also, someteachers indicated grouping was a problem,while others perceived grouping as an advan-tage to grade combination classes. Althoughthey also may have identified difficulties, amajority of the respondents perceived someadvantages to teaching grade combinationclasses.

PERCEIVED ASSISTANCE SOURCES AND

RESOURCES

Although supports/resources were a"problem" category identified by surveyrespondents, grade combmation teachersalso described ways and means by whichtheir teaching was supported. Questions 12,13, 18, and 19 on the VEA-AEL GradeCombination Teacher Experience and Per-ceptions Survey deal with helps and re-sources that teachers have available andutilize when teaching a grade combinationclass.

12. Who helps you teach? Indicate anyperson who assists your instruction insome way.

13. What resources do you use frequently ininstruction?

18. Does your school principal assist yourwork? if so, please describe how. If not,please suggest ways a principal couldassist.

11117==k

19. What professional development experi-ences have helped you in teaching acombination grade class?

In response to question 12, 37 percent ofthe respondents, the largest percentagecited, reported receiving help in teachingfrom the school librarian. The second largestcategory of responses, halftime instructionalaides, were listed by 28 percent of the re-spondents. Almost half (48 percent) of thoseteachers who cited halftime instructionalaides as helpers are assisted by those aidesfive days per week. However, the amount ofaide time varied from one-half hour to fivehours per day. Specialists such as music,art, and physical education teachers andcounselors comprised the next largest groupof responses (25 percent). Parent volunteerswere reported as instructional assistants by20 percent of the teachers, and team teach-ers were mentioned in 16 percent of theresponses. A small percentage of respon-dents cited student teacher, principal,curriculum specialist, or fulltirne instruc-tional aide as an instructional assistant.Additionally, 21 percent of the survey re-spondents did not indicate any person as aninstructional assistant.

In indicating resources used in instruc-tion, 89 percent of the respondents reportedthat teachers' manuals for each subject andgrade level were their most frequently usedresources. Other resources cited in order offrequency of response were: supplementalinstructional materials for each grade, audio-visual equipment, personal computers, mathmanipulatives, classroom space which allowsfor grouping, science kits, learning centers,and math kits.

Seventy-four percent of the survey re-sondents replied to question 18, "Does yourprincipal assist your workr Of those re-sponding, 57 percent indicated that theirprincipal did not assist them in their work.However, respondents made numeroussuggestions as to how principals might assistgrade combination teachers. A review of allsuch suggestions revealed the following most

19TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRAC110ES

frequently described ways principals couldassist:

careful selection of students for a gradecombination class;more support with discipline:flexible scheduling:team teaching;more instructional materials: andencouragement and support.

Forty-three percent of the teachersresponding to this question answered thattheir principals did assist them in theirwork. Following are the most frequentlycited ways in which grade combinationteachers reported being assisted by theirprincipals:

making helpful suggestions and givingsupport:assigning aide time:helping to teach:choosing students for the class carefully;limiting number of students in the classand number oi reading groups;giving teacher control over curriculumtaught: andsupplying extra materials for the class-room.

Several types of professional developmentexpaiences were cited as helpful to thegrade combination teachers who respondedto question 19. Professional reading wasmost frequently mentioned (38 percent).followed by inservice education sessions (26percent). peer observation (21 percent).teacher support group or network (18 per-cent). educator association conferences (ninepercent). and mentor (eight percent). "On thejob training" and "experience in teaching awide range of grade levels" were most fre-quently described by eight of the 12 respon-dents to the "other experiences" category.

In conclusion, data from this cluster ofquestions indicated that resources areavailable to support teaching grade combina-tion classes. Frequently utilized supports forteachers who responded to the survey can beplaced in three categories: human resources.

instructional materials, and professionalexperiences. A majority of the respondentsreported receiving instructional assistancefrom at least one other person, using in-structional resources such as teachers'manuals and supplementary instructionalmaterials, and being assisted by a variety ofprofessional development experiences. Itwould seem that grade combination teachersse.2k and utilize resources to enrich theirteaching.

PoucY RECOMMENDATIONS

In response to question 20, surveyrespondents were asked to recommendschool, division, or state policies to governteaching grade combination classes. Thissubsection of the survey findings should beparticularly useful to those who recommendor initiate educational policy.

20. Please suggest any schooL division, orstate policies which would make teach-ing grade combination classes moreeffective for students and desirable forteachers.

Fifty-one teachers (68 percent) respondedto this survey item. They suggested thatpolicies for grade combination classes shoulddeal with student, teacher, and curriculumissues. Some persons responded that thereshould be a policy of discouraging the prac-tice of combination classes.

Student Issues:The most pressing policy issues reported

that related to students were class size andthe type of student placed in grade combina-tion classes. Twelve teachers (24 percent)said that combination classes should be keptsmall. Two teachers made specific sugges-tions for limits on class size: "less than 15":"20 is more than enough." Another said thatthere should be a limit on the number ofspecial education students. One teachersaid there should be a limit on the numberof students, noting, "My class Ls the biggestone in our whole school!"

0 4


Eleven teachers (22 percent) commentedabout a policy to designate the kind ofstudent who would be selected for participa-tion in combination classes. There was littleconsensus, however, on what the guidelinesneed to be. The following were some sugges-tions:

high achievers, or average or above inability;students grouped according to subject orreading levels;students capable of working well inde-pendently;students with good work/study/listeningskills; andstudents who can work well in a combi-nation class.

Grouping high achievers of one gradeand low achievers of the other was reported"not a good working possibility!" Anotherteacher said, "I don't feel my situation is thatgood because I have the lowest kids from twograde levels."

Another teacher suggested that combina-tions be set up first with the right combina-tion of students put together in the groups,rather than at the end with "all the 'left-overs'."

It was suggested that within the combi-nation class retained students who advancedto grade level work should be allowed tomove ahead to the higher grade level at theteacher's discretion.

Which grades to be combined was thetopic of four comments. "It is not a wise ideato group lower and upper grade students,"said one person. Combining grades five andsix was not good either, observed another."Sixth graders feel isolated from all sixthgrade classes, and fifth graders are intimi-dated."

"K through 3 and 1-2 combinations seemto work better," commented a teacher.

One teacher offered the suggestion that a"tracking system to examine students'progress through junior high school wouldoffer much needed feedback."

Teacher issues:Not surprisingly, there were more com-

ments offered for policies that related tcteachers. 'The assistance of an instructionalaide, more pay, and planning time were themost common themes.

Of the thirteen specific references (26percent) to the services of an instructionalaide, there were five that spoke for a fulltimeaide, three that mentioned halftime, andseven that addressed having an aide anunspecified amount of time. There was littleambiguity in the comments: 'Teachers withcombination classes should have fulltime orparttime aides no matter what the class size,especially in the primary grades," said oneteacher.

Ten teachers (20 percent) said the com-pensation should be higher for teachingcombination classes. One suggested thatthese teachers receive *monetary rewards of$1,000 extra a year, or maybe extra personaldays." Another said double pay would beappropriate, "since two Jobs are actuallybeing done."

It would be helpful for combinationteachers to have more planning time, saideight teachers (16 percent). "Daily unen-cumbered planning period of at least anhour," suggested one. "We get a planningperiod during music and library, but notevery day," she explained.

There were other suggestions of policiesto ameliorate teaching grade combinationproblems.

Limit the number of years a teachercould be assigned combinations, andprohibit successive years;Give the teacher a more flexible schedule;Have more reading materials available oncombination classes and their implemen-tation; andDevelop a network for teachers in similarsituations and hold an annual confer-ence for them.

Curriculum issues:There were several suggestions for poli-

cies on how to adjust the curriculum toassist with combination classes. Two teach-

21


ers said that team teaching helped, because,as one put it,"there were not so many les-sons for one person to prepare."

"Curriculum objectives should be flexiblefor these classes," said one teacher. Insteadof dictating content by grade level i.e., U.S.history at grade five, curriculum should belooked at more as a concept developmentprocess," commented another.

Combining subjects like science andsocial studies so that the grades could betaught together was another suggestion.Supplementary materials should be used forcombination classes, "so they won't have thesame material again" the next year. "Eachgrade should have its own separate music,physical education, and library classes," saidanother.

Policy prohibiting the practice: Ninerespondents (18 percent) said that combina-tion classes should be eliminated. Twooffered the suggestion of consolidating smallschools as ri way of eliminating combina-tions.

There were several responses that did notdirectly relate to the issue of policy, butindicated the respondents' attitudes. Twowere negative in tone. "Double work for theteacher. No increase in pay," jotted oneteacher. Another commented: "I do not feelthese classes are effective. I feel very uneasyabout my older group, but confident that myyounger group has done well. I don't thinkthat policy would help."

The last response was more positive:"There are a lot of combination grades taughtin our school system, and not all teacherslike it. Further input should be obtainedfrom these teachers, since I don't really havea big problem with teaching two grades."

In summary, responses to question 20indicated a diversity of opinion about appro-priate policies for grade combination teach-ing. There was little consensus in the re-sponses except that teachers should havemore control over how classes are organizedand assigned, which students are placed inthem, what curriculum is taught, and howteachers of grade combination classes aresupported in their efforts.

EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL AND

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES

This subsection reports informationgathered in response to question 21 of the"VEA-AEL Grade Combination TeacherExperience and Perceptions Survey." Theadditional instructional strategies providedby respondents are included to assist educa-tors in making grade combination classesmore effective and desirable for students andteachers. The survey question is includedbelow for reference.

21. Please describe practices or strategiesyou hove found effective for variousteaching situations.

Sixty-one percent of the survey respon-dents completed this question and describeda total of 102 strategies they had foundeffective in teaching grade combinationclasses. To analyze and report the data,these responses are grouped into the follow-ing six categories listed in order of frequencyof response: classroom management, timemanagement, grouping, parent relotionships,getting started, and socialization.

Approximately 65 percent of the re-sponses indicated that teachers perceivedgood classroom management as essential inteaching a grade combination class. Datarevealed that management practices that areeffective in single-grade classes may besimilarly applied in grade combinationclasses. Practical, yet diverse, classroommanagement strategies provided by respon-dents include the following: (Numbers inparentheses indicate frequency of re-sponses.)

Keep one group involved with meaning-ful, individualized work while the teacherworks with the other group (4);Make academic/behavioral expectationsclear and consistent (4);Promote a sense of oneness or unityamong all students in the class (3);

2G


Provide rewards (e.g., extra field trips,coupons to the school store, frequentbreaks, etc.) (3);Design seating patterns that mix gradesand are conducive to optimum learning(2);Have board/desk assignments ready forstudents to begin upon arrival in themorning (2);Select compatible students for peertutoring and cooperative learning groups(2); andModel a positive attitude towart-others,the school, and the classroom setting (1).

Time management, a common concern inall grade combination settings, rankedsecond in frequency of responses (54 per-cent). Three strategies were most frequentlymentioned by the teachers as effectivemethods for handling the time managementfactor: intzgrate content and activities forboth grades whenever possible (13 percent);provide fridependent learning activities forone poop while delivering instruction to theother group (6 percent); and grade work inclass and give frnmediate feedback whenfeasible (4 percent).

Thirty-three percent of the respondentsaddressed grouping practices and agreedthat grouping is essential in meeting thediverse needs of individual students. Fiveeducators indicated a preference for homoge-neous grouping by ability or performancelevel. One teacher eonunented, "I teach allday as if rm having reading groups." 'Almrespondents recommended that the olderstudents in the class he "cooperative, inde-pendent. average to high level achievers."One teacher said It was also desirable thatthe younger students be "cooperative, yetlower level achievers whose skills will notsurpass those of their older classmates."Another respondent stated that having highlevel achievers eliminated the necessity formore groups than the teacher could handle.Four of the teachers suggested cross-gradeor grade-level peer tutoring. Following aretheir grouping strategies:

Use upper grade students to assigtyounger students;

Let one child be a 'teacher' for WeeklyReader for his/her grade level;Use second grades to work with firstgraders on math that requires reading;andUse average first graders to work withslower second graders on work recogni-tion, reading, and spelling.

Finally, the use of instructional aides orparent volunteers to work with groups wasmentioned by four teachers.

The next category of responses indicatedthat approximately 30 percent of the educa-tors reported that a good parent-teacherrelationship was a "must" in grade combina-tion settings. Although a few teachersmentioned their concerns regarding parentreservations and negativity to such classes,93 percent of the comments referred topositive parent teacher interactions. Fiftypercent of these responses related to estab-lishing and maintaining good communicationbetween i aro'er and parents. Following aresome s.. oggestions for effective corn-municatien.

Have a parent meeting before schoolbegins to explain the grade combinationclass (3);Call parents frequently and send homeprogress reports and student workperiodically (3); andClarify to parents that specific grade levelmaterial will be provided to all students(1).

Thirty-six percent of the responses tothis question recommended involving par-ents in the classroom. Teachers indicatedthat using parents as tutors or classroomaides and developing a regular schedule fortheir participation in the classroom wereeffective ways to promote good parent rela-tionships, as well as to improve studentachievement.

Finally, one respondent stated her phi-losophy for developing good parent relation-ships: "Always have a positive attitude(showing) that you can do a good Job andthat the grade combination class will work."

23

TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING NACTICES

Responses from approximately 20 per-cent of the teachers surveyed related to waysof "getting started" with a grade combinationclass and addressed two areas: 1) what todo before implementing the grade combina-tion chss; and 2) how to "get started" in theclassroom with students. The followingpractices were reported as effective beforeimplementation:

Students placed in the grade combina-tion class should be independent workers(2);Place only average to top ability levelstudents in grade combination classes(2);Simplify the process by having studentsfor two years who know your teachingstyle, methods, etc. (1); andVisit and observe other grade combina-tion classes.

In suggesting strategies for how to getstarted with students, two teachers men-tioned the importance of setting behavioralguidelines and being consistent with behav-ioral expectations. Also, two teachers re-ported that having assignments on the chalkboard or on students' desks at the beginningof the school day was an effective strategy for"getting started." Two teachers suggestedbeginning the day with an "across thegrades" assignment. A final strategy sug-gested in this category provides good advice

for all teachers: "Be flexible; love teachingand children!"

The final category of responses on recom-mended effective instructional strategies wassocialization. Approximately 20 percent ofthe respondents mentioned effective strate-gies for promoting socialization, indicatingthey perceived socialization as valuable andnecessary for students' social developmentas individuals and as a group. All responsesillustrated the need to establish a "familybonding" attitude in a grade combinationsetting. "Promote a sense of class unity,"and "together we make a team" were singleresponses indicative of the strategies re-ported. Four respondents to this question(44 perEent) showed apposition to competi-tion between grades in a grade combinationclass in recommending practices such as"treat them as one class," and "involve bothregular and Chapter 1 students in readingstories and reviewing math." Mixed seatingarrangements; whole class experiencesincorporated into lessons; an impartialbehavior management system; and planned,regular contact with other classes wereeffective practices reported by individualrespondents.

A brief summary of this subsection(question 21) of the survey findings may bestated in the combined recommendations ofseveral respondents: "Be positive; be pre-pared; be flexible; be consistent!"

28

2E5

UACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FROM STUDY GROUP MEMBERS

The VEA-AEL Grade CombinationTeacher Experience and Perceptions Survey,developed by study group members, wasdesigned to solicit data regarding teachingexperience, school and classroom settings,perceived advantages and difficulties, effec-tive teaching strategies, and recommendedpolicy initiatives from experienced gradecombination teachers. Findings on theexperience and perceptions of 75 Virginiagrade combination teachers who respondedto the survey have been reported in thisstudy. Further, the experience of the au-thors should contribute to the wisdom oftheir product. The Virginia teachers whoparticipated in this study group have acombined total of 74 years teaching experi-ence and 23 yews grade combination teach-ing experience. Their reflections and per-sonal comments provide additional assis-tance and insight to novice grade combina-tion teachers, administrators, and those whorecommend or initiate educational policy.Many of the recommendations made bystudy group members reinforce those offeredby survey respondents; others expand andenrich survey findings.

Study group members were asked toprovide additional classroom management/instructional strategies they had foundeffective in teaching grade combinationclasses. Their recommendations were largelyconcerned with curriculum and instructionaldelivery methods.

In relation to curriculum, study groupmembers recommended integrating subjectareas and grade levels. One teacher said,"Each day I provide opportunities for bothgrades to interact academically and socially."Another teacher suggested that art, music,and physical education were particularlyappropriate for whole class instruction.

Various instructional delivery methodswere recommended by study group mem-bers. Greater emphasis on oral discussion,cooperative learning activities, homogeneousgrouping, whole-class and grade-level fieldtrips, integrated seating arrangements withclassroom space for small group instruction,extended use of instructional aides, andteam teaching were suggested. One teacheralso added, *Provide one-to-one time eachday for the teacher to work with individualstudents"; while another advised, "Be flex-ible, yet organized, with instructional activi-ties."

Finally, one teacher offered her strategyfor establishing effective communication withstudents and parents; "Have students keepa notebook of daily assignments which bothteacher and parent sign daily. Also, addpositive comments on student work andrequest that parents respond to their chil-dren's work with comments or questionswritten to the teacher."

Grade Combination Study Group mem-bers were also asked to suggest policies thatwould enhance and facilitate grade combina-tion teaching. The most frequently recom-mended policies were related to teacherempowerment. The following commentswere offered by study group members;

Allow teachers to volunteer to teachgrade combination classes rather thanmake arbitrary assignments.

Place limits on the number of consecu-tive years a teacher may be assigned agrade combination class unless theteacher requests a continued assign-ment.

Give teachers greater input into classsize, student placement, and schedul-


ing. (Two teachers suggested a pupil-teacher ratio of 18:1.)

Allow teachers more flexibility in devel-oping and integrating curricula.

The teachers recommended additionalpolicies that would improve the teaching/learning environment in grade combinationclasses.

Grade combination classes should beformed only for academic reasons byschool choice, not required because ofenrollment. Consolidating smallerschools would eliminate the need forcombined classes.

Provide more planning time for gradecombination teachers.

Develop a clear rationale/guidelines forstudent placement in grade combina-tion classes.

Provide inservice training on teachinggrade combination classes to all educa-tors, including substitute teachers.

One teacher suggested a monetary,retroactive bonus for grade combinationteachers; another reflected, "moremoney doesn't change difficult teachingconditions."

The reflections offered by study groupmembers provide important considerationsfor administrators and teachers as theyorganize and implement grade combinationclasses. The experiences, perceptions, andrecommendations of these teachers and ofsurvey respondents indicate their recognitionof the obstacles encountered in grade combi-nation teaching; their successful practicesfor overcoming problems; and their aware-ness of the continuing need for carefulplanning, appropriate training, and en-hanced teacher involvement in decisionmak-ing for grade combination instruction.

27

ThACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adair, J. H. (1978). An attitude andachievement comparison between kinder-garten and first grade children in multiand single grade classes. DissertationAbstracts International, 39, 659A-660A.

Adams, J. J. (1953). Achievement andsocial adjustment of pupils in combinationclass enrolling pupils of more than onegrade level. Journal of Educational Re-search, 47, 151-55.

Ames, C. (1984). Goal structures andmotivation. The Elementary School Jour-nal, 85(1), 39-52.

Bandy, H., & Gleadow, N. (1980). Theidentification of skills and characteristicsneeded by country school teachers. Victo-ria, B.C.: University of Victoria.

Barker, B. (1986). Teachers in the nation'ssurviving one-room schools. ContemporaryEducation, 57(3), 148-150.

Berliner, D. (January 1988). Peer tutoring:A new look at popular practice. Instructor,14-15.

Bierman, K. & Furman, W. (1981). Effectsof role and assignment rationale on atti-tudes formed during peer tutoring. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 73, 33-40.

Bossed, S. T. (1979). Tasks and socialrelationships in classrooms. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Bossed, S. T., Barnett, B. G., & Filby, N. N.(1984). Grouping and instructional or-ganization. In Good & Marshall, Thesocial context of instruction (pp. 39-51).University of Wisconsin.

Brown, A. L., & Palinscar, A. (1986). Guidedcooperative learning and individual knowl-edge acquisition (Technical Report No.372). Champaign, IL: Center for theStudy of Reading.

Brown, A. L., & Reeve, R. A. (1985). Band-widths of competence: The role of suppor-tive contexts in learning and development(Technical Report No. 336). Champaign,IL: Center for the Study of Reading.

Bryan, B. (1986). Rural teachers' experi-ences: Lessons for today. The Rural Edu-cator, 7(3), 1-5.

Chace, E. S. (1961). An analysis of someeffects of multiple-grade grouping in anelementary school. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Tennessee.

Cohen, E. (1980). A multi-ability approachto the integrated classrooms. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 196989).

Cohen, E. (1984). Talking and workingtogether: Status, interaction and learning.In the Social Context of Instruction. Univer-sity of Wisconsin. (00. 171-187).

Cohen, E. G. (1986). Teacher applicationpamphlet: Designtng change for the class-room. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 211 501).

Cohen, E. G. (1986). Designing groupwork.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cohen, E., & Anthony, B. (1982). Expecta-tion states theory and classroom learning.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 214 750).


Cohen, E., Deal, T., Meyer, J., & Scott, R.(1976). Organization and instruction inelementary schools: First results. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED132 656).

Cohen, E., & Intili, J. (1982). Interdepen-dence and management in bilingual class-rooms. Final report. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No, ED 229 840).

Cohen, E., Intill, J., & Robbins, S. (1978).Teachers and reading specialist: Coopera-tion or isolation? Me Reading Teacher,32(3), 291-287.

Cohen, E., Lockheed, M., & Lohman, M.(1976). The center for interracial coopera-tion: A field experiment. Sociology of Edu-cation, 49, 47-58.

Cohen, P. K., & Kulik, J. A. (December,1981). Synthesis of research on theeffects of tutoring. Educational Leader-ship, 227-229.

Cohen, P. K., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.(1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring:A meta-analysis of findings. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 19(2), 237-248.

Collins, J., & Calevro, M. (1974). Main-streaming special education using a peertutoring system and minimum objectivecurriculum for nine eighth grade students.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 102 788).

Day, B., & Hunt, G. H. (1975). Multiageclassrooms: Analysis of verbalcommunication. Elementary SchoolJournal, 75, 458-464.

Devin-Sheehan, L., Feldman, R., & Allen, V.(1976). Research on children tutoringchildren: A critical review. Review of Edu-cational Research, 4613), 355-386.

Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teach-ing: A manual of practice. New York, NY:Teachers College Press.

32

Dodendorf, D. M. (1983). A unique ruralschool environment. Psychology in theschools, 20, 99-104.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organizationand management. In Handbook of Re-search on Teaching. MacMillan Publish-ing Company, pp. 592-431.

Drier, W. H. (1949). The differentialachievement of rural graded and ungradedschool pupils. Journal of Educational Re-search. 43, 175-185.

Durkin, D. (1983). What classroom obser-vations reveal about reading comprehen-sion instruction. In L. M. Gentile, M. L.Kamil, & J. S. Blanchard (Eds.), ReadingResearch Revisited. Columbus: CharlesMerril.

Dyer, T. A., (1989). Teaching splits: Strate-gies for combination classrooms. Bly, ORAuthor.

Embry, J. (1981). Utah's country schoolssince 1896. Provo, UT: Brigham YoungUniversity. (ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service No. ED 221 273).

Emmer, E. T. (1987). Classroom management and discipline. In Virginia-Richardson-Koehler (Ed.) Educators'handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman,Inc., pp. 233-258.

Evangelou, D. (1989). Mixed-age groups inearly childhood education. (EDO-PS-89-4).Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Ele-mentary and Early Childhood Education.

Evertson, C., Emmer, T., Clements, B.,Sanford, Worsham, & Williams, E. (1981).Organizing and managing the elementaryschool classroom. Austin, TX: The Re-search and Development Center forTeacher Education.

Fogarty, M. (1979). Small schools: Organi-zation and teaching methods. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED223395).


Ford, B. (1977). Multiage grouping in theelementary school and children's affectivedevelopment: A review of recent research.The Elementary School Journal, 78, 149-159.

Freeman, J. (1984). How I learned to stopworrying and love my combination class.Instnictor. 93(7), 48-49.

Gibbons, M., & Phillips, 0. (1978). Helpingstudents through the self-education crisis.Phi Delta Kappari, 296-300.

Glatthorn, A. (1987). Curriculum leadership.Glenview, IL: Good Year Books.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Lookingin classrooms. New York, NY: Harper &Row.

Goodlad, J. I. (1986). A place called school:Prospects for the future. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Goodlad, J. I., & Anderson, R H. (1963).The non-graded elementary school. NewYork: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.

Griswold, C. (1987). Topic development formulti-level classrooms K-5: Incorporatingessential leaming skills. Salem, OROregon Department of Education.

Guglielmino, L. (1977). Development of theself-directed learning readiness scale.Doctoral dissertation, The University ofGeorgia.

Hartup, W. W. (1976). Cross-age versussame-age interaction: Ethological andcross-cultural perspectives. In V. L. Allen(Ed.). Children as teachers: Theory andresearch on tutoring (pp. 41-54). NewYork: Academic Press.

Harvey, S. B. (1974). A comparison ofkindergarten children in multigrade andtraditional settings on self concept, social-emotional development, readiness develop-

ment, and achievement. (Doctoral disser-tation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University). University MicrofilmsInternational, al, 3340-A.

Hiebert, E. (1980). Peers as readingteachers. Language Arts, 57, 877-881.

Hill, J. C. & Tanveer, S. A. (May, 1981).Kids teaching kids: It works. The Educa-tional Forum, 425-432.

Hoffinan, A. (1973). A nice warm situation.Teacher, 91, 42-45.

Holloway, S. D. (1988). Concepts of abilityand effort in Japan and the United States.Review of Educational Research, 58(3),327-343.

Horn, J. G. (1983). Attempting to develop aprogram response to the needs cif thoseprepartng to teach in rural/ small schools.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 230 320).

Horn, .J. G. (1985). Recruitment and prepa-ration of quality teachers for rural schools.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 258 785).

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R T., Holubec, E,J., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning:Cooperation in the classroom EdwardBrothers, Inc.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R, & Scott, L.(1978). The effects of cooprative and indi-vidualized instruction on student attitudesand achievement. Journal of Social Psy-chology, 104, 207-216.

Jones, B. J. (1987). Preservice programs forrural environments: Survey andrecommendations. Research in Rural Edu-cation, 4. 3-8.

Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (1980). Models ofteaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, Inc.

33

3D

TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES4June11, J. S. (1970). An analysis qf the

effects qf multigracling on a number qf non-cognitive variables. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Washington.

Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperatim learning:Resources for teaChers. San Juan Capis-trano, CA: Resources for Teachers.

Kaplan, S. N. et al. (1973). Change forchildren. Pacific Palisades, CA: GoodyearPublishing Company, Inc.

Karweit, N. (1987). Diversity, equity, andclassroom processes. In M. T. Hallinan(Ed.), Social organization of schools: Newconceptualization of learning (pp. 71-102).New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Kerry, T. (1984). Analyzing the cognitivedemand made by classroom tasks inmixed-ability classes. In E. C. Wragg,(ED), Classroom teaching skills (pp. 163-178). N.m., York, NY: Nichols PublishingCo.

Klein, M. F. (1982). Independent study. InEncyclopedia of Education. New York, NY:New York Free Press, pp. 835-843.

Knight, E. E. (1938). A study of doublegrades in New Haven City schools. Jour-nal elf Experimental Education, 7, 11-18.

Knowles, M. (1975). SW-directed learning: Aguide for learners andteachers. Chicago:Follett.

Lazerson, D. (1980). I must be good if I canteach peer tutoring with aggressive andwithdrawn children. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 13, 43-48.

Lincoln, .1. D. (1981). The effect of single-grade and multi-grade primary schoolclassroom on reading achievement ofchildren. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of Connecticut.

Ludeke, R J., & Hartup, W. W. (1983).Teaching behavior of 9 and 11 year-oldgirls in mixed-age and same-age dyads.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6),908-914.

3 4

MacDonald, P. A., & Wurster S. R. (1974).Multiple grade primary versus segregatedfirst grade: Effects on reading achievement. Bethesda, MD. (ERIC Document Re-production Service No. ED 094 336).

Marshall, H. H. & Weinstein, R S. (1984).Classroom factors affecting students' self-evaluations: An interactional model.Review of Educational Research, 54(3),301-325.

Milburn, D. (1981). A study of multiage orfamily-grouped classrooms. Phi Delta Kap-pan, 64, 306-319.

Miller, B. A. (1988). Teacher preparation forrural schools. Portland, OR NorthwestRegional Educational Laboratory.

Miller, B. A. (1989). The multigrade class-room: A resource handbook for small, ruralschools. (Contract No. 400-86-0006).Portland, OR Northwest Regional Educa-tional Laboratory.

Multnomah Education Service Discrict(1983). Goal guide: Tri-County CourseDevelopment Prqject. Portland, OR Au-thor.

Murphy, J., Weil, M, & McGreal, T. L. (1986).The basic practice model of instruction.The Elementary School JournaL 87(1), 83-96.

Muse, I., Smith, R., & Barker, B. (1987).The one teacher school in the 1980s. LasCruces, NM: ERIC Clearinghouse onRural Education and Small Schools.

Mycock, M. A. (1966). A comparison ofvertical grouping and horizontal groupingin the infant school. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 37, 133-135.

Palinscar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Recipro-cal teaching of comprehension- fosteringand comprehension- monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.

31

MACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

Pierce, M. (1982). Partner learning: Conceptand rationale. Paper presented at theInternational Convention of the Councilfor Exceptional Children Meeting, Hous-ton.

Pietila, A. (Ed.). (1978). Small schools andcombined grades in FinlancL Helsinki, Fin-land. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 161 564).

Pratt, C., & Treacy, K. (1986). A study ofstudent grouping practices in early child-hood classes in western Australia govern-ment primary schools. (Cooperative Re-search Series No. 9). Nedlands, Australia:Education Department of Western Austra-lia.

Pratt, D. (1986). On the merits of multiageclassrooms. Research in Rural Education,3. 111-115.

Price, K., & Dequine, M. (1982). Peer tutor-ing: It builds skills and self-concept. Aca-demic Therapy, 17, 365-371.

Reed, F. (1976). Peer tutoring programs forthe academically deficient student in highereducation. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 113 981).

Rosenbaum, J. E. (1980). Social implica-tions of educational grouping. In DavidBerliner (Ed.) Review of Research in Edu-cation. American Educational ResearchAssociation, pp. 361-401.

Rosenholtz, S. (1979). The classroomequalizer. Teacher, 97(1), 78-79.

Rosenholtz, S. J., & Cohen, E. (1983). Backto basics and the desegregated school.Elementary School Journal, 83(5), 515-527.

Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984a).The formation of ability conceptions: De-velopmental trend or social construction?Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 31-63.

Rosenholtz. S., & Simpson, C. (1984b).Classroom organization and studentstratification. The Elementary School Jour-nal, 85(1), 21-37.

Rule, G. (1983). Effects of multigradegrouping on elementary student achieve-ment in reading and mathematics (Doc-toral dissertation, Northern ArizonaUniversity). Dissertation InformationService No. 8315672.

Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of theschool and the problem of change. Secondedition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

School Improvement Program. (1986).Onward to excellence training manual forworkshop 4: Prescription development.Portland, OR Northwest Regional Educa-tional Laboratory.

Schrankler, W. J. (1976). Family groupingand the affective domain. ElementarySchool Journal, 76, 432-439.

Schroeder, R, & Nott, R E. (1974). Mul-tiage grouping- it works! Catalyst forChange, 3, 15-18.

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning insmall groups: Recent methods and effectson achievement, attitudes, and ethnicrelations. Review of Educational Research,50, 588-597.

Sharpley, A., & Sharpley, C. (1981). Peertutoring: A review of the literature. Col-lect Original Resources in Education(CORE), 5, 3, &-C11, (fiche 7 & 8). 35South Street, Hopkinton, MA 01748.

Sherman, L. W. (1984). Social distanceperceptions of elementary school childrenin age-heterogeneous and homogeneousclassroom settings. Perceptual and MotorSkills, 58, 395-409.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning.Review of Educational Rese _Lrch. 50(2),315-342.

Slavin, R (1983). Cooperative Learning.New York Longman.

3 5

32TEACHING COMBINED GIRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Ability grouping andstudent achievement In elementary schools:A best evidence synthesis (Report No. 1).Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Uni-versity, Center for Research on Elemen-tary and Middle Schools.

Slavin, R E. (1986). Using student teamlearning. Third edition. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Developmental andmotivational perspectives on cooperativelearning: A reconciliation. Child Develop-ment, 58, 1161-1167.

Slavin, R E. (1988). Synthesis of researchon grouping in elementary and secondaryschools. Educational Leadership, 46(1),67-77.

Slavin, R E., & Madden, N. A. (1989). Whatworks for students at risk: A researchsynthesis. Educational Leadership, 46, 4-13.

Soloman, D., Watson, M., Delucchi, K.,Schaps, E., & Battistich, V. (1988). En-hancing children's prosocial behavior inthe classroom. American EducationalResearch Journal, 25(4), 527-554.

Thomas, J., Strage, A., & Curley, R (1988).Improving students' self-directed learning:Issues and guidelines. The ElementarySchool Journal, 88(3), 313-326.

Topping, K. (1988). The peer tutoring hand-book. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

UNESCO. (1981). Education of disadvan-taged groups and multiple class teaching:Studies and innovative approaches. (Re-port of a Study Group Meeting). Jakarta.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Thedevelopment of higher psychological pro-cesses. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman.Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Walberg, H. (May, 1984). Improving theproductivity of America's schools. Educa-tional Leadership, 19-27.

Way, J. W. (1969). The effects of multiagegrouping on achievement and serf-concept.Cortland: State University of New York,Cortland College, Institute for Experimen-taton in Teacher Education.

Webb, N. M. (1982). Group composition,group interaction, and achievement incooperative small groups. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 74(4), 475-484.

Weinstein, R S., & Marshall, H. H. (1984).Ecology of students' achievement expecta-tions. Final report. (ERIC Document Re-production Service No. ED 257 820).

Wellington Department of Education.(1977). The rural schooL Wellington, NewZealand: E. C. Keating, GovernmentPrinter.

Westinghouse Learning Corporation. (1973).The PLAN* teacher's manuaL USA: Au-thor.

Whiting, B. B. (1983). The genesis of proso-cial behavior. In D. Bridgeman (Ed.), Thenature of prosocial development. NewYork: Academic Press.

Wigginton, E. (1985). Sometimes a shiningmoment. Garden City: Doubleday.

Wragg, E. C. (1984). Teaching Skills. In E.C. Wragg (Ed.), Classroom teaching skills.(pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Nichols Pub-lishing Company.

Yarrow, A. (1979). Mathematics. In Fog-arty, M. (Ed.). Small schools: Organizationand teaching methods (pp. 41-59). (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No, ED223 395).

Yerry, M. J. & Henderson, Edward. (1964).Effects of interage grouping on achievementand behavior: End of year report. (Experi-mental Program No. A-27-63). Bethpage,NY: Plainedge Public Schools. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No, ED037 802).


RESOURCES

The following annotated list of resources was prepared by Bruce A. Miller and included in hishandbook, The Multigrade Classroom: A Resource Handbook for Small, Rural Schools, pub-lished in 1989 by No-ethwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Reprinted with permission.

Ashley, W., et al. Peer tutoring: A guide toprogram design. Research and develop-ment series no. 260. (ERIC Document Re-production Service No. ED 268 372)

This publication presents guidelines forplanning, implementing, and evaluating apeer tutoring program. Benefits, guide-lines, and suggestions with examples forpeer tutoring are presented. Resourcematerials and sample forms have alsobeen included.

Available from:National Center for Research inVocational Education1960 Kenny RoadColumbus, OH 43210Price: $10.50

Blackwood, L. (1987). More like a schoolfamily thanjust a teacher and his/ her stu-dents: Is a one teacher school for you . . .?Anchorage, AK: L. C.'s Manner.

This booklet contains one teacher's opin-ion as "how to successfully and effectivelyteach in a small one-teacher school orother multigraded settings in ruralAlaska." There are also useful ideas andstrategies that would be beneficial to anymultigrade teacher.

Available from:L. C.'s Manner2440 E. Tudor RoadSuite 950Anchorage, AK 99507Price: $12.00

Bloom, S. (1975). Peer and cross-age tutor-ing in the schools: An individualized sup-plement to group instructin. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 118543)

This publication discusses tutoring con-cepts and developing a tutoring programfor your classroom. A detailed bibliogra-phy is also included.

Available from:ERIC3900 Wheeler Ave.Alrxandria, VA 22304-64091-800-227-3742Price: $8.50

Burns, M. (1976). The book of think or howto solve problems twice your size (grades 5and up). Boston: Little Brown & Com-panY.

This book was recommended by Joel An-derson, a multigrade teacher from OnionCreek School in northeast WashingtonState. Anderson says this is an excellentresource for cooperative problem-solvingactivities in mathematics.

Available from:Little Brown and Company200 West St.Waltham, MA 02254Price: $7.95 (paper)

34

ThACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRAC110ES

Burns, M. (1975). The I hate mathematics!Book. Boston: Little Brown & Company.

This book was also recommended by JoelAnderson.

Available from:Little Brown & Company200 West StreetWaltham, MA 02254Price: $7.95 (paper)

Canter, L. (1989). Assertive descipline. LosAngle les: Canter and Associates Inc.

Lee Canter has popularized an approachto classroom discipline called assertivediscipline. His program provides detailedtraining materials, including lesson planbooks, charts, sample rules and conse-quences, and specific ideas for rewardingpositive behavior.

Available from:Canter and Associates Inc.P. 0. Box 64517Los Angeles, CA 90064Price: $7.95

Cohen, E. G. (1986). Teacher applicationpamphlet: Designing change for the class-room. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 211 501)

This study provides a theoretical rationalefor using small groups, directions on howto train children in small group behaviorand specific activities to be used duringtraining, and information on adaptingexisting curriculum for small group work.

Available from:ERIC3900 Wheeler Ave.Alexandria, VA 22304-64091-800-227-3742Price: $23.60

Cohen, E. G. (1986). Designing groupwork.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

This book provides detailed strategies forstarting group work in your classroom anddetails the research supporting coopera-tive work groups. The book is written in adirect, clear style that makes it easy tofollow and useful to the classroom teacher.

Available from:Teachers College PressColumbia UniversityNew York, NY 10027Price: $13.95

0Curwin, R, & Mendler, A. (1988). Discipline

with dignity. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

This book presents research-based pro-cesses and strategies for developingpositive classroom behavior. It begins byfocusing on the dignity of the student andrecasts the teacher from being a "police-man" to be an individual who mediateslearning. Excellent sets of guidelines,observations instruments, and resourcesare included.

Available from:Associaton for Supervisionand Curriculum DevelopmentAlexandria, VirginiaPrice: $9.95

Della-Dora, D., & Blanchard, L. (Eds.).(1979). Moving toward self-directed learn-ing. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

This book reviews the research on self-directed learning, provides practicalstrategies, and presents backgroundinformation useful to anyone desiring todevelop self-directed learning in students.

Available from:ASCD225 North Washington StreetAlexandria, VA 22314Price: $4.75

35

TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRAC110ES

Dennison, B., et al. (1978). Rearrangtng thetraditional two-teacher school to flt thelinear multiplc .area plan.

This article describes a plan for convertinga traditional two-room school into an openteaching space in which two teachersteach cooperatively. A sample floor plan ispresented.


Dyer, T. A. (1989). Teaating splits: Strate-gies for combination classrooms. Bly, ORAuthor.

The research paper describes what teach-ers of combined gades do to successfullycope with a two-grade classroo. Dyervisited more than 10 combination class-rooms and interviewed the teachers. Thisreport summarizes his findings.

Available from:Thomas DyerP. O. Box 47Bly, OR 97622Price* unknown

SS*

Ethly, S. Peer tutoring in the regular class-room: A guide for school psychologist.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 250 836)

This guide includes a general overview ofthe peer tutoring process, includingselecting and pairing students, supervis-ing the process, and scheduling. Traininggoals are specified along with skills ne( 4edby tutors. A reference section with recom-mended readings has been appended.

Available from:National Association of SchoolPsychologists10 Overland DriveStratford, CT 06497Price: $12.60

104

Everlson, C., Emmer, E., Clements, B.,Sanford, J., & Worsham, M. (1989). Class-room management for elementary teachers.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

This "how-to" guide provides research-based step-by-step activities and prin-ciples for planning and organizing theelementary classroom.

Available from:Prentice Hall, Inc.9W, Englewood Cliffs, NJPrice: $17.95 (paper)

Fogarty, M. (1979). Small schools: Organi-zation and teaching methods. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 223395)

This booklet addresses issues relating tosmall schools organization. Sections re-garding the teaching of reading, mathe-matics, social studies, science, physicaleducation, language arts, and art are

. 'presented. Aspects such as objectives,content, methodologies, organizing timeand space, and resources are also dis-cussed.


Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Lookingin classrooms. New York, NY: Harper &Row.

This book may be one of the most exhaus-tive collections of effective teaching infor-mation to date. Filled with practical,concrete ideas and strategies drawn fromobservations of effective teachers thisbook is important for every professionallibrary.

Available from:Harper & Row PublishersKeystone Industrial ParkScranton, PA 18512Price: $26.75

39


Griswold, C. (1987). Topic development forclassrooms. K-5: Incorporating

essential learning skills. Salem, OR:Oregon Department of Education.

This booklet was developed for the OregonDepartment of Education as a resource forhelping multigrade teachers integrate es-sential learnfng skills across subjectareas. Griswold provides sample inte-grated lessons along with a guide fordeveloping your own lessons.

Available from:Oregon Department of Education700 Pringle Pkwy, S.E.Salem, OR 97310Price: Free (while supplies last)

Grossnickle, D.. & Sesko, F. (1985). Promot-ing effective discipline tn school and class-room: A practitioner's perspective. Reston,VA: NASSP.

This monograph describes how to developa comprehensive discipline program, in-cluding many models that can be easilyadapted and used.

Available from:National Association of SecondarySchool Principals1904 Association DriveReston, VA 22091Price: $6.00 (paper)

Sib*

Interact. (1989). A catalogue of elementarysimulations. Lakeside, CA: Interact.

This company provides a large number ofcooperative learning and integrated cur-riculum materials. It comes highly recom-mended by multigrade teachers.

Available from:Post Office Box 997GLakeside, CA 92040Price: Free

Sib*

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Holubec, E.J., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning:Cooperation in the classroom. EdwardBrothers, Inc.

The authors present the underlying con-cepts regarding cooperative learning.Steps for implementing cooperation inyour classroom and the research support-ing it are also presented.

Available from:ASCD125 N. West StreetAlexandria, VA 22314-2798Price: *8.50

MI*

Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1986). Models ofteaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, Inc.

This book reviews the most commonmodels of teaching, including detailedexamples and strategies for implementingeach module. Examples of models in-cluded are: Inquiry, concept attainment,inductive thinking, group investigation,etc.

Available from:Prentice Hall, Inc.200 Old Tappan Rd.Old Tappan, NJ 07675Price: $40.00

Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning:Resources for teachers. Laguna Niguel,CA: Resources for Teachers.

This book provides a detailed guide forimplementing the structural approach tocooperative learning. It includes a guideto resources in cooperative learning andan overview of cooperative learning re-search. There is a wealth of concretestrategies for teachers to use.

Available from:Resources for Teachers27134 Paseo Espada #202San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675Price: $20.00

MI*


McKisson, M. (1981). Chrysalis: Nurturingcreative and independent thought in chil-dren grades 4-12. Tucson, AZ: ZephyrPress Learning Materials.

Chrysalis consists of eight units designedto develop thinking, creativity, apprecia-tion of self and others, self-reliance, andabilities in independent learn'og and skillsof research.

Available from:Zephyr Press Learning Materials430 South Essex LaneTucson, AZ 85711Price: $29.95

Oldfield, M. J. (unknown). Tell and drawstories: More tell and draw &cries: Lotsmore tell and draw stories. Minneapolis:Creative Storytime Press.

This book was recommended by Joel An-derson, a multigrade teacher from OnionCreek School in northeast WashingonState. Anderson says this is an excellentresource for writing activities.

Available from:Creative Siorytime PressP. 0. Box 572Minneapolis, MN 55454Price: $5.95 (paper)

MI*

Or lick, T. (1978). Cooperative sports andgames book challenge without competi-tion. New York: Pantheon Books.

This book was recommended by Joel An-derson, a multigrade teacher from OnionCreek School in northeast WashingtonState. Anderson says this is an excellentresource for cooperative sports and otheractivities.

Available from:Pantheon Books201 E. 50th St.New York, NY 10022F $10.00

MI*

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Using student teamlearning. Third edition. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University.

"This teacher's manual describes a set ofpractical instructional techniques thatinvolve students in cooperative activitiesbuilt around the learning of school sub-jects. These are techniques developed andresearched at Johns Hopkins University,plus related methods developed else-where." (From the introduction by Slavin,P. 5).

Available from:The Johns Hopkins Team LearningProjectCenter for Research on Elementary andMiddle SchoolsJohns Hopkins University3505 North Charles StreetBaltimore, MD 21218Price: $8.95

*44

TOPS Learning Systems. (1989). TOPSLearning Systems Catalogue of ScienceMaterials. Canby, OR TOPS LearningSystems.

TOPS Learning Systems produces scienceunits. The materials use a worksheetformat that is self-instructional and maybe self-paced. All materials required toconduct the activities are inexpensiveand/or commonly available. For example,the unit on electricity uses tinfoil insteadof wire for conducting electricity. TOPSalso produces units on magnetics, balanc-ing and other science arms,

Available from:TOPS Learning Systems10970 S. Mulino RoadCanby, OR 9701SPrice: From $6.95 to $15.70

41

*MO

38

II! TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL. PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

Topping, K. (1988). The peer tutoring hand-book Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

This peer tutoring handbook provides adetailed set of checklists for setting upand running a peer-tutoring program.Research on tutoring has been reviewedand an extensive set of references in-cluded.

Available from:Brookline BooksP. 0. Box 1046Cambridge, MA 02238Price: $18.95

04141

4 2

Vail, N., & Papenfuss, J. (1982). Daily orallanguage. Racine, WI: D. 0. L. Publica-tions.

Daily Oral Language was recommended bynumerous multigrade teachers. It is abooklet of sentences that need to be editedand rewritten. The teachers who recom-mended it said they used them as a daily"sponge* or warm-up activity beforelessons began.

Available from:D. 0. L. Publications1001 Kingston AvenueRacine, WI 53402Price: not available

414141

seTTACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES1;=liI

APPENDICES

41


APPENDIX A

6.

or

43


APPENDIX A

Survey RespondentsGrade Combination Teacher Experience and Perceptions Survey

Darlene AldermanBobby AshleyMelissa AshleyConstance Bata IlerBrenda Moore BooneBonnie BraceyRonald BrimJo CarawayPeter ClementsSusan CollinsJackie CombsLinda CoxAnnette DashiellCarolyn DixonGinny DrennanJudith DuncanBen FischerBarbara GuslerWilliam HamiltonThomas HendersonSusan HirtOira Iroler

JernigainSally JonesMark KeelerTwila LeeLuce lla Lewis

Carol Ann LockeChristy MartinJoanna MooreShirley MooreLinda MorrisSue Ann MorrisLinda MullenPatricia MillerNancy NobleMelinda ParsonsMary Ann PetermanCheryl RodgersJessica RuffVanna RuffnerNancy SlusherH. StapletonMarg StephensDiane StoneDeborah StranieroJerry StuartSheree SwinefordMary ThackerPat WeaverDebbie WhitehurstMerle Williams

23 anonymous responses


45

APPENDIX B

.

4 6

e

47TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES=1311,

MemorandumTO: VEA ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES

FROM: HELEN ROLFE, VEA IPD DIRECTOR AND JANE HANGE, CLASSROOMINSTRUCTION PROGRAM DIRECTOR, AEL

DATE: APRIL 6, 1990

SUBJECT: RECRUITMENT OF GRADE COMBINATION TEACHERS FOR SURVEYPARTICIPATION

,!1=8

During the lut five years VEA and the Appalachia Educational Laboratory have collaborativelysponsored and facilitated the work of several study rroups of VEA members.

The 1990 VEA-AEL study group of five members are grade combination teacher% teachers who teachclasses of students at two grade levels such as a grade 2-3 split. The study group members, aided by VEA andAEL staff, are investigating the advantages and disadvantages of such assignments and wish to draw on theexperiences of teachers throughout Virginia. We need your help in locating grade combination teachers whoshould rraive a copy of the study group-developed 'Grade Combination Teacher Experience and PerceptionsSurvey. While the group's initial investigation will focus on elementary teachers' experience, we are interested ineventually gathering information from teachers with grade combination assignments from all levels.

Please complete the following form with contact information for all grade combination teachers in yourschool and _mail itto VEA or telephone Fave Orrtll or Helen Rolfe at VEA (800) 552-9554 with this information

as soon as Possible. Please add names on back of the form or copy and send additional forms, if necessary. Each

participating school will receive a copy of the group's final product. Teacher survey respondents will beacknowledged in the publication. All data will be used anonymously and will be aggregated. The finalpublication of suggestions for effective practices for grade combination teachers and recc.mmendations for policymakers at the division and state levels will be printed and distributed by VEA (in Virginia) and AEL. Thanksv m f ur I n with r. will l Vir ' gra e 'nation t h

VEA-AEL GRADE COMBINATION TEACHER LOCATER FORM

School Name School Address School Phone Number

Teacher Name Teaching Assignment Address-if other than above

Add-others on bacit of sheet.

PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO FAYE ORRELL OR HELEN ROLFE AT

VEA, 116 S. Third St., Richmond, Virginia 23219 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Appalachia Educational Laboratory 1031 Ouarrier Street Post Office Boa 1348 Charleston, West Virginia 25325

Telephone 800/624.9120 (outside West Virginia) 800/3446646 (in West Virginia) 347.0400 tin Charleston areal 4 7

ams.am I Arai.Asi walk, eh ffirsiturfist

413


q

=s,

APPENDIX C

51

TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRAC710ESINIONVIII

Grade Combination Teacher Experience and Perceptions Survey]

A study group of grade combination teachers cosponsored by the Virginia Education Association(VEA) and Appalachia Educational Laboratory (AEL) are investigating the advantages anddisadvantages of grade combination classes. Your name was provided to the group by the VEAbuilding representative in your school. Study group members are surveying all grade combina-tion teachers in Virginia elementary schools and will use respondent anonymity with aggregatedresponses only in analyzing and reporting their findings.

The final product, a publication with technique suggestions for grade combination teachers andpolicy recommendations for division and state policy makers, will be available in early fall 1990from VEA and AEL. Each school in which a teacher(s) provided survey responses will receive acopy of the publication. If you have questions regarding the study or the survey, please contactHelen Rolfe, VEA (800-552-9554) or Jane Hange or Becky Burns, AEL (800-624-9120). Weappreciate your help as will the educators who read of your experience with grade combinationclasses.

Please respond to each item below regarding your experience with and perceptions of gradecombination classes. Attach additional response sheets if needed.

Name (optional)

School Division

1. Are you currently teaching a grade combination class?O yes 0 noIf you answered no, please do not return the survey. Thank you.

2. If you answered yes to question #1, what grades are combined in your class?

3. What is the approximate student enrollment of your school?

4. Have you taught grade combination classes in the past?O yes 0 noIf you answered yes, please check your years of grade combination teaching experiencebelow.O 1-3 years 0 4-6 years 0 7-9 years 0 10 or more years

How many total years of teaching experience do you have?O 1-5 years 0 6-10 years 0 11-15 years 0 16 or more years

5. Have you requested grade combination class teaching assignments or were you assigneda combined class?O requested 0 assigned 0 both (at different times)

6. Have you taught combination classes in consecutive years?O yes 0 no

52


7. How many students are enrolled in your combination

Please complete the following enrollment data aboutblanks with numbers of students.

lower grade studentsboys

_physically handicappedhearing impairedseverely language impairedEMRlearning disabled (resource

room)Chapter I served or qualified

class?

your combination class. Fill in the

upper grade studentsgirlsblindautisticlimited English proficiencyEDlearning disabled (self-contained

classroom)

8. What percentage of your students are served by "pull-our programs?

9. Was your 1989-90 class a grade combination class from the first day of school?O yes 0 noIf no, in what month did it become a grade combination class?

10. For which of the following subjects do you have two or more preparations? Check any thatapply.

0 math 00 reading 00 spelling 00 health 00 family.life 0

science

handwriting

social studies

English mechanics

English composition, developmental writing

11. For which of the following subjects do you also prepare lessons? Check any that apply.O art 0 music 0 physical educationO foreign language 0 gifted and talented/enrichment

O other, please specify

12. Who helps you teach? Check any person listed who assists your instruction in some way.O full-time instructional aideO half-time instructional aide number of days/week number of hours/day

o parent volunteer(s) number

o student teacherO team leacher(s) number

O librarian0 principalO content specialist who teaches classO instructional supervisor or curriculum specialist

O other, please specify

53

nACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

13. What resources do you use frequently in instruction? Check any that apply.

O personal computersO audiovisual equipment0 teacher's manual for each subject and grade

0 supplemental instructional materials for each grade

O science kitsO math kits0 math manipulatives0 classroom space which allows grouping

O learning centers

14. Do you take your class on field trips or send students on grade-assigned field trips?

O take own class 0 send students on grade-assigned field trips

0 neither 0 both

15. Please describe any difficulties you have experienced in teaching curricula of two grade

levels. Attach additional response pages if necessary.

16. Please describe advantages you perceive to teaching grade combination classes.

Attach additional response pages if necessary.

011

17. Which, if any, of the following instructional methods have you found to be effective in

teaching a grade combination class? Check any that apply and please describe anyadditional effective strategies you use.

0 team teaching0 integrating curriculumO cooperative learning groupsO peer tutoring 0 cross-age 0 within-grade

0 other, please describe

Rank

Please rank above the frequency with which you use instructional methods you checked

from 1 a most frequently used to 5 a least frequently used.

5 1

54nACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

18. Does your school principal assist your work? If so, please describe how. If not, pleasesuggest ways a principal could assist.

19. What professional development experiences have helped you in teaching a combinationgrade class? Check any that apply.O inservice education sessionsO educator association conferencesO teacher support group or network

O peer observationsO mentorO professional readingO other, please describe

20. Please suggest any school, division, or state policies which would make teaching gradecombination classes more effective for students and desirable for teachers.

21. The study group product resulting from this survey will be read by grade combinationteachers and others. Please describe practices or strategies you have found effective forvarious teaching situations (eg. getting started, classroom management, grouping, time

management, student socialization within your class and within grade levels, parent rela-

tionships, etc.). Attach additional response pages if needed.

Thank you for completing this survey and returning It In the enclosed postage-pald enve-

lope by April 30 to the Virginia Education Association, 116 S. Third St., Richmond, VA23219. If further Information is necessary, may we contact you by telephone? If so, pleasefurnish your school phone number and a time when you may be reached for a brief Inter-

view. Thank you!

School phone with area code Time

Ibi

TEACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICFS

APPENDIX D

57

nACHING COMBINED GRADE CLASSES: REAL PROBLEMS AND PROMISING PRACTICES

Appendix D

The prevalence of grade combination classes across Virginia was a topic of interest in thisstudy. The distribution of such classes may be related to the numbers of rural small schools invarious areas of the state. Data analysis from respondents to the VEA-AEL Grade CombinationTeacher Locater Form (See Appendix B) can be used to assess the nature of this relationship.

This map of Virginia, divided into six geographic regions identified by VEA, depicts thedistribution of grade combination classes based on responses to the VEA-AEL Grade CombinationTeacher Locater Form, which was mailed to all 2,088 VEA building representatives across the state.One hundred sixty-three grade combination teachers were identified by 80 VEA building represen-tatives who returned completed Grade Combination Teacher Locater Forms toVEA. The numberof Grade Combination Teacher Experience and Perception Surveys then mailed to grade combina-tion teachers identified in each area is indicated on the map. While recognizingthat some buildingrepresentatives whose schools contain grade combination classes may not have returned theLocater Form, study group members believe the actual distribution of classes across Virginia issimilar to the number of surveys mailed per region. Data confirming the frequency and distributionof such teaching assignments was not available from the Virginia Department of Education.

Southwest (61)

Valley (17)

Northern (40)

Central (18)

Southslde (12)

The frequency of surveys mailed per region indicates a prevalence of grade combina.lonclasses in the Northern and Southwestern Virginia regions, areas characterimd by neighborhoodschools. While divisions of the Southwestern region are predominantly rural, sites whTre smallschools with one or fewer classes per grade are common, the Northern region is Virginia's mostpopulous. The differing characteristics of these two regions makes further study essential beforea clear relationship between grade combination teaching and ruralness in Virginia schooldivisionscan be described.

54

Appalachia Educational LaboratoryStudy Group Product Assessment Form

A. Background

1. Name of Product:

2. Name:

3, School/District:

4. Type ofJob You Hold:

5. State:

Teaching Combined Grade Classes: Real Problemsand Promising Practices

B. Rating

This instrument asks you to evaluate this particular product on a series of product quality scales.Please mark your responses with an"X" (corresponding to your answer) at any point along the scale=rovided. If you cannot reply to any scale, please check the "Cannot Reply" option for that item.

1. How easy was it tbr your to get this material?_Cannot Reply

Difficult/.

0 5 10 15 20

Very Easy

25 30 35

2. How clear!y presented was the information in this material?Cannot ReplyUnclear

L I0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

40 45 50

Very Clear

3. How credible was the information in this material?_Cannot ReplyUnbelievable

L I L

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Very Believable

4. How useful was the information in this material?_Cannot ReplyNot Useful Very Useful

L

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

5. Which sections of the report have you found helpful? Please explain briefly how these sectionshelped you.

Please turn to back

6. What changes would make the report more valuable?

7. How did you learn of the availability of this report?

8. Have you shared your copy with other educators? If so, how many?

Thank you for completing this evaluation/contribution form.Please fold, staple, stamp, and mail to AEL.

I- -1I I

I

Affix ,1

, PostageI Here I

I I

I I

P.O. Box 1348Charleston, WV 25325

rc 018 168 teaching combined grade classes: real problems ... · planning the study 1 conducting...

Documents