multiage teachers' beliefs and practices
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]On: 17 November 2014, At: 15:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Research in ChildhoodEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20
Multiage Teachers' Beliefs and PracticesJo Hoffman aa Kean UniversityPublished online: 03 Nov 2009.
To cite this article: Jo Hoffman (2003) Multiage Teachers' Beliefs and Practices, Journal of Research inChildhood Education, 18:1, 5-17, DOI: 10.1080/02568540309595019
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568540309595019
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journ al of Research in Chi ldhoo d Educa tion
2003 . Vol. J8. No. J
Multiage Teachers' Beliefs and Practices
Jo HoffmanKean University
Co pyrig ht 2003 hy the Association forChildhood Educat ion Internat ional
025 fi·8543/03
Abstract. This study examines the instructional and organizational practices ofmultiage teachers in the intermediate elementary grades and the beliefs that guidetheir practices. Qualitative case study design was used to construct individualportraits and a cross-case analysis of four teachers in multiage classrooms serv ing students in grades 3 through 5. Data collected via interviews and classroomobservations revealed four categories of beliefs to be salient across the cases: differentiated instruction, social collaboration, flex ible grouping, and student interest. Other commonalities among the cases included team teaching, a separationby grade level for one content area, and identifying the role of the teacher as afacilitator of the learning process. Also, three of the four teachers had specialed ucation backgrounds, and all teachers were instrumental in initiating multiageprograms in th eir districts.
Currently, a high degree of interest inmultiage education exists in public schoolsystems throughout the United States andin many other countries as well. In the late1980s, education systems developed an increased awareness of multiage education aschild-centered strategies became morewidely practiced. The National Associationfor the Education of Young Children's(NAEYC) initial and revised position statements on developmentally appropriatepractices (Bredekamp, 1987 ; Bredekamp &Copple, 1997) created widespread understanding of the importance of instructionthat was more tailored to meet the needsand interests of young children. In 1987,Goodlad and Anderson revised and republished The Nongraded Elementary School(originally published in 1967) and addedtheir endorsement to NAEYC's support formixed-age groupings as developmentallyappropriate settings. By the early 1990s,the momentum toward forming multiageclassrooms, particularly in the primarygrades, was in full force.
Multiage classrooms represent diversegroups of students. Children of'widely varied abilities, ages, cultures, and linguisticbackgrounds are taught together, without
5
division into grade designations. The agerange of the students is commonly three ormore years. Curriculum and teaching practices are such that children can approachtasks according to their individual needsand developmental levels . Some gradespecific teaching may occur because ofstate-mandated curricula and testing, butcross-grade teaching is the norm, dependentupon the teacher's judgment of the developmental level and unique instructionalneeds of each child. Children stay with thesame teacher or teachers for several yearsand team teaching is common (Hoffman ,2000).
Multiage classes are often offered as aprogram option within the same schoolbuilding as single-grade classrooms .Multiage programs commonly "bubble up"through a school. Districts usually beginby offering multiage primary programs(K-1, 1-2, K-2). As students experience success in these settings, parents look for asimilar program in the intermediate elementary grades. Often administrators,teachers, and parents work together to continue offering multiage programs for students in grades 3 through 5.
A great deal of research has been con-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
HOFFMAN
ducted since the 1960s on the academic andsocial benefits of multiage settings for students in the primary grades. Unfortunately,this research often has blurred the distinction between multigrade or combinationclasses and multiage and nongraded classrooms. Since multigrade or combinationclasses differ philosophically and organizationally from multiage and nongraded education, this lack of distinction has apotential impact on research findings andreviews of research (Lloyd, 1999; Mason &Doepner, 1998; Veenman, 1995).
A few studies have been helpful in termsof defining multiage philosophy (Gaustad,1994; Lloyd, 1999; Marshak, 1994; Watson,Phillips, & Wille, 1995). Generally, one ofthe key hallmarks of a multiage philosophyis a classroom community in which deeprelationships are formed between students,teachers, and parents. In this community,teachers perceive each student as an individual and themselves as a facilitator; andchildren learn to perceive each other interms of specific personal qualities and capabilities rather than grade groupings.Therefore, multiage philosophy involvesstructuring learning activities to meet theneeds of individuals rather than to teachto the imaginary "middle of the class." Indoing so, student choice is integrated, andinformation is presented and skills arelearned within meaningful contexts .Grouping in multiage classrooms can bedone heterogeneously by age and other factors. The philosophy is that doing so promotes cognitive and social growth andreduces antisocial behavior. Teachers facilitate positive group interaction, including designing and facilitating cooperativeand collaborative group work.
Studies generally have demonstrated results in favor of multiage grouping oryielded no significant differences betweenmultiage and single-graded programs(Gutierrez & Slavin, 1992; Veenman, 1995) .One drawback of this research was thatstudies rarely included observations ofmultiage classrooms; therefore, it was hardto determine what instructional or organizational practices were contributing to stu-
6
dent achievement. A multiage classroomin one study may not be the same as themultiage classroom involved in anotherstudy. Researchers have suggested thatdetailed descriptions of multiage classrooms in operation are needed to provideinformation about how practices are implemented in this particular educational setting and about the possible relationshipbetween these practices and studentachievement.
For this study, interviews and observations of multi age teachers who taughtgrade level groupings above the primarylevel were used. The study investigatedpractices in three ways: 1) by providingdescriptive accounts of multiage practicesbeyond the primary grades, 2) by examining beliefs about teaching and learning thatare being carried out in multiage classrooms, and 3) by exploring the ways thatmultiage teachers address diversity in theirclassrooms. All teachers have to addressincreasing student diversity in the classroom (Buchanan, Burts, Bidner, &Charlesworth, 1998) . Dimensions of diversity apply not only to cultural, racial, orethnic differences, but also to all the thingsthat make us different. Every classroom ismade up of children with diverse families,abilities, learning styles, and behaviors.Learning how multiage teachers addressdiversity-what they do and how they doit-may help single-grade teachers addressdiversity more effectively.
The DesignThis study was designed as a modifiedmulticase study, and was conducted over ashort, intensive period oftime, providing across-sectional look at four New Jerseymultiage teachers and their classrooms inaction. Case studies were constructed offour elementary multiage teachers by examining each teacher and classroomclosely, comparing each, and providing examples of beliefs and practices in thesemultiage classrooms.
Excellent teachers purposefully developinter- and intrapersonal knowledge as wellas professional knowledge. As Collinson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
MULTIAGE TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND PRACTICES
(1999) writes , "What makes excellentteachers recognizable may be a combination of competence (professional knowledge), skillful relationships (interpersonalknowledge), and character (intrapersonalknowledge)" (p, 10) . All four ofthe participants were recommended by their principals as being excellent multiage teachers.Hearing their stories and looking into theirclassrooms has led to some understandingof the relationship between their beliefsand practices. Ifstudied on a broader levelalong with multiage teachers' classroomsin other areas of the United States, wemay be able to operationalize the practices in multiage classrooms and theteacher beliefs that guide these practices.Ultimately, the relationships betweenmultiage practices and student achievement may be better understood.
Therefore, this study had three main purposes and one related issue to explore. Thefirst purpose was to provide detailed descriptions of how instruction in multiageclassrooms was operationalized in the classrooms offour multiage teachers. Researchers agree that interpretative observationalresearch in this area will provide insightinto how multiage education is actuallybeing carried out in multiage classrooms(Lloyd, 1999; Mason & Burns, 1996;Veenman, 1995).
The second purpose of the study was torecord these four multiage teachers' thinking about learning and teaching. Determining their beliefs was important sincethey were often responsible for initiatingchange and implementing various practices, such as identification of student interest or choice, using collaborativelearning, and creating integrated curriculum. If we are going to understand howmultiage classrooms work, then it becomescritical to learn more about the kinds ofthinking and decision-making done byteachers in multiage settings.
The third purpose of the study was to investigate how four teachers' beliefs werereflected in their classroom practices andto determine what practices were commonamong them. Research on teachers' think-
ing often examines the consistency betweenbeliefs and practices. For example, Fang(1996) reviewed studies indicating thatteachers' beliefs are consistent with hypothetical lesson plans, but not with actualclassroom practices (Konopak, Wilson, &Readance, 1994). However, multiage teachers apparently have never been participants in such studies . Therefore,examining the relationship between beliefsand practices was an important componentof this study. When inconsistencies werefound between beliefs and practices, contextual variables such as administrativemandates were examined.
Related to the issue of relationships between beliefs and practices, the study explored the influence that these four teachershad in initiating the multiage programs intheir districts. While various factors havebeen credited for the renewed interest inmultiage education, the influence ofteachers has not been investigated. Unlike inOregon and Kentucky, there has been nolegislative directive or initiative in NewJersey to reconfigure primary classroomsinto multiage clusters to provide developmentally appropriate environments; nevertheless, more than 30 districts in NewJersey offer multiage classrooms alongsidesingle-graded classrooms. Exploring therole that teachers have had in the changeprocess may provide some insight into theformation of multiage programs.
This research investigated these issuesusing the following framework and researchquestions. Isenberg (1990) suggests thatresearchers document teachers' thoughtsbefore, during, and after the act of teaching, using a stimulated recall procedure.Such studies record and organize established standards of practice for particularareas of teaching-in this case, multiageteaching (Isenberg, 1990). This generalframework was used to conduct a three-partqualitative study. By combining the use ofinterviews and observations, the beliefs andpractices of four multiage teachers wereobserved and examined. The study addressed the following questions: 1) Whatare the teachers' beliefs about learning and
7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
HOFFMAN
teaching? La) Did their beliefs lead to a rolein the implementation ofthe multiage program in their school/district? 2) What arethe instructional and organizational practices used by four multiage teachers andhow do these practices reflect their beliefsabout learning and teaching? 3)What practices and beliefs are common to these fourmultiage teachers?
The ParticipantsParticipants and schools for this study werechosen through purposeful sampling or criterion-based sampling (Maxwell , 1996;Merriam, 1988). The first determining factor for the school context was that multiageclassrooms were offered in addition tosingle-grade classrooms. This is typical ofpublic school multiage contexts. Second, aparticipating school had to have demonstrated its support ofthe multiage philosophy. In all cases, the participating schoolsmet this requirement, at least in part, asdemonstrated by the growth of multiageprograms in their districts and buildings.A principal at one school recently had applied for and won a st at e department ofeducation Best Practice Award for theschool's multiage program. Third, schoolsneeded to offer multiage programs thatserved the intermediate element ary grades.
The participating teachers were recommended by their principals as being exemplary multi age teachers . While theseteachers had a variety of experiences andtraining, none had specific multiage training. They all , however, have been success-
ful in articulating the multiage philosophyto parents and the school community. Intwo of the three schools, parents chose fortheir children to be in multiage classrooms.Table 1 summarizes the criteria used in theselection of the sample.
As a result ofthe selection process, Teachers A, B, C, and D were chosen. Teacher Awas a 34-year-old male who had been teaching for six years. For four ofthese six years,he was a special education teacher, and hehad two years of experience in multiageclassrooms. He was the only teacher in thesample who had out-of-state experience,teaching in a multiage classroom in Nevada. He had a teaching partner, but theydid not team-teach in the same classroom.His involvement in the study was as a 4thand 5th-grade multiage teacher. TeacherB was a 37-year-old male who had taughtfor 14 years . Some of those years were inspecial education, and most recently he hadtaught three years in a multiage classroomwith a combination of 4th- and 5th-graders.Teacher C was a 50-year-old female witheight years of teaching experience. Five ofthe eight years were spent as a special education teacher, and three years were in themultiage 4th- and 5th-grade class she teamtaught with Teacher B. Teacher D was a33-year-old female with seven years ofteaching experience . She had taughtmiddle-school language arts , single-graded1st grade, three years of multiage Lst- and2nd-grade class and, during the study,team-taught a 3rd- and 4th-grade multiageclass.
Table 1Criteria for Sample
Participating Schools
1. Offer multiage classrooms in addition tosingle-grade clas srooms.
2. Demonstrate support of the multiagephilosophy.
3. Offer multiage programs servi ng the middleelementary grades.
8
Participating Teachers
1. Each has administrative recommendation asexemplary multiage teachers and has beensuccessful in articulating the multiagephilosophy.
2. Each chooses to teach in the multiageclassroom and had not been assigned to thatposition.
3. Each has had at least two years of experience as a multiage teacher.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
MULTIAGE TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND PRACTICES
Data CollectionData collection occurred in three stages.For each participant a pre-observation interview, a videotaped classroom observation, and a post-observation interview wereconducted. The purpose of the pre-observation interview was to collect backgroundinformation and data about eachparticipant's beliefs (see Figure 1).
The purpose ofthe classroom observationwas to compile details of the experience.The observation took place through thecourse of one whole school day. An observation guide was used to record the datagathered (see Figure 2). The guide was designed to focus on several key elements, suchas the physical layout of the classroom, instructional content and strategies, and classroom interactions between teacher andstudent and between students and other students. It also was designed to allow recording of descriptive data in the left-handcolumn, while comments and interpretationswere posted in the right-hand column. Whilethe author took field notes, a multiageteacher from another district videotapedclassroom interactions. The videotaping in
the classroom was unobtrusive due to technology that enables quality recording froma distance, allowing students to go about anormal school day without undue distraction.
In the post-observation interview, participants reflected on the meaning behindstatements made in the pre-observationinterview and interpreted classroompractices as viewed on the videotape, thestimulated recall tool. Prior to the postobservation interview, the videotapes wereedited to approximately 40 minutes. Theparticipants used the videotaped observation oftheir classrooms as the stimulus forrecalling specific examples of teachingpractices and for explaining contexts thatwere critical to the decisions they hadmade. The post-observation interview wasinformal compared to the initial interview.There were no predetermined questions;instead, participants were asked to freelydiscuss whatever aspect oftheir classroomthey felt was relevant. The participantswere encouraged to think about their classrooms in terms of their responses from thepre-observation interviews, which wereprovided for them.
Figure 1Guiding Questions for the Pre-Observation Interview
1. Tell me about your journey in becoming a multiage teacher.- Were you once a single-graded teacher?-How is your teaching in a MA classroom different from what you used to do in a single-grade
classroom?-Were you part of the multiage initiative in your district?
2. Describe your classroom as a learning and teaching environment.-How are children learning in your classroom?-How are your beliefs about how children learn reflected in your classroom?
3. Now describe what your ideal teaching and learning environment would be.-How is it different than your real classroom?
4.What do you feel is the teacher's role in the classroom?
5. Explain how you meet the wide range of abilities in your multiage classroom.-Peer tutoring? Collaborative groups? Flexible grouping?
6.What are the advantages of a multiage classroom?
7.What are the disadvantages of a multiage classroom?
8.What school issues support or obstruct the implementation of your multiage classroom?
9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
HOFFMAN
Data Analysis third belief category was "differentiated From the literature on multiage teaching instruction," including sensitivity to indi-and philosophy, the data were expected to vidual differences by modifying content, reflect five categories when analyzed for process, and product when necessary evidence of teacher beliefs. Beliefs were (Tomlinson, 1995). Marshak (1994) found denned as theoretical agreement with edu- that teachers are motivated to structure cational practices, and a line of data was learning activities to meet the needs of in-determined to be evidence if it was 1) a dividuals, rather than teach to the imagi-statement that indicated support or other- nary "middle of the class." The fourth wise corroborated a belief in one of the cat- category of belief was the "socially collabo-egories or 2) an observed practice that rative climate" in the classroom. Nearly served as documentation of a belief in a every study identifies the social climate of category. the classroom as being positively affected
The first category of belief was "impor- by the multiage environment (Lloyd, 1999; tance of multiage grouping." Multiage Marshak, 1994; McClellan, 1994; Veenman, teachers generally believe that students 1995). Multiage teachers need to value so-benefit from working with older and cial collaboration, and it was anticipated younger classmates (Watson et al., 1995), that they would refer to it often. A fifth and set up their classroom and learning belief category was "flexible grouping for situations accordingly. A second belief cat- instruction." Suggested practices for egory was the "role of the teacher." It was multiage classrooms (Stone, 1994/95) stress expected that teachers would see their role the need for teachers to be flexible in group-as one of facilitator and social coach. The ing for instruction. The two last categories,
Figure 2 Observation Guide for Multiage Classrooms
Teacher's Name/Grade Levels: Date: 1. CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
Physical Layout:
descriptive data comments/interpretations 2. INSTRUCTION
Instructional Context:
Instructional Strategies:
3. CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS Teacher - Student:
Student - Student:
10
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
MULTIAGE TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND PRACTICES
Table 2Categories ofBel iefs
Category of Belief Belief Indicators Belief Indicators &liefIndicatorsBelief Explicit Implicit Instructional
Statement Statement practicestated / observed
Importance of Learning benefits 'The wider range "I love seeing Grouping forMAgrouping from interacting of ages and abili- the older kids reading by
with both older ties is a big ad- taking on the shared interestand younger vantage ofMA." role of the and across gradeclassmates. mentor." levels.
Role of teacher Teacher as "I see myself as "I encourage Planning forfacilitator. a faci litator in children to find student research
the classroom." out information activities.which they'reinterested in ."
Differentiated Each student is "Each child needs "Everyone is at ''Each day I writeinstruction instructed at ap- instruction at a different place four different
propriate level of his or her in- in their math levels of mathcognitive ability. structional level." learning." computation."
Socially coIlabo- Providing oppor- "I think (while viewing Activitiesrative classroom tunities and working in small tape) "This designed to
having expecta- groups helps group is great. enhance thetions for students children learn to They have collaborativeto collaborate get along and figured out each process.benefits both aca- appreciate other'sdemic and social differences." strengths."development.
Flexible grouping Groups for in- "I constantly "Small groups Many combina-for instruction struction should work to keep my for instruction tions of children
be varied and groups fluid for form or reform in "book clubs"-fluid. Opportu- instruction." throughout the students readingnities to work day." independently,independently, in in partners,small group, or small groups.as whole class.
Integrated Students get "I think it is im- "Under the "They havecurriculum more under- portant to umbrella of a chosen one of the
standing and integrate the particular theme, four novelsmeaning from subjects and we teach skills having to do withcurriculum when make connections and content in all Space for Themedthe content areas between them." the different Reading."are integrated. content areas."
Student interest Students are 'There is always "The students Two studentsmore motivated room for a stu- and I plan open- are working onwhen the teacher dent to take an ended project "Independentallows students assignment in a assignments for Learningto pursue their direction based on each unit." Projects."interests. hislher interest."
11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
HOFFMAN
"integrated curriculum" and "student interest," were added early in the course of datacollection as trends emerged.
Table 2 illustrates the process of analyzing for beliefs. Within each of the categories, statements of beliefs were coded aseither explicitly or implicitly stated andpractices were coded as either stated by theparticipants or observed in their classrooms. For example, a teacher might havedescribed her/his use of guided readingstrategies. This would be identified as abelief indicator (coded as a stated instructional practice), which then would be assigned to the broader category of flexiblegrouping for instruction.
Findings and DiscussionFindings Regarding Teachers ' BeliefsThe multiage teachers in this study had thefollowing six beliefs in common: 1) Theteacher and the students must get to knowone another well so that the teacher canunderstand students' learning styles andunique personalities, and the students cancome to understand similar informationabout each other and their teacher. Thebest way for this to happen is through alonger amount of time spent together andthrough many opportunities for students towork together to accomplish tasks. Jointproblem solving, whether with teacher involvement or by students working togetherindependently, allows for students to learnfrom each other and for growth in the social skills of compromising and acceptingeach other's strengths and weaknesses. 2)The teacher's role is that of facilitating avenues for learning. Teaching should includestudents and teachers learning and problem solving together. 3) Students shouldbe flexibly grouped throughout a school day,depending on type of instruction being delivered, including whole-group instruction.When direct instruction is needed, working one-on-one or in small groups is the bestvenue. 4) Teacher planning should includedesigning activities that can be modifiedand adapted for their students' wide rangeof abilities and learning styles, allowingstudents to work at their own pace. 5) Op-
portunities for student choice should bebuilt into the curriculum and typical schoolday. Students making meaningful choicesis not only beneficial to academic growthbut also helps maintain motivation. Curriculum should be tailored to, and be theresult of, students' interests. Planningshould be flexible enough to allow for expansion of content to encompass differentdirections of student interest. 6) Everyclassroom, whether it is a multiage classroom or a single-grade classroom, is madeup of children with diverse abilities, learning styles, and behaviors. The school dayand use ofinstructional time must be structured so that diversity is accommodated andcelebrated as an important resource.
Findings Regarding Teachers ' PracticesThe following four descriptions best exemplify the practices found to be common tothe four classrooms: 1) Student seating, forthe most part, is organized to provide forheterogeneous groupings where interactionand collaboration are encouraged and expected. When some other groups are formedfor instruction, as in the example of reading groups, teachers still feel heterogeneity is important and provide for such in theformation of the groups. 2) The instructional and organizational practices also areintended to encourage student-directedlearning. Whenever possible in the curriculum, students are allowed to make choicesto reflect their interests and learning styles,as in the examples of choosing how topresent information or choosing a themenovel. Student independence also is supported by student-accessible materials andindependent use of resource materials, including technology. 3) Instruction and organization in the classroom are built onaccepting and celebrating diversity amongstudents. Practices meeting the needs thatthis diversity implies include flexible grouping, differentiated instruction, and promotion of social collaboration. An importantkey to these practices is the teacher's roleof monitor, facilitator, or coach. Teachersin this role support student-directed learning and are able to meet all of their stu-
12
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
MULTIAGE TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND PRACTICES
dents' needs, delivering direct instructionto small groups or individual students. 4)Teachers also organize content so thatmeaningful connections are made amongthe content areas and, when possible, makeconnections relevant to their students' lives .They organize material to allow for studentinterest. Instructional practices includeallowing students to make content morepersonally meaningful by taking a conceptin a different direction.
Table 3 contains a summarized list oftheobserved or noted practices that the participants carried out in their classrooms,alongside the categories of beliefs thesepractices reflect.
Additional Findings and DiscussionOther findings from the study concerned:1) the common practice of team teachingand the physical space of the classroomsfacilitating or impeding this practice, 2) thespecial education backgrounds of three ofthe teachers, and 3) the numbers of children with special needs in these fourmultiage classes.
All four teachers had experience withteam teaching. In Teacher Ns situation atthe time of the study, he did not share aclassroom with his team partner, but theydid share the students and the planning.More common was the team teaching situation that Teacher Band C had, and that
Table 3A Summary of the Observed Findings: Participants' Beliefs and Practices
Multiage Practices
(1) Student seating provides for heterogeneous groupings where interaction and collaboration are encouraged and expected. When some other groups areformed for instruction, as in the example of readinggroups, teachers still feel heterogeneity is importantand provide for such in the formation of the groups.
(2) Instructional and organizational pr actices also areintended to encourage student-directed learning.Students are provided with opportunities to makechoices that reflect their interests and learningstyles. Student independence also is supported bystudent-accessible materials and independent use ofresource materials, including use of technology.
(3) Instruction and organization in the classroom arebuilt on accepting and celebrating diversity amongstudents. Practices that meet the needs that thisdiversity implies include flexible grouping, differentiated instruction, and promotion of social collaboration. An important key to these pr actices is theteacher's role of monitor, facilitator, or coach.Teachers in this role support student-directedlearning and are able to meet all of their students'needs, delivering direct instruction to small groupsor individual students.
(4) Content is organized so that meaningful connectionsare made with the content areas and, when possible,connections are made relevant to students' lives .Material is organized to allow for student interest.Instructional practices include allowing students tomake content more personally meaningful by takinga concept in a different direction.
13
Reflecting Teacher Beliefs
Social Collaboration
Student Interest
Teacher's Role of Facilitator
Flexible Grouping
Differentiated Instruction
Social Collaboration
Teacher's Role of Facilitator
Student Interest
Integrated Curriculum
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
HOFFMAN
Teacher D had with her partner (Hoffman,2000 ). During the pre-observation interviews, Teachers Band C mentioned teamteaching as an advantage for their multiageapproach. They believed they were betterequipped to meet the needs represented bythe wide range of abilities among the students in their classroom. They also expressed the opinion that team teachinghelped foster a positive classroom community. However, the biggest advantage toteam teaching they mentioned was the opportunities it afforded to model how to resolve conflicts. Students learned tocompromise through working collaboratively and from watching their teacherscompromise. Recent support in the literature for this advantage ofteam teaching canbe found . As Jones (2003) states, "One ofthe greatest relationship benefits that teamteaching offers the children is the modeling of secure and happy friendly partnerships between two adults [who] are veryimportant to them, and encountered on adaily basis" (p. 7).
However, the physical design ofthe schoolspace used for the multiage classrooms inthe study varied widely. Teacher f\s classroom situation was not conducive to teamteaching. His team teaching partner wasacross the hall, yet they shared a class of38 students. Teacher A found it to be a difficult situation. In Teacher D's case, sheand her partner struggled with inadequateclassroom space and a single door betweenthe two classrooms. They knew that theywere to move to a bigger, double classroomthe following school year, and so accepted theinsufficient room situation under these conditions. In contrast, Teacher B and C workedin a classroom that was large enough to facilitate team teaching.
A second interesting finding was thatthree ofthe teachers were once special education teachers. This was not any part ofthe criteria for selection of participants; theresearcher did not know of their teachingbackgrounds (except for having at least twoyears' experience as a multiage teacher)prior to the first interview with each. Thespecial education perspective that the
teachers brought to their classrooms mayhave been instrumental in the choosing ofa multiage classroom, as well as to how theymanaged their multiage classrooms at thetime of the study.
Finally, both in Teacher f\s class and inTeachers Band C's class, several studentswere classified as learning disabled.Teacher A had the largest percentage andthe least amount of support; yet, he described that other teachers in his building,including those connected with special education, felt the multi age program was"elite." Teachers Band C also had a largenumber of classified students; becausetheirs was an inclusive classroom, however,they had a full-time aide and other parttime support staff. Their administrationand the Child Study Team were philosophically committed to the multiage inclusionmodel. Teacher D, on the other hand, hadto fight to have a classified student placedin her class. The special education staff inher school provided little support for themultiage program.
Grant (1993) and Grant and Johnson(1994) have identified overburdening amultiage classroom with children with special needs as a potential obstacle to the success of a multiage program. All three ofthese teachers, however, considered theirprograms to be very successful, and this wasdue to their abilities and backgrounds asspecial education teachers. In Teacher Nscase, he was adept at modifying curriculumand differentiating instruction, and he encouraged heterogeneous groupings to include classified children. Teachers B andC's classroom was an inclusion model andseveral supports were in place, as well aspractices similar to those employed byTeacher A.
Limitations of the StudyThere were two limitations to the study.One limitation was the time frame. Timeand resources made it prohibitive to spendmore days with the participants. Ideally,a once-a-month visit over a longer periodof time would have been beneficial. Nevertheless, the interviews and observations
14
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
MULTIAGE TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND PRACTICES
ofthese multiage teachers and their activeclassrooms provided the data needed todefine and compare their beliefs and classroom practices. The interviews provideddata about the teachers' beliefs, and the observations provided data about their organizational and instructional practices.Clearly, these classrooms operated withfully established routines and expectations.Extending the study over a longer time period would have provided a richer, morecomplex description ofthe teaching performance, and might well have determined astronger relationship between beliefs andconsistent practices.
Another limitation of the study involvedgeneralizability. Generalizing the findingsfrom one case study to a broader population is inappropriate; however, a clear,multicase design with detailed accounts ofdata collection procedures was offered.Comparing the details of responses and contexts to findings from other multiage classrooms using the same methods of collectingand presenting data in similar detail wouldbe feasible. As Erickson (1986) suggested,with interpretive research it is effective tostudy a specific case in great detail and thencompare the results to other cases studiedin detail.
Implications for PracticeAll teachers in today's schools are faced withan ever-increasing range of academic, social ,cultural, and linguistic diversity among thestudent population. In multiage classes, thediversity can be even greater. The teachers participating in this study demonstrated practices that met the wide-rangingneeds of their students. These practicesincluded instructional practices such as differentiated instruction, flexible grouping,social collaboration, student choice, andadaptive curriculum that can be approached from different levels of interestand ability. This study provided insight intothese teachers' classrooms, revealing howtheir instructional beliefs were operationalized in their classrooms.
Single-grade teachers often approachtheir students as members of a particular
grade with expectations of similarity ratherthan expectations of diversity. They oftenrely on whole-class teaching situations andsameness in curriculum and assessment.This study provided descriptions of practices that were successful in meeting theneeds of students in multiage classroomswhere there was an expectation of diversity. Knowledge of these practices is relevant to single-grade teachers as well, asthey, too, struggle to meet the ever-wideningrange of cultural and cognitive diversitypresent in today's classrooms.
In addition, some contextual features ofthe multiage programs involved in thestudy may have implications for multiagepractices, in that they appear to have hadeither inhibited or facilitated the participants in their multiage endeavor. First, asdiscussed in the findings, all four participants supported the practice ofteam teaching; however, the physical design of theschool space used for the multiage classrooms in the study varied widely. One implication ofthe study for multiage settingsmay concern the need for adequate schoolspace when team teaching. When schoolsare not equipped with double rooms, as inTeacher Pis older neighborhood school, itmay be advantageous to have self-containedmultiage classrooms with one teacher.
A second contextual feature that mayhave implications for practice was the extent to which 1) multiage teachers had special education backgrounds, and 2) multiageprograms had the support of Child StudyTeams and special education teachers. Oneimplication for multiage practice may bethat it might be wise to gain the support ofthe special education staff, including theChild Study Team, when offering multiageprograms. Another implication might bethat teachers with special education experience may be a better match for teachingin multiage classrooms.
The third contextual feature that mighthave implications for multiage practice isthe extent to which the teachers were curriculum creators. In this study, all teachers helped write the curriculum for theirprogram; however, each had to separate by
15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
HOFFMAN
grade level for one part of the curriculumthat was grade-level specific. Three of theparticipants found this situation to be frustrating. An implication might be that themore empowered teachers are in the curriculum planning process, the more frustration they feel when mandatedcurriculum is imposed.
Implications for Future ResearchOne of the problems in multiage researchhas been trying to understand what variables affect the relationship between student learning and multiage settings .Findings from this study are congruentwith survey research done in Oregon andKentucky that indicates common practicesin those states' primary multiage classrooms. However, further observational research in elementary multiage classroomsis needed so that we can more fully understand the practices implemented to meetstudents' individual differences and determine the ways student learning is affectedby multiage settings.
Future research also should investigatehow practices in multiage primary classrooms characterized as developmentallyappropriate (Gaust ad, 1994; Miller, 1994)are translated into intermediate elementary multiage practices. Evidence such asstudent choice and self-directed learningthat was coded under the category of student interest during this study seems tobe similar to constructs identified as developmentally appropriate practices foryounger children (Bredekamp & Copple,1997; Chapman, 1995; Chase & Doan,1994; Gaustad, 1994; Lloyd, 1999; Miller,1994). Are these the constructs behind developmentally appropriate practices asthey continue into the intermediate elementary years of schooling and beyond?
Researchers have argued (Delpit, 1988;Lubeck, 1985, 1998) that generalizing developmentally appropriate practices assuitable for all children fails "to capture thenuances, ambiguities, and complexities ofteaching young children in a wide diversity of communities" (Lubeck, 1998, p. 3).As Lubeck argues, educators' practices
need to address diversity among youngchildren and refrain from categorizingpractices as being either developmentallyappropriate or inappropriate. She encourages educators to accept that there aremany ways of teaching, since teachers often mix methods based on previous experiences or particular contexts . In light ofwhat we have learned about multiage practices, another possible area of future research would be to investigate if somechildren are not suited for learning inmultiage classrooms.
Another area of inquiry that this studyexamined was how multiage teachers' beliefs were reflected in their instructionalpractices. Findings from each case in thisstudy reveal that beliefs were closelymatched to classroom practices . Furtherresearch with these participants could continue to document consistent practices, aswell as examine why this occurred. Morewidespread research should explore if thesame pattern of consistency between beliefsand practices exists among other multiageteachers, and, if so, what conditions andvariables account for this tendency.
Finally, future research should examinethe practice of team teaching in themultiage classroom. This is an area of inquiry that seems to have potential benefitsfor both teachers and students. Team teaching appears to help teachers meet students'instructional needs and provide studentswith a model of collaboration and compromise. Students seem to benefit from individual and small-group access to teacherinstruction and from experiencing the spiritof enhanced cooperation.
ReferencesBredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally
appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age8. Washington, DC: National Association forthe Education of Young Children.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997).Developmentally appropriate practice in earlychildhood programs (Rev. ed. ). Washington,DC: National Association for the Educationof Young Children.
Buchanan, T. , Burts, D. , Bidner, J ., &
16
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
MULTIAGE TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND PRACTICES
Charlesworth, R. (1998). Predictors of thedevelopmentally appropriateness ofthe beliefsand pr actices of first, second, and third gr adeteach ers. Early Chi ld hood Research Quarterly, 13,459-83.
Cha pma n, M. (1995). Designing lit eracy learning experie nces in a mul tiage classroom. Language Arts, 72,416-428.
Chase, P., & Doan , J . (1994). Full circle: A newlook at multiage education. Portsmouth, NH :Heinem ann.
Collinson, V. (1999). Redefin in g teacher excellence. Th eory into Practice, 38(1), 4-11.
Delp it , L. D. (1988 ). Th e silenced dialogue:Pow er a nd ped agogy in ed uca t ing otherpeople's children . Harvard Edu cational Review, 58(3), 280-298.
Eri ckson , F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on te aching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed .),New York: Macmillan.
Fang, Z. (1996 ). A review of research on teacherbeliefs and practices. Educat iona l Research,38(1), 47-65.
Gaustad, J . (1994). Nongrade d education: Overcoming obstacles to implementi ng the multiageclassroom. Special issue. Eu gene, OR: Oregon School Study Council.
Goodlad , J. L., & Anderson , R. H. (1967). Thenongraded elementary school . New York :Teachers College Press .
Goodlad , J . L. , & Anderson, R. H. (1987 ). Thenongraded elementary school (Rev. ed.) . NewYork: Teachers College Press .
Gran t , J. (1993). Quest ions an d answers aboutmult iage programs. Th e multiage resourcebook. Peterborough , NH : Th e Society forDevelopmental Education.
Grant, J. , & J ohn son, B. (1994). A common senseguide to multiage practices. Peterborough,NH: Crystal Springs Books.
Gutierrez, R., & Slavin , R. (1992 ). Achievementeffects of the nongrad ed elementary school: Abest evidence synthesi s. Review of Educational Research, 62(4),333-376.
Hoffman, J. (2000). [An informal team -teaching multiage s u r vey conducted throughInternet technology]. Unpublish ed raw data .
Isenberg, J . P. (1990). Teach ers' thinking andbeliefs and cla ssroom practice. Chi ldhoodEducation, 66,322-327 .
Jones , B. (2003). Team teaching, partnershipswithou t fru stration . Free to Learn: Th e Journal ofthe MultiAge Association ofQueensland,8(2), 7.
Konopak, B., Wilson , E ., & Readence, J . (1994).Comparing preservice and inservice second-
ary teachers' beli efs and decisions about conte nt area reading. Jou rnal of Ed ucationalResearch, 87, 220-227.
Lloyd, L. (1999). Multiage classes and highability students . Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 187-212 .
Lubeck , S. (1985 ). S andbox society: Early education in black and wh ite America-A comparati ve ethnograp hy . Philad elphia: Th eFalmer Press .
Lubeck, S. (1998). Is developmentally appropriate pr actice for everyone? Childhood Education, 74, 283-292 .
Marsh ak , D. (1994, March). From teachers' perspectives : Th e social and psychological benefits of multiage elementary classrooms. Paperpresented at the Conference on Emerging Images of Learning: World Perspectives for theNew Millennium, Chic ago. (ERIC Docum entReproduction Service No. ED 376 966 )
Mason , D. A , & Burns , R. B. (1996). "Simplyno worse or no better" may simply be wrong:Acritique ofVeenman's conclusion about mul tigrad e classes. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 307-322.
Mason , D., & Doepner, R. (1998). Principals 'views of combination classes . Th e J ournal ofEducational Research, 91(3), 160-70.
Maxwell , J . A (1996). Qual itative research desig n: An interactive approach . ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
McClellan, D. E . (1994). Multiage groupingimplication s for education. In P. Chase &Doan (Eds.) , Full circle : A new look atmult iag e ed ucation (pp. 147-166). Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann.
Merriam , S. B. (1988). Case study research ineducation: A qualita tive approach . San Francisco: Jo ssey-Bass .
Miller, B. A (1994). Children at the center .Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Education al Laboratory.
Stone, S. (1994195). Strategies for teaching children in multiage classrooms. Childhood Education, 71, 102-105 .
Tomlinson , C. A (1995). How to differentia teinstruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Al exandria, VA: Association for Supervi sion andCurriculum Development.
Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and noncogn itiveeffects of multigrade and multi-age classes: Abest-evidence synthesis . Review of Educational Research , 65(4),319-381.
Watson, A J ., Phillips, R. D., & Wille, C. Y.(1995). What teachers believe about teachingcomposite classes. South Pacific Journal ofTeacher Education, 23(2), 133-164.
17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
47 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014