multiage teachers' beliefs and practices

14
This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University] On: 17 November 2014, At: 15:47 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Research in Childhood Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20 Multiage Teachers' Beliefs and Practices Jo Hoffman a a Kean University Published online: 03 Nov 2009. To cite this article: Jo Hoffman (2003) Multiage Teachers' Beliefs and Practices, Journal of Research in Childhood 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 to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and 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 Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial 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

Upload: jo

Post on 18-Mar-2017

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

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