----

##  Multiage Grouping and Academic Achievement. ERIC Digest.                     

RESEARCH ON MULTIAGE EDUCATION
Multiage classes during the                     elementary school years have been an option of educational practice             in the United States since the introduction of graded education in              the 19th century. Since 1949, several research studies have                     investigated the relationship between multiage grouping and academic            achievement. Reviews of research (Anderson & Pavan, 1993; Pratt,                1986; Gutierrez & Slavin, 1992; Veenman, 1995) reveal inconsistent              results. Based primarily on standardized achievement tests, some                studies report higher scores for students in multiage classrooms.               Other studies favor academic achievement for students in single-age             classrooms. More than half of the studies reveal no differences.                Veenman (1995) suggests that inconsistencies in research outcomes               may be attributed to an inconsistent definition of multiage                     education. Other researchers (Anderson & Pavan, 1993; Nye et al.,               1995; Pratt, 1986) attribute confusion in research outcomes to weak             controls for differences between experimental and control conditions            and to lack of detail in data analysis-even though experimental                 studies should be designed to control for these differences. Forced             assignment of both students and teachers to multiage classrooms may             have contributed to negative academic outcomes in some                          situations (Slaton et al., 1997). According to Lloyd (1999), the                variety of ways multiage grouping is conceptualized and implemented             limits the ability of researchers to make generalizations about the             academic impact of the multiage model. 
Despite inconsistencies in             research findings, those studies that report significant achievement            outcomes for students in multiage classrooms over those in                      single-age classes demonstrate gains in language (including                     vocabulary and literacy measures) and mathematics (Gutierrez &                  Slavin, 1992; Nye et al., 1995). Advantages have been reported for              both high- and low-ability students (Lloyd, 1999; Lou et al., 1996).            However, gains are most consistently noted for "blacks, boys,                   underachievers and students of low socioeconomic status" (Anderson &            Pavan, 1993, p. 50). In studies looking at long-term effects,                   advantages for multiage students have been shown to increase the                longer students remain in multiage classrooms. Advantages in the                academic realm are supported by consistent reports across studies of            specific benefits of multiage grouping in the area of socioemotional            development. Students in multiage classrooms demonstrate more                   positive attitudes toward school, greater leadership skills, greater            self-esteem, and increased pro-social and fewer aggressive                      behaviors, compared to peers in traditional graded                              classrooms (McClellan & Kinsey, 1999; Veenman, 1995). These                     variables have been shown to positively influence achievement                   outcomes in traditional classrooms (Stipek, 1998) and,                          recently (Kinsey, 2000), in multiage classrooms. In light of                    consistent positive benefits for multiage grouping in the                       socioemotional realm, inconsistent outcomes in the academic realm               are surprising. DEFINING MULTIAGE IS KEY TO INTERPRETING RESEARCH             OUTCOMESWhile a variety of models are represented in the                    research, contemporary implementation of multiage grouping is                   defined by Katz, Evangelou, and Hartman (1990, p. 1) as "placing                children who are at least a year apart in age into the same                     classroom groups" so as to intentionally "optimize what can be                  learned when children of different--as well as same--ages and                   abilities have frequent opportunities to interact." The framework               encourages the use of child-directed and experiential learning.                 Where descriptive research data are available, it appears that many             multiage classrooms continue to make extensive use of traditional               teaching practices such as ability grouping and whole class                     instruction, while some single-age classrooms use more                          developmentally appropriate teaching practices than multiage                    classrooms. Further, most research examining the impact of multiage             grouping has not made clear whether the multiage classroom provides             a unique advantage in either the affective or academic realm beyond             what can be achieved by simply employing developmentally appropriate            practice. 
A consistent factor in those studies that show positive             achievement outcomes for multiage students over same-age students is            the use of a developmentally appropriate approach to teaching,                  including teaming, cooperative group work, integrated curriculum,               and encouragement of interactions among students. Research supports             the use of developmentally appropriate teaching practices in                    producing positive achievement outcomes (Hart, Burts, &                         Charlesworth, (1997). In addition, a substantial body of research               supports the use of cooperative as compared to competitive or                   individualistic educational efforts. In a synthesis of the results              of over 375 studies, Johnson and Johnson (1994) cite evidence that              interactive involvement among classmates may be one of the most                 cost-effective "support systems" for increasing academic                        achievement (p. 56). According to Slavin (1987), "Under the right               motivational conditions, peers can and, more important, will provide            explanations in one another's proximal zones of development [as                 described by Vygotsky], and will engage in the kind of cognitive                conflict needed for disequilibration and cognitive growth [as                   described by Piaget]" (p. 1166). However, Slavin's work demonstrates            that peer interaction in and of itself does not enhance learning.               Rather, learning enhancement depends on the specific ways that the              teacher guides those interactions. CROSS-AGE INTERACTION AS THE               UNIQUE VARIABLEUsing both quantitative and qualitative analysis,            a study by Kinsey (2000) supports Slavin's (1987) work by suggesting            a relationship between facilitated cross-age interactions and                   achievement outcomes. Building on results from a study reporting                increased frequencies of pro-social behaviors of students in                    multiage classrooms (McClellan & Kinsey, 1999), Kinsey demonstrated             that higher teacher ratings of student pro-social behaviors were                significantly related to greater student achievement outcomes on                both standardized and report card assessments. Statistical analysis             demonstrated that students from multiage classrooms achieved greater            academic outcomes in relation to their abilities and demonstrated               greater increases in academic achievement than students of the same             and higher abilities from single-age classrooms when all classrooms             employed developmentally appropriate teaching practices. Kinsey                 reports data from teacher questionnaires and interviews suggesting              two major components of the multiage classroom that contribute to               academic achievement: first, the family-like atmosphere that reduces            the incidence of social isolation and encourages risk taking that is            associated with meaningful learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1994); and,             second, the dynamic of the returning older students (who have more              classroom and educational experience) engaging in cross-age                     interactions in learning activities. It is critical to note that the            academic benefits demonstrated for students in multiage classrooms              by Kinsey may be the result of the classroom teacher's active                   facilitation and encouragement of cross-age learning opportunities.             The unique contribution of multiage grouping may be its capacity to             address the needs of individual students by (1) creating an occasion            for scaffolding of growth opportunities provided by both the teacher            and a multiage peer group and (2) providing an environment in which             close relationships between teacher and student and among classmates            allow for the development of mutual trust and understanding. Results            from Kinsey indicate that both the combination of these                         relationships and the environment in which they are formed make a               significant contribution to the academic growth of students in                  multiage classrooms, beyond the use of developmentally appropriate              practices. TO THE FUTUREEffective research in the area of                 multiage education is still in its infancy. In the current climate              of accountability, widespread acceptance of the multiage model in               elementary schools is unlikely until it is clear that multiage                  education leads to greater academic achievement. If careful                     attention is given to definition and selection of multiage                      classrooms, and detailed descriptions of classroom procedures are               provided, research outcomes may reliably indicate which specific                aspects of multiage classroom practices are most beneficial.                    However, because of the present ambiguity in definitions of multiage            education, educators who are currently using the multiage model, and            those who are contemplating its implementation, need to assess the              impact of their specific multiage classrooms on academic achievement            for students participating in these classrooms. At the same time,               researchers need to continue to explore through qualitative                     measures--observational study and directed interviews with both                 teachers and children--how the multiage classroom can contribute to             academic achievement. FOR MORE INFORMATIONAnderson, R. H., &              Pavan, B. N. (1993). NONGRADEDNESS: HELPING IT TO HAPPEN. Lancaster,            PA: Technomic. ED 355 005. 
Bredekamp, S., & Copple,                           C. (Eds.). (1997). DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE IN EARLY                CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association             for the Education of Young Children. ED 403 023. 
Gutierrez, R., &             Slavin, R. E. (1992). Achievement effects of the nongraded                      elementary school: A best evidence synthesis. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL             RESEARCH, 62(4), 333-376. EJ 460 525. 
Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., &            Charlesworth, R. (1997). Integrated developmentally appropriate                 curriculum: From theory and research to practice. In C. Hart, D.                Burts, & R. Charlesworth (Eds.), INTEGRATED CURRICULUM AND                      DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE. Albany: State University of               New York Press. ED 413 050. 
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.                     T. (1994). LEARNING TOGETHER AND ALONE: COOPERATIVE, COMPETITIVE,               AND INDIVIDUALISTIC LEARNING. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ED 369                   778. 
Katz, L. G., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J. A. (1990). THE CASE            FOR MIXED-AGE GROUPING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION. Washington, DC:            National Association for the Education of Young Children. ED 326                302. 
Kinsey, S. J. (2000). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRO-SOCIAL                BEHAVIORS AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN THE PRIMARY MULTIAGE                      CLASSROOM. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola University                 Chicago. 
Lloyd, L. (1999). Multi-age classes and high ability                 students. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 69(2), 187-212. EJ 600                456. 
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers,            B., & d'Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A                          meta-analysis. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 66(4), 423-458. EJ               542 075. 
McClellan, D. E., & Kinsey, S. J. (1999). Children's                 social behavior in relation to participation in mixed-age or                    same-age classrooms. EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH & PRACTICE [Online],              1(1). Available: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v1n1/mcclellan.html. 
Nye, B.            A., Cain, V. A., Zaharias, J. B., Tollett, D. A., & Fulton, B.                  D. (1995, April). ARE MULTIAGE/NONGRADED PROGRAMS PROVIDING STUDENTS            WITH A QUALITY EDUCATION? SOME ANSWERS FROM THE SCHOOL SUCCESS                  STUDY. Paper presented at the annual conference on Creating Quality             Schools, Oklahoma City, OK. ED 384 998. 
Pratt, D. (1986). On the              merits of multiage classrooms. RESEARCH IN RURAL EDUCATION, 3(3),               111-116. EJ 352 966. 
Slaton, D. B., Atwood, V. A., Shake, M. C., &            Hales, R. M. (1997). Experienced teachers' reactions to mandated                reform and nongraded primary school programs. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN            CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, 12(1), 5-15. EJ 554 470. 
Slavin, R.                      E. (1987). Developmental and motivational perspectives on                       cooperative learning: A reconciliation. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 58(5),               1161-1167. EJ 362 722. 
Stipek, D. J. (1998). MOTIVATION TO LEARN:             FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ED 369              773. 
Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and non-cognitive effects of               multi-grade and multi-age classes: A best-evidence synthesis. REVIEW            OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 65(4), 319-381. EJ 522                                 378. 
----- 
References identified with an ED (ERIC document),                EJ (ERIC journal), or PS number are cited in the ERIC database. Most            documents are available in ERIC microfiche collections at more than             900 locations worldwide, and can be ordered through EDRS: (800)                 443-ERIC. Journal articles are available from the original journal,             interlibrary loan services, or article reproduction clearinghouses              such as UnCover (800-787-7979) or ISI (800-523-1850). 
ERIC Digests            are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced. 
This                   project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the            U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and                Improvement, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0020. The content of this              publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of               the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names,              commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S.             Government.                                                                  **Title:** Multiage Grouping and Academic Achievement. ERIC Digest.                     **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Descriptors:**  Academic Achievement, Classroom Environment, Definitions,                      Developmentally Appropriate Practices, Elementary Education,                     Grouping (Instructional Purposes),  Mixed Age Grouping, Research               Problems, Teacher Influence                                                  **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]