· Web viewStudies of primary education within the UK have shown that small groups can feature within classrooms; however equivalent research within …

Exploring the characteristics of small groups within Science and English

secondary classrooms

Sarah MacQuarriea*, Christine Howeb, and James Boylea

a Department of Psychology, University of Strathclyde

b Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge

Contact: [email protected]

*now based at Centre for Rural Childhood, University of the Highlands and Islands.

mailto:[email protected]

Exploring the characteristics of small groups within Science and English

secondary classrooms

Abstract

Studies of primary education within the UK have shown that small groups can feature

within classrooms; however equivalent research within secondary education remains

scarce. Research has established effective group work approaches, yet secondary

teachers may encounter difficulties employing approaches tied to parameters embedded

within primary education. This problem is compounded as minor adjustments to the

conditions surrounding group work are known to have consequences for its efficacy

within classrooms. This paper reports naturalistic systematic observation of group work

practice within 23 science and English secondary classrooms in Scotland. Pupils

completed tasks according to whether they were situated within group work or

conventional classes. Forms of dialogue known to be conducive to learning were

prevalent whilst pupils worked in groups. The change in pupils’ behaviours does not

appear to stem from the content of teachers’ talk. Teachers’ behaviour suggested they

approach small groups as smaller structures equivalent to a whole-class set-up.

Key words: Group work, secondary classrooms, teachers’ behaviour, interaction,

Science and English teaching.

MacQuarrie, S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 527-546. 2

Introduction

Research continues to demonstrate that group work involving small numbers of pupils

(hereafter ‘group work’) can be employed as a productive teaching strategy (Baines,

Blatchford, & Chowne, 2007; Blatchford, Baines, Rubie-Davies, Bassett, & Chowne, 2006;

Gillies, 2004; Howe et al., 2007) signifying that awareness of its characteristic features is of

great importance. The need is especially marked at secondary level, for overwhelmingly

research evaluating classroom groups has focused on primary education. Group work

research needs to acknowledge that pupils within secondary education face a myriad of

specific challenges, implying that secondary education needs to be studied in its own right.

Accordingly, this paper reports the findings of a naturalistic classroom observation study

conducted within Scottish secondary classrooms.

Under guidance from education authorities, School Boards and national initiatives, all

schools make strategic decisions about how to group pupils. The most frequently used

teaching and learning arrangements are whole-class teaching (where a teacher engages with

an entire class), group work (where the consensus amongst sources suggests as few as two

and as many as six pupils work as a subgroup on a shared task) and individual learning

(Alexander, 2000; Galton, Hargreaves, Wall, & Comber, 1999). This paper investigates how

teachers and pupils in secondary school operate in groups in comparison with conventional

teaching (equivalent to whole-class and individual learning approaches). Group work has

been documented as a regular feature of classrooms in the UK (Blatchford, Kutnick, &

Baines, 1999; Blatchford, Kutnick, Clark, MacIntyre, & Baines, 2001; Galton et al., 1999;

Howe & Tolmie, 2003; MacQuarrie, 2006). Yet a recent review indicates a scarcity of

systematic research considering how small groups operate and what factors influence such


interaction (Bennett, Lubben, Hogarth, & Campbell, 2004). Paucity of research is also

evident regarding teachers’ behaviour within lessons that make use of group work. Therefore

a representative profile of classroom group work would help determine whether the strategies

employed by secondary teachers incorporate features that research has associated with

effective group work (Cohen, 1994; Slavin, 1996).

Background research into productive group work helped frame the parameters of the

current study (such as Cohen, 1994; Howe et al., 2007). A wide body of literature has

examined the gender and ability composition of classroom groups and heterogeneous

arrangements are argued to be particularly effective, as they maximise the chance of

contrasting perspectives during group discussion. Research from Piaget (1962) onwards

indicates that productive outcomes depend on this form of interaction (see Howe, 2010).

While not denying the importance of difference, research also indicates that it is preferable for

pupils to cooperate rather than compete (Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008; Slavin, 1996).

Studies acknowledging the role of the teacher within group work have concentrated on

teacher to pupil interaction, and include investigation of the relationship between external

assistance and resulting group behaviour (Webb et al., 2008; Webb, Nemer, & Ing, 2006),

whereas the nature of the support given by teachers at a broader classroom level has yet to be

examined. It follows that evidence concerning teachers’ roles within groups, and their

management of lessons that use groups, is limited. Consideration of classroom dialogue –

accessed by observing pupil and teacher talk – can help address this discrepancy. In primary

school typically pupils are seen as receivers of knowledge and teachers are viewed as experts

or bearers of such knowledge (Edwards & Mercer, 1987, p. 25; Edwards & Westgate, 1994,

p. 106) and as studies considering primary to secondary school transfer have reported more

rather than less continuity between the two settings, it is a reasonable assumption that these


roles are likely to predominate in the secondary school (Galton, Morrison, & Pell, 2000;

West, Sweeting, & Young, 2010). Hence to accommodate group work teachers would need

to alter their approach to support and contextualise pupils’ learning, thus signalling a change

in the strategies and behaviour that characterise their teaching.

Two projects that implemented interventions within schools are particularly relevant.

The SPRinG project (Social Pedagogic Research into Group work) was conducted in England

with pupils aged 5-14, followed by a partial replication with pupils aged 9-12 in Scotland

(SCOTSPRinG). The relational approach to group work - which encompasses many of the

principles of cooperative learning advocated by Johnson and Johnson’s (2005, 2009) -

emphasises the inclusion of both teachers and pupils within interactions, but stipulates that

pupils must be given sufficient time to develop the skills necessary for group interaction.

Following extended participation, increases were evident in pupils’ academic achievements

(Baines et al., 2007; Howe et al., 2007; Thurston et al., 2008) and encouraging findings were

obtained regarding changes in pupil behaviours during interaction with their peers (Blatchford

et al., 2006). Although these studies demonstrate that conditions for productive group work

can be tailored for different disciplines, accounts of naturally occurring practice do not

necessarily show comparable findings (Baines, Blatchford, & Kutnick, 2003). Consequently,

reports from teachers that group work was especially likely within science and English

subjects (in contrast to mathematics1, history and modern languages), provided parameters for

the present study (MacQuarrie, 2006).

1The complexities separating group work and ability grouping, particularly in mathematics, are explored by (Kutnick, Blatchford, Clark, MacIntyre, & Baines, 2005). In addition, (Baines et al., 2003) who also report low levels of group work within mathematics.MacQuarrie, S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 527-546. 5

Overview of the present study

The main objective of this research was to provide a description of secondary school teachers’

and pupils’ behaviour during lessons that make use of group work, enhanced through

comparison with conventional instruction.

With so few studies evaluating group work within secondary education, make it

difficult to form specific hypotheses about what takes place. However, based on the

background literature, two issues were felt to merit specific investigation. The first relates to

the structural features of groups looking at the relationship between pupils’ behaviour and the

instructional methods used by the class teacher. Observation (Blatchford et al., 2001; Roth et

al., 2006) and self report measures (Assessment of Achievement Programme, 2003, 2005;

Scottish Survey of Achievement, 2006) involving secondary schools note that small groups

are used as a learning activity but feature in tandem with other instructional approaches.

Further research suggests that pupils mainly work individually, irrespective of being seated in

a variety of formats within classrooms (Baines et al., 2003). Indeed, being seated as groups

and assigned a group task does not necessarily lead to productive interaction, (Barron, 2003;

Oliveira & Sadler, 2008; Wegerif, 1997; Yetter et al., 2006). Thus, seating and task

arrangements have importance when considering the nature of group work, as does

understanding of how group members interact and contribute to the completion of group

tasks. Differentiation is considered a tactic by which learning can be made accessible to all

pupils in the classroom (Department for Children Schools and Families, 2008; Scottish Office

Education and Industry Department, 1996). Thus teachers may distribute different tasks to

different classroom subgroups as some evidence suggests teachers appear to understand that

guidance and recommendations encourage the adoption of such processes to accommodate

different learning styles or pupils’ varying subject understanding (Tobin & McInnes, 2008).


However, as indicated earlier the scarcity of research considering how small groups operate

within secondary education suggests it would be unwise to assume that uniform approaches

will be observed. The observation materials used in the present study were sufficiently

flexible to allow classroom interaction to be recorded independently of pupils’ seating and

task arrangements. A systematic approach of recording observations was utilised. This

method was employed whilst adopting a naturalistic approach - observation undertaken within

classrooms avoided interfering with regular practice.

The second area of investigation focuses on pupils’ talk as particular forms of dialogue

have been demonstrated as having greater potential for learning when pupils engage in group

work (Barnes & Todd, 1977; Littleton et al., 2005; Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004).

For example, when pupils counter statements such action not only stimulates the

understanding shared by group members but also goes some way to solidify an individual’s

own beliefs and understanding. Solicited helping behaviours, where an individual receives

help having requested it, are argued to be fundamental for encouraging group activity and

maintaining on-task behaviour (Terwel, Gillies, van den Eeden, & Hoek, 2001). These

include explanations, which have been consistently identified as helping both provider and

recipient (Webb, 1982, 1991; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003) and which provide opportunities

for group members to align their learning and knowledge as a consequence of helping

(Gillies, 2002; Oortwijn, Boekaerts, Vedder, & Fortuin, 2008). Thus pupils may seek

assistance from their group rather than their teacher (Gilles, 2003). As regards the discussion

of opposing perspectives, it undoubtedly can occur when small group work is governed by

specific conditions (Howe & Tolmie, 2003), indicating that the standard of interaction

suggested by theory can be approached (Piaget, 1962). In contrast, features contributing to

effective groups are rare within authentic primary classrooms and talk is neither task


enriching nor task related (Galton et al., 1999). In light of the above this study will examine

the nature of pupil interaction and evaluate teachers’ behaviour by comparing observation

recorded within conventional teaching with that achieved when pupils work in groups.

Method

Design

For pupils; a between-subjects design incorporated teaching approach (group work or

conventional), subject (science or English), gender (male or female), topic stage (beginning,

middle or end of topic) and year (first or third)2. For teachers; a mixed design incorporated a

within-subjects factor - observation at the introduction and conclusion of lessons (lesson

stage) and between-subjects factors – teaching approach (group work or conventional),

subject (science or English), gender (male or female), topic stage (beginning, middle or end of

topic) and year (first or third). Topic stage was treated as a between-subjects factor as

difficulties encountered during data collection meant that on some occasions obtaining three

recordings per participating class was not feasible. 5 instances of substitution occurred. For

example, if a class was recorded within two group work lessons, but an additional group work

observation was not feasible, a third observation of the class on occasion occurred within a

conventional lesson.

Observations were recorded during science and English classes, because a preliminary

survey of mathematics, English, modern languages, history and science teachers indicated that

group work occurs with particularly high frequency within science and English (MacQuarrie,

2006). Within the current study first and third year classrooms were identified as suitable

2 First year 11-12 years, Third year, 13-14 years. MacQuarrie, S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 527-546. 8

targets as they are not subject to pressures such as external examinations or subject choice

decisions. Access to teaching years where pupils encounter such challenges may be

restricted. Therefore to produce a representative picture of small group work the study was

restricted to two specific subjects and teaching years.

Sampling

Participants attended eight secondary schools located in West Central Scotland. These

schools varied (0-5% to 30-40%) in their percentage of free school meal entitlement (FSE),

where higher values indicate low family income and socio-economic status (Scottish

Executive, 2009b). Three schools (providing 8 (35%) of the 23 participating classes) were

based within the 10-15% entitlement category, close to the national average for Scottish

secondary pupils (Scottish Executive, 2008, 2009b).

[Insert Table 1 about here]

The overview of the sample in Table 1 means that clear guarantees of

representativeness are beyond the scope of this naturalistic study. Contextual factors

influenced the number of pupils observed within each classroom. Equivalent numbers of

observations were recorded with regard to each topic stage and gender. Significant

differences within the number of observations recorded are signalled with an asterisk in Table

1. Some differences relate to the naturalistic approach of the study and others require

explanation. One point to be noted in relation to teaching year & subject is that within third

year two sets of classes – chemistry and physics – were categorised as Science (in comparison

with first year combined science lessons). This effectively doubles the volume of


observations recorded of third year science teaching. The mean number of observations

recorded was computed by dividing the total number of pupil observations (443 science, 252

English) with the number of lessons observed for each subject (34 lessons science, 16 lessons

English), giving separate descriptives for science (M = 13) and English (M = 15.75).

An overview of visits made to participating teachers is presented in Table 2. Since

each class was paired with a single teacher, the number of participating teachers was

effectively equivalent to the number of participating classes (23). As noted earlier 5 instances

of substitution occurred (where a teacher was recorded partly in both group work and

conventional lessons).


Significant differences regarding the number of teacher observations are signalled

with an asterisk in Table 1. As noted earlier, first year teaching involves general subjects,

whereas third year science involves discrete science thereby doubling the number of

observations collected in third year science lessons. In contrast, significant differences

regarding gender and lesson type indicate difficulties in obtained balanced samples.

Observation approach

Observation followed a naturalistic approach, where an observer coded lessons in vivo, but

did not disturb classroom interaction. Teachers were asked not to make any particular efforts

on behalf of the researcher. Teachers volunteered on the understanding that when

observations were recorded within group work lessons, a further teacher who was content to

have similar observations recorded within conventional lessons would also be sought. MacQuarrie, S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 527-546. 10

Systematic observations utilised a time-sampling procedure, facilitated by the use of a grid,

with rows corresponding to observation windows and columns to observation categories.

Observation grids and categories are presented in Appendix 1.

Identical grids each comprised of eight consecutive windows of 60 seconds in length

were used to observe teachers at the introduction and conclusion of lessons. The duration of

each observation window allowed statements used by teachers to be accurately recorded. The

first of three sections concentrated on descriptive statements relating to lesson content, the

second section focused on measures used to aid interpretation of material, and the final

section examined dialogue. It seemed likely that teachers would model the dialogue or

interaction that they wished to see within groups (Webb et al., 2008), therefore aspects of

dialogue from the SCOTSPRinG project shown to be effective within pupil groupings were

incorporated within the observation categories (Howe et al., 2007). Behaviours exhibited by

teachers were recorded once within each observation window. Multiple coding, which would

have required the researcher to distinguish between the boundaries of one statement and the

next, could not be reliably assessed within a single observation window.

Pupils were also observed for eight windows. The duration of each window

approximated 15 seconds, based on the approach utilised within SCOTSPRinG research

(Howe et al., 2007). A specific sampling technique was employed: one pupil per small group

was observed, each successive observation would attend to a different group, and whenever

possible operate selection would be based on gender – observation of a male pupil would be

followed by the observation of a female pupil. This sampling technique operated in the

context of the variable nature of lessons, which influenced the opportunities to make

observations (e.g., pupil behaviour would not be recorded when a teacher read poetry or gave MacQuarrie, S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 527-546. 11

a demonstration). Consequently a pre-determined number of pupil observations could not be

set. An overview of classroom interaction was obtained by observing a variety of pupils

during each classroom visit, rather than repeatedly recording specific pupils’ behaviour within

and across lessons.

Sections one to three of the pupil observation grid each employed mutually exclusive

coding categories. Pupils were coded as exhibiting behaviours within a specific category,

when that behaviour had the longest duration within an observation window. The contents of

each observation grid were summed, so that frequencies within each observation category

were computed and used within the analysis. This approach was used previously within the

SPRinG group work intervention and the SCOTSPRinG research (Baines et al., 2007; Howe

et al., 2007; Thurston et al., 2008). The final section focused on the dialogue produced by

pupils and multiple dialogue behaviours were permitted here, in contrast to the mutually

exclusive categories used within the previous sections. Essentially, this approach followed

that used successfully in the recent SCOTSPRinG transition project (Thurston et al., 2010).

Practicalities meant that the data for this study had to be recorded by one researcher;

therefore reliability checks on the observation methodology were made in advance. In vivo

coding of lessons, with two observers present in the same classroom, would have been

impractical and ethically complicated; instead appropriate video resources were used. Inter-

rater agreement over teacher observations was computed using Cohen’s Kappa and for this

purpose observations were treated as a binary variable and classed in relation to their presence

or absence. This approach avoided biases that may have resulted from teachers showing

variability in their behaviour. Intraclass correlation coefficients (McGraw & Wong, 1996)

were more appropriate for use with the interval-scale pupil data. The researcher and an MacQuarrie, S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 527-546. 12

observer trained for this purpose coded the recordings, with agreement relating to each of the

categories ranging between .7 and 1.0 (Landis & Koch, 1977; Wragg, 1999). Mean

agreement between raters over the pupil observation categories (.89) and teacher observation

categories (.84) was high.

Analysis

Two-step cluster analysis was performed using pupil observation data, which focused on

establishing the main characteristics of classroom groups. A detailed explanation of the

technique is presented in Appendix 2. In brief, it creates a profile of pupils’ behaviour and

allows the strength and significance of each independent variable (teaching approach, subject,

gender, topic stage, and year) to be examined. Two methods were used to analyse teachers’

behaviour. Data were looked at according to whether they were recorded at the introduction

or conclusion of lessons, and comparisons were made examining the teaching approach

(group work or conventional) and subject (science or English) separately. In addition,

teachers’ behaviour at the introduction of lessons was compared with their behaviour during

lesson conclusions. Separate comparisons were made according to whether teachers were

observed within lessons using groups or conventional teaching.

Results

Analysis of pupils’ behaviour within small groups

A clear division was present between two clusters, with 58.6% grouped within the first cluster

and 41.4% within the second cluster. Auto-clustering procedures (see Appendix 2 for more

detail) indicated that two clusters was the optimal solution in terms of differentiating amongst MacQuarrie, S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 527-546. 13

the data.

Cluster membership within the two cluster solution was cross-tabulated for each of the

independent variables: teaching approach, subject, gender, topic stage, and year. A clear

divide was evident between the two clusters; (X2 (1) = 195.76, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .53).

The first cluster was predominantly group work based, as it included 78.9% of the data that

were recorded during this type of activity, with only 24.8% of its content coming from

conventional lessons. By contrast, conventional instruction featured extensively within the

second cluster (75.1%), with the remaining 21.1% associated with group work lessons. The

inclusion of teaching approach during the clustering process led to a 28.2% reduction in error

when items were allocated to the clusters. A relationship was also found between cluster

membership and school subject (X2 (1) = 55.247, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .28), with the

inclusion of this variable leading to a further 8% reduction in error. The first cluster was

associated with 48.1% of science lessons and 77% of English lessons, whereas the second

cluster was associated with 51.9% of science lessons and 23% of English lessons. Therefore,

the discrepancy noted regarding the smaller volume of English conventional lessons has been

accommodated within the clustering process and is reflected in this finding. Analysis of the

remaining independent variables of gender, topic stage and year were not found to

significantly contribute to the formation of the clusters. Therefore, the remaining analysis

was restricted to the two significant variables of teaching approach and subject.

The composition of each cluster is set out in Table 3. Frequencies of behaviour coded

within each observation category are set out in relation to each cluster (the total frequency of

behaviours coded within any observation category can be found by summing across a row).

Each category found to a significant contributor to one of the two clusters is signalled with an


asterisk in Table 3. Ten observation categories were found to be associated with the group

work cluster. The order of presentation of these ten variables was repeated within the second

conventional teaching cluster, which showed an additional two variables as significant –

different tasks assigned to groups and classroom preparation.


When the categories used to observe pupil interaction were considered, two of the

three (listed in Table 3 and explained in Appendix 1) contributed significantly to the cluster

formation process. Within conventional instruction, pupils completed tasks by themselves, in

contrast with pupils arranged in groups, who less frequently worked alone. The second

significant finding was that group work pupils interacted with peers who were seated in close

proximity (their assigned group) proportionally more than pupils in conventional classes.

Within both teaching approaches pupils’ interaction with adjacent peers was seldom observed,

suggesting that interaction took place with the group as a whole and not with specific

members.

Although both teacher presence and teacher interaction were grouped to a greater

extent within the group work cluster, they did not contribute significantly to the formation of

either cluster. Their lower frequencies indicate that teachers were less often involved when

pupils completed tasks by themselves or as part of a group. Yet on the occasions when they

felt it necessary to be involved teachers intervened rather than monitor the progress of small

groups.


When the task or learning context was evaluated pupils were assigned tasks of similar

nature and this was evident regardless of whether pupils worked in groups or completed tasks

individually. The separation between the teaching approaches was repeated in the clustering

of task arrangements. Group tasks were associated with the first group-work cluster, whereas

individual and whole-class instruction were prevalent within the conventional second cluster.

Pupils focused on completing tasks, with approximately equal proportions of on-task

behaviour present within the group work and conventional cluster. Off-task behaviours were

relatively infrequent in both clusters. Pupil engagement in preparatory work within lessons

using groups was higher than in conventional instruction. Therefore when pupils worked in

groups in both teaching subjects, a proportion of the time was dedicated to classroom

preparation.

The final section of Table 3 makes it clear that dialogue was a key feature within both

types of lesson, but for different reasons. A higher proportion of each category was evident

during group work in contrast to fewer instances recorded within conventional instruction.

These four categories are based on behaviours known to be key to pupils’ learning, therefore

not only is it encouraging to observe such behaviour but also to record their relatively high

frequency during group work within both teaching subjects.

The findings of the cluster analysis indicate that pupils engaged with their peers and

worked in small groups to complete a shared task. Pupils followed the guidelines presented to

them, were content to complete tasks as a group, and were clearly equipped with the skills to

achieve productive interaction. Observations of teachers were analysed to help determine


whether the variation in pupils’ behaviour, could be attributed to differences in teachers’

behaviours within the separate teaching approaches.

Analysis of teacher observations

Observation grids and categories used to record teacher behaviour are presented in Appendix

1. Pre-screening of the data set indicated that a conservative approach was appropriate, non-

parametric statistics were adopted3 and to counteract the effects of multiple tests a corrected

significance level (p < .004)4.

The, independent samples tests that compared teachers’ behaviours used the variables

found to help explain the differences between the two types of classes when pupils behaviour

was examined, thus comparisons were made across the different teaching approaches (group

work or conventional) and subjects (science or English). These analyses were computed

separately for observations collected at the introduction and conclusion of lessons.

During the introduction of a lesson teachers within conventional lessons (Mdn = 5,

IQR = 1.5) made significantly more evaluative comments than teachers employing group

work (Mdn = 2, IQR = 2), (Kolmogorov Smirnov Z = 1.769, p < .004, r = .34). Teachers

within conventional lessons (Mdn = 6, IQR = 3.5) displayed a trend towards providing more

feedback (finding approached significance) than their group work counterparts (Mdn = 2, IQR

= 2.5), (Kolmogorov Smirnov Z = 1.497, p < .007, r = .29). Teachers appear to refrain from

3 An independent samples test was used and Kolmogorov Smirnov z-values are reported, as they

are more suited to small sample sizes. 4 A Bonferroni correction was appropriate to reduce the likelihood of false positive findings

(Howell, 1997)MacQuarrie, S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 527-546. 17

giving developed explanations when they introduce group work. There were no statistically

significant differences between teachers during the introduction of a lesson when subject was

considered.

No significant differences in teachers’ behaviour were detected at the conclusion

stage, no matter comparisons were made across teaching approaches, or subjects.

A Friedman test was used to compare teachers’ behaviour between the introduction

and conclusion of a lesson; tests were computed separately for the different teaching

approaches. Teachers’ behaviour within the observation categories varied when their actions

at the introduction and conclusion of lessons were compared, for both conventional (X2 (10) =

81.51, p < .001) and group work (X2 (10) = 96.38, p < .001) teachers. Follow up analysis

employed a number of Wilcoxon signed rank tests (two related samples are compared to

examine whether they come from the same underlying population), which compared teachers’

behaviour within each observation category at the different lesson stages. Table 4 shows how

teachers’ behaviour varied across specific categories within the different teaching approaches.


Teachers within conventional lessons used statements related to developing pupils’

ideas more often during lesson introductions than their conclusions. Similarly more revision

occurred at the outset of lessons than their conclusion. A greater number of instructions were

also given during the introduction of a lesson than its conclusion. Comparisons of teachers’

behaviour within lessons making use of group work detected one finding that approached

significance, explanations were included within lesson introductions in comparison with their MacQuarrie, S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 527-546. 18

conclusions. Other than this finding, little variation was evident between the two types of

instruction.

To clarify how teachers addressed pupils before and after group work, Figure 1 plots

each of the observation categories. Atypical behaviour or outliers have been labelled

according to the teaching approach in which teachers were observed.

[Insert Figure 1 about here]

During the lesson introduction, teachers showed similar approaches when talking to

pupils within group work or conventional lessons: evaluative comments and giving feedback

were common features of teachers’ talk in both contexts. A number of teachers were able to

include specific behaviours within lesson conclusions, yet the frequency of these behaviours

was too low to result in statistically significant effects. Brief attempts to engage in a plenary

session provide some reassurance that teachers appreciate the need to address pupil

contributions following group discussion. Plenaries not only encourage pupils to voice their

thinking but may help resolve inconsistencies, which might otherwise go unnoticed.

Evaluation of teachers’ behaviour revealed specific differences when comparisons

between teaching approaches or between lesson stages were made. Teachers preferred to

explore content during lesson introductions rather than grasp opportunities during lesson

conclusions to develop pupils’ understanding. In general, teachers of group work lessons

approached lesson introductions and conclusions in a similar fashion to their counterparts

within conventional lessons. Thus, although pupils comprehend the need for a change in their


behaviour depending on the instructional context, teachers adopt a consistent approach

throughout.

Discussion

Secondary pupils clearly enjoy social interaction and respond well to available opportunities.

The cluster analysis indicates that for the most part pupils behaved and completed tasks

according to whether they were situated within group work or conventional classes. By

varying their behaviour from that typically observed within conventional teaching pupils

participated in groups, they engaged with their peers and produced instances of specific forms

of dialogue. The level of on-task behaviour evident during group work, coupled with few

instances of interaction occurring outwith pupils’ assigned group suggests a commitment to

the group task.

Irrespective of teaching approach and seating arrangement, differentiation of tasks was

not commonplace, despite guidance (Scottish Office Education and Industry Department,

1996) which appears to encourage teachers to implement such processes in order to

accommodate different learning styles or pupils’ varying subject understanding. Large scale

observational research has previously determined that factors influencing on-task behaviour

include the tasks given to pupils (Galton et al., 1999). Galton and colleagues also pointed out

that primary pupils tended to be arranged in small groups but rarely engaged in productive

dialogue and frequently engaged in off-task behaviours. The findings of the current study

indicate a different emerging pattern: whether pupils worked alone or in small groups they

were observed to remain on-task. Pupils were assigned tasks of a similar nature and engaged

within groups when appropriate opportunities were presented within science and English MacQuarrie, S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 527-546. 20

Scottish secondary classrooms. Although pupils appear well equipped to work in small

groups whether such interaction was sufficient to complete tasks was not ascertained. The

nature of group discussion suggests pupils are equipped to interact in small groups by the time

they reach secondary education (age 12 in Scotland) and that multiple codes were used to

record dialogue goes some way to document that acceptable forms of talk were observed.

However, the means in which ideas and explanations are connected within group talk is more

difficult to examine but nonetheless needs to be assessed to ascertain that group work is as

productive as pupil behaviour suggests.

When pupils completed tasks in groups, teachers and pupils rarely interacted.

Teachers monitored activity and when necessary intervened in pupils’ interaction. Research

suggests that assistance from teachers can be productive when confined to specific occasions

(Webb et al., 2009), for example when groups have stalled or make inappropriate conclusions.

This shadowing role has been included within classroom group work research at primary

level, and has been associated with gains in academic achievement (Blatchford et al., 2006).

This suggests that it may be a useful strategy for teachers to adopt.

Yet the change in pupils’ behaviours does not appear to stem directly from teachers’

behaviour, aside from fewer explanations being given prior to group work, teachers

approached lesson introductions and conclusions in a similar fashion. The significant finding

that teachers introducing group work refrain from their usual evaluative behaviours (observed

within conventional lessons) could suggest that teachers recognised the importance of pupils’

experiencing novelty when working in small groups. Yet, the absence of differences in the

majority of observation categories alludes to an alternative explanation, perhaps teachers’


awareness of time constraints led to the lesson being started as soon as possible with extended

evaluation sacrificed as a consequence.

Further interpretation of teachers’ behaviour is complicated through the finding that

lesson conclusions were almost always constrained. Teachers’ attempts to draw conclusions

were affected by contextual factors – such as tackling equipment within science or

rearranging the classroom within English. Frequently teachers simply ran out of time. When

previous lessons did not adequately conclude, the introduction of the subsequent lessons

acquired increasing importance. Teachers contended with difficulties in concluding lessons

by revising content at the outset of lessons, making concluding remarks regarding the

previous lesson and on occasion resolved inconsistencies in pupils’ thinking. Teachers

clearly recognise the importance of contextualising material but its timing and content require

further study. Such behaviour was clearly an attempt to stimulate pupils’ recollection of

content addressed within earlier lessons and may suggest teachers were aware that their

attempts to accommodate a conclusion might be met with difficulty.

A potential explanation relates to timetabling within secondary schools. Schools, in

Scotland, have moved from having timetabling flexibility, being able to create double lessons

for practical subjects (Scottish Executive Education Department, 2005) - to employing

structured 50-minute lessons across all disciplines (Scottish Executive, 2000, 2009a).

Although secondary schools in England seemingly have greater flexibility regarding lesson

duration (Department of Education and Science, 1990) comparable difficulties detected

within secondary classrooms in England implementing a SPRinG intervention were recently

reported (Galton, Hargreaves, & Pell, 2009). Thus, teachers’ management of group work


requires investigation to ascertain how lesson conclusions can become a central feature of

such lessons.

Teachers can prepare lessons and structure groups to stimulate pupils’ learning

showing they know how classroom arrangements and practicalities relate to effective group

work (and we would hope they achieve this in normal circumstances) but they fail to

recognise the benefits of adapting their behaviour and talk to maximise pupils’ understanding

and retention of the content studied in groups. It follows that teachers would be receptive to

guidance that included advice regarding how specific teaching approaches can be managed

within lessons. Thus it seems that teachers approach small groups as smaller structures akin

to whole-class arrangements.

Conclusions

Group work is recognised by pupils and teachers as an integral aspect of classroom

interaction. When pupils complete tasks within groups they produce a greater volume of

productive dialogue than pupils taught by conventional means. Yet analysis of teachers’

behaviour at the outset and close of lessons using group work suggest that pupils’ skill was in

spite of rather than because of direct support from teachers.


References

{Formatting Citation}


Appendices

1.1 Pupil Observation Grid

1.2 Teacher Observation Grid

2.1 Two-step cluster analysis


1.1 Pupil Observation Grid

Name/Subject/year____________________________________________________________

Interaction Teacher presence

Task & grouping arrangement

Activity level Dialogue

inot cog cdg +t +ti it

dits

gs

gd

wc

wci

on

task prep

off

inform

ask

resolve other

12345678

1. PUPIL OBSERVATION CODES:

InteractionINOT Working aloneCOG Working with others seated close byCDG Working with others seated far away

Teacher presence+T Teacher present+TI Teacher interaction/engaged

Task & grouping arrangementITD Pupils assigned different tasksITS Pupils assigned the same task.GS Groups assigned the same task. GD Groups assigned different tasksWC Teacher leading the whole classWCI Pupils and teachers involved in whole class interaction

Activity levelON Engaged with taskTASK PREP Classroom preparation/organisationOFF Not engaged with task

DialogueINFORM Give explanationASK Seeking help, direct questionsRESOLVE Examines others’ accounts

May point out inconsistenciesOTHER Not covered /inaudible


1.2 Teacher Observation Grid

Lesson Beginning/ConclusionDescriptive statements

ConnectionsMade

DevelopIdeas

Consolidate Evaluate Revise Summarise

12345678

Lesson/material interpretation Dialogue

Pupil plenary

Link toPast/future lessons

Feedback to pupils

Lesson purpose detailed

Inst Exp Disagree Res Q&a

WcQ&aIndi Other

12345678

Teacher observation codes

Descriptive statements

Connections made Relevant to material/lesson objectiveDevelop ideas Promote/broaden understanding Consolidate Reiteration of statementsEvaluate Reason material more explicitlyRevise Rework material already expressedSummarise Reduce material/concepts further

Lesson/Material interpretation

Pupil plenary: Pupils invited to point out differences in opinion or experiences; format may help share group output

Link to past/future lessons

Unambiguous connections made – links can be regarding any content

Feedback to pupils Used to correct/evaluate or to support meaningful learning

Lesson purpose detailed

Expectations of teacher and pupil roles or descriptions of lesson content Teachers may tend to stress learning objectives

Dialogue Inst Detail given regarding specific actions to be carried outExp Clarification given to detail/help interpret informationDisagree Teachers signal inconsistencies in pupil reasoningRes Teachers involved/exemplify how to address

misconceptions


Q&aWc Questions posed to whole classQ&aIndi Questions posed to specific individualsOther Not covered/inaudible

2.1 An overview of two-step cluster analysis

The term “Cluster analysis” refers to a number of approaches that examine data allowing

underlying relationships and structures to be explored. Unlike traditional clustering methods,

two-step cluster analysis can automatically calculate the appropriate number of clusters. The

label “two steps” stems from the treatment of the data set which is initially “pre-clustered”

into numerous sub-clusters, and then analysed, in effect clustering these sub-clusters (Norusis,

2009). The advantage of the auto-clustering must not be underestimated as other approaches

necessitate a priori (K means clustering), or a posteriori decisions (Hierarchical clustering)

based on the cluster analysis output.

The implementation of two-step clustering within SPSS has received moderate support

(2004) and Norusis (2009, p. 280) argues it is reasonably robust when used with suitable data

sets. Two-step clustering responds well to large data sets (the number of pupil observations is

in excess of 600), which other clustering methods may find problematic.

Examination of the auto-clustering procedure is essential. Smaller criterion values

(computed for each potential number of clusters) indicate better models. However, as SPSS

determines the “best” cluster solution to have the smallest criterion value (Bacher et al., 2004)

improvements measured solely by criterion change, may not merit the increased complexity

of the model, as fewer increasingly diverse clusters will be created. In such situations,

changes in the values presented in the auto-clustering table can be reviewed. In brief, a good


solution ought to report an increase in the Ratio of Criterion Changes and the Ratio of

Distance Measures as the number of clusters decreases.

The cluster frequency table summarises the nature of clusters reporting the number of

cases assigned to clusters and notes any excluded cases. "By variable" importance charts

explain which variables contribute to the formation of clusters. Categories are presented on

the Y axis in descending order relative to their contribution to each cluster. The dashed

vertical lines within the figures represent critical values (automatically generated during the

clustering process), which must be exceeded for a category to be statistically significant. The

x axis plots chi-square values. Larger values indicate that the distribution of a variable within

a cluster is different to its overall distribution (Norusis, 2009). Finally, a cluster membership

variable is computed and can be analysed to specify the precise composition of each cluster.


Captions

Table 1 Sampling statistics of pupil observations

Table 2 Overview of visits made to participating teachers

Table 3 Cluster Frequency Profiles

Table 4 Outcome of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests

Figure 1 Comparison of selected observation categories within each lesson stage

(Please add note immediately below figure 1)Note: Coloured circles represent outliers (lines connect them to their corresponding beginning/conclusion label).


Tables

Table 1

Teaching Lesson Type* Gender Topic stage

Subject*Year

*C G Male Female Introduction Middle Conclusion

Science

S1107

(40.1)

59

(13.6)

85

(25.7

)

81

(22.3)

49

(21)

44

(18.5)

73

(32.6)

S3121

(46.4)

156

(35.9)

129

(38.9)

148

(40.1)

93

(39.9)

109

(45.8)

75

(33.5)

English

S114

(5.4)

102

(23.5)

50

(15.1

)

66

(18.1)

48

(20.6)

27

(11.3)

41

(18.3)

S319

(7.3)

117

(26.9)

67

(2.2)

69

(18.9)

43

(18.5)

58

(24.3)

35

(15.6)

Total261

(100)

434

(100)

331

(100)

364

(100)

233

(100)

238

(100)

224

(100)

Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent percentages. S1 = First year, S3 = Third year.

C = Conventional, G = Group work. * Significant chi-square goodness of fit test


Table 2

Teaching Subject*

Proportion of classes

led by a male teacher

Lesson

Type*Year* Science English

Conventional

S120

(29)

4

(12)50%

S318

(26)

0

(0)55%

Group work

S18

(11)

12

(35)10%

S324

(34)

18

(53)16%

Total70

(100)

34

(100)

Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent percentages.

S1 = First year, S3 = Third year. * Significant chi-square goodness of fit test


Table 3

Variables

Cluster1 Cluster2

Freq (%)

Pupil interaction Working alone 108 (27.8)* 280 (72.2)*

Interaction with nearby pupils 405 (82.5)* 86 (17.5)*

Interaction with further away pupils 62 (72.1) 24 (27.9)

Teacher presence Teacher present 54 (67.5) 26 (32.5)

Teacher interaction 136 (66.7) 68 (33.3)

Task and

Classroom

Organisation

Different individual tasks 1 (16.7) 5 (83.3)

Identical individual tasks 2 (1.5)* 134 (98.5)*

Identical group tasks 359 (87.6)* 51 (12.4)*

Different group tasks 43 (89.6) 5 (10.4)*

Whole-class 16 (18.6)* 70 (81.4)*

Whole-class interaction 3 (4.2)* 69 (95.8)*

Task Activity On task behaviour 372 (57.5) 275 (42.5)

Classroom preparation 64 (81.) 15 (19.)*

Not engaged with task 122 (67.4) 59 (32.6)

Dialogue Inform 267 (79.9)* 67 (20.1)*

Ask 175 (80.6)* 42 (19.4)*

Resolve 115 (78.8)* 31 (21.2)*

Other/inaudible 125 (80.1)* 31 (19.9)*

Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent percentages. *exceeds critical value


Table 4

Conventional

instruction

Teachers were observed to use statements related to

developing pupils’ ideas more during lesson

introductions (Mdn = 5, IQR = 2.5) than their

conclusion (Mdn = 2, IQR = 3)

(Z = -2.724,

p < .004,

r = -.91)

More revision occurred at the outset of lessons

(Mdn = 3.00, IQR = 4), than their conclusion (Mdn =1,

IQR = 1.5)

(Z = -

2.539,

p

= .008,

r =-.85)

A greater number of instructions were also given

during the introduction of a lesson (Mdn = 6, IQR =

5.5) than its conclusion (Mdn = 3, IQR = 4.5)

(Z = -2.539,

p = .008,

r = -.85)

Group work Explanations featured at the introduction of lessons

(Mdn = 4, IQR = 5) in comparison with the conclusion

of lessons (Mdn = 3, IQR =2) approaching the

Bonferroni adjusted significance level

(Z = -2.553,

p = .009,

r = -.62)


Alexander, R. J. (2000). Culture and pedagogy : international comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Assessment of Achievement Programme. (2003). Sixth Survey of English Language. [Edinburgh]: Scottish Executive Education Department.

Assessment of Achievement Programme. (2005). Sixth survey of science. [Edinburgh]: Scottish Executive Education Department.

Bacher, J., Wenzig, K., & Vogler, M. (2004). SPSS TwoStep Cluster–A First Evaluation. RC33 Sixth International Conference on Social Science Methodology. Retrieved from http://www.opus.ub.uni-erlangen.de/opus/volltexte/2004/81/

Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Chowne, A. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of collaborative group work in primary schools: effects on science attainment. British Educational Research Journal, 33(5), 663-680.

Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over primary and secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 9-34.

Barnes, D. R., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge & K. Paul, Ltd.

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359.

Bennett, J., Lubben, F., Hogarth, S., & Campbell, B. (2004). A systematic review of the use of small-group discussions in science teaching with students aged 11-18, and their effects on students' understandings in science or attitude to science. London: EPPI-Centre Social Science Research Unit Institute of Education.

Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., Bassett, P., & Chowne, A. (2006). The effect of a new approach to group work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 750-765.

Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., & Baines, E. (1999). The Nature and Use of Classroom Groups in Primary Schools. Final Report, Economic and Social Research Council.

Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Clark, H., MacIntyre, H., & Baines, E. (2001). The Nature and Use of Within Class Groupings in Secondary Schools. Final Report, Economic and Social Research Council.

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring The Classroom - Conditions For Productive Small-Groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.


http://www.opus.ub.uni-erlangen.de/opus/volltexte/2004/81/

Department for Children Schools and Families. (2008). Personalised Learning - A Practical Guide. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.

Department of Education and Science. (1990). Circular 7/90: Management of the school day: DES.

Edwards, A. D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom: Routledge.

Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk (2nd revised ed.): Routledge.

Galton, M. J., Hargreaves, L., & Pell, T. (2009). Group work and whole-class teaching with 11- to 14-year-olds compared. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 119 - 140.

Galton, M. J., Hargreaves, L., Wall, D., & Comber, C. (1999). Inside the primary classroom : 20 years on. London: Routledge.

Galton, M. J., Morrison, I., & Pell, T. (2000). Transfer and transition in English schools: reviewing the evidence. International Journal of Educational Research, 33(4), 341-363.

Gilles, R. M. (2003). Structuring co-operative learning experiences in the primary school. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.), Co-operative learning : the social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups. London; New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Gillies, R. M. (2002). The residual effects of cooperative-learning experiences: A two-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 15-20.

Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(2), 197-213.

Howe, C., & Tolmie, A. (2003). Group work in primary school science: discussions, consensus and guidance from experts. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 51-72.

Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Topping, K. J., Christie, D., Livingston, K., . . . Donaldson, C. (2007). Group work in elementary science: Towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 549-563.

Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, Calif. London: Duxbury Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New Developments in Social Interdependence Theory. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285-358.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379. doi: 10.3102/0013189x09339057

Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., Clark, H., MacIntyre, H., & Baines, E. (2005). Teachers' understandings of the relationship between within-class (pupil) grouping and learning in secondary schools. Educational Research, 47(1), 1-24.


Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.

Littleton, K., Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., Rowe, D., & Sams, C. (2005). Talking and thinking together at Key Stage 1. Early Years An International Journal of Research and Development, 25(2), 167-182.

MacQuarrie, S. (2006). The use of groupwork within Scottish secondary schools: an analysis of its use in relation to lesson phase, group formation and learning objective. (MSc in Research Methods in Psychology Masters Thesis), University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.

McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30-46. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.30

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359-377.

Norusis, M. J. (2009). Cluster Analysis. In M. J. Norusis (Ed.), SPSS 16.0 Statistical Procedures Companion. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science. Journal of research in Science teaching, 45(5), 634-658. doi: 10.1002/tea.20211

Oortwijn, M. B., Boekaerts, M., Vedder, P., & Fortuin, J. (2008). The impact of a cooperative learning experience on pupils' popularity, non-cooperativeness, and interethnic bias in multiethnic elementary schools. Educational Psychology, 28(2), 211-221.

Piaget, J. (1962). The language and thought of the child (3rd rev. ed.). Routledge and K.Paul, Ltd.

Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting Early Adolescents' Achievement and Peer Relationships: The Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223-246.

Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., . . . Gallimore, R. (2006). Teaching Science in Five Countries: Results From the TIMSS 1999 Video Study (NCES 2006-011): U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Scottish Executive. (2000). A teaching profession for the 21st century Vol.1 Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Executive. (2008). School Meals in Scotland 2008. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Executive. (2009a). A curriculum for excellence: Sciences. Experiences and Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/sciences/index.asp

Scottish Executive. (2009b). School Meals in Scotland 2009. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.


http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/sciences/index.asp

Scottish Executive Education Department. (2005). Education and training in Scotland: national dossier. Edinburgh: SEED.

Scottish Office Education and Industry Department. (1996). Achievement for all : a report on selection within schools by HM Inspectors of Schools. Edinburgh: SOEID.

Scottish Survey of Achievement. (2006). 2005 English language and core skills - practitioners report, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/06/29141936/0

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43-69.

Terwel, J., Gillies, R. M., van den Eeden, P., & Hoek, D. (2001). Co-operative learning processes of students: A longitudinal multilevel perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 619-645.

Thurston, A., Topping, K. J., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., . . . Tolmie, A. (2008). Effects of group work training on science attainment in rural and urban schools. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(1), 31 - 45.

Thurston, A., Topping, K. J., Tolmie, A., Christie, D., Karagiannidou, E., & Murray, P. (2010). Cooperative Learning in Science: Follow-up from primary to high school. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 501-522.

Tobin, R., & McInnes, A. (2008). Accommodating differences: variations in differentiated literacy instruction in Grade 2/3 classrooms. Literacy, 42, 3-9.

Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 642-655.

Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366-389.

Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K. (2009). Explain to your partner: teachers' instructional practices and students' dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49 - 70.

Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 360-381.

Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students' helping behavior and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 361-428.

Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student Behavior in peer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63-119.

Wegerif, R. (1997). Factors Affecting the Quality of Children's Talk at Computers. In R. Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/06/29141936/0

West, P., Sweeting, H., & Young, R. (2010). Transition matters: pupils' experiences of the primary-secondary school transition in the West of Scotland and consequences for well-being and attainment. Research Papers in Education, 25(1), 21 - 50.

Wragg, E. C. (1999). An introduction to classroom observation (2nd ed.). London; New York: Routledge.

Yetter, G., Gutkin, T. B., Saunders, A., Galloway, A. M., Sobansky, R. R., & Song, S. Y. (2006). Unstructured collaboration versus individual practice for complex problem solving: A cautionary tale. Journal of Experimental Education, 74(2), 137-159.


Documents

· Web viewStudies of primary education within the UK have shown that small groups can feature within classrooms; however equivalent research within …