University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A comparison of the writing achievement of fourth-grade students to the writing achievement of second-grade students working in collaborative pairs in a multiage setting

(USC Thesis Other)

A comparison of the writing achievement of fourth-grade students to the writing achievement of second-grade students working in collaborative pairs in a multiage setting

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A COMPARISON OF THE WRITING ACHIEVEMENT OF4TH-
GRADE STUDENTS TO THE WRITING ACHIEVEMENT OF 2ND-
GRADE STUDENTS WORKING IN COLLABORATIVE PAIRS IN A
MULTIAGE SETTING
by
Barbara Lee Branch
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August, 1998
Copyright 1998 Barbara Lee Branch
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
m u Number: 9919016
C o p y r i g h t 1 9 9 9 b y
B r a n c h , B a r b a r a L e e
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9919016
Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN C A LI FO R N IA .
fetymi of Education
Los Aagdcs, California 90089-4031
T h i s dissertation wri t t en by
B a r b a r a L e e B r a n c h
u n d e r t he di rect i on ofhox^Dissertation Co mmi t t e e , and
approved by all me mbe r s o f t he Commi t t e e , has b e e n
present ed to and accepted by t he Facul t y o f t he School
o f Ed u c a t i o n t n partial fulfillment o f t he rt qt drement sfar
t he degree af
D o c to r o f Ed u c a ti o n
........... ............... , ' 1 ” 1 " r . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . - . T l . M . ,
Di ssert at i on Commi t t e e
a
» \ J Cka bpenm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract
This study was designed to investigate die writing performance of 2nd-, 3rd-, and
4th-grade students in a multiage setting. There was no significant difference between the
writing pretest and the posttest scores of the students in the multiage class. However,
significant differences were found between the pretest and posttest scores of the district
sample and the GATE Colters sample. There were also significant differences between the
posttest writing scores of the multiage class when compared to the district sample students
and the GATE Centers students at grades 3 and 4. But there was no significant difference
between the multiage and GATE Centers 2nd-grade posttest scores.
Interviews of the students in the multi age class revealed the students’ interest in
working with a writing partner either of the same or a different grade level. The interviews
also gave evidence regarding the nature erf the knowledge gained by students in the 2nd
grade and the 4th grade. The responses of 2nd graders centered on mechanics of writing
while the responses of the 4th graders focused on content of the narratives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
n
Acknowledgements
The completion of this dissertation marks the end of almost three years of hard
work. The support of many people has made this possible. My parents, Robert and
Dorothy Branch, inspired me to be a life long learner and to always strive for excellence. I
am pleased to be able to share my satisfaction of completion with them. Their examples as
educators are the foundation of my success as an educator. My sister, Theresa Lougee, my
niece, Melissa, and my nephew, Robert, have provided constant words of encouragement,
praise, and love.
My administrative colleagues in the Sacramento City Unified School District have
inspired me through words of praise and reassurance that striving for a doctorate is a noble
endeavor. The staff members and friends at Lisbon Elementary School have endured the
three years of hard work with me, often taking on tasks that needed to be done so that I
could study. They have been tolerant of the many doctoral class projects that have involved
their input and support
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT u
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS in
TABLES
vi
FIGURES vii
CHAPTER 1 1
In t r o d u c t io n 1
Statement of the problem 1
Theoretical framework 1
Significance of the study 2
Research Questions 5
Assumptions 6
Limitations 6
Delimitations 7
Definitions 7
CHAPTER 2 10
Re v ie w o f t h e l it e r a t u r e 10
Multiage Grouping 10
Cross-age Tutoring 23
The Muldage Classroom And Tutoring 30
Collaborative Writing 33
Expert-Novice Paradigm 46
CHAPTER 3_______________________________________________________________ 56
Me t h o d o l o g y 56
Introduction 56
Site 56
Population 57
Samples 57
The Teacher 59
Instrumentation 59
Interviews of Students in the Cross-Age Collaborative Pairs 63
Procedure 63
Data 71
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4 75
R e s u l t s 75
Research Question Results 75
Interviews 79
CHAPTERS 81
C o n c l u s io n s a n d Im p l ic a t io n s 81
Summary of Findings 81
Implications 92
REFERENCES 95
APPENDIX A 107
Interview Questions and Responses 107
APPENDIX B 113
Figures 113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
v
Tables
TABLE 1: Elementary Scoring Guide, Grades 1-2 64
TABLE 2: Analytical Scoring Guide, Grades 3 - 6 65
TABLE 3: Writing Club Directions Step-By-Step 69
TABLE 4: Pretest, Posttest, and Gain Scores For The Multiage Class 75
TABLE 5 r . Pretest, Posttest, and Gain Scores For The District Sample 76
TABLE 6: Pretest, Posttest, and Gain Scores For The Gate Centers 77
TABLE 7: Pretest And Posttest Scores By Gender For The Multiage Class 78
TABLE 8: Interview Responses 80
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figures
FIGURE 1: My Planning Sheet #1: My Wonderful Day 60
FIGURE 2: My Planning Sheet #2: My Wonderful Day 61
FIGURE 3: My Planning Sheet #3: My Wonderful Day 62
FIGURE 4: Question/Comment Sheet 69
FIGURE 5: My Planning Sheet #1: Giving A Special G ift O r Receiving A Special G ift 113
FIGURE 6: My Planning Sheet #2: Giving A Special G ift O r Receiving A Special G ift 114
FIGURE 7: My Planning Sheet #3: Giving A Special G ift O r Receiving A Special G ift 115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
Chapter 1
Introduction
Sjatsarept.oLtfre problem
Research on the effectiveness of multiage grouping on academic performance has
been restricted to scores obtained by students on standardized, norm-referenced tests.
Many of the positive results of multiage grouping reported by teachers and administrators
who have experienced multiage grouping are not results which can be measured by
standardized tests. We know that chronological age and mental age do not always
correspond. In multiage grouping students are allowed to work at their own developmental
level without acceleration or retention. Within multiage classes children have been observed
exhibiting prosocial behavior. Older children offer help to younger children (Smith, 1993).
Evangelou (1989) suggests that the positive effect of multiage grouping on cognition may
come from the “cognitive conflict” which arises between children of different ages and
developmental levels. The multiage classroom is a natural setting for successful cross-age
tutoring or mentoring. Peer tutoring has been shown to be a particularly effective learning
technique between students of different ages. However, there is little evidence that multiage
grouping provides an environment for successful academic growth particularly for the
older students in a multiage class.
Theoretical framework
Multiage grouping is the practice of grouping more than one grade level and/or age
level students together in the same classroom. It assumes that children of the same grade
level or age level do not necessarily have the same ability level or achievement level
(Milbum, 1986). In multiage settings students of various grade levels are taught together in
a single classroom with a single teacher, or in a classroom with two or more teachers. The
current trend toward multiage grouping is a regeneration of a philosophy which has seen
more than one emergence on the educational horizon. In the early years of education in the
United States, most students attended school in one-room schoolhouses, where all grade
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
levels worked together with one teacher. The older students helped the younger students
(Pratt, 1986).
In the mid 1800’s, the work of Horace Mann as such relates to the industrialization
of America created the need for a highly structured academic system in which students
were placed in grade level groups (Gaustad, 1992). Grade level standards were written
which assumed that students of certain age groups should all learn the same skills at the
same time with the same success so they would be prepared either for military service or
industrial work (Pratt, 1986).
The teachings of Bruner (1966), Piaget (Daiute, 1994a), and Vygotsky (1978) who
all proposed the concepts of developmental learning in the earlier part of this century,
sparked a resurgence of multiage grouping in the 1950s under the name of progressive
teaching (Cushman, 1990). Again in the 1960s and early 1970s multiage grouping re-
emerged under the designationa of team teaching and open space classrooms. In 1959
Goodlad and Anderson proposed the concept of multiage grouping in their book, The
Nongraded Elementary School. About 7% of the schools actually developed non-graded
schools in the 1960s and 1970s. A push for “back to basics” saw the non-graded schools
fade away (Willis, 1991).
Multiage grouping is now emerging with a more solid research foundation than was
found in previous movements toward such classroom formations. Goodlad and Anderson
(1987) have updated their book, The Nongraded Elementary School, to include new
research they and other researchers have conducted subsequent to their first introduction of
the concept of nongraded schools for the modem era. Many schools across the country are
creating multiage programs with various formats in the 1990s.
Significance of the study
Educators and consumers of education are anxious for information about the effects
of multiage grouping. Individual schools, districts and even states are implementing
multiage grouping based on the available research that indicates that multiage grouping has
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lasting social benefits for a student’s development. Students are able to take advantage of
the peer learning and positive peer relationships found in a multiage setting (Miller, 1994).
There has also been much research in the past several years regarding student-centered
learning. Multiage proponents claim, as the research argues, that the multiage setting
provides a natural opportunity for developmentally appropriate instruction and student-
centered learning which is not as possible in a single-grade classroom. In this era of
increasing concerns about accountability, teachers, district personnel and school boards
want to know if implementing multiage settings will benefit children academically.
Part of the desire to return to multiage grouping is based on the continuing concern
about the number of children who do not come to school academically stimulated and,
therefore, are not learning to read in the first grade. Most of these students do not exit 3rd
grade at grade level and never do achieve parity unless early and developmentally
appropriate interventions are provided. Practitioners, as well as the public and the business
community, have a real concern about the lack of skills with which most students graduate
from high school.
Parents are often concerned about the benefits for the older child in a multiage
setting. There is no disagreement that the younger child benefits from the tutoring,
modeling, and assistance of older children in multiage settings. However, parents ask these
questions: Does the older child have equal academic benefits from working in a setting with
younger children? Will my child be used as a teacher’s helper to do the work that the
teacher should be doing? Can the multiage setting challenge my child as well as it
challenges the younger child in a multiage classroom? Will my child achieve academically
as well as he would in a single-grade classroom? These are real concerns that must be
addressed.
Policymakers hold educators accountable for results which are tangible and
quantitative. The results of this study should demonstrate that students in a multiage
classroom, working in collaborative writing pairs, can both benefit academically from the
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
relationship. This study should add to the growing but still inconclusive research on the
effects of multiage grouping on student achievement.
Children who do not have an understanding of print concepts (sound symbol
relationships; left to right tracking, phonemic awareness, and letter identification) are not
ready to learn to read. Unless they acquire the concepts about print early in the 1st grade
through intensive interventions or modeling from older students, they will not learn to read
by the end of 1 st grade. Most of these students do not exit 3rd grade at grade level and
never do catch up unless early intervention and developmentally appropriate practices are
provided. The rationale for multiage grouping and the use of mentoring as an instructional
strategy support the instructional practices that allowed children the time and reinforcement
to learn to read.
With the renewed interest in multiage grouping over the past ten to twenty years,
there is an equally renewed interest in the effects that multiage grouping has on student
achievement. Much of the research indicates that placing students in multiage groups also
benefits students socially and developmentally. Such students are able to progress at their
own pace in a developmentally appropriate setting that is considered to be a more nurturing
classroom environment resembling a natural setting in which older and younger children
work in concert as family-like members. Most of the same research leaves unanswered the
question of the effect of multiage grouping on academic achievement. What little research
that has been done on the effectiveness of multiage grouping on academic performance has
been restricted to comparisons of scores obtained by students on standardized, norm-
referenced tests. The results have not been significant. In most cases, the researchers
concluded that multiage grouping was no better, or no worse, than academic achievement
in single-grade classrooms. Many of the positive results of multiage grouping reported by
teachers and administrators who have used such grouping cannot be reflected using
standardized tests. Furthermore, in the absence of standardized structure for multiage
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
grouping, it is even more difficult to compare the academic achievement of students in
single-grade classes to the academic achievement of students in multiage settings.
The purpose of this study is to compare the writing performance of 2nd, 3rd and
4th grade students in a multiage setting. More specifically, the study will
1. Compare the writing pretest and posttest scores of 2nd, 3rd and 4th graders
who are paired in a multiage classroom for collaborative writing.
2. Compare the writing pretest and posttest scores of students in cross-age
writing pairs with writing scores of students from same-grade collaborative
writing pair.
3. Compare the writing pretest and posttest scores of the students in a multiage
class to the writing scores of the same-grade students in the same school
district
4. Compare the writing pretest and posttest of students in a multiage class to
writing scores of the same-grade level population of Gifted and Talented
(GATE) students in the school district's five GATE full-day alternative
programs referred to in this study as GATE Centers.
5. Compare the writing pretest and posttest scores of the males and the females
in a multiage class.
Research Questions
1. Do the 2nd-grade students in a cross-age collaborative writing setting of a
multiage class score higher than their 4th-grade partners on a writing
posttest?
2. Do students in cross-age collaborative writing pairs score higher on the
writing posttest than same-age collaborative writing pairs in the multiage
classroom?
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Are the writing scores of the students at each grade level in a multiage class
better than the writing scores of students at the same grade levels in a school
district sample?
4. Are the writing scores of students at each grade level in a multiage class
better than the writing scores of the same grade levels in a GATE Centers
sample?
Assumptions
1. The students were randomly placed in collaborative writing pairs by the
classroom teacher. She had knowledge of the writing performance of some
of the 3rd and 4th graders who were in her split 3rd-4th grade class from
the 1995-96 school year.
2. The teacher and the researcher scored all writings accurately using the
school district rubric.
3. The assessment of writings were conducted as part of the standardized
district assessment
4. Students were placed in the class because they were identified gifted based
on State of California and Sacramento City Unified School District criteria
for identifying gifted students. The class was created to serve the needs of
the gifted students in the school’s attendance area. The school had only one
multiage class for 2nd-, 3rd-, or 4th-grade students at the time of the data
collection. This was the class in which the current study was conducted.
Limitations
1. The results of this study can only be reflective of the writing performance of
the students in the study.
2. The study is limited to students who have been identified as gifted and
talented according the Sacramento City Unified School District criteria for
identification.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. The pretest and posttest scores for every 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-grade students
in the district were not available. Some students did not take both the pretest
and the posttest. Such student scores were eliminated from the study.
English Language Learners and many special education students did not
take the pretest or the posttest. Only students for whom matched scores
were available were included in the computation of the districtwide average
and the GATE Centers average in pretest and posttest scores for each grade
level.
4. Gifted students in the study represent those students who were identified as
Gifted and Talented and whose parents have chosen to place them in a
GATE Centers or the multiage GATE class. Identified GATE students who
are in regular classrooms are not included in the study. The GATE students
in full-day alternative programs represent 88% of the 2nd-, 3rd- and 4th-
grade identified GATE students in the district.
Delimitations
1. The study is limited to a multiage classroom of thirteen pairs of 2nd and 4th
graders and eight 3rd graders.
2. The singular effect of multiage grouping and collaborative writing may not
be determined. The study has the cumulative effects of teacher skill,
multiage grouping, Gifted and Talented identification, and cross-age or
single-age collaboration.
Definitions
The following terms associated with muitiage grouping are used in this study:
Continuous progress refers to the student’s progress from school entry until
graduation. Continuous progress is distinguished from the yearly progress which is
expected when children are placed in single-grade classes. (1992, Hunter)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cross-age tutoring is the teacher planned, as well as the natural cross grade level
support and assistance, that occurs between students of different grade levels in a multiage
classroom.
Developmental^ appropriate practices (DAP) refer to the research-based
philosophy concerning how children learn. Evidence from brain research as well as the
field of psychology establishes a general pattern of developmental stages and concurrent
physiological changes that occur in all children as they develop. The exact time and place
for each stage of development, however, is very individual. No two children develop at
exactly the same rate (Katz, 1992).
Multiage grouping or mixed-age grouping refers to what Katz (1992) calls
grouping children so that the age span of the class is greater than one year, as in the
nongraded or ungraded approach. Miller (1996) defines multiage grouping as the practice
of intentionally grouping more than one grade level of students to improve learning using
such instructional practices as continuous progress, cooperative learning, and
developmental stages of learning.
Nongraded or ungraded usually means that children are grouped in classrooms
where the grade levels span more than one grade and the grade levels are not specified.
These terms were originally introduced by Goodlad and Anderson in 1959. What resulted
from the original definitions, however, have been many variations on the non-graded
proposal that have failed due to the lack of planning or understanding. Nongraded, non-
giad&L ungraded multiage grouping, multi-age grouping, mixed-grade and mixed-age
grouping were used interchangeably in this study. The term multiage grouping or multiage
was used by the researcher. Alternative terms for multiage grouping were used only when
the research in which those terms were used was cited.
Split classes or combination classes are classes that contain more than one grade
level usually formed out of economic need. They should not be confused with multiage
classrooms that contain more than one grade level. In the split class the teacher teaches to
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
each grade level of the class as though they were a single grade level class. The class is
usually created out of necessity due to a limited enrollment in each of the grade levels
comprising the split class. While cooperative learning and other aspects of multiage
classrooms may be used in split classes, the emphasis is not on continuous progress and
the erasure of the lines between grade levels (Katz, 1992).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 2
Review of the literature
Multiage Grouping
Multiage grouping has been studied for more than a half a century. While much of
the research regarding achievement in multiage programs is not decisive, such programs
have continued to thrive and are currently being implemented with the knowledge that the
programs have a very positive effect on the affective development of children. The
discussion of whether or not multiage programs are effective for academic growth
continues. A number of researchers have tried to correlate the past research studies to
provide a definitive look at the successes and failures of multiage grouping. The difficulty
with correlating studies is the number of different configurations of muldage grouping.
The first research studies were done in the late 1930s. Many early studies, done
between 1938 and 1986, showed no significant difference between the achievement of
students in multiage classes and students in single-grade classes (California State
Department of Education, 1996). The best known early researchers were Goodlad and
Anderson whose revision of their original 1959 and 1963 versions of The Nongraded
Elementary School (1987) strongly supported multiage education programs and the
academic growth of children in those programs. Students who were especially successful
in muitiage groups were African-American students, boys, underachievers and students of
lower socioeconomic status.
Between 1973 and 1976, Barbara Pavan, as the principal of F ranklin School in
Lexington, Massachusetts (as part of her pursuit of her doctoral dissertation) published
several articles comparing research of nongraded schools with graded schools (Goodlad &
Anderson, 1987). In a study done in 1977, Pavan compared 3 7 studies from 1968 to 1973
and concluded that “comparisons of graded and nongraded schools using standardized
achievement tests continue to favor nongradedness” (as cited in Goodlad & Anderson,
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1987, p. xxi). Pavan also stated that the longer children were in a multiage setting, the
more successful they were academically.
David Pratt (1983) looked at 27 studies conducted between 1948 and 1981 in the
United States and Canada. All the classes contained a range of two or three age groups.
The most common achievement variables were reading and mathematics. Although Pratt
had some reservations about some of the studies because they were not controlled for
differences in teachers and programs, the studies had enough statistical data to allow a
comparative study. He concluded that there is no consistent relationship between multiage
grouping and academic achievement but there is no evidence of harmful effects of multiage
grouping on achievement either. Again in 1986 Pratt compared studies from 1948 to 1983.
Of the 27 studies, 10 favored multiage grouping as a way of increasing academic
achievement, five studies favored traditional grouping and 13 were inconclusive. Pratt
strongly advocates multiage grouping because of its very positive effects on social
development and self-esteem of children.
A review of studies about multiage grouping programs was conducted by
McLoughlin in 1967. He concluded that most studies found no difference between graded
and nongraded programs in reading, math and language arts. This review was conducted
on programs which existed early in the development of the multiage era of the 1960s and
1970s. Many multiage programs of today would not resemble these earlier programs.
In 1991, as a follow-up to her earlier research, Pavan reviewed 68 studies done
between 1968 and 1991. In both reviews she found that the studies favored academic
achievement of students who were in multiage programs. Pavan states in the 1991 review
“In only 9% of the studies did nongraded students have lower academic achievement than
graded students, in all other studies they performed better (58%) or the same (33%)”
(Pavan, 1991, p. 7).
Miller (1990) reviewed 13 studies which compared the academic achievement of
traditional single-room classes with non-graded multiage group classrooms. He found no
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
significant difference between the two groups academically. He states that the data clearly
supports multiage grouping, however, more research is needed to make safe
generalizations. In 1992 Pavan and Anderson reviewed 64 research studies published
between 1968 and 1990 which compared multiage schools and graded schools. The studies
most frequently favored multiage grouping on standardized measures of academic
achievement Specifically, 68% of the studies favored multiage grouping, 33% of the
studies showed no difference and 9% of the studies showed that multiage groups did not
perform as well.
One of the most thorough meta-analyses of multiage practices was done by
Gutidrrez and Slavin in 1992. While these researchers agree with the findings of Pavan
(1992), they argue that she did not take into account the various forms of multiage
grouping that were used in each of the analyzed studies. They found that there is an
inconsistency in these practices which makes it difficult to make unequivocal comparisons
regarding achievement Gutierrez and Slavin grouped the studies they reviewed into five
separate categories based on the type of multiage program. The categories included Joplin-
Iike programs, comprehensive programs, programs incorporating individualized instruction
and individually guided education programs and other programs which lacked explicit
description.
Joplin-like programs are programs which use multiage grouping for single
subjects, usually math or reading. From nine Joplin-like studies done in the 1950s and
1960s, they found that five of the studies showed positive effects for the multiage plans,
three studies found no difference between multiage and single-grade programs, and one
study found a more positive effect for the single-grade programs. Among 14
comprehensive studies programs reviewed (studies with multiage grouping in more than
one subject), eight showed that multiage grouping had a significant positive effect on
student achievement Eleven studies in which individualized instruction was used were
reviewed. No significant difference was found between programs using individualized
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
instruction and single-grade level approaches. Ten studies examined the implementation of
Individually Guided Education (1GE), a program which includes multiage grouping and
individualized instruction. Among those studies none were found to show any statistical
difference between the IGE programs and single-grade programs. The last category,
studies of programs lacking explicit description of the multiage program, included 12
studies. Two of the twelve studies showed significant positive effects for multiage
grouping. Based on their findings, Gutierrez and Slavin conclude that they could support
McLaughlin’s (1967) negative conclusion or Pavan’s (1977,1992) positive conclusions.
They state that, clearly, there is a need for more research before any conclusions can be
made about the effects of multiage grouping on student achievement Many of the other
researchers, including Guiterrez & Slavin (1992), agree that muitiage programs are difficult
to compare because there are so many variations in the format and implementation of the
programs.
In 1995, Simon Veenman released a study which examined previous findings.
Veenman used strict methodological inclusion criteria for comparison of the studies. He
examined studies in which multi-age grouping was the chosen grouping arrangement in
one category and studies in which multi-grade (his term for this category) grouping was
done from economic or administrative decisions in a separate category. Next, he analyzed
each of the two categories for comparison to single-grade students. In both cases, there
was no significant difference between the achievement of students in either category of
multiage classes. He concluded that one of the reasons for the lack of significant evidence
that multiage grouping is academically superior to single-grade grouping is a result of the
lack of uniformity among multiage programs. There is no standard for multi-age grouping
arrangements, curriculum, teaching methods, student selection, parent choice or class size.
All of these factors have an influence on achievement and may need to be considered when
comparing multiage programs to single-grade programs. Veenman also concluded that
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
much more research is needed before conclusions may be made about the effects of
multiage programs on student achievement
Following Veenman’s analysis, Mason and Bums (1996) wrote a critique of
Veenman’s analysis. They contended that Veenman ignored selection bias and lower-
quality instruction in making his analysis. While they agreed that there was no significant
difference in achievement for students between multiage and single-grade programs, they
differed with Veenman in their interpretation of the results. Mason and Bums (1996) argue
that brighter, more independent students are selected for multiage classes and multi-grade
(Veenman’s terms) classes. Mason and Bums (1996) also suggest that the instructional
quality of multiage classes is usually better because the more qualified teachers accept or
are assigned to multiage situations. Such variables may mask an actual negative or positive
effect of multiage grouping on students’ achievement (Mason & Burns, 1996). They did
agree with Veenman in that more research is needed.
Veenman (1996) wrote a rejoinder to the article written by Mason and Burns (1996)
in which he states his agreement with Mason and Bums (1996) that much more research
needs to be done. However, he defended his methodology used in the 1995 analyses. It is
obvious that this debate will continue and can only highlight the difficult of thoroughly
analyzing the effects of multiage grouping on achievement Many of the researchers have
also questioned the wisdom of analyzing earlier studies of multiage grouping. The
structure, teaching methods and philosophy of today’s multiage classes differs from many
of the earlier multiage programs. A more thorough analysis of current muldage programs
might be more definitive.
In 1993, Anderson teamed with Pavan to write another follow-up to the Goodlad
and Anderson books called Nongradedness: Helping It Happen. These researchers found
that there was a resurgence of interest in nongraded/multiage programs during the 1980s
and 1990s. In the book, Pavan cites her analysis of 64 studies done between 1968 and
1990. Fifty-seven of the studies had standard achievement tests to compare to graded
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools. Fifty-eight percent of the studies favored multiage grouping, 33% found no
difference in achievement and only 9% found the graded schools’ achievement better.
Cotton analyzed 46 documents related to child development and learning, 26 of
which addressed the results of the empirical research about the effects of multiage grouping
(1994). Of the 26 reports, Cotton states that two (Gutierrez & Slavin, 1992; Anderson &
Pavan, 1992) favor multiage grouping for academic reasons. The finds of the other studies
were mixed and varied, leaving an ambiguous answer to the nagging question of the
academic success of students in multiage settings. Cotton states that while the empirical
evidence is not overwhelmingly supportive of the academic success of students in multiage
settings there is more extensive research for child development and learning than ever
before. Muldage programs are being implemented and supported on the basis of the recent
research.
Currently, several states, including Kentucky and Oregon and a Canadian province,
British Columbia, have legislatively mandated multiage grouping in all primary programs
in the public schools. The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) was implemented in
1990. It mandated that all elementary schools in Kentucky develop multiage programs in all
of the primary classrooms by the 1992-93 school year. The rationale for this mandate was
based on the philosophy that multiage grouping allows for a continuous progress approach
to delivering instruction called developmentally appropriate practices (DAP). DAP allows
students, who might otherwise be retained in grade level, to progress at their own rate
without fear of failure. Several studies have been done which analyzed the efficacy of this
specific top-down mandate in Kentucky. Many of the studies have focused on the
implementation of the mandated requirement of KERA and the implications for students
and teachers. While schools are given ratings based on test scores and the achievement of
students, fewer studies have actually used test score data to determine whether KERA’s
mandates are effecting improvement in student achievement
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Kentucky Education Association, an affiliate of the National Education
Association, and the Appalachian Educational Laboratory, developed case studies of ten
schools in Kentucky that were implementing the multiage program during the 1990-91
school year. (Kentucky Education Association, 1991). The findings support increased
student achievement, including individual student progress as reported by the school
personnel at the ten schools in the study.
Another analysis of KERA has been done by the Pritchard Committee for Academic
Excellence who created a task force to examine the multiage program in Kentucky
(Pritchard, 1995). The task force stated that there had been marked improvement in student
performance in the basics (reading, writing, and mathematics) since the implementation of
multiage grouping in the 1992-93 school year.
In an executive summary of the implementation of KERA, Bridge (1995) states that
the multiage Primary Program is probably the second most debated aspect of KERA.
“Many policy makers naively believed, or at least hoped, that there would be a more direct
and linear relationship between the promulgation of the primary program policy and the
implementation of the reform in Kentucky’s elementary schools and classrooms. What
research on the implementation of the primary program has shown is that many variables
intervene between the conception and implementation of educational reform. These
intervening variables include the knowledge structures of teachers and administrators who
must implement the reform; the existing professional culture, norms, and practice in
schools; and student and family beliefs, perceptions, and preferences as well as the
attitudes and beliefs of the wider public” (Bridge, 1995, p. 14). Bridges further stated that
there has been a wide range of implementation of the primary program which includes
multiage grouping and no clear evidence of student achievement improvement
This researcher interviewed several individual educators from Kentucky who were
attending the International Principal’s Institute at the University of Southern California in
summer, 1996. The principals were asked about the implementation of the multiage
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
program under KERA and its implications for the students with whom they interacted. One
principal stated that the schools were generally pleased with the implementation of multiage
grouping. Her school’s initial reaction to the mandate was one of enthusiasm. They had
been discussing the concept of multiage grouping, looking at their curricula and
researching ways to improve the delivery of their instruction prior to the time KERA
became law. The transition from self-analysis to a mandate was not as difficult for them as
it was for other schools. The principal felt that the mandate actually moved them more
quickly to the implementation of multiage grouping and the improvement of their
curriculum delivery. The transition was not as easy for schools where there had been no
prior discussion of multiage grouping.
“The failure of many teachers to successfully implement the primary program can
be traced to a number of the intervening variables mentioned previously. First, many
teachers lack the knowledge of the recommended teaching practices needed for successful
implementation of the primary program. Although Kentucky is one of the few states that
has attempted to give professional development a significant emphasis in its reform effort
through large increases in funding, many primary teachers have not received the amount
and kind of in-depth training necessary for implementation” (Bridge, 1995, p. 14).
Four university researchers (McIntyre, Kyle, Gregory & Moore, 1996) conducted
an extensive investigation of the implementation of multiage grouping and developmentally
appropriate practices in four Kentucky schools. Teachers, students and principals were
interviewed and classrooms were observed over an 18 month period. The researchers
observed older and younger children working together in multiage classrooms. Children
appeared to be working well together in collaborative situations. The teachers
acknowledged that developing a multiage situation required much work but was
appropriate for children’s learning. The teachers state that they feel good about their
teaching in a multiage setting although they are still frustrated because some of the children
can not be reached. Having a child more than one year, which is a common practice in
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
multiage programs, has helped the teachers and parents become connected so they can
work together for the benefit of the child’s learning.
The Appalachia Educational Lab issued a study of KERA implementation in four
rural Kentucky School Districts for the year 1993-94 (Coe). The report is part of a 5-year
qualitative study of the implementation of KERA. While the report does not reference
academic success of students, it does indicate that the implementation of developmentally
appropriate practices was the most successfully implemented attribute of the K-3 program.
Another research group has been conducting an academic study of the effects of
Kentucky’s multiage grouping on primary students (1993). The Center of Excellence for
Research in Basic Studies at Tennessee State University is conducting this applied research
as part of the School Success Study. Fifteen hundred students in nongraded school
programs were compared to 2,250 single-grade students with similar demographic
characteristics. Students were assessed on the TCAP (a standardized achievement test).
Kindergarten TCAP scores were used as a baseline. Findings during the first and second
year of implementation (1993 and 1994) indicate that at the end of lst-grade, single-grade
students outscored non-graded student in vocabulary, total reading, total language and total
math. However, at the end of 2nd grade, students in the nongraded program significantly
outscored the single-grade students in all areas of the test, and in 3rd grade the multiage
students outscored the single-grade students in three of the four measures. The results
further show that the 3rd-grade and 4th-grade multiage students outscored their single
grade counterparts in writing assessment The researcher concluded what many of the
former researchers have concluded that multiage grouping does not negatively affect
student achievement and has many social benefits that are not found in single-grade
classroom groupings.
In an article written about multiage grouping in Kentucky, Herald-Leader education
writer, Lucy May, cites the results of a study done by the Center for Gifted Studies at
Western Kentucky University. The opponents of multiage grouping mandated by
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kentucky legislation had concerns about the blighter students’ achievement in a multiage
program. However, the top 20 percent of the Kentucky pupils, all of whom were in a
multiage setting, outscored their counterparts in single-grade classes in Indiana and
Missouri.
There is still conflict among researchers regarding multiage grouping in Kentucky.
Some researchers say that mandating a reform such as multiage grouping is not as effective
as similar reform implementations that are a result of site based-management or grass roots
efforts, i.e., the reform concept must come from the grass roots to have real hope for
success (O’Neill, 1990). Legislation is currently pending in Kentucky which would allow
individual schools to plan and implement multiage grouping in the primary in their own
way. The research findings regarding the achievement of students in multiage settings is
that educators do not yet have a definitive answer.
The British Columbia Report on the Royal Commission on Education, A Legacy
fo r Learners (1989) proposed major changes to education and curricula in British Columbia
(Pasemko, 1992) . One of the changes proposed the implementation of a continuous
progress nongraded organization for the primary grades. A few schools in British
Columbia have had muldage grouping for more than 20 years. However, most of the
classes that have more than one grade level are split classes, not muldage classes. Pasemko
surveyed teachers and parents regarding restructuring, implementation of the muldage
program and the perceived success or failure of the muldage program. Teachers reported
that the most important benefits of a mixed-age classroom were having continuous
progress developmentally appropriate practices, having older role models, learning from
each other, and having a family atmosphere. Parents reported that the areas they felt most
benefited their children were social/emotional growth, language arts and math. Parents also
thought that having older children in a class provided good role models for younger
children. Pasemko’s research does not confirm or deny academic benefits for multiage
classes. However, it does imply that children’s academic growth is no worse as perceived
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
by teachers and parents, and there may be some social/emotional benefits that favor
multiage grouping.
Milbum (1981) investigated multiage grouping in two schools in British Columbia.
He found “little difference in basic skills achievement between youngsters in multi-age and
traditional grade-level groups. Multi-age classes did score significantly higher on the
vocabulary section of the reading test, however” (Milbum, 1981, p. 513).
Several studies have been conducted in which researchers surveyed teachers about
students’ academic success in a multiage setting. One such study evaluated the Primary
Learning Communities (PLC) nongraded K-2 program in three Houston, Texas schools
(1992). The PLC was a specially designed continuous progress curriculum to be used in a
muldage, nongraded primary program in the participating schools. About 600 kindergarten
through 2nd-grade students and 27 teachers participated in the study. Between 56% and
69% of the PLC teachers indicated that the PLC curriculum in the muldage setting was
more effective for reading skills than traditional curriculum in traditional settings. Between
88% and 94% of the PLC teachers stated that the curriculum used in a multiage setting was
more effective for math skills development Teachers commented that children were excited
about learning, worked cooperatively, had high self-confidence and were able to achieve at
their own developmental rate. Teachers saw all of these characteristics as being more
positive than when they taught in single-grade classrooms.
The New York City Board of Education in collaboration with the American
Federation of Teachers developed Project SAIL, which included a muldage primary and
developmentally appropriate curriculum units for students ages five to eight The program
was implemented in Public School 41 in Brooklyn (Jarvis, Zak & Houtrichs, 1990). At the
end of the first year of implementation teachers reported that student achievement was
improved. “On the Metropolitan Achievement test kindergarten children scored above
grade level in language... at the end of the second year, the percent of 2nd graders and 3rd
graders reading at or above grade level increased from 25 percent to 36 and 39 percent
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
respectively” (Jarvis, e t al, 1990, p. 3). As with many of the studies, other improvements
were included in the development of the multiage program including staff development and
shared decision-making. The singular effect of multiage grouping can not be determined
from the evidence. However, it is safe to say that multiage grouping contributed to the
students’ success.
Among the advocates of multiage grouping, there are a number of educators who
have cited advantages of such programs. Gaustad (1992a; 1992b) cites anthropological
research which indicates that children will spontaneously group themselves in
heterogeneous groups when left to play or work on their own. Katz (1991, 1995) and
Katz, Evangelou and Harman (1990) submit that children have difficulty learning when
they are placed in single-age groups. Thielheimer (1993) states that both younger and older
children benefit cognitively when their ideas conflict and they must think through and
articulate their differences.
Single-age groups seem to create enormous normative pressures on the children
and the teacher to expect all the children to possess the same knowledge and skills. There is
a tendency in a homogeneous age group to penalize the children who fail to meet normative
expectations. There is no evidence to show that a group of children who are all within a
twelve-month range can be expected to learn the same things, in the same way, on the same
day, at the same time (Gaustad, 1992a, 1992b; Katz, 1995; Katz, Evangelou, and Harman,
1990).
Gaustad and Katz contend that the way students are taught and how children learn
are important aspects of any school program. Multiage grouping allows for a
developmentally appropriate approach that takes into account, children’s different rates and
styles of learning. Children who are in muldage classes usually succeed when they are
given tasks at their appropriate developmental level (Katz, 1995). The main goal implied by
the muldage setting is that children were grouped for instruction based on their achievement
and not on their age.
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Other individual researchers have added their insights to the literature on multiage
grouping. Fuller, Ronning, VanVoorhis and Moore (1993) monitored the reading
achievement of a group of students in grades 1 - 4 from a rural Ohio elementary school and
compared their achievement to that of students in a single-grade rural elementary school
nearby during the 1992-93 school year. In the fall of the school year students from both
schools did not have significantly different reading achievement scores. The students in the
target multiage school had significantly better reading scores than their single-grade
counterparts after a year of instruction in the multiage classes. The researchers also report
that the target school has not retained any students nor placed any students in high impact
special education classes in three years.
Tanner and Decotis (1995), conducted a study to determine whether or not
kindergarten and lst-grade students in multiage settings scored higher on academic
achievement tests, oral reading measures, and writing measures than single-grade students.
They found that there was no significant difference in achievement on the kindergarten
KAP (Kindergarten Achievement Test) between multiage students and single-grade
students. However, there was a significant difference between the oral reading scores and
writing scores of multiage students and single-grade students. The multiage students
clearly outperformed the single-grade students in oral reading and writing. These two areas
may more appropriately reflect the kind of learning that occurs in a developmentally
appropriate program of instruction provided in multiage settings.
The research regarding the academic and cognitive benefits of muldage grouping is
still very unclear. As more schools begin to discover the social benefits of muldage
grouping, more muldage class settings will be available for empirical research. Every
researcher cited above has concluded that much more research is needed before one can
conclude whether or not mulitage grouping provides a classroom setting in which academic
excellence can be successfully achieved.
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cross-age Tutoring
One instructional practice of the multiage classroom which is consistently
mentioned in multiage literature is cross-age tutoring. While the research base is yet to be
established, early evidence shows that peer tutoring and cross-age tutoring are effective
practices especially compatible with multiage programs. Students who have been tutored
by other students outperform students who have not been tutored (Miller, 1989). Some
research indicates that while there may be no difference between multiage grouping and the
single classroom for some students, there is evidence to support multiage grouping for
cognitive growth when younger children interact with older children. Vygotsky (1978)
states that children internalize new concepts when they are exposed to the concepts in
collaboration with adults or more capable peers. Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik (1982) found
that students who were experiencing academic problems were better able to learn the
material from a cross-age tutor in a multiage classroom. There was no stigma attached for
not knowing the material. Tropani and Gettinger (1989) reported that cross-age tutoring in
multiage classrooms was successful. While peer tutoring appears to be an effective
instructional strategy, tutoring seems to be more effective when the tutor is older than the
tutee. The recent studies cite cross-age methods that result in improvement for the younger
student, as well as the older student
Students in a New York City high school tutored underachieving elementary
students in reading. After six months the reading scores of the tutors increased by two
years more than the scores of the tutees (Cloward, 1976), although the tutees also
improved. A group of New York City high school students were recruited to tutor younger
students. The program was supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to prevent dropout
and was termed reciprocal tutoring. Tutors and tutees experienced social gains. Both tutors
and tutees gained more confidence and had fun in the process. The tutees’ grades improved
significantly and they “demonstrated a better understanding of the course material” (Gartner
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
& Riessman, 1994, p. 59). As students were tutored, they learned how to become tutors.
Their motivation to learn increased as they prepared for being tutors.
DePaulo, Tang, Webb, Hoover, Marah and Litowitz (1993) state that the most
significant achievement gains were seen in high achieving tutors who tutored younger low
achieving students. The tutees did very poorly in this situation. These results suggest that
tutors gain much from tutoring younger, lower achieving students. This research suggests
that teaching is one way of improving one’s skills.
Greenwood, Delquadri and Hall (1989) conducted a four year study in which low
socio-economic students were taught using the Classwide Peer Tutoring (CWFT) model.
Beginning in 1st-grade teachers organized academic content into daily and weekly units.
Tutor-tutee pairs worked together on a classwide basis. A control group of similar students
received regular teacher instruction in the same content At the end of the 4th grade, both
groups were posttested using the Metropolitan Achievement Test The tutoring group had
significantly higher achievement in process and product
Students in the experimental group clearly demonstrated improvements in academic
processing. They raised their hands less, often spent more time reading, engaged more in
academic talk and spent less time waiting for assistance. The experimental group also
achieved significantly in language, reading, and mathematics. A third comparison group of
high socio-economic students who received the regular teacher instruction scored even
better than the experimental group. The results of this longitudinal study may suggest that
peer tutoring is a significant teaching practice for low socio-economic underachieving
students who do not have home support for education.
Another study that analyzed the effects of cross-age tutoring on academic
achievement was conducted by Cochran, Feng, Cartledge, and Hamilton (1993). The
students in the study were sixteen African-American males ranging in ages from 7 to 11
years. Four of the eight 2nd graders were assigned as tutees to four of the eight 5th
graders. The remaining eight students were used as a control group and did not engage in
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tutoring. Tutoring was conducted in sight-word performance. The results of the study
evidenced an increase in sight words for both tutor and tutee compared to the students who
did not engage in tutoring. Three of the four students in the experiemental group had more
significant gains than did students who were tutored by the teacher.
Reading gains were found for tutors and tutees who were all underachieving
readers in a study by Limbrick, McNaughton, & Glynn (1984). The researchers randomly
selected six low achieving 3rd graders and six low achieving 5th graders. Tutors received
training using a modified version of paired reading technique and then tutored from six to
ten weeks. Tutees showed gains in self-correction, accuracy and rate of progress.
Increases were also seen in comprehension. Results were attributed to increased time for
reading, motivation, and opportunity to engage in more difficult materials with the help of a
tutor.
Much recent cross-age tutoring research has examined the reading achievement of
tutees. However, less research has concentrated on the achievement growth of the tutors.
In a study by Rekrut (1992), high school students received instruction in story grammar
and its use as a recall strategy. The tutors then taught the strategy to 4th grade and 5th-
grade students. The tutoring continued twice a week for six weeks. One control group
received instruction in the strategy but did not tutor the strategy; a second control group did
not receive instruction or teach the strategy to others. All three groups were pre- and
posttested on their knowledge of story grammar and its mnemonic utility. The researcher
reported significant differences between the test results of the strategy and the comparison
groups. The results suggest that when students learn something and then teach it to others,
the learning is reinforced for them thus increasing their academic achievement in that area
of instruction.
Azmitia (1988) conducted a study in which 5-year-olds worked on problem solving
tasks singularly and in dyads. Students were pretested on their ability to replicate three
simple Lego structures and were then assigned the label of expert or novice. The children
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were then randomly assigned to perform two additional model replications alone, as a
member of an expert dyad, as a member of a novice dyad, or as a member of a mixed-
ability dyad. The students were then posttested alone. The students were rated on their task
performance by observers who used a rating system to count the percent of time on task
and the number of removals and placements of Lego pieces during construction of the
models. During the second and third sessions, when students were working in groups or
alone, they were observed and monitored for task engagement, looking at the model,
verbal strategies and mechanisms of facilitation. From the results, Azmitia concluded that
collaboration during pre-school years leads to better learning and learning is best facilitated
by working with an expert who is slightly better at the task. However, both novices and
experts learned better in collaboration than alone.
Cross-age tutoring has been used in a number of reading buddy programs by
teachers who report positive results. Two teachers in a college laboratory school developed
a cross-age reading tutoring program for 6th graders and kindergartners. The 6th graders
were average or low achieving readers. They were taught methods of story mapping, oral
reading and brainstorming. The tutors learned to develop good questioning skills when
eliciting responses from the kindergartners for the story maps. The older students increased
their reading ability through practice while reading to the younger students. The older
students also showed an increased enthusiasm for independent reading at home. No
standardized test data were collected but the classroom teachers did report improved ability
of the 6th graders to identify and recall structural elements in the novels they read. The
school librarian also noticed an increase in the number of books checked out by the 6th
graders. Similar enthusiasm for reading was found with the kindergarten students.
Teachers at a school in Ontario, Canada developed a study buddy reading program
to use with their 5th-grade and primary students. They created an integrated, whole
language buddy program designed around the use of Big Books. While standardized test
results were not obtained, teachers reported increased skills in and enthusiasm for reading
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for both tutors and tutees. The authors suggest that further cognitive growth data must be
collected and evaluated (Morrice & Simmons, 1991).
A principal and teachers at an elementary school in San Francisco, California
developed a cross-age tutoring program in which 5th graders tutored 1st-graders using
wordless picture books in a writing project. The teachers reported satisfaction with the
project as the 1st and 5th graders showed increased enjoyment of language activities. The
older students also gained skills that helped them in their classroom literature and writing
activities (Ellis & Preston, 1984).
Several studies illustrate the effectiveness of cross-age tutoring for low achieving
tutors. Twice a month 1st graders and 6th graders from two classes in an elementary
school in Kansas meet to explore science. The 6th graders serve as cross-age tutors to help
the 1st graders explore, develop concepts, and apply knowledge. The mutual benefits for
1st-and 6th-grade students were reported to be enhanced self-esteem and significant
academic gains for the least able 6th graders. Sixth graders also develop a deeper
understanding of a teacher’s role when they act as tutors (Smith & Burrichter, 1993).
Low-achieving high school students were taught to use a pause, prompt, and praise
system when tutoring 7th-grade students who were at least 3.5 years behind their peers in
reading achievement The 7th graders were tutored in oral reading fluency. A comparable
group of students was tutored by high school students who had no system training. It was
found that trained tutors who delayed their responses to errors had tutees who self
corrected twice as much as those of the untrained tutors. The tutees of the trained tutors
gained over six months of reading accuracy as compared to 0.88 of a month gain for
students who read by themselves. Tutees of the trained tutors had maintained their gain two
months after the study and they also had the highest gain in comprehension (Berlinger,
1986).
Labbo and Teale (1990) conducted a study in which twenty low-achieving 5th
graders were randomly assigned to one of three reading groups. The first group of seven
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students was assigned to be cross-age readers to kindergarten students. The second group
of seven was assigned to be art partners for kindergartners and the third group of six
students received regular basal reading instruction. All the students were pretested on the
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, and the Pters-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale. All
students were also given the Reading Interview that elicited students' evaluation of what
good readers do.
The purpose of the cross-age tutoring was to help the low readers develop good
reading strategies. The pretest showed that the students did not have good reading
strategies. The program was conducted for eight weeks. Each of the 32 sessions lasted 10 -
20 minutes. The results of the posttests indicated that the cross-age readers did significantly
better than the art group or the basal group on the Gates-McGinitie Reading Test. There
was no significant difference among the three groups on the Piers-Harris.
The above related study addressed two case studies. The first was Marta, a very
poor reader with a measured IQ of 79. She had been retained in the 3rd grade and was
considered to be working to capacity. She learned a great deal about reading when she
became a cross-age tutor. She spent much time preparing for her cross-age reading work
with her kindergarten partner. She practiced the stories many times. “She enjoyed being the
expert” (Labbo & Teale, 367). The second cas was Jeff, an underachiever with an average
IQ. He was labeled as unmotivated and lazy. Jeff began to improve in achievement and
self-concept when he was allowed to be the “expert”.
The field of special education has been scrutinized lately for its failure to achieve
success for most students who are identified as needing special education services. Full
inclusion has become the latest attempt to involve special education students in the regular
classroom program with an objective of improving their self-esteem, as well as their
academic success. Because some of the latest projects have experienced success, the U. S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, has
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
funded research and model programs that promote efforts to improve classroom conditions
for special education students.
One such project is the “Self-Determination — Pathway to Inclusion” project at
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. The project recruited adults with learning
disabilities who tutored youths with severe emotional disabilities and behavior disorders.
The purpose of the project was for students to gain self-determination and problem solving
skills and eventually become tutors for other students with similar disabilities. The younger
students who were tutored gained self-determination skills. The adult tutors also helped the
project staff to improve parts of the training manual. The study suggests that students of all
levels of learning can be effective tutors who also benefit from the tutoring experience
(Miller, Miller, Armentrout & Flannigan, 1995).
In another study dealing with learning disabled students, twenty boys in the 4 th ,
5 th , and 6th grades participated in a project to help increase their social skills and
achievement (Trapani & Gettinger, 1989). The boys were given training in social skills.
Following the training the boys tutored 2nd graders in spelling for four weeks, 20 minutes
each day, three days a week. Students in a control group received only the social skills
training. The control group worked with a peer on spelling in their classroom for the
learning disabled. The results of the study indicate that combining social skills training with
cross-age tutoring experience is an effective way to assist learning disabled students with
social communication and achievement
Cross-age tutoring has been used with Title I and special education programs with
some success. In a study by Jenkins, Jewell, Leicester, Jenkins and Troutner (1991)
intermediate students tutored 2nd-, 3rd- and 4th-grade remedial and special education
students. The control group of similar students received instruction in reading and
composition from teachers using the schools reading series. There was no significant
difference in achievement between the teacher directed group and the cross-age tutored
group. The authors suggest that the tutoring may have been effective but other parts of the
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students’ remedial program were less effective. While no substantial effect of cross-age
tutoring was found in this study, there is reason to continue the study of cross-age tutoring
as a tool for improvement of remedial students’ achievement.
One peer tutoring program sponsored by a large company is the Coca-Cola Valued
Youth Program developed by the Intercultural Development Research Association in San
Antonio, Texas. “The program recruited low achieving Hispanic middle school students to
tutor at-risk Hispanic elementary students” (Gaustad, 1993, p. 2). It has had good success
in lowering dropout rates among the tutors. Tutors had time to organize materials and had
opportunities to practice and improve their communication skills and work habits while
they were involved in the program. The Valued Youth Program has become an acceptable
part of the school life for these tutors.
The Multiage Classroom And Tutoring
Currently, several states including Kentucky have legislatively mandated multiage
grouping in all primary programs in the state’s public schools. The Kentucky Education
Reform Act (KERA) was implemented in 1990. While the research base is yet to be
established, early evidence shows that peer tutoring is an effective practice especially
compatible with muldage programs. Students who have been tutored by other students
outperform students who have not been tutored (Miller, 1989).
K af (1990) reports that research on cross-age interaction and peer tutoring
indicates that an age range of greater than one year enhances both intellectual and academic
competence. Dr. Katz suggests that multi-age grouping is a natural environment in which
children of different ages can interact. The older children are able to experience nurturing
and modeling behaviors that are helpful for future parenting skills. Younger students are
able to observe models of behavior. She warns, however, that grouping children in multi
age groups alone will not assume benefits from cross-age tutoring. Curriculum must be
designed to facilitate the use of cross-age tutoring. Teachers cmay encourage children to
seek assistance from older students who may be more available than the teacher at any
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
given time. Older children Ieam to take responsibility for younger children much like older
children accept responsibility in families. "The multi-aged, nongraded, continuous
progress classroom resembles a family. It contains groupings of children of various ages
working and playing together” (Fogarty, 1993, p. vii).
In a section of his latest book on Cooperative Learning, Spencer Kagan (1994)
states that “learning is best promoted by being motivated to learn and being in a situation
which allows learning to occur. It turns out that tutoring is such a situation, providing both
the motivation and opportunity to learn” (p. 1:2). It also provides opportunities for children
to practice leadership roles. When students assume the role of tutor the increased learning
that takes place for both tutor and tutee results from the amount of comprehensible input,
complexity of input, and output. Students in peer tutoring environments spend more time
on task, have more opportunities for practice and experience more frequent contact with an
expert.
Students are more likely to feel comfortable with material if they have an
opportunity to help a younger student The act of tutoring helps the tutor to understand
how others leam and to accommodate the needs of the tutee. Anderson and Pavan (1993)
propose that tutors should be well trained and be given structured tasks to complete with
their tutees. Progress should be monitored by teachers who are free to circulate among
students when tutoring is occurring. They further state that some of the problems
associated with cross-age tutoring are eliminated in multi-age classrooms. Schedules do not
need to be coordinated and students do not have to travel to another location for tutoring.
The multi-age classroom provides a constant availability of cross-age tutors and experts.
There seems to be an advantage for younger children who strive to emulate and attain the
academic levels of the older children (Milbum, 1961).
Older students are also challenged, however, they are as challenged as they would
be in a single-grade classroom where there is an equally demanding curriculum and
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
individual attention. When older chidren “teach”, they strengthen their understanding of the
skills being taught (Fogarty, 1993).
French, Waas, Stright and Baker (1986) and Stright and French (1988) observed
children in multiage classrooms and in single-grade classrooms. They found that older
children naturally take leadership roles especially in group processing. The mixed-age
group provided a means for older children, who would not normally take leadership roles
in same-age classes, to take a positive facilitative leadership role.
Nye (1993) reports that older children have the opportunity to demonstrate
helpfulness, leadership, patience, and tolerance in multiage classrooms. Katz (1990) found
that children who were assisted by more experienced students, were more knowledgeable
than single-grade counterparts. Gutierrez and Slavan (1993) reported, that cross-age
tutoring has a positive effect on achievement, particularly for poor readers.
In an article about multi-age grouping, Harp (1992) talks about peer power. He
states that in multi-age classrooms students are encouraged to Ieam to rely on their peers.
The teacher may assign “buddies” or the tutoring may occur as a natural part of the
classroom work. “The ‘bottom line’ on peer power is that children are encouraged to come
to a natural caring about and helping of their fellow learners — something children are
completely capable of doing if we create an environment that fosters this natural
inclination” (Harp, 1992, p. 99). Nevi (1993) reports that the tutors in cross-age tutoring
situations may benefit academically even more than the students who are being tutored. He
suggests several foundations upon which a theoretical basis for the success of tutors could
be established. The tutor takes on the role of a teacher. This role change allows the tutor to
change behavior and feel more self-worth. The tutor earns a feeling of self-worth that may,
in turn, allow for academic development Tutors have a “locus of control” that makes them
feel that they are in control of their lives, and consequently in control of their learning.
There is also the notion of reinforcement The tutor reinforces his learning by teaching the
information to others. Tutors may gain insights into learning during the process of
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
conveying the learning to another student Tutors spend more time on task that may
account for their increased academic achievement
Miller (1991) discusses six key instructional dimensions of successful teaching in
the multi-age classroom. Peer tutoring is listed as one of the six elements. Students who
have higher skills or are older are seen as “teachers” to other students. He recommends that
peer and cross-age tutoring become a regular part of the daily schedule and routine. To
quote John Aros Comenius, a sixteenth century Moravian educator and bishop, “He who
teaches, learns."
Collaborative Writing
In the past 10 to 15 years “teachers have tinned their classrooms into communities
as the focus of writing pedagogy has shifted from written products to the writing process,
and as ways of making knowledge— including writing— are viewed from a collaborative or
social perspective” (Herrmann, 1989). As a result, collaborative writing has become the
focus of many research studies. The shift in emphasis from product to process is founded
in the work of two well-known learning theorists, Piaget and Vygotsky whose social
constructivist theories lend support to the need to allow writing to be a collaborative and
social activity. Both Piaget and Vygotsky (Duran & Gauvin, 1993) agree that children are
active participants in their development and they Ieam best by active interaction with their
environment including objects and people. Piaget saw the development of children being
facilitated by the interactions of peers whose cognitive and social development are similar.
He believed that children will follow the rules of older people or experts without examining
the ideas themselves because the older people or experts are perceived to have more power
and thus more control over the children.
Vygotsky (1978) thought that children were stretched to Ieam when they associated
with peers or others whose social and cognitive development was slightly more advanced.
He called the distance between the development of the child and the development of the
older individual the zone of proximal development (ZPD). It is by always trying to stretch
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to the top of the zone that children grow and continually redefine their zone. If the person
with whom the child is working or collaborating is too old or too much of an expert, the
child does not benefit. The child is being asked to stretch too far. Much of the current
research on learning attempts to explain the differences between Piaget’s thinking and
Vygotsky’s thinking. Both theories have application in the area of collaborative writing.
There are four main areas of recent research regarding collaborative writing— (a) the
nature and substance of the dialogue which occurs during collaboration, (b) the social and
cognitive aspects of collaboration, (c) the relationship of peer and cross-age tutoring to
collaborative writing, and (d) the relationship of the expert-novice paradigm to
collaboration. It is also important to note that research about collaborative writing and the
implications for the classroom does not just focus on younger children. High school
students are more often than not still novice writers who have not yet acquired the skills
and developed the strategies for mature writing (Baer, Hollenstein, Hofstetter, Fuchs &
Reber-Wyss, 1994). Baer, et.al. studied novice (ages 11 - 15) and expert writers (high
school teachers) to determine the attributes of their text production abilities. They
specifically looked for the differences in metacognitive knowledge of writing and how the
metacognitive knowledge develops from novice to expert. They found that 9th-grade
students are not yet well developed writers and have more similarities in writing skills with
5th-grade students than with adults. It is with this awareness that we examine a number of
research studies that illustrate the processes used in collaborative writing for young, old,
novice and expert writers.
As we have begun to understand how children learn, the configuration of the
classroom has changed from a silent work area to an active and student-centered
community. ‘ Teachers have observed that children’s thinking and writing seem to be more
developed and precise when they collaborate” (Daiute, 1986). A number of studies have
been conducted by teachers as action research. While these studies may not always adhere
to strict empirical research design, their contribution to the literature is none the less
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
valuable. The teacher “research” questions have often led to further study by a researcher
using empirical methods. Through their own observational research, teachers have found
that as important as the written products produced by the students, the content of the
dialogue between writers during collaboration is very illuminating.
Teachers Crouse and Davey (1989) observed their Ist-grade and 2nd-grade
students during collaborative writing sessions. The dialogue was recorded for further
analysis. The collaboration was unplanned and spontaneous within an atmosphere of
allowable opportunities for cooperation. They found that the students naturally sought out
each other for assistance, confirmation, flattery and nurturing. Each child was interviewed
individually to determine that student’s perception of collaboration. The students felt good
when they worked with others and they felt that they learned from one another. Statements
such as “it gives me company”, “if somebody asks me ... I just cheer up”, and “it’s fun
talking to someone else... they give you ideas” indicate that children enjoy collaborative
writing and also find social and academic value in the process. The teachers concluded that
children Ieam best when they work collaborative during the writing process. The
collaboration gave the children confidence and security as they explored new ways of
expressing their thoughts.
The findings of Crouse and Davey (1989) were confirmed by another researcher
who worked in two elementary classrooms to help students write their own books
(Yagelski, 1994). Yagelski believes “that writing is an intensely social activity” (p. 219).
He comments about his own experience as a writer of a children’s book and the point that
very little of the book can be called his own. Many people contributed to the development
and completion of the book including the inspiration of his own sons. As he was writing
the book, he was also working in his sons’ classrooms as a parent volunteer. He made
observations and took notes of what he saw. He noted that children collaborated in three
ways: (a) in developing plots and characters, (b) in illustrating the stories, and (c) in
writing books with several young authors. The collaboration began without prompting or
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organizing by the teacher. In working together, the students were able to practice what they
had learned about various aspects of writing and story development It also provided
students with the opportunity to articulate their ideas and try them out on other students.
They were able to negotiate the ideas and justify their ideas. The chance to articulate and
receive feedback would have been absent in the individual writing process. In some
collaborations in the classroom Yagelski observed, children assumed roles such as
illustrator or author of the text
University professor, Helen Dale, worked with a local high school English teacher
to study the co-authoring process in the writing classroom (Dale, 1994a). Writing groups
were formed with three students in each group, one boy and two girls. Dale has long
suspected that the real value of collaboration comes from the peer interaction that takes
place. The group talk was recorded for further analysis. Dale found that there were certain
patterns to the dialogue. One pattern which became apparent was that students gained
audience awareness, the notion that authors need to write with a certain audience in mind.
Although student writers are often told to think about audience when they write, most
students are not able to conceptualize audience without the actual experience of sharing
their ideas and writing with a real audience. Collaborative groups provides that audience.
Dale (1994a) felt that the most promising discovery of her study was that
collaborative writing gave students the opportunity to develop more sophisticated writing
habits. Working in a group forced students to plan their work before they begin writing
and to continue using planning throughout the writing process. Students were able to Ieam
a variety of planning methods from each other which strengthened each students repertoire
of planning skills. The last pattern that emerged concerned the process of revising.
Students prompted each other to think about another way of saying something, and to think
about mechanics and spelling. Dale concluded that the processes of planning/composing/
revising/editing developed for all students as a result of collaboration.
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dale (1994b) followed up the observational study cited above with research that
analyzed qualitative and quantitative data regarding student collaborative writing from 9th-
grade students. Students from a high school English class were placed into one of eight
collaborative triads similar to the groups formed in Dale’s (1994a) first study. Data were
collected through transcripts of co-authoring sessions, questionnaires and interviews. The
dialogue during collaborative writing was coded for the amount of talk and engagement,
nature of talk, amount of cognitive conflict, and social factors. Dale targeted three of the
eight groups which she labeled “model”, “typical”, and “problem”. Dale and the classroom
teacher worked together to select the three groups based on their perceptions of the success
of each group during the first several weeks of the study. Dale then analyzed the dialogue
of each group to determine what aspects of dialogue affect success in writing.
Dale found that the successful group had significantly more conversational turns
than either of the other two groups. She also found that the substance of the dialogue of the
model group was rich in conversation about the writing process such as asking for
clarification, elaborating, providing alternative ideas and rephrasing ideas. The problem
group spent much more time discussing task representation such as talking about the
difficulty of the task, talking about the audience, talking about the purpose of the
assignment and the requirements of the assignment. The model group appeared to be able
to weave the task representation concepts into their dialogue so that they were an implicit
part of the dialogue related to the reflective thinking and talk that occurred in the model
group. The model group also spent considerably more time in planning the content and
actually composing the text than the typical or problem groups. Dale (1997) found similar
results in a follow-up study.
Another aspect of writing that is present for all writers is cognitive conflict.
Language is always a struggle and the opportunity to make the conflict audible seems to
provide a positive atmosphere for continually resolving the conflicts. The model group was
able to elicit productive conflict at each conversational turn. As one student raised a
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
question about ideas or phrasing, the other two students were able to provide alternative
ideas forcing the questioner to clarify his own thinking. For the problem group only 7% of
their conversational turns were coded as cognitive conflict while the model group had 20%
of its conversational turns tagged for cognitive conflict Dale concluded that cognitive
conflict is a healthy part of writing and can be constantly played out when students talk
about their writing.
A final aspect of the collaborative process which Dale (1994b) observed was the
social aspects of the group process. Students who respected each other were able to interact
and successfully produce a writing product. In groups where certain students were slighted
or marginalized there was no opportunity for those students to fully participate in the
dialogue. If students were fighting for control or were threatened, the group could not
function productively. Dale also noted that in the groups where one student took on the role
of teacher, dominating, criticizing and acting as a giver of knowledge rather than a
facilitator, success was limited. Dale’s work tells us that collaboration is a critical part of
the writing process and can not be overlooked. Writing is a process wherein dissonance
and inner conflict give rise to reflection and thinking about what one is writing. If students
can work through the conflict orally in a positive and supportive atmosphere with peers,
they have an opportunity to grow as a writer.
When collaborative learning first became fashionable teachers would assign
students to specific roles and direct the students to the products they should produce.
Brenda Power, a researcher and university professor, observed in a friend’s lst-grade
classroom and noticed that when children instigated their own collaboration it brought a
richness to learning (Power, 1989). She specifically observed three boys throughout the
school year as they voluntarily collaborated in writing although they were each loners.
Writing became a social act for the boys as they learned to take risk, budget their time and
talk through their ideas. Power noted that each of the boys had a zone of development
within which they operated. One boy was more intellectually developed, one boy had more
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
advanced social skills and the other boys had better oral skills. Using each of their own
strengths the boys prodded each other to move forward in their development Power also
remarked that the boys’ ability to compromise and negotiate made it possible for them to
continue to work together. Each of them had their own needs but they were able to
negotiate meanings through their collaboration. Each time the boys began their
collaboration, the talk started with topics unrelated to the writing. However, the talk soon
turned to discussion of the writing. Power observed that the “off topic” talk was necessary
to establish an atmosphere of trust just like adults who share a cup of coffee and brief
social conversation before getting down to the business of their work each day.
Further insight into the dialogue that occurs between collaborative writers comes
from the work of Daiute (1986,1988) and Daiute and Dalton (1993). Daiute cites
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1972) as the basis for her research.
As stated earlier, Vygotsky believed that there is an advantage in working with a partner
whose cognitive development is slightly better which creates a zone of proximal
development The zone provides the less intellectually developed student a model and an
opportunity to experience some cognitive conflict that is not too far ahead of the students’
own development “ ...children are better able to develop thinking and communication
skills if they model them directly on social interactions” (Daiute, 1966). Daiute states that
some researchers think that children under the age of 11 do not benefit from a peer or
cross-age tutoring relationship. However, recent researchers have begun to find that
children, indeed, can benefit from interaction and dialogue with peers or slightly older
students. Daiute’s observations and analysis of children’s talk while writing collaboradvely
tell us a great deal about the effectiveness of collaboration for teaming.
Daiute (1986) observed 4th- and 5th-grade students during the writing process. At
the beginning of the study, the students wrote an individual narrative. Then, half of the
students were assigned a collaborative partner from their own grade level and class. The
partners wrote four collaborative narratives. The other half of the students wrote four
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
additional narratives by themselves. All students then wrote a final narrative alone which
was used as the posttest data. Daiute observed and recorded the collaborative writers
during writing sessions. Analyses of the individual narratives, collaborative narratives, and
audio tapes of the sessions revealed some interesting findings. The narratives were
analyzed for length, linguistic complexity, rhetorical structures, features of style and
holistic quality. All of the 4th graders who collaborated produced much longer posttests
narratives than pretest narratives. The solo writers produced posttest narratives which were
only slightly longer than the pretests. Students who wrote together produced more complex
sentences during and after collaboration than those students who wrote alone. The writings
were also analyzed for complexity of plot and resolution and relationship among
characters. The collaborators were able to produce more complex and intricate plots and
character relationships than the solo writers.
An analysis of the dialogue produced some interesting results. The students talked
about a variety of issues about writing including plot, character names, text form,
procedures and duties. Even though the collaborators did not always make joint decisions
or agree on procedures or details, they were able to produce meaningful writings with good
plot, well developed characters, and conflict resolution. In exit interviews the students
were asked about the collaborative writing process. They said that they liked writing with a
partner as it gave them better ideas and they could see how the other person was thinking.
Daiute (1986) concluded that collaboration is not simply a process of two heads being
better than one. She states that the collaborative process may help each writer to produce
narratives which are more complex as a result of their collaboration.
Daiute, in collaboration with Dalton, (1988) conducted another study in which they
investigated the nature of children’s talk during collaboration. Forty-three groups of 4th
graders and 5th graders wrote six stories about animals. Group A wrote all six stories on
their own. The other group, Group B, collaborated for the second, third, fourth and fifth
stories; they wrote the first and sixth stories alone. As in Daiute’s 1986 study, Daiute and
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dalton analyzed the stories and the collaborative dialogue. The stories were analyzed using
a standardized holistic scoring rubric. The teachers, researchers, and another teacher who
was not associated with the study, scored the stories to obtain holistic scores. More
students in Group B improved on their sixth story when compared to their first story. In
this study, a more sophisticated system for coding the talk during collaboration was
developed and employed. The coding included ten categories: composing; monitoring and
clarifying form; monitoring and clarifying content; rereading; evaluating, explaining, and
negotiating; talking about procedures; confirming and disconfirming; associating beyond
the text; making intra/interpersonal comments; and off-task talk. For analysis of the
dialogue students who had been collaborators were regrouped into pairs who improved and
pairs who did not improve. The improved group engaged in much more discussion about
monitoring and clarifying form, evaluating and explaining, and negotiating. The
unimproved group spent much more time talking about mechanics, spelling, expressing
rhetorical value, and division of labor.
These results confirm what several researchers (Daiute, 1986; Dale, 1994a, 1994b)
had concluded. Collaboration involves productive cognitive conflict Unlike mature
writers, the students do not engage in sophisticated reflective talk. Nonetheless, their
playful and social talk does contribute to their negotiation and resolution of cognitive
conflict which in turn, helps develop their thinking and writing skills. Vygotsky would say
that they are negotiating within their zone of proximal development There is just enough
dissonance to require the students to stretch above their own level of cognitive development
but not enough to leave them behind or bewildered. During collaborative writing talk,
students play with language, while developing a more adult-like discussion of composing
strategies and revising processes (Daiute & Dalton, 1968). The researchers also suggest
that adults play a different role in the development of the writing process than do peers or
slighdy older students. While adults give more serious and more critical feedback, students
who are within the same zone of proximal development playfully guide each other to the
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
common goal of writing textual material. The pairs whose writing improved had one
partner with slightly higher knowledge and skills. The pairs whose writing did not improve
had more equal skills. This suggests that the best collaborative arrangement involves
working with a partner who is slightly less or more skilled to take advantage of the zone of
proximal development which allows some cognitive conflict to always be present in the
collaborative process.
More recently, Daiute and Dalton (1993) have examined the social aspects of
collaborative dialogue between student writers. Their analysis has produced an even more
sophisticated system for coding the dialogue which focuses on generative and reflective
processes, in this study, they used the research from the expert-novice paradigm and peer
collaboration to support their thesis and to develop their coding system.
Expert-novice collaboration embodies a transmission model of learning in which
the adult or expert transfers knowledge and skills to a child or novice. Differing from the
characterization of “teacher” in classic transmission models, however, the expert engages
the student in his or her expert thinking and practice as they work on activities and solve
problems together. In this process the expert reveals both knowledge and skills. In
addition, the expert assesses and guides the novice’s participation, gradually handing over
control of the activity to the novice in response to the novice’s increasing competence
(Daiute & Dalton, 1993, p. 282-283).
Negotiating within the zone of proximal development, an expert can engage the
novice in slightly higher thinking thus helping the novice to perform at a higher level.
Third-grade students were engaged in two solo and three collaborative writing sessions.
The dialogue during collaboration was recorded and analyzed for processes that might be
similar to the processes used in an expert-novice relationship - generating and reflecting.
Generative processes include initiating new material and reflecting includes contesting what
has been generated. These processes can be engaged in by relatively unsophisticated
children who can act as an expert in some areas and a novice in other areas. Daiute and
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dalton (1993) found that both children in a pair were able to initiate thinking at some points
and reflect on ideas or contest ideas at other points. Repetition also appeared to assist the
pair in developing their stones. They repeated story elements, ideas and thoughts in a
social way. Repetition also helps students advance to the next level of cognitive
complexity. Further, the researchers suggest that peer collaboration may have a different
role to play in cognitive development than does working with an expert. Peers help
exercise and increase awareness of knowledge while working with an expert gives
exposure to new knowledge.
The research into the analysis of dialogue during collaboration is still in its infancy.
The research thus far lends support to Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the zone of proximal
development. It does appear from this early research that there is much involved in
childrens’ dialogue. Children’s talk, while social and playful, is much more meaningful
than previously thought Children do use dialogue to negotiate for more knowledge, to
strengthen their understanding of ideas and concepts, and to broaden their repertoire of
basic skills and learning tools.
The social and cognitive aspects of collaboration are supported by research into
cross-age tutoring. DeRita and Weaver (1991) developed a cross-age literacy program with
1st and 4th graders. The 1st graders were assisted in a variety of language experiences
including tutoring skills in reading and spelling and creative dramatics. The 4th graders
also engaged in library research to assist the 1st graders in the acquisition of new
knowledge about a number of subjects. They located books in the library about certain
subject matter when the teacher expressed a need for more information for the 1st graders.
The 4th graders also recorded books for the 1st graders to listen to while looking at the
books. They also participated in writing and making their own books.
Benefits from the cross-age experiences were obvious for both groups. The 1st-
graders learned to read with enthusiasm, acquired listening skills, improved their sight
vocabularies, and improved their oral reading skills. First graders also improved their
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
comprehension of stories. The 4th graders gained self-esteem and confidence. When the
4th graders were researching information for the teachers and the 1st graders, their
knowledge base grew. The 4th graders were enthusiastic about working with their younger
partners and the 1st graders respected and trusted their relationship with the older students.
The collaborative nature of tutoring appears to provide both social and cognitive benefits
for partners.
Pre-K and 1 st-grade students participated in a writing workshop partnership study
(Friedman & Koeppel, 1990). The children collaborated in various free choice writing
activities. The 1st graders had been involved in a writer’s workshop program for five
months. When the lst-graders met with their pre-K partners, they were the experts who
wrote the dictated thoughts of the pre-K students. After the stories were written the pre-K
students were encouraged to illustrate their stories. The teachers found that there were a
variety of individual subjects covered. Seeing their own words in print was very powerful
for the pre-K students. They were also able to watch their older partners model writing
skills and they felt a self-worth in having their ideas put on paper. Each child, pre-K and
lst-grade, was able to participate at his own developmental level. The 1st graders gained
tremendous self-esteem by being the expert in the eyes of their partners. While the teachers
did not do any specific analysis of dialogue or writing skills, their observations of the
collaborative work provides us with a base for further research.
McCarthy (1989) examined dialogue which occurred while children in a lst-grade
classroom were engaged in collaborative writing activities. Similar to the work of Daiute
(1986), Daiute and Dalton (1988,1993) and Dale (1994a, 1994b), McCarthy has analyzed
the conversational strategies and content of student collaborative talk. She used both
qualitative and quantitative analyses to define the dialogue. Conversational strategies were
divided into three categories: (a) praise, (b) asking or answering questions, and (c)
challenging or defending statements. The content of the student questions or responses to
the partner were categorized as focusing on ideas such as plot, character, events or on
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mechanics and logistics such as how many pages or “Can I see the pictures?” The
researcher defined a unit of talk as a complete thought expressed by a student other than
actually reading the text. The unit might be one sentence or several sentences. Each time the
other student began to talk, a unit of talk was completed. Each unit was coded for both
conversational strategy and type of content. Dialogues were coded and analyzed for three
different times of the school yean October, December and May. McCarthy found that the
talk between collaborators in October was very limited. The focus was on giving praise
(50%) and few challenging questions or comments were made (6%). In May, there was no
praise being given but students spent 45% of the talk on challenging and defending. As the
year progressed the talk seems to have become less conciliatory and more challenging. In
October, students spent only 50% of the talk on ideas and 50% on mechanics. By May, the
amount of time spent on the ideas had increased to 85% and the mechanics and logistics
talk had decreased to 15% of the time. The shift to a more challenging type of dialogue
lends credence to the concept of cognitive conflict and its role in assisting students to grow
in their writing.
McCarthy (1989) also made qualitative observations about the content of the
dialogues. She observed that the students took a much more active role in the discussions
in May. The talk in October was about very general aspects of the writing. In May, the
dialogues focused on specific ideas and more complex issues about the writing. McCarthy
states that the study is limited. There is no analysis of the written products and only three
writing sessions were recorded. The information does, however, provide one with some
evidence that dialogue during collaboration can give some insight into the collaborative
process and the way in which students use dialogue to enrich their understanding of the
writing process.
Two other researchers, Rosaen and Hazelwood (1993), observed a 5th-grade
classroom many times during a school year while the students were involved in writer’s
workshop. Writer’s workshop is a classroom method of organizing students so they can
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
write freely and are able to meet with a partner whenever they need input or editing. The
researchers focused on the conversations between two girls who collaborated for the entire
school year during the writer’s workshop sessions. The conversations were divided into
parts by identified places in the conversation where the texture of the conversation
changed. Each part was analyzed and labeled for both social and academic content.
Collaboration was conceptualized with three components: (a) shared definition of the
situation by both participants, (b) shared goals, and (c) feelings of positive
interdependence.
Expert-Novice Pardigm
The research on experts and novices provides some foundation for a dialogue about
experts and novices working together. If one looks at expertise as a mental journey from
being a novice to becoming an expert, one can see some clues which may help us in
understanding the novice-expert relationship. Much of the research on expert-novice
relationships, focuses on the social interactions that occur between the partners while they
are collaborating. We know from the research on collaborative writing that dialogue in
which the partners engage appears to be an area which warrants further exploration. In
some early research (Simon & Chase, 1973), expert chess players were observed to infer
the kind of thinking they used to plan chess moves. It was found that expert players do not
think or plan ahead more than two or three moves just as novice players do. The difference
in their thinking lies in the quality of moves that are made and the vast number of moves
stored in the expert’s memory bank that gives the expert the advantage. Even though the
expert thinks ahead only two or three moves, the expert draws from a vast storehouse of
combinations of moves. The expert chess players see chunks of important moves rather
than individual moves. Cognitive psychologists say that this kind of expertise is developed
over time as individual pieces begin to be fit into chunks of information. As the chunks
become organized, the individual can remember and use a larger storage of information.
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tudge (1992,1996) conducted studies in which students collaborated to discover
the rule for predicting the movement of a mathematical balance beam. He found that
students who worked with a partner whose thinking was more advanced or expert gained
the most benefit from the expert-novice association. In some cases, the expert partner made
the most gain when the novice partner was able to be persuaded that the reasoning of the
expert was acceptable. Tudge and Rogoff (1989) say that this may be explained by
Vygotsky’s position that more novice children may benefit from the distance in
understanding which occurs between the partners. If the novice and expert do not share
“intersubjective understanding” (p. 1377) the dialogue creates a situation in which both
partners must convince the other of the understanding. Tudge defines intersubjective
understanding as shared meaning which the partners have agreed upon during their
dialogue. Tudge and Rogoff (1989) state that it was helpful to have a partner who was
more advanced but the collaboration alone was not the reason for growth for the novice or
for the expert. “The more competent partner needed to introduce reasoning into the
discussion at a level appropriate to his or her thinking” (p. 1376). If the more expert
partner in this situation could convince the novice to accept the expert’s reasoning, growth
occurred for both partners in some instances. Tudge readily admits that the findings are
inconclusive and need further study but this thinking provides an avenue for observing
expert-novice dyads through another lens.
In a study with kindergarten expert and novice Lego builders, Azmitia, Lopez,
Fraley, Lum and Short (1991) explored the Vygotskian zone of proximal development.
The researchers were concerned that, unlike adult experts, children experts might not
provide good guidance and therefore, would not promote learning for either individual in
the dyad. They found, however, that the best learning for both individuals occurred when
the expert was not too advanced from the novice. This same conclusion was reached by
Daiute (19867) and Daiute and Dalton (1988,1993). In this type of situation the students
verbally negotiated for the responsibility of solving the problem. When verbal agreement
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was reached, growth was made by both partners. The researchers did suggest that much
more research should be done in this area before final decisions are made concerning the
expert-novice relationship with students younger than 6 or 7 years old.
In an earlier study, Azmitia (1988) studied groups of 5-year old students in three
settings: children alone, children with the same ability (either both expert or both novice),
and children with unlike ability (one expert and one novice). The researchers sought to
answer three questions: (a) does interactive problem solving lead to greater learning than
solitary problem solving? (b) do the benefits accrued from interaction generalize to
children’s subsequent individual performance? and, (c) what are the features of interaction
that promote learning? Each group learned complex tasks through methods which resulted
in their selection into one of the three groups. It was found that guidance by an expert
proved to be an effective method for learning. Experts working with novices both made
more progress than children who worked alone or children who worked with equally
competent partners. Experts provided guidance and modeling for novices through
explanations and demonstrations. Experts spent more time observing the progress of the
novice. The researchers caution that more research needs to be conducted in this area but
they did suggest that the expert-novice association had benefits for both expert and novice.
Several researchers have studied the kind of dialogue that occurs between expert
and novice partners and the relationship of that dialogue in which experts engage while
they are planning and problem solving. Biemiller and Meichenbaum (1992b) have studied
the behaviors of the self-regulated learner in an attempt to characterize expert behavior in
children and its implications for the classroom setting. They found that self-directed child
learners have cognitive development and skill development that allow them to self
dialogue. These “elementary experts” can verbalize the activity in which they are engaged
which can be helpful information for more novice learners. Novice learners, on the other
hand, are still struggling cognitively and do not have much mental energy left over for
verbal thought Biemiller and Meichenbaum (1992b) suggest that all children could learn if
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the learning activities were given to them at their expert level. The learners would then have
the opportunity to engage in verbal thought which is one part of metacognition. The verbal
thought that takes place during an expert-novice relationship helps the novice understand
the thinking of the expert The practicing of the information during dialogue helps the
expert further reinforce his own understanding.
In another study, Biemiller and Meichenbaum ( 1992a) suggest that children move
from novice to expert through a “mastery continuum” consisting of four phases:
acquisition, early consolidation, late consolidation, and independent mastery. During
acquisition the learner does not have a good sense of the task or when it is to be used. The
learner needs specific direction and prompting from the teacher or an expert student.
During early consolidation the learner begins to know the task when given specific prompts
from a teacher or another expert student. It is during late consolidation that a learner begins
to respond to more indirect verbal advice such as “What do you think you should do next?”
(Biemiller and Meichenbaum, 1992a, p. 13). Finally, at the independent mastery stage, the
learner becomes an expert with the cognitive capacity to serve as an expert. Biemiller and
Meichenbaum (1992a) indicate that in classrooms where the association between novice
and expert is allowed to develop there is an opportunity for “engaging in task-directive
speech...” (p. 8). The interactive dialogue provides an avenue for the expert child to
verbalize the task and thus, practice the task. The expert also gains by practicing the
dialogue needed to verbalize the task. More able children are often designationed as experts
by their teachers. However, the researchers state that all children can acquire expert status
through meaningful dialogue with “elementary experts” or student experts.
An area of instruction which simulates the expert-novice relationship is reciprocal
teaching which was first developed by Palincsar and Brown (1984). Biemiller and
Meichenbaum (1992a) refer to reciprocal teaching as one method for developing children’s
expert skills through dialogue. In reciprocal teaching, students are taught how to act like
teachers by asking questions of the partner. They are taught to ask generating questions
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
about the content, to summarize the content, to clarify the major points and to predict
upcoming content As children gain proficiency, the teacher plays a minor role, allowing
the students to become the experts. Since both students in the partnership take turns being
the expert gains are equally significant for both students. Each student is allowed the
opportunity to become more expert through the reciprocal teaching roles.
In their discussion of recent developments with reciprocal teaching, Palincsar,
Random and Derber (1988) talk about their own studies of reciprocal teaching. They found
that there were significant gains in achievement for both students in a reciprocal teaching
arrangement. In fact, the students in a reciprocal teaching situation gained more than
students who only had student-teacher interactions. While there is much research still to be
conducted on reciprocal teaching and its benefits for both partners, it does seem to be an
effective way to provide students with the opportunity for dialogue that simulates the
expert-novice dialogue discussed above.
Research in collaborative writing provides insight into the expert-novice
relationship. Daiute (1986), and Daiute and Dalton (1988,1993) have investigated the
intricacies of collaborative writing between learners and specifically the nature of the talk
that occurs during collaboration. The studies indicate that the collaboration does involve
“productive cognitive conflict” (Daiute, 1988, p. 265) but the talk of the more expert
partners is not the same talk as that of an adult expert. The novice student is more tuned to
the talk of the expert student than the talk of the teacher. The talk is more fun and provides
an occasion for the expert, as well as the novice, to verbally question his own thinking.
The collaboration is best served when the partners differ enough to label one student as an
expert and the other as a novice.
Further study by Daiute and Dalton (1993) found that during expert-novice
collaboration the expert uses reflective talk and metacognidve skills to manage the process
of writing for the collaborators. Much like during play, there is a “spontaneous creation of
meaningful context” (p.287) that occurs. While both researchers feel that there is promising
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
information that has been gained by analyzing collaborative talk, further research is needed
to identify the nature of the best arrangement for experts and novices that will have the
most benefit for the learners. The foundation that the researchers have established is one
upon which the writer’s future research may be based and provides a promising direction
for the development of more appropriate classroom situations.
Duran and Gauvain (1993) have been interested in the effects of age versus
expertise in aiding the development of children’s collaborative planning skills. In their
study, 7-year old expert planners were paired with 5-year old novice planners. Their
planning skills were compared to the planning skills of pairs of same-grade experts or pairs
of same-grade novices. The activities used a drawing of a village. Students were asked to
plan deliveries of five items as they relate to various places in the drawing. Duran and
Gauvain found that learning was found to be best when same-grade children, one novice
and one expert worked together. In these situations novices were more task involved and
received better guidance from same-grade experts. Duran and Gauvin suggest that the
results may be due to the slight dissonance between novice and expert same-grade children,
thus supporting Vygotksy’s zone of proximal development The results may also be
evidence to support the concept that collaboration is a social, and as well as an academic,
enterprise. The researchers did speculate as to whether or not the results were specific to
the age group. Older children and adults may benefit more from older experts because they
are more interested in self-evaluation than are younger children. The researchers left this
question for further study.
Tharp and Gallimore (1988) state that through collaboration, children produce
satisfactory solutions to problems that they could not solve alone. Further, the active
involvement of the child is crucial to the development of the child’s cognitive skills within
the zone of proximal development Cazden and Mehan (1989) suggests that the classroom
should be structured so that students can work together in small interdependent teams, and
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
heterogeneous grouping where sophisticated learners are placed with less sophisticated
learners.
The less sophisticated learners may benefit from observing and participating with
role models who are more competent on the assigned task. In response to criticism that,
while less sophisticated learners may benefit from participation with more sophisticated
learners, advanced students suffer by being held back, we need only echo the age-old
adage: Those who teach learn best. Further more, since instruction in higher groups seems
to involve students in more of the whole task... mixing students of different abilities
exposes less sophisticated learners to the entire spectrum of learning (Cazden & Mehan,
1989, p. 53). Much recent expert-novice research has examined the reading achievement of
novices who worked with more expert partners. In a study by Rekrut (1992), high school
students received instruction in story grammar and its use as a recall strategy. The tutors
then taught the strategy to 4th- and 5th-grade students. The tutoring continued twice a week
for six weeks. One control group received instruction in the strategy but did not tutor
anyone in the use of the strategy; a second control group did not receive instruction or teach
the strategy to others. All three groups were pretested and posttested on their knowledge of
story grammar and its mnemonic utility. Rekrut reported significant differences between
the test results of the strategy and the comparison groups. The results suggest that when
tutors learn something and then teach it to others, the learning is reinforced for the tutor,
thus increasing their academic achievement in that area of instruction.
Some of the research on cross-age tutoring provides a look at the expert-novice
relationship. Students in a New York City high school tutored underachieving elementary
students in reading. After six months the reading scores of the tutors jumped by two years,
more than the scores of the tutees (Cloward, 1976), although the tutees also improved.
(Howard suggests that the tutoring or expert role was the contributory factor which helped
improve the scores of the tutors.
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A group of New York City high school students were recruited to tutor younger
students. The program, termed reciprocal tutoring, was supported by the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation to prevent students from dropping out of school. Tutors and tutees made
significant social gains. Tutors and tutees gained more confidence and had fun in the
process. The tutees’ grades improved significantly and they “demonstrated a better
understanding of the course material” (Gartner & Riessman, 1994, p. 59). As students
were tutored, they learned how to become tutors. Their motivation to learn increased as
they prepared for being tutors.
There are promising research results which suggest that collaboration between
expert and novice students has benefits for both partners but the results are not definitive, it
is still unclear what the cognitive benefits are for the expert in such a relationship. The
opportunity for further research is unlimited. The nature of the dialogue between expert and
novice student seems to be an area of much needed investigation. Further study in this area
may reveal a better understanding of the cognitive benefits for both partners and what the
dialogue does to promote learning.
Research which focuses on the processes used by novice and expert writers to
complete writing tasks complement the knowledge accumulated about collaborative writing
and expert-novice thinking. Several studies have evaluated specific programs which are used
to move novice writers toward becoming an expert writer. Not surprisingly, many of the
studies found that expert writers engage in one form or another of self-discourse or group
dialogue to help them develop their writing.
Students who are at-risk for failure often lack the social or cognitive skills necessary
to be successful writers. Somewhere during the intellectual development of an at-risk child,
there have been gaps in the opportunity for the child to see good models of writing, to
articulate with others about writing, and to experience success in writing. Writing is a
difficult and complex task that is best addressed as a problem-solving activity which requires
that students have strategies, skills, and appropriate knowledge to be successful. Bryson and
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scardamalia (1991) compared novice writers to expert writers to get a depiction of the
processes used by novice and expert writers and how they differ. They call the writing and
thinking that novice writers engage in knowledge-telling or telling what one knows. This
means that the novice writer begins writing immediately retrieving only the information that
is provided by topic identifiers and discourse knowledge. The writing is based on recall
knowledge without epistemic or metacognitive processing. The writer simply produces genre
appropriate information.
Expert writers, on the other hand engage in dialogue with themselves about what to
say and how to say if Such writers solve content and rhetorical problems interactively. Their
thinking aloud provides the discovery of new learning and is often recursive. The work of
the expert writer is much more complex than that of the novice writer. Bryson and
Scardamalia (1991) used their understanding of novice and expert writers to evaluate 10th-
grade student specific writing environment called M.U.S.E. The students were classified as
achieving students or severely reading-disabled students. The students in the experimental
group received instruction in strategy-based instruction, modeling of expert-like thinking and
procedural facilitation. The strategies which were most effective in helping novice writers
grow toward becoming epistemic expert writers were those strategies which provided
students with the opportunity to engage in active learning, imitating, practicing, discourse,
and scaffolding by students who are slightly more expert More expert writers can provide
scaffolding for less expert writers in classroom situations which support collaboration
between experts and novices. Expert writers can provide modeling which can be imitated by
novices. The best modeling takes the form of “thinking aloud” while engaging in cognitive
processing. Bryson and Scardamalia (1991) conclude that expert-like writing strategies are
best learned in “social contexts that provide elaborate support for, and modeling of, expert
like composing” (p. 55).
The research clearly supports the advantages of collaborative writing as opposed to
individual writing. Writing is a dynamic, complex, and interactive process. The individual
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
writer must sort out many levels of interaction during the process of writing. Writing is far
from a linear process. Writing involves thinking about plot, character, character interaction,
dialogue, mechanics, audience, language and other intricacies. Writers must constantly
challenge themselves to think of new and better ideas, to rethink the writing process, and to
stay with the process to the completion of a piece of work. The process of writing is
recursive; the same ideas may need to be visited and revisited several times until an idea
that is right for a piece is found. We have seen that expert writers have certain
characteristics which are benchmarks to be used to help facilitate the developing writing of
novice writers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Chapter 3
Methodology
Intnxtoctfop
This study focused ou the writing performance of 2nd and 4th graders in a multiage
classroom. Six research questions were formulated. These questions are
1. Does the older student make equal or greater gains in writing performance
compared to the younger student in a cross-age collaborative writing
setting?
2. Do the cross-age collaborative pairs do better than the single-grade pairs in
the same multiage classroom?
3. Is there a greater gain in writing scores when comparing the score gains of
studeots in the multiage class to students in the entire school district?
4. Is there a greater gain in writing scores when comparing the pretest and
posttest scores of students in the study to students in the five GATE
alternative schools in the school district?
5. Is there a gender difference in scores in the multiage class?
Site
Lisbon Elementary School is located in south Sacramento, California in a middle-
class suburban neighborhood. The nine-year-old school is the second newest school in the
Sacramento City Unified School District, a large urban district of 52,000 students. The
student body includes neighborhood children, children from other nearby neighborhoods
whose parents have chosen Lisbon by Open Enrollment, and children who are bussed in
for purposes of integration from a low income neighborhood of mostly African-American
and Hispanic families. There are approximately 550 students in grades kindergarten
through 6th grade. The ethnic composition mirrors that of the school district with 26%
white, 37% African-American, 18% Hispanic, 17% Asian, and 2% Native American.
Lisbon has an Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) rate of 28% and does not
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
receive Title I funding or any other categorical funding except California School
Improvement (SIP) funds. Eleven percent of the students at Lisbon are English Language
Learners and they have 18 different native languages.
The multiage classroom was selected because it was the only multiage class in the
school during the 1996-97 school year. Children in this classroom were identified as gifted
and talented students. The school district also has five other school sites that are GATE
Centers for full-day gifted and talented alternative programs. Four of the centers have one
class of each grade level from 2nd grade to 6th grade; one center has one class of each
grade level 3rd to 6th grade. Students in these classes remained in their classroom with
their gifted peers all day. None of the GATE Centers have multiage classes.
Population
Lisbon Elementary School is one of the 56 elementary schools in the Sacramento
City Unified School District (SCUSD) located in Sacramento, California. SCUSD has a
population of approximately 52,000 students and is considered an urban school district
with 49.6% of the students coming from families who receive AFDC. The ethnic
composition of the district includes 24.8% Asian, 23% Black, 25% Hispanic, 25.7%
White, and 1.4% Native American students. For 35.4% of the students English is not their
primary language spoken at home and are considered English Language Learners. The
district has a few schools which have developed multiage programs but the multiage
classroom is not a common classroom configuration in the district.
Samples
Multiage Class
The pairs of collaborative writing partners were selected from a multiage class of
eleven 2nd graders, eight 3rd graders, and eleven 4th graders for a total of twenty-nine
students. Sixteen of the students in the class were female; fifteen were male. Although
Class Size Reduction was an option for California school districts in the 1996-1997 school
year, only lst-grade Gass Size Reduction was implemented by the SCUSD during this
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school year. The eleven cross-age writing pairs consisted of four female pairs, five male
pairs, and two mixed gender pairs. The eleven pairs of cross-age partners consisted of
eleven Asian students, four Hispanic students, six Caucasian students, and one African-
American student The 3rd graders were assigned to a collaborative partner in the same
grade level. The four pairs of 3rd-grade students consisted of five females and four males.
The 3rd graders consisted of two Asian students, three Caucasian students, three Hispanic
students, and one African-American student
The students were placed in two sets of collaborative writing pairs. Cross-age pairs
consisted of a 2nd grader and a 4th grader. Same-grade partners consisted of 3rd-grade
pairs. The assignment to collaborative pairs was done by the classroom teacher prior to the
beginning of the 1996-97 school year and prior to the collection of data for this study.
Originally, there were eleven pairs of cross-age collaborative partners and four pairs of
3rd-grade partners. The 2nd graders ranged in age from 6.86 years to 8.57 years and the
median age for 2nd graders was 738 years. The 3rd graders ranged in age from 7.78 years
to 9.10 years and the median age for 3rd graders was 8.42 years. The 4th graders ranged
in age from 8.71 years to 9.68 years and the median age for 4th graders was 9.24 years.
One 4th-grade student moved during the school year, leaving ten cross-age collaborative
pairs who worked together for the entire school year. The student whose partner moved
was paired with a newly enrolled student. The new pair was not included in the study
because there was no available pretest for the new student The 3rd-grade pairs remained
consistent throughout the school year.
GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) Centers
All of the available matched pretest and posttest scores from the 2nd-, 3rd-, and
4th-grade students in the five GATE centers were used in the comparison of pretest and
posttest scores for the students in the GATE Centers with the pretest and posttest scores of
the students from the multiage class. The GATE Centers included 99 second graders, 101
third graders, and 144 fourth graders.
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
District
The sample of scores used to represent the district were taken from twenty
randomly selected schools. All the available pretest and posttest matched scores from the
2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-grade students from the twenty schools were used to make
comparisons between mean gain scores for districtwide students and mean gain scores of
students from the multiage class. This sample was taken from the population described
above and included 519 second graders, 598 third graders, and 355 fourth graders.
The Teacher
The teacher of the multiage class is an outstanding teacher. She used the process
approach to writing instruction which she learned as a participant in the Northern California
Writing Project, a University of California sponsored in-service staff development program
for teachers. This teacher also received instruction in scoring student writing through
district required elementary teachers’ in-service training. In addition, the teacher serves as
the writing coach for the school. Each elementary school in SCUSD has a writing coach
who receives a stipend for serving as the coach. The writing coaches receive yearly in-
service training in using the school district rubrics for scoring the writing of primary and
intermediate students. As the writing coach, the teacher is also required to provide training
in scoring for the teachers at the school.
Instrumentation
Pretest
The pretest consisted of narratives which are part of the data collection on writing
performance required by the Sacramento City Unified School District. Each fall,
elementary students in the school district are given a writing prompt, My Wonderful Day,
which they must use to complete a narrative. Students are provided with three planning
sheets which they may use in preparation for the writing of the narrative (please see
Figures 1,2 and 3 on the next three pages).
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 1
Sacramento City Unifled Sheet #1
Accountability Office
Name:
. Date:
MY PLANNING SHEET #1
My Wonderful Day
What happened?
Why was it
special?
Where did it
happen?
MY WONDERFUL DAY
Who was involved'
You Own Ideas
How did you feell
about it? j
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 2
Sacramento City Unified School District
Accountability Office
Name:_________________________________________________________________ Date:
MY PLANNING SHEET #2
My Wonderful Day
To help you remember the time you had a wonderful day, use this space to draw anything
that helps you remember. You can draw the place where it happened, who was involved, or anything
else that helps you put the picture in your head on paper, so that you can use them for your writing.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Figure 3
Sacramento City Unifled Sheet #3
Accountability Office
Name: Date:
MY PLANNING SHEET 13
My Wonderful Day
What does it look like?
What does it sound like?
Where were you?
Who else was there?
How did you feel?
What else do you remember about that time?
What was special about it?
Posttest
in the spring of each school year, students in grades two through six are required to
complete a posttest narrative using one of the following topics: Giving a Special Gift or
Receiving a Special Gift. Planning sheets are provided for students to use in preparation
for the writing of the narrative similar to those in Figures 1,2, and 3 (please see Appendix
B for Figures 4,5, and 6).
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interviews of Students in the Cross-Age Collaborative Pairs
Student participants in the multiage class were interviewed on February 12,1998.
Only the cross-age 2nd- and 4th-grade students were interviewed because they were the
focus of the study. They were asked three questions which were designed to elicit the
students’ feelings about the collaborative writing process and the relationship with their
writing partners. The three questions were adapted from interview questions used by
Daiute (1986).
Interview Questions
1. Did you like writing with another person?
2. Would you rather work with a person of a different grade level or the same
grade level or alone?
3. What did you learn from writing with a partner of a different age?
Procedure
Pretest Administration and Scoring
The pretests of the multiage class were administered individually on September 10,
1996 before students were told about the collaborative writing partners and process. The
pretests of the district sample and GATE Centers students were administered between
September 6 and September 15,1996, the time period required by the school district.
There was no limit in the amount of time in which the narratives must have been
completed. The narratives of students in 2nd grade were scored using the six point rubric
shown in Table 1.
The 3rd- and 4th-grade students were given the same writing prompt but their
narratives were scored using three holistic scores from a rubric: a) ideas and content, b)
organization, and c) conventions (see Table 2 on pages 64 - 66). Each element could
receive a holistic score from 1 to 5 giving each narrative a possible score of 3 to 15 points.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1
Elementary Scoring Guide. Grades 1-2 Sacramento City Unified School District____________________
6: Exceptional Achievement
• Develops topic with clearly defined details as well as some examples and/or reasons
• Details are exact and relevant
• Displays definite organizational plan, beginning, supporting details, ending
• Uses a variety of sentence structures, including correct subject/verb agreement
Displays control over vocabulary choice and word arrangement
• Commits few errors in conventions and spelling
Logical relationship stated clearly between situation and plausible effects
5: Commendable Achievement
• Develops topic around a central idea
Details are clearly related to the topic
• Displays clear organization, ending may be brief
Uses complete, varied sentences
Selects vocabulary appropriate for the writing
• Commits few errors in conventions and spelling
Relationship stated between situation and effects
4: Adequate A chievem ent
• Develops topic with simple details
May contain examples or reasons, not always exact
• Exhibits some organizational plan, often one long paragraph
Uses some sentence variety, though may include fragments and/or run-ons
• Begins use of precise vocabulary
• Commits occasional convention and spelling errors
• Includes some effects, but not always plausible or logical
3: Minimal Evidence of Achievement
• Includes minimal topic development, may merely list ideas
• Little elaboration or precise details
Attempts to group related ideas, little organizational plan or paragraphing
• Simple complete sentences, little variety, many fragments and/or run-ons
Some descriptive words
• Commits many convention and spelling errors
Little, if any, relationship between situation and effects
2: Inadequate Evidence of Achievement
• Fails to develop the topic
Statements may be vague and confusing
Beginning, little or no supporting details or elaboration
Simple sentence structure, many fragments and or runons
Simple, limited vocabulary
• Inconsistent use of conventions, may be confusing or include glaring spelling errors
No logical relationship between situation and effects
1: No Evidence of Achievement
• Fails to develop the topic, reader may have to infer meaning
Lacks sentence sense, may include garbled syntax
No sense o f forward movement
Limited vocabulary
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2
____________________________ Analytical Scoring Guide. Grades 3 - 6
IDEAS AND CONTENT
5: This paper is dear, focused. It holds the reader's attention. Relevant anecdotes and details enrich the
central theme or story line. (Advanced)
• ideas are fresh and original
• The writer seems to be writing from knowledge or experience and shows insight: an understanding
of life and a knack for picking out what is significant.
• Relevant, telling, quality details give the reader important information that goes beyond the
obvious or predictable.
• The writer develops the topic in an enlightening, purposeful way that makes a point or tells a
story'
• The writer seems in control and develops the topic in an enlightening, purposeful way that makes
a point or tells a story
• Every piece adds something to the whole
4: This paper is clear and focused even though some relevant details may be lacking. (ftcfidsl/‘ Gta±LRd)
• The writer's purpose is clear.
• The topic is completely developed although more details would enhance it
• The writer draws on his/her own knowledge and experience with some specific observations or
thoughts.
• Ideas are clear with some evidence of detailed, personalized expansion.
• Support for the central theme or storyline is evident
3: The paper is clear and focused. The topic shows promise, even though development is still limited,
sketchy or general. (Basic)
• It is pretty easy to see where the writer is headed, though mote information is needed to "fill in the
blanks."
• The writer does seem to be writing from experience, but has difficulty going from general
observations to specifics
• Ideas are reasonably clear, though they may not be explicit, detailed, personalized, or expanded
enough to show in-depth understanding ora strong sense of purpose.
• Support is attempted but doesn't go far enough yet in fleshing out the main point or storyline.
• Details often blend the original and the predictable.
2: The writer is beginning to define a topic, but does not remain focused on it The paper may be
incomplete. (Below Basic)
• The writer may ramble, distort, or stray from the topic. A little support is provided for the central
theme or storyline.
• A few ideas are presented clearly.
• A few sentences address the topic, but incompletely.
I: As y et the paper has no clear sense of purpose or central theme. To extract meaning from the text the
reader must make inferences based on sketchy details. The writing reflects more than one of these
problems: (Below Basic)
• The writer is still in search of a topic, or has not begun to define the topic in a meaningful,
personal way.
• Information is very limited or unclear.
• The text may be repetitious, or may read like a collection of disconnected, random thoughts.
• Everything seems as important as everything else; the reader has a hard time sifting out what's
critical.
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ORGANIZATION
5: The organization enhances and showcases the central idea or storyline. The order, structure, or
presentation of information is compelling and moves the reader though the text (Advanced)
• Details seem to tit where they're placed; sequencing is logical and effective.
• An inviting introduction draws the reader in; a satisfying conclusion leaves the reader with a sense
of resolution.
• Pacing is well controlled; the writer knows when to slow down and elaborate, and when to (nek up
the pace and move on.
• Thoughtful transitions clearly show how ideas connect
• Organization flows so smoothly the reader hardly thinks about it
4: The organizational structure is strong enough to move the reader through the text without confusion.
(Proficient/Grade Level)
• The introduction and conclusion provide the reader with a framework for understanding the text
• Sequence is consistently logical.
• Pacing is well controlled with minor lapses, if any.
• Transitions work well; connections are clear between most parts of the paper
• Despite a few problems, the organization generally serves to move the reader through the paper.
3: The organizational structure moves the reader through most of the text but creates some confusion.
(Basic)
• The paper has a recognizable introduction and conclusion.
• The introduction may not create a strong sense of anticipation; conclusion may not leave the reader
with a satisfying sense of resolution.
• Sequencing is usually logical, but may sometimes be so predictable that the structure takes
attention away from the content
• Pacing is fairly well controlled, though the writer sometimes spurts ahead too quickly or spends
too much time on the obvious.
• Transitions often work well; at other times, connections between ideas are fuzzy or call for
inferences.
2: The writing begins to show limited direction. The writer is beginning to use some organizational
elements in his/her writing though in a limited way. (Below Basic)
• The writer provides a very limited introduction to the topic.
• Sequencing begins to emerge in the writing, but is not consistent in the paper.
■ Pacing is uneven through the paper.
1: The writing lacks a clear sense of direction. Ideas, details or events seem strung together in a random,
haphazard fashion-or else there is no identifiable internal structure at all. More than one of the
following problems is evident: (Below Basic)
• Sequencing needs work.
• There is no real lead to set up what follows; no real conclusion to wrap things up complete.
• Pacing feels awkward; the writer slows to a crawl when the reader wants to get one with it, and
vice versa.
• Connections between ideas are confusing or missing.
• Problems with organization make it hard for the reader to get a grip on the main point or
storyline.
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CONVENTIONS
S: The writer demonstrates a good grasp of standard writing conventions (e.g. grammar, capitalization,
punctuation, usage, spelling, paragraphing) and uses conventions effectively to enhance readability.
Errors tend to be so tew and minor that the reader can easily overlook them unless hunting tor them
specifically. (Advanced)
• Paragraphing is sound and reinforces the organizational structure.
• Grammar and usage are correct and contribute to clarity and style.
• Punctuation is accurate and guides the reader through the text
• Spelling is consistently correct even on more difficult words.
• The writer may manipulate conventions— particularly grammar— for stylistic effect
4: The writer demonstrates a good grasp of standard writing conventions, (e.g. grammar, capitalization,
punctuation, usage, spelling, paragraphing) and uses them to support readability. Errors do not
significantly interfere with meaning, or there may be one or two distracting errors. (Proficient/Grade
Level)
• Paragraphing is successful in most parts of the paper.
• Terminal (end of sentence) punctuation is almost always correct Internal punctuation (commas,
apostrophes, semicolons) are usually correct when used.
• Grammar and usage almost always correct
• Spelling is consistently correct possibly with a few errors on more difficult words.
• Minimal editing would be required to polish the text for publication.
3: The writer shows reasonable control over a limited range of standard writing conventions. Conventions
are sometimes handled well and enhance readability; at other times, errors are distracting and impair
readability. (Basic)
• Paragraphing is attempted. Paragraphs sometimes run together or begin in the wrong place.
• Spelling is usually correct (or reasonably phonetic) on common words.
• Problems with grammar or usage are not serious enough to distort meaning.
• Moderate editing would he required to polish the text for publication.
2: The writer is beginning to develop control over a limited range of conventions. Generally, errors related
to conventions distract or impair readability. (Below Basic)
• The writer makes a few attempts at using paragraphs to organize his/her paper.
• The paper contains serious mechanical errors which interf ere with meaning
• Some terminal punctuation is present, but no internal punctuation. Some common words are
spelled correctly (or phonetically).
• Extensive editing would be required to polish the text for publication.
1: Errors in spelling, punctuation, usage and grammar, capitalization and/or paragraphing repeatedly
distract the reader and make the text difficult to read. The writing reflects more than one of these
problems: (Below Basic)
• Paragraphing is missing, irregular, or so frequent (e.g. every sentence) that it has no relationship
to the organizational structure of the text
• The reader must read once to decode, then again for meaning.
• Spelling errors are frequent, even on common words.
• Errors in grammar and usage are very noticeable, and may affect meaning.
• Punctuation (including terminal punctuation) is often missing or incorrect
• Extensive editing would be requited to polish the text for publication._________________________
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To compare the scores of 2nd graders with the scores of 3rd and 4th graders, the
holistic scores were converted to percentage scores. The 2nd-grade percentages were
calculated using a possible 6 of 6 points; the 3rd- and 4th-grade percentages were
calculated using a possible 15 of 15 points. The rubric scoring of the multiage class
narratives was done by a classroom teacher at the same grade level and the researcher.
Interrater reliability was high. The school district requires that each student’s paper must be
scored by two teachers or one teacher and an administrator who collaborate after
individually scoring each narrative and agree on a final score for each child’s paper. The
teachers have been trained in the process of holistic scoring and score calibration by the
writing coach and at district in-service training.
Collaborative Writing Instruction and Process
Before the school year began in August 1996, the multiage teacher assigned the
students to writing partners. The teacher paired 2nd graders with 4th graders and 3rd
graders with 3rd graders. The teacher developed a collaborative writing and editing process
termed the “Writing Club”. The teacher provided weekly whole-class instruction in the
writing process which included editing, sentence structure, grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and creativity in writing. The Writing Club directions, shown in Table 3,
were discussed and reviewed at each whole-class session. The whole-class sessions
always preceded a collaborative writing session. The content of each whole-class session
was based on the needs of the group which the teacher observed during the collaborative
writing sessions and during her individual sessions with each child. Following each
whole-class session, students worked individually or collaboratively to compose and edit
their work.
Students began the writing of a narrative by either choosing their own topic or by
choosing from among several topics provided by the teacher. Students then met with their
collaborative partner to discuss their chosen topic and to begin m aking a plan on a pla n n in g
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sheet provided by the teacher (Figure 4). Although they collaborated to share their topics
and ideas, each student completed their own planning sheet and narrative.
_________________________________________Table 3_______________________________________
Writing Qub Directions Step-by-Step
1. Choose a topic
2.
Make a plan: Talk with writing partner make a planning sheet
3. First draft: write it all down
4. Revise: Work with your partner using question/comment sheet
5. Listen to their advice and take notes
6. Second draft: Polish your writing using input from your partner
7. Conference with Mrs. 1 1 or a parent
8. Publish, illustrate, present You will be proud of your finished work and ready to share it
with anyone.
9. Return to step 1
Figure 4
QUESTION/COMMENT SHEET
Author of Paper_____________________________________
Partner/Reviewer____________________________________
Date______________________________________________
Title of Paper_______________________________________
Things I like________________________________________
Things I think you could do to improve the paper
Check the spelling o f________________________
Other comments:____________________________
Use these symbols on the paper
sp. = check spelling
n = new paragraph
? = make it dear, I don’t understand
f > = expand, make a super sentence
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
After planning and sharing with the partner, each student wrote a first draft of the
narrative without collaboration. Students were then expected to seek the comments or
suggestions of the writing partner, and were free to collaborate whenever they desired. The
partner wrote comments, questions, and suggestions on the Question/Comment Sheet
(Figure 4). The partners then discussed the information on the Questions/Comment Sheet.
At this step partners might have discussed both of their narratives or the narrative of only
one of the partners. The partner who was given questions and comments listened to the
advice of the other partner and took notes. The writer then returned to his own draft, used
the advice of the partner, and wrote a second draft During revision, students were free to
collaborate with the partner as many times as they wished.
After completing the second draft students were required to meet with the teacher.
The teacher discussed corrections including spelling, mechanics, sentence structure,
grammar, punctuation, and content In some cases, the student was asked to make
corrections and return to meet with the teacher again before publishing the narrative.
Students were also free to continue to seek the advice of the writing partner before
publishing the final copy of the narrative and before meeting with the teacher for final
approval.
During Writing Club, when the teacher was not meeting with an individual student
or a writing pair, she circulated through the room making note of the needs of individual
students, redirecting the attention of those students who were off task, and answering
questions which might arise from the collaborative sessions of the writing partners.
Lisbon Elementary School follows an eariyflate scheduling for prim ary grades.
Some students start school at 8:10 a.m. and leave school at 1:28 p.m. The remainder of
each primary class starts school at 9:10 a.m. and leaves at 2:38 p.m. During the early or
late class sessions, 8:10-9:10 a.m. or 138- 2:38 p.m. the teacher has only half of the
class. In the multiage class, after the second week of school, the 2nd-grade students were
assigned to the early class, 8:15 to 9:10 a.m. and the 3rd graders were assigned to the late
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
class, 1:38 - 2:38 p.m. Writing Club was done during the eariy/late periods on
Wednesdays and Fridays each week. Because they were intermediate grade students, the
4th graders did not have an eariy/late schedule and attended school from 8:15 a.m. - 2:25
p.m. They worked on Writing Club assignments during the early class session with the
2nd graders. During the late class session, the 4th graders worked on social studies and did
not interact with the 3rd-grade writing collaborators.
Posttest Administration and Scoring
The posttest narratives for the multiage class were given on May 22,1997. The
posttests for district sample and GATE Centers students were administered between May
15 and May 30, 1997. No time limit was imposed on completion of the narratives.
Posttests were scored by the same two people who scored the pretests using the same
rubrics. As with the pretest scores, the posttest scores were converted to percentages for
the purposes of comparisons between and among the scores of the three grade levels
(please see pretest administration and scoring section in Chapter 3).
Data
Pretest and posttest writing scores for each 2nd, 3rd, and 4th graders in the
multiage class were obtained. The mean of the pretest and posttest scores of the 2nd
graders as a group was obtained by finding the mean of the individual pretest and posttest
scores. The 3rd- and 4th-grade students received three individual pretest and posttest
scores for each of the three narrative elements: a) ideas and content, b) organization, and c)
conventions. The three individual scores for pretest and posttest were combined to obtain a
single pretest and posttest score for each 3rd- and 4th-grade student. Accumulative scores
ranged from 3 to 15. The average pretest score and posttest score for each group was
obtained by finding the mean pretest score and mean posttest score for each grade level.
Scores were converted to percentages for comparison purposes as described in the Pretest
Administration and Scoring section of Chapter 3.
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To assume group equivalence of the muldage class pretest writing scores an
ANOVA was performed. The ANOVA provided results for Research Questions 1 and 2
below.
Research Questioa 1:
Do the 2nd-grade students in a cross-age collaborative writing
setting of a mnltiage class score higher than their 4th-grade partners
on a writing posttest?
Null Hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between the posttest w riting scores
of 2nd and 4th graders in a mnltiage classroom.
Research Question 2:
Do students in cross-age collaborative pairs score higher on a
writing posttest than same-age collaborative writing pairs in a
mnltiage classroom?
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the posttest w riting scores
of 3rd graders in a m nltiage class who collaborate as same-grade
partners and 2nd and 4th graders from a mnltiage class who
collaborate as cross-grade partners.
Research Question 3 was designed to determine whether the multiage class scored
better than the district sample students in each of the same grade levels compared to those
in the multiage class. This research question allows for comparisons that may or may not
highlight the effectiveness of the multiage class and the collaborative writing process.
Pretest and posttest writing scores were obtained for the 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-grade students
in the district sample. The writing scores for each grade level were obtained in the same
way as those for the multiage class were obtained. That procedure is described above for
Research Questions 1 and 2. To assume group equivalence of the district sample pretest
scores an ANOVA was performed. The ANOVA provided results for Research Question 3
below.
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question 3:
Are the writing scores of the stndents at each grade level in a
mnltiage class better than the writing scores o f the stndents at the
same grade levels in a school district sample?
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the posttest scores o f the
students in a mnltiage class and the posttest scores o f stndents in the
same grade level in a school district.
Research Question 4 was designed to determine whether or not the multiage class
scored better than the other GATE students of the same grade levels who attend one of the
five GATE Centers in the district Since the multiage students are also GATE students it is
important to determine how they scored compared to the other GATE students who attend
GATE programs. This research question allows for comparisons that may or may not
highlight the effectiveness of the multiage class and the collaborative writing process.
Pretest and posttest writing scores were obtained for the 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-grade
students in the GATE Centers sample. The writing scores for each grade level were
obtained in the same way that the scores for the multiage class were obtained. That
procedure is described above for Research Questions 1 and 2. To assume group
equivalence of the GATE Centers sample pretest scores an ANOVA was performed. The
ANOVA provided results for Research Question 4 below.
Research Question 4:
Are the writing scores of the stndents at each grade level in a
mnltiage class better than the writing scores of the same grade levels
in a GATE Centers sample?
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the posttest writing scores
of stndents in the mnltiage class and the GATE Centers sample.
Interviews
The interview results were tabulated by grade level. Percentages of students who
responded to the possible answers for each question were tabulated. For each question the
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
following answers were possible: Question 1 - yes or no; question 2 - different, same, or
alone; question 3 - answers will vary. All student responses were recorded and included in
the results.
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 4
Results
Research Question Results
Question!
The means and standard deviations of the pretest, posttest, and gain scores of the
multiage students are shown in Table 4. In the following paragraphs the results of a one
way ANOVA to compare gain scores is presented.
Table 4
Pretest. Posttest, and Gain Scores for the Multiage Class
Source Pretest
MfSD)
Posttest
MfSD)
Gain
MfSD)
2nd Grade (r^lO) 57.8(15.73) 80.00(6.10) 23.00(16.42)
3rd Grade (n=8) 70.88(14.93) 82.50 (15.69) 11.63(7.89)
4lh Grade (n=10) 69.40(13.63) 8330(14.28) 13.90 (8.57)
Research Question 1:
Do the 2nd-grade students in a cross-age collaborative writing
setting of a mnltiage class score higher than their 4th-grade partners
on a writing posttest?
Null Hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between the posttest writing scores
o f 2nd and 4th graders in a mnltiage classroom .
The null hypothesis for Research Question 1 is accepted. The results of the one
way ANOVA revealed that there is no significant difference between the gain scores of the
2nd and 4th graders (F(2,25) = 2.41), p =.11)
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Question 2
Research Question 2:
Do stndents in cross-age collaborative pairs score higher on a
writing posttest than same-age collaborative writing pairs in a
mnltiage classroom?
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the posttest writing scores
of 3rd graders in a mnltiage class who collaborate as same-grade
partners and 2nd and 4th graders from a mnltiage class who
collaborate as cross-grade partners.
The one-way ANOVA used to compare scores for Research Question 1 also
indicates that the null hypothesis for Research Question 2 is accepted. There is no
significant difference among the gain scores of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th graders (F(2,25) =
2.41), p =.11).
Q u e s t i o n . 3
The means and standard deviations of the pretest, posttest, and gain writing scores
of the district sample are shown in Table 5. The means and standard deviations of the
pretest, posttest, and gain scores of the GATE Centers sample are shown in Table 6. In the
following paragraphs the results of a one-way ANOVA to compare gain scores among
samples is presented. The one-way ANOVA provides results for both Research Question 3
and Research Question 4.
TableS
Pretest. Posttest, and Gain Scores for the District Sample
Source Pretest
MfSD)
Posttest
M(SD)
Gain
MfSD)
2nd Grade (n= 519) 57.72(13.99) 64.97(15.72) 7.25(11.80)
3rd Grade (n= 598) 36.45(16.02) 46.17(19.01) 9.72 (22.35)
4th Grade (n=355) 41.65(17.85) 4430 (18.08) 2.65(10.45)
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6
Pretest. Posttest, and Gain Scores for the GATE Centers
Source Pretest
MfSD)
Posttest
MfSD)
Gain
MfSD)
2nd Grade (n=99) 6233 (16.87) 8132(11.41) 18.99(19.34)
3rd Grade (n=101) 56.72 (24.20) 57.25(17.15) - 0.53 (22.35)
4th Grade (n=144) 63.53 (18.77) 69.91 (18.46) 638(17.17)
Research Question 3:
Are the writing scores o f the students at each grade level in a
mnltiage class better than the writing scores o f the stndents at the
same grade levels in a school district sample?
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the posttest scores o f the
stndents in a m nltiage class and the posttest scores o f stndents in the
same grade level in a school district.
Research Question 4:
Are the writing scores o f the stndents at each grade level in a
mnltiage class better than the writing scores of the sam e grade levels
in a GATE Centers sample?
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the posttest writing scores
of stndents in the mnltiage class and the GATE Centers sample.
The null hypothesis for Research Question 3 and Research Question 4 for 2nd
grade is rejected. A one-way ANOVA reveals that there is a significant difference among
2nd grade gain scores of the multiage, GATE Centers, and district samples (F(37.45), p
<.05). A post hoc Scheffe test indicates that there is a significant difference between the
gain scores of the multiage 2nd graders and the district sample 2nd graders.
The null hypothesis of Research Question 3 and Question 4 for 3rd grade is also
rejected. A one-way ANOVA reveals that there is a significant difference among 3rd grade
gain scores of the multiage, GATE Centers, and district samples (F( 14.95), p <.05). A
post hoc Scheff6 test indicates, however, that there is only a significant difference between
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the gain scores of the district sample 3rd graders and the GATE Centers sample 3rd
graders.
The null hypothesis of Research Question 3 and Research 4 for 4th grade is
rejected. A one-way ANOVA reveals that there is a significant difference among 4th grade
gain scores of the multiage, GATE Centers, and district samples (F(7.60), p <.Q5). A post
hoc SchefifS test indicates that there is a significant difference between the gain scores of the
multiage 4th graders and the district sample 4th graders.
Gender
Of tangential interest is the question of gender differences in pretest and posttest
scores in the multiage class. Table 7 shows the means and standard deviations of the
pretest and posttest writing scores for the multiage class by grade and by gender. Studies
(Engelhard, Walker, Gordon, & Gabrielson, 1994; Beminger & Fuller; 1992) indicate that
elementary age females generally score better than their male counterparts on writing
assignments. The group sizes of the multiage class are too small to warrant further
statistical analysis on each grade level; however, it should be noted that the females scored
better than the males on all three grade levels on the pretest and the posttest These results
are consistent with previous research.
Table 7
Pretest and Posttest scores bv gender for the multiage class
Pretest_______________________ Posttest
Grade I -evd Male
MfSD)
Female
MfSD)
Male
MfSD)
Female
MfSD)
- >
(n = 6) (n = 4) (0=6) (n = 4)
49.00(13.67) 71.00 (6.63) 78.33 (7.53) 82.50 (5.00)
3 (n = 3) (n = 5) (n = 3) (n = 5)
6233 (16.62) 76.00(12.83) 75.67(19.63) 86.60(13.50)
4 (n = 4 ) (n = 6) (n = 4) (n = 6)
61.75 (13.62) 74.50 (12.05) 76.75 f 16.17) 87.67(1236)
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interviews
The results of the interviews are summarized in Table 8. The interview questions
and answers are shown in Appendix A. The majority of the students in both 2nd grade and
4th grade said that they liked collaborating with another student during writing. Eight-nine
percent (eight out of nine) of the 2nd graders and the same ratio of 4th graders liked
collaborating with a partner for writing. Only one 2nd grader said that she didn’t like
working with another student
When asked if they would prefer to work with, a different-age partner, a same-age
partner, or alone, 56% of the 2nd graders and 44% of the 4th graders indicated that they
would like to work with a partner of a different age. Forty-four percent of the 2nd graders
stated that they would prefer to work alone, with the same age, or it didn’t matter. The 4th
graders were more divergent in their interest in working with younger student
For the responses to question 3 regarding the nature of the partner’s help, all but one 2nd
grader responded with answers related to the mechanics of writing, while all but one 4th
grader responded with answers related to narrative topics and content.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
Interview Responses
Table 8
A. Interview Question 1: D id you like w riting w ith another person?
Grade Level Yes No Som etim es
2nd 8 1
4th 8 1
B . Interview Question 2: W ould you rather w ork w ith a person o f a different grade level sam e grade
___________________________ level, or alone?_______________________________________________
Grade Level D ifferent Age Sam e A ge A lone D oesn’ t M atter
2nd 5 1
2
1
4th 4 4 1
C. Q uestion 3: What did you learn from w riting w ith a partner o f a different grade level?
Grade Level Substance of comments
Mechanics Content
2nd * spelling • make me think instead of just
* grammar telling me
* how not to say “and, and, and”
* punctuation
* capitals
* punctuation
indenting
4th * spelling • ideas
• topics
• thought of same thing
* imagination and creativity
* someone to bounce off of
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 5
Discussion, Conclusions and Implications
Summary of Findings
This study was designed to investigate the writing performance of 2nd-, 3rd-, and
4th-grade students in a multiage setting. There was no significant difference between the
writing gain scores of the students in the multiage class. However, significant differences
were found between the writing gain scores of the district sample and the GATE Centers
sample. There were also significant differences between the writing gain scores of the
multiage class when compared to the district sample students and the GATE Centers
students at grades 3 and 4. But there was no significant difference between the multiage
and GATE Centers 2nd-grade gain writing scores
Interviews of the students in the multiage class revealed the students’ interest in
working with a writing partner either of the same or a different grade level. The interviews
also gave evidence regarding the nature of the knowledge gained by students in the 2nd
grade and the 4th grade. The responses of 2nd graders centered on mechanics of writing
while the responses of the 4th graders focused on content of the narratives.
The following discussion provides a discussion of factors that may have influenced
the results. Specifically the discussion will examine the results of the study in view of the
known research about muitiage grouping, cross-age tutoring, expert-novice relationships,
and collaborative writing.
Discussion
Multiage Grouping
From the findings of this study several conclusions about multiage grouping can be
drawn. The multiage students scored better than the students in the GATE Centers and the
district sample with the exception of grade 2. Within the multiage class the 3rd grade
collaborators scored as well as the 2nd-4th grade collaborators. While the multiage sample
size is very small, especially when compared to the much larger samples of the GATE
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Centers and the district sample, the results are indicative of the success of multiage
groupings for collaborative writing.
One might also argue that because the multiage students are identified gifted
students, they would be expected to score well on a test of writing performance. If there
was no effect of membership in the multiage on writing performance, the scores of the
GATE Centers students and the multiage GATE students would not be significantly
different However, when the scores of the multiage class were compared to the scores of
the GATE Centers, the 3rd- and 4th- grade multiage students scored significandy higher.
The premise of this study which began with an expressed concern by parents that
the older students in the muldage class would not benefit academically as well as the
younger children can be dismissed. The 4th-grade students were as successful in writing as
the 2nd- and 3rd-grade students. Irrespective of the configuration of the collaborative
groups, same-grade or cross-grade, the multiage students were successful. While the gain
of the 2nd graders in the muldage class was twice that of the 3rd or 4th graders, there was
no significant difference between the gain scores for any of the grade levels of the muldage
class. The findings support the literature which indicates that muldage classes are as
effective as single-grade classes in academic achievement
In view of the results, a more interesting question than the question of comparing
the gain scores of the multiage students and the GATE Centers students, is the question of
why the GATE Centers 3rd and 4th grade students made little or no gain from fall to
spring. During the same time period the multiage 3rd and 4th graders made significant
gains. It is difficult to attribute the success of the multiage students to a single component
of the classroom environment Many factors including the teacher’s skills, the class
environment the mixture of identified GATE students, and the multiage grouping may
have contributed to the success of the multiage students. An exam ination of each of these
factors follows.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The multiage teacher was the teacher for seven of the 3rd graders and eight of the
4th graders in the previous school year, 1993-96, when that teacher had a class of 2nd and
3rd graders. It was the teacher’s decision, in discussion with the researcher (who was also
the principal of the school) to treat the split 2-3 class as a multiage class. The teacher began
to research multiage structure and curriculum and spent the 1995-96 school year refining
techniques for implementing a true multiage class. The 2nd graders and a few of the 3rd
and 4th graders were new to the muldage class in the study. Although outside of the scope
of this study, there are a number of studies which strongly support the success of students
who have the same teacher for more than one year (Mazzuchi & Brooks, 1992; Miller,
1991,1996). The teachers’ knowledge of the students’ abilities and the students’
knowledge of the class procedures may have contributed to the success of the students in
the multiage class.
The teacher’s ability to design and implement the Writing Club and maintain its
structure throughout the school year contributed to the success of the muldage writers. The
teacher selected the collaborative pairs and monitored their progress all year. The teacher
consistently met with students in whole-class discussions and individual or small group
discussions whenever necessary. The consistency of the program no doubt contributed to
the success of the students.
The support for academic success of multiage programs is shown in this study. The
strongest advocates of multiage grouping, Goodlad and Pavan (1987), would favor
multiage grouping per the results of this study. They would say that the opportunity for
developmentally appropriate curriculum, in this case, writing, was paramount in the
success of the students. The opportunities for collaboration, both same-age and cross-age,
also contributed to the success of the multiage program. The fact that the teacher used the
availability of the multiage class to implement collaborative writing with cross-age partners
also contributed to the success of the students in writing.
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
When the academic results of the study are examined through the theoretical
framework, the results of the study support the theory of Vygotsky. Vygotsky (1978) who
wrote that children stretch to learn when they associate with another student who is only
slightly more advanced, i.e., the space between their abilities is the zone of proximal
development (ZPD). The less able child will work to reach the top of the zone when
continually presented with opportunities to be with the more able student The able student
may be younger, older, or the same age, however, in most instances, the older student is
the more able. When students with differing ability levels work together dissonance is
often present One aspect of dissonance is cognitive conflict (Daiute, 1986; Dale, 1994a,
1994b; Duran and Gauvain, 1993). As stated by Dale (1994a) language is always a
struggle for students and the opportunity to vocalize their thinking provides an atmosphere
for resolving the conflict and growing academically. All but one student in the multiage
class gained in writing skills. These results lend support to the theory that the muldage
students who worked collaboradvely, regardless of differences in age, used the ZPD
created by the difference in the ages and experience of the two groups. The groups ranged
in age from 6.86 years to 9.68 years.
The ZPD often provides some cognitive conflict which may be healthy (Daiute and
Dalton, 1993). Students negotiate for resolution of the conflict when they are able to
vocalize the conflict through collaborative partnerships. They can work through the conflict
orally and find support and challenge from the partner. The older partner is able to provide
knowledge and support while reaffirming their own understandings. The younger child
reaps the benefits of the older child’s knowledge through vocalizations. In the multiage
class, students were constantly confronted with more advanced students particularly during
the collaborative writing sessions. There appears to have been the appropriate amount of
dissonance to assist the 3rd grade collaborators and the 2nd-4th collaborators to make
gains.
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Not only the academic success of the multiage class but the social aspects of the
class procedures and environment are supported. The studies of Daiute (1986), Daiute and
Dalton (1988), and Dale (1994a, 1994b) found that when students collaborate in writing,
they do not engage in sophisticated reflective talk but they do engage in playful and social
talk that does help them resolve cognitive conflict. The students in the muldage class
engaged in social dialogue during each collaborative writing session. They were able to
verbalize their thinking and draw on the strength of each other to help complete their
writing. They continually negotiated in the zone of proximal development to improve their
understanding of the skills of writing. In some cases, the students had to compromise and
negotiate for more knowledge.
From the research of Daiute and Dalton (1993) one knows that the best
collaborative arrangement includes working with a partner who is only slightly more or
less skilled. The interviews reveal much about the theoretical framework of this study.
Although the 2nd graders and 4th graders know little or nothing about cognitive
dissonance, their interview comments did reveal something about the usefulness of
cognitive dissonance in success. Students’ whose zones of proximal development were
appropriately dissonant, worked well together and succeeded in their writing. The students
who expressed a liking for working with a partner of a different age felt comfortable with
the amount of cognitive conflict and adamantly stated that they liked working with a partner
of a different age. Interestingly enough, the 2nd graders who said that working with a
partner was just O.K. (M= 25) performed better on the writing posttest on the average
than the student who resoundingly stated YES (M = 17.2). A proper amount of cognitive
conflict may be slightly uncomfortable but is viewed overall as something that assists one
to grow academically.
An analysis of the responses of the individual interviews (See Table 16) revealed
some interesting points. In response to interview question 1, all but two of the students
liked working with a partner for collaborative writing. When asked why she didn’t like
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
writing with a partner, the 2nd grader, Carrie, indicated that her 4th-grade partner was too
bossy, didn’t listen very well, and was always talking to other students instead of working
with her. Carrie stated, “A different partner might have been better.” The researcher’s
observations of the student interactions confirm Carrie’s statement. Only one 4th-grader,
Rachel, indicated that she only liked working with a partner sometimes. Rachel is the least
mature of the 4th graders in leadership skills as noted by the researcher and as indicated in
discussions with the teacher. In further discussions with the teacher the researcher learned
that Rachel may lack the skills necessary to confidently work with a younger partner. She
is often unsure of her own skills and abilities. Her partner, Jessica, while only a 2nd
grader, often has more maturity and a better knowledge of writing techniques. Jessica is
much more imaginative than Rachel. Rachel often responds to situations in which she is
unsure with vague answers. In observations of their interactions, the researcher noted that
Jessica was often more in charge of the dialogue and collaborative tasks than Rachel.
The 2nd grader, Jonathan, who stated that he would like to work with the same
grade level is an identical twin. He may prefer working with the same age because he is so
accustomed to working with his twin brother, Gregory, who stated that he didn’t know
what level he would prefer for a working partner. The twins interact frequently, are
relatively immature, and appear to make decisions only when they consult each other.
Forcing them to work with different partners may have been a difficult adjustment for
them. Jonathan made poor progress while Gregory gained in writing performance. In
discussions with the teacher, the point was made that when Jonathan and Gregory do work
together, Gregory is more of a leader than Jonathan. It may have been more of a natural
transition for Gregory to take on the role of working with a partner, than for Jonathan. In
observations by the researcher Jonathan often seemed to be unfocused and off task while
Gregory was working effectively with his partner. Jonathan also stated in the interview that
he “... didn’t like to write stuff.” He was the only student who expressed a dislike for
writing.
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cross-age and Peer Tutoring
Cross-age tutoring is another aspect of the multiage class which has support in the
literature. There is good evidence in the literature for the contribution of cross-age tutoring
to academic success. The most successful tutoring arrangements occur when the tutor is
older than the tutee, as in the case of the collaborative partners in the multiage class. The
cross-age research further supports academic success for both tutor and tutee. The results
of this study would support this claim from the literature. The students in the multiage class
who worked as cross-age partners made excellent growth in writing. The multiage class
was a natural environment for cross-age tutoring and collaboration.
The most successful cross-age tutoring arrangements are those in which both tutor
and tutee follow a prescriptive academic program. The multiage class in the study followed
the prescription of the Writing Club procedures as well as the directed teaching during the
whole-class sessions dedicated to the writing process. Anderson and Pavan (1993)
propose that the best tutoring situations are ones in which tutors are given structured tasks
to complete. The collaborative pairs in the multiage class had specific instruction in the
Writing Club procedures, a specific editing sheet to complete, and directed instruction in
the process of writing.
The opportunities for cross-age tutoring and peer tutoring in a multiage setting are
strongly urged (Stone, 1996). While the collaborative partnerships were a contrived
arrangement from the teacher, there were continual opportunities for the children to interact
formally and informally in the classroom all day. Schedules do not have to be coordinated.
Movement between classrooms does not have to occur. Katz (1990) indicates that an age
span of greater than one year provides more opportunity for enhanced learning. The
multiage class had an age span of almost 2-5 years and a grade span of two years. Katz
also states that curriculum must be designed to support the opportunities for older children
to interact with younger children. The collaborative partnerships provided such a
contingency in the muldage class.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
There is evidence from the literature that the tutors gained as well as the tutees. In
this study, the 4th graders in the multiage class gained in writing as much as their 2nd
grade partners. In the interviews the 4th graders expressed a general sense of success with
the collaborative writing. Statements from 4th graders such as “... he would help me out
He’d give me ideas and help me on what I would need to add,” “Yeah, because she gave
me ideas and helped me to think better,” ... “she had good ideas,” and “... it sort of helped
me to find my ideas. I had someone to bounce it off o f’ showed that they felt that the
collaboration was meaningful academically for them.
The social aspects of cross-age and peer tutoring can not be divorced from the
academic aspects. From the interviews of the multiage students one can see that the older
students indicated that they learned something from the younger partner. None of the older
students said that they taught the younger child or helped the younger child. The older
students had the chance to reinforce their own learning and gain insights into learning
during the process. They could be metacognitive while still learning and helping the
younger students. The best advantage of cross-age tutoring is “ ...that children are
encouraged to come to natural caring about and helping of their fellow learners —
something children are completely capable of if we create an environment that fosters this
natural inclination” (Harp, 1992, p. 99). The multiage class had the positive aspects of an
environment in which cross-age and peer tutoring could occur both formally and
informally.
Expert-Novice Relationships
The research in expert-novice relationships further enlightens the results of the
study. The expert novice research states that the expert or the novice can be older, younger,
or the same age. The expert-novice configuration works when the cognitive dissonance
between the two partners is just enough to provide an avenue for meaningful and yet
playful dialogue about the writing. The expert engages the partner in his or her own
thinking which reveals both knowledge and skills. In one instance the older student may be
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the expert, in the next instance the younger student may be the expert In some cases,
neither student was an expert and the partners negotiated with other students or with the
teacher to gain knowledge. The expert can engage in more sophisticated dialogue and often
engages in self-dialogue. When the self-dialogue can be expressed to another student who
is ready to “hear” the dialogue and has an opportunity to grow, the dialogue is meaningful
to both students. The modeling of the expert provides the novice with an example of good
writing. Scardamalia (1991) says that novice writers engage in knowledge-telling discourse
while experts engage in reflective and recursive dialogue with themselves. If they verbalize
the thinking, they provide a model for the novice writer. The opportunity for the multiage
students to engage in unlimited dialogue while writing, clearly had an effect on the writing
skills of the students. Students in single grade classes may have opportunities for
collaboration but do not readily have the advantage of working with older and younger
students.
In the multiage class, at all grade levels, many of the students are experts and some
are novices. The students noted in their interviews that the partner helped them whether the
partner was older or younger. The emphasis of their responses was on helping each other
rather than taking on the role of expert or novice. The students who expressed a dislike for
working with their partner, did not have as many opportunities for meaningful dialogue.
Ashlyn said of her partner, Alex, “I liked it but he [Alex] was quiet so we didn’t do a lot.”
Although she perceived their partnership as less than perfect, she must have provided the
right degree of expertise. Of the students who were available for interview, Alex gained
more from the pretest to the posttest than any other student (38 % gain) except Brandon.
Brandon also gained 38% and he also expressed a dislike for his partnership with Michael.
“... sometimes it was like he wasn’t paying attention to me. I had to wait a long time.” The
student who made the most gain, Thomas J., at 44% was not available for interview.
However, his partner, Kyle, expressed a dislike for his partnership with Thomas J. “Yeah,
it was O.K., I didn’t really want to work with him. If I could have picked somebody else I
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
would have like it.” The students who seemed the most uncomfortable with the relationship
may have benefited the most from the slight amount of cognitive dissonance created by the
experts’ abilities which exceeded those of the novice.
Several researchers (Azmitia, 1988; Biemiller & Meichenbaum, 1992,1992b) state
that the dialogue which occurs between expert and novice can be helpful for both expert
and novice. The expert can verbalize the activity in which they are engaged thus providing
information for the novice. At the same time the expert is engaging in verbal thought which
is a part of metacognition and an important attribute of competent learners. It should also be
noted that the talk of the expert child is not the same talk in which an adult would engage.
The child talk is more fun and provides the novice and the expert occasion to question the
thinking verbally.
Collaborative Writing
The results of the study lend support to four aspects of collaborative writing a)
beyond focus on paper, b) social and cognitive, c) peer and cross-age tutoring, d) expert-
novice paradigm. The social and cognitive aspects, peer and cross-age tutoring, and the
expert-novice paradigm have been discussed previously. There is evidence from the
students writings that they went “beyond the focus.” Many of the students in the multiage
class were able to “go beyond the focus” in their writing. Jessica (2nd grade) described
what she wore and she described each of the games at the birthday party. “I wered [wore]
short jeans and a t-sh irt... we made necklaces... we played dart gam es... then we went
outside and played a little football ...” Brandon (2nd grade) described in detail what he
saw at the circus. “ ... saw real a live [alive] dolphins and different kinds of tigers... the
people that were doing the circus had neat costumes and they did flips and funny things.”
Kyle (4th grade) used expression and first person and spoke to the reader. “What’s that?
Oh! We were going to Waterworld.” Kristen (4th grade) wrote details about who came to
the party. “When my mom, sister, Sarah, and 1 were in my house we were waiting for the
other kids to com e... the doorbell rang. It was Heather and Monique Barnes. Heather and
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Monique came in and I introduced them to Sarah.” These students clearly went beyond the
focus of the paper to give expressive descriptive information to the reader.
All but one of the students in the collaborative pairs made progress in writing. The
only student who did not make progress, Laura, had a pretest score of 80%. She did have
room for growth but it was not evident on her posttest. Laura is a mature student who was
paired with another student who is sure of herself, Kristen. They spent much of their
collaborative time socializing and supporting each other. The researcher was able to
observe their collaboration several times during the school year. It was noted that Laura
and Kristen enjoyed sharing topics for their narratives more than they liked editing and
discussing details.
A review of the responses from the third interview question provides the most
interesting observation of the collaboration in the multiage class (See Table 16). Responses
to interview question 3 fell into one of two broad categories: mechanics or content.
Mechanics included responses about spelling, grammar, structure, punctuation,
capitalization, and indentation. Content included ideas, topics, imagination, and creativity.
Every 2nd grader indicated that the 4th grader helped them with mechanics. One 2nd
grader, Jessica, stated that she was helped with mechanics and content Every 4th grader
indicated that working with the younger student had helped them with content and thinking
about the content. Of the four 4th graders who said they would like to work with a
different age partner, three of them stated reasons related to content of the story, ideas,
imagination, and topics. Of the four 4th graders who stated that they would prefer to work
with the same age partner, only one of them gave content or ideas as a reason. Three of the
four 4th graders in this group stated reasons not related to writing. The student who said
that the age of the partner didn’t matter, Kristin, is a very mature and independent student
She stated only that she wanted to work with someone “who will work or wanted to
work.” Kristin didn’t want to waste time.
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The research on collaborative writing by Dale ( 1994b) states that collaboration is a
critical part of the writing process. Writing is a process in which dissonance and inner
conflict provide opportunities for reflection and thinking. Students who are able to work
through the inner conflict verbally have an opportunity to grow as writers. The multiage
students were able to work through many inner conflicts by verbalizing their thinking
during the collaborative writing sessions. Research by Daiute (1986) indicates that the
dialogue does not have to be related to the writing process to be effective. However,
students in the multiage class who discussed the writing process on a regular basis during
collaboration did produce superior narratives. The students in the multiage class who were
less compatible with their partners may have engaged in less social talk and more serious
talk about writing. As stated earlier these students made the most growth in writing even
though they were not completely comfortable with the relationship.
Implications
The results of the study and the conclusions drawn from the results have several
implications for schooling and for further research. The results clearly indicate that the
older students in a multiage class score as well as the younger students in writing. The
prescriptive process of the Writing G ub and the collaboration procedures gave the students
numerous opportunities to grow and improve in their writing. The multiage setting is a
natural environment in which collaboration can occur. Students gain academic and social
benefits from the opportunity for collaboration. Collaboration seems to be the most
productive when students are given specific tasks within a specific structure. The Writing
Q ub procedures and the structure of the collaborative pairs is a good model for use in a
classroom, particularly a multiage classroom, where collaboration is encouraged.
The concerns of the parents of older students in a multiage setting should not be
ignored and may be addressed. Older students in the multiage setting continually grow and
mature academically and socially by their interactions with the younger students. Whether
they are acting as models, giving knowledge, or verbalizing their own thinking, they are
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
learning. Multiage classes lend a natural environment for collaboration and cross-age
tutoring. The best opportunity for collaboration on an on-going basis is the multiage
classroom. The recent resurgence of the multiage classroom indicates that the educational
community finds value in the use of multiage grouping. However, further research into the
academic success of multiage grouping must be conducted.
The research reveals the success of the collaborative work in a multiage classroom.
The gains made in writing are encouraging. Just as heartening are the positive attitudes
expressed by the students during the interviews. They viewed the collaborative process as
successful and of value in their development as a learner. Second graders and 4th graders
made sim ila r academic gains and made equally positive comments about the collaborative
process. In retrospect, it would have been valuable to interview the 3rd grade collaborative
partners to determine their attitudes and comments about the collaborative writing process.
Since they were not originally the focus of the study, they were not interviewed.
The power of the collaborative writing process may lie in the quality of the dialogue
that occurs between partners during collaboration. Although beyond the scope of this
study, further research regarding dialogue during collaboration would strengthen the
support for the collaborative process as a technique for improving the writing of both
students in a partnership. The research begun by Daiute (19986), Daiute and Dalton (1988,
1993), and Dale ( 1994a, 1994b) into the analysis of dialogue has merit for further
research. The multiage students engaged in much expert-novice talk. While there are not
specific transcripts of the dialogue which occurred between partners there is a need for
further study in the understanding of dialogue and the role it plays in collaborative work.
Further research is needed to support the academic benefits of multiage grouping.
The return to an interest in multiage grouping in the 1990s should provide many
opportunities for further research. Whenever a program change such as a move to multiage
grouping occurs, questions and concerns will arise from parents and educators. The school
or district that is able to provide definitive data and information is more likely to succeed.
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Action research and teacher research can lend support to the literature and should be
encouraged among educators who are implementing multiage programs.
Further research about the dialogue which occurs during collaborative writing also
needs to be conducted. Daiute, Dalton, and Dale have just begun to conduct thorough
research about the nature of dialogue. Although the results of this study further our
knowledge about collaborative writing in multiage settings much remains to be defined
about what makes collaboration successful for both students in a partnership.
Conclusions
In conclusion, this research investigated the writing growth of collaborative
partners in a multiage setting. The results suggest that the collaborative relationships did
help the children grow in their writing performance. Students in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade
multiage class made significant gains in writing. They did express overall positive feelings
about the experience. The research does not end here, however. It only provides one more
step toward an understanding of the complex process of writing, of working and learning
with others, and of participating successfully in a multiage setting.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
References
Achievement effects of the nongraded elementary school: A best evidence
synthesis. (1993, March/April). Review o f Educational Research* 62(4), 333-376.
Alexander, P. S. (1991). The effects o f a cross-age tutoring program on self-
concept factors o f eighth grade tutors. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State
University, Sacramento, Sacramento, California.
Allen, V. L. & Feldman, R. S. (1996). Studies on the role of the tutor. In V.L.
Allen (Ed.), Children as Teachers (pp. 113-129). New York: Academic Press.
Allison, J. & Ong, W. (1996). Advocating and implementing multi-age grouping in
the primary years. Dimensions o f Early Childhood, 26(3), 18-24.
Anderson, R. H. (1993). The return of the nongraded classroom. Principal, 72(3),
9-12.
Anderson, R. H., & Pavan, B.N. (1993). Nongradedness. Lancaster, PA:
Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.
Angeletti, S. R. (1993). Group writing and publishing: Building community in a
second-grade classroom. Language A rts, 70(6), 494-99.
Au, K. H., & Kawamaki, A. J. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In
E.R. Hollins, J.E. King, & W.C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations:
Formulating a knowledge base. (Pp. 5-24), New York: State University of New York
Press.
Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads
better than one? C hild Development, 59(1), 87-96.
Azmitia, M., Lopez, E., Fraley, A., Lum, J. & Short, S. (1991). “ Ica n do it too":
The learners ’ renegotiation o f the zone o f proxim al development. Paper presented at the
Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Belmont, J. M. (1989). Cognitive
strategies and strategic learning: The socio-instmcdonal approach. American Psychologist,
44(2), 142-148.
Baer M., Hollenstein, A., Hofstetter, M., Fuchs, M., & Reber-Wyss, M. (1994,
A pril). How do expert and novice writers differ in their knowledge o f the writing porcess
and its regulation (metacognition) from each other, and what are the differences in
m etacognitive knowledge betwen w riters o f different ages? Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Lrleans, LA. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Services No. ED 373 344)
Berger, S. L. (1990). M entor relationships and gifted learners. ERIC Digest
#E486. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 321491)
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1993). Research in Education. Seventh Edition.
Needham Heights, MA: Simon And Schuster.
Berlinger, D. (1986). How to make cross-age tutoring work. Instructor, 5, 14 -
15.
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Beminger, V. W. & Fuller, F. (1992). Gender differences in orthographic, verbal,
and com positionalfluency: Im plications fo r assessing wrting disabilities in prim ary grade
children. Journal o f School Psychology, 30,363 - 382.
Biemiller, A. & Meichenbaum, D. (1992). How task-directive dialogue changes
with mastery and capacity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service ED 350 079)
Biemiller, A. & Meichenbaum, D. (1992). The nature and nurture of the self-
directed learner. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 75-80.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational Research: An introduction. Fifth
Edition. White Bains, NY: Longman, Inc.
Borg, W. R., Gall, J. P., & Gall, M. D. (1993). Applying educational research: A
practical guide. Third Edition. W hite Plains, NY: Longman.
Boston, B. (1979). The mentor and the education of the gifted and talented. In J.
H. Orloff (Ed.) Beyond awareness: providing fo r the gifted child. Proceedings of the
Fourth Annual Northern Virginia Conference on Gifted/Tealented Education, Northern V
irginia Council for Gifted/Talented, Falls Chruch, VA., 36 - 41.
Bridge, C. A., Reitsma, B. A., W lnograd, P. N. (1992). Primary thoughts:
Implem enting K entucky’ s prim ary program . Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department of
Education.
Bruer, J. T. (1993). The mind’s journey from novice to expert. American
Educator, 17(2), 6-46.
Bryson, M. & Scardamalia, M. (1991). Teaching writing to student at risk fo r
academic failure. (Report No. UD 028 2490). (Educational Document Reproduction
Service ED 338 725).
Burke, D. L. (1996). Multi-year teacher/student relationships are a long-overdue
arrangement Phi D elta Kappan, 77(5), 360-361.
California State Department of Education. (1996). M ultigrade Handbook.
Sacramento, CA: Author.
Chapman, M. L. (1995). Designing literacy learning experiences in a multiage
classroom. Language A rts, 72(6), 416-428.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1976). Siblings teaching siblings. In V. L. Allen (ed.), Children
As Teachers (pp. 99-111), New York: Academic Press.
Cloward, R. D. (1976). Teenagers as tutors of academically low -achieving
children:Impact on tutors and tutees. In V. I. Allen (Ed.), Children as teachers (pp. 219-
229). New York: Academic Press.
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cochran, L., Feng, H., Cartledge, G., & Hamilton, S. (1993). The effects of
cross-age tutoring on the academic achievement, social behaviors, and self-perceptions of
low-achieving African-American males with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders,
18(4), 292-302.
Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A. & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of
tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237-
248.
Cohen, R., Duncan, M., & Cohen S. L. (1994). Classroom peer relations of
children participating in a pull-out enrichment program. G ifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 33-
37.
Coe, P. (1995). AEL study ofK E R A im plem entation in fo u r rural Kentucky
school districts. 1993-94 annual report. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Educational
Research and Improvement
Cotton, K. (1994). Nongraded primary education. M ultiage Learning Source
B ook. (California Alliance for Elementary Education Multiage Learning Task Force.
Sacramento: California State Department of Education, pp. 43-67.
Crouse, P. & Davey, M. (1989). Collaborative learning: Insights from our
children. Language Arts, 66(7), 756-766.
Cushman, K. (Summer, 1993). The whys and hows of the multi-age primary
classroom. American Educator, 14(2), 28-32.
Daiute, C. (1986). Do 1 and 1 make 2? W ritten Communication, 3(3), 382-408.
Daiute, C. & Dalton, B., (1988). ‘ “ Let’s brighten it up a bit”: Collaboration and
cognition in writing. In B. Rafoth & D. Rubin (Eds.). The social construction of written
communication (pp. 249-269). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Daiute, C. & Dalton, B. (1993). Collaboration between children learning to write:
Can novices be masters? Cognition and Instruction, 10(4), 281-333.
Dale, H. (1994a). Collaboarative research on collaborative writing. English
Journal, 83(1), 66-70.
Dale, H. (1994b). Collaborative writing interactions in one ninth-grade classroom.
Journal o f Educational Research, 87(6), 334-344.
Dale, H., (1997). Co-authoring in the classroom: Creating an environment for
effective collaboration. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, IL. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 402 625).
Davis, R. (1992). The nongraded prim ary: M aking schools fit. American
Association of School Administrators.
DePaulo, B. M., Tang, J., Webb, W ., Hoover, C., Marsh, K. & Litowitz, C.
(1989)., Age differences in reactions to help in a peer tutoring context C hild Development,
60, 423-439.
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DeRita, C. & W eaver, S. (1991). Cross-age literacy program. Reading
Im provem ent, 28(4), 244-248.
Oever, M. T., Zila, R. & Manzano, N. N. (1994). Multiage classrooms: A new
way to learn math. Principal, 73(4), 22, 24,26.
Driscoll, M J*. (1994). Cognitive information processing. In M.P. Driscoll (Ed.),
Psychology o f learning fo r instruction. Pp. 67-110. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
DuPaul, G. J. & Henningson, P. N. (1993). Peer tutoring effects on the classroom
performance of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology
Review , 22(1), 134-143.
Duran, R. T. & Gauvain, M. (1993). The role of age versus expertise in peer
collaboration during joint planning. Journal o f Experimental C hild Psychology, 55(2),
227-242.
Elder, J., Clawson, B., & Howard, A. (1996). E ffects o f the m ultiage classroom
on children. Report No. PS-024-711. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED
400 997)
Ellis, A. W. & Preston, A. W. (1984). Enhancing beginning reading using
wordless picture books with a cross-age tutoring program. The Reading Teacher, 37(8),
692-698.
Engelhard, G ., W alker, E. M. V, Gordan, B., & Gabrielson, S. (1994). W riting
tasks and gender: Influences on writing quality o f black and white students. Journal of
Educational Research, 87(4), 197 - 210.
Evangelou, D. (1989). Nongraded and mixed-age grouping in early childhood
programs. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 308 990)
Fogarty, R.(Ed.). (1995). Thinking a b o u t. . . M ultiage Classrooms. Palatine,
Illnois: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.
Fogarty, R. (Ed.). (1993). The multiage classroom. Palatine, IL: Skylight
Publishing, Inc.
Forman, E. A. & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in
education: the cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.). Culture,
communication, and cognition (pp323-347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Franklin County Board of Education. (1991). Primary education: A Framework.
(Report No. PS-019-900). Frankfort, ICY: Kentucky State Department of Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 338 358)
French, D. C., W aas, G. A., Stright, A. L. & Baker, J. A.. (1986). Leadership
sysmmetrics in mixed-age children’s groups. C hild Development, 57(5), 1277-1283.
Friedman, J. & Koeppel, J. (1990). Pre-K and first grade children: Partners in a
writing workshop. Young Children, 45(4), 66-67.
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fuller, M. L., Ronning, M., VanVoorhis, J. L., & Moore, M. (1993).
Restructuring fo r student success in a rural school: Preliminary analyses. Paper presented
at the Annual Convention for the American Psychological Association., Toronto, Canada.
Gartner, A. & Riessman, F., (1994). Peer-tutoring: Toward a new model. ERIC
Digest # EDO-SP-92-2. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362 506)
Gartner, A. J. & Riessman, F. (1994). Tutoring helps those who give, those who
receive. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 58-60.
Gaustad, J. (1992a). Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and
developmentally appropriate education fo r primary children. (Report No. ISSN-0095-
6694). Eugene, Oregon: Oregon School Study Council. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 343 227)
Gaustad, J. (1992b). Nongraded primary education. ERIC Digest No. 74. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Services No. ED 347 637)
Gaustad, J. (1993). Peer and cross-age tutoring. ERIC Digest No. 79. (ERIC
Document Reproduc tion No. ED 345 608)
Goodlad, J. I., and Anderson, R. H. (1987). The Nongraded Elem entary School.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Grant, J. & Johnson, B. (1994). Looping, the two-grade cycle: A good starting
place. In Sumner, D. & Lafortune, S. (Eds.), Staying focused on the children (pp. 101-
103). Peterborough, NH: The Society for Developmental Education.
Grant, J. & Johnson, B. (1995). A common sense guide to m ulti-age practices.
Columbus, Ohio: Teachers’ Publishing Group.
Greeno, J. G. (1989). A perspective on thinking. American Psychologist, 44(2),
134-141.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C. & Carta J. J. (1988). Classwide peer
tutoring. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C. & Hall, R. V. (1989) Longitudinal effects of
classwide peer tutoring. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 81(3), 371-383.
Griffin, M. M. & Griffin, B. W. (1995). An investigation of the effects of
reciprocal peer tutoring on achievement, self-efficacy, and test anxiety. ERIC Digest No.
TM-023-286. (ERIC Docment Reproduction Service No. ED 383 756)
Gutierrez, R. & Slavin, R. E. (1992). Achievement effects of the nongraded
elementary school: A best evidence synthesis. Review o f Educational Research, 62(4),
333-376.
Gutloff, K. (1996). Multi-age teaching: Is it for you? NEA Today, 14(9), 45.
Hafenstein, N. L. & Jordan, N. E., & Tucker, B. (1993, April). D escriptive study o f
multi-age grouping fo r prim ary gifted students. Paper presented at the A nnual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 360 782)
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Harp, B. (1992). When your principal asks: What can I expect to see in multi-age
classrooms? In D. Sumner & S. Lafortune (Eds.), Staying focused on the children ( pp.
99-100). Peterborough, New Hampshire: The Society for the Developmental Education.
Harris, M. B. (1995). Basic statistics for behavioral science research. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Heckman, P.E. (1996). The courage to change: Stories from successful school
reform . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Herrmann, A. W. (1989). Teaching writing w ith peer response groups,
Encouraging revision. ERIC D igest (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 307
616)
Hernandez, J. S. (1991). G etting to higher ground: The developm ent o f thinking
skills fo r Spanish-speaking students. In M. McGroarty & C. Faltis (Eds.), Language in
school and society: Policy and pedagogy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hillebrand, R.P. (1994). Control and cohesion: Collaborative learning and writing.
English Journal, 83(1), 71-74.
Hunter, M. (1992). How to change to a nongraded school. Alexandria, Virginia:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Illinois State Board of Education. (1992). Continuous progress/ungraded
schooling: One wav to individualize learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED3719C8)
Jacoby, D. (1994). Twice the learning and twice the love. In Sumner, D. &
Lafortune, S. (Eds.), Staying fo cu sed on the children (pp. 104-105). Peterborough, NH:
The Society for Developmental Education.
Jarvis, C. H.. Zak, E. & Houtrides, M. (1990). Project SAIL:The fir s t two years,
1987-88 and 1988-89. Brooklyn, NY: New York City Board of Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 337 252)
Jenkins, R., Jewell, M. J., Leicester, N., Jenkins, L., & Troutner, N. M. (1991).
Development of a school building model for educating student with handicaps and at-risk
student in general education classrooms. Journal o f Learning D isabilities, 24(5), 311-320.
Kagan, S.(1986). Cooperative learning and sociocultural factors in schooling. In
Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language m inority students (pp.
231-298). Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination, and
Assessment Center.
Kalkowski, P. (1995). Peer and cross-age tutoring. In Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory. School Improvement Research Series. ERIC Digerst No. EA-026-
85. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 397 462)
Katz, L. (1990). Nongraded and mixed-age grouping in early childhood programs.
(Report No. EDO-PS-92-9). Urbana, Illinois: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and
Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. Ed 351 148)
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Katz, L. G. (1991). Readiness: Children and schools. (Report No. EDO-PS-91-4).
Washington. D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC Document
Reproduction No. ED 330 495)
Katz, L. G. (1995). The benefits o f mixed-age grouping. ERIC D igest (ERIC
Document Reproduction Services No. ED 382 411)
Katz, L. G, Evangelou, D, & Hartman, J. (1990). The Case fo r M ixed-age
Grouping in Early Education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children.(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 326 301)
Kentucky Education Association & AEL. (1991). Ungraded prim ary programs:
Steps toward developmentatty appropriate instruction.. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 335 156)
Klein, A. (1994). How to create a successful multiage continuous progress
classroom : Building from the beginning. Altoona, WI: National Education Institute.
Labbo, L. D., and Teal, W. H. (1990). Cross-age reading: a strategy for helping
poor readers. The Reading Teacher, 43(6), 362-369.
Lam bert N. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and
Instruction, 4(1), 305-342.
Lamme, L. L. & Hartle, L. (1996). Older children in multi-age classrooms.
Dim ensions o f Early Childhood, 12(7), 25-29.
Leland, C. & Fitzpatrick, R. (1994). Cross-age interaction builds enthusiasm for
reading and writing. The Reading Teacher, 47(4), 2 ^-3 0 1 .
Limbrick, E., McNaughton, S., & Glynn, T. (1984). Reading gains for
underachieving tutors and tutees in a cross-age tutoring programme. Journal o f Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 26(6), 939-953.
Lodish, R. (1992). The pros and cons of mixed-age grouping. Principal, 71(5),
20-23.
Lyman, L. & Foyle, Harvey C. (1989). Cooperative Learning Strategies and
Children. [On-line]. Available: http://ericir.syr.edu/ERIC/: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 306 003)
Mason, D. A. & Bums, R. B. (1996). “Simply no worse and simply no better”
may simply be wrong: A Critique of Veenaman’s conclusion about multigrade classes.
Review o f Educational Research, 66(3), 307-341.
May, L. (1996). Ungraded prim aries hurt older, brighter students, group says.
Lexington Herald-Leader. [Online}.
Mazzuchi, D. & Brooks, N. (1992). The gift of time. In Sumner, D. & Lafortune,
S. (Eds.), Staying focused on the children (pp. 39-41). Peterborough, NH: The Society
for Developmental Education.
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
McCarthy, S. J. (1989). Constructing conversation: peer responses to student
writing. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.). Literacy theory and research: Analyses from
m ultiple paradigms, (pp. 369-378). (Report No. CS-010-265). Chicago, Illinois: National
Reading Conference. (ERIC Document Reporduction Services No. ED 324 646)
McClellan, D. E. (1994). Multiage grouping implications for education. In
M ultiage Learning Source Book (pp. 21-41). Sacramento, CA: State Department of
Education.
McClellan, D. & Kensey, S. (1996). Mixed-age grouping helps children develop
social skills and a sense of belonging. The M AGnet N ew sletter [Online], 5(1). Available:
http://erieps.crc.uiuc.edu/eece/pubs/mag/magfal96aJitml.
McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W ., Gregory, K. M., Moore, G. H., Power, B. M., &
Gayle, H. (1996). Teaching Young readers and writers in multi-age classrooms. Language
A rts, 73(6), 384-394.
McLaughlin, H. J., Anderson, J., Bennett, P., Pratt, C., & Striplin, B. (1994).
Different ages and learning stages: Evaluating learning in a multi-age team. The M AGnet
N ew sletter, [Onlinel, 3(1). Available:
http://erieps.crc.uiuc.edu/eece/pubs/mag/magfal96aJitml.
McLoughlin, W.P. (1970). Continuous pupil progres in the non-graded school:
Hope or hoax? Elementary SchooUoumal, 71(2), 90-96.
Mehan, H. (1980). The competent student. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,
Vol. XI:, No. 3, 131-152.
Milbum, D. (1981). A study of muli-age or family-grouped classrooms. Phi Delta
Kappa, 62(1), 513-14.
Miller, B. (1990). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade instruction.
Research in Rural Education, 7(1), 1-8.
Miller, B. (1991). Teaching and learning in the multigrade classroom: Student
performance and instructional routines. (Report No. EDO-RC-91-6). Charleston, WV:
Clearinghouse on Rural Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 335
178)
Miller, B. (1996). What works in multiage instruction. Education Digest, 61(9), 4.
Miller, W. (1995). Are multi-age grouping practices a missing link in the
educational reform debate? NASSP B ulletin, 79(568), 27-32.
Miller, S. R., Miller, P. F., Armentrout, J. A, & Flannagan, J. W. (1995).
Crossage peer tutoring: A strategy for promoting self-determination in student with severe
emotional disabilities/behavior disorders. Preventing School Failure, 39(4), 32-38.
Morrice, C. & Simmons, M. (1991). Beyond reading buddies: A whole language
cross-age program. The Reading Teacher, 44(8), 572-577.
National Education Goals Panel. (1994). Multi-age Classrooms: Breaking with
tradition. Daily Report Card. [Online]. 3(263). Available: http://yn.la.ca.us/drc/1994.
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Nevi, C. N. (1993). Cross-age tutoring: Why does it help the tutors? The Reading
Teacher, 5(3), 892-898.
Nye, B. (Summer, 1993). Some questions and answers about multiage grouping.
Educational Research Service Spectrum,11(3), 38-45.
Nye, B. A ., Cain, V. A., Zaharias, J. B. Tollett, D A ., & Fultin , B. D. (1995).
Are multiage-nongraded programs providing students with a quality education? Some
answers from the school success study. Eric Digest No. EA-026-899. (Eric Document
Reproduction Services No. ED 384998)
Oden, S. ( 1987).77ie development o f social competence in children. Urbana, 1 1 1 :
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. ED281610.
O’Neill, J. (1990). The urban proving ground: Restructuring being testing in
Miami experiment Update, 32(3), 1,4-5.
Opuni, K. A. & Koonce, S. (1992). Implementation challenges o f the prim ary
learning communities program: Precautions and potential. (Report No. PS-021-494).
Houston, TX: Southwest Eductional Research Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED 360 048)
Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-
fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Palincsar, A . S., Ranson, K. & Derber, S. (1989). Educational Leadership, 46(4),
37-40.
Pasemko, J. G. (1992). M ixed-age grouping in nongraded primary classes.
(Masters Thesis, The University of British Columbia, 1992). ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. Ed 351 151).
Pavan, B. N. (1992). School effectiveness and nongraded schools. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 346 608)
Peer helping relationships in urban schools.( 1987). ERIC Digest No. UD-Q25-
963. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 289 949)
Phillips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm
Springs children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, V. John, and D. Hymes
(Eds.), Functions o f language in the classroom. Prospect Heights, 1 1 1 : Waveland Press.
Power, B. M. (1989). Beyond “Geddinagrupe”: A case study of three first grade
collaborators. Language A rts, 66(7), 767-774.
Pratt, D. (1986). On the merits of multiage classrooms. Research in Rural
Education,3(3), 111-113.
Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, (1995).
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Psacharopoulos, C. R. & Velez, E. (1993). Achievement evaluation of Colombia’s
Escuela Nueva: Is multigrade the answer? Comparative Education Review, 37(3), 263-
276.
Rathbone, C., Bingham, A., Dorta, P., McClaskey, M., & O’Keefe, J.(1993).
M ultiage portraits: Teaching and learning in mixed-age classrooms. Peterborough, NH:
Crystal Springs Books.
Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.
(1994). M ultiage grouping. Occasional Paper Series 9(1), 1-11. (Report No. EA-026-
733). Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 079)
Rekrut, M. D. (1994). Peer and cross-age tutoring: The lessons of research.
Journal o f Reading, 37(5), 356-362.
Rekrut, M. D. (1991).Teaching to learn: Cross-age tutoring to enhance strategy
acquisition. ERIC Digest No. SP-G34-014. (ERIC Document Reproduction No.
ED348363)
Rogoff, B. (1995). Evaluating development in the process of participation: Theory,
methods, and practice building on each other. To appear in E. Amsel & A. Renninger
(Eds.), Change and developm ent: Issues o f theory, application, and method. Hillsdale, NJ:
Eribaum.
Rosaen, C. L. & Hazelwood, C. (1993). Creating a writing community: Revising
collaborative goals, roles and actions. (Report No. CS-213-725). East Lansing, MI: Center
for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Services No. ED 355 521)
Sarason, S. (1982). The culture o f the school and the problem o f change. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Schrier, D. & Mercade, B. (1994). A center moves toward multiage grouping:
What have we learned? Day Care and Early Education, 21(3), 9-12.
Shaeffer, M. B. & Hook, J. (1993). Are extra-year classes worth it? The American
School Board Journal, 180(8), 31-32.
Simon, H. A. & Chase, W. G. (1973). Skill in chess. Am erican Scientist, 61,
394-403.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative
learning: A reconciliation. C hild Development, 58(5), 1161-1167.
Smith, D. (1993). The case for mixed age grouping for children of the 90’s.
Research in Rural Education, 7(1), 10-13.
Smith, W. S. & Burrichter, C. (1993). Look who’s teaching science today: Cross
age tutoring makes the grade. Science and Children, 30(4), 2 0 -2 3 .
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Stone, S. J. (1994-95). Strategies for teaching children in multiage classrooms.
Childhod Education, 7/(2), 103-105.
Stone, S. J. & Christie, J. F. (1996). Collaborative literacy learning during
sociodramtic play in a multiage (K-2) primary classroom. Journal o f Research in
C hildhood Education, 10(2), 123-133.
Stright, A. L. & French, D. C. (1988). Leadership in mixed-age children’s groups.
International Journal o f Behavioral Development, 11(4), 507-515.
Sumner, D. (Ed.). (1993). Multiage classrooms: The ungrading o f A m erica's
schools. Peterborough, NH: The Society for Developmental Eduction.
Tanner, C. K. & Decotis, J. D. (1995). The effects o f continuous-progress
nongraded primary school programs on student performance and attitudes toward learning.
Journal o f Research and Development in Education, 28(3), 135-143.
Tharp, R. G. (1989). Psychocultural variables and constants: Effects on teaching
and learning in schools. American Psychologist, 44(2), 349-359.
Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). A theory of teaching as assisted
performance (Chp. 3), and the means of assisting performance (Chp. 4), in R. G. Tharp
& R. Gallimore, Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social
context. (Pp. 27-70). New York: Cambridge
Theilheimer, R. (1993). Something for everyone: Benefits of Mixed-age grouping
for children,parents and teachers. Young Children, 48(5), 82-87.
Thomas, R. L. (1993). Cross-age and peer tutoring. ERIC Digest No. EDO-CS-
93-01. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 598)
Tindal, G. & Ronahcer, K., Sanchez, K. S. & Gonzales, J. (1993). Designing
educational programs aligned with reforms in teaching and uniform restructuring in
education: Rational and basic operating principles. (Report No. EA-024-789). Houston,
TX: Houston Independent School D istrict (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed
356 541).
Trapani, C. & Gettinger, M. (1989). Effects of social skills training and cross-age
tutoring on academic achievement and social behaviors of boys with learning disabilities.
Journal o f Research and Development in Education, 23( 1), 1-9.
Tudge, J.R.H. (1992). Processes and consequences o f peer collaboration: A
Vygotskian analysis. Child Development, 63(6), 1364-1379.
Tudge, J. R. H, W interhoff, P. A., & Hogan, D. M. (1996). The cognitive
consequences of collaborative problem solving with and without feedback. C hild
D evelopm ent, 67(2), 2892-2909.
Tudge, J. & Rogoff, B. (1989). Peer influences on cognitive development
Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In M.H. Borstein & J. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction
in Human Development. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, 17-40.
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tullis, R. J., Ronacher, K., Sanchez, K. S., & Gonzalez, J. (1991). A n
evaluation o f the non-graded prim ary learning communities program, Houston, TX:
Houston Independent School D istrict (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED
338418)
Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive effects of multigrade and multi
age classes: A best-evidence synthesis. Review o f Educational Research, 65(4), 319-381.
Veenman, S. (1996). Effects of multigrade and multi-age classes reconsidered.
Review o f Educational Research, 66(3), 323-340.
Viadero, D. (1996). Mixed blessings. Education Week 15(33), 31-33.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). M ind in Society: The developm ent o f higher
psychological processes. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.
Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Willis, S. (Ed.). (March, 1991). Breaking down grade barriers. Alexandria,
Virginia: Curriculum Update, 33(3), 1,4.
Willis, S. (Ed.). (Spring, 1997). Teaching young writers: Feedback and coaching
help student hone skills. Alexandria, Virginia: Curriculum Update, 39(2), 1-2, 6, 8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Appendix A
Interview Questions and Responses
Partners 1
Michael C. - 4th grade
1. Did you like writing with another person?
Yeah, because he would help me out. He’d give me ideas and
help me on what I would need to add.
2. Would yon rather work with a person o f a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Different It was more helpful.
3 . What did yon learn from writing with a partner o f a
different age?
ideas, different topics
Brandon M. - 2nd grade
1. Did you like writing with another person?
Yeah, but sometimes it was like he wasn’t paying attention to
me. I had to wait a long time.
2 . Would yon rather work with a person of a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Alone, because 1 like to do things by myself. 1 like to do my
own style. A different person might have been better.
3. What did yon learn from writing with a partner o f a
different age?
Spelling, how to speak and write better English.
Partners 2
Lindsey N. - 4th grade
1. Did yon like writing with another person?
Yeah, because she gave me ideas and helped me to think
better.
2. Would yon rather work with a person o f a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Different grade because we would have different ideas.
3. What did yon learn from writing with a partner o f a
different age?
Can’t think of anything
Erica F. - 2nd grade
1. Did yon like writing with another person?
Yeah, she was a good partner. She cooperated really good and
she helped me a lot. When I got something wrong, she helped
me.
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 . Would you rather work with a person o f a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Different grade level. You got to know what it’s like. You
leam stuff from them and they learn from you. Everybody
learns stuff from others. We are all teachers and learners.
3. What did yon learn from writing with a partner of a
different age?
How to not keep son saying, “and, and, and”. Use commas
and punctuation marks.
Partners 3
Rachel K. - 4th grade
1. Did you like writing with another person?
Sometimes
2. Would you rather work with a person of a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Would be easier to work with same grade level because they
know more o f what you know.
3 . What did yon learn from writing with a partner of a
different age?
We thought o f the same thing.
Jessica L. - 2nd grade
1. Did you like writing with another person?
Um uh, you get experience with other people. You can do
better and learn what they know.
2 . Would you rather work with a person of a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Different grade level. Some things I’d already know and I’d
barely leam anything from the same grade level but if the
person is a different grade they can leam and I can leam.
3. What did yon learn from writing with a partner of a
different age?
After I read each book, you have to write something about i t
She would correct capitals, punctuation, spelling. She would
ask me questions to make me think instead of just telling me.
Partners 4
Ashlyn M. - 4th grader
1. Did you like writing with another person?
I liked it but he was quiet so we didn’t do a lo t
2. Would you rather work with a person of a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Same grade level. They’re at the same level.
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. What did you learn from writing with a partner of a
different age?
Not much because he was so quiet
Alex C. - 2nd grader
1. Did yon like writing with another person?
It was O.K.. Sometimes I had to wait until she was ready.
2. Would yon rather work with a person o f a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Sometimes I teach them things and they teach me things.
3. What did yon learn from writing with a partner of a
different age?
How to spell some words and some marks you have to put to
make a good story.
Partners 5
Stephanie C. - 4th grader
1. Did yon like writing with another person?
Yeah, I just like working with somebody.
2. Would yon rather work with a person o f a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Lower grade. 1 like working with lower grades. He had a
good imagination.
3. What did yon learn from writing with a partner of a
different age?
Good imagination.
Jonathan W. - 2nd grader
1. Did yon like writing with another person?
It was O.K. but not great I didn’t like to write stuff.
2. Would yon rather work with a person o f a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Same grade level. I don’t know why.
3. What did yon learn from writing with a partner of a
different age?
Couldn’t think of anything
Partners 6
Justin W. - 4th grader
moved
Gregory W. - 2nd grader
1. Did yon like writing with another person?
It was O.K.
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 . Would you rather work with a person o f a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
1 don’t know
3 . What did yon leam from writing with a partner o f a
different age?
I don’t know.
Justin - moved
Partners 7
Kristen W. - 4th grader
1. Did yon like writing with another person?
Yeah, she had good ideas.
2 . Would yon rather work with a person o f a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
It doesn’t matter but 1 like working with anyone who will
work. Someone who wants to work.
3 . What did you leam from writing with a partner o f a
different age?
Made me more creative. She helped me with ideas. 1 had
someone to bounce it off of.
Laura H. - 2nd grader
1. Did yon like writing with another person?
Yeah, it sort of helped me to find my ideas. She encouraged
me because she was so funny and cheerful.
2 . Would yon rather work with a person o f a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Different grade. Whether they are older or younger person we
both can leam from each other. At the same grade we’d both
leam the same thing and it wouldn’t be different enough to
teach something different.
3 . What did yon leam from writing with a partner of a
different age?
Spell different words. If you put your mind to it, you can do
anything.
Partners 8
Daniel L. - 4th grader
1. Did yon like writing with another person?
Yeah, it was O.K..
2 . Would yon rather work with a person o f a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Same grade level because you have more chances to find
someone my grade level.
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 . W hat did you learn from writing with a partner o f a
different age?
Spelling.
Thomas N. - 2nd grader
1. Did yon like writing with another person?
Yeah, because they could help you.
2 . W ould you rather work with a person o f a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Different, funner to be with. They do different things.
3 . W hat did you learn from writing with a partner of a
different age?
Spelling.
Partners 9
Kyle D. - 4th grader
1. Did you like writing with another person?
Yeah, it was O.K.. I didn’t really want to work with him. If I
Could have picked somebody else I would have liked it.
2. W ould you rather work with a person of a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Same grade. I like either but not alone. I like to get to know
someone.
3. W hat did you learn from writing with a partner of a
different age?
More ideas, correcting for spelling, punctuation.
Thomas J. - moved
Partners 10
Erica S. - 4th grader
1. Did you like writing with another person?
Yes
2 . W ould you rather work with a person of a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
Same grade because they are easier to find most of the time
3. W hat did you learn from writing with a partner of a
different age?
Ideas, story content
Carrie F. - 2nd grader
1. Did you like writing with another person?
I didn’t like i t Sometimes Erica would be talking to another
person.
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 . Would you rather work with a person of a different
grade level or the same grade level or alone?
By myself, when we have to be partners and you have a
different idea the other person wouldn’t like it If I made a
mistake, the other person would give me a bad time. Another
partner might have been better.
3 . What did you learn from writing with a partner o f a
different age?
How to indent on the first line of a paragraph.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Figures
Appendix B
Figure 5
Sacramento Gty Unified Sheet #1
Accountability Office
Name:_________________________________________________________________ Date:
MY PLANNING SHEET #1
Giving a Special Gift or Receiving a Special Gift
What happened?
Why was it
special?
Where did it
happen?
Giving a Special Gift or
Receiving a Special Gift
Who was involved'
You Own Ideas
How did you feell
about it? i
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 6
Sacramento City Unifled School District
Accountability Office
Name:_________________________________________________________________Date:
MY PLANNING SHEET #2
Giving a Special Gift or Receiving a Special Gift
To help you remember the time you gave or received a special gift, use this space to draw
anything that helps you remember. You can draw the gift, where it happened, who was
involved, or anything else that helps you put the pictures m your head on paper, so that
you can use them for your writing.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1 4
&
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (Q A -3 )
&
✓
150mm
IIW IG E . In c
1653 E ast Main S treet
R ochester. NY 14609 USA
Phone: 716/482-0300
Fax: 716/288-5989
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Asking students to write to a higher standard: The effects on student attitudes and performance toward writing

PDF

A cross-cultural validation of the reading hypothesis: The relationship of pleasure reading to writing proficiency and academic achievement among Taiwanese senior high school students

PDF

Chains: A symphonic suite for orchestra

PDF

A comparison between Thai student attitudes toward English as a Foreign Language and their English proficiency at four public (state) universities in Bangkok, Thailand

PDF

A history of California community college governance and trustees' perceptions of the faculty role in district and college (shared) governance

PDF

Child-adult differences in the auditory perception and pronunciation of foreign sounds

PDF

Beyond clowns and kings: Aesthetic and ideological subversion in baroque tragicomedy

PDF

'Beowulf' and 'the hobbit': elegy into fantasy in j. R. R. Tolkien's creative technique

PDF

Community college re-entry students: Correlates of access to special support programs and goal progress

PDF

Application of the graded response model to the revised Tennessee Self-Concept Scale: Unidimensionality, parameter invariance, and differential item functioning

PDF

"A broken bundle of mirrors": Identity in the work of John Barth

PDF

An experimental study of verbal and visual cues in testing senior and sophomore student physicians' achievement in neurology.

PDF

Andrej Belyj's "Petersburg" and James Joyce's "Ulysses": A comparative study

PDF

A comparison of DODDS-Europe teachers' and administrators' attitudes and perceptions toward teachers' involvement in shared decision-making

PDF

A comparative study of the realm of meaning of four child prostitutes in Taiwan: A hermeneutic approach

PDF

Authenticity, appropriation and voice: One primary classroom's writing experiences

PDF

Administrative staffing patterns in comprehensive high schools

PDF

California survey of music in early childhood: Teacher preparation and the role of the community college

PDF

Analyzing the cost effectiveness of using parents and community volunteers to improve students' language arts test scores

PDF

A model of filtration and reabsorption in the mammalian kidney

Asset Metadata

Creator Branch, Barbara Lee (author)

Core Title A comparison of the writing achievement of fourth-grade students to the writing achievement of second-grade students working in collaborative pairs in a multiage setting

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, elementary,education, language and literature,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor [illegible] (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-375474

Unique identifier UC11350243

Identifier 9919016.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-375474 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9919016.pdf

Dmrecord 375474

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Branch, Barbara Lee

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA