MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION IN COMBINATION AND SINGLE-GRADE CLASSES - AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION

Authors
Citation
Da. Mason et Tl. Good, MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION IN COMBINATION AND SINGLE-GRADE CLASSES - AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION, Teachers College record, 98(2), 1996, pp. 236-265
Citations number
56
Categorie Soggetti
Education & Educational Research
Journal title
ISSN journal
01614681
Volume
98
Issue
2
Year of publication
1996
Pages
236 - 265
Database
ISI
SICI code
0161-4681(1996)98:2<236:MIICAS>2.0.ZU;2-A
Abstract
Combination classes (also termed split or multigrade classes) are a fo rm of classroom grouping that typically occurs when school enrollments are imbalanced or inadequate, resulting in teachers' managing student s from two or more grades for most or all of the school day. These exp ediently formed classes, embedded within a graded system of schooling, therefore differ significantly from multiage or nongraded classes, fo rmed deliberately because of pedagogical or philosophical interests in team teaching, flexible grouping, individualized instruction, continu ous progress curriculum, and the elimination of all vestiges of graded ness. This exploratory study compared the curriculum, instructional st rategies, and organizational formats used by six combination class tea chers for mathematics with those used by eighteen single-grade teacher s (six who used traditional whole-class teaching and twelve who used t wo within-class ability groups). Results showed that the instruction, classroom organization, and curriculum content and materials of combin ation class teachers differed in significant ways from those of both t raditional whole-class and within-class ability-grouped (two-group) si ngle-grade teachers. Observer's ratings and low-inference measures ind icated that combination classes included fewer instances of peer coope ration, innovative curriculum, and individualized instruction. Further more, teacher-directed and independent-group variables (e.g., meaningf ul presentations, use of manipulatives, higher-level thinking emphasis ) varied significantly among these three grouping formats.