Improving the effectiveness of pupil groupwork: effects on pupil-pupil interaction, teacher-pupil interaction and classr

1. SPRinG Improving the effectiveness of pupil groupwork: effects on pupil-pupil interaction, teacher-pupil interaction and classroom engagement Peter Blatchford*, Ed Baines*, Christine Rubie-Davies**, Paul Bassett* & Anne Chowne* *Institute of Education, University of London **University of Auckland www.spring-project.org.uk Presented at AERA 2006 – San Francisco The SPRinG Project Teams: KS1 Team: Peter Kutnick, Lucia Berdondini & Cathy Ota KS2 Team: Peter Blatchford, Ed Baines & Anne Chowne KS3 Team: Maurice Galton, Linda Hargreaves, Charlotte Page, Tony Pell & Susan Steward ScotSPRinG Team: Donald Christie, Christine Howe, Andy Tolmie & Keith Topping

2. SPRinG Example: Who should get the pay rise? Group of four: 2 girls and 2 boys (Year 4) This group are discussing whether Helen should get the pay rise. Helen is a 19 year old woman, unmarried with one child. She also looks after her ill mother. She has worked for the company for 6 months and packs the crisps into boxes when they come off the conveyer belt. Her work and attendance are poor. 1: And she’s unmarried and she’s got one child to look after. 3: But she has only been there for six months. 1: I know but... 3: Yeah but she still will need it [pay rise] because... 2: Yeah but she’s only just started.

3. Example: Who should get the pay rise? (cont.) SPRinG 3: Yeah but she’ll go nutty and crazy. 1: Yeah, I know but... 2: She’ll go nutty and crazy when she gets the pay rise. 1: I’ve got one, I’ve got one objection. I, I see that she’s nineteen, she’s young, she’s got a child, she’s unmarried, she’s got a sick mother but she’s been working there for six months and she, they probably think, oh, we’re going to put her on an easy job because she’s starting and then probably when she’s been there for like one, two or three years, they’ll probably move her up into a much higher job where she’ll get more money. 3: Yeah, but she’s quite young and she needs a good start. 2: Yeah but.. 1: I suppose so. 3: And she needs to buy herself a good flat … (??)

4. Example: Who should get the pay rise? (cont.) SPRinG 1: And that, yeah, and she needs to get medicine for her mother. Yeah I think she should get it then. 4: Well, maybe the boyfriend, her boyfriend could give her money. 1: But she’s unmarried. 4: So? 3: And, and boyfriends don’t normally give much money. 1: No boyfriends don’t. 4: Yeah, I understand that. 1: Okay, let’s... 2: They just run off.

5. SPRinG The promise of group work: what might it be good for? • Group work can enhance conceptual development and reasoning • Group work can enhance pupils’ motivation and attitudes to work • Group work can aid social and communication skills

6. SPRinG The reality of group work Research shows that: • Pupils often sit in groups but don’t work AS groups • Group work is rare and often of low quality • Teachers and pupils are unsure about the value of group work, and not prepared or trained for it • It is not part of teachers’ preferred pedagogy (which stresses the individual learner) • There is little strategic planning of pupil grouping in primary and secondary schools • Group work does not have the recognition it deserves e.g. in policy

7. SPRinG Resistances to group work • Teachers and schools worry that group work will interrupt coverage of the curriculum • Belief that children can't work as a group   • Belief that bad behaviour is worsened by group work • Teachers believe they already do group work

8. SPRinG Limitations of previous research Previous research on cooperative and collaborative group work in UK: • Has established group work to be effective in controlled conditions but not yet tested if group work is effective in real everyday classroom contexts • Provides insufficient information for teachers to use group work systematically across the curriculum and to prepare pupils for doing high quality group work as part of everyday classroom activities

9. SPRinG Research was therefore needed • To identify the problems teachers experience when managing group work and ways teachers can overcome these problems to use group work systematically across the curriculum • To test if group work can be effectively implemented into everyday classroom contexts and whether its use leads to positive educational outcomes

10. SPRinG The SPRinG Study Addressed the gap between the potential of group-work vs. its limited use in school classrooms. It had two aims: • To develop and implement with teachers a general approach to incorporate group-work into curriculum and everyday school activities •   To evaluate this programme over one year relative to a control group in terms of academic progress, behavioural interaction and dialogue, and attitudes and motivation towards learning

11. SPRinG What is group work? There is more to group work than sitting students in groups. • By group work we mean pupils working together as a group or team. • the balance of ownership and control of the work shifts toward the pupils themselves. • Group work involves children as co-learners

12. SPRinG What is distinctive about SPRinG? • General programme, to cover whole curriculum, across school year • Combines conceptual and scripted approach • Takes on teachers’ and pupils’ concerns • Developed with teachers • Systematic evaluation over full school year • Applications of group work also developed • Based on three key principles

13. SPRinG SPRinG Key Principles • Relational approach • Involving teachers in the design of the project and group work • Creating the classroom context for group work 

14. SPRinG 1. Relational approach • Group work skills have to be developed • Requires skills but also trust and respect; ability to plan and organise work independently in groups; ability to engage in high level talk involving explanation, counter arguments; willingness to reflect on how the group is working, and involve all in the group • Organised around developmental sequence: social skills; communications skills; ‘advanced’ group working skills • Strategies to ensure conflict, composition and personalities in the group do not dictate whether it is successful

15. SPRinG 2. Involving teachers in the design of the project and group work • Need to be involved in design as well as implementation • Need to think strategically about their role in group: • Supporting lessons - briefing and debriefing • Supporting interaction – scaffolding, modelling and reinforcing group work • Observing interaction - monitoring group work Guide on the side (not sage on the stage)

16. SPRinG 3. Creating the classroom context for group work Need to develop group work in relation to wider context of the classroom: • ‘fixed’ factors such as classroom and class size and seating arrangements in the classroom • characteristics of groups such as their size and number, their composition, and their stability over time • group work tasks and activities • the curriculum

17. SPRinG SPRinG Programme: ‘The Handbook’ Guidance on: • setting up the classroom and groups • developing pupils’ group working skills • supporting pupils doing group work • organizing group work activities • evaluating group work • ‘troubleshooting’ • group work activities and lesson plans • Integrating group work into the curriculum and science

18. SPRinG Evaluation - research design Aim To test the effectiveness of the SPRinG programme relative to control Design • Experimental vs. control group comparisons • Longitudinal comparisons over time within SPRinG and control classrooms.

19. SPRinG Research questions The main research question was whether the group-work programme led to increases in three main outcomes: • learning/attainment (conceptual understanding) (Damon & Phelps, 1989; Howe et al., 2000) • behavioural and dialogue patterns supportive of learning (Galton & Williamson, 1992; Howe & Tolmie, 1998; Wegerif et al. 1999; Webb & Palincsar, 1996) - More group work - More on-task during pupil-pupil interaction - More sustained interactions - More high level talk - Less adult intervention and more monitoring • more ‘favourable’ motivational patterns and attitudes to learning and group work (positive attitudes to group work and intrinsic motivation - see Damon & Phelps, 1989) 

20. SPRinG Phase 3: Intervention & evaluation

21. SPRinG SPRinG KS2 Sample Data includes * = 3xY5/6 + = 1xY4/5 & =3xY4/5

22. SPRinG Details of experimental and control samples

23. SPRinG Research tools 1. learning/attainment • General tests in Science (Sc3&4) & end of Y6 SATs – start and end of year. • Micro pre and post tests on evaporation and forces before and 2 weeks after coverage of the topic – spring and summer terms. 2. behavioural and dialogue patterns supportive of learning • Systematic ‘on the spot’ observations of a focal child’s behaviour and interaction in class – 3 times in year. • Video observations of groups working on a group work activity - filmed during the summer term. 3. motivational patterns and attitudes to learning and group work • Pupil questionnaire comprising 50 Questions – 10 scales – completed at the start and end of the year.

24. SPRinG Adjusted means (by pre-test) for Macro Science data. SPRinG vs Control a= Macro Pre-test items as covariate ** = P≤0.01, as = p<0.075 * = effect sizes in terms of Cohen’s d

25. SPRinG Adjusted means (by pre-test) for Micro attainment data. SPRinG vs. Control b= Micro Pre-test as covariate c= Micro Evap Post-test as covariate ** = P≤0.01, * = effect sizes in terms of Cohen’s d

26. SPRinG ‘On the spot’ classroom observations • Each SPRinG classroom was visited at least 3 times over the year (control – 2 times). • 6 pupils per class observed – 8 scans per observation period. • Systematic time sampling: 20 sec windows – 5 secs to tune in/ contextualise, 10 secs observation, 5 secs to code • 208 SPRinG pupils observed an average of 46.52 times • 179 Control pupils observed an average of 33.17 times • Total observations: SPRinG = 9,642 Control = 5,938

27. SPRinG Main observation categories • Teacher expected work setting: Individual, peer co-learning, adult led group, whole class, pupil plenary, other • Subject: Maths, English, Science, Other  • Individual task behaviour: On task, task prep., proced/routin, off task active, off task passive, other • Adult-pupil interaction: Type of adult, Adult’s audience (tgt focus, tgt audience), Adult’s activity (on task, Task prep., monitor-observe, social, other), Target to teacher interaction (Begins, responds, sustains, attend listen, other), Target activity (On task, etc.) • Pupil-pupil interaction: Pupil-pupil interaction - (On task, etc.), Pupil-pupil involvement (substantial, intermittent, attend listen, non-verbal, other), Pupil-pupil conversation (Sustained, not sustained), Pupil-pupil talk quality (high level, low level/uncodeable)

28. SPRinG Classroom observation: results 1 Analysed using multi-level logistic regression (3 levels) Learning context • SPRinG teachers more often used group work and SPRinG pupils were more often engaged in group work (34% vs 16%) • Control pupils were more often engaged in individual work (11% vs 34%) Pupil-Pupil interaction and dialogue • SPRinG pupils were more on task (70% vs 50%) • Control pupils were more off task (actively rather than passively) (16% vs 35%) • SPRinG pupils were more actively engaged during on-task interactions (71% vs 47%) • Control pupils more actively engaged during off task interactions. • SPRinG pupils were more likely to have sustained conversations (particularly when on task), and increasingly over the year (39% vs 16%) • SPRinG pupils were more likely to engage in high level talk (11% vs 2%)

29. SPRinG Classroom observation: results 2 Teacher pupil interaction • There were no pupil ‘engagement’ differences in Teacher-pupil work settings • Control teachers engaged in more direct on task teaching and interaction with individuals • SPRinG teachers were more likely to monitor pupils & groups (11% vs 3%).

30. SPRinG Video observations • 31 SPRinG and 29 Control groups were filmed in class working on a group-work activity • Blind coded • Interaction was coded every 20 secs • Categories – 4 category sets • Engagement (all engaged, some passive, split, some off task active/passive, all disengaged) • Socio-affective nature of the group (group maintenance and/or blocking) • Discourse topic sequences (sustained, changeable, other/off task) • Type of talk (collab discussion (inferential vs evidence), meta group talk, sharing information, disputational, reading task, procedural, off task talk)

31. SPRinG Video observation results 1

32. SPRinG Video observation results 2

33. SPRinG Video observation: results Engagement • SPRinG groups were more often fully engaged in the activity. • Control groups more often had members actively disengaged from the activity. Socio-affective nature of the group • Control groups were more likely to block group effort Discourse topic • SPRinG groups were more likely to sustain the topic of conversation • Control groups were more likely to change the topic of conversation Type of talk • SPRinG trained groups engaged in more high level collaborative discussion, involving more synthesis of information and generation of understanding. • Control groups engaged in more sharing of information, procedural talk, disputational talk and off task talk.

34. SPRinG Attitude data: results Few differences between SPRinG and control in: • The ‘value of group work’, ‘liking group work’, ‘peer relations’, ‘liking English’ and ‘liking maths’. But • Confidence in ‘ability to work well as a group’ decreased for control pupils but remained constant for SPRinG pupils. • Subject attitudes for all subjects decreased over the year except that SPRinG pupils continued to ‘like Science’. • SPRinG pupils’ ‘intrinsic motivation’ increased over the year.

35. SPRinG Summary of Results Despite teachers worries that group work could negatively affect attainment and behaviour: • SPRinG pupils attained more in general science tests and specific tests directly relatable to experience • Classroom Behaviour and Interactions: • They were more actively engaged in task related interactions • They engaged in more sustained and focused interactions on the topic • They engaged in more high level talk, talk showing more reasoning and more inferential thinking • There were benefits for all groups of pupils, e.g., in terms of prior attainment and gender

36. SPRinG Other findings • Teachers professional skills and confidence enhanced. Teaching repertoire extended and unexpected benefits: • pupils’ new group working skills ‘freed’ teachers from procedural duties • classroom control was easier • able to spend more strategic time on teaching • Group work most effective when adopted by the whole school, rather than by individuals, and this integrated principles of group learning across the school experience • Teachers working in areas of deprivation or in difficult circumstances found that group work could be used successfully, and could aid classroom relationships and integration. • Pupils’ relational and communication skills provided a key foundation for achieving both educational and socio-emotional benefits, emphasizing the importance of teambuilding and development work • Effects were consistent across a range of school sizes, school locations (urban vs rural), and class compositions (mixed vs single age bands)

37. SPRinG Implications • Group work can be implemented successfully and used on a regular basis in everyday classroom settings • First study in the UK to show a range of positive effects associated with the use of group-work in everyday classroom settings • Given time to develop pupils’ group working skills, teachers can bring about a transformation in the teaching and learning environment • Group work can contribute to national concerns about attitudes to work and classroom behaviour. It can encourage active learning and improve attainment • Relational approach important for providing the basis for the group to function productively • Suggested that it can provide: ‘psychological safety’, ‘connectedness’ and ‘co-regulation’ within the group • We need to rethink current pedagogical theories, which favour teacher-led situations and individual work • Group work deserves to be given a much more central role in educational policy and school practice

38. SPRinG Issues arising • It remains unclear exactly what features of SPRinG caused pupils to make greater progress (e.g. training, the principles, frequency of use and so on). • Hawthorne effect? The status of controls in real research settings. • Some dangers, eg, ‘SPRinG-lite’ - thus: • Importance of a whole school approach to the use of group work. • Needs to be greater use of group work encouraged at ITT and professional development levels. • Current views of pedagogy and policy still limit implementation of group work.

39. SPRinG SPRinG Publications • There are a number of publications from the project • See Teaching and Learning Research Briefing No 11 ‘Improving Pupil Group Work in classrooms: a new approach to increasing engagement and learning in everyday classroom settings at Key Stages 1,2 and 3’ • Available through www.spring-project.org.uk • Or www.tlrp.org