Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T21:26:01.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Within-classroom grouping: a rejoinder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Extract

Let us briefly remind ourselves of the current policy-context of this issue in Britain. The need to raise children's schooling attainments to a very substantial extent has become widely accepted in the past fifteen years following international comparisons (many based on research at this Institute) of workforce vocational qualifications and school-leaving standards. The consequences are expressed today in interventionist public policy in terms of a National Curriculum laid down for all school-ages (adopted ten years ago), together with more recent detailed syllabuses in the core subjects of language and mathematics embodied in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies for primary schools (adopted in the past two years). Much of the need for such reforms in Britain can be traced to worries as to whether teaching time was well spent, particularly in primary schools using ‘modern’ teaching methods which required children within each classroom to be divided into small groups, each group sitting around its own small table, many children not facing the wall-board (many classrooms even having their wall-board removed) so as to promote less ‘didactic’ teaching and more ‘discovery’ learning by pupils. The frequently ensuing difficulties of teachers in dividing their time effectively among those groups, the consequential frustration of those children who awaited the teacher's attention, the slower general pace of learning, and the particular disadvantages suffered by slower-developing children, need not be spelled out here; they have been closely examined in research involving timed classroom observation, such as the ‘Oracle’ project of Professor Maurice Galton and his colleagues.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Presumably this means that within-classroom grouping on average is by itself a net disadvantage. In other words, it now appears that the absence of such propitiating factors completely overturns the gross (apparent) effect of within-classroom grouping!

2 They also say, curiously, that ‘univariate analysis‘ is equivalent to examining each factor ‘separate[ly] from the others’ and ‘eliminates the influence of collinearity’; as it stands, it would seem that the word ‘not’ has been inadvertently omitted at various places due to some typographical errors. Or could there be some fundamental difference of understanding on these matters?

3 The recent NFER survey - while arriving at no clear conclusion - is of interest: L Sukhnandan and B Lee, Streaming, Setting and Grouping by Ability: A Review of the Literature (NFER, 1999), and the summary in NFER News (Spring 1999), p. 6.