Abstract

Although effective group work approaches have been established within research, such methodologies may be difficult for teachers to utilise, as group work remains under-researched in UK secondary schools. This paper examines whether secondary teachers in Scotland could consolidate their understanding of principles supporting group work and accommodate changes within lessons. Conventional teaching of a specific topic was replaced with an intervention that investigated the role of the teacher at the introduction (briefing) and conclusion (debriefing) stages of lessons. Encouraging results were obtained in this small-scale study. Teachers can enhance group work when the complex mix of arrangements and planning are made realistic. Methodology developed to support teachers before, during, and following group work, has been substantiated and warrants further investigation.

Keywords: Small group work, Science teaching, Lesson transition, Classroom interaction, Teacher development.

1.1

The role of the teacher in the establishment and continuation of a supportive classroom environment has been recognised(Baines, Rubie-Davies, & Blatchford, 2009; Galton & Williamson, 1992; O'Connor & Michaels, 1993; Oliveira & Sadler, 2008). However, only a subset of studies investigating groupwork hasconsidered the role of the teacherand fewer have looked at classroom practice. As studies focusing on secondary education are also scarce, whether forms of groupwork supported by research can be realised in actual classrooms is uncertain(Baines, Blatchford, & Kutnick, 2009; Gillies, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 2007; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Previous research has reported that teachers can contribute to and hinder interaction(Webb, 2009), suggesting thataccessible guidance would be welcomed. Research has indicated that few overt changes are visible in the ways teachers approached different forms of teaching and learning, including when class sizes were reduced (Galton & Pell, 2012), small groups were used during lessons (MacQuarrie, 2012) and when wider professional development programmes targeted the approaches of those working in the early years sector (Stephen, 2010). Teachers do not appear to capitalise on changesthat they put in place, approaching different teaching and learning arrangements as one and the same.

Research investigating group work within secondary education has begun to acknowledge and incorporated the role of the teacher (Galton, Hargreaves, & Pell, 2009; Gillies, 2004). Galton and colleagues (2009)introduced a specific group work programme and evaluated secondary teacher’s group work strategies and commented that encouraging findings were evident when time was available at the close of group work lessons to consolidate learning and round up the lesson. Observation of naturally occurring practice within Scottish secondary classes evidenced similar difficulties encountered by teachers during group work lessons resulting in little or no time remaining for lessons to be concluded (MacQuarrie, Howe, & Boyle, 2012). The Scottish study unearthed few attempts of teachers establishing and maintaining a dialogue with pupils when group work was used and teachers did not consistently report that they explained the norms for interaction before commencing group work. A limited or constrained introduction prior to group work is potentially worrying given that research has explored how teachers effectiveness or otherwise can draw out pupils’ thinking and ready them for interactionand thereby influence group work(Webb et al., 2009; Webb et al., 2008). These studies researched pupils and teachers within classrooms, and evaluated the use of group work through comparison with conventional teaching (broadly equivalent to whole-class and individual learning approaches). Thus, the current paper used a similar approach, where a specific topic area was replaced with an intervention that investigated the role of the teacher at the introduction (briefing) and conclusion (debriefing) stages of lessons, understood through comparison with conventional teaching of a separate class.

Given that teachers encounter difficulties in aligning their approach to lessons with the teaching and learning arrangements set in place for pupils; how can they support group work? Teacher’s behaviour recorded during typical classroom interaction has been labelled the “IRF exchange” where teachers initiate material (I), pupils respond (R), and teachers provide feedback (F) (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). Tharp and Gallimore (1991)suggest such interaction often seeks out predictable and obvious answers, and in relation to group work may only serve to devalue pupils’ contributions. Thus, comparing teachers’ behaviour (those participating in the intervention with counterparts not participating) helps look at changes in behaviour and helps to provide a clearer picture of teachers’ talk surrounding the use of group work in lessons. During such lessons, teachers must align their perspective with the representations held by pupils and this requires teachers to gauge to what extent pupils’ comprehension can be stretched. This mirrors the interpretation made within research regarding “scaffolding”, where external support is provided during social interaction with an expert (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Rather than dismiss scaffolding on the basis that scant evidence has been reported from studies of authentic classrooms, it should be highlighted as support for how teachers should prepare and address pupils within group work lessons (for example MacQuarrie et al., 2012; Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2011). Thus, a version of scaffolding may need to operate at the classroom level when teachers grasp opportunities to talk about group work and the topic under investigation. Although it may be difficult to conceive scaffolding operating in this manner indirect evidence supports this assertion. Tharp and Gallimore (1991, p. 110) propose that through the “weaving of new, schooled concepts with the concepts of everyday life” teachers can instigate a change in their talk, and develop connections in pupils’ understanding. Studies by Mercer and colleagues (Fernandez, Wegerif, Mercer, & Rojas-Drummond, 2001; Mercer, 2002) lend support and show how teachers’ behaviour can be successfully included within a broader intervention; progression in teachers’ behaviour could lead to developments in the understanding shared by pupils and their teacher for the duration of a joint activity (labelled the intermental development zone) and the nature of talk used by teachers within lessons.

Accordingly, detailed explanation of briefing (prior to) and debriefing (following) behaviours used to support group work were developed, and explored in the documents given to teachers. Such behaviours were condensed into “process” and “contextualise” characteristics and used to develop observation categories to record teacher behaviour[1]. These characteristics help signal to teachers that their role is vital when group work is introduced and embedded within forms of teaching and learning taking place within classrooms. Process talk stemmed from inclusion of similar content to that deployed in previous research (Baines, Blatchford, & Chowne, 2007). It was designed to coordinate and align teachers’ and pupils’ understanding of group interaction. Teachers involved in the research were provided with specific details as to how they could explain and give feedback to pupils about interaction in groups, such reminders having been shown to be influential in pupils’ continued focus and attention to learning whilst working as groups.

The second aspect, “contextualise”, focused on clarifying communication between pupils and their teacher regarding the concepts and principles being studied within a lesson. Teachers were recommended to add meaning to pupils’ understanding, by probing thinking, and making connections with real life examples and content examined in previous lessons. It is argued that such statements provide pupils with a specific message, that teachers value contributions sourced from groups and that content learned in groups has intrinsic value for pupils’ understanding and knowledge. Observation classifications utilised in the current studyare derived from such guidance and encapsulate previous findings that emphasise the role of pupil explanations during group work (Howe et al., 2007) and that teachers’ prompts and questions can elicit extended contributions from pupils (Webb et al., 2009; Webb, Nemer, & Ing, 2006).

Group work is considered as a form of learning that enables a shared framework between a teacher and their class to be established, where working in groups is viewed as a valuable enterprise, incorporating task and non-task learning and where social interaction is key to fulfilling a group’s aims. Studies agree that how teachers foster group work must be based upon their understanding of group thinking (Chiu, 2004; Ding, Li, Piccolo, & Kulm, 2007; Hardy, Jonen, Moller, & Stern, 2006; Meloth & Deering, 1999; Webb et al., 2009). However, as indicated earlier, what teachers think about group work is not necessarily evident in their behaviour during such lessons, given their tendency to approach different forms of teaching and learning in the same way. Rather than see anincrease in monitoring or checking behaviours, teachers should be able to target questions and seek out specific details when conversing with groups. Communication that contributes to group work is vital, as it underpins classroom relationships, and may provide much needed encouragement for pupils to engage with their peers.

Guidance developed for teachers, also included commentary stemming from research into group work in classrooms(Howe et al., 2007). Illustrative detail as to how teachers can foster group work was included on the basis that teachers may well have concerns that group work has the potential to be a disruptive force , influencing curricular content to be learnt and peer relationships (Blatchford, 2003; Kutnick, Blatchford, Clark, MacIntyre, & Baines, 2005). Guidance shared detail how groups should be arranged, and included a brief explanation of why such arrangements have value, giving teachers grounds for their approach. In particular, guidance regarding the arrangement of pupils into groups was explored in the project documents. The first feature related to the arrangement of pupils into small groups. Teachers were advised to implement groups, arranging groups to allow a mixture of skills and abilities taking into account factors such as ability and gender. Pupils ideally, should also be similar in terms of their relationships with each other (Gauvain & Rogoff, 1989; Inhelder, 1958). Suggesting that within such groups, peers will beless threatened by each otherand discussion that allows different perspectives to be explored is likely.

The learning climate or environment within which children work is also relevant, a supportive atmosphere encourages children to respond more openly and welcome their peers’ contributions(Cornelius & Herrenkohl, 2004; De Lisi, 2002; Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 2002). Research suggests that mutual respect is likely to optimise opportunities for learning (De Lisi, 2002; DeVries, 2000). A supportive climate may contribute to pupils’ experience of group work and is argued to underpin interaction in groups (Gillies & Khan, 2009; Tolmie et al., 2010). Studies suggest that teachers may need to cultivate and maintain such a climate. Pupils within groups are encouraged to interact and share ideas, which may not bring about straightforward interaction and pupils have to reconcile their method of working with changes in the teacher’s role. To help gauge the impact of the methodology a measure of peer interaction was included. Concerns raised by teachers and stakeholders involved in education, meant that the measure of peer interaction was completed by teachers rather than pupils, and is seen as a suitable alternative when pupil data is not available (Hersen, 2011, p. 250). Similar hostility was evident in a study involving primary aged children also located in Scotland (Schröeter, 2006) and has been noted regarding this form of data collection (Hymel, Vaillancourt, McDougall, & Renshaw, 2004; Mayeux, Underwood, & Risser, 2007). In this instance, teachers completed a rating scale per pupil, on two occasions, once at the start and once at the completion of the study. To ensure that both teachers and pupils held a similar appreciation of what group work involved, a table concisely explaining the “rights and responsibilities” of groups was included within the intervention documents(Gillies, 2007, p. 80). Teachers were advised to refer to this resource to embed examples of productive interaction into their talk, leading to a shared understanding of the nature of positive interdependence – where each individual within a group shares the belief that joint action, reflected in similar individual and group aims are key components of group work(Johnson & Johnson, 2005). The guidelines also provided pupils with a tool that they could utilise to remind group members who tended to evade giving contributions. This marks a separation from previous research that looked at establishing group work as a routine part of classroom activity, which opted to establish a relational approach that was based on developing appropriate skills to evaluate productive group work to take place (Baines, Rubie-Davies, et al., 2009; Galton et al., 2009; Topping et al., 2011). Previous research indicates that such skills may already be partly established by the time pupils reach secondary school, suggesting that a short introduction to group work mechanisms is appropriate in this instance rather than a longer lead in involving specific training (MacQuarrie et al., 2012).

When teachers stray from their conventional “honed” approach and adopt other methods, they face an uncertain period, developing and reflecting upon practice. Introduction of modified teaching and learning approaches has been found to influence the form and progression of lessons (Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006). That group work relies on effective communication which utilises a proportion of class time suggests how lessons progress is ripe for investigation(Cohen, 1994; Mercer & Littleton, 2007). The framework shared by teachers and pupils can be indirectly assessed by considering the progression of lessons in relation to teachers’ behaviour and the type of teaching approach employed. This was approached in two ways, the first examined teachers’ behaviour during group work. During lessons,“transitions”can be considered a shift coordinated by the teacher that helps explain the rate and pace of lessons. Such transitions may be employed in reaction to time pressures thus moving forward the lesson and may help clarify previous research findings that indicated lesson conclusions in particular were at risk when time was short (Galton et al., 2009; MacQuarrie et al., 2012). The number of transitions made during a lesson may help give an indication of the level of autonomy that groups experience. Pupils’ actual experience of groupwork has recently been brought into question, given that few extended opportunities to work in groups have been reported (Baines, Rubie-Davies, et al., 2009).

The current study adds to the research exploring group work within secondary education as it asked teachers to include two types of talk into their briefing (introduction) and debriefing (conclusion) behaviours. Teachers were encouraged to incorporate talk that would help examine pupils’ interaction in groups but also consolidate pupils’ comprehension of the lesson objective and contextualise pupils’ understanding by making connections and comparing pupils’ contributions. Emphasis was placed on making time for such talk, even if such talk was at the expense of activities being completed in groups. Evaluation used two types of data. Analysesexamined classroom observations that recorded teachers’ behaviour, including shifts made during lessons (known as transitions) as well as teachers’ talk. Teachers’ ratings of pupil interaction are also presented. The dearth of previous research examining the teacher’s role at the outset and close of group work lessons makes it difficult to predict how teachers will contend with challenges they encounter. It is expected that teachers will set aside time to round up and pull together the different strains of information in order to help pupils contextualise their understanding. Rather than increasing the time spent introducing lessons, it is anticipated that changes in teachers’ behaviour may be observed. Although, previous research involving group work reported few differences in relation to teaching year(MacQuarrie et al., 2012), teachers whose responsibilities included first year classes (pupils aged 12-13) were identified as potential candidates as they are less likely to encounter pressures such as subject choice decisions or external examinations. Suitable resources that could be adapted were science based (Topping et al., 2007, 2011), which fits with group work being used in science as it offers opportunities for debate and non-teacher directed learning (Bennett, Hogarth, Lubben, Campbell, & Robinson, 2009).

2. Method:

2.1.Design

A two-way mixed design incorporated a within-subjects factor(observation of teachers at the introduction and conclusion of lessons) and a between-subjects factor (intervention or control lessons) to evaluate the impact of introducing a sciencemodule whose content was completed primarily by pupils working in groups. A module targeted one topic area (approximately three weeks in duration)and was implemented between February and April 2009 in two schools. The module was derived from previous research undertaken in similar contexts (Thurston et al., 2010). A control group was formed using a science class, which was observed when the comparable topic area was introduced (and no restrictions were imposed as to control teachers’ instruction of the topic area). The intervention classroom was matched within a control classroom sourced from within the same school. Teachers of the control classroom and intervention classroom coordinated their initial introduction of the topic area so that pupils would experience the topic area for approximately the same duration. Therefore, pupils within intervention or control classrooms were given equal opportunities to learn as the same material was covered in both types of classrooms.

2.2 Sampling:

Five local authorities located in West Central Scotland were contacted to determine which secondary schools would be most amenable to the project. Follow-up communication with potential candidates ruled out schools due to incompatibilities or commitments to other research, imminent school inspection, or teachers had undergone groupwork specific training. Two schools fromtwo local authorities each provided an intervention and a controlclassroom. The percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals was used as an indicator of the school’s socio-economic status. School 1 was located in the 5-10 percentile and school 2 was located in the 15-20 percentile, both schools therefore border the Scottish average of 12.9 percent located within the 10-15 percentile (Scottish Executive, 2009b). During initial discussions that supported recruitment of participants,it was ascertained that volunteers from each school were similar in their experience of teaching. Teachers were neither recent graduates nor had they been teaching for an extensive period (e.g. more than 15 years). This study maintained a whole-school approach as the Science department adopted the intervention and informed parents of its implementation.