Teaching and Learning Research Programme

Annual Conference Papers

5th Annual Conference, 22-24 November 2004

Cardiff Marriott Hotel

The impact of collaborative group work in primary

classrooms and the effects of class composition in urban
and rural schools

Donald Christie*, Andrew Tolmie*, Christine Howe*, Keith Topping**,

Allen Thurston**, Emma Jessiman*, Kay Livingston* and Caroline
Donaldson***.

*University of Strathclyde
**University of Dundee
***Formerly at Dundee, now at Queen Margaret University College

NB: This paper was presented at an internal TLRP conference; if you wish to quote from it
please contact the authors directly for permission. Contact details for each project and
thematic initiative can be found on our website (www.tlrp.org).
The impact of collaborative group work in primary classrooms and the effects of class
composition in urban and rural schools

Donald Christie*, Andrew Tolmie*, Christine Howe*, Keith Topping**, Allen Thurston**, Emma
Jessiman*, Kay Livingston* and Caroline Donaldson***.

*University of Strathclyde
**University of Dundee
***Formerly at Dundee, now at Queen Margaret University College

ABSTRACT

The paper outlines key findings from the ScotSPRinG project conducted by a team from the
Universities of Strathclyde and Dundee funded as a TLRP Scottish Extension project linked to the
Phase II Project: “Improving the effectiveness of pupil groups in classrooms” led by Professors
Blatchford, Galton and Kutnick. The project involved the participation of pupils and teachers in 24
primary schools in eight local authorities across Scotland.

Aim The aim of this intervention study was to evaluate the impact of collaborative group work in
selected Scottish Primary classrooms and explore the effects of class composition in urban and rural
schools.

Method Approximately 600 upper primary stage pupils were involved in the study. A two-phase
intervention designed to foster collaborative group work, using similar approaches to those devised
by the TLRP Phase II SPRinG Project team, was carried out in four different categories of schools
derived from the combination of two factors: urban/rural school; single age/mixed age classes. The
first phase of the intervention involved social and communication skills training activities. The second
phase focused on collaborative group work in two primary science topic areas: evaporation and
forces. A battery of pre- and post-intervention assessments was implemented using a range of
cognitive, affective and social measures, including a newly devised sociometric instrument designed
to tap into the different patterns of social relationships characterising the four different categories of
schools. In addition, systematic classroom observations were conducted during the different phases
of the study and detailed evaluation feedback was gathered from participating teachers.

Results A number of interesting initial findings have emerged showing significant gains across a
number of measures, which were attributable to the group work intervention. In particular there were
significant gains in micro measures of attainment in the two specific science topics. Regression
analysis showed the cognitive gains to be related to indices of the quality of collaborative dialogue
during group work. While there were no consistent overall differences between composite and single
age classes nor between urban and rural schools, group work yielded significant gains in social
relations in the intervention classes and again collaborative engagement within tasks was found to be
associated with the social benefits. The evidence suggests that the socio-emotional gains are
independent of the cognitive gains.
Evaluative feedback obtained from teachers was generally very positive in terms of the quality of the
training and support package and in terms of the impact of the intervention on both pupil learning
and their own professional practice .

INTRODUCTION
Research over the past 20 years has established beyond dispute that interaction between 
learners is a powerful and natural mechanism for promoting enhanced clarity of conception 
and articulation, but group work within schools has typically failed to make best use of the 
potential of interactive learning.  The present study (ScotSPRinG) was designed as a Scottish 
Extension project linked to the TLRP Phase II Project, “Improving the Effectiveness of Pupil 
Groups in Classrooms,”also described as Social Pedagogic Research into Grouping (SPRinG)
based in the South­East of England at the Universities of London (Institute of Education), 
Brighton and Cambridge.  The principal aim of both projects is to enhance the learning 
potential of pupils working in classroom groups by actively involving teachers in 
programmes designed to raise the incidence and quality of group work during typical 
activities.  

The rationale for the extension of the Phase II project to the Scottish context was based partly
upon demographic differences and partly upon the distinct forms of educational provision in
Scotland which provided an opportunity to assess the generalisability of the SPRinG project’s
resources, and to extend the social pedagogy being developed through the research. The use
of group work in schools has much the same tradition in Scotland as in England i.e. an
increased incidence during the 1960s, reflecting policy shifts towards child-centred teaching
and the view that group work allowed appropriate differentiation of ability levels in
classroom activities; followed by its espousal as essentially an organisational device rather
than as a teaching strategy. Thus in Scotland, too, the principal issue motivating the SPRinG
research holds true: group work exists, but it is frequently not effectively planned (Darling,
1999).

Where Scotland does differ markedly from England (particularly the South-East) is in its
inherently greater variation in primary school size, with all that follows from this in terms of
class and group characteristics. This variation reflects the much wider range of urban and
rural communities to be found in Scotland, with small village primary schools still being
commonplace in many areas. One consequence of the retention of schools linked to small
communities is that pupils typically possess much greater familiarity both with each other
and with each other’s families.

Initial evidence from the SPRinG Project (Kutnick, personal communication, 2003) pointed
to the importance of a relational basis (e.g. via trust and social communication exercises) for
competence in group work to operate outside of friendship pairings. The evidence also
tended to confirm that it is possible to foster through dyadic and other group activities
productive forms of communication, such as the exploratory talk identified by Mercer (1995),
or the disagreement-explication cycle defined by Howe & Tolmie (1998). Thus in terms of
the framework of influences on effective group work identified by the SPRinG project,
children in schools linked to small communities might be expected to have stronger pre-
existing relational bases for joint activity, and to fall more naturally and competently into
group work as a result (cf. early research by Shapira & Madsen, 1969, on the greater
cooperative tendencies within school of children from more collective communities). At the
same time, though, community schools of this kind by necessity also make considerable use
of composite classes because small school numbers make age banding unfeasible, and they
have more individualised learning programmes to redress the resulting within-class diversity.
Joint activity in such classes may therefore be less common. Where it does occur, it will
often mean interaction between children of different ages and differing levels of expertise,
altering the dynamic from one of collaboration between peers to one of tutoring of the junior
partner by the senior (cf. Piaget, 1932; Rogoff, 1990; Howe, Tolmie, Duchak-Tanner &
Rattray, 2000).

Given the positive outcomes reported in the literature on peer tutoring (Topping & Ehly,
1998), this does not entail that group work is necessarily less effective under these conditions.
However, it may well alter the operation of factors such as relational ease. For instance,
while better understanding on the part of the tutor of the knowledge held by the tutee
contributes to effective tutoring (Foot, Shute, Morgan & Barron, 1990), greater relational
distance might plausibly be needed for the tutee to be prepared to be guided by the tutor.
Moreover, a substantial literature attests to the fact that peer collaboration and peer tutoring
have different natural ambits of applicability, with the former lending itself more to
conceptual explication, and the latter to procedural understanding (see Howe et al., 2000).
The implication is, then, that the ways in which teachers make use of group work might need
to be different in small school settings, undermining the generalisability of the SPRinG
resources, and indicating the need for more differentiated, context-specific models of
effectiveness.

Investigation of this issue simply via a comparison between small rural schools and larger
urban ones is problematic, however, because of the confound between cross-age group work
and greater personal familiarity. If results suggested there were problems in extending the
SPRinG resources to rural schools, it would be unclear whether this was attributable to the
lack of relational distance, or to a mismatch between the resources and the use of cross-age
combinations per se. The distinction is an important one, since the former would imply that
the situation might be rectified to some extent simply by choosing pupil groups more
carefully, whereas the latter would indicate the need to develop separate support regimes for
teachers working in these contexts. Fortunately, however, the Scottish primary system
provides a means of disentangling the possible influences, since compositing is not restricted
to rural schools, but is also present to some degree in many urban primary schools, where it is
used to cope with variation in the size of intake. Thus some cross-age group work occurs in
contexts where out of school familiarity is lower.

Application of the SPRinG resources to selected types of school in Scotland, therefore,

allows a form of natural experiment to be conducted, comparing the effects of supporting
group work in this way under four conditions: 1) classes in rural schools, where group work
is typically cross-age; 2) classes in larger rural schools where compositing is not used and
hence group work is between same-age children; 3) classes in urban schools with
compositing, where at least some group work is cross-age and 4) classes in larger urban
schools where compositing is not used, and group work is between same-age children.
Comparison of the these conditions in terms of the relative effectiveness of the existing
support programmes would make it possible to pinpoint exactly how far it is necessary to
devise different support systems and different pedagogical frameworks for promoting
productive group work in rural schools, and also in other contexts where composite classes
exist.

Previous research has emphasised the value of peer activity in promoting social competence
(Warden & Christie, 1997). By adopting a fine-grained approach to promoting effective
group work at primary school level, especially in the later years, the present study was
designed to provide evidence across a range of typically Scottish contexts on the direct
effects of group work on educational attainment, on pupils’ social relationships and
willingness to work independently of teachers and on how these effects interact with social
circumstance. The study was also designed to foster a network of interested and experienced
teachers and a set of resources adapted as necessary to suit the Scottish context, which could
be used by schools as part of the self-evaluation of their provision.

At a more theoretical level, the present study was aimed at providing systematic insight into
the influence of an important set of contextual factors on productive group work, a previously
under-researched area, both in Scotland and more generally. This has a direct bearing on the
wider SPRinG objective of developing a social pedagogy for group work, since the role of
contextual variation (cf. Brofenbrenner, 1979; Pellegrini & Blatchford, 2000) has already
been identified as a central concern within such a model. A number of theoretical
perspectives cast light on the functioning of pupil groups in classrooms. Piagetian and neo-
Piagetian theories address the effects on collaborative group work of differences in perceived
status, relative facility with the subject matter and the cognitive consequences of friendship
(Piaget, 1932; Doise & Mugny, 1984; Howe & Tolmie, 1998; Williams & Tolmie, 2000;
Azmitia & Montgomery, 1993). Vygotskian and neo-Vygotskian theories articulate the role
of relative differences in procedural expertise, and the tactical use of such differences by the
more expert to scaffold the activity of the less expert until they achieve autonomy (Vygotsky,
1978, Wood, 1986; Rogoff, 1990). Activity theory focuses on activities as consensual
practices or ways of achieving particular objectives which are shared between members of a
community, and which, therefore, depend on various forms of mutual knowledge and
conjoint past experience (Leontiev, 1981; Engeström, 1987; Cole & Engeström, 1993). Taken
together, these different theories provide a framework for interpreting the observed impacts
of urban vs rural context and same vs cross-age grouping on methods of supporting the
implementation of effective group work in different types of school; and for generating a
unified social pedagogy which explicitly takes into account the processes underlying these
influences, and ways in which these might be managed or capitalised upon.
Key differences between the SPRinG and ScotSPRinG projects are that while SPRinG was
designed to investigate work in pupil groups across the curriculum and across Key Stages 1,2
and 3, ScotSPRinG focused mainly on the curriculum area of Primary Science and confined
its investigation to classes of pupils aged 10-12 at the Primary 6 and Primary 7 stage in
Scottish primary schools, a stage equivalent to the boundary of KS2 and KS3. The choice of
science as the main curricular focus had a number of advantages. Firstly, it was the focus of
the Key Stage 2 and 3 interventions in the SPRinG work, so it provided a crucial linkage
between the projects. Secondly, it is an area in which the use of group work is more prevalent
(34% of activity, as against 16% for language and literacy, and only 6% for mathematics; see
Blatchford, Kutnick & Baines, 1999), so that there is likely to be a track record to assist
school selection and provide a point of departure. Thirdly, despite the greater prevalence of
group work in science, this has commonly been dictated by the limited availability of
equipment rather than any pedagogic strategy. Thus there is considerable scope for
improvement via the planning of effective activities, rendering outcomes potentially more
detectable and more discriminable from each other. Fourthly, science work is not typically
associated with ability setting, thus avoiding potential confounds between the variables under
investigation and constraints on relative levels of expertise.
At the same time, however, whilst the intervention was focused on science, it was important
to establish something of its wider effects on other areas of the curriculum. Thus, bearing in
mind the fact that 5-14 Guidelines are explicitly concerned with integration across the
curriculum, it was seen as important in the present study to gather observational and
descriptive data on group work in other areas of the curriculum and to assess attainment in
Mathematics and Language as a means of gauging spill-over impacts.

Original aims of the project:

 To examine how far the Phase II SPRinG project’s programmes for supporting effective
group work need to be adapted for use in rural and urban schools with composite classes,
where interactional styles are different from those in same-age urban classes
 To identify a representative sample of teachers in rural and urban schools with and
without composite classes, and recruit these teachers to in-service programmes which will
support them in the planning and implementation of group work activities in science
 To collect data on learning outcomes for participating pupils, both in science and more
widely, and also on changes in self-esteem and quality of collaborative behaviour in class
 To establish whether there are differences in outcomes associated with cross-age vs same-
age pupil groups and rural vs urban settings, and to compare patterns of outcome to those
obtained by SPRinG
 To interpret the findings in the light of current models of factors affecting collaboration
between pupils, and extend the social pedagogy being developed by SPRinG
 To make recommendations about modifications to group work support programmes for
teachers of composite classes in rural and urban schools.

METHODOLOGY

Initial Survey

A questionnaire was issued to a randomly selected, one-in-three sample of primary schools in

eight Scottish local authorities. The survey instrument comprised four sections dealing with:
1. Background information about the school (roll, number of classes, number of
composite classes, numbers of children at P6 and P7 stages)
2. Current approaches to group work (form, frequency)
3. Science topics planned for P6 and P7 in the current school year.
4. Willingness to participate in the intervention study.
Altogether 221 questionnaires were issued and 85 were returned (38%).

Sample for Intervention Study

The final set of schools for the intervention study was selected in a way which aimed to
capitalise on systematic patterns of natural variation. Geographical and demographic spread
was achieved by using 2 clusters of local authority areas, yielding 12 schools in West-Central
Scotland (the Strathclyde sample) and 12 schools in the North-East (the Dundee sample).
Within each group of 12 schools there were 6 urban and 6 rural schools. Within each of the
urban and rural sub-samples of schools 3 “single-age” P6 or P7 classes and 3 composite or
“mixed age” P6/P7 classes were identified as the sites for the intervention, each school
involved providing one class in which the study would take place, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Composition of the sample of schools/classes taking part in the intervention study

Strathclyde Sample Dundee Sample

Urban Rural Urban Rural
6 schools 6 schools 6 schools 6 schools
 Single Mixed Single Mixed Single Mixed Single Mixed
age age age age age age age age
3 classes 3 classes 3 classes 3 classes 3 classes 3 classes 3 classes 3 classes

Where school roll and composition allowed, schools were also asked to provide ‘control’
classes who would take part in the assessment but would not be involved in the group work
training during the present school session in which the planned intervention would take place.
Only three such control classes were recruited comprising approximately 70 pupils. This was
not seen as a major concern for the study, since the research design primarily rests on
comparisons between outcomes for different categories of school, and teachers and classes
will in a sense provide their own controls in as much as the study will track change over time
attributable to the intervention. Nevertheless it was felt that a small control sample would
provide useful data to enable evaluation of the impact of the intervention.

The Intervention – Phase 1, Group Work Skills Training

The teachers of each of the 24 classes involved in the intervention study attended three days
of in-service training, 12 attending the sessions arranged at the University of Dundee and a
total of 14 at the University of Strathclyde (including one job-share pairing and one
additional teacher who took over responsibility for one of the intervention classes during the
study). The focus of the first day of training, which took place before the classroom activities
were introduced to the children, was on potential benefits of group work and effective
strategies for introducing classroom activities designed to enhance children’s social skills and
communication skills. A comprehensive package of materials to support group work training
was issued to each teacher, based on the materials produced by the TLRP Phase II SPRinG
team. Care was taken to ensure that the in-service sessions included the opportunity for
discursive input by teachers themselves, in order to mirror the SPRinG approach. Teachers
were encouraged to complete a 12-week programme, during which approximately one hour
per week was devoted to group work training activities using the package of resources
developed by the SPRinG team. These were designed to foster social and relational skills and
communication skills. In addition, teachers were expected to devote approximately a further
one hour per week of class time to group work within ‘normal’ curricular contexts.

The Intervention – Phase 2, Group Work in Science Training

The second training day, which took place towards the end of the first phase of the
intervention, focused on curricular applications of group work and in particular on the use of
group work in two units of Primary Science, namely, Forces and Evaporation, which are
specified at Levels D and E of the 5-14 Environmental Studies Guidelines. During this phase
of the intervention, teachers were expected to devote at least an hour per week over a 6- to 8-
week period to classroom activity including structured group work connected with the two
Science topics, supported by further comprehensive classroom resources. In addition,
teachers were expected to continue with their use of group work across the rest of the
curriculum

Evaluation of the Intervention

On each of the training days, time was spent explaining the teachers’ role with respect to the
pre- and post-intervention assessment procedures to be implemented. In addition, the pattern
of researcher visits and the observation procedures to be adopted throughout the study were
explained to participating teachers. The third in-service day, which took place after all
classroom data collection was complete, was devoted to debriefing, feedback and evaluation.
An evaluation questionnaire was issued to each of the participating teachers and focus group
discussions were recorded dealing with the implementation and outcomes of the group work
schemes and general reflections on experiences of the intervention.

Assessment and Observation Instruments

A comprehensive battery of assessment was adopted for pre- and post-testing of both
cognitive and affective outcomes. In the cognitive domain, the Performance Indicators in
Primary School (PIPS) tests (CEM, Durham) were used to assess children in intervention and
control classes on measures of academic attainment in Mathematics, Language and Science
as well as on their non-verbal reasoning. Micro measures of learning outcomes relating the
two specific Science topics, Forces and Evaporation, were obtained using parallel forms of
tests similar to those used by the SPRinG team, before and after the group work in science
intervention phase of the study.

In the affective domain, the PIPS tests included measures of attitudes to school and to school
subjects. A questionnaire, “My Feelings”, devised by the SPRinG project team to measure
children’s attitudes to group work, was administered along with the “general worth” 6-item
subscale of the Harter Self-Esteem questionnaire. A new sociometric instrument, “People in
your Class”, was developed to provide data on children’s social relationships and patterns of
interaction both in school and outside of school. Presented in the form of a matrix, this asked
children to consider six key context questions (columns) regarding their relationships with all
other members of their class (rows). The context questions included, for example, “Who do
you like to play with in school?” and “Who do you like to play with out of school?” as well
as questions to do with familiarity with children’s families and whether peers would be likely
to be met locally, or at ‘clubs’ outside school.

The observation schedule used by the researcher during observation visits focused on the
collaborative activity occurring in participating classrooms at three time points over the
course of the study. At each time point two observation sessions were undertaken, one during
a conventional class lesson and one during a planned group work lesson. During each
session, six target children per class were observed for eight 40-second time windows. The
SPRinG schedule was adapted to focus on “interactants” and quality of dialogue. Within
“dialogue” there were two main categories of codes:
i. Collaborative codes: proposition; disagreement; explanation; reference back; and
resolution/compromise
ii. Tutoring codes: instruction; and question

In addition to this fine-grained observation schedule, a general class-level observation

instrument devised by the SPRinG team, namely, “S-TOP” was used at each of the three time
points to capture, on a 3-point scale, global ratings of the quality of the learning context (4
items); suitability of tasks and activities (7 items); degree of adult (teacher) involvement (10
items); group work skills (11 items) evident in the intervention classrooms.

RESULTS

Initial survey of schools

Schools were asked to indicate the frequency with which group work was used as a general
classroom strategy. The percentage frequencies were as follows (N=81): “Frequently” 90%;
“Sometimes” 9%; “Rarely” 1%; “Never” 0%. Schools were also asked to indicate their use
of different forms of group work across the curriculum. The pattern of responses regarding
use of collaborative group work in curriculum areas is shown in Table 2. The range of
percentage frequencies was striking, with the highest percentage of schools indicating that
they used collaborative group work in Mathematics and in Environmental Studies and the
lowest percentages in Religious and Moral Education and in English Language.

Table 2: Percentages of schools indicating use of collaborative group work in each area of
the curriculum

CURRICULUM AREA %YES %NO

Mathematics 88 12
Environmental Studies 87 13
Expressive Arts 76 24
Personal and Social Development 72 28
Health Education 48 52
Religious and Moral Education 39 61
English Language 32 68

Pre- and post-testing

The data from the pre- and post-tests was analysed with respect to the nature and extent of
any differences between a) rural vs urban school context, and b) cross-age vs same-age
grouping. Of particular concern in the analysis were the following three questions:
i. whether the range of measures employed indicated that the programme of support for
group work had been more productive in terms of incidence or effectiveness under
some conditions than others;
ii. whether observed differences were general or restricted to particular aspects of
performance; and
iii. crucially, whether cross-age urban groups were more similar in pattern of effects to
rural cross-age groups (indicating a general cross-age effect) or to urban same-age
groups (indicating that more specific effects are operating in the rural context).

Cognitive measures

The PIPS performance measures (Science, Maths Reading, Vocabulary and Non-Verbal
Reasoning) all showed significant pre- to post-test shifts. However, there was no obvious
effect of the intervention in that effect sizes were similar across intervention and control
children and there were no pre- vs post-test x condition interactions in overall 3-way Anovas.
There were, however, significant area x class interactions on every measure except reading,
indicating that urban, straight-age classes perform at the lowest level whilst rural straight age
classes perform at the highest.

The pre- and post-test comparisons for the micro measures associated with the two specific
science topics were consistent were more promising in terms of showing an effect potentially
attributable to the intervention. The mean scores (and s.d.) for the “Evaporation” pre- and
post-tests in composite and straight age classes are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Mean pre- and post-test scores (and s.d) for Evaporation topic in the intervention
and control conditions in composite and straight age classes in rural and urban areas (min.
score = 0; max. score =19).
Condition/Time Rural Comp Rural st age Urban comp Urban st age
of test (n=117) (n=121) (n=135) (n=141)
Intervention Pre- 9.26 9.45 9.85 8.34
test (2.73) (3.02) (5.07) (2.70)
Intervention 12.48 12.37 12.67 11.32
Post-test (3.97) (3.41) (3.17) (3.60)

Rural st age Urban st age

(n=23) (n=48)
Control 12.39 9.29
Pre-test (2.55) (3.10)
Control 11.00 9.73
Post-test (1.88) (3.34)

Three separate analyses of variance were carried out on this data. Three-way Anova of the
scores of classes in the intervention condition showed the pre- vs post-test difference was
highly significant: F(1,510) = 270.27, P < .001. The effect size (partial eta-squared) for this
comparison was 0.35. The effect of type of class (straight age vs. composite) was also
significant: F (1,510) = 7.27, P = .007 with children in composite classes scoring higher
overall than those in straight age classes. The Type of Class x Area (Urban vs. Rural)
interaction was also significant: F(1,510) = 8.27, P = .004.

In the 2-way Anova of scores of classes in the control condition the pre- vs post- test
difference was not significant. In the overall 3-way Anova of pre- and post-test scores in the
intervention and control conditions in urban and rural classes the critical Pre- vs Post x
Condition interaction was significant, F(1,329) 29.12, P < .001 (effect size = .14).

A very similar pattern of scores was obtained from the “Forces” pre- and post-tests (See Table
4). Again the analyses of variance showed significant pre- to post-test gains in the
intervention classes: F (1,461) = 158.02, P < .001 (partial eta-squared effect size = 0.25), but
no significant gains in control classes.

Table 4 Mean pre- and post-test scores (and s.d) for Forces topic in the intervention and
control conditions in composite and straight age classes in rural and urban areas (min.
score = 0; max. score =37).
Condition/Time Rural Comp Rural st age Urban comp Urban st age
of test (n=92) (n=116) (n=143) (n=114)
Intervention Pre- 19.86 22.46 19.87 19.85
test (5.12) (4.69) (4.47) (4.97)
Intervention 23.59 24.86 22.78 23.04
Post-test (4.93) (5.04) (5.19) (5.28)

Rural st age Urban st age

(n=20) (n=40)
Control 21.35 24.05
Pre-test (3.25) (5.62)
Control 21.60 25.02
Post-test (4.42) (4.98)

Group influences on cognitive gains

Regression analysis was used to establish significance of the observational data and other
measures of the quality of group work in predicting the pattern of attainment in the two
science topic post-tests. The pattern of results was fairly consistent across the two topics.
Firstly, observed frequency of children giving explanations during group work positively
predicted post-test scores for Evaporation (Beta = 0.28, t = 2.20, p<.05) and similarly for
Forces, though failing to reach significance, (Beta = 0.25, t = 1.81, p=.07). Secondly, the S-
TOP ‘Adult’ score proved to be a negative predictor for both topics: Evaporation (Beta =
-0.36, t = 3.27, p<.001); Forces (Beta = -0.39, t = 3.38, p<.001). This indicated that the less
adults intervened, and the more they monitored, guided without directing and encouraged
pupil interaction, the better. Thirdly the S-TOP ‘Learning Context’ scores proved to be a
positive predictor of gains in Evaporation (Beta = 0.26, t = 3.67, p<.001) and in Forces (Beta
= 0.19, t = 2.48, p<.05).

Affective and Social measures

Sociometric measures
The sociometric instrument yielded the predicted pattern of overall differences between the
rural and urban schools. Compared with children in urban schools, children in rural schools
nominated a higher percentage of classmates that they:
 play with in school: F(1,477) = 30.40, P < .001;
 work with in school: F (1,477) = 6.12, P = .014;
 play with out of school: F(1,477) = 34.37, P < .001;
 see at clubs: F(1,477) = 22.43, P < .001;
 know also within their family context: F(1,477) = 94.07, P < .001; and
 see locally: F(1,477) = 164.46, P < .001.

The anticipated improvements in classroom relationships were evident in positive pre- to

post- test shifts in the first two of these measures in intervention classes (“play with” F(1,477)
= 8.13, P = .005; “work with” F(1,477) = 22.03, P < .001). However, a degree of caution is
required, since a significant shift was also recorded in the “play with” measure in control
classes, though the pattern of scores here was very irregular with unusually high percentages
of children being nominated overall in the single rural control class.

Self-Esteem measure
The aggregate scores on the Harter “General Worth” subscales yielded a significant
difference between urban and rural schools, with children in urban schools scoring more
positively on this measure of self-esteem than children in rural schools: F(1,493) = 7.74, p = .
006. There was no evidence of an overall pre- to post-test improvement in self-esteem.
However, there was a significant three-way Pre/post x Area x Class interaction, which
indicated that while self esteem stayed the same or slightly declined in both types of rural
classrooms and in urban composite classes, there were gains in the urban single-age classes:
F(1,493) = 9.77, P = .002.

Group work influences on socio-emotional measures

Regression analysis was used to establish the significance of the observational data and other
measures of the quality of group work in predicting the pattern of gains in the two key
sociometric measures (percentage of the members of their class children liked to ‘work with’
and ‘play with’).

The S-TOP measure of ‘task suitability’ positively predicted sociometric gains in percentage
of the class children indicated they liked to ‘play with’ (Beta = 0.313, t = 6.49, p<.001) and
‘work with’ (Beta = 0.395, t = 5.78, p<.001). The teachers’ ratings of children’s group work
skills at the end of the intervention also predicted the social gains both in terms of ‘work
with’(Beta = 0.451, t = 8.84, p<.001) and ‘play with’ (Beta = 0.423, t = 6.61, p<.001).

Teacher Evaluations
Teachers (N=26) were issued with an evaluation questionnaire which asked them to rate how
useful they had found the various aspects of the intervention package (in-service staff
development, support and materials provided) and to evaluate its impact on pupils’ learning
and their own practice. Teachers across all four conditions gave equally positive ratings of all
of these aspects of the intervention.

Individual comments were also gathered from teachers during the final in-service day. A
small selection of these indicates the tone of much of what was said. For example, one very
experienced teacher commented:

“As a teacher, I am obviously aware of the effectiveness of group work and have
always grouped children socially to make their behaviour and learning as effective as
possible. The SPRinG study took this a good few steps further and made me realise
that there is a variety of structures of grouping that can be even more effective.
The materials given by the group were excellent and made me aware of how
my class learned, how they reacted to one another.... I was inspired to take the use of
group learning into many areas of the curriculum and use it as an effective learning
tool. I will continue this into next year, with a new class, and be able to monitor their
progress as well as develop a whole host of new skills – not only for the pupils, but for
the teacher as well!”

Commenting particularly on the quality of the Science materials and activities, another said:

“I thought the project presented an interesting way to teach science. The group work
skills package has proved to be very beneficial. There has been a positive change in
their attitudes towards working in a group and getting along with each other.”

Finally, teachers had also given thought to the implications for pedagogy of their experiences
on the project. One illuminating piece of advice offered by one of the participating perhaps
shows an awareness the value of teachers supporting but not to closely intervening in group
work:

“Learn to let go – this approach gives children more responsibility for their own
learning”

DISCUSSION AND CONLUSIONS

The results of the initial survey together with the observational data gathered during the study
tend to suggest that while the primary schools in the present sample report that group work is
a common feature of classroom activity, there was considerable scope for improvement in the
quality of group work and in children’s mastery of the skills of cooperation and collaboration.

Supporting group work yielded a number of important gains. In particular the interventions
related to the science topics proved highly successful. The Science activities involved a
number of components which may have contributed to the gains made, including whole class
lessons, practical activities and well structured materials as well as collaborative group work
activity. However, the regression analyses of the observational data clearly showed that the
group work component played a significant role. It was also important to note that the
properties of effective group work were similar across the two different topic areas covered
and that these properties observed in a range of real classroom contexts corresponded closely
to those observed in experimental settings (e.g. Mercer, 1995; Howe & Tolmie, 1998).

Classroom observations showed that the quality and effectiveness of collaborative group
work improved significantly in participating classrooms over the course of the study. The
predicted differences between urban and rural schools in terms of pre-existing patterns of
social relations were confirmed with children in the rural schools being more likely to have
social contacts with other children both in school and outside in the community. However,
the socio-emotional gains attributable to the intervention were broadly similar across the rural
and urban schools as well as across composite and non composite classes. In many ways this
is an encouraging finding. It was in the area of social relationships, as indicated by the
sociometric data, where the clearest gains were made. Regression analysis confirmed that it
was the quality of collaborative engagement within tasks that was central to the benefits
obtained. It is also worth noting that the socio-emotional gains were broadly independent of
cognitive gains. While our large structural variables of rural vs urban area and class type did
not account for the variation in affective outcomes, the potential impact of group work needs
to be understood in terms of a much finer grained analysis set against the background of
demographic factors that may also be having an influence

In terms of the evaluative feedback received from participating teachers, the intervention was
highly valued by teachers across the different types of class/school who were equally likely to
report benefits both in terms of their professional practice and in terms of pupil learning. The
SPRinG approach was seen by teachers as effective in bringing about this improvement. The
intervention was designed in such a way as to be sustainable and it was encouraging that
many of the participating teachers indicated they planned to continue to develop this aspect of
their practice in the future.

REFERENCES
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P. & Baines, E. (1999). The nature and use of classroom groups. End
of Award Report to ESRC.
Cole, M. & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In
G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Darling, J. (1999). Scottish Primary Education: Philosophy and Practice. In T.G.K.Bryce and
W.M.Humes (Eds.), Scottish Education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Doise, W. and Mugny, G. (1984). The Social Development of the Intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to
Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Foot, H.C., Shute, R.J., Morgan, M.J. & Barron, A. (1990). Theoretical issues in peer
tutoring. In H.C. Foot, M.J. Morgan & R.J. Shute (Eds.), Children Helping Children.
Chichester: John Wiley.
Howe, C.J. & Tolmie, A. (1998). Productive interaction in the context of computer-supported
collaborative learning in science. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with Computers:
Analysing Productive Interaction. London: Routledge.
Howe, C.J., Tolmie, A., Duchak-Tanner, V. & Rattray, C. (2000). Hypothesis testing in
science: group consensus and the acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge.
Learning & Instruction, 10, 361-391.
Leontiev, A.N. (1981). Problems in the Development of Mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Mercer, N. (1995). The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk Amongst Teachers and
Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pellegrini, A. & Blatchford, P. (2000). Children’s Interactions at School: Peers and Teachers.
London: Edward Arnold.
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Development of the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shapira, A. & Madsen, M.C. (1969). Cooperative and competitive behaviour of kibbutz and
urban children in Israel. Child Development, 4, 609-617.
Topping, K. J. & Ehly, S. (Eds.) (1998). Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah NJ & London UK:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warden, D. and Christie, D. (1997) Teaching Social Behaviour: Classroom activities to foster
interpersonal awareness. London: David Fulton.
Williams, J.M. & Tolmie, A. (2000). Conceptual change in biology: group interaction and the
understanding of inheritance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 625-649.
Wood, D. (1986). Aspects of teaching and learning. In M. Richards & P. Light (Eds.),
Children of Social Worlds. Cambridge: Polity Press.