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

SPRinG

The SPRinG Project Teams:KS1 Team: Peter Kutnick, Lucia Berdondini & Cathy OtaKS2 Team: Peter Blatchford, Ed Baines & Anne Chowne KS3 Team: Maurice Galton, Linda Hargreaves, Charlotte Page, Tony Pell & Susan StewardScotSPRinG Team: Donald Christie, Christine Howe, Andy Tolmie & Keith Topping

Presented at AERA 2006 – San Francisco

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.

SPRinG

Example: Who should get the pay rise? (cont.)

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 … (??)

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.

SPRinG

Example: Who should get the pay rise? (cont.)

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

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

SPRinG

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

SPRinG Limitations of previous research

Previous research on cooperative and collaborative group work in UK:

1. Has established group work to be effective in controlled conditions but not yet tested if group work is effective in real everyday classroom contexts

2. 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

Research was therefore needed

1. 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

2. To test if group work can be effectively implemented into everyday classroom contexts and whether its use leads to positive educational outcomes

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

SPRinG

SPRinGWhat is group work?

There is more to group work than sitting students in groups.

1. By group work we mean pupils working together as a group or team.

2. the balance of ownership and control of the work shifts toward the pupils themselves.

3. Group work involves children as co-learners

SPRinGWhat 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

SPRinGSPRinG Key Principles

1. Relational approach

2. Involving teachers in the design of the project and group work

3. Creating the classroom context for group work 

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

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 andreinforcing group work

– Observing interaction - monitoring group work

Guide on the side (not sage on the stage)

SPRinG

3. Creating the classroom context for group work

Need to develop group work in relation to wider context of the classroom:

 

a. ‘fixed’ factors such as classroom and class size and seating arrangements in the classroom

b. characteristics of groups such as their size and number, their composition, and their stability over time

c. group work tasks and activities

d. the curriculum

SPRinG

SPRinG Programme: ‘The Handbook’

Guidance on: 1. setting up the classroom and groups2. developing pupils’ group working skills3. supporting pupils doing group work4. organizing group work activities5. evaluating group work 6. ‘troubleshooting’7. group work activities and lesson plans8. Integrating group work into the curriculum and science

Evaluation - research design

AimTo 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.

SPRinG

Research questionsThe main research question was whether the group-work programme led

to increases in three main outcomes:

1. learning/attainment (conceptual understanding) (Damon & Phelps, 1989; Howe et al., 2000)

2. 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

3. more ‘favourable’ motivational patterns and attitudes to learning and group work (positive attitudes to group work and intrinsic motivation - see Damon & Phelps, 1989) 

SPRinG

SPRinG

Phase 3: Intervention & evaluation Intervention Data collection

Autumn term

Training pupils in: Social skills Communication skills ‘Advanced’ group work skills

Macro attainment assessments Attitude questionnaires Systematic observations

Spring term

Implementation of group work into the curriculum SPRinG lesson plans on Evaporation (2-3 sessions)

Micro science pre and post intervention assessments Systematic observations

Summer term

Implementation of group work into the curriculum SPRinG lesson plans on Forces (2-3 sessions)

Systematic observations Video observations Attitude questionnaires Macro and micro attainment assessments

SPRinG

Data includes * = 3xY5/6 + = 1xY4/5 & = 3xY4/5

SPRinG KS2 Sample

Year Schools Classes Pupils 4 11+ 265 SPRinG 5 13*+ 295 6 13* 289 Total 17 32 849 4 21& 486 Control 5 22& 541 6 0 0 Total 19 40 1027

SPRinG

Details of experimental and control samples

Schools Classes Pupils Number of observations

Groups within classes

Experimental group

On-the-spot observation 12 21 135 7023 -

Video observation 7 9 96 1665 31 Control group

On-the-spot observation 15 32 179 5938 -

Video observation 7 13 113 1671 29

SPRinG

Research tools1. 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.

KS2 Macro Science Post-test

Evap Macro Post-test items

Forces Macro post-test items

Mean a Mean a Mean a SPRinG 52.5** 48.46** 57.60** Control 48.7** 37.27** 49.80** Effect sizes* 0.20 0.44 0.29

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

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

KS2 Evaporation Micro Post-test

Forces Micro Post-test

Evaporation Macro post-test items

Mean b Mean b Mean c SPRinG 45.9** 56.00 48.96** Control 38.1** na 40.72** Effect sizes* 0.57 na 0.21

‘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

SPRinG

Main observation categoriesSPRinG

•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)

SPRinGClassroom 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%)

SPRinGClassroom 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%).

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)

SPRinG

Video observation results 1

SPRinG Control Mean SD N Mean SD N

Participation and engagement

All actively involved 65.20** 24.83 31 35.85 22.04 29

All involved, some passive 5.26 8.42 31 8.31 11.45 29

All involved split 0.12 0.47 31 1.15* 2.56 29

Some uninvolved – off task passive 9.03 8.82 31 9.90 10.76 29

Some uninvolved - off task active 15.62 16.2 31 30.89** 19.86 29

All off-task 4.37 7.21 31 9.25 12.91 29

Socio-emotional ethos

Group maintenance 10.94 6.76 31 12.13 9.71 29

Group blocking 3.53 6.13 31 13.35** 14.78 29

SPRinGVideo observation results 2

SPRinG Control Mean SD N Mean SD N

Discourse topic

Sustained topic focus 22.91** 13.1 31 14.33 12.11 29

Changeable topic 30.58 12.59 31 44.70** 21.18 29

Other/No talk 44.94** 18.34 31 36.05 17.97 29

Type of dialogue

Higher order - inferential 25.19** 16.42 31 9.20 8.57 29

Higher order – text based 12.00 7.11 31 12.62 8.85 29

Meta-group talk 11.24 8.5 31 11.31 10.01 29

Sharing information 17.4 9.11 31 25.26* 14.58 29

Disputational talk 0.16 0.88 31 1.06* 1.89 29

Reading out task 11.38** 6.64 31 1.94 3.52 29

Procedural talk 7.66 5.42 31 12.74** 8.51 29

Off task talk 5.60 9 31 17.40** 16.21 29

Other/No talk 8.85* 8.74 31 4.05 4.5 29

Total observations 53.72 14.24 31 57.62 14.80 29

SPRinG

Video observation: resultsEngagement• 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.

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.

SPRinGSummary 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

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)

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

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.

SPRinGSPRinG 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