EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT IN CORRELATION TO COMBINATION CLASSES

Running head: EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT IN CORRELATION TO COMBINATION CLASSES


A Quantitative Study of Educational Achievement in Correlations to Combination Classes
A Proposal Presented to the Graduate Faculty of Troy University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for EAL 6691
By
Judith L. Jacobs















Chapter I
Introduction
Statement of Purpose
The growing enrollment, financial constraints, and the inability to exhibit proficient ability scores on the Stanford Achievement Test-10 (SAT 10) at Landmark Elementary School has recently caused the administrators to look for other means to advance their achievement scores. An option that can be chosen is combination classes. The term “multi-grade classes” is often used in place of the term combination class, where one teacher simultaneously teaches students from two adjacent grade levels for the entire day (Mason, Burns, & Armesto, 1993). A relevant question would be is this method going to increase or decrease students’ achievement scores? Combination classes are widespread in the United States. Twenty-nine percent of the schools in the U.S. have at least one combination class. Combination classes account for 3 to 7 percent of all classes in most states (Mason & Stimson, 1994). Unfortunately, research on combination classes has not been extensive. Experimental studies comparing outcomes in combination classes to those in single-grade classes have generally found no differences; however, as several scholars have noted, theses inquires are difficult to interpret because of the methodological problem, such as nonrandom assignment of teachers and students, and the common practice of assigning higher achieving and independent students to combination classes (Mason, Burns, & Armesto, 1993). This has led many parents, teachers, and administrators to question this practice.
Limitation and Delimitation of the Study
The study will be conducted in the Dothan City School District in Dothan, Alabama, at Landmark Elementary School. Landmark Elementary is an intercity school with the population of 351 students. It is consider a low socioeconomic, transient school with a demographic of 81 percent free or reduced lunch and a minority student population of 91 percent. The increasing developmental diversity of students in classrooms today may restrict teachers’ practices, so this study may not be generalized.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of class composition on students’ achievement scores in the fourth and fifth grade combination class at Landmark Elementary. Using two single-grade classes and one combination class, three research questions will be addressed:
A. In comparison to the 4th-grade control group’s achievement scores, did the 4th-grade treatment group’s achievement scores increase due to the exposure of two different curriculum levels?
B. In comparison to the 5th-grade control group’s achievement scores, did the 5th-grade treatment group’s achievement scores increase due to the exposure of two different curriculum levels?
C. Does the class composition have any impact on the success of a treatment group?
a. Do the demographics of the treatment group affect the achievement scores?
b. Does the attitude and behavior of the treatment group affect the achievement scores?
c. Does the teaching ability and experience of the teacher affect the achievement scores?
Significance of the Study
There has been a concern in the community on whether Dothan City Schools can meet the needs of high achieving students. Our hope is that this quantitative research will be helpful in the consideration of policy implementation and policy amendments. Combination/multi-grade classes have been controversial and most difficult for teachers, parents and administrators to comprehend. Several studies conducted over the past fifteen years vary significantly in the method used to select studies, the severity of their analysis procedures, the results obtained, and the conclusions drawn (Guskey & Lindle, 1997).
In this field of study, there are three major researchers who are well known, Simon Veenman, DeWayne Mason, and Robert Burns. Veenman (1995) conducted a study on the cognitive and the noncongitive effects of multi-grade/multi-age classes. He found that students’ cognitive abilities were not enhanced nor did they suffer due to multi-grade/multi-age classes. In contrast Mason and Burns (1996) challenged Veenman’s findings. Their review reanalyzed the data from Veenman’s study with special attention given to the criteria used in selecting the studies and to interpretations of the evidence. Their conclusion stated that multi-graded classes had a small negative effect on achievement.
Definition of Terms
Multi-grade and Combination classes were defined in the introduction. Other terms encountered in the literature are multi-age and non-grade classes. Both terms are used to describe classes which contain a mix of ages and grade levels (Veenman, 1995).
Single-Grade class is described by only one grade level of students.
Experimental Group is the participant that is receiving the treatment to create an effect or to change the outcome.
Control Group is the participant that has no change incorporated into it, to cause an effect or change the outcome. It stays the same or is constant.
Correlation Coefficients analysis refers to the relationship between two continuous variables for which the researcher is looking.
SPSS was defined in the limitation and delimitation of the study as the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, which is a computer program used for statistical analysis
BASC was defined in the limitation and delimitation of the study as the Behavior Assessment System for Children, which is a rating scale of behaviors performed by children.
SAT-10 was defined in the introduction has the Stanford Achievement Test-10 achievement test. The achievement test is given to all students in the state of Alabama to measure student performance on annual basics.
Hypothesis
The expectations are to reveal that creating a combination classes by ability and behavior, the students who are high achievers can flourish in their educational achievement scores and their individual educational needs will be challenged. The fourth and fifth grade combination class at Landmark Elementary School will increase in total math and total reading SAT-10 scores.
Chapter II
Review of Literature
The Foundation of Combination Classes
In the mid 1970’s many schools in Western industrialized countries were releasing teachers because of financial cuts and declining student enrollment due to the changing birth rates. A population shifted occurred toward the suburb school districts, which then cause a rapid increase of enrollment. Meanwhile urban school experienced a decline. As a result of these fluctuations, schools had to create an innovative approach to teaching students. The combination classroom was developed at that time to solve the short comings that the schools were about to face (Veenman, 1995).
Mason and Stimson (1994) conducted surveys in schools to help identify the determining factors of combination classes. The findings indicated shrinking budgets, year-round schooling programs, and the encouragement for multi-grade classrooms were the reasons for the adoption of a nontraditional classroom in schools across the U.S. In addition, it was discovered that nontraditional classrooms seemed to be conducted more in schools with low to average enrollment than in large schools. It was more common in rural and urban areas than suburban areas, and was found in schools with year-round calendars more often than the schools with the traditional calendar.
The Review of Research of combination Classes
Perhaps the least controversial way of expressing any overall tendency is that there is no evidence of any disadvantage to a child who is a member of a multi-grade class. The results of achievement testing indicated either the same or slightly improved scores from children in combination classes (Miller, 1991; Veenman, 1995). In addition, there seems to be a small effect in terms of social and emotional development; children seemed to like school better and be more advanced in “interpersonal intelligence” (p. 190) than their peers in single-grade classes (Lloyd, 1999).
Lloyd (1999) studied multi-grade classes in relation to the benefits of the high ability learners. She found that it was difficult to compare studies because it was evident that there were different interpretations of the definition of a high ability student. Slavin (1987) also studied the ability grouping and achievement in elementary schools. His conclusion was that the evidence did not support placement of students in the classes on the basis of ability, which is streaming or tracking. In the case of high ability students, he reported one study which specifically grouped children across a range of ability grouping, including homogeneous IQ and heterogeneous IQ. He concluded that the patterns of finding in the study “consistently favor broad” (p. 191), heterogeneous grouping plans for all students expect for the most gifted. Slavin’s final finding reported as “unequivocally refute” (p. 191) any relationship between ability-grouped classes and achievement in the elementary grades. However, forming multi-graded classes for one particular subject was supported in terms of achievement.
Rogers (1991) found that high ability learners benefit from ability grouping, which included full-time grouping, cross-grade grouping, cluster grouping, and pullout enrichment grouping. As well, high ability students in non-graded classrooms showed substantial academic gains when grouped for acceleration. Rogers does recognize that the commitment of the teachers in such an organization is a determining factor of success. However, other authors may have this viewpoint: “how teachers teach and how they work with children is more important than any single feature of organization” (Otto, quoted in Goodlad and Anderson, 1987, pp.xxii-xxiii).
Kulik and Kulik (1992) investigated Slavin and Roger’s published studies and concluded that putting children in any particular grade into homogeneous classes on the basis of a general categorization of their ability has little or no effect on student achievement. However, cross-grade grouping produced a positive effect, as did within-class-grouping when an adjustment of curriculum was made.
One of the most controversial studies was conducted by Veenman (1995). He published a best-evidence synthesis of the cognitive and noncognitive effects of multi-grade classes and multi-age classes in elementary schools. He did not consider multi-age and non-graded classes to be one in the same. Rather, a multi-age class would consist of children maintaining their grade identity but spending several years in the same classroom with older and younger classmates. In his review, he excluded any studies of non-graded classes on the grounds that it referred to a whole-school philosophy of education. However, he did include information around the world. This is where Veenman’s study becomes controversial. Mason and Burns (1996) refuted Veenman’s finding based on the method of his research. Mason and Burn felt best-evidence syntheses can be fraught with uncertainly. They felt that Veenman omitted two key factors: (a) selection bias and (b) lower-quality instruction. Mason and Burns argued Veenman’s no-difference findings were inconclusive because when comparing multi-graded classes and single-graded classes, their effects are not the same. However, they did agree with Veenman that no academic achievement differences were found. They found that multi-grade classes held instructional potential for some, but they are potentially onerous for most. Therefore, they argued that multi-grade classes lead to a negative instructional effect, that it increased teachers’ stress and that it may risk teachers’ motivation and commitment to teaching. Veenman did hold value to what Mason and Burn said and stated that his work needed “reconsideration” (1996).
Veenman reviewed his findings (1995, 1996) and published a critique of Mason and Burns literature review that concluded that combination classes at least had small negative effects. Veenman argues that his reviews (1995, 1996) lead to a conclusion that combination classes are “simply no worse and simply no better” than single-graded classes. He felt that Mason and Burns had too narrow a view of the reading and interpretations of the literature that appeared to focus (a) too heavily on faulting teachers for failing to benefit from on the “potential positive effects” of combination classes and (b) too lightly on interview research, observational studies, and a theory that would explain the no-difference achievement effects (Veenmans, 1997). Mason and Burns replied to Veenman’s (1997) critique by publishing, Towards a Theory of Combination Classes, which compares and contrast the views of both sides. Mason and Burns refuted Veenman’s view that there are no substantial effects on instruction in a combination class by stating that combination classes lead to a negative effect on instruction (Mason and Burns, 1997). In conclusion, these two sides have agreed to disagree.
Mason, Burns and Armesto (1993) discovered that teachers seemed to use one of three different approaches in teaching combination classes: a two-group approach, a whole-class approach, and a mixed approach. The two-group approach taught students as if they were in two separate classes. The whole-group approach focused on teaching the students in a large-group setting while instructing them on a common theme. The mixed approach was a combination of the two approaches in which the teacher used the whole-group model to teach science and social studies subjects and divided the students by grade levels for other subjects such as math and reading. The final results indicated that most teachers taught using the mixed approach.
The Advantage of Combination Classes
The advantages of combination classes are categorized into three groups: (a) grouping advantage, (b) academic advantages, and (c) behavioral advantages. Teachers stated in a quantitative survey that grouping advantage resulted in children being taught in a small group, smaller class sizes, increased ability to read, and fewer behavior problems. If the students were grouped correctly, the academic and behavior advantage would be more evident. Teachers stated upper grade students were able to be exposed to a review of skills when the lower grade students were taught. On the other hand, lower grade students obtained enrichment by listening to what was being taught to the upper grade. The overall motivation level of both groups increased. Lastly, children in the lower grade seemed to be better prepared for the coming up year. Behavioral advantages were indicated by the teacher when more independent work habits were exhibited, different ages learned from each other, and when the upper grade students acted as role models for the lower grade students (Appalachia Educational Laboratory and Virginia Education association, 1990).
The Disadvantages of Combination Classes
The disadvantages of combination classrooms can be describe as “double planning, double teaching, double grading, and double record keeping.” (p. 19) Teachers responded that there were several factors that cause combination classrooms to be insufficient. The number one factor was time restraint. Teachers stated that there was a lack of class time for instruction of two grades levels, insufficient planning time, not enough time for teachers to master two curricula in preparation to teach, insufficient time to effectively cover two sets of curricula, never able to catch up on written work, and insufficient time to remediate or to work on a one-to-one basis. The second factor was scheduling and grouping within the class. The third factor was the frequent experience of having difficulty teaching two curricula. This requires one group to perform independent task while the other group is being taught. The mistake made was the assumption that these students understood and could function in an independent matter. Finally, the last two disadvantages were the placement of students in combination classes and the lack of support and resources (Appalachia Educational Laboratory and Virginia Education association, 1990). In addition, principals stated disadvantages observed were the obligation for teachers to prepare two curricula, the strength of parental concerns and the negative attitude of teachers (Russell, Rowe and Hill, 1998).
Perspectives of the Combination Classroom
The single-grade format has created a biased attitude that single-grade classrooms are better than any other alternative. When schools switched from a single-grade set up to a multi-grade up set out of necessity, neither teachers nor parents were pleased. Responses from early studies show that most teachers preferred a single-grade class to a multi-grade class. Teachers in multi-grade classes were generally found to teach the grades separately for math and reading, and most principals and teachers felt when considering students’ educational progress that multi-grade classes were objectionable (Veenman, 1995). Teachers gravitated towards single-grade classrooms because a combination classroom involves more planning, preparation, organization and work, catering to a greater range of abilities and maturity, less time for meeting students’ individual needs, lack of professional training, and less satisfaction with their work (Veenman, 1995; 1996; Mason and Burns, 1995; 1996). Nevertheless, the teachers felt that some positive attitudes came from a combination classroom, such as students’ increased social skills development, the opportunities for the enhancement of learning, reinforcement of earlier learning for the upper grades, and the opportunity for children to learn through peer tutoring (Veenman, 1995; Mason and Burns, 1995: 1996).
Meanwhile principals’ attitudes have also been found to be negative. Mason and Good (1998) found principals to be not as stoutly opposed to combination classes as teachers. Given their role in supporting system’s policy and dealing with the reality of student numbers, principals’ actual perceptions might have been more negative than those they expressed. Unfortunately, parents’ viewpoint seemed to be negative as well (Veenman, 1995). However, this inquiry seemed to be more frequent in urban than rural communities. The parents’ major concerns were concerns of the level of students’ achievement. This supports the reasoning for principals being reluctant to have combination classrooms because of the parental concerns and the time and energy taken in dealing with those concerns (Mason and Good, 1998).
Administrators stated that the most common reasons for assigning a teacher to a combination classroom was first, the volunteering of a teacher; second, the teacher’s teaching experience; third, the principal’s intuition of the teacher’s talents, and lastly, being part of a teacher rotation. Although teachers mostly volunteered for the assignment, they seem to dislike the teaching of a combination class when the position was complete (Burns, Mason and Demiranda, 1993). Mason, Burns, and Armesto (1993) echoed this finding. Burns’, el al. (1993) finding concluded that teachers disapproval of the combination classroom was due to increased workload, particularly when teachers used different curriculums for each grade level in the class.

Chapter III
Methodology
Population

The first control group will include two 4th-grade classes with a cumulative number of 34 students, the second control group will include two fifth grade classes with a cumulative number of 48 students, and the treatment group will consist of one combination class with 20 fourth and fifth grade students. The students in the combination class will be chosen based on the previous school year’s SAT-10 scores, classroom performance, and behavior.
Data Collection

This quasi experimental study will consist of two control groups and one experimental group. The data will be collected from all three groups’ subjects at Landmark Elementary School in Dothan, Alabama. The continuous data will be gathered from SAT-10 achievement scores in the school years of 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009.
Instrumentation

A correlation coefficients analysis will be conducted using a t-test in a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program. The fourth and fifth grade control groups will have their 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 achievement scores compared to the 2008-2009 achievement scores.
Data Analysis
The analysis will show if any changes occurred between the three different school years achievement scores. The experimental group will have their 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 achievement scores compared to the 2008-2009 achievement scores. The same analysis will discover if the students grouped in the combination class made any improvements academically. Due to the fact that this school is a transient school, students that attended any out of state schools between the years 2006-2009 will not be consider in the study.
An analysis of the combination class students’ behavior will be conduct through a behavioral rating scale called the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC). The behavior scale will be conducted at the beginning and the end of the 2008-2009 school year. The BASC has a Likert scale that will rate the responses given by the teachers and parents. The BASC will indicate if any behaviors are clinically significant at the beginning of the school year. Once the BASC is conducted throughout the school year, it will indicate if the any of the clinically significant behaviors have increased or decreased due to integration of the combination class. In addition, it determines if behaviors have any influence on student achievement. Demographic data will be analyzed to determine if there is a correlation between it and students’ scores on the SAT 10 test.
Research Questions
Using two single-grade classes and one combination class, three research questions will be addressed:
D. Did the 4th-grade treatment group’s achievement scores increase due to the exposure of two different curriculum levels in comparison to the 4th-grade control group’s achievement scores?
E. Did the 5th-grade treatment group’s achievement scores increase due to the exposure of two different curriculum levels in comparison to the 5th-grade control group’s achievement scores?
F. Does the class composition have any impact on the success of a treatment group?
a. Do the demographics of the treatment group affect the achievement scores?
b. Does the attitude and behavior of the treatment group affect the achievement scores?
c. Does the teaching ability and experience of the teacher affect the achievement scores?
Ethical Treatment of Human Subjects
The IRS has been asked to wave the ethical treatment of human subjects because there will be no impact to the human subjects. The data collected will not affect the subjects; the data will only come from the results of the subjects’ academic performance.














References
Appalachia Educational Laboratory & Virginia Education Association. (1990, September). Teaching combined grade classes: Real problems and promising practices. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED339557)
Burns, R., Mason, D. A. & Demiranda, M. A. (1993). How elementary principals assign teachers and students to combination classes. Riverside, CA: University of California, California Educational Research Cooperative.
Goodlad, J.I., & Anderson, R.H. (1987). The non-graded elementary school: A retrospective review. Repot No.33. Baltimotre, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Guskey, T. R. & Lindle, J. C. (1997). Research on multi-age/multi-grade classes: Report to the teaching and learning issues group. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, College of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction services No. ED420915)
Lloyd, L. (1999). Multi-age classes and high ability students. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 187-212.
Mason, D. A., & Burns R.B. (1995). Teachers’ view of combination classes. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 36-45.
Mason, D. A., & Burns R. B. (1996). “Simply no worse and simply no better” may simply be wrong: A critique of Veeman’s conclusion about multigrade classes. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 307.
Mason, D. A. & Burns, R. B. (1997). Toward a theory of combination classes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 3(4), 281.
Mason, D. A., Burns, R. B., & Armesto, J. (1993). Teachers’ views about combination classes. Riverside, CA: University of California, California Educational Research Cooperative.
Mason, D. A., & Good, T. L. (1998). Mathematics instruction in combination and single-grade classes: An exploratory investigation. Teachers College Record.
Mason, D. A. & Stimson, J. (1994). A national survey of combination and nongraded classes. Riverside, CA: University of California, California Educational Research Cooperative.
Miller, B. A. (1991). A review of the qualitative research on multigrade instruction. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed342563)
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.L.C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77.
Rogers, K.B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Russell, V. J., Rowe, K. J., & Hill, P. W. (1998). Effects of multigrade classes on student progress in literacy and innumeracy: Quantitative evidence and perceptions of teachers and school leaders. Australia: University of Melbourne, Centre for Applied Educational Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444122)
Slavin, R. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive effects of multigrade and multi-age classes: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 319-381.
Veenman, S. (1996). Effects of multigrade and multi-age classes reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 323-340.
Veenman, S. (1997). Combination classes revisited. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal of Theory and Practice, 3, 262-276.