Research by ecological psychologists - Bronfenbrenner; Gump; and Pointon
& Kershner has suggested the importance of the quality of the environment
and the fact that it can influence behaviour.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments
by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Gump, P.V. (1987) School and Classroom Environments, in Stokols, D. and
Altman, I. (eds) Handbook of Environmental
Psychology. New York:
Wiley.
Pointon, P.and Kershner, R. (2000) ‘Children’s Views of the Primary
Classroom as an Environment for Work and Learning, in Research in Education,
64, 64-77.
Such research reinforces the view, which is commonly expressed by
practitioners, that the environment in a primary school classroom should be
aesthetically pleasing; should stimulate children's interest; should set high
standards in the display and presentation of children's work; and should be
created in such a way that it is practical to maintain - see Clegg and
Billington (Reading 10.2); Cooper et al.; and Moyles (Reading 10.1).
Cooper, H., Simco, N., Hegarty, P. and Hegarty, P. (1996) Display in the
Classroom: Principles, Practice and Theory. London:
Fulton.
The introduction of interactive whiteboards and personal laptop computers in
classrooms also creates different demands on classroom space - see for example
the introduction to McFarlane:
McFarlane, A. (ed) (1997) Information Technology and Authentic Learning:
Realising the Potential of Computers in the Primary Classroom. London: Routledge.
A good supply of appropriate resources is essential, given the importance of
direct experience and practical work to children's learning. The rapid
development of ICT in classrooms involves teachers making decisions about the
location and management of computer hardware as well as about access to
software - Kennelwell, Parkinson & Tanner (Reading 9.8). There is growing
evidence - see Selwyn & Bullon - that organisational and management
features of the classroom determine the levels of use of ICT by children. For a
wider consideration of the organisational and learning issues related to the
use of ICT, see Loveless & Dore:
Selwyn, N. and Bullon, K. (2000) ‘Primary Children’s Use of ICT’, in British
Journal of Educational Technology, 31 (4), 321-332.
Loveless, A. & Dore, B. (eds) (2002) ICT in the primary school.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
A great deal of effort thus goes into the creation of ‘teaching time’.
However, Campbell & Neill show that almost 10% is lost as ‘evaporated time’
in the classroom management activities which are necessary to create teaching
and learning opportunities. Looking at this issue in terms of pupil time,
Bennett has related pupil progress not only to the time which is actually made
available for ‘curriculum activity’ but also to the pupil time spent in ‘active
learning’. There is evidence to suggest that, in order to maintain ‘active’
learning, appropriate variety in activities is needed - see Kounin (Reading
11.6). However, even quantitatively, findings from the PACE and Oracle studies
- Pollard et al.; and Galton et al. (Reading 13.1) - showed considerable
variations between different classrooms in the proportions of pupil-time with
high levels of engagement.
Bennett, N. (1979) Recent Research on Teaching: A Dream, a Belief and a
Model, in Bennett, N. and McNamara, D. (eds) Focus on Teaching. London: Longman.
Pollard, A., Broadfoot, P., Croll, P., Osborn, M. and Abbott, D. (1994) Changing
English Primary Schools? The Impact of the Education Reform Act at Key Stage 1.
London:
Cassell.
In this context, contributions to the volume edited by Clipson-Boyles makes
strong connections between classroom organisation and learning:
Clipson-Boyles, S. (ed) (2000) Putting research into practice in primary
teaching and learning. London:
David Fulton.
It has been argued that the preponderance of routine activities in some
schools may have consequences in terms of the reproduction of a docile
work-force, rather than develop children whose creativity and critical thinking
have been stirred - Bowles & Gintis; and Apple.
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America.
London:
Routledge.
Apple, M. (1982) Cultural and Economic Reproduction in Education. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Perhaps the most important decision we make is how we choose to organise
children for teaching purposes. Our choices must be made with regard to both
pedagogical and practical considerations and always with the over-riding
principle of ‘fitness for purpose’ - Alexander, Rose & Woodhead.
Alexander, R., Rose, J. and Woodhead, C. (1992) Curriculum Organisation
and Curriculum Practice in Primary Schools: a Discussion Paper. London: HMSO.
Many believe that class size is a vital factor in effective learning.
Headteachers, governors, teachers and parents appear to be consistent in terms
of wanting smaller classes - see Bennett - and there have been many research
studies which support their point of view - Glass; Hall & Nuttal; Pate-Bain
(Reading 10.3); and Jamison et al. However, findings are not entirely consistent.
International examples are extremely instructive - see Alexander.
Bennett, N. (1994) Class size in Primary Schools: Perceptions of
Headteachers, Chairs of Governors, Teachers and Parents. Birmingham: NAS/UWT.
Glass, G.V. (1982) School Class Size, Research and Policy. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Hall, K. and Nuttall, W. (2000) ‘Class Size and Pedagogy: How Might Infants
Teachers in England
Respond to Class Size Changes?’ Education 3-13, 28(3): 52-7.
Jamison, J., Johnson, F. and Dickson, P. (1998) Every Pupil Counts: the
Impact of Class Size at Key Stage 1. Slough:
NFER.
Whole-class activities are used with classes of all sizes. These sessions
can be highly interactive with a great deal of pupil participation - see Mujis
& Reynolds (Reading 13.4) and Perrot (Reading 13.5). However, classwork can
challenge both the teacher and the listener. For example, whilst some believe
that one of the strengths of whole class teaching during the National Literacy
Strategy and National Numeracy Strategy is that it ‘pulls along’ the less able,
others recognise that engagement can be uneven, with some children ‘opting out’
even though they retain an apparent ‘listening posture’ - see Cordon. Some
children may be reluctant to face the risks involved in contributing to the
whole-class - see Collins. There is evidence of teachers addressing questions
only to children in a V-shaped wedge in the centre of the room, or to
particular groups or individuals - see Wragg.
Cordon, R. (1999) Shameful Neglect: Speaking, Listening and Literacy in Forum,
41(3), 104-6.
Collins, J. (1996) The Quiet Child. London: Cassell.
Wragg, T. (2001) Class Management in the Primary School. London: Routledge Falmer.
Children spend a great deal of time working individually. This approach has
its limitations. For example, it has been shown that most teacher time is spent
monitoring children’s work, rather than in developing their understanding - see
Galton et al.
Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D. and Pell, A. (1999) Inside
the Primary Classroom: Twenty Years On. London: Routledge.
‘Groups’ are likely to exist in some form in every classroom. However, their
form and function may vary considerably - see McNamara (Reading 10.4); and
Reason (Reading 10.5). Although groups are very commonly formed for task
allocation, seating purposes and teaching purposes, relatively little
collaborative group work has been found by observers - see Bennett & Dunne;
and Galton & Williamson. Bennett looks at the notion of effective learning
within pupil groups, whilst Baines, Blatchford, Kutnick, Chowne, Ota & Berdondini consider strategies for making group work in schools more effective for learning.
Bennett, N. and Dunne, E. (1992) Managing Classroom Groups. Hemel Hempstead: Simon and Schuster.
Galton, M. and Williamson, J. (1992) Groupwork in the Primary Classroom.
London:
Routledge.
Bennett, N. (1995) Managing Learning Through Group Work, in Desforges, C.
(ed) An Introduction to Teaching: Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Chowne, A., Ota, C. and Berdondini, L. (2008) Propmoting Effective Groupwork in Primary Classrooms: developing relationships to enhance learning and inclusion. London: Routledge (TLRP)
Hopkins & Harris et al. weigh the benefits of whole class teaching and
co-operative group work, whilst Ireson & Hallam (with Davies) provide a timely
insight into the efficacy of ability grouping, given strategies being adopted
increasingly in response to the demands of the Literacy and Numeracy
strategies. Gillies and Ashman, in contrast, focus their attention on
international research into co-operative learning in groups:
Hopkins, D.,
Harris, A., Singleton, C. & Watts, R. (2000) Creating the conditions
for teaching and learning. London:
David Fulton.
Ireson, J. & Hallam, S. (2001) Ability Grouping in Education. London: Sage.
Hallam, S., Ireson, J. and Davies, J. (2002) Effective Pupil Grouping in the PrimaryLondon: David Fulton. School.
Gillies, R. & Ashman, A. (eds) (2003) Cooperative Learning: the
social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups. London: Routledge Falmer.
General texts that place the notion of group work in a wider frame of understanding include Dean, Jolliffe, Watkins and, with an Australian perspective, Gillies:
Dean, J. (2004) The Effective Primary School Classroom. London:Routledge.
Jolliffe, W. (2007) Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. London: Paul Chapman.
Watkins, C. (2002) Classrooms as Learning Communities. London: Routledge.
Gillies, R.M. (2007) Cooperative Learning: integrating theory and practice. London: Sage
Arguably the purpose of developing particular approaches to teaching and classroom organisation in formal education is to develop independent learners, a theme taken up by Williams:
Williams, J. (2003) Promoting Independent Learning in the Primary Classroom. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
The whole issue of class and group dynamics and their effect on other
aspects of classroom management are considered by several authors, including
Ayers & Grey and, again, Wragg:
Ayers, H. & Grey, F. (1998) Classroom Management: a practical
approach for primary and secondary teachers. London: David Fulton.
Wragg, T. (2001) Class Management in the Primary School. London: Routledge Falmer.
Parental involvement is particularly significant in work with young children
and has a justifiably high profile in early years work - see Reay (Reading
4.5); and Waller & Waller. Wolfendale, building on her early work in this
area, connects the notion of school effectiveness with parental involvement in
a volume jointly edited with Bastiani:
Waller, H. and Waller, J. (1998) Linking Home and School: Partnership in
Practice in Primary Education. London:
David Fulton.
Wolfendale, S. (1992) Involving Parents in Schools. London: Cassell.
Wolfendale, S. & Bastiani, J. (eds) (2000) The Contribution of
Parents to School Effectiveness. London:
David Fulton.
A wide range of patterns of parental involvement exist (see Hughes et al.),
some of which are focused on special needs pupils (see Blamires et al.). Waller
& Waller provide a practical guide for strengthening links between the home
and the school:
Hughes, M., Wikely, F.and Nash, T. (1994) Parents and their Children’s
Schools. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Blamires, M., Robertson, C. and Blamires, J. (1997) Parent-Teacher
Partnerships: Practical approaches to meet special educational needs. London: David Fulton.
Waller, H. & Waller, J. (1998) Linking Home and School: partnership
in practice in primary education. London:
David Fulton.
The benefits of involving parents on their children’s learning is explored
further by Whalley and in a volume edited by Crozier and Reay:
Whalley, M. (2000) Involving Parents
in their Children’s Learning. London:
Paul Chapman
Crozier, G. and Reay, D. (eds) (2004) Parent
Participation: activating partnership in schooling. Stoke-on-Trent:
Tretham.
It seems that both parents and teachers, and perhaps the children, have
mixed feelings on the question of parental involvement in classrooms - see
Cullingford; Vincent; and Edwards & Alldred.
Cullingford, C. (1985) Expectations of Parents, Teachers, Children, in
Cullingford, C. (ed) Parents, Teachers and Schools. London: Robert Royce Ltd.
Vincent, C. (1996) Parents and Teachers: Power and Participation. London: Falmer.
Edwards, R. and Alldred, P. (2000) ‘Children’s Understanding of Home-school
Relations’, Education 3-13, 28(3), 41-5.
Edwards & Redfern provide an excellent case study of development of
parental involvement in one school over seven years.
Edwards, V. and Redfern, A. (1988) Parental Participation in Primary
Education. London:
Routledge.
The past decade has seen an enormous increase in the number of support staff
in schools. It is easy to slip into the mistaken belief that the ‘classroom
assistants’ are a homogeneous group, but see Hancock on this issue. Sood, in
Cole (ed), looks at the ways in which teachers can respond positively to
working with classroom colleagues:
Hancock, R. (2001) Classroom Assistants in the Primary School:
Employment and Deployment. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Sood, K.
(2005) Working with Other Professionals, in Cole, M. (ed) Professional Values and Practice: Meeting the Standards. London: David Fulton
The responsibilities and practices of support staff have been brought into
sharp focus very recently with the preparations for school workforce re-modelling.
For practical handbooks containing information for support assistants, special
needs assistants and teachers, see Fox and Tyrer et al.:
Fox, G. (1998) A Handbook for Learning Support Assistants: Teachers and
Assistants Working Together. London: Fulton.
Tyrer, R., Gunn, S., Lee, C., Parker, M., Pittman, M. and Townsend, M.
(2004) A Toolkit for the Effective
Teaching Assistant. London:
Paul Chapman
For information about one of the most significant changes to the role and
status of support staff in English schools, introducing Higher Level Teaching,
see www.teachernet.gov.uk
In studies of ‘room management’, it is suggested that the quality of
classroom teaching is very greatly enhanced if all the adults in a classroom
plan together so that they understand and carry out specific activities in a
co-ordinated and coherent fashion - see Thomas (Reading 10.7); Lorenz; Lacey; Balshaw and Vincett, Cremin & Thomas.
Lorenz, S. (1998) Effective In-Class Support: The Management of Support
Staff in Mainstream and Special
Schools. London: David Fulton.
Lacey, P. (2001) Support Partnerships: Collaboration in Action. London: David Fulton.
Balshaw, M.H. (1999) Help in the Classroom: 2nd. Edition. London: David Fulton.
Vincett, K., Cremin, H. & Thomas, G. (2005) Teachers and Assistants Working Together. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
A fascinating insight into the perspectives of one large group of classroom
assistants is provided by O’Brien & Garner:
O’Brien, T. and Garner, P. (2001) Untold Stories: Learning Support Assistants
and their work. Stoke-on Trent:
Trentham
Record keeping is vital where several adults may be in the classroom. Ideas
for record keeping appear in many different subject-based books and are
influenced by the assessment requirements of the national curriculum. However,
for a wide range of suggested ways for ‘keeping track’ see:
Johnson, G., Hill, B. and Turnstall, P. (1992) Primary Records of
Achievement. London:
Hodder & Stoughton.
