ROOM USE OE‘ELY

ROOM use ONLY

 

 

ABSTRACT

A COMPARISON OF ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDES OF
SIXTH-GRADE STUDENTS IN REGULAR AND
COMBINATION GRADES

by Robert Raymond Schmatz

Statement of the Problem

 

It was the purpose of this study to compare the
academic progress and attitudes of sixth grade pupils in
combination fifth and sixth grade with similar pupils in

regular sixth grade classrooms,

Procedures

 

Sixth grade pupils from ten combination classrooms
were designated as the experimental group. Sixteen regular
sixth grade classrooms were in the same buildings which
housed the experimental classeso Children in the regular
sixth grade classrooms were designated as the control
group° The two groups were found to be equal in terms of
socio—economic background and measured ability, A pre-test
in the areas of reading, arithmetic, and language skills
indicated that the two groups were equal in each of the
three areas measured. It was also found that pupils with
below average, average and above average IOQO scores were

equivalent in prior achievement in all three areaso The

Robert Raymond Schmatz

teachers of the experimental and control groups were equal
in terms of their measured attitudes. Throughout the school
year, teachers taught their classes in a manner acceptable
to their administrators, supervisors, fellow workers and
themselves.

An alternate form of the pre-test was administered
as the post—test. The "t" test was used to analyze the
mean gain—scores and test the hypotheses. An attitude
scale was presented to both groups at the end of the study

and responses were compared by "chi—square" tables.

Findings
The findings of this study were interpreted in

terms of the following hypotheses.

Hl Sixth—grade pupils who are assigned to combination
fifth and sixth-grade classrooms will make academic
progress in reading, arithmetic, and language
skills, equal to like pupils in regular sixth
grade classrooms.

H2 Sixth-grade pupils, with below—average, average, and
above—average intelligence, who are assigned to
combination fifth and sixth-grade classrooms will
make academic progress in reading, arithmetic,
and language skills equal to like pupils in regular
sixth-grade classrooms.

H3 Sixth—grade pupils who are assigned to combination
fifth and sixth—grade classrooms will have attitudes
toward school and other people, as positive as
pupils in regular sixth—grade classrooms.

All hypotheses were supported when statistical tests
were applied to the post-test data. The sub-parts of H1
were also supported in each of the three areas measured.

No significant differences in achievement or attitudes were

found between the experimental and control groups.

Robert Raymond Schmatz

Conclusions

 

Sixth-grade pupils who are assigned to combination
fifth and sixth grade classrooms will make academic
progress in reading, arithmetic and language skills
equal to the progress made by students in regular
sixth grade classrooms.

Sixth-grade pupils with below-average, average,
and above-average ability are neither at a decided
advantage or disadvantage in measured learning as
a result of placement in a heterogeneously grouped
combination fifth and sixth-grade classroom.

The attitudes of sixth grade pupils in combination
classrooms are as positive as are the attitudes of
pupils in regular classrooms.

A COMPARISON OF ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDES OF
SIXTH-GRADE STUDENTS IN REGULAR AND

COMBINATION GRADES

BY

Robert Raymond Schmatz

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

College of Education

1964

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer would like to express his grateful
appreciation to Dr. William K. Durr, his major professor
for his guidance, encouragement. and stimulation throughout
the course of this study and the writer's doctoral program.

To the members of the doctoral guidance committee,
Dr. William Walsh, Dr. Herbert C. Rudman, and Orden C.
Smucker for their helpful suggestions and criticisms.

To the College of Education Research Bureau for
assistance in design of this study and treatment of the
data.

To the administrators, teachers, and sixth-grade
pupils in Pontiac, Michigan, for their gracious and con—
tinued cooperation.

And to my wife Ruth for her patience and under-

standing.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . l
Rationale 1

The Problem 7
Hypotheses 8
Definition of Terms 9

Major Assumptions 11
Procedure 12
Variables and Instruments 13
Limitations of the Study 14

Plan of the Report 16

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . l7

 

 

 

 

The Nongraded Elementary School 20
Multi-grade or Inter-age Grouping 26
Combination Grades 32
III. THE METHOD OF THE INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . 40
Introduction 40
Instruments Used in the Study 40
Edward's Occupational Test 41
California Test of Mental Maturity 42
California Achievement Test 45

The Pupil Attitude Scale 54

The Testing Sequence 56
Methods of Testing the Hypotheses 57
Summary 59

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Difference in Mean Gain Scores of

Experimental and Control Group 61
Differences in Mean Gain Scores for

the Sub-groups 63
Results of Pupils Attitude Scale 68
Summary 69

iii

Chapter Page

v. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . ., . . 73
Summary 73

Purpose of the Study 73

Procedure 74

Major Findings 76

Additional Findings 78

Conclusions 78
Implications 81

For Administrators 81

For Teachers 82

For Parents 83

For Future Research 84

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Numbers and percentages of pupils at each
of six socio-economic levels . . . . . . . 42

Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and results
of tests for significance between the means
of the experimental and control groups . . 43

Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and results
of test for significance between the mean
of the control and experimental group of
pupils having I.Q. scores greater than
110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Number of pupils, means, variances, and results
of test for significance between the mean
of the control and experimental group for
pupils having I. Q. scores between 90 and
110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Number of pupils, means, variances, and results
of test for significance between the mean
of the control and experimental group for
pupils having I.Q. scores less than 90 . . 45

Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results
of test for significance between the mean of
the control and experimental group in the
area of reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results
of test for significance between the mean of
the control and experimental group in the
area of arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results
of test for significance between the mean
of the control and experimental group in
language skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and test
for significance in the area of reading
for pupils having I. Q. scores greater
than 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table Page

10. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and
test for significance in the areas of
arithmetic for pupils having I.Q.
scores greater than 110 . . . . . . . . . . 49

11. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and
test for significance in the area of
language skills for pupils with 1.0.
scores greater than 110 . . . . . . . . . . 49

12. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and
test for significance in the area of
reading for pupils having I.Q. scores
between 90 and 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

13. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and
test for significance in the area of
arithmetic for pupils having I.Q.
scores between 90 and 110 . . . . . . . . . 50

14. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and
test for significance in the area of
language skills for pupils having I.Q.
scores between 90 and 110 . . . . . . . . . 51

15. Number of pupils, means, variances, and
test for significance in the area of
reading for pupils having I.Q. scores
of less than 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

16. Numbers of pupils, means, variables and
test for significance in the area of
arithmetic for pupils having I.Q. scores
less than 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

17. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and test
for significance in the area of language
skills for pupils having I.Q. scores
less than 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

18. Numbers of teachers, means, variances and
results of test for significance between
the mean scores of teachers of experimental
and control groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

19. Numbers of pupils, means, and variances and
results of tests for the significance of
the difference in mean gain scores in
the area of reading . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

vi

Table

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Numbers of pupils, means, and variances
and results of tests for the significance
between mean gain scores in the area of
arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Numbers of pupils, means, and variances for the
results of tests for the significance
between mean gain scores in the area of
language skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results
of test for significance in mean gains in
reading for pupils with 1.0. scores of
less than 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results
of test for significance of the difference
in mean gains in arithmetic for pupils
with 1.0. scores less than 90 . . . . . . .

Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and
results of test for significance of
the difference in mean gains in language
Skills for pupils with 1.0. scores
less than 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Numbers of pupils, means, variances and
results of test for the significance in
mean gains in reading for pupils with
1.0. scores between 90-110 . . . . . . .

Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and
results of test for significance of the
difference in mean gains in arithmetic
for pupils with 1.0. scores between
90-110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and
results of test for significance of the
difference in mean gains in language for
pupils with 1.0. scores between 90-110 . .

Numbers of pupils, means, variances and
results of test for the significance of
the difference in mean gains in reading
for pupils with 1.0. scores greater
than 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

62

62

64

64

64

65

66

66

67

Table Page

29. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and
results of test for the significance
of the difference in mean gains in
arithmetic for pupils with 1.0.
scores greater than 110 . . . . . . . . . . 67

30. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and
results of test for the significance
of the difference in mean gains in
language for pupils with 1.0. scores

greater than 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
31. Pupil response and test for significance
on twenty items in the attitude scale . . . 70

viii

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Rationale

 

The trend toward increasing urbanization in the
world today has placed before American educators some per—
plexing problems in the area of school organization.
Populations of cities are increasing. Every year thousands
of families move to cities as technological advances limit
the opportunities for small farmers. In addition, there
are many internal changes taking place within Cities.
Adjustments are being made by minority groups, especially
the American Negro, in his progress toward attainment of
middle—class status. There are shifts in population because
of the desire of people to buy homes of their own, Today
more people have the means of becoming home owners. Some
inter—city migrations are a direct result of demolition of
older buildings in planned programs for urban renewal.

These programs necessitate temporary moves for some families,
and more permanent moves for others. Such population
changes are uneven and can result in unpredictable school
enrollments from one year to the next.

City school systems are generally subdivided into

specific elementary school districts. These districts are

established by administrative policy to maintain a balance
in school enrollments suited to physical capacities of
existing buildings. They also serve as a means of identifi—
cation for parents, enabling them to know the school their
children will attend. This identification is understandable
as the elementary school has long been considered the common
school by citizens. It still remains rather closely tied

to the neighborhood it serves. From within these neighbor—
hood school districts come the pupils who will attend each
elementary school.

Elementary schools in the United States are usually
organized on a graded plan. In 1961, the National Elementary
School Principals' Yearbook on Elementary School Organization
stated: "A very notable and distinctive benchmark in
elementary education was established in 1848 when Philbrick
created the Quincy Grammar School in Boston."1 This type
of school organization, which provided one teacher per
grade, gave rise to what is still known today as the graded
school.

A great deal has been learned about the process of
learning since the establishment of the graded school in
America. One major contribution was the concept of

"developmental tasks"2 by Robert J. Havinghurst. He uses

 

lNational Elementary Principal, Elementary School
Organization (Washington: The National Elementary School
Principals' Yearbook, 1961), p. 51.

 

2Robert J. Havinghurst, Human Development and
Education (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1953).

 

 

the concept of developmental tasks to point out that human
development is gradual and continuous, though an uneven
process. Many factors affect the manner in which an
individual handles these tasks, not the least of which is
the cultural setting in which a child is reared.

The implication of developmental tasks for the
graded school is used by Cronbach to support his claim
that, "rigid age-grading is not a good policy for a school."1
While each developmental task becomes important at a certain
period in the person's life, it is not correct to assume
that people go through the developmental sequence at an
exactly uniform rate or in a fixed order. There are no
sharp divisions in the development of individuals which
warrant sharp breaks in a school curriculum. While a few
modern schools provide teaching when the student needs it,
social tradition and administrative systems remain as
barriers to obtaining the education tailored to individual
needs.

Cook2 indicates that an emphasis which the traditional
graded schools process places on striving for homogeneity

in classes, encourages teachers to set goals for instruction

which result in temporary factual learning.

 

1Lee J. Cronbach, Educational Psychology (New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1954), pp. 222—28.

 

2Walter W. Cook, Educational Psycholoqy, A Book of
Readings, ed. Arthur P. Colaradci (New York: The Dryden
Press, 1955).

In all patterns of school organization, the assign-
ment of a given number of pupils to each teacher is a matter
which receives annual attention. The graded system of
organization compounds the problem of pupil assignment to
teachers. Not only is it necessary for a teacher to be
assigned a given number of pupils, but the selection must
be made on the basis of students available at each grade
level. It is a rare instance when an equal number of pupils
at each grade level meets an acceptable teacher-pupil ratio.

There are some important reasons why teacher—pupil
ratio is given prime consideration in school organization.
One reason is that the ratio of students to teachers is an
important factor in the development of school budgets. As
budgets are formulated from six to nine months before the
beginning of a school year, board members and administrators
find it necessary to use class size as a yardstick of
measurement in planning expenditures. Teachers are also
very concerned about Class size since they View this as a
measure of their teaching load.

One outcome of these concerns is that school boards
frequently establish both maximum and minimum class sizes
to be used in their school systems. Teacher groups advocate
Class sizes of from twenty to twenty-five pupils, but
generally find classes numbering about thirty. Twenty-
five pupils is frequently used as a minimum class size,

while thirty is often established as a maximum.

Establishment of policies regarding maximum and
minimum class sizes does provide administrators a fixed
measure to use in computation of the next annual budget.

It also indicates to teachers approximate class enrollments
for the next year. However, establishment of a policy on
Class size creates a problem for the building principal
when he apportions pupils to teachers at each grade level.
This is especially true when the number of students exceeds
the established maximum class size and is not large enough
to permit formation of an additional Class. An example of
this would be the school system with a policy of minimum
class sizes of twenty-five and maximum Class sizes of
thirty. If there were forty-four pupils at a given grade
level, this number would far exceed the planned maximum.

If the group were split into two sections, it would be too
far below the minimum to be economically feasible. [It is
in situations such as this that administrators frequently
establish a combination of two grades into one classroom
unit.

When a combination of two grades is established,
there is little evidence to assist the principal and teachers
in determining proper pupil placement. It is common to hear
of combinations being made with half of the Class being
above—average pupils from the lower grade and the other
half being below-average pupils from the higher grade. It
is almost equally as common to have combinations of average

pupils from both grades. Regardless of the manner in which

grade combinations are established, they are open to
criticism.

The research done thus far on combination grades
has been meager. The studies which have been published
have not been of a magnitude great enough to affect the
thinking of most teachers and parents. It is still the
general wish by parents that their children be placed in
a classroom with one teacher per grade. Parents believe
that their children will be at a disadvantage in combination
grades. In 1935, an investigation by Knight1 reported a 2
negative attitude toward combination grades by both parents
and teachers. Chance2 reported the same attitude still
present at the time of his study in 1961. He also reported
an instance where plans for a multiwgraded program were
abandoned because of parental objection.

Combinations of more than one grade into a single
classroom can be defended on the basis of budget require-
ments. They can also be defended because of the need for
maintaining a balance in teacher-pupil ratio. Objections
are raised because teachers and parents believe pupils will
learn less in combination grades than they will in regular

grades. A need exists, therefore, to provide additional

 

1E. E. Knight, "A Study of Double Grades in New
Haven City Schools" (unpublished Doctor's thesis, Yale
University, 1935).

2Earl Stanley Chance, "An Analysis of Some Effects
of Multiple Grade Grouping in an Elementary School"
(unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Tennessee,
1961).

information about the use of combination grades in
elementary schools.

In light of what is known about learning and mental
growth, the mechanics of the graded school remain largely
unchanged. Modifications of the graded school such as
combination classes are challenged both from within and
outside of the teaching profession. This is true in spite
of known and proved practices in learning which refute the
concept of sharp breaks in curriculum planning. Additional
insight into ongoing practices in elementary schools is
necessary if the beliefs of people are to be verified or
changed enough to enable better educational programs for

children to develop.

The Problem

 

The purpose of this study was to provide additional
needed information. Specifically, the purpose was twofold.
The first aspect was an investigation of the academic progress
of all pupils in combination sixth grades. This progress
was measured in comparison with other sixth-grade pupils
who were assigned to regular sixth grades during this same
period of time. In addition, all pupils were assigned to
one of three sub-groups. Each of these sub-groups were
representative of pupils with 1.0. scores classified as
below average, average, or above average. Academic progress
in the areas of reading, arithmetic, and language skills

were compared for total group and each of the sub—groups.

The second purpose of this study was to compare
attitudes of pupils in combination Sixth grades with
attitudes of pupils in regular sixth grades. All pupils
were asked to express their attitudes toward school, subjects,
teachers, and friends. Results of pupil opinion was com—
pared to determine if pupils in combination grades have
attitudes as positive as those of pupils in regular sixth

grades.

Hypotheses

 

l. Sixth-grade pupils who are assigned to combination
fifth and sixth—grade classrooms will make academic
progress in reading, arithmetic, and language skills,
equal to like pupils in regular sixth—grade class-
rooms.

A. Sixth-grade pupils, with above-average intelli—
gence, who are assigned to combination fifth
and sixth-grade classrooms will make academic
progress in reading, arithmetic and language
skills equal to like pupils in regular sixth-
grade classrooms.

B. Sixth—grade pupils, with average intelligence,
who are assigned to combination fifth and sixth-
grade Classrooms, will make academic progress
in reading, arithmetic and language skills
equal to like pupils in regular sixth—grade

classrooms.

C. Sixth-grade pupils with below—average intelligence.
who are assigned to combination fifth and sixth—
grade classrooms, will make academic progress
in reading, arithmetic and language skills
equal to like pupils in regular sixth-grade
classrooms.

Sixth-grade pupils who are assigned to combination

fifth and sixth-grade classrooms will have attitudes

toward school and other people, as positive as

pupils in regular sixth—grade Classrooms.

Definition of Terms

 

The definitions which follow are intended to clarify

the sense in which they are used in this investigation.

Unless otherwise noted, the definition used is based upon

past research or common usage in the field of education.

1.

Combination grade: The grouping of pupils of two
grades into a single Class for the purpose of
carrying on classroom activities and keeping the
Class size at a desirable level.l

Regular grade: A classroom which is made up of
students that are designated to the same level for
academic work.

Experimental grogp: Those students (sixth grade)
who have been assigned to combination fifth and

sixth grades during this study.

 

1C. V. Good (ed.), Dictionary of Education (2d ed.;

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959), p. 250.

lO

4. Control gropp: Those sixth—grade pupils who have
been assigned to regular sixth-grade classrooms in
a building also housing an experimental group.

5. Average intelligence: A score on an intelligence
test indicating an I.Q. greater than 89 but less
than 111.

6. Above-average intelligpnce: A score on an intelligence
test indicating an I.Q. greater than 110.

7. Below-average intelligpnce: A score on an intelligence
test indicating an I.Q. less than 90.

8. Ungraded or nongraded school: A school in which
grade labels are not applied to students.1

9. Multigraded or interageggrouping: The type of
elementary school class in which the pupils are
not identified by any standard grade level and
which includes more than one grade usually provided
for in the standard grade system.2

10. Class size: The number of pupils assigned to one
classroom unit for the purpose of instruction.

ll. Attitude: How an individual feels, or what he
believes.3

12. Graded School: A school in which each Class or

 

lIbid., p. 586.

2Stuart E. Dean (ed.), Elementary School Administration
and Organization (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1960), p. 29.

3John W. Best, Research in Education (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 155.

11

progress group has a teacher and classroom of its

own .

Major Assumptions

 

This study is based upon the assumption that assign-
ment of pupils to classrooms for instruction is of vital
interest to parents, teachers, and administrators. Through—
out the history of elementary education in America, various
patterns of elementary school organization have appeared.
Additional changes in organization of schools for instruction
are being undertaken now and other changes will undoubtedly
occur in the future. Throughout these periods of change,
educators must continually examine and evaluate on—going
practices. Some past practices have been maintained be-
cause of their obvious acceptance and success. Others have
continued because of a lack of known improvements or suf-
ficient motivation to implement improvements. Continued
changes and improvements in elementary school organization
must occur if schools are to remain in harmony with the
changing values and ethics of the society in which they
function.

In consideration of combination grades as an organi-
zational device, one must also consider the individual
academic and social adjustment of children who participate
in these Classes. An examination of grade combinations,

therefore, is actually a study of the manner in which

 

lGood, op. cit., p. 251.

12

pupils adjust to a given learning situation. If educators
are to continue to use combination grades, sound justifi-
cation for their utilization on an academic and social basis
must be founded. If, on the other hand, parents, teachers,
and administrators oppose the use of combinations of two
or more grade levels into one classroom unit, the basis for
this objection must be substantiated.

It was assumed by the researcher that the study was
designed in a manner to provide evidence which will lead
to broad conclusions on the use of combination grades.
Involved in this assumption is the expectation that the
instruments utilized were adequate for the measurements
which were made. The sample used in this study was intended
to be representative of a much larger universe and similar
findings should be predictable for other urban areas.
Existing grade assignments were used and no research controls
were placed upon the assignments of pupils or teachers. In
addition, no attempt was made to structure the proCedure
of teaching in either the regular classrooms or in the
combination classrooms. This permitted complete freedom
for teachers to organize and conduct their classrooms as
they chose. It was assumed that the instructional pro-
cedures were representative of those normally used by teachers

in America.

Procedure

The following steps were taken in carrying out this

study:

13

l. The literature which is significantly related to
this study was reviewed. This was done in three
parts: Non-graded Classrooms, multi-graded Class—
rooms, and combination grades. The principles
involved in any one of these areas are so inter-
woven with the other two that it seemed necessary
to develop a broad basis from which to proceed.

2. Sixth—grade pupils were designated as experimental
and control groups on the basis of two different
types of classroom assignments--regular grades,
combination grades.

3. All students involved in the study were pre—tested
and post-tested in the areas of reading, arithmetic,
and language skills. A total of 141 students were
used as the experimental group, and 349 students
were used as a control group.

4. A pupil opinion questionnaire on attitudes toward
school, home, subjects, peers, and reflecting
parental attitudes was developed and administered.

5. Data gathered from the tests and questionnaire were
tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted.

6. Conclusions were drawn, and recommendations were

made.

Variables and Instruments

The independent variables controlled in this study

were intelligence of pupils, previous achievement of pupils,

l4

socio-economic status of pupils, and teaching talent of
staff teaching both experimental and control groups.

The nature of the grade assignment, either regular
grade or combination fifth and sixth grade was the dependent
variable.

The California Test of Mental Maturity was used to

measure the I.Q.‘s of the sixth-grade pupils. The California

 

Achievement Test, Form X, was used as the pre-test measure
and Form Y was used as the post-test measure. All pupils

indicated the type of work done by their parents, and the

Edwards Occupational Index was employed as a measure of

socio—economic status. The teachers completed the MinnesOta

 

Teacher Attitude Inventory to provide a means of equating

them on the basis of their attitudes.

Limitations of the Study

This study was limited to children from a mid-
western City with a population of approximately 90,000.
Sixth-grade children were used in this study because of the
number of combination grades available. A total of 11 of
the 26 elementary schools expected that this selection
would provide a broad base of pupils with varying socio—
economic backgrounds. It was also intended that this large
representation of elementary schools would be an accurate
representation of the city.

Other information in this study was obtained from:

1. School records of the children.

l5

2. Experts in the field of elementary education.

3. Research journals.

4. Dissertations, theses, and other research in the
area of elementary school organization.

5. Questionnaires and tests given the children in this
study.

The class groups were not structured, in that the
study was begun after grade assignments had been made.
There was no attempt to vary the teaching procedure of any
person involved in this study. The participation of the
teacher was not needed until the final six weeks of the
school year. At that time, the study was explained to
individual teachers and their cooperation was requested.
All of the teachers who taught a combination fifth and
sixth grade agreed to participate in this research study.
Prior to this time, background work in analysis of previous
pupil progress was begun through the central office.
Records of I.Q. testing and previous test scores were ob—
tained from the permanent file maintained by the elementary
coordinator.

A total of 11 buildings had organized combination
fifth and sixth grades. Of this number, 10 buildings were
included in this study. One small school was not included,
as there were no other regular sixth-grade students housed
in this building. All other buildings had at least one
other regular sixth grade, in addition to the combination

grade.

16

It was the policy of the school district that all
students complete the California Achievement Test1 in the
fall of the sixth grade, so this data were readily available.
Teachers were informed of the study prior to the post-test
in May. This was done to eliminate any possibility of a
Hawthornez-like effect upon the data and also to remove any
threat which the study might have upon the behavior of any
teachers. An alternate form of the California Achievement
‘ngp, Form Y, was administered to all sixth—grade pupils

by the Classroom teachers.

Plan of the Report

Chapter I provides an introduction to the study by
orientating the reader to the problem and acquainting him
with the general design. Chapter II is a review of the
literature which is significantly related to this study.
Chapter III outlines the design and procedure of the study.
Chapter IV contains an analysis of data. Chapter V presents
a general summary of the study, conclusions, and implications

based on the results of this study.

 

1Ernest W. Tiegs and Willis W. Clark, California
Achievement Tests (Monterey, California: California Test
Bureau, 1957 edition).

 

 

2Desmond L. Cook, "The Hawthorne Effect in Educational
Research," Phi Delta Kappan, XLIV, No. 3 (December, 1962),
pp. 116-22.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In the twenty-year period following the founding
of the Quincy Grammar School in 1848, the graded plan
became established in this country. This organizational
plan was simple in design and received widespread approval
by local school districts. It was founded on the basis
that accomplishments were primarily the result of dif-
ferences in willingness to work. A certain package of
fundamental skills and knowledge was viewed as appropriate
for mastery within each level. If one applied himself, he
would be successful in school and move on to the next grade.
If he did not apply himself adequately, he could try to do
so the following year.1

According to Beauchamp,2 the graded school is the
most common pattern of organization in schools today.
The plan may be viewed as one of simply assembling children
into grades in accordance with their chronological age.

As far as administrative grouping of children for instruction,

 

1"Elementary School Organization, Purposes, Patterns,
and Perspective," National Elementary Principal, XLI, No. 3
(December, 1961), pp. 78-79.

2George A. Beauchamp, Basic Dimensions of Elementary
Method (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1959), pp. 200-201.

17

18

the age—grade grouping plan seems to have worked as well
as any other arrangement.

While it is true that age-grade grouping is a workable
manner of pupil classification, there are objections being
raised on other grounds. Goodlad questions the use of
efficiency as the sole criterion in deciding how to group
pupils for instruction. The fact that the age-grade method
of grouping has proven to be efficient does not necessarily
mean that this is the way in which pupil Classification
should be made.1

The ASCD has shown how local dissatisfaction with the
graded plan in the past prompted school districts to experi-
ment with various other organizational schemes.2 Plans
such as the "Pueblo Plan," the "Dalton Plan," and the
"Winnetaka Plan” are examples of attempts which were made
to break the lock step system of grade organization. The
graded system originally was an attempt to provide homo-
geneity in the classroom, but it has failed to do this, and
it actually interferes with well-articulated learning for
children. Typically, teachers of the graded school tended
to work toward uniform standards. This results in slow
learners being retained while accelerated learners are

being blocked from making more rapid progress.

 

1John I. Goodlad and Robert H. Anderson, The Non-
graded Elementary School (New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Company, 1959), P. 56.

2ASCD, A Look at Continuity in the School Program,
1958 Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1958),
pp. 202-13.

19

The graded school often tends to become extremely
goal oriented at each grade level. The more limited the
goals of a grade, the more likelihood of increased homo-
geneity in children. HOwever, if the goals are sufficiently
difficult to tax the capacity of the superior individuals,
the variability of the group will increase during the
period of instruction.1 When limited grade goals are set,
rote memory is stressed; and considerable time is wasted
in striving toward these goals.

Cronbach2 points out some of the disadvantages of
rigid age-grading of Children. Grouping by age assumes
that pupils of the same chronological age have the readiness
for the same activities. Although it is possible to identify
developmental tasks which occur during a period of maturation,
there is the ever-present problem presented by uneven
sequence and the rate at which these are mastered. Research
and experience have demonstrated that all pupils are not
ready for the same tasks at the same time. Some children
may have optimum readiness to learn to read at age six,
while others may not arrive at this point until a year or
more later. In addition, some individuals may have already
passed the teachable moment at the time his age—grade group

is deemed ready to learn.

 

1Robert H. Beck, Walter W. Codk and Nolan C. Kearney,
Curriculum in the Modern Elementary School (New Ybrk:
Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1953), P. 47.

2Cronbach, op. cit., pp. 221-37.

20

A real limitatibn of the graded plan, as stated in
the ASCD Yearbook, is that "The potentialities for any kind
of continuity in learning seem rather doubtful in a curriculum
that has been preplanned by adults, to be mastered by
children block by block."1 Grouping of pupils for instruction
needs to involve not only past performances but also readi-
ness for future tasks.. The key seems to lie with the
ability of teachers to translate into action understandings
gleaned from child development and sound educational objectives.
The mechanical removal of grade lines will not in
itself provide continuity in learning. HCWever, removal of
traditional graded goals will afford teachers opportunities
to implement a program based upon the continuous growth of
children.
This chapter is a review of the literature on
recent trends which challenge the graded concept: the
non—graded elementary school, the multigraded classroom,

and combination grades.

The Nongraded Elementary School

In the introduction to their book on the nongraded
elementary school, Goodlad and Anderson2 clearly indicate
the relationship between the modern nongrading approach and
the one—room schoolhouse. However, the authors also make

it equally clear that the present nongraded school is a

 

lASCD 1958 Yearbook, op. cit., p. 212.

2Goodlad and Anderson, op. cit.

21

direct outgrowth of new learnings in the areas of curriculum,
psychology, administration, and social sciences. It is an
organizational plan based on the concept of continuous.
uneven, and individual growth of children. The authors
define a nongraded school as one where the grade labels
have been entirely removed from various grade levels.1

One of the earliest reported programs in nongrading
was in Western Springs, Illinois.2 This program was begun
in 1935 and was highly acclaimed by teachers in the system.
They reported that their pupils were happier and more
interested in their school work than they had been in graded
Classrooms. The nongraded program enabled continuous
advancement for pupils and eliminated the necessity of
failures and skipping of grades. The teachers were unanimous
in approving nongrading as a superior arrangement to the
graded program of instruction.

A program of ungraded primary classrooms was begun
in Milwaukee in 1942. Kelly3 reported strong support for
the program by both parents and teachers. She found children
making better social and academic adjustment than in previous
years. Nongrading was initiated in one school but spread

to 33 elementary schools in a three-year period. Kelly

 

lIbid., p. 55.

2L. B. Wheat, "Flexible Primary School," The Nations

Schools, vol. 22 (October, 1938), pp. 26-28.

 

3Florence C. Kelly, "Doing Away with Grade Levels,"
National Education Association Journal, Vol. 37 (April, 1948),
pp. 222—23.

22

also reported that, although it was found necessary to grade
Children for City and state statistical purposes, flexibility
in grouping could still be accomplished within each school.

In 1948, Park Forest, Illinois, introduced the un-
graded primary school as part of its new school system.

Six years of experience with this plan was evaluated in
1954.1 It was found that a lack of understanding by
parents and teachers resulted in a carry-over of limitations
inherent in the graded program. However, marked decrease
in pupil failure was also found during this period. The
educational program of pupils remained the same as in the
graded program except for greater flexibility in timing of
instruction. Teachers were able to adjust their teaching
to the level of the individual child without the limitation
of the grade standard. Pupil adjustment to school was
reported as much improved over previous years.

Eldred and Hillson2 indicate that the removal of
grade levels can have a very positive influence upon pupil
adjustment. They state that the system of graded organi—
zation of schools contributes its share of personality mal-
adjustment, mental illness, juvenile delinquency, crime,

and a host of other problems. The non-graded school will

 

lMarion B. Tucker, "The Shoe Didn't Fit," National
Educational Association Journal, Vbl. 45 (March, 1956),
pp. 159—61.

 

2Donald N. Eldred and Maurie Hillson, "Nongraded
School and Mental Health," Elementary School Journal,
Vol. 63 (January, 1963), pp. 218-22.

23

not eliminate all of these, but such organization could have
a far—reaching effect in producing healthy personalities
and reducing problems. One area in which this is of special
importance is in reduction of failures and resulting im—
proved self—image by pupils. The student in the nongraded
school has the opportunity to catch up during periods of
rapid growth which do not coincide with the graded school.
DiPasqualel reported measurable benefit from an
ungraded program. He credited it with aiding in a marked
decline in truancy and vandalism. The children were re-
ported to be better adjusted socially and emotionally.
They also were found to have a greater pride in their
school than had been true in the graded program. Some
skeptical teachers at the beginning of nongrading soon
became strong supporters of it. The nongraded school was
placed into operation without additional staff and resulted
in a more easily administered program of instruction.
Goodlad2 reports changes in curriculum resulting
from nongrading practices. He indicates that nongrading
provides greater stimulus for making other kinds of curri-
culum changes. In addition, Goodlad says that nongrading
places students in a learning situation where there is a

reduction of tensions, especially for the slow learner. It

 

lVincent DiPasquale, "Schools Without Grades,"
Better Homes and Gardens, vo1. 33, Part II (September, 1955),
pp. 28 plus.

2John Goodlad, "Promising Practices in Nongraded
Schools," Education Digest, Vol. 27 (October, 1961), pp. 8—10.

24

is also credited with providing the academically talented
students with a more stimulating atmosphere in which to
learn.

The nongraded program has been most widely intro-
duced at the primary level. Lamersl indicates that problems
of the graded school are most acute at this level and
therefore are more receptive to change. Promotion or
failure in the lower elementary grades has long been based
on the erroneous assumption that students needed to try
again to understand the content or develop a particular
skill at that level before moving along. Among the
advantages he Cites are: that the child competes with
himself, and that problems do not pile up at any one age
level. If a program of nongrading is to be effective, the
teachers must understand it and continuous orientation
for parents must be maintained. The length of time gifted
students are required to spend in the primary school
depends on their achievement and growth, mainly in the areas
of subject matter, content, basic skills, physical, social,
and emotional growth.

In 1960 a survey of about 550 nongraded schools
was made and later reported by Anderson and Goodlad.2

They found that when studies using statistical measures of

 

1William M. Lamers, "Milwaukee Ungraded Primary
Plan," American School Board Journal, vo1. 145 (November,
1962), PP. 11—13.

2Robert H. Anderson and John I. Goodlad, "Self—
Appraisal in Nongraded Schools: A survey of Findings and

Perceptions," Elementary School Journal, V01. 62 (February,
1962), PP. 261-69.

25

achievement scores were made, differences in favor of the
graded plan were rare. In answer to questions relating to
social, emotional, and personal adjustment of children,
responses were overwhelmingly positive in favor of the
nongraded plan. They also found that parental attitude was
highly positive toward nongraded schools.

Brinkmanl believes that the adjectives "nongraded"
and "ungraded" should be dropped when describing organi—
zational patterns which made a departure from the graded
plan. He favOrs such labels as the "primary school" and
the "intermediate school" in their place. He notes that
professional resistance to an ungraded school is often the
major hurdle for the schoolman to surmount. The traditional
teacher views any invasion of the work of the next grade
level as a break in professional ethics. Therefore, any
break with the graded program needs to drop the entire
concept and terminology associated with grades.

Carbone2 concluded that a change in the organiza—
tional structure of a school will not necessarily result
in a better academic program. He found that teachers in
nongraded schools often used graded practices and pursued

graded goals. In addition, the tests used to measure

 

1Albert R. Brinkman, "Now It's the Ungraded School,"
PTA Magazine, Vol. 55 (June, 1961), pp. 24-26.

 

2Robert F. Carbone, "Achievement, Mental Health, and
Instruction in Graded and Nongraded Elementary School,"

(unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Chicago,
1961).

26

results were geared to the graded school. He concluded
that it is not realistic to expect improved academic achieve~
ment and personality adjustment in pupils, merely on the
basis of a Change in organizational structure. His research
indicated that the measured academic progress of pupils
was not enhanced merely by utilization of a nongraded
program. He recommended that if schools adopt a nongraded
organizational plan, they also adopt their instructional
goals to the individual needs of pupils.

Available research evidence strongly supports
objections which have long been made to the graded plan
of elementary school organization. The concept that
children can and do fit an annual yardstick-type measure-
ment results in a multitude of social and academic problems
for both pupils and teachers. Because of uneven and erratic
growth of individual children, the division between two
grade levels, such as fifth and sixth, can become an
exceedingly difficult line to determine. The strongest
argument for the graded program appears to be that it is

established as tradition in elementary schools.

Multi—grade or Inter-age Grouping

In recent years, there has been considerable
interest in multi-grade or inter—age grouping of pupils
in elementary Classrooms. Multi-graded means the type of
elementary school class in which the pupils are not
identified by any standard grade level and which includes

more than an age range of one year as is normal in the

27

graded classroom.l Lane and Beauchamp2 favor groupings of
this nature as classrooms would then more nearly resemble
groups in which people find themselves. They question the
age-grade concept which implies that twelve months is the
optimum age span for a school group. Play groups of Children
encompass three to five years and present individual
Children with a much wider range of social identification.
The typical age-grade grouping of one year, as used by
graded schools, breaks down after a person completes his
formal education and finds himself working in a group
representing a wide age range.

Rehwoldt3 designed a study to measure the effects
of multiple-grade grouping on elementary age pupils in the
areas of scholastic achievement, personal adjustment, social
adjustment, social maturity, behavioral characteristics,
and attitudes toward school and peers. He used one
elementary school in which all classrooms were made up of
eleven pupils from each of three different grade levels.
Two broad groupings were made, primary level and inter-
mediate level. Test results at the end of one year indi-

cated that pupils in the multi-graded Classrooms made

 

lStuart E. Dean, Elementary School Administration and
Organization (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1960), p. 29.

2Howard Lane and Mary Beauchamp, Human Relations in
Teaching (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1955), pp. 298-309.

3Walter Rehwoldt, "Aspects of Multigrade Teaching in
the Elementary Schools" (unpublished Doctor's thesis, University
of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1957).

28

higher scores in all of the measured areas than did matched
pupils in graded classrooms of the same school district.
Most of the differences were statistically significant at
the .05 level of confidence.

A follow-up of the multi-grade plan of Terrance,
California, led Hulll to the conclusion that pupil progress
is so enhanced that there is something inherent in this
plan of grouping that educators should consider in all
school organization. He reported that a three-year survey
of pupil progress indicated that learning in multi-graded
classrooms, as measured by tests now available, is definitely
superior to the graded classroom. Hull favors multiple-
grade teaching as it enables better timing of instruction,
especially in the teaching of reading.

Carlson2 cites inter—age grouping as being one of
the most successful systems yet devised for grouping young
Children. To achieve the best education in an elementary
school, he indicates that the following factors must be
considered: (a) the operation of the school must be
flexible, (b) there must be a general growing-up process
in place of the grade placement system, (c) the child must
have a purpose in education, (d) a group should operate

in a democratic way, (e) the mentality of Children must

 

1J. H. Hull, "Multiple-Grade Teaching," The Nation's
Schools, vo1. 62 (July, 1958), pp. 33-36.

2Wesley H. Carlson, "Interage Grouping," Educational
Leadership, V01. 15 (March, 1958), PP. 363-68.

29

receive prime attention, (f) the child must be respected
as an individual. Although Carlson recognized that inter-
age grouping will not guarantee a good educational program,
he does think that a teacher will tend to perform better
in such a program. The nature of the grouping also serves
to encourage the teacher to put forth his best efforts in
meeting the individual needs and abilities of Children.

The development of one program of multigrade group—
ing was reported by Gilbert.1 The plan emerged from staff
concerns about the inability of the graded plan to fit the
operations level of pupils. The school staff felt that
the grade concept did not permit teachers to utilize know-
ledge available to them about learning and children. They,
therefore, adopted a multi-graded plan to overcome the
limitations of grading and to permit teachers and children
to function in a less structured atmosphere.

Yunghams2 looked at the multiple-grade classrooms
of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Schools. The three
areas he measured were personal adjustment, social adjust—
ment, and Christian attitudes of pupils. His findings led
him to conclude that multi-grading did not result in signifi-

cant improvements in these areas. He recommended continuance

 

lJerome H. Gilbert, "Multigraded Developmental Plan
Focuses on Pupil Advancement," Chicago Schools Journal,
Vol. 43 (February, 1962), pp. 209-214.

2Ernest E. Yunghams, "The Effects of Class Organi-
zation and Time on the Teacher's Ability to Classify His

Pupils with Respect to Three General Personality Traits,"
(unpublished Doctor's theSlS, Indiana UniverSIty, 1959).

30

of research on the effectiveness of multiple-grade teaching,
especially with regard to the effect of grouping on the
personality development of children.

In 1948, a study based more on circumstances than
design measured the progress of fourth, fifth, and sixth
grade pupils in a multi—graded classroom. Foshayl used
a procedure in which this group was measured near the
beginning of the school year and again at the end. He
found that the control group made up of pupils in regular
graded sections made significantly greater gains in arithme-
tic, reading, spelling, and language usage than did pupils
in the multi-graded Classroom. The mean gain of the
experimental group was approximately one-half year as
measured by the achievement test. It must be recognized,
however, that this group represented an atypical elementary
school. The average I.Q.‘s of both experimental and control
groups were in excess of 125, and all of these students were
enrolled in the Columbia University Laboratory School.

Chance2 measured pupil achievement in multi-graded
Classrooms. He used classrooms with from two to four grades
under the direction of one teacher. He indicated that his
study was limited by the lack of pre—test evidence and that
his findings were based upon post-test achievement of

students. With the evidence available, he found no significant

 

1Arthur W. Foshay, "Interage Grouping in the Elementary
School,” (unpublished Doctor's thesis, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1948).

2Chance, 0 . cit.

31

differences in the achievement of students in regular and
multi-graded classrooms. His study was further restricted
in that a limited sample of students was used. A total of
eighty-six pupils representing four grade levels made up
his experimental sample. One class was made up of pupils
from grades three and four; a second was a combination of
grades five and six; and the third group had students from
grades three, four, five, and six. He reported that although
there were differences in the achievement of pupils indi-
cating a superiority of the multi-graded classrooms, his
study design prevented any generalized conclusions.

This review of the literature indicates the need
for additional studies in multi-grade grouping to retest
the conflicting findings of Rehwoldt and Foshay, which
strongly support this need. The use of interage grouping
has been rather limited: but with the spread of the un-
graded school concept, opportunities for experimentation in
multi-age grouping should be enhanced. As more research
information becomes available in the area of pupil grouping
and learning, the possibilities for individual progress of
pupils will be enhanced.

Stratemeyerl states that inter-age grouping may offer
the special stimulation which some pupils need. This break

with the traditional pattern of grouping could permit more

 

lFlorence B. Stratemeyer, Hamden L. Forkner,
Margaret G. MCKim, A. Harry Passow, Developing a Curriculum
for Modern Living (New York Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1957), p. 438. '

32

freedom for the learner and greater flexibility in curricu-

lum.

Combination Grades

Few studies of combination grades have been made.
The first noteworthy investigation was made by Knight1
in 1935. His review of prior studies indicated that little
had been done to measure learning in combination grades.
Earlier studies which had measured achievement of pupils
dealt mainly with contrasting rural schools to city schools.
Knight concluded his survey of the literature by stating
that he had not reviewed a single study which had matched
children in an attempt to discover if pupils in combination
grades achieved as much as pupils in regular grades.

Knight enlisted fourth-grade teachers in Hartford,
Connecticut, to assist in his investigation of learning in
combination grades. As a group, the teachers involved in
the study agreed upon basic procedure for teaching during
the school year. It was understood that teachers in combi-
nation grades would ignore grade level barriers and teach
the entire class as a unit whenever possible. Teachers
were also informed that if pupils could perform above their
designated grade level at the end of the year, they would
be considered for double promotion the following year.

Knight used a pre-, post-test measure of fourth-
grade students in combination grades. The study included

pupils who were assigned in combinations of grades three

 

lKnight, op. cit.

33

and four, and in combinations of grades four and five. The
only statistically significant difference in the achieve-
ment of pupils in regular and combination grades was found

in spelling. In this one area, the pupils in regular fourth
grades achieved significantly higher scores. HOwever, Knight
reported that students in regular grades had spent more time
on spelling and studied more words each week than the pupils
in combination grades. In all other areas, the achievement
of pupils in combination grades was equal to the achieve-
ment of pupils in regular grades.

Knight made a brief analysis of pupil reaction
toward combination grades by asking children to respond to
their like or dislike for combination grade assignments.

His survey indicated that only a small percentage of students
disliked placement in combination grades. However, of those
indicating this dislike, all (three) were in the sixth

grade.

Teachers were also surveyed for opinions about
combination grades. They found combinations of grades one
and two, and combinations of five and six the most dif-
ficult to work with in terms of pupil adjustment. Knight
also found that 76 per cent of the teachers reported that
double grades had no effect, or else a favorable one, on
the child's attitude toward his school work.

Adamsl analyzed achievement test scores of native

 

1Joseph J. Adams, "Achievement and Social Adjustment
of Pupils in Combination Classes Enrolling Pupils of More
Than One Grade Level," Journal of Educational Research,
Vol. 47 (October, 1953), p. 155.

34

born, white, fifth-grade pupils from middle—Class neighbor-
hoods who had been assigned to combination fourth and fifth
grades in Pasadena, California. He found that when their
achievement test scores were matched with like students in
regular fifth grades no statistically significant differences
in academic achievement could be found. He selected 150
pairs of students tested annually between 1946 and 1952
by the Progressive Achievement Test. Adams used a separate
sample to investigate the social structure of combination
grades and administered a sociometric test to three regular
fifth grades and to pupils in six combination fifth grades.
Three of these combination grades were made up of fourth-
and fifth—grade pupils and three were made up of fifth-
and sixth-grade pupils. The results of his sociometric
investigation revealed that although combination grades
showed no inferiority to regular classes with respect to
number of Choices outside of the class, number of mutual
choices, and other indices of group interaction, there did
appear to be a tendency for pupils in combination grades
to separate into four groups on the basis of sex and grade
level.

The literature makes it clear that not all teachers
view the task of teaching combination grades in the same
manner. Peteryl describes the program she followed in

teaching a combination first and second grade. The daily

 

lMercedes Petery, "Teaching a Double Grade? It's
a Real Challenge," Instructor, Vol. 69 (September, 1959),
p. 19 plus.

35

schedule is organized in a manner which enabled her to

divide her time between the two grades.

was receiving instruction while the

work.

Suggested Schedule for a Double

8:45

Recess

10:00

10:25

10:45

11:00

Follow a similar schedule after lunch,
noon reading classes,

commitment to a graded program.

20

25

15

15

25

20

15

10

minutes

minutes

minutes

minutes

minutes

minutes

minutes

minutes

science,

Thus one grade

other was doing seat

First and Second Grade1

Grade 1 reading

Grade 2 reading seatwork

Grade 2 reading

Grade 1 reading seatwork

Grade 1 writing

Grade 2 writing practice

Grade 2 writing

Grade 1 writing practice

Grade 2 arithmetic

Grade 1 arithmetic seatwork

Grade 1 arithmetic

Grade 2 arithmetic seatwork

Grade 2 spelling

Grade 1 free drawing or
spelling seatwork

Both Classes - sharing and

relaxing before
lunch

including the after-

and quiet time.

A schedule structured such as this reflects strong

Distinct lines are drawn

between the two grade levels even though a day or week

might be all that separates the youngest second grader from

 

Ibid 0 I

p. 19.

36

the oldest first grader. Approximately one-half of the
teacher's time is devoted to each grade. A schedule such
as this gears the pupils and the entire program toward a
limited, grade-end goal, rather than individual growth. As
such, it places limitations upon pupil progress and handi-
caps both groups of students.

In basic agreement with Petery, Hartzlerl points
out the advantage of having movable furniture in a class-
room with two grades. Her seating arrangement was such
that the fifth graders sat in a semi-Circle facing the black-
board at one end of the room. The sixth graders also sat
in a semi—Circle, facing a blackboard on the other side
of the room. This arrangement gave a feeling of privacy
to each grade. At times when both classes were to recite
together, all could turn their desks and face the same
blackboard.

A somewhat different view of working with combination
grades is expressed by Bahner.2 In Englewood, Florida, the
elementary school had a combination second—third grade and
a fifth-sixth grade one year and was faced with the likeli-
hood of more such combinations in the future. The staff
looked at the potential enrollment and examined alternate

possibilities of organization. It was decided to include a

 

lRuth Hartzler, "Experimenting with Split Grades,"
Ohio Schools, V61. 37 (May, 1959), p. 32.

2J. M. Bahner, "Grouping Within a School," Childhood
Education, V61. 36 (April, 1960), PP- 354-56.

 

 

37

section of each grade level in a combination grade the
following year. In this way it was possible to remove the
extremes of severely retarded and accelerated pupils from
one classroom. It also made it possible for some pupils to
complete the six-year elementary school in just five years
by completing two years of work while in a combination
grade. In the same manner, it was possible to decelerate
the progress of individuals to a seven-year elementary
program without the stigma of failure at any grade level.

Hunter states that the addition of a second grade
is merely a continuation of a condition which is generally
found in any classroom. One real concern of teachers of
combination grades stems from the thinking that all material
in all books must be taught each year to all pupils. If
the teacher of the combination grade forgets this notion,
which should be done also in the normal classroom, the job
becomes greatly simplified. The teacher must first get a
clear picture in mind of the entire program. When this is
done, instruction can proceed in terms of individual growth
rather than on the basis of grade standards. If one thinks
of combination grades in this framework, it is possible to
proceed with an effective instructional program.

The more important grade standards loom in the eyes
of the teacher, administrator, and parent, the greater will

be the concern over limitations of combination grades.

 

lM.‘W. Hunter, ”Two Grades in One Room!" Instructor,
May, 1942, p. 8.

 

38

During the time when the grade standard concept of education
was at its height, formation of grade combinations was viewed
as most undesirable. Ottol indicates that although this
negative attitude toward double grades has not disappeared
entirely, research and experience have shed new light on
their utilization.

Bienvenu and Martyn2 suggest specific consideration
be given to pupils who are to be assigned to combination
grades. They recommend that assignment of pupils to such
grades not be made on the basis of I.Q. reading scores, or
any other measure of academic ability. If the administrator
does make combinations in this manner, he will usually
encounter parental resistance. Therefore, they recommended
that grade combinations be formed on the basis of chronologi—
cal age. Pupils assigned to combination grades should be
as nearly as possible in the same age group, even though two
grade lines are crossed. They also feel that some curricular
areas require special attention if combination grades are
organized. The social studies should be apart from those
units which are normally utilized in either of the two grades.
In this way, if a pupil moves to another school or to a

single grade assignment, there will be no repetition of

 

1Henry J. Otto, Elementary School Organization and

Administration (3rd ed.; New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
Inc., 1954), pp. 308-10.

2Harold J. Benvenu and Kenneth A. Martyn, "Why Fear
Combination Classes," American School Board Journal, V61. 130
(April, 1955), pp. 33—34.

39

content. They Cited the need for administrators to be
positive in dealing with teachers and parents and in no

way be defensive about the formation of a combination grade.
The role of the administrator was viewed as vital to the
success of the combination grade.

In a compilation of combination grades,l some
additional basis for past concern about combinations is
presented. There was at one time a stigma associated with
combination grades which was felt by teachers, pupils, and
parents. It was common practice to place problem Children,
slow learners, and misfits into these rooms.

The organization of an elementary school should be
in agreement with the values held by the culture in which it
operates. In addition to being a workable administrative
unit, an elementary school must provide an atmosphere in
which teachers can develop a sound curriculum program. It
is equally important for a comprehensive evaluation to be
made of the entire school program, for the structure can
become the scapegoat for other ills which are less observable.
With continued evaluation of practices now in use, progress
can be made toward the improvement of instruction.

Of the studies reviewed, none used a large sample
from a single school district without altering the teaching
procedures which were normally used in that district. None
of the studies reviewed made an attempt to analyze the atti—

tudes of pupils assigned to combination grades.

 

1"What About Combination Grades?" Childhood Education,
Vol. 32 (December, 1955), pp. 187—88.

Chapter

CHAPTER III

THE METHOD OF THE INVESTIGATION

Introduction

 

The general design of the study was presented in

I as an orientation to the procedures used in

conducting the study. This Chapter will present (1) the

various
methods
(2) the

testing

(1) the

Test of

instruments used in the study, together with the
used to equate the experimental and control groups,
testing sequence, and (3) the methods employed in

the hypotheses.

Instruments Used in the Study

The following instruments were used in the study:
Edwards Occupational Index, (2) the California

Mental Maturipy, (3) the California Achievement

Test, (4) the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventopy and

(5) the

Pupil Attitude Scale.

40

41

Edward's Occupational Index1

The Edward's Occupational Index2 was developed for
use in the United Status Bureau in the 1940 Census. Since
that time, the Edward's Index has been widely used in
economic, political, and social-psychological, and socio-
logical research. His broad groupings are designed to show
the distribution of general status for the entire population
in terms of occupational groups. In addition to the above,
the Edward's Index has also been used in the area of
educational research.

In this study, the attempt was made to choose
pupils of the same socio—economic background for the experi—
mental and control groups. As the selection of the control
group was determined by the location of experimental classes,
there tended to be a likeness among individuals in both
groups. The administrative policy of neighborhood school
districts tended to make homogeneous groups in each of the
elementary schools used in the study. In addition, the
number of schools used in the study (10) tended to provide
a good sample of the socio-economic scale of the community.
In areas where an overbalance of pupils was found repre—
senting a given socio—economic level, a random selection
of individuals was made and the total number was reduced

to provide a balance in each of the six broad classifications.

 

lEdward's Occupational Index, reported in Bernard
Barber, Social Stratification (New York: Harcourt, Brace
and Company, 1957), pp. 171-85.

21bid., pp. 171-72.

42

Table 1 shows the number of pupils in each of the various

socio-economic classifications.

Table 1. Numbers and percentages of pupils at each of six
socio-economic levels.

 

 

 

I II III IV V VI
Upper; Lower—

Highest UPPer Middle middle

Lower Lowest

 

Experimental 4(3%) 5(3%) 11(8%) 18(13%) 43(30%) 60(43%)

Control 10(3%) 14(4%) 28(8%) 42(12%) 105(30%) 150(43%)

 

California Test of Mental Maturity

The California Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity was
written by Elizabeth T. Sullivan, Willis W. Clark, and
Ernest W. Tiegs.l The 1957 edition of this test is the
result of over twenty years of research and development.
Users of the California Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity

have reported a correlation of 0.88 with the Stanford-Binet,

 

and a correlation of 0.81 with the Wechsler-Bellevue. The
test is divided into seven parts which yield two summary
scores, language and non-language scores. These total
scores produce the interpretive data of the test. The
authors indicate that each area has a general population
I.Q. mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16.

All pupils included in this study were administered

the California Short—Form Test of Mental Maturity prior

 

lElizabeth T. Sullivan, Willis W. Clark and Ernest
W. Tiegs, The California Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity
(Monterey, California, California Test Bureau, 1957).

43

to the pre—testing period. These I.Q. scores were made
available through summary sheets maintained at the central
office of the school district. Only those pupils were
included in this study. The summary of these test scores

for the two groups of sixth-grade pupils are presented in

 

 

 

Table 2.
Table 2. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and results
of tests for significance between the means of
the experimental and control groups.
Number of Pupils Mean I.Q. Variance "z"
Experimental 141 101.63 16.97
.19
Control 349 101.89 16.57

 

z .05 = 1.65

Both groups were found to have mean I.Q. scores
slightly higher than 100. The difference between the mean
I.Q. scores of the experimental and control groups was
so slight that the two groups were considered equal in
measured intelligence.

Another matter of concern to the researcher was the
manner in which the I.Q. scores of the two groups were
distributed into the high, middle and low ranges. These
ranges were previously defined as being greater than 110,
between 90 and 110, and less than 90.

Tables 3, 4 and 5 summarize the distribution of
the scores in each of these three sub—groups. Among the

pupils having I.Q.‘s greater than 110, pupils in combination

44

classrooms had somewhat higher scores than did pupils in
regular classrooms. Similar pupils in combination Class—
rooms had a mean I.Q. score of slightly more than 119,
and the pupils in regular classrooms had mean I.Q. scores
slightly less than 118. This difference was not found to
be significant at the .05 level of significance.

Pupils with I.Q. scores between 90 and 110 were
found to have mean scores of slightly below the average
of 100 in the experimental group. Pupils in the control
group had I.Q. scores of slightly above the standardized
average of 100. Again, this difference was not found
statistically significant.

The mean I.Q. scores of pupils having scored less
than 90 on the California Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity
were almost identical with a mean of 82.73 for the experi-
mental group and a mean of 82.22 for the control group.

On the basis of the above information, the likeness
of the sub-groups was supported. The exact mean I.Q.
scores, variances, and results of tests of significance
are reported in Tables 3, 4, and 5.

Table 3. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and results
of test for significance between the mean of the

control and experimental group of pupils having
I.Q. scores greater than 110.

 

 

 

Number of Pupils Mean I.Q. variance "z”
Experimental 32 119.66 39.39
4 1.33
Control 86 117.94 37.61

 

z .05 = 1.65

45

Table 4. Number of pupils, means, variances, and results of
test for significance between the mean of the
control and experimental group for pupils having
I.Q. scores between 90 and 110.

 

 

 

Number of Pupils Mean I.Q. Variance "2"
Experimental 86 99.98 37.11
1.06
Control 204 100.80 37.21

 

z .05 = 1.65

Table 5. Number of pupils, means, variances and results of
test for significance between the mean of the
control and experimental group for pupils having
I.Q. scores less than 90.

 

 

 

 

Number of Pupils Mean I.Q. Variance "z"
Experimental 23 82.74 24.02
.34
Control 59 82.22 29.04

 

z .05 = 1.65

California Achievement Test

The humid—WM was
developed on the basis of sample testing in all forty-
eight states and the District of Columbia prior to its
printing in 1957.1 As such, it is designed to provide
valid and reliable grade equivalent scores in the areas of
reading, arithmetic and language skills. Therefore, the
test authors indicate that irrespective of the school,

test scores on this battery will Show the extent of pupil

mastery of the fundamental skills in terms of grade placements,

 

lTiegs and Clark, op. Cit.

46

based upon a carefully sampled national population.

All pupils in the experimental and control groups
were administered the California Achievement Test Battery
at the beginning of the study. This pre-test session was
held during the first two weeks in October, 1963. The
tests were administered and scored by individual Classroom
teachers. The assumption was made that the 141 pupils in
the experimental and the 349 pupils in the control groups
would not differ significantly in previous achievement in
reading, arithmetic, or language skills.

Table 6 summarizes the mean grade equivalent scores,
variances, and test for significance in the area of reading.
The low "z" score of .22 indicates that the pupils in both
the experimental and control groups achieved approximately
equal scores in reading at the beginning of the sixth
grade.

Pupils in the control group had a mean grade
equivalent score of 5.94 in arithemtic compared with a
mean grade equivalent score of 5.82 for the experimental
group. Although pupils in the control group did have
approximately one full month higher scores, this difference
was not found to be significant at the level of confidence.
Therefore, it is assumed that the two groups were equivalent
in prior arithmetic achievement.

Pupils in the control group achieved grade equivalent
score which was a full month higher than the experimental

group in the area of language skills. However, this

47

difference was found not to be significant at the .05 level
of confidence.

This information summarized in Tables 6, 7, and 8
indicate that the two groups were statistically equal in
terms of prior achievement in reading, arithmetic, and
language skills.

Table 6.’ Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results
of test for significance between the mean of the

control and experimental group in the area of
reading.

 

 

Number of Pupils Mean Grade

 

Equivalent Variance 2

Experimental 141 6.47 2.01
.22

Control 349 6.44 1.90

 

z .05 = 1.65

Table 7. Numbers of pupils, means,variances and results
of test for significance between the mean of the
control and experimental group in the area of
arithmetic.

 

 

Mean Grade

 

Number of Pupils Equivalent Variance 2
Experimental 141 5.82 1.06
1.23
Control 349 5.94 .93

 

z .05 = 1.65

The design of this study included a plan for analysis
of sub-groups of pupils represented by above-average, average
and below-average I.Q. scores. Therefore, it was necessary to
conduct tests for difference of mean scores of pupils in these
three I.Q. ranges in the areas of reading, arithmetic and

language skills.

48

Table 8. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and results
of test for significance between the mean of the
control and experimental group in language skills.

 

 

Mean Grade

 

Number of Pupils Equivalent Variance 2

Experimental 141 6.21 1.95
1.03

Control 349 6.35 1.66

 

z .05 = 1.65

Analysis of Tables 9, 10, and 11 indicate that
pupils with I.Q. scores greater than 110 had achieved
statistically similar grade equivalent scores in all three
academic areas. Pupils in the experimental group achieved
somewhat higher mean grade equivalent scores in reading than
did pupils in the control group. In the areas of arithmetic
and language skills, the mean grade equivalent scores for
the pupils in the experimental and control groups differed
less than one month. The results of the test for signifi—
cance indicated a low difference in the mean grade equivalent
scores. Therefore, it was assumed that the pupils with
I.Q. scores of greater than 110 were alike in previous
measured achievement in the experimental and control groups.
A detailed summary of these findings are reported in Tables
9, 10, and 110

Pupils having I.Q. scores between 90 and 110 also
achieved statistically equal mean grade equivalent scores.
The mean scores achieved by pupils in the control groups
were slightly higher than the mean scores of pupils in the

experimental group in the areas of arithmetic and language

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and test for
significance in the areas of reading for pupils
having I.Q. scores greater than 110.
Number of Pupils Mean Grade Variance "z"
Equivalent
Experimental 32 7.82 .92
.72
Control 86 7.68 1.00
z .05 = 1.65
Table 10. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and test
for significance in the areas of arithmetic for
pupils having I.Q. scores greater than 110.
Number of Pupils Mean Grade Variance "z"
Equivalent
Experimental 32 6.77 .46
.37
Control 86 6.71 .65
z .05 = 1.65
Table 11. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and test
for significance in the area of language skills
for pupils with I.Q. scores greater than 110.
Number of Pupils Mean Grade Variance "2"
Equivalent
Experimental 32 7.35 1.11
.06
Control 86 7.36 1.30
z .05 = 1.65

50

skills. Pupils in the control group had a mean grade
equivalent score of 5.9 in arithmetic. Pupils in the
experimental group had a mean grade equivalent score of

5.7 in arithmetic. The difference between the mean scores
of the two groups in language skills was approximately one
month. Pupils in the experimental group had a mean score
of 6.1 while the pupils in the control group achieved a
mean score of 6.2 Both the experimental and control groups
had mean scores of 6.3 in the area of reading. The test
for significance indicated that the two groups were statisti—
cally similar in each of the three areas. The exact

results of these tests are reported in Tables 12, 13, and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14.
Table 12. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and test
for significance in the area of reading for
pupils having I.Q. scores between 90 and 110.
Number of Pupils Mean Grade Variance "z"
Equivalent
Experimental 86 6.32 1.22
.10
Control 204 6.31 1.33
z .05 = 1.65
Table 13. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and test
for significance in the area of arithmetic for
pupils having I.Q. scores between 90 and 110.
Number of Pupils Mean Grade Variance "z"
Equivalent
Experimental 86 5.73 .72
.12
Control 204 5.91 .60

 

z .05 = 1.65

51

Table 14. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and test
for significance in the area of language skills
for pupils having I.Q. scores between 90 and 110.

 

 

Mean Grade

 

Number of Pupils Equivalent Variance 2

Experimental 86 6.16 1.25
.52

Control 204 6.23 1.12

 

z .05 = 1.65

Pupils in the experimental group with I.Q. scores
of less than 90 were also comparable to the pupils in the
control group. The control group achieved a higher mean
score in arithmetic and in language skills than pupils in
the experimental group. The control group had a mean grade
equivalent score of 4.9 in arithmetic, while the experi-
mental group had a mean score of 4.8. A much greater
difference between the two groups was found in the area of
language skills. Pupils in the control group had a mean
grade equivalent score of 5.2. Pupils in the experimental
group had a mean grade equivalent score of 4.7. Although
there was a difference of almost 5 months, it was not
significant at the .05 level of confidence. The pupils with
I.Q. scores of less than 90 were, therefore, assumed to be
equal in measured academic achievement at the beginning of

the study.

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 15. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and test
for significance in the area of reading for
pupils having I.Q. scores of less than 90.
Number of Pupils Mean Grade Variances "z"
Equivalent
Experimental 23 5.13 2.19
.20
Control 59 5.08 1.09
z .05 = 1.65
Table 16. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and test
for significance in the area of arithmetic for
pupils having I.Q. scores less than 90.
Number of Pupils Mean Grade Variances "z"
Equivalent
Experimental 23 4.87 1.04
.42
Control 59 4.97 .67
z .05 = 1.65
Table 17. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and test
for significance in the area of language skills
for pupils having I.Q. scores less than 90.
Number of Pupils Mean Grade Variances "z"
Equivalent
Experimental 23 4.79 2.02
1.44
Control 59 5.26 1.39
z .05 = 1.65

53

Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory

The distribution of teaching talent between the
experimental and control groups was of concern to the
researcher, and in an attempt to determine possible dif-
ference, the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory was
used.

Each of the teachers involved in this study were
requested to complete the Minnesota Teacher Attitude
InventoryScale.l At the end of the study, teachers were
asked to complete the attitude scale. However, because
of the number of teachers in the study it was assumed that
a balance would be found among the teachers in the experi-
mental and control classes. This testing data were not
obtained until the completion of the study because of
the desire to eliminate any influence upon how individuals
taught their classes during the school year under study.
The assignment of teachers was in no way influenced by
this intended study. An analysis of the scores made by
teachers is reported in Table 18. These findings indicate
that little difference in teaching talent of the two classes

was present.

 

1Walter W. Cook, Carroll H. Leeds, and Robert Callis,
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (New York: The
Psychological Corporation, 1951).

54

Table 18. Numbers of teachers, means, variances and
results of test for significance between the
mean scores of teachers of experimental and

control groups.

 

 

 

Number of Teachers Mean Variance "z"

Experimental Group 10 36.30 16
.02

Control Group 16 32.81 14

 

z .05 = 1.65

The Pupil Attitude Scale

A pupil attitude scale was developed for use in
this study. Inasmuch as all of the students involved in
the study were to be sixth graders, it was constructed
upon the opinions of other sixth grade pupils. The groups
of pupils selected to provide information for construction
of this scale were drawn from three elementary schools
within the school district. None of these three schools
was involved in any other part of this study.

In construction of the pupil attitude scale, a
Lickert Method of Summated Ratingsl was used. As suggested
by Best, statements were gathered from a number of indivi—
duals. Approximately 90 sixth-grade pupils were presented

24 incomplete statements dealing with supjects, school,

 

teachers and adults, and other children. The following

topics were selected for inclusion in this list.

 

1John W. Best, Research in Education (Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955), pp. 140-84.

55

 

 

Subject School

1. Reading is 1. Homework is

2. Library books are 2. The best school is
3. My best subject 3. Working together is
4. Arithmetic 4. My school is

5. Science is
6. English is

7. Writing is

Teachers and Adults Other Children

1. Our principal 1. Other Children

2. My teacher is 2. Other classes

3. Teachers are 3. My friends

4. My parents think 4. Our class is

5. Most grown ups 5. My classmates

6. Other sixth grades

This list of statements was presented to each of
the sixth grade pupils involved. They were instructed to
complete the statements with whatever thought first entered
their minds. A request was also made that pupils should
attempt to respond to all items. Ample time was allocated
for the pupils to complete the statements. In addition,
assurance was given that the completed statements would
not be seen by their teacher or principal, and that their
responses would have no effect upon their classwork
evaluation.

The administration of the sample questionnaire was
done by the researcher in all instances. The completed
statements from the three classes were then examined item
by item. Only positive responses were recorded. Negative
or meaningless responses were discarded. By this procedure,
a total of twenty positive statements were selected. The
selection was made to include expressions in each of four

areas; subjects, school, teachers and adults, and other

56

Children. These twenty items were then printed and pre-
sented to all sixth grade pupils included in this study.
(See Appendix I.) The manner in which the pupil attitude
scale was administered and scored is presented in various

other parts of Chapters IV and V.

The Testing Sequence

 

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, all pupils
had previously been administered the California Test of
Mental Maturity. This test had been given in the spring
preceding the time the study was to begin.

The pre-test in the areas of reading, arithmetic,
and language skills was administered during the first two
weeks of October. The post—test session in these same
three areas was held during the final two weeks of May
during the same school year.

Immediately following the post—test period, the
attitude scale was given to all pupils involved in the
study. During this time, information about the nature of
the parents' employment was also obtained. Classroom
teachers assisted with providing information on parental
employment when questions arose. If there was incomplete
information for any reason, permanent records were con-
sulted.

During the first week in June, teachers were re-
quested to complete the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory.

Teachers were identified as having taught a combination or

57

a regular Classroom. No names were used on the answer
sheets in order to eliminate the element of threat which
could be of concern to some teachers.

The project extended over a period of seven months.
The experimental period lasted from the time of the pre-
test session in October, 1963, until the post-test session
in May, 1964. During one week following the post-test
session, pupils who had been absent for part of the achieve-
ment test battery or had not completed the pupil attitude

scale were permitted to complete these tests.

Methods of Testing the Hypotheses

The problem of primary concern in this study was
to compare the achievement of the experimental and control
groups as measured by mean achievement scores on the
California Achievement Test. Additional problems investi-
gated were to determine whether pupils in any of three sub-
group intelligence classifications achieved differently in
the experimental and control classrooms. The general atti-
tude of pupils in each of the two Classroom situations was
compared at the close of the school year. The following
null hypotheses were tested:
1. There will be no difference in the mean gain
scores of pupils in combination and regular
classrooms in the areas of reading, arithmetic,
and language skills.
2. There will be no difference in mean gain scores
of pupils having I.Q. scores greater than 110,
in combination and regular classrooms in the

areas of reading, arithmetic, and language
skills.

58

3. There will be no‘differencenin.mean gain Scores
of pupils having I.Q. scores between 90 and 110,
in combination and regular classrooms, in the
areas of reading, arithmetic, and language skills.

4. There will be no difference in mean gain scores
of pupils having I.Q. scores less than 90, in
combination and regular classrooms, in the areas
of reading, arithmetic, and language skills.

5. There will be no difference in the expressed
attitudes of pupils in combination and regular
grades as recorded on a 20-item attitude scale.
The first problem investigated required the use of

the "t" test to determine the degree of significance in
the difference in mean achievement between the experimental
and control group on the post-test. The mean gain was
computed for each of the two groups by analysis of indivi-
dual gain scores. These scores, along with the variance
for each group, enabled a meaningful analysis to be made.
In investigating each of the other three areas
dealing with the achievement of the sub—groups a similar
comparison was made. The "t" test was used to analyze
mean gain scores and variances for pupils having I.Q.
scores greater than 110, between 90 and 110, and.less than
90.
The attitude scale was designed so that a pupil
marked a negative, or a neutral response to each item.
All neutral scores were discarded. Only positive and
negative responses were utilized. This enabled an analysis
by using Chi-square tables in a two—by-two Classification.

A test for significance was carried out on each of the 20

items on the attitude scale.

59

Summary

All of the pupils included in this study were
assigned to either a regular sixth grade or a combination
fifth and sixth-grade classroom. Pupils in both classroom
situations were examined on the basis of socio-economic
background, I.Q. scores, and previous achievement. This
examination revealed that the two groups were similar in
each of these areas. In addition, the teachers of both
groups were evaluated by means of their responses to the

Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. The scores made by

 

the teachers of both regular and combination classrooms
were found to be statistically alike.

Pupils in both classroom situations were found to
have similar socio-economic backgrounds, I.Q. scores, and
past achievement, as well as similar teachers. Therefore,
the post-test data should enable an assessment to be made
of differences growing from grouping children into regular

and combination ClassroOms.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The final analysis of results is based upon the
test data and the pupil attitude scales which were com-
pleted by 490 sixth—grade pupils. A total of 141 sixth-
grade pupils from 10 combination fifth—and sixth-grade
classrooms made up the experimental group. The control
group was composed of 349 sixth-grade pupils from 16

regular Classrooms. All pupils completed the California

 

Test of Mental Maturity, the pre- and post-test batteries
of the California Achievement Test, and the pupil attitude
scale which was constructed for this study.

The analysis of the data is divided into three
sections. The first section of the analysis deals with
results of tests for significance in the mean gain scores
between all pupils in the experimental and control groups.
In the second section of the analysis, the results of tests
of significance in mean gain scores for the sub-groups
are reported. This section presents mean-gain scores in
reading, arithmetic, and language skills for pupils
having below average, average, and above average I.Q. scores.
The third section of this chapter reports the results of
tests for significance in attitudes of all pupils in the

experimental and all pupils in the control group.

60

61

Difference in Mean Gain Scores of
Experimental and Control Group

 

A primary goal in this study was to compare the
academic growth of sixth-grade pupils in combination sixth-
grade Classrooms with Similar pupils in regular sixth-
grade classrooms. The "t" test1 was used to test the first
null hypothesis, stated in Chapter III, that there would be
no difference in mean gain scores between these two groups
of pupils in the areas of reading, arithmetic, and language
skills. Prior analysis of achievement revealed that both
groups of pupils were statistically equal in learning at
the beginning of the study. This likeness was found to
be consistent in reading, arithmetic, and language skills.

Mean gain scores and tests for significance for the
two groups of pupils on the post-test are summarized in
Tables 19, 20, and 21. An analysis of these tables
indicates that pupils in regular sixth-grade classrooms
achieved somewhat higher mean gain scores in reading and
arithmetic. These pupils had a mean gain score of .61
months in reading compared to a mean gain of .56 months
for pupils in the combination classrooms. The pupils in
the regular Classrooms achieved a mean gain of .79 months
in arithmetic while pupils in combination Classrooms had
a mean gain of .73 months. A greater gain in language
skills was registered for pupils in combination classrooms

than in regular classrooms. Pupils in combination classrooms

 

lAllen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the
Behavioral Sciences (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1961), Chapter 14.

62

had a mean gain of .88 months compared with a gain of .83
months for pupils in regular Classrooms.
Table 19. Numbers of pupils, means, and variances and

results of tests for the significance of the
difference in mean gain scores in the area of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reading.
Number of Pupils Mean Gain Variance "t"
Experimental 141 .56 .34
.75
Control 349 .61 .53
t .05 = 1.97
Table 20. Numbers of pupils, means, and variances and
results of tests for the significance between
main gain scores in the area of arithmetic.
Number of Pupils Mean Gain variance "t"
Experimental 141 .73 .48
.94
Control 349 .79 .43

 

t .05 = 1.97

Table 21. Numbers of pupils, means, and variances for the
results of tests for the significance between
mean gain scores in the area of language skills.

 

 

 

Number of Pupils Mean Gain Variance "t"

Experimental 141 .88 .46
.67

Control , . 349 .83 .53

 

t .05 = 1.97

None of the differences between the two groups was

found to be significant.

63

Differences in Mean Gain Scores
for the Sub-Groups

 

A closer look was taken at those pupils with I.Q.
scores of less than 90, between 90 and 110, and those
having I.Q. scores greater than 110. Tables 22, 23, and 24
summarize the data for pupils having I.Q. scores of less
than 90. Pupils in regular sixth-grade classrooms had a
mean gain score of .80 months in reading compared to a
mean gain of .56 months for pupils in combination classrooms.
This means that pupils in the regular classrooms made a
gain of .24 months more than did like pupils in the combi-
nation classrooms. This difference in achievement did
approach a significant level of difference; however, it
was not great enough to be acceptable in this study.

A mean gain in arithmetic of .66 months was made by
the pupils in regular classrooms, while pupils in combination
classrooms had a mean gain of .65 months. The pupils in the
regular Classrooms gained .01 months more in arithmetic
than did like pupils in the combination classrooms.

Pupils in combination Classrooms achieved a mean
gain score of .76 in language skills while their counter-
parts in regular combination classrooms achieved a mean
gain of .83 months. Pupils in regular Classrooms gained
.08 months more than pupils in combination classrooms during
the experimental period.

Although greater gains were made by pupils in

regular classrooms in all three areas, these differences

64

Table 22. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results
of test for significance in mean gains in
reading for pupils with I.Q. scores of less

 

 

 

 

than 90.
Number of Pupils Mean Gain Variance "t"
Experimental 23 .56 .34
1.51
Control 59 .80 .44
t .05 = 1.99
Table 23. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results

of test for significance of the difference in
mean gains in arithmetic for pupils with I.Q.
scores less than 90.

 

 

 

 

Number of Pupils Mean Gain Variance "t"
Experimental 23 .65 .62
.07
Control 59 .66 .23
t .05 = 1.99
Table 24. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and

results of test for significance of the
difference in mean gains in language skills
for pupils with I.Q. scores less than 90.

 

 

 

Numbers of Pupils Mean Gain Variance "t"

Experimental 23 .76 .51
.42

Control 59 .83 .65

 

t .05 = 1.99

65

were not found to be statistically significant. The find—
ings support the second null hypothesis and it is accepted.
The third null hypothesis stated that pupils with
I.Q.‘s between 90 and 110 would achieve similar mean gain
scores in reading, arithmetic, and language skills regard—
less of placement in regular or combination classrooms.
Analysis of Tables 25, 26, and 27 support this hypothesis.
These pupils in regular Classrooms had a mean gain score
in reading of .63 months while comparable pupils in
combination classrooms had a mean gain score of .61 months.
In the area of arithmetic, pupils with average I.Q.‘s in
regular classrooms had a mean gain score of .76 months
compared with a mean gain of .76 months for similar pupils
in combination classrooms. A gain of .88 months was
achieved in language skills by these pupils in regular
Classrooms. Those in combination classrooms had a mean
gain of .89 months in language skills. The differences
which were found between the two groups of pupils failed
to approach a level of statistical significance. The
third null hypothesis is therefore accepted.
Table 25. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results

of test for the significance in mean gains in
reading for pupils with I.Q. scores between

 

 

 

90—110.
Number of Pupils Mean Gain Variance "t"
Experimental 86 .61 .42
.28
Control 204 .63 .33

 

t .05 = 1.97

66

Table 26. Numbers of pupils, means, variances, and results
of test for significance of the difference in
mean gains in arithmetic for pupils with I.Q.
scores between 90-110.

 

 

 

Number of Pupils Mean Gain Variance "t"
Experimental 86 .76 .54
.01
Control 204 .76 .41

 

t .05 = 1.97

Table 27. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results
of test for significance of the difference in
mean gains in language for pupils with I.Q.
scores between 90-110.

 

 

 

 

Number of Pupils Mean Gain Variance "t"
Experimental 86 .89 .42
Control 204 .88 .61 .14
t .05 = 1.97

The fourth null hypothesis stated that no dif-
ference would be found in measured achievement between the
experimental and control group of pupils having I.Q. scores
greater than 110. Tables 28, 29, and 30 summarize the
findings for these pupils. Almost identical gains were
made by the two groups in the area of reading. Pupils in
the regular classrooms had a mean gain of .44 months while
pupils in combination Classrooms had a mean gain of .44
months. In the area of arithmetic, pupils in regular
classrooms had a mean gain score of .96 months compared with
a gain of .78 months for pupils in combination classrooms.

Pupils in regular classrooms had a mean gain of .72 months

67

in language skills while pupils in combination classrooms

had a gain of .89 months. Again, the differences in the

gain scores of pupils with I.Q. scores greater than 110 were

not great enough to warrant the rejection of the null

hypothesis. The data support the statement that no dif—

ference would be found between these two groups of pupils

in reading, arithmetic, or language skills.

Table 28. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results
of test for the significance of the difference

in mean gains in reading for pupils with I.Q.
scores greater than 110.

 

 

 

Number of Pupils Mean Gain variance "t"
Experimental 32 .44 ' .45
.00
Control 86 .44 .32

 

t .05 = 1.98

Table 29. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results
of test for the significance of the difference
in mean gains in arithmetic for pupils with I.Q.
scores greater than 110.

 

 

 

Number of Pupils Mean Gain Variance “t"
Experimental 32 .78 .61
1.09
Control 86 .96 .56
t .05 = 1.98

68

Table 30. Numbers of pupils, means, variances and results
of test for the significance of the difference
in mean gains in language for pupils with I.Q.
scores greater than 110.

 

 

 

 

Number of Pupils Mean Gain Variance "t"
Experimental 32 .89 .47
1.27
Control 86 .72 .40
r .05 = 1.98

Results of Pupils Attitude Scale

 

Each of the 490 sixth-grade pupils responded to the
20 items on the pupil attitude scale. The scale was con-
structed with a response column which was divisible into
five one-inch graduations. Positive answers were those
marks which were in the two-inch area of the extreme left
of the response column. Negative answers were those marks
which were on the two-inch area on the extreme right of the
response column. Tallies falling in the middle were viewed
as being neutral and were not recorded. In this manner,
all recorded responses were either positive or negative.

The number of positive and negative responses of
pupils in combination classrooms were compared with the
response of pupils in regular classrooms by use of a two-by-
two chi square table.l Results of these series of tests
indicated that pupils in the combination and regular Class-

rooms did not differ significantly in their attitudes on

 

lEdwards, op. cit., Chapter 18.

69

any topic included in the pupils attitude scale. Therefore,
the null hypothesis, which stated that no difference would
be found in the attitudes of pupils in combination and
regular classrooms, is accepted. Results of the pupil
attitude scale and tests for significance are summarized in
Table 31.

Their results strongly indicate that pupils are
not prone to think negatively toward school, subjects,
teachers, adults, or other children because of placement

in combination classrooms.

Summary

The data in Tables 19 through 31 show that no
significant difference in measured academic achievement or
attitudes toward school was found to exist between pupils
in regular or combination classrooms. When the achievement
of the entire group of 141 pupils in combination classrooms
was compared with the gain made by the 349 pupils in regular
sixth—grade Classrooms, no significant difference was found.
In addition, there was no pattern in the differences which
were found. Pupils in regular sixth—grade classrooms made
slightly greater mean gains in reading and in arithmetic
than did pupils in combination classrooms. However, a
greater gain was made in language skills by pupils in
combination classrooms than was made by pupils in regular
classrooms.

An examination of sub-groups of pupils was made

possible by assigning all students to one of six sub—groups

70

Table 31. Pupil response and test for significance on

twenty items in the attitude scale.

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental Control

Positive Negative Positive Negative x2
Item 1 129 12 320 24 .10
Item 2 87 34 247 86 .02
Item 3 94 25 232 46 .01
Item 4 118 13 302 39 .09
Item 5 91 18 204 53 .58
Item 6 126 15 318 29 .39
Item 7 94 39 212 70 .73
Item 8 123 11 300 18 .64
Item 9 126 14 267 32 .00
Item 10 121 9 260 17 .01
Item 11 95 37 201 88 .22
Item 12 131 10 306 28 .08
Item 13 98 28 196 54 .00
Item 14 129 11 315 24 .02
Item 15 87 26 186 58 .00
Item 16 115 16 289 38 .03
Item 17 82 23 186 63 .30
Item 18 123 16 298 29 .51
Item 19 117 14 264 42 .44
Item 20 61 56 141 117 .12

 

x .952 = 3.84

71

according to I.Q. scores. These groups ranged in size from
23 to 204.

A total of 23 pupils in combination classrooms were
found to have I.Q. scores of less than 90. A total of 59
pupils in regular classrooms had I.Q. scores of less than
90. In all three areas--reading, arithmetic, and language
skills, slightly greater mean gain scores were recorded for
pupils in regular classrooms. Although none of these dif—
ferences were statistically significant at the .05 level
of confidence, the larger gain was consistently in favor of
the control group.

The largest sub—group was made up of pupils having
I.Q. scores between 90 and 110. There was a total of 86
pupils from combination classrooms and 204 pupils from regular
sixth-grade classrooms. Slightly greater gain scores were
made by pupils in regular classrooms in reading and arithmetic.
However, the pupils in combination classrooms had a greater
gain score than pupils in regular classrooms in the area of
language skills. The gain scores of these two groups were
nearly identical in the area of arithmetic, with both groups
having a gain of slightly over seven and six-tenths of a
month. None of the differences approached a significant
difference. In addition, the gains which were made did not
clearly favor either the experimental or control group.

There were 32 pupils in combination classrooms and
86 pupils in regular Classrooms having I.Q. scores greater

than 110. These pupils made nearly identical gains in

72

reading while pupils in regular classrooms made greater
gains in arithmetic than did pupils in combination class-
rooms. A greater mean gain was recorded for pupils in
combination Classrooms than was found for pupils in regular
Classrooms. As in case of the two previously mentioned
sub-groups, the differences which were found were not
statistically significant. The difference in mean gain
scores were not universally in favor of either group of
pupils.

Although not statistically significant, it is
noted that greater mean gain scores in reading were made by
the control group in every instance. In addition, and
recognizing that at times the scores differed but slightly,
the same was true in arithmetic where a consistent pattern
of slightly higher achievement was recorded by pupils in
regular sixth-grade Classrooms. The opposite was found in
language skills. Only in the case of pupils having I.Q.
scores of less than 90 was a greater gain made by pupils
in regular classrooms. In all other instances, greater mean
gain scores were achieved by pupils in combination classrooms.

An analysis of pupil reaction toward the twenty
items included in the pupil attitude scale revealed little
difference between the two groups. The pupils in regular
Classrooms differed little in expressing positive and negative
attitudes toward any item included on the attitude scale.
None of the differences in expression of the two groups

approached a level which was significant.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

W

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine the
extent to which pupil assignment to combination Classrooms
would effect their academic progress and attitudes. More
specifically, it was designed to measure the academic progress
of sixth-grade pupils in reading, arithmetic, and language
skills. This progress, when compared with the progress
made by pupils in regular sixth—grade classrooms, would then
provide insight into learning in combination Classrooms.
It would also provide insight into the learning of average,
above—average and below-average pupils in combination grades.
In addition, it should provide additional information about
the relative merits of grade Classification of pupils in
elementary schools.

Another purpose of the study was to determine if
pupils attitudes toward school, other Children, subjects,
or adults was effected by their placement in combination
classrooms. This aspect of the study was viewed as important

in extending the analysis of pupil learning beyond the

73

74

specifically identified subject matter areas of reading,
arithmetic, and language skills.

The dependent factor in the study was the modification
of graded Classrooms for fifth and sixth-grade pupils.
Therefore, the findings should provide information about
possible effects of grouping pupils other than on an age—
grade basis. Practice in placement of pupils in combination
Classrooms differs from building to building and between
school systems. This study included children with average,
above—average and below-average intelligence test scores.

An analysis of the academic gains made by individuals
representative of these three levels of ability will be
made. This should provide insight into the learning of
children of various ability levels who are assigned to

heterogeneously grouped combination classrooms.

Procedure

 

The sixth grade, the terminal grade in the K—6
elementary school, was selected as the sample group in this
study. A total of 490 sixth-grade pupils were involved.

Of this number, 349 pupils were assigned to regular sixth-
grade classrooms. The remaining 141 pupils were assigned to
combination Classrooms. The pupils in combination class-
rooms were in 10 different rooms, each of which had a group
of sixth-grade pupils and a group of fifth-grade pupils.

The number of sixth-grade pupils in the 10 classrooms

varied but there was an average of 30 pupils in both the

75

combination and the regular sixth-grade Classrooms. The
pupils in regular sixth—grade classrooms were in 16 dif-
ferent rooms.

The two groups of pupils had approximately equal
socio—economic backgrounds. They were found to represent
a broad span of the socio—economic backgrounds from high
to low levels. Classification of pupils according to socio-
economic levels was done on the basis of the occupation of
their parents.

An analysis of I.Q. scores for both groups was also
made. This indicated that the two groups were essentially
equal in measured ability. The pupils in combination Class—
rooms were found to have a mean I.Q. score of approximately
101. Pupils in regular sixth—grade classrooms also had a
mean I.Q. score of approximately 101.

The two groups of pupils were found to be statisti—
cally alike in prior achievement in each of the three areas
measured. Students in combination classrooms were found to
have a mean score of 6th grade, 4th month in reading,
5th grade, 8th month in arithmetic and 6th grade, 2nd
month in language skills. Pupils in regular classrooms
had a mean score of 6th grade, 4th month in reading, 5th
grade, 9th month in arithmetic, and 6th grade, 3rd month
in language skills. Although slight differences were found
between the two groups, none of these differences approached

a level which was statistically significant.

76

Throughout the academic year, no attempt was made to
structure the teaching procedure in any classroom. All of
the 26 teachers conducted their classrooms in a manner
which was deemed appropriate by themselves, their co-workers,
their supervisors, and their administrators. The study did
not dictate the manner in which pupils were to be assigned
to Classrooms or the way they would be grouped or instructed.

At the conclusion of the study, the 490 pupils were
again tested in the areas of reading, arithmetic, and language
skills. In addition, the pupils were asked to respond to
an attitude inventory which was designed to measure attitudes
of sixth grade pupils toward school, subjects, teachers and
adults, and other children.

The 26 teachers involved in this study were also
asked to respond to the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventopy.
This was included as a measure to determine likeness between
the group of teachers of combination Classrooms and those

teachers who taught regular sixth-grade Classrooms.

Major Findings

 

The results of the test scores achieved by the
pupils in this study clearly indicated that assignment to
regular or combination classrooms had neither a positive
nor negative effect upon measured learning. Pupils in
regular classrooms achieved a mean gain of approximately six
months in reading, while pupils in combination classrooms

also achieved a mean gain of almost six months. The slight

77

difference which was evident favored the pupils in regular
sixth-grade classrooms but was not significant at the 5
per cent level.

A mean gain of almost eight months was made in
arithmetic by pupils in regular sixth—grade classrooms. A
gain of over seven months was made in arithmetic by pupils
in combination classrooms during the same period. Again,
the gain in this area was in favor of pupils in regular
classrooms but was not significant at the 5 per cent level.

In the area of language skills, pupils in regular
classrooms achieved a mean gain of over eight months.
Pupils in combination classrooms also had a mean gain of
greater than eight months. Unlike the results in reading
and arithmetic, the greater gain in language skills was
made by pupils in the combination classrooms, however the
difference was not significant at the 5 per cent level.

In each of the three areas, reading, arithmetic,
and language skills, then, differences were found but
none was statistically significant. In addition, the
learning differences did not consistently favor either
group of pupils.

A close likeness was found in the responses of
pupils in both groups to the twenty item pupil attitude
scale. Analysis of pupil responses indicated that neither
groups was more positive nor negative on any item included

in this scale.

78

Additional Findings

 

All pupils in both the combination and regular sixth—
grade Classrooms were divided into sub—groups according to
I.Q. scores. This made it possible to compare mean-gain
scores in reading, arithmetic, and language skills for
pupils classified as having below—average, average, and
aboveeaverage ability.

In no instance was there a statistically significant
difference in the achievement of any one of these sub-
groups. Pupils with below—average I.Q. scores in regular
classrooms achieved slightly higher mean-gain scores in
all three areas than did like pupils in combination class—
rooms. This was the one sub-group which indicated a pattern
in favor of one classroom situation. Pupils with above-
average and average I.Q. scores in regular sixth-grade
Classrooms scored slightly higher mean-gain scores in
reading and arithmetic. However, in both of these sub-
groups pupils who were in combination classrooms achieved

higher mean-gain scores in language skills.

Conclusions

 

The evidence gathered from the test results and the
pupil attitude scale supports the following conclusions:

1. Sixth—grade pupils who are assigned to combination
fifth and sixth-grade Classrooms will make
academic progress in reading, arithmetic, and
language skills, equal to the progress made by
students in regular sixth—grade classrooms.

79

2. The attitudes of sixth grade pupils in combination
Classrooms are as positive as are the attitudes of
pupils in regular Classrooms.

3. Sixth grade pupils with below-average, average, and
above—average ability are neither at a decided
advantage or disadvantage in measured learning as
a result of placement in a heterogeneous combination
fifth and sixth-grade classroom.

These conclusions support the original premises
upon which this study was based. As was stated in Chapter I
and supported by theiliterature reported in Chapter II of
this study, pupil learning is not sharply divided by grade
lines as are found in the graded elementary school. Learn-
ing in skill areas such as reading, arithmetic, and language
is dependent upon a number of factors. The readiness of
the learner is an important factor in his learning and this
readiness is not necessarily related to the grade level or
organizational pattern in which a pupil finds himself. In
addition, the maturity of a student will have an effect
upon his learning in the classroom. A mature pupil who has
the appropriate readiness, ability, and opportunity to learn
academic skills which are presented will achieve as well
in one organizational plan as another. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to accept the findings that such sixth-grade
pupils in combination Classrooms achieve as highly as
similar pupils in regular Classrooms. This would be true
for pupils of various ability levels, whether they are average,
high or low. The effect of a Change in organizational

pattern is mechanical rather than educational and will not

necessarily result in any change in the learning of students

80

who are involved.

The combining of two grades into one Classroom unit
indicates no gain will be encountered in the learning of
the pupils. However, this study was not designed to measure
other possible advantages which might occur if schools would
modify the traditional graded classroom concept. It is
possible that social and peer adjustment might be enhanced
by groupings such as the combination Classrooms. Oppor-
tunity for development of leadership skills for some
Children might be greatly enhanced by placement in a com—
bination classroom. A child who has not established him-
self as a leader in his peer group at his assigned age-grade
level might be able to develop this skill in a combination
classroom. The opportunity for improvement of self-image
might be present when a wider chronological age association
is made in a combination classroom. An elementary school
child who is less ready for previously identified grade
level skills and social adjustments could find a better
learning environment in a Classroom which crossed rigid
age-grade boundary lines. The learning potential for some
Children could be enhanced by the opportunity to pursue
goals which are not identified in the skill areas of the
curriculum.

This study would refute the use of I.Q. scores as a
valid indicator for success in combination grade assignments
with heterogeneously grouped students. It would also pose

the possibility that an improved learning environment for

81

Children within schools might be possible without loss in
academic skill attainment. Teachers and administrators
might well ponder a multitude of other reasons for place-
ment of pupils in combination Classrooms and make decisions
on the basis of other criteria.

The teachers and materials in this study tended to
be grade-level oriented. All of the text materials and
tests in this study were of this nature. It is possible
that changes in one or more of these areas could result in
a significant change in pupil learning. The pupils who
were measured for academic progress in this study were
oriented toward a specific set of goals. While it is
true that both groups of pupils achieved the same goals, it
is possible that other goal identification should be sought.
Such changes in curriculum materials and orientation could
provide all children with a more meaningful education and

broader education.

Implications

 

For Administrators

 

The data compiled and reported in this study should
add support to administrators who wish to provide leader-
ship in modification of the graded classroom. The findings
reported in this study indicate that combinations of fifth
and sixth-grade Children into a single Classroom unit will
not handicap the academic progress of the sixth—grade pupils.

With this as a basis, it should be possible to expand the

82

concept of cross—grade or milti-age grouping when such
modifications would seem to have academic social benefits
to pupils.

If an administrator wishes to balance teacher—pupil
ratio in a graded school, combination Classrooms should
exist as a sound and realistic solution. A balance between
class size in a building can be maintained by formation of
combination classrooms. As teachers view class size as a
matter of vital importance in working with children, combi-
nation classrooms provide a workable solution to uneven
grade enrollments. The findings of this study would support
such grade combinations on the basis that the academic
progress of pupils would not be hindered.

The attitudes of pupils toward school in general
should not be adversely affected by assignment of individuals
to combination classrooms. Administrators can expect that
such a placement of children will not cause a difference
in their attitude toward school or school work. The atti-
tudes of these children can be expected to be on a par with

the attitudes of pupils in regular classrooms.

For Teachers

 

Teachers assigned to teach combination classrooms
Should not consider that this situation will automatically
penalize students. They can expect pupils to make academic
progress equal to other children in regular grade.sections.

This would be true for all normal pupils assigned to the

83

heterogeneous classroom whether their I.Q. scores were
average, below average, or above average. The evidence in
this study would support the idea that any Child in a com-
bination Classroom could be expected to achieve as highly

as a similar child in a regular classroom.

For Parents

Parents should not feel that their children will be
at a disadvantage if placed in a combination classroom.
Neither the academic progress of pupils nor their attitudes
toward school will be greatly effected by such a placement.
A Child in a combination classroom can be expected to achieve
as highly in reading, arithmetic, and language skills as
he would achieve if placed in a regular grade assignment.
The individual pupil will have attitudes toward school
subjects and other people similar to the attitudes of other
children in regular classrooms of that school.

Social advantages for individual placement in sixth-
grade combination classrooms might be apparent in some
instances. These advantages should be considered in light
of the apparent lack of other disadvantages which will be
encountered. Therefore, if there seems to be some other
reason for placement of a child in a combination classroom,
this should be given serious consideration. It might be
possible that real benefits could be gained while there is
no evidence to support any limitations in achievement or

pupil attitudes.

84

For Further Research

 

The problems encountered in the course of this study,

and the data gathered suggest other areas where research

seems necessary.

1.

The possibilities of advantage to pupils by multi-
age groupings have been expressed by many educators.
This study indicated that there are no decided dis-V
advantages in achievement or pupil attitudes for
sixth—grade pupils in combination classrooms.
Therefore, additional information concerning possible
advantages or disadvantages for multi—age groupings
should be sought.

It would seem highly probable that all of the
teachers in this study were influenced to a great
degree by a grade—goal concept of teaching. Graded
materials were used, and all classrooms were
organized on a grade standard basis. Therefore, a
need exists to evaluate learning of sixth-grade
pupils in Classroom situations which ignore the
grade concept and place greater emphasis upon the
progress of individual students.

Although no statistically significant differences
were found in this study, some trends were evident.
The following questions are raised and seem worthy
of further investigation:

a. Why did pupils with I.Q. scores of less than 90
consistently do better in regular classrooms?

85
b. Why did pupils in regular Classrooms consistently
achieve higher scores in the area of reading?

c. Why did pupils in regular classrooms consistently
achieve higher scores in the area of arithmetic?

d. Why did pupils with above-average and average
ability achieve higher scores in language skills
when placed in combination Classrooms?

There is a continued need for improved instruments

as tools for research studies. A need exists for

a method of appraising (1) teaching effectiveness,

(2) pupil learning outside of the skill areas

identified in this study, such as leadership and

creativity.

An investigation of the lower grade level groups

in a combination might be undertaken.

It would be of value to study the effect of pupil

placement in combination grades at other grade-

levels.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

A Look at Continuity in the School Program. Association for

 

Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1958 Year-
book: The Association, 1958.

Barber, Bernard. Social Stratification. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, and Company, 1957.

 

Beauchamp, George A. Basic Dimensions of Elementary Method.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1959.

Beck, Robert H., Cook, Walter W., and Kearney, Nolan C.
Curriculum in the Modern Elementary School. New
York: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1953.

Best, John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955.

Caswell, Hollis L. and Foshay, Arthur W. Education in the

ElementarypSchool. 3rd ed.; New York: American Book
‘CEmpany,’1957.

Cronbach, Lee J. Educational Psychology. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1954.

 

 

 

Dean, Stuart E. Elementary School Administration and
Organization. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1960.

 

Dixon, Wilfrid J. and Massey, Frank J. Jr. Introduction
to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1957.

 

Educational Psychology. Ed., Arthur P. Coladarci. New
York: The Dryden Press, Inc., 1955.

Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral
Sciences.. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1961.

Elementary School Organization. National Elementary Principal,
The National Elementary School Principals' Yearbook.
Washington, 1961.

Frandes, Arden N. How Children Learn - An Educational

Psychology. New York: MCGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1957.

86

87

Good, C. V. (ed.). Dictionary of Education. 2d ed.;
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959.

 

Goodlad, I. John, and Anderson, Robert H. The_Nongraded
Elementary School. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Company, 1959.

 

Havinghurst, Robert J. Human Development and Education.
New Y6rk: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1953.

Herrick, Virgil E., Goodlad, John I., Estvan, Frank J., and
Eberman, Paul W. The Elementary School. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956.

 

Lane, Howard and Beauchamp, Mary. Human Relations in
Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1955.

Manning, Duane. The Qualitative Elementary School. New
Y6rk: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1963.

Mussen, Paul H., Conger, John J., Kagan, Jerome. Child
Development and Personality. New York: Harper and
Row, Publishers, Inc., 1963.

Otto, Henry J. Elementary School Organization and
Administration. New York: Appleton-Century—
Crofts, Inc.: 1954; 3rd ed.

Stratemeyer, Florence B., Forkner, Hamden L., MCKim,
Margaret G., and Passow, Harry A. Developing a
Curriculum for Modern Living. New York: Teachers
College Press, 1957.

Articles

Adams, Joseph J. "Achievement and Social Adjustment of
Pupils in Combination Classes Enrolling Pupils of
More than One Grade Level," Journal of Educational
Research, XLVII (October, 1953), p. 155.

Anderson, Robert H. and Goodlad, John I. "Self-Appraisal
in Nongraded Schools: A Survey of Findings and
Perceptions," Elementary School Journal, LXII
(February, 1962), pp. 261—69.

Bahner, J M. ."Grouping Within A School," Childhood
Education, XXXVI (April, 1960), pp. 354-56.

 

Brinkman, Albert R. "Now It's the Ungraded School,"
PTA Magazine, Lv (June, 1961), pp. 24—26.

 

88

Carlson, Wesley H. "Interage Grouping," Educational
Leadership, XV,(March, 1958), pp. 363—68.

Cook, Desmond L. "The Hawthorne Effect in Educational
Research," Phi Delta Kappan, XLIV (December, 1962),
pp. 116—22.

DiPasquale, Vincent. "Schools Without Grades," Better Homes
and Gardens, XXXIII (September, 1955), PP. 28.

 

Eldred, Donald N. and Hillson, Maurie. "Nongraded School
and Mental Health," Elementary School Journal,
LXIII (January, 1963), pp. 218-22.

Gilbert, Jerome H. "Multigraded Developmental Plan Focuses
on Pupil Advancement," Chicogo Schools Journal,
XLIII (February, 1962), PP- 209-14.

Goodlad, John. "Promising Practices in Nongraded Schools,"
Educational Digest, XXVII (October, 1961), pp. 8-10.

Hartzler, Ruth. "Experimenting with Split Grades," Ohio
Schools, XXXVII (May, 1959), p. 32.

Hull, J. H. "Multiple-Grade Teaching," The Nation's Schools,
LXII (July, 1958), PP- 33—38.

Hunter, M. W. "Two Grades in One Roomi" Instructor,
May, 1942, p. 8.

 

Kelly, Florence C. "Doing Away With Grade Levels,"
National Education Association Journal, XXXVII
(April, 1948), pp. 222—23.

 

 

Lamers, William M. "Milwaukee Ungraded Primary Plan,"
American School Board Journal, CXLV (November, 1962),
pp. 11-13.

Petery, Mercedes. "Teaching a Double Grade? It's a Real
Challenge," Instructor, LXIX (September, 1959),
pp. 19 +.

Tucker, Marion B. "The Shoe Didn't Fit," National Education
Association Journal, XLV (March, 1956), PP. 159-61.

Vienvenu, Harold J. and Martyn, Kenneth A. "Why Fear
Combination Classes," American School Board Journal,
CXXX (April, 1955), PP. 33-34.

"What About Combination Grades?" Childhood Educotion, XXXII
(December, 1955), pp. 187—88.

Wheat, L. B. "Flexible Primary School," The Nation's Schools,
XXII (October, 1938), pp. 26-28.

 

89

Unppblished Materials

Carbone, Robert F. "Achievement, Mental Health, and
Instruction in Graded and Nongraded Elementary
School." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,
University of Chicago, 1961.

Chance, Earl Stanley. "An Analysis of Some Effects of
MultiplerGrade Grouping in an Elementary School."
Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of
Tennessee, 1961.

Cook, Walter W., Leeds, Carroll H. and Callis, Robert.
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. New York:
The Psychological Corporation, 1951.

Foshay, Arthur W. "Interage Grouping in the Elementary
School." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1948.

Knight, E. E. "A Study of Double Grades in New Haven City
Schools." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,
Yale University, 1935.

Rehwoldt, Walter. "Aspects of Multigrade Teaching in
the Elementary School." Unpublished Doctor's
dissertation, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, 1957.

Sullivan, Elizabeth, Clark Willis W. and Tiegs, Ernest W.
The Californiap§hort-Form Test of Mental Mgpurity.
Monterey, California: California Test Bureau, 1957.

Tiegs, Ernest W. and Clark, Willis W. California Achievement
Tests. Monterey, California: California Test
Bureau, 1957.

Yunghams, Ernest E. "The Effects of Class Organization
and Time on the Teacher's Ability to Classify His
Pupils With Respect to Three General Personality
Traits." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,
Indiana University, 1959.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

Name

 

(first) (last)

Father's occupation

 

Mother's occupation

 

Place a mark (x) on the line below each statement.

If you

agree with the statement, place your x on the far left end

of the line. If you disagree with the statement,

place your

x on the far right end of the line. You mark an x at any
place on the line depending on the degree to which you agree

or disagree with the statement.

 

 

1. Reading is important.

(Agree)

2. Other classes in our building are nice too.
(Agree)

3. Teachers are understanding.

(Agree)

 

4. My parents think I am doing well in school.

(Agree)

 

5. Working in groups can be effective.

(Agree)

 

6. Arithmetic is an important subject.

(Agree)

 

7. Other sixth grades are much like ours.

(Agree)

 

8. Our class has a nice teacher.

(Agree)

 

91

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

92

9. My parents think we have a good school.

(Agree)

 

10. My friends are kind to me.

(Agree)

 

11. School work is a challenge.

(Agree)

 

12. My school is a good one.

(Agree)

 

13. We have the best teacher in the building.

(Agree)

 

14. My parents think I have a good teacher.

(Agree)

 

15. My classmates are cooperative.

(Agree)

 

16. Reading is enjoyable.

(Agree)

 

17. I go to the best school in town.

(Agree)

 

18. Teachers are helpful.

(Agree)

 

19. Science is an interesting subject.

(Agree)

 

20. Our class is the best Class in town.

(Agree)

 

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)

(Disagree)