Annotated+Bibliography,+Mixed-Age+Grouping

EDC 102: Introduction to American Education Final Project: Annotated Bibliography Sarah Hutchins 12/02/13

** What are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Mixed-Age Grouping in Education? **

__ Editorial: __ Gray, P. (2008). The value of age-mixed play. //Education Week//, //27//(33), 32-26.

In this article, Grey uses numerous examples to demonstrate the many diverse benefits of children engaging in play with other children of different ages. He argues that play among children of various ages produces more creativity than play within more restrictive age groups, as well as provides unique opportunities for nurture and learning. Grey points out that there are often barriers that keep children from experiencing age-mixed play. He advocates that these barriers be broken down. I really enjoyed this article because it reinforces the importance of play in education, particularly in younger children. First hand, I have experienced some of the benefits of mixed-age play that he wrote about in this article. Even as an adult, I enjoy playing with individuals covering a wide range of ages. I am still learning from people older and younger than me. I can also see the positive effects of age-mixed play on others too. Grey stated his contentions clearly and supported his claims.

__ Analysis article: __ Carter, P. (2005). The modern multi-age classroom. //Educational Leadership,// // 63 // (1), 54-58.

In this article about one multi-age classroom in Reno, Nevada, author Paula Carter writes about her experience teaching first, second, and third grade in the same classroom in a highly impoverished area of the United States’ southwest. After detailing the many benefits her students have experienced from being in a class spanning three years, Carter discusses her approach to curriculum, how her multi-age classroom works out practically day-to-day, and the extent to which this particular “style” works.

I really appreciate this article because it’s written by a teacher about her own experience. She roots her teaching philosophy, and discusses her ideas about multi-age classrooms, in solid child development and education theory. While it is clear that she feels as though her teaching methods are completely beneficial and appropriate, she acknowledges the difficulties that come with implementing age-mixed classrooms in a data-driven system.

__ Scholarly article 1: __ Broome, J. L. (2009). A descriptive study of multi-age art education in florida. //Studies In// // Art Education //, //50//(2), 167-183.

This article, by Jeffrey Broome, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of multi-age classrooms through the narrower scope of Elementary art education in Florida. Out of the motivation to produce more research regarding multi-age education, Broome conducted a study on mixed-age elementary art education classrooms in Florida. This article details the study in the objectives, methods, and results.

This piece was a bit more dry and difficult to get through, compared with the others that I read. I appreciated the presence of scientifically based research that backs the point every article keeps emphasizing—the irreplaceable value of mixed-age education. While not necessarily perfect or basis for a final say, the conclusion of the study in this article seems to show that the drawbacks of multi-age classrooms are not comparable to the educational benefits.

__ Scholarly article 2: __ Mack, J. (2008). Continuous progress schools see the “whole child”. //Education//, //129//(2), 324-326.

This article tackles the issue of mixed-age student grouping from a slightly different angle, though the information still has relevance. It revolves around the Continuous Progress model, explained in the article as the academic and developmental growth of students in a multi-age program. Students learn new materials as they are ready, regardless of their age, and teachers help them advance as far as they are able. The students progress at their own pace and begin each new year where they left off the year before. (Mack, 2008) Mack details the experiences of many various classrooms across the United States where this educational model is effective. He identifies portfolio keeping, over standardized testing, as the main form of assessment for students in Continuous Progress schools.

In a way, I felt as though I was able to relate really well to the style of education Mack advocates in his article. Even though I didn’t have the typical classroom/school setting, I did have the freedom to work at my own pace and learn alongside others who were older and younger than me. Another thing this article emphasized was the importance of seeing the whole child and measuring achievement in ways other than standardized testing. I appreciated Mack’s emphasis on giving children a sense of worth and responsibility by letting them demonstrate what they learn through creating their own portfolio.

__ Reputable Website: __ Ediger, M. (2002). Grouping and organizing for instruction in reading. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471842.pdf

This article is a more general piece on homogeneous and heterogeneous student groupings. Ediger emphasizes the need for flexibility in instructional settings. In the specific context of reading instruction, this paper explores a plethora of different heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping situations, including mixed-age grouping. It discusses advantages of both styles of grouping and points out that every situation is unique and that different groups of students have different needs to be considered.

Ediger’s article was a pleasant general overview of the homogeneous versus heterogeneous debate. It helped give my some more insight in understanding multiple sides of the complex issue of student grouping in schools. Ediger acknowledges the diversity of students’ strengths and weaknesses and I appreciate his emphasis on being flexible to best accommodate as many students as possible according to their needs, whether the solution involves homogeneous or heterogeneous grouping.