A Comprehensive Look at Multiage Education in Asia

A FRAMEWORK OF MANAGING MULTIAGE SCHOOLS:
THE CASE OF SELECTED SCHOOLS IN ASIAN COUNTRIES
A Dissertation Proposal Presented to

The Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies
and Teacher Education Research
PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY
Taft Avenue, Manila City
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for
RESEARCH SEMINAR 3
by
MARIA URDUJA C. GALANG

September, 2018
1
Can the system of schooling designed to process groups of students in standardized ways in a monolithic
instructional mode be adapted to handle differences in the way individual brains are wired for learning.
– Christensen, Horn, and Johnson, in Disrupting Class
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Schools across the Philippines are facing the reality of change in order to meet the
challenge of providing academic excellence for all students. Traditional educational
systems in most countries, the Philippines included, have been confronted by many issues
that caused some disruption in the current educational practices. Some of the concerns
that need to be addressed by the present education system are: (1) impact of fast
technological developments to education; (2) rising costs of education and its
questionable quality; (3) increasing number of youth-at-risk in remote areas being
deprived of education; (4) inaccessibility to mainstream schooling; (5) emergence of the
alternative learning system (ALS) to address the needs of indigent students; (6) escalating
drop-out rate; and (8) the options for home study programs and distance learning due to
busy lifestyles of parents and students. These concerns needs the elimination of the
traditional views that teachers are the only source of knowledge; that grades are the
ultimate measure of student’s learning and academic achievement; that education has to
be expensive to be of good quality; that learning happens only in the four walls of the
classroom; that academic institutions should focus on teaching rather than learning; and
that poverty is an obstacle to education; then reinforcement of the education system will
be impossible. Unless one changes his perspective and commitment on how learning
should take place, the present condition of education is far from being transformed
2
(Miranda, 2012). There is a need to rethink the way of educating students and begin to
reform the way we look at assessing children’s progress and grouping. The old system of
tracking children into specific grade levels has given way to a modified system, that is,
the multiage groupings. Multiage classrooms represent diverse group of students.
Children of widely varied abilities, ages, and cultures, are taught together, without grade
designations. Children can approach tasks according to their individual needs and
developmental levels (Hoffmann, 2000). With multiage education, students are offered
individualized and developmentally appropriate education (Finegan, 2001). Teachers
focus students’ needs, talents, and interests, rather than standardizing the classroom
experience. It begins with the assumption that all children are different and should be
taught accordingly. The concept of putting students with different ages in one class is not
new. Early Jews have taught boys, ages 7-18 grouped in one class in the synagogues.
Monasteries of the 1500s found students of different ages learning together in one class.
In colonial times, one-room schoolhouses were established. The one-room schoolhouse is
the root of many educational practices still being used today such as the practice of
individualized instruction, independent study, and tutoring.
Multiage classes are common in some countries due to a number of reasons:
administrative necessity, declining enrolment, or a pedagogical choice. Little (2006)
depicted the picture of multiage education as present in England, India, Northern Ireland,
Peru and Sri Lanka. The system is also common in United States of America, Canada,
Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and in small parts of Asia. However, in the Philippines
multiage has not been getting the attention of policy makers, administrators, educators,
and parents. One of the main reasons for this is the lack of understanding of multiage
3
education, and its benefits to learning. Today, multiage classes are common around the
world due to: administrative necessity, declining enrolment, or a pedagogical choice
(Mulcachy, 1992).
Catholic schools in the Philippines are faced with the looming challenge of
declining enrolments. Report of Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines reveal
that archdiocese schools in Metro Manila have been losing an “average 3 percent” of
their students each year. Several diocese schools have either closed or consolidated with
other schools in order to deal with decreasing enrolment. Studies of urban Catholic
schools (2011) identified multiple governance and fund-raising strategies to avoid school
closures. One governance option is to introduce multiage classrooms in order to deal with
enrollment challenges and meet the natural development of learners (Concors, et.al.,
2007). The Philippines has embraced the concept of multiage schooling, subscribing to
the results of international research findings that multiage approach is a cost-effective
means of raising participation rates and student achievement. In the private education,
Angelicum College, a Catholic and Dominican learning institution manages to offer a
multiage, non-graded system of education since its foundation in 1972. The school sets
an institutional core ideology which is To do what is best for each learner, expressed
through their (1) non-graded system of education, (2) self-paced/individualized learning,
(3) nurturance of the uniqueness of each learners, and (4) having a learner-centered
education. For 45 years, it has produced and continues to produce successful
professionals through a multiage, non-traditional system of education. In public
education, the Department of Education believes in the potential of the approach to bring
education closer to remote and marginalized communities. Several researches show that
4
aside from the economic benefit, multiage education delivers the same kind of education
as single age classes and in some cases, improves the effectiveness of educational
delivery and contributes to the social development of learners (Little, 2004).
Multigrade schooling has been embraced by the Philippines in the public sector
because of international findings that multigrade is a cost-effective means of raising rates
of student participation and student achievement especially in poor, remote areas. The
Department of Education believes in the potential of multigrade approach to bring
education closer to the marginalized communities. As of 2009, close to a third of the
public elementary schools in the country have some form of multigrade instruction.
With the looming conditions being faced by many Catholic schools in the
Philippines, and the success of one school in the implementation of the nongraded,
multiage system, it is imperative to look at the management framework of multiage
schools in Asia. The aim of this study is to identify the best practices and study the
challenges of managing a multiage school focusing on the different areas of management:
administration, faculty, curriculum and instruction, student services, and community
relations. Through the findings, the benchmark can be used in adapting an effective
framework of multiage schools management for the Philippines, specifically targeting the
small Diocesan schools. Likewise, the findings can also provide input to improve the
present management framework of the Department of Education’s multigrade education.
This research is important for a considerable number of reasons. First, research in
the area of multiage education is limited in the last decade (Pardini, 2005). Most research
available dates back to the 1990s. In the 2000s, interests in the study of multiage
education have lessened. New and current look at multiage education and how multiage
5
schools are managed in different Asian schools may answer questions about the
philosophy and how might other schools in the Philippines proceed with their planning of
adopting multiage education in the future. Before any educational environment makes a
major change in policies, it is better to examine the possible results of a change
(Martindale, 2012). Any change may bring about positive or negative consequences to
the school. A positive response to the implementation of a new idea, such as adoption of
multiage system could mean the success and longevity of a school. The worst-case
scenario being a negative response to the implementation of a new idea could result in the
failure of a school.
Second, although this study is looking at the implementation of 3 schools across
Asia, the study’s results may reach beyond these borders. Many schools are facing the
same questions researched in this study. Is the multiage philosophy a good option? How
are multiage education managed, and how can the features be maximized by individual
situations? Studying the results of the research may help with the decisions and choices
they are faced with.
Literature Review
Graded structure of education has remained more or less the same since the initial
proliferation of such system. Managing such institutions offer an economically sound
organizational structure because it is easily monitored by teachers and organized by
administrators. However, in the 20th century, noticeable weaknesses of the system were
recognized, specifically in the philosophies that support graded structures. Several
researches suggest that children of the same age can differ greatly in their developmental
6
and readiness levels (Bigge & Shermis, 1999; Eisner, 1998). It is also being criticized as
an “ideal” picture of life that shows disconnect from most forms of social organizations.
Outside the school walls, separation of people into groups of exactly the same age is very
rare; humans normally interact and socialize with a variety of age groups.
Multiage education began as the flaws of the graded system became more evident
to some educators. The discussion of multiage education is often connected to the one-
room schoolhouse or the common school, where students of different age groups, grade
levels, and learning abilities are under the tutelage of one teacher. Multiage education
begins with the assumption that all children are different and should be taught
accordingly (Finegan, 2001). In multiage classrooms, children progress at their own pace,
individual difference is valued, labels are not used to either identify students’ progress at
different levels of academic milestones, and competitiveness is not emphasized.
Multiage: How did it start?
Educational structure of multiage education is implemented globally. In several
researches, it is also known in different terms: multigrade, combination class, composite
class, split class, or nongraded. The history of multiage education can be traced in several
time periods. It is worthwhile to look at the history of multiage education in the
perspective of biological and evolutionary history. Evolutionary anthropology
demonstrated that we learn from the studies of the natural state of humankind through the
different societies. In the meta-analysis 30 empirical studies on multiage age groupings
between the years 1948 and 1981, Davit Pratt, in 1986, gathers on evidence from
anthropology, ethnology and evolutionary biology that modern educational practices of

7
age segregation are a product of the past 200 years that are neither natural nor necessary.
Pratt was discussing at length the two primitive cultures from the people of Australia and
the Kung San people of the Kalahari Desert. He notes that the societies of hunters and
gatherers are divided into groups of 30-40 people with at least three years age gap so that
mothers only had one infant to care for at a time. At age of 18 months, the infants join a
bigger playgroup where they imitate the older children, who take responsibility for the
well-being and practical education of infants. A typical playgroup of children was noted
to include a 5-year old boy, an 11-year old girl, a 14-year old boy, and a 2-year old
toddler (Pratt, 1986). Even in the medieval Europe and Colonial America, a child
growing up surrounded by children of different ages and adults was still a norm
(Kemmis, 2011).
Some literature would point to the origin of the system in the one-room
schoolhouse in 1700s where one teacher teaches a class of students with ranging age and
learning abilities and varied instruction is used in order to address the diverse need of the
learners. Even if one-room schoolhouse was primarily done out of economic necessity, it
was seen as having a healthy form of education. Robert H. Anderson, a seasoned
professor of education at the University of South Florida described one-room
schoolhouse as an “accidental prototype of nongradedness” that served children well.
“Older kids helped younger kids and in the process, got insights into how the human
mind develops and grows” (Pardini, 2005). During the Industrial Revolution (1760 –
1820), the ways learners acquire mastery and learning changed with the emphasis on
Science and new generation of investigation and exploration (Corn, 1999).

8
The movement to graded education started in 1843, when the Secretary of the
Massachusetts Board of Education, Horace Mann, established the grouping of students by
age. Mann visited schools in Prussia that used a graded system. Upon his return, he
reported that it would be easier, and fewer obstacles will be met if a new mode of
dividing and classifying scholars will be introduced. By 1890, the structure of education
was organized into elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels that led to the
establishment of criteria in education in order to enforce these different levels. He also
observed that the graded system promoted nationalism and streamlined education,
successfully addressing the rapid influx of immigrants entering United States at that time
(Hallion, 1994). With the entrance of immigrants into the school system, grouping of
children in chronological age was more promoted (Aina, 2001). In the 1920’s, 1960’s and
in 1970’s, ability grouping was popularized. This streamlined method of instruction was
more convenient with the rapidly increasing population because teachers do not need to
know much because there are textbooks and curricula to follow year after year.
However, what schools gained in convenience, they lost in effectiveness.
Anderson points out that homogeneous grouping never works because it is artificial. In
any group of 6 or 7 year olds, there is already a large range of ability levels (Pardini,
2005). This just means that not because the learners are the same in age, their skill
developments are also identical. However, even if many known educators opposed the
strict graded model, they were not able to conquer the power of the age-graded
movement. John Dewey, the father of progressive education, believed that graded school
had become too “machine-like” (Hallion, 1994). Despite the protests of progressive
educators, the “school as factory” model was promoted by school administrators and well
9
received by the public in the efficiency-focused era of industrialization. After centuries of
being normalized, it is difficult to change systems that are already ingrained in the culture
and language of schooling. As evidence, schools at present, still use the same terms as
factories: “superintendents” for those in charge of school districts, the same title used for
those supervising factory workers. Grade levels to which learners pass through are
comparable to an assembly line where quality control measures are checked and
standardized for uniformity, thus resulting to promotion or retention. Though, it is very
challenging to change such traditional system, over the past years, academic scholars
have begun to unpack to concept of schooling as means of decoding the fundamental
problems it brings about.
Academic scholars were quick to point out that the problem in the “school as
factory” model operates under the belief that learners are “materials” that are
homogeneous, when in reality, each child brings in the class a set of unique experiences,
prior knowledge, values, and disposition. Kasten, in his article in 1998 bluntly points out
that “we educate children; we don’t assemble combustion engines” (p.2). Educating a
child is far more complex than assembling machineries, which are produced identically in
an assembly line. We should not therefore believe that the way to better educate our
children is as simple or clear-cut as manufacturing of identical products.
John Goodlad and Robert Anderson, through their published book The Nongraded
School in 1959, were the first to attempt to challenge and expose the flaws of the graded
movement. The two academic scholars kindled the concomitant debate by gathering
documents on the variabilities that are present within the same group of students in terms
of the different aspects of intellect, emotion, and physical growth. Their main point of
10
argument with the graded system was that “grouping children homogeneously on the
basis of a single criterion does not produce a group that is homogeneous to the same
degree judged by other criteria. Teachers who proceed as though their class of gifted or
retarded pupils were homogeneous are fooling themselves and cheating their pupils.”
(Goodlad & Anderson, 1963, p.17). Their book spread rapidly and influenced a lot of
school administrators worldwide. Ten years after its release, thousands of school districts
included the non-graded philosophy in their institutions.
On Philosophy and Multiage
The philosophy of multiage education is supported by Carol Ann Tomlinson’s
differentiation, which is a way of thinking about teaching and learning rather than a
homogeneous instructional strategy (Tomlinson, 2008). Differentiated instruction is
grounded in constructivism. Constructivism is an educational theory that associates new
information with preexisting experiences that results in the construction of understanding
for the learner (Henson, 2003). The goal of learning is for a learner to construct his or her
own meaning, and not just memorize the “right” answers and reject someone else’s
meaning. Origins of constructivism began in the influential works of Jean Piaget, which
is grounded on the psychological development of an individual learner. He gave stress on
the step-by-step process of discovery and rediscovery, construction and reconstruction of
knowledge of an individual child.
The major features of multiage education are grounded on the Constructivist
philosophy of education. The following presents how constructivism works as basis of
multiage education:
11
Non-graded and No Marking System
In multiage education, grade labels are not used to set or identify boundaries
within which it is presumed that a typical child of a given age can and should function
academically. Also, the competitive or comparative evaluation system, through which
learners’ efforts are marked or rated with numbers, symbols, or words that represent a
point along a scale of acceptability or standard, is not used. John Goodlad and Robert
Anderson, in their book, The Nongraded Elementary School, laid the modern foundation
of non-graded education. The book emphasized the superiority of non-graded primary
education over graded education. Modern proponents of the non-graded education are
Barbara Nelson Pavan and Joan Gaustad. Both contributed numerous numbers of
impressive researches on the approach and development of non-graded education.
Pavan (1992) defines non-graded education as a system that eliminates the use of
grade-level designations. Progress of learners is reported in terms of skills or tasks
accomplished and the manner of learning, not by ratings or grade systems. It is an
educational system where a teacher works with a group of students who are regrouped
frequently according to their pace and level of needs and interests. Looking at this feature
in the lens of constructivism, Brooks and Brooks (1993) said that constructivism calls for
the elimination of grades and standardized tests. Rather, assessment is part of the learning
process so; the learners play a big role in monitoring and judging their own progress. The
outcomes of multiage education will be unique since the learners construct their own
meanings and solve their own problems. Such educational outcomes will not be
adequately measured by standardized/criterion-referenced testing or grades (Herman,
1995).
12
Self-Paced Mode of Learning
In multiage education, the learners are allowed to progress at their own best pace
and in appropriately varied ways. Learning opportunities, instruction and movement
within the curriculum are individualized to meet the individual needs, interests, and
abilities of learners. Constructivist approach shows sensitivity to the learners’ capacity
and ability for learning, whereby nature cannot be exactly the same with other learners.
Learners vary in their rates of intellectual development as well as physical development.
Learners often progress at different rates in areas of achievement and may alternately
surge ahead and hit plateaus rather than moving at a steady pace (Gaustad, 1992; Pavan,
1991). In the multiage schooling, which advocates constructivist approach, learners are
allowed to progress from one skill level to the next whenever they are ready. In the
multiage system, educators set a flexible timetable for the child’s academic progress.
Assessment of learning is individualized and holistic, and evaluation is comprehensive,
diagnostic, and continuous (Gaustad, 1992).
Individualized Learning
In multiage, a learner can move individually through the content, that is the
curriculum, at his own pace compatible with his/her own abilities, interests and needs.
Constructivism emphasizes learning, not teaching; learner autonomy and personal
involvement in learning; fosters learners’ natural curiosity; and takes into account
learners’ affective beliefs, attitudes, and motivation (Hein, 1991). Multiage classrooms
are grounded in a constructivist theory of learning, with focus on individual learners’
development of deeper understanding of the concepts and the advancement of interest
and habits of mind that aids in future learning (Richardson, 2003).

13
Teacher as Facilitator of Learning
It is very evident in a multiage class that teacher’s main focus is on students’
learning rather than teachers’ teaching. The teacher assists in the learners’ development
and diagnoses problem areas. Understanding constructivist approach to learning also
means changing the traditional perception that the teacher is the most authoritative figure
in the classroom and the only fountain of knowledge. In a constructivist view, the learner
is viewed as an individual who is active in constructing new knowledge, while the
teacher is seen as a facilitator rather than a dictator of learning (Long, 2000).
Glasserfeld’s constructivist concept of learning is that the teachers play the role of a
“midwife in the birth of understanding” as opposed to being “mechanics of knowledge
transfer”. The teachers’ role in a multiage classroom is not to much to give lectures but to
act as an expert learners who guides students into adopting intellectual strategies such as
self-assessment, articulating understanding, asking probing questions, and reflection
(Brooks and Brooks, 1993). A paradigm shift in practice and perception on learning and a
serious preparation for teachers to become effective facilitators of learning, contribute to
the success of transformative learning in the classroom. This can only happen with the
presence of a competent constructivist teacher who facilitates the learning events in the
multiage classroom (Gaustad, 1992; Pavan, 1991).
Open Classroom and Collaborative/Cooperative Learning
Multiage classroom focuses on the place where the learner is, as he learns and its
impact on the learning process. The system believes that learners can learn wherever
he/she is. Very evident also in a multiage classroom is collaborative/cooperative learning.
This is through the different age groups in one class, learners learn from each other by
14
coordinating and networking efforts where exchange of ideas and dialogue are highly
promoted. Constructivist learning highly values open classroom and collaborative
learning. The classroom as a learning community, not a physical space, aims to
encourage learners to learn together, appreciate and capitalized on distributed expertise of
different age groups (Bielaczyc and Collins, 1999). This articulates the kinds of cognitive
processes needed for learning. In the multiage classroom, the teacher can learn from
learners while at the same time learners can learn from the teacher and other learners.
That type of learning environment embodies some aspects of the cooperative learning
strategies which are currently popular and promotes mutual respect and healthy
relationships in the classrooms (Herman, 1995). The reality of collaborative learning
present in a multiage class invites the school to open its doors for learners to get more
involved in authentic learning, which provides meaningful ideas, and understandings that
represent the real world.
Nurturing the Uniqueness of each Learner
In a multiage class, individual differences among learners have important
implications in their learning activities. Therefore, it is important that a teacher knows
each individual learner. He has to know them in terms of intellectual ability, interests,
degree of responsibility, and pace of learning. The appropriateness of individualized
education for each learner is very much part of the constructivist practice. Each learner is
a unique person with distinct pattern and timing of growth, as well as personality,
learning style, and family background. Both the curriculum and interaction with the
learners should be responsive to individual differences (Bredenkamp, 1987; Brooks and
Brooks, 1993).
15
Dynamics of Managing Multiage Schools
Although many educators agree with the philosophies of the multiage system of
education, some are skeptical of multiage programs because of the difficulties of
implementing and operating the programs. School managers or principals play vital roles
in the success of a school. Ates and Artuner (2013) stated that “the school manager has
been studied by many researches as one of the most important factors that affect student
achievement. The researches (Brookover, B., et al 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Stedman, 1987;
Balci, 1993) showed that the school manager has effects on student success.”
Montgomery (2013) argued that the school atmosphere and student achievement
have been affected by instructional and educational leadership. School administrators and
managers influence the development of their teachers and staff. They are the ones who
lead the educational goals of the school, control operations so that educational goals and
objectives become a reality.
Effective management of any educational system requires vision. It is a force that
provides meaning and purpose to the work of an organization. Today’s school leaders are
expected to be visionaries and vision is the heart of their work. “To actively change an
organization, leaders must make decisions about the nature of the desired state”
(Manasse, in Omalin, 2012). They begin with a personal vision to shape a collective
vision with co-workers. Their communication of the vision is such that it allows people to
respond. Manasse continued in saying that vision includes the “development,
transmission and implementation of an image of a desirable future.”

16
Qualitative Research/ Case Study
According to Creswell (2017), Qualitative Inquiry is for the researcher who is
willing to do the following: 1) Commit to extensive time in the field. The researcher
should be able to take some time and spend many hours in the respondents’ locale, collect
data and collaborate, and gain rapport. 2) Engage in the complex, time-consuming
process of data analysis through the ambitious task of sorting through large amounts of
data and reducing them to a few themes or categories. 3) Write long passages. This will
ensure that claims must substantiate claims from different perspectives, and 4) Participate
in a form of human science research that does not have firm guidelines or specific
procedures and is evolving and constantly changing.
“A case study is a good approach when the researcher has clear identifiable cases
with boundaries and seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of the cases or a
comparison of several cases. It is an empirical study that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon, in depth, and with its real-life context” (Creswell, 2013). An example of a
qualitative research is a case study research. It is a qualitative approach in which the
researcher explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (case) or multiple bounded
systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple
sources of information.
17
Research Problems
The researcher aims to describe and analyze the process of eliciting the
management practices of selected Asian principals in their implementation of multiage
education. Specifically, it attempted to answer the following questions:
1. What are the management practices of selected Asian multiage schools in terms of
the following features:
a. Self-paced learning
b. Individualized instruction
c. Non-graded
d. Teachers as Facilitators of Learning
e. Open Classroom
2. What are the practices of multiage schools in Asia in terms of the following
school management framework areas:
a. Administration
b. Faculty
c. Curriculum and Instruction
d. Student Services
e. Community Relations
3. How do the management practices of the principals compare with each other?
4. What framework of management of multiage schools in Philippine Schools can be

designed based from the results of the study?
Conceptual Framework
There are numerous frameworks and theories based on child development that
form the basis of foundation of multiage education. These include cognitive, social
learning, and ecological theories.
Cognitive development lies at the heart of Piaget’s (1977) cognitive theory.
Children are active constructors of knowledge, and the multiage classroom provides
18
children with the opportunity to interact and achieve this knowledge. In multiage classes,
collaborative learning is very evident, where peers come to deeper understandings by
listening to the views of others, and expressing their own views (McClellan, 1994).
Social learning theorists see development as the product of social learning.
Children learn through observation, identification, and imitation of others (Vygotsky,
1978). Multiage classrooms provide many opportunities for younger learners to emulate
older learners (Bacharach, Hasslen, and Anderson, 1995).
Ecological theorists believe development is the result of interrelationships of the
child and all levels of society. Bacharach, Hasslen, and Anderson noted that because of
the varied makeup of a multiage classroom, the reality of the world is reflected.
The true philosophy of non-gradedness is the belief that for individuals to reach
their greatest growth potential, different approaches are needed along with the
acknowledgement that each person is a unique individual (Anderson & Pavan, 1993). The
non-graded classroom provides this through methodology that responds to varying needs
and differences, flexible grouping situations, integrated curriculum, and continuous,
comprehensive evaluation. Katz, Evangelou, and Hartman (1993) conclude that multiage
grouping in early childhood settings benefit children because they provide a variety of
models of behavior and a range of competencies. In a mixed age group there is a rich
environment that gives the child an opportunity to be a leader and also the chance to learn
from others.
The uniqueness of multiage education compared to the traditional graded
education, makes it more difficult to manage. Effective management of the key areas of
the school: administration, faculty, curriculum and instruction, student services, and
19
community relations are important winding factors to better ensure that the features of a
multiage education are consistently applied. Researches on multiage education
implementation show that teachers’ role is one of the most important factor in the
effectiveness of its implementation. The teachers’ conditions of working life are greatly
influenced by the administration and leadership provided by principals, and it is widely
assumed that school leadership directly influences the effectiveness of teachers and the
achievement outcomes of students (Pont, Nusche, and Moorman, 2008).

20
Scope and Delimitations
Delimitations of the study would be that this research is conducted for and
limited to three schools in Asia that successfully implements multiage philosophy of
education. The survey and focus group discussion will be delimited to the administrators,
teachers, parents, and students of these schools.
The use of questionnaires and focus group discussions is for the purpose of
gathering data about the implementation of multiage education in three schools across
Asia. Qualitative and quantitative research has limitations and this research is no
exception. “Interviews can be costly and time consuming. In addition, the respondents
may be unwilling, reluctant, or unable to give the information desired” (Soden, 2002,
p.16). Heeding to this advice, the researcher stayed away with one-on-one interview and
instead used focus group discussions. Another limitation of this study is the lack of
available research in the last decade on multiage education from which to build upon.
Researchers who are advocates of the multiage philosophy have done majority of the
researches in the past, which may create a bias toward their view of multiage class being
in the best interest of the learners.
Definition of Terms
Cooperative Learning: An instructional method where learners are grouped
heterogeneously to produce academic and social improvement. Learners are individually
accountable for their learning and at the same time experience a sense of positive
interdependence for the success of the group (Johnson, 1999).

21
Continuous Progress: Learners learn new concepts as they are ready, regardless of age,
and facilitators help them advance as far as they are able. Because multiage classes do not
have grade levels, learners are not promoted to the next level at the end of the school
year. Instead, they progress at their own pace from simple to more complex material
throughout the year (Cotton, 1993).
Constructivism: It is a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that learners
reflect on their own experiences; construct their own understanding of the world they live
in. It proposes that learning is neither a stimulus response phenomenon nor a passive
process of transferring knowledge from teacher to student; instead as an adaptive activity
requiring building conceptual structures through reflection and abstraction (Miranda,
2012).
Differentiation: Differentiated instruction is the process of ensuring what and how
students learn, corresponding to students’ readiness level, interests, and preferred mode
of learning. It is when a teacher looks at a student as an individual with unique needs
(Tomlinson, 2004). “The provision of varied learning situations, as a whole class, small-
group, or individual instruction, to meet the needs of students at different levels” (Harris
and Hodges, 1995, p.60).
Flexible Grouping: A scenario when students are grouped based on their needs,
interests, and/or topic. These groups are fluid, and are changed frequently to give students
opportunities to work with all learning styles (Chase, 1994).
Multiage: It is described by Pavan (1992) as a system where students are not assigned to
specific class groups, and a team of teachers works with a team of students who are
grouped frequently according to a particular task or activity, students’ needs or interests.

22
Slavin (1987) also defined it as a classroom organization where students are grouped
heterogeneously, spanning more than two grade levels, yet there are no grade groupings;
thus respecting individual differences.
Multigrade: There are “often referred as combination classes, are usually the result of
low or uneven student enrollment at certain grade levels, with classes combined at the
last minute. In these classrooms, students retain their grade-level titles and their separate
grade-level curricula, as they will rejoin their single-grade counterparts the following
year (Kappler and Roelke, 2002, p.166). Multigrade classrooms are generally adopted for
administrative and/or economic purposes rather than educational merit.
Nongraded: Grade labels are not used to identify boundaries within which it is presumed
that typical children of a given age group can and should function academically. It sees a
particular subject area level as a continuous whole with a complete set of skills to be
learned by the learners without the usual time frame. (Alarcon, 1975).
Open Classroom: The open classroom focuses on the place where the learner is, as he
learns and its impact on the learning process. It believes that the learner can learn
wherever he/she is. The classroom is a very important venue for learning. It is in the
classroom that the teacher sets the mood for learning. But learning is not exclusively
confined to it. Learning could also happen in the next room, in the playground, in the
library, under the trees, anywhere. The whole school then becomes a learning center. This
center extends beyond the limits of the school compound. The whole world, where the
learner moves, eventually becomes a learning center (Alarcon, 1975).

23
Single-age Classrooms: A class where students are assigned by their age. A child must
turn 5, as mandated by the state in order to enter kindergarten. Thus, students in a grade
are generally with their same-aged peers.
Split or Combined Grades: It is the inclusion of more than one grade level in a class.
Split or combined classes usually include the required curriculum for each of the two
grades to be represented, although some activities may be conducted by both grades. The
main goal of these classrooms is to maximize the personnel and space resources rather
than capitalize on the uniqueness of learners’ ability in the groups with mixed ages (Katz,
1992).
24
CHAPTER II
PROCEDURES
This chapter presents the methods and procedures employed in conducting the
study. It describes among others, the research design, respondents of the study, the
instruments used, research procedure, as well as the data analysis
Research Design
The study design is a collective case study or multiple case study design that will
explore the implementation of multiage system in three schools in Asia. The study
focuses on the implementation of the features of the multiage education with respect to
the five key areas of school management: administration, faculty, curriculum and
instruction, student services, and community relations. According to Creswell (2014),
case study research involves the study of an issue explored through one or more cases
within a bounded system. The study employed multiple case study because of the
multiple bounded systems to be studied (3 Asian schools), and it involved multiple
sources of information and reported a description and case-based themes. In this study,
the researcher purposefully selected multiple cases in order to show different perspectives
on the implementation of multiage education.
Case study design supports the use of multiple date sources. It is appropriate
where the research aims to explore complex or contextual multivariate conditions, and
not just isolated variables. Collective case study design provides a structure to gain
insight into multiage across different settings of three different schools that implement
such system. (Baxter, 2008).

25
Research Site
Participants for this study will be principals of the three chosen Asian schools that
implement the multiage system of education.
At present, multiage classes are common around the globe due to a number of
reasons: administrative necessity, declining enrolment, or a pedagogical choice. Little
(2006) depicted the picture of multiage education as present in England, India, Northern
Ireland, Peru and Sri Lanka. The system is also common in United States of America,
Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and in small parts of Asia. The researcher
selected three schools as cases of study:
UST Angelicum College, Inc. (formerly known as Angelicum College)

Quezon City, Philippines
The Angelicum System, founded in 1972, adheres to the theoretical framework of
a multiage, non-graded system of education, as envisioned by its founder, Fr. Rogelio B.
Alarcon, O.P. Its primary concern is to accept and respect individual differences. It
recognizes the unique learning styles, special needs, similarities, and differences of all
learners. There is ample variability in instructional approaches to varying needs of
learners. The school conforms to multiage education through its features: individualized
learning, self-paced, continuous progression, no grade labels, no marking system, no
retention or failure, individualized learning materials, process-oriented, teacher as
facilitator of learning, mastery learning, self-evaluation, home-school-community
collaboration, cooperative learning, open classroom, positive motivation, and distance
learning.
26
New International School of Japan

Tokyo, Japan
New International School of Japan was founded in 2001, as the first international
school in Japan specifically established to meet the needs of permanent, international
marriage, and/or long-term residents of Japan, regardless of nationality, in the clear and
research-based recognition that dual language and multiage education are good for
children. The students learn bilingually through team-taught multiage classes, a resource-
based thematic approach, and a combination of whole group, individual, center-based and
project-based activities.
Semarang Multinational School

Kota Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia
Semarang Multinational School is an international school in Semarang,
established in 1982. The school is a non-profit institution that has provided international
standards in education for the Semarang community for the last 30 years. It utilizes the
latest in best practice international teaching methods that fully engage the learners in
learning the essential knowledge, skills and understanding. The school nurtures and
develops the students’ natural personal qualities by employing multiage system.
Data Collection
Data collection in case study research is usually extensive, drawing on multiple
sources of information: observations, interviews, documents, and audiovisual materials.
Yin (2003) recommends six types of information to collect: documents, archival records,
interviews, direct observations, participant-observations, and physical artifacts.

27
The researcher will observe the following procedures in gathering data for the
study:
Phase 1.
This phase involves the conceptualization process where the researcher
thoroughly considered the vital aspects of the study, particularly, the topic of interest. The
researcher’s activities include thinking, rethinking, theorizing, making decision, studying,
and reviewing ideas with colleagues and mentors.
An in-depth study of prior researchers conducted starting with the historical
overview of multiage classrooms was conducted. Reviewing previous researches helped
in understanding what proved to be helpful in setting up and managing multiage schools
in the past and what might have caused problems and concerns.
Research Instrumentation
The researcher will use an array of multiple instruments and sources from selected
multiage Asian schools. Four types of information will be collected from the following:
1. Qualitative Interview
The interview of principals focused on describing the process of management
practices of the school in terms of the following features of multiage education: 1) Self-
paced learning, 2) Individualized Instruction, 3) Non-gradedness, 4) Teachers as
Facilitator of Learning, and 5) Open Classroom.
According to Guthrie (2012), interviewing is probably the most common data
collection in qualitative research. Interviews can take many different forms and allow in-
depth follow-up questions. It can also give people opportunity to tell personal accounts to
28
someone who treats them as equal and takes them seriously, which can be emotionally
rewarding for the respondents. A list of questionnaire as interview guide was made in
such a way as to allow fluidity and flexibility in the discussion of the topics and areas to
be covered. The interview guide is normally linked to the research questions that guide
the researcher. The following is the list of questions to be used as interview guide to elicit
responses from the principals:
1. What are your considerations and preparations in making school plans
in a multiage setup?
2. What roles should teachers play in planning and implementation, and
what knowledge do they need for maximum effectiveness of multiage?
3. How should parents and the community be involved in deciding,
planning, and implementing the change effort brought about by
multiage?
4. What does leadership look like in successful multiage implementation?
5. What programs or projects have you been responsible for
implementing? Please tell me how you planned and executed the said
programs and projects.
6. How have you persuaded the faculty and other employees to follow
your strategic vision for the organization?
7. Describe what you consider as hallmarks of a good multiage education
implementation.
29
8. Tell me about a time when there was a challenging and difficult
situation in the implementation of multiage. How did you overcome
them?
9. If you became aware of a teacher who is having a difficulty in
implementing multiage, what do you do to help him/ her?
10. Describe the academic performance of the students under the multiage
setup.
2. Qualitative Documents
The researcher will gather documentary evidences of the implementation of
multiage education: a) Expectations (Program of the School), b) Education (Educational
Background of teachers implementing the program), c) Exercises (Trainings/ Seminars
regarding implementation of multiage), d) Records (Academic records of students), e)
Community (activities related to home-school-community collaboration).
Documentary evidences of the school will also be collected: a) History, b) Vision,
Mission, Goals and Objectives, c) Organization and Administration, d) Instructional
Program, and e) Instructional and Physical Resources.
The researcher will also gather hard copies of school brochures, school manuals,
sample yearbooks, sample class and teachers schedule, sample curriculum, management
handbooks, and sample training programs.
3. Qualitative Observation – Direct school observation
The observation of the implementation of multiage education: daily operations,
classroom observation, and school community observation. The researcher will write her
30
observations or field note to capture her reflection and realization on that particular
setting.
4. Qualitative Audio and Visual Materials
This is the final category in which the data consisted of audio and other visual
materials relevant to the study. The researcher will gather pictures of all areas of the
schools and the actual interviews. Pictures of the location, frontage, learning station
corners, laboratories, students (with permission), quadrangle, offices, faculty rooms,
achievement corners, and many more will be documented. It will also include materials
such as school website main pages, emails, photographs, art objects or any form of
recorded sounds.
Phase 2.
In this phase, the researcher will implement all the plans, as approved by the panel
and as articulated in the data gathering procedure. The researcher will went through the
following activities: 1) Data gathering procedure: researcher will secure a letter of
endorsement from her dissertation adviser and from the Dean of the College of Graduate
Studies and Teacher Education Research of the Philippine Normal University and send
the electronic mails to identified schools. 2) Data recording procedure: the researcher will
make several protocols as she conducts her study which include: interview, observation,
and documentary evidence protocols.
Data Collection Procedure

31
The data collection procedure was patterned from Creswell’s Data Collection
Steps for a Qualitative Research (2014). It included setting the boundaries for the study,
collecting information through a semi-structured observations and interviews, documents,
and visual materials, as well as establishing the protocol for recording information.
The researcher will secure certificate of authorization, endorsement and
permission from Philippine Normal University Graduate School authorities to conduct
her research. Signatories to her endorsement were the Department Chairman and Dean of
the College of Graduate Studies and Teacher Education Research. Secondly, official
letters of invitation/ communication to identified schools will be sent.
Phase 3
The researcher, in this phase, will apply two approaches in coding cases and
analyzing the data: Creswell’s 7 steps in qualitative research data analysis, and the
template for coding multiple case or collective case approaches.
Data Collection Procedure
Case study protocol was patterned after Creswell’s (2014) data recording
procedures. The researcher will undertake processes of: 1) Observation protocol – as the
researcher will engage in multiple observations during the conduct of the study, she will
use observational protocol for recording information while taking notes. 2) Interview
protocol – the researcher will use handwritten notes and audiotaping in recording the
information from interviews. Interview protocol includes: heading (date, place of
interviewer and interviewee); instructions for the interviewer to follow so that standard
procedures will be used, and final thank you statement to acknowledge the time the
32
interviewee spent during the interview. 3) Documentary evidence protocol – the
researcher will log whether the materials collected were considered primary materials
(directly from respondents) or secondary material (taken from books, internet, etc.)
Data Analysis
This study will be treated as a multiple or collective case study. Creswell’s (2014)
two approaches in coding cases will be applied: Creswell’s 7 steps in qualitative research
data analysis, and the template for coding multiple case or collective case approach.
The following steps will be employed: Step #1 – organization and preparation of
the data for analysis. Step #2 – Read or look at all the data and providing a sense of
information and an opportunity to reflect on its overall meaning. Step #3 – coding of all
the data. Coding process of organizing the data by bracketing, segmenting, and writing
word representing a category in the margins (Creswell, 2014). Step #4 – use the coding
process to generate a description of the setting or people as well as themes for analysis.
Step #5 – researcher proceeds as to how the description and themes will be represented in
the qualitative narrative. Step #6 – interpretation of the themes by asking: “What were the
lessons learned?”
The researcher will also use the template for coding case study. This will show
how to arrive at generalizations for all the cases. Case studies will be written up in three
parts based on the following framework:
PART 1: Description of Case 1 to Case 3: Each school will be presented in the
following order:
1.1 Profile of the school

33
1.2 Profile of the principal
1.3 Management practices of multiage in terms of the its features:
1.3.1 Self-paced
1.3.2 Individualized instruction
1.3.3 Non-gradedness
1.3.4 Teacher as facilitator of learning
1.3.5 Open classroom
1.4 Management practices in terms of the following areas:
1.4.1 Administration
1.4.2 Faculty
1.4.3 Curriculum and Instruction
1.4.4 Student Services
1.4.5 Community relations
PART 2: Cross-Case Analysis (Three schools were compared)
2.1 Case 1 and Case 2 were compared (Philippines and Japan)
2.2 Case 1 and Case 3 were compared (Philippines and Indonesia)
2.3 Case 2 and Case 3 were compared (Japan and Indonesia)
PART 3: Generalizations
34
Role of Researcher
The role of the researcher requires the identification of personal values,
assumptions, and biases at the beginning of the study. The researcher’s contribution to
the research can be useful and positive (Locke et al., 1987). The researcher’s points of
view on management practices and multiage implementation have been shaped by her
personal involvement as a graduate student of educational management; a principal in
one of the case school. She started teaching in 2001. From 2005 to 2011, the researcher
served as department head for Science Department. From 2012 to present, she serves as
one of the members of the team principal of the same institution.
As such, the research tradition depends on the utilization of implicit knowledge
(both intuitive and felt) because often the variation of the multiple realities can be
appreciated most in this way (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The criteria for judging a
qualitative study differ from quantitative research. First, the researcher seeks believability
based on coherence, insights, and instrumental utility (Eisner, 1991) and trustworthiness
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) through a process of verification rather that through traditional
validity and reliability measures.
Methods of Validation
The following approaches will be employed to ensure the internal validity of the
study:
A) Triangulation of Data – the data to be collected through a wide array of
sources from all participant schools includes: 1) Qualitative
observation – completed field notes during actual visit, 2) Qualitative

35
interviews – the researcher will hire professional transcriptionists to
transcribe interview audio notes, 3) Qualitative documents – gather the
most important hard copies of the participant schools: brochures,
school manuals, sample yearbooks, sample class and teachers schedule,
sample curriculum, and sample training programs, 4) Qualitative Audio
and Visual materials – gather pictures of all the school facilities and
actual interviews.
B) Member Checking – refined findings, and analysis will be sent back to
all respondents and ask them to give comment on the findings.
C) Role of Researcher – the researcher will use an honest narrative
clarifying her role and bias to the study.
To determine the reliability, the 3 out-steps suggested by Yin (2009) will be
employed, which includes: a) transcripts will be thoroughly checked to eliminate
mistakes; b) constant comparison of data and codes to ensure consistency; and c) cross-
check codes developed by different researchers by comparing results that were
independently derived.
36
References:
Books
Anderson, R.H. & Pavan, B.N. (1993). Nongradedness: Helping it happen. Lancaster,
PA: Technomic Publishing Co
Bacharach, N., Hasslen, R. , & Anderson, J. (1995). Learning together. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Presss
Baker, A., & Soden, L. (2002). Parent involvement in children's education: A critical
assessment of the knowledge base. New York, NY: National Council of Jewish
Women Center for the Child.
Bredenkamp, S. (1987). National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bigge, M. L. & Shermis, S. S. (1999). Learning theories for teachers (6th ed.). New
York: Addison Wesley Longman. Buffie.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design 4th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.
Goodlad,T., & Anderson, R. H. (1959/1987). The nongradedelementary school (Rcv.ed.).

New York: Teachers Collie Press.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (2005). The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of
Reading and Writing. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
Holland.
Johnson, D. W. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, completive, and

individualistic learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Junmai,
Kalman, B. (1994). A One-Room School. New York, N.Y.: Crabtree Publishing

Company. Kappler.
Kasten, W. C., and E. M. Lolli. 1998. Implementing multiage education: A practical

guide. Norwood, MA: Christopher- Gordon.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Journals
37
Adams, D., Harmon, C., Reneke, S., Adams, T. L., Hartle, L., & Lamme, L. (1997).
Project Friends: A multi-age learning community. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 24(4), 217–221. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02354835.
Retrieved on February 15, 2018.
Aina, O.E. (2001). Maximizing learning in early childhood multi-age classrooms: Child,
teacher, and parent perceptions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(4), 219-225.
http://dx.doi. org/10.1023/A:1009590724987
Akbaşlı, S., Üredi, L., & Ulum, H. (2016). Managerial Approaches Adopted At Schools
and Their Effects on the Professional Development of Teachers. International
Journal of Development Research, 6(7), 8610–8615.
Al-mahdy, F. H., & Al-kiyumi, R. A. (2015). Teachers ’ Perceptions of Principals ’

Instructional Leadership in Omani Schools. American Journal of Educational
Research, 3(12), 1504–1510. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.12691/education-3-
12-4. Retrieved on January 24, 2018.
Hallion, A. (1994). Strategies for Developing Multi-age Classrooms. Paper presented at

the Annual Convention of the National Association of Elementary School Principals
Association, Orlando, Florida. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED373899.pdf. Retrieved on January 27, 2018.
Ann, J., Arts, L., & Vol, U. (1995). Looking in and out : Rethinking classroom dynamics
-- A New Look at Multiage Education by Penelle Chase and Jane Doan, 72(Oct), 1–
3.
Aslam, H. D., Suleman, Q., Zulfiqar, Z., Shafaat, M., & Sadiq, R. (2014). Analyzing the
Perceived Effectiveness of Academic Leadership in Schools of Bahawalpur,
Pakistan. International Journal of Learning and Development, 4(1), 146. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v4i1.5338. Retrieved on January 24, 2018.
Ates, H. and Artuner, G. (2013). The importance of school management has been
increasing in student academic success, based on international exams, 20. ISSN
1309-6249
Azano, A. P., Callahan, C. M., Missett, T. C., & Brunner, M. (2014). Understanding the
Experiences of Gifted Education Teachers and Fidelity of Implementation in Rural
Schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(2), 88–100. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14524405. Retrieved on January 22, 2018.
Bailey, G. J., Werth, E. P., Allen, D. M., & Sutherland, L. L. (2016). The Prairie Valley
Project: Reactions to a Transition to a Schoolwide, Multiage Elementary Classroom
Design. School Community Journal, 26(1), 239–263. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1802728441?accountid=
14872%5Cnhttp://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com/waldenu?url_ver=Z39.88-
38
2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=unknown&sid=ProQ:ProQ
%3Apsychology&atitle=The+Prairie+Val. Retrieved on January 14, 2018.
Bailey, R., Seifman, R., Ross, H., & Tulenko, K. (n.d.). Strengthening School
Management : A Guide for Optimizing the Use of Health Workforce Education
Resources.
Balcı, A. (1993). Effective School; Theory, Practice and Research. Yavuz Dağıtım,
Ankara.
Barrett, A., & Mosca, I. (2013). Multigrade Teaching and Age Composition of the Class:
The Influence on Academic and Social Outcomes among Students. ESRI Research
Bulletin. Tilda.Tcd.Ie, 1–6. Retrieved from
http://tilda.tcd.ie/assets/pdf/Barrett_Mosca_ESRI_Bulletin.pdf. Retrieved on
February 20, 2018.
Baxter P, Jack S: Qualitative Case Study Methodology: study design and implementation
for novice researchers. Qual Rep 2008, 13(4):544–559.
Bedard, G. J., & Mombourquette, C. P. (2015). Conceptualizing Alberta District

Leadership Practices : A Cross-Case Analysis, 233–255. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2014.997936. Retrieved on February 15, 2018.
Benveniste, L. A., & McEwan, P. J. (2000). Constraints to Implementing Educational

Innovations: The Case of Multigrade Schools. International Review of Education/
Internationale Zeitschrift Fr Erziehungswissenschaft/ Revue Inter, 46(1/2), 31–48.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003922321999. Retrieved on February
20, 2018.
Bielaczyc, K. & Collins, A (1999). Learning Communities in Classrooms: A

Reconceptualization of Educational Practice. Qual Rep, 13(4):544–559.
Black, S. (1993). Beyond age and grade. Executive Educator, 15(9), 76-79. Borg,
Bornstein, M. H. (2002). Toward a Multiculture, Multiage,Multimethod Science. Human

Development (0018716X), 45(4), 257–263. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1159/000064986. Retrieved on January 24, 2018.
Brookover, W.B. et. al. (1979). School social systems and student achievement: Schools
can make a difference. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for
constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
39
Broome, J. (2016). Assessing the professional development needs of arts instructors

working in multi-age classrooms. Arts Education Policy Review, 117(1), 65–72.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2016.1107395. Retrieved on
February 15, 2018.
Broome, J. L. (2009). A Descriptive Study of Multi-Age Art Education in Florida.

Studies in Art Education, 50(2), 167–183. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/199839600?accountid=10673%0Ahttp://openu
rl.ac.uk/redirect/athens:edu/?url_ver=Z39.88-
2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ%3
Aeducation&atitle=A+Descriptive+Study+of+Multi-Age+Art+Educ. Retrieved on
February 15, 2018.
Broome, J. (2008). Multiage Education as an Alternative to the McDonaldization of

Schools: Applying Ritzer’s Sociological Framework to Modern Education. Journal
of Multiage Educaion, 3(1). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/199839600?accountid=10673%0Ahttp://openu
rl.ac.uk/redirect/athens:edu/?ur. Retrieved on April 3, 2018.
Brown, B. A. (2010). Teachers’ accounts of the usefulness of multigrade teaching in

promoting sustainable human-development related outcomes in rural South Africa.
Journal of Southern African Studies, 36(1), 189–207. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057071003607428. Retrieved on February 23, 2018.
Brown, T. (2008). A Quantitative Analysis of Achievement Gain Scores of Students in

Single-Grade and Multiage Classrooms. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92,
141. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.74839. Retrieved on January
22, 2018.
Bruce, A. (1996). What works in multiage instruction. The Education Digest, 61, 9:
Research Library.
Bulach, C., Boothe, D., & Pickett, W. (2006). Analyzing the Leadership Behavior of
School Principals, 1–13. Retrieved from
https://cnx.org/contents/7PdrvCoS@1/Analyzing-the-Leadership-Behav. Retrieved
on January 24, 2018
Buys, N. A. (2012). The Role of Management and Governance in Effective School Based
Management in South Africa Schools. Journal of the International Study for
Teacher Education, Vol. 16, No. 2.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T.L. (2001). Implementing multiage education : A practical
guide. Roeper Reviews, 23(4), 240.
Chang, C.-C. (2010). Construction and Evaluation of a Web-Based Learning Portfolio

System: An Electronic Assessment Tool. Innovations in Education and Teaching
40
International, 38(2), 144–155. Retrieved from

Chapman, M. L. (1995). Designing literacy learning experiences in a multiage classroom.

Language Arts, 72(6), 416–428. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41482219. Retrieved on January 24, 2018.
Cheryl, L., & Fox, C. L. (1998). The Michigan Multiage Continuous progress Model.
American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego , California
Michigan Department of Education.
Clancy, M., & Gardner, J. (2017). Using Digital Portfolios to Develop Non-Traditional
Domains in Special Education Settings, 7(1), 93–100.
Colbert, V., & Arboleda, J. (2016). Bringing a student-centered participatory pedagogy to

scale in Colombia. Journal of Educational Change, 17(4), 385–410. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9283-7. Retrieved on January 14, 2018.
Corn, A. L. (1999). Missed opportunities—But a new century is starting. Gifted Child

Today Magazine, 22(6), 19–21. doi:10.1177/107621759902200606.
Cotton, K. (1993). Multiage primary education. Retrieved from

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/7/cu/4.html. Retrieved on February 21, 2018.
Broome, J., Heid, K., Johnston, J., & Serig, D. (2015). Split Class Combinations, Art
Education. (March), 30–35.
DeGeorge, T. (1998). Student Participation in Multiage Classrooms at Public Elementary

School: A Case Study. A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of
Human Service Professions, Widener University.
Chase, P. (1994). Full circle. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Condy, J. (2008). Teaching of writing in two rural multigrade classes in the Western
Cape, 1–10. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v6i1.58. Retrieved on
January 24, 2018.
Condy, J., & Blease, B. (2014). What challenges do foundation phase teachers experience
when teaching writing in rural multigrade classes? South African Journal of
Childhood Education, 4(2), 21. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v4i2.203. Retrieved on January 14, 2018.
Cornford, I. R. (1997). Ensuring effective learning from modular courses: A cognitive

psychology-skill learning perspective. Journal of Vocational Education and
Training, 49(2), 237–251. Retrieved from
41
Coviello, J. C., & DeMatthews, D. E. (2016). “This Too Shall Pass.” Journal of Cases in
Educational Leadership, 19(2), 43–51. Retrieved from
De Lisi, R. (2002). Marbles Implications of Peer Learning From to Instant Piaget’s

Messenger: Ideas About Peer Learning. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 5–12.
Domenech, D. A. (1999). Flexibly grouped primary grades teach reading and math. The
Education Digest, 64(8), 15–17. Retrieved from
http://login.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/218158847?accountid=14816%5Cnhttp://sfx.library.vanderbilt.edu/vu?url_ver=Z
39.88-
2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ%3
Aeducation&a. Retrieved on January 24, 2018.
Donavant, B. W., Daniel, B. V., & MacKewn, A. S. (2013). (Dis)connected in Today’s

College Classroom? What Faculty Say and Do About Mixed-Age Classes. Journal
of Continuing Higher Education, 61(3), 132–142. Retrieved from
Edina, I., & Elementary, C. (n.d.). Continuous Progress Schools See the “ Whole Child .”
Education, 324–327.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the Urban Poor. Educational Leadership, 15-
18
Eisner, E. W. (1998). The kind of schools we need: Personal essays. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann. Ellis.
Elizabeth, D., Mercedes, S., Catherine, J., & Cynthia, J. (2000). Multiage classrooms :
Putting theory into practice. Contemporary Education, 71, 3.
Enayati, T., Zameni, F., & Movahedian, M. (2016). Classroom Management Strategies of
Multigrade Schools with Emphasis on the Role of Technology, 7(2). Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.5812/ijvlms.12161.Research. Retrieved on January 24, 2018.
Ender, M. (2014). How Peer and Self-Assessment can Enhance Students ’ Experience
with Assessment in Higher Education : A Practical Description of a Teaching
Session, 9(January), 58–73.
Espiosa, L., & Chen, W.-J. (1996). The Effect of Teacher In-service Training on
Technology and Multiage Grouping: Year One Evaluation of Constructing and
Networking for Multiage Learning Project. Journal of Computing in Childhood
Education, 7(1–2), 13–38. Retrieved from
https://acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct
42
=true&db=eric&AN=EJ538112&lang=fr&site=ehost-live. Retrieved on February

15, 2018.
Faber, J. M., Glas, C. A. W., & Visscher, A. J. (2017). Differentiated instruction in a

data-based decision-making context. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
0(0), 1–21. Retrived from https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1366342.
Retrieved on January 22, 2018.
Fancera, S. (2017). Principal leadership to improve collective teacher efficacy. NCPEA

Education Leadership Review, 17(2). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319940145_Principal_Leadership_to_Impr
ove_Collective_Teacher_Efficacy?enrichId=rgreq-
ac937f52adec259219ad73f27a91082e-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMxOTk0MDE0NTtBUzo1NDA2OTc3N
DIzODUxNTNAMTUwNTkyMzc5NTk2Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicatio
nCoverPdf. Retrieved on January 24, 2018.
Fat, S. (2010). Curriculum design for a training program in multigrade instruction.

Educatia 21 Journal, Art #5. Retrieved from https://reviste.ubbcluj.ro/educatia21/.
Finegan, C. (2001). Alternative early childhood education: Reggio Emilia. Kappa Delta
Pi Record, 37(2), 82-84. doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2001.10518468
Fleischman, S., & Heppen, J. (2009). Improving low-performing high schools: Searching
for evidence of promise. Future of Children, 19(1), 105–133. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0021. Retrieved on January 27, 2018.
Gaustad, J. (1992). Nongraded primary education. Eugene, OR: College of Education,

University of Oregon. Available from ERIC database. (ED406740).
Gencel, I. E. (2017). The Effect of Portfolio Assessments on Metacognitive Skills and on

Attitudes toward a Course *, (October 2015), 293–319. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.1.0378. Retrieved on April 3, 2018.
Giannakos, M. N., & Vlamos, P. (2012). Using educational webcasts in small multigrade
schools of isolated islands. International Journal of Education & Development
Using Information & Communication Technology, 8(2), 131–141. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=88941529&site=
ehost-live&scope=site. Retrieved on January 14, 2018.
Gunn, B. L. (2013). Overcoming obstacles to implementing the Multiage Classroom. The

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 31(No 1), 147–174. Retrieved from
https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/WYAJ/article/view/4319/3371.
Retrieved on February 20, 2018.
43
Hall, B. W., & Hewitt-Gervais, C. M. (2000). The Application of Student Portfolios in

Primary-Intermediate and Self-Contained-Multiage Team Classroom Environments:
Implications for Instruction, Learning, and Assessment. Applied Measurement in
Education, 13(2), 209–228. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1302_5. Retrieved on February 15, 2018.
Hallion, A. (1994, March). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Paper

presented ai the meeting of the annual convention of the National Association of
Elementary School Principals, Orlando, FL.
Halsey, R. J. (2011). Small Schools, Big Future. Australian Journal of Education, 55(1),
5–13. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500102. Retrieved on
January 14, 2018.
Hamilton, D. (2013). Making educational reform work: stories of school improvement in

Urban China, 53(9), 1689–1699. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. Retrieved on January 27, 2018.
Hardman, B. K. (2011). Teachers’ Perception of Their Principal’s Leadership Style and

the Effects on Student Achievement in Improving and Non-Improving Schools.
ProQuest LLC, (January). Retrieved from
http://libproxy.gmercyu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED536092&site=ehost-
live%5Cnhttp://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-
2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&r.
Henson, K. T. (2003). Foundations for learner-centered education: A knowledge base.

https://www.itma.vt.edu/courses/currip/lesson9/Henson2003LearnerCenteredEduc.p
df. Retrieved on January 21, 2018
Herman, J., and Lynn W. (1995). Portfolio Research: A Slim Collection. Educational
Leadership 52, 2: 48-55
Hoffman, J. (2003). Multiage teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in

Childhood Education, 18(1), 5–17. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02568540309595019. Retrieved on
January 22, 2018.
Hoffman, J. (2002). Flexible grouping strategies in the multiage classroom. Theory into
Practice, 41(1), 47–52. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4101_8. Retrieved on February 15, 2018.
Huf, C., & Raggl, A. (2015). Social orders and interactions among children in age-mixed
classes in primary schools – new perspectives from a synthesis of ethnographic data.
44
Ethnography and Education, 10(2), 230–241. Retrieved from

Hyry-Beihammer, E. K., & Hascher, T. (2014). Multi-grade teaching practices in

Austrian and Finnish primary schools. International Journal of Educational
Research, 74, 104–113. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.07.002.
Retrieved on April 4, 2018.
Harding, T. (2015). Elements of a Strategic Implementation Plan: Implications for

Enhancing Combination Classes using a Multiage Framework. A Dissertation
Presented to the School of Education and Counseling Psychology, Dominican
University of California.
Gerard, M. (2005). Bridging the Gap : Towards an Understanding of Young Children ’ s

Thinking in Multiage Group. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19 (3),
243.
Gorrell, J. (1998). A Study Comparing the Effect of Multiage Education Practices versus
Traditional Education Practices on Academic Achievement. Master’s Thesis
presented in Salem-Teikyo University.
Kappler, E. & Roelke, C. (2002). The Promise of Multiage Grouping, Kappa Depta Pi,
38 (4), 165–170.
Karabina, M. (2016). The Impact of Leadership Style To the Teachers’ Job Satisfaction.
European Journal of Education Studies, 0(0), 80–94.
Karlberg-Granlund, G. (2011). Coping with the threat of closure in a small Finnish

village school. Australian Journal of Education, 55, 62–72. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/890071929?accountid=14548%5Cnhttp://librar
y.hku.hk:4551/resserv?sid=PROQ&au=Karlberg-Granlund,+Gunilla&issn=0004-
9441&isbn=&title=Australian+Journal+of+Education&atitle=Coping+with+the+thr
eat+of+closure+in+a+small+Finnis. Retrieved on January 14, 2018.
Katz, L., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J. A. (1990). The Case for Mixed-Age Grouping in
Early Education. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53).
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. Retrieved on
February 20, 2018.
Katz, L. (1992). Multiage and mixed-aged grouping in early childhood programs. ERIC
Digest , 82(9), 2
Kelley, A., & Smith, K. A. (1993). Attitudes toward Multiple Aged Classrooms of Third,
Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Grade Students. Guidance and Counseling, Bowling Green
State University.
45
Kemmis, M.D. (2011) Challenges in implementing curriculum and assessing student

learning in multiage classrooms. (Unpublished masters thesis) Concordia University.
Portland, OR. Kim,
Kensler, L. a. W., Reames, E., Murray, J., & Patrick, L. (2011). Systems Thinking Tools
for Improving Evidence-based Practice: A Cross-Case Analysis of Two High School
Leadership Teams. The High School Journal, 95(2), 32–53. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2012.0002. Retrieved on February 15, 2018.
Kilbane, C. R., & Milman, N. B. (2017). Examining the Impact of the Creation of Digital
Portfolios by High School Teachers and Their Students on Teaching and Learning,
7(1), 101–109.
Kivunja, C., & Sims, M. (2015). Perceptions of Multigrade Teaching : A Narrative

Inquiry into the Voices of Stakeholders in Multigrade Contexts in Rural Zambia,
5(2), 10–20. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n2p10. Retrieved on
April 3, 2018.
Kivunja, C., & Wood, D. (2012). Multigrade Pedagogy and Practice: Accelerating
Millenium Development Goals for Sub-Saharan Africa, The International Journal of
Learning 18(11).
Kreide, A. T. (2011). Instructional Practices and Implementation Issues in Multiage

Classrooms. Midcontinent Research for Education and Learning, Colombia.
Lauer, P. (2000). Effects of Interage Grouping on Achievement and Behavior. End of the
Year Report. Experimental. New York State Education Department.
Lee, C., Lu, H., Yang, C., & Hou, H. (2010). A process-based knowledge management
system for schools: a case study in Taiwan. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology. 9(4), 10–21.
Lieberman, A., & Falk, B. (1994). A Culture in the Making: Leadership in Learner-
Centered Schools. National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and
Teaching. Columbia University, New York.
Lim, P. H., Gan, S., & Ng, H. K. (2010). Student evaluation of engineering modules for
improved teaching-learning effectiveness. Engineering Education: Journal of the
Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre, 5(October), 52–63.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.11120/ened.2010.05010052. Retrieved on January
24, 2018.
Little, A. (1995). Multi-grade teaching - A review of research and practice. Education

Research Paper, No.12
46
Little, A. W. (2001). Multigrade teaching : towards an international research and policy

agenda. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 481–497.
Little, A. (2004). Learning and Teaching in Multigrade Settings. Paper prepared for the
UNESCO 2005 EFA Monitoring Report (p. 23). Geneva: UNESCO.
Liu, Y. (n.d.). Differentiated Instruction Through Flexible Grouping in EFL Classroom

Differentiated Instruction Through Flexible Grouping in EFL Classroom, 97–122.
Lloyd, L. (1999). Multi-Age Classes and High Ability Students. Review of Educational
Research, 69(2), 187–212. Retrieved from
Lloyd, L. (1997). Composite Classes and Teachers’ Beliefs. Asia-Pacific Journal of

Teacher Education, 25(3), 225–259. Retrieved from
Lucas, R. I. G. (2011). A Study on Portfolio Assessment as an Effective Student Self-

Evaluation Scheme. The Asia Pacific-Education Researcher, 16(1).
Machado, L. J., & Chung, C. J. (2015). Integrating technology: The principals’ role and
effect. International Education Studies, 8(5), 43–53. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n5p43. Retrieved on January 24, 2018.
Marshak, D. (1993). From Teachers’ Perspectives: The Social and Psychological Benefits
of Multiage Elementary Classrooms, (5). Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED376966. Retrieved on January 24, 2018.
Martindale, S. (2012, Jan. 8). Private schools make changes to stay afloat. The Orange
County Register. Retrieved from: www.ocregister.com/
Miranda, J. (2012). Constructivism in the Non-Traditional System, Philippiniana Sacra

46(137), 313-344. Retrieved from https://frjaymiranda.wordpress.com/scholarly-
articles/constructivism-in-the-non-traditional-system-of-education/. Retrieved on
April 11, 2018.
Mason, D., & Burns, R. (1996). “Simply no worse and simply no better” may simply be
wrong: A critique of Veenman’s conclusion about multigrade classes. Review of
Educational Research, 66(3), 307–322. Retrieved from
Mason, D. A., & Doepner, R. W. (1998). Principals’ view of combination classes. Journal
of Educational Research, 91(3), 160-172. Mertens,
Mbonu, O. A. (2015). A Framework for Effective Complexity Management in Secondary

Schools’ Administration in Anambra State, Nigeria, 22(2).
47
McClellan, D.E. (1994). Multiage grouping: Implications for education. In P. Chase & J.
Doan, Full Circle (pp. 147- 160). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Mcintyre, E., & Kyle, D. (2002). Nongraded Primary Programs: Possibilities for
Improving Practice for Teachers. Center for Research of Education, Diversity, and
Excellence, 3502(April).
Melliger, S. R. (2005). Our Long , Winding Road to Multiage Classrooms, (March), 10–
13.
Miller, B. a. (1991). A Review of the Qualitative Research on .Multigrade Instruction.

Journal of Research in Rural Education, 7(1), 3–12.
Mokhtar Noriega, F., Heppell, S., Segovia Bonet, N., & Heppell, J. (2013). Building
better learning and learning better building, with learners rather than for learners. On
the Horizon, 21(2), 138–148. Retrieved from
Morreale, C., Zile-tamsen, C. Van, Emerson, C. A., & Herzog, M. (2017). Thinking
Skills by Design : Using a Capstone ePortfolio to Promote Reflection , Critical
Thinking , and Curriculum Integration, 7(1), 13–28.
Morris, R. N. (2002). A case study on the perspectives of an optional K–5 year -round
school in Virginia/ Multiage Program in Virginia.
Morrison-Thomas, n. (2016). Exploring Teachers ’ Experiences of Differentiated

Instruction : A Qualitative Case Study. Dissertation presented to the Graduate
Faculty of the School of Education, Prescott Valley, Arizona.
Mulcahy, D. (1992). Do we still have multi-grade classrooms? Morning Watch, 20 (1/2),

1-7
Ndoye, A. (2017). Peer/Self Assessment and Student Learning. International Journal of

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(2), 255–269. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=%22peer+assessment%22&ff1=dtySince_2014&pg=7&id=EJ
1146193. Retrieved on January 29, 2018.
Nye, B. A., Cain, V. A., Zaharias, J. B., Tollett, D. A., & Fulton, B. D. (1995). Are
multiage/nongraded programs providing students’ with a quality education? Some
answers from the school success study, (Lmi), 1–21.
Nyenje, A. (2016). Structural Dynamics of Education Reforms and Quality of Primary

Education in Uganda. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(15), 84–90.
Omalin, C. T. (2012). Proposed guidelines in leadership and management competencies

of school heads. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Philippine Normal University,
48
Manila City, Philippines.
Ong, W., Allison, J., & Haladyna, T. M. (2000). Student achievement of 3rd-graders in
comparable single-age and multiage classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood
Öznacar, B., Güven, Z., & Yılmaz, E. (2017). A Study into Teaching Styles of
Elementary School Teachers in Terms of Several Variables. International Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 577–585.
Panacci, A. G. (2017). Adult Students in Mixed-Age Postsecondary Classrooms:

Implications for Instructional Approaches, 20(2). Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1142552.pdf. Retrieved on February 15, 2018.
Pardini, P. (2005). AASA: The slowdown of the multiage classroom. Retrieved from
http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=8720. Retrieved on
February 15, 2018.
Parkison, P. T. (2014). Collaborative Assessment: Middle School Case Study. Current

Issues in Middle Level Education, 19(1), 43–49.
Parsons, E. C. (2002). Using Comparisons of Multiage Learning Environments to

Understand Two Teachers’ Democratic Educational Aims. Learning Environments
Research, 185–202.
Pavan, B. N., & Beginning, P. (1992). The Cultural Maelstrom of School Change, 1–4.
Pavan, B. N. (1992). The Benefits of Nongraded Schools. Educational Leadership 5Q, 2

(October 1992): 22-5. EJ 451 471.
Payne, P., & Burrack, F. (2017). Predictive Ability from ePortfolios of Student
Achievement Associated with Professional Teaching Standards : An Exploratory
Case Study, 13(1).
Ponnusamy, P. (2010). The relationship of instructional leadership , teachers ’

organizational commitment and students ’ achievement in small schools. Master
Thesis submitted to the Graduate School of Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Powell, D. E. (2003). Demistifying Alternative Education: Considering What Really

Works. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 12(2), 68–70.
Pratt, D. (1986). On the Merits of Multiage Classrooms. Research in Rural Education, 3,

3: 111-115.
49
Proehl, R. A., Douglas, S., Elias, D., Johnson, A. H., & Westsmith, W. (2013). Catholic
Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice A Collaborative Approach: Assessing
the Impact of Multi-Grade Classrooms. Journal of Catholic Education, 16(2).
Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ce. Retrieved on January 13, 2018.
Rampa, S. H. (2010). A customised Total Quality Management Framework for schools.

Africa Education Review, 7(1), 199–217. Retrieved from
Ramrathan, L., & Mzimela, J. (2016). Teaching reading in a multi-grade class: Teachers’
adaptive skills and teacher agency in teaching across grade R and grade 1. South
African Journal of Childhood Education, 1–9. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v6i2.448. Retrieved on January 22, 2018.
Reddan, G. (2013). To grade or not to grade: Student perceptions of the effects of grading
a course in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative
Education, 14(4), 223–232.
Reed, S. E., & W, L. (2003). Implementing Enrichment Clusters in a Multiage School :

Perspectives from a Principal and Consultant, 26(4), 26–29.
Ricard, R. J., Miller, G. A., & Heffer, R. W. (1995). Developmental Trends in the
Between Adjustment and Academic Achievement for Elementary School Children
in Mixed-Age. School Psycology Review, 24(2), 258–270.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–

1640. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9620.2003.00303.x
Rigby, J. G. (2015). Principals’ sensemaking and enactment of teacher evaluation.

Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 374–392. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-04-2014-0051. Retrieved on January 24, 2018.
Rock, M. L., & Thead, B. K. (2007). The effects of fading a strategic self-monitoring
intervention on students’ academic engagement, accuracy, and productivity. Journal
of Behavioral Education, 16(4), 389–412. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-007-9049-7. Retrieved on January 24, 2018.
Rosaroso, R. C. (2016). Portfolio Assessment as a Remediation Scheme. Asia Pacific

Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4 (2), 83-91. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303365355. Retrieved on April 3, 2018.
Rudge, L. T. (2015). Teaching critical multicultural education online and face-to-face: A

Cross-case analysis of student’s transformative learning. JISTE Vol. 19, No. 1,
2015, 19(1).
50
Sag, R. (2009). Becoming a teacher in multigrade classes. Electronic Journal of Social

Sciences, 8 (28), 20-39.
Sağ, R., & Sezer, R. (2012). Analysis of the Professional Needs of the Teachers * of
Multigrade Classes, 11(2), 491–503.
Sammons, P., Toth, K., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj, I., & Taggart, B. (2015). The long-
term role of the home learning environment in shaping students’ academic
attainment in secondary school. Journal of Children’s Services, 10(3), 189–201.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-02-2015-0007. Retrieved on January 22,
2018.
Sampson, M. C. (2003). One teacher ’ s experiences of teaching reading in an urban

multi-grade foundation phase class. Perspectives in E, 83–96.
Saqlain, N. (2015). A Comprehensive Look at Multi-Age Education. Journal of

Educational and Social Research, 5(2), 285–290. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p285. Retrieved on February 20, 2018.
Schweitzer k. (2015). Considering the Community Classroom. Journal of Unschooling &

Alternative Learning, 9(17), 19–30. Retrieved from
https://acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct
=true&db=eue&AN=96905686&lang=fr&site=ehost-live. Retrieved on February
15, 2018.
Simonson, K. (2015). Multiage Learning Environments in the Secondary Montessori

Classroom By A Master ’ s Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Education - Montessori.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Grouping for instruction in the elementary school. Educational

Psychologist, 22(2), 109–127. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2202_2
Smiley, J. (2015). Differentiated Instruction through Tiered Rubrics, Between the Keys,
23, 19–26.
Song, R., Spradlin, T. E., & Plucker, J. A. (2009). The Advantages and disadvantages of
multiage classrooms in the era of NCLB accountability. Center for Evaluation and
Education Policy, 7(1), 1–8.
Stedman, L. (1987). The Political Economy of Recent Educational Reform Reports.

Educational Theory, Vol. 37, No. 1
Strauss, I.P. (1999). An investigation into the availability and use of teaching and
learning material in multigrade classes in the free state. Research Institute for
Education Planning
51
Stimson, J. (San B. C. U. S. D., & Mason, DeWayne A. (University of California, R.

(1996). Combination and Nongraded Classes : Definitions and Frequency in Twelve
States. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 439–452. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001866. Retrieved on February 15, 2018.
Stuart, S. K., Connor, M., Cady, K., & Zweifel, A. (2007). Multiage instruction and
inclusion: A collaborative Approach. International Journal of Whole Schooling,
3(1), 12–27.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction : A research basis, International Education

Journal, 7(7), 935–947.
Swanepoel, C. (2008). The perceptions of teachers and school principals of each other’s
disposition towards teacher involvement in school reform. South African Journal of
Education, 28, 39–51.
Sykes, A. (2015). Models of educational management: the case of a language teaching

institute. Journal of Teaching and Education, 4(1), 17–23.
Tan, K., & Shin, L. W. (2015). Assessment Rubrics for Learning. Assessment And
Learning in Schools, (1987), 129–140.
Tarun, I. M. (2010). Attitude of the Education students toward electronic portfolio

assessment as a substitute to traditional tests. Dissertation presented to College of
Teacher Education, Isabela State University, Philippines.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000a). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of all

Learners. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson,
Thomas, C., Britt, P., Papason, B., Tyler, J. L., Williams, F. K., Blackbourn, R., &
Blackbourn, J. M. (2005). Inside the one room schoolhouse: A look at nongraded
classrooms from the inside out. National Forum of Applied Educational Research
Journal- Electronic, 18(3), 1–5. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED415217.pdf. Retrieved on January 29, 2018.
Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). “Together we are better”: Professional
learning networks for teachers. Computers and Education, 102, 15–34. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.007. January 24, 2018.
Turcotte, S., Laferrière, T., Hamel, C., & Breuleux, A. (2010). Multilevel innovation in
remote networked schools. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(4), 285–299.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-009-9160-x. Retrieved on January
22, 2018.
52
Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and Noncognitive Effects of Multigrade and Multi-Age

Classes: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 319–
381. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065004319. Retrieved on
January 24, 2018.
Veenman, S. (1996). Effects of Multigrade and Multi-Age Classes Reconsidered. Review

of Educational Research, 66(3), 323–340. Retrieved from
Wallapha, A., Pennee, N., & Utis, S. (2014). An Educational Management of Alternative
Schools in Northeastern Thailand: Multi-cases Study. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 116(2011), 1001–1005. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.335. Retrieved on January 14, 2018.
Wan, S. W. (2015). Teachers and Teaching : theory and practice Differentiated

instruction : Hong Kong prospective teachers ’ teaching efficacy and beliefs,
(August). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435.
Retrieved on April 3, 2018.
Yang, Y. (2014). Principals’ transformational leadership in school improvement.

International Journal of Educational Management, 28(3), 279–288. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0063. Retrieved on January 13, 2018.
Wagner, J. (2016). On the Merits of Mixed Age Education: A Globalized Update.

Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the School of Education,
University of Washington.
Yerry, Marie J, & Henderson, E. (1964). Effects of Interage Grouping on Achievement

and Behavior. End of the Year Report. Experimental. New York State Education
Department.
Zevenbergen, R. J. (2012). Curriculum Leadership: Reforming and Reshaping Successful

Practice in Remote and Regional Indigenous Education. Mathematics Education:
Expanding Horizons, 370–377. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
28302-9_14. Retrieved on January 27, 2018.
53

A Comprehensive Look at Multiage Education in Asia

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Comprehensive Look at Multiage Education in Asia

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A FRAMEWORK OF MANAGING MULTIAGE SCHOOLS:

THE CASE OF SELECTED SCHOOLS IN ASIAN COUNTRIES

A Dissertation Proposal Presented to

MARIA URDUJA C. GALANG

THE PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW

challenge of providing academic excellence for all students. Traditional educational

technological developments to education; (2) rising costs of education and its

questionable quality; (3) increasing number of youth-at-risk in remote areas being

deprived of education; (4) inaccessibility to mainstream schooling; (5) emergence of the

the multiage groupings. Multiage classrooms represent diverse group of students.

individualized and developmentally appropriate education (Finegan, 2001). Teachers

In colonial times, one-room schoolhouses were established. The one-room schoolhouse is

individualized instruction, independent study, and tutoring.

Multiage classes are common in some countries due to a number of reasons:

administrative necessity, declining enrolment, or a pedagogical choice. Little (2006)

world due to: administrative necessity, declining enrolment, or a pedagogical choice

declining enrolments. Report of Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines reveal

the results of international research findings that multiage approach is a cost-effective

Angelicum College, a Catholic and Dominican learning institution manages to offer a

through their (1) non-graded system of education, (2) self-paced/individualized learning,

education. For 45 years, it has produced and continues to produce successful

professionals through a multiage, non-traditional system of education. In public

delivery and contributes to the social development of learners (Little, 2004).

because of international findings that multigrade is a cost-effective means of raising rates

Department of Education believes in the potential of multigrade approach to bring

education closer to the marginalized communities. As of 2009, close to a third of the

multiage system, it is imperative to look at the management framework of multiage

challenges of managing a multiage school focusing on the different areas of management:

administration, faculty, curriculum and instruction, student services, and community

present management framework of the Department of Education’s multigrade education.

This research is important for a considerable number of reasons. First, research in

major change in policies, it is better to examine the possible results of a change

Second, although this study is looking at the implementation of 3 schools across

they are faced with.

proliferation of such system. Managing such institutions offer an economically sound

organizational structure because it is easily monitored by teachers and organized by

recognized, specifically in the philosophies that support graded structures. Several

different levels of academic milestones, and competitiveness is not emphasized.

Multiage: How did it start?

Educational structure of multiage education is implemented globally. In several

researches, it is also known in different terms: multigrade, combination class, composite

time periods. It is worthwhile to look at the history of multiage education in the

perspective of biological and evolutionary history. Evolutionary anthropology

different societies. In the meta-analysis 30 empirical studies on multiage age groupings

anthropology, ethnology and evolutionary biology that modern educational practices of

was seen as having a healthy form of education. Robert H. Anderson, a seasoned

professor of education at the University of South Florida described one-room

schoolhouse as an “accidental prototype of nongradedness” that served children well.

Science and new generation of investigation and exploration (Corn, 1999).

Massachusetts Board of Education, Horace Mann, established the grouping of students by

establishment of criteria in education in order to enforce these different levels. He also

However, what schools gained in convenience, they lost in effectiveness.

received by the public in the efficiency-focused era of industrialization. After centuries of

standardized for uniformity, thus resulting to promotion or retention. Though, it is very

have begun to unpack to concept of schooling as means of decoding the fundamental

problems it brings about.

children is as simple or clear-cut as manufacturing of identical products.

included the non-graded philosophy in their institutions.

On Philosophy and Multiage

The philosophy of multiage education is supported by Carol Ann Tomlinson’s

homogeneous instructional strategy (Tomlinson, 2008). Differentiated instruction is

grounded in constructivism. Constructivism is an educational theory that associates new

information with preexisting experiences that results in the construction of understanding