working in groups: social and cognitive effects in a special class

87British Journal of Special Education Volume 26, No. 2 (June 1999)

Wor

king

in g

roup

s

Working in groups: social and cognitive effects in aspecial class

Judith Watson

IntroductionThere is a growing awareness both in the research literatureand in classroom practice of the essentially social,interactive nature of most learning. Pollard (l993)describes the effect on primary practice as:

‘… a move from individual towards group work, aconcern to make the active and skilled role of theteacher more explicit and a growing recognition ofthe capacity of children to construct their learningtogether.’

(p.175)

Gross (l996), however, reported that individualised taskswere the preferred teacher response to pupils with learningdifficulties in mainstream primary schools, and pointedout that:

‘… this can deny the children who most need itthe opportunity to learn from the kind of socialdialogue with “more knowledgeable others” which isfundamental to human learning and development.’

(p.36)

Sebba, Byers and Rose (l993) also argue that in order forgroup work, rather than individualised instruction, to playa bigger role in the education of pupils with learningdifficulties, teachers must accept that collaboration andsuccessful interaction in its own right is a valid teachingaim.

Why is there such a powerful tradition of individual ratherthan group work within special education? One obviousanswer is that small classes allow for the necessaryindividualised assessment, monitoring and matching ofpupils’ abilities by an appropriately differentiatedcurriculum. But as Carpenter (l997) points out, groupteaching is not necessarily opposed to the philosophy ofaddressing special educational needs, and the needs ofindividual pupils can be addressed within groupexperiences. Daniels’ (l990) warning that a ‘pedagogicalblunderbuss’ may result from the inflexible application inindividualised programmes of fixed sequences composed

of small steps of required learning is still relevant, andGoddard (l997) argues that the use of individualisededucational programmes has inadvertently sometimestended to isolate children from each other, inhibitingcollaborative learning.

Important research findings have cast doubt on the beliefthat pupils necessarily progress in their learning in anorderly logical manner, and show them typically to be lesspredictable and more idiosyncratic in their learning.Bangert, Kulik and Kulik (l983) conducted a meta-analysisof the effects of carefully designed individual programmesof learning in American mainstream schools. They foundthat there was no advantage from such carefully tailoredindividualised instruction on pupils’ self-esteem, criticalthinking or, significantly, their general attainment. Thereis, moreover, encouraging evidence to the contrary, thatgroup experiences may be particularly successful withpupils who have difficulties in learning.

Croll and Moses (1985) found, from systematic classroomobservations of 8 to 9 year-olds with moderate learningdifficulties in mainstream classes, that group work involvingtheir teacher was particularly successful. Whereas allpupils in the class benefited, those with learning difficultiesdid so to the greatest extent. Their level of engagementincreased from 46% when working alone, to over 70% ina group. It was ironical, therefore, that they were the pupilswho were least likely to be included in the relativelyinfrequent group teaching. One of the major findings ofthis excellent study is that slow learners are particularlylikely to have low levels of involvement when working ontheir own.

Brown, Metz and Campione (l996) describe the developmentin inner-city Californian schools of a ‘community oflearners’ where Vygotskyan social-constructivist theoryis used to devise socially supportive climates for learning,involving not only teacher-pupil interactive teachingbut also group participation that supports reflection,argumentation and refutation. This exciting and demandingpedagogy is one in which individual pupils are dynamicallyassessed over time through interviews. Stepping stones onthe way to greater pupil understanding can be identified,and are reported by the authors. Reciprocal teaching,jigsaw activities and discussion are examples of successfulpedagogy within the science curriculum.

For these reasons, alongside the challenge of mainstreamschooling, there has been a growing interest in the potentialof social collaborative educational experiences for pupilswith learning difficulties. Clark, Dyson and Milward(l995) include peer-mediated instruction among their list

Judith Watson, Reader in Education at theUniversity of Edinburgh, considers the potential ofsocial-constructivist ideas of teaching and learningfor pupils with learning difficulties and reports onthe introduction of social learning experienceswithin a special unit for pupils with moderatelearning difficulties.

88 British Journal of Special Education Volume 26, No. 2 (June 1999)

of initiatives that hold great promise for building inclusiveeducation that can accommodate pupils’ unique needs.They point out that both the quality of instruction frompeers may be especially helpful due to a more appropriateuse of language and a better understanding of particulardifficulties, and that metacognitive activity is fostered bygiving explanations to peers.

My own research into the encouragement of reflection inthe classroom revealed that pupils whose teachers used amore challenging style that actively encourages reflectionby their pupils, also experienced more group activities(Watson, 1996). One teacher in this research expressedthe view that in an ideal world nothing but personal carefor pupils with special needs should be individualised; asecond, that group work was much better for them as theywere learning to be social beings. The same trend in herthinking has been well expressed by Hart (l996).

‘The idea that children’s individual learning might beenhanced by making more creative and productiveuse of the resources of the whole group was onewhich had been central to my own thinking forseveral years…’

(p.18)

Teachers’ preferences for either mainly individual orgroup approaches for their pupils who have difficulties inlearning will partly depend on their expectations oftheir pupils and also their implicit theories about education,its scope and purposes, which might favour groupexperiences as:

1) pupils have something to contribute to each others’learning. They have valid ideas and need to feelthese are respected. They can spark-off ideas in eachother. They are an ‘authentic audience’;

2) activities like discussion are not simply good forsharing ideas but are good in themselves, as at leastpotentially resulting in classrooms as democraticcommunities of inquiry (Lipman, 1988);

3) individual teaching makes many pupils feel exposed,even with the most understanding of teachers. Theyare often found to be less likely to say they don’tunderstand and may be extremely unlikely to posequestions or to use their own initiative in one-to-onesituations. Responses are frequently terse anduninformative;

4) it is often more fun, more engaging, with moreunexpected positive spin-offs, in classroomparticipation with peers;

5) feelings of belonging, being validated, learningtolerance and respect for other views are importantgoals for all pupils, but especially for those who mayhave had experiences of failure and humiliation;

6) explanations (accounts of what one has done) tojustify a view or make a value judgement before peersare all intellectually enriching, reflective activities;

7) pupils can share and appreciate each others’strengths, like specialised interests or generalknowledge.

Teachers of pupils with learning difficulties, however,often find that there are obstacles to their pupils workingtogether.

The research studyThe research reported here investigated the implementationof group learning in one class, within a department ofspecial education, attached to a mainstream secondaryschool. There were eight pupils in the class, described ashaving moderate learning difficulties, with an averageage of 131/2 years. Their very experienced teacher hadexpressed an interest at an earlier stage in being involvedin research. When the initiation of group learning wassuggested, however, she was doubtful as she knew thatthe pupils in her present class did not relate particularlywell to each other. They did not appear to like each other;there were frequent aggressive encounters; several wereseriously disturbed owing to home circumstances; andthey were varied in ability.

Nevertheless, she also believed that they badly neededhelp with their social awareness and behaviour, particularlyas they progressed through the school. Although, duringher first term, she had concentrated mainly on giving herpupils individual work, the 5-14 Scottish CurriculumGuidelines (SOEID, 1994) had to be implemented in theschool and she was planning a special one-term projectwithin Environmental Studies. This would, she felt, be agood framework for visits, discussions, talking with visitorsand practical activities.

The opportunity for the introduction of group workingin the class appeared to be ideal. The teacher’s focuson the history and geography of her pupils’ home townhad exciting potential for their intellectual and socialdevelopment which would be the focus of our research.From the beginning, the potential advantages of theproject in our (researcher’s and teacher’s) view werethat:

• pupils already had a substantial body of localknowledge to build on;

• they would be encouraged to contribute their ownideas and share them with their peers, and discussionwould be prominent;

• concepts of time and place would be introduced andgeneralised, as among the teacher’s aims were thatpupils should understand what is meant by historyand geography;

• they would plan and evaluate visits in order todevelop their understanding of their own learning ina relaxed atmosphere;

• pupils’ social awareness and understanding (‘gettingon with’ and appreciating each others’ contributions)would be fostered;

• their understanding of other people’s experiences(e.g., miners) would be enhanced through discussionand role play;

• there would be many opportunities for pupils toexplain, summarise, evaluate and reflect on their ownand their group’s learning.


Methods of investigationThe research was carried out during one term in which aclass project involved a study of the local town. Theteacher planned this new departure as a framework fordiscussion, field-trips, interviewing visitors and practicalactivities; all of which would depend on, and encourage,group learning. She also carried out several sessions at thebeginning of the term in which the pupils were introducedto ‘Circle Time’ activities with a focus on groupmembership and its benefits and obligations. The endproduct was to be a video for parents about the project.

Rich and valuable sources of information for theresearch were: video and audio recordings of classactivities; field notes; and the teacher’s tape-recordedcomments and evaluations. Video records, totalling ninehours of some, but not all, of the group teaching sessions,provided valuable information about the pupils’ verbaland non-verbal behaviour. Audio-recordings totalling 15hours of classroom interaction were obtained with astrategically placed tape-recorder. In order to create aslittle disturbance as possible, the research assistant paidseveral visits to the class before the project began, andpractised videotaping and recording group activities. Shemaintained a friendly but minimally participatory presencethroughout the data collection, and wrote field notes aftereach visit. The teacher also recorded her views on theprogress of the project at regular intervals. Using thesesources, two interrelated lines of enquiry were followed:

• the development of conceptual understanding: thepupils’ knowledge, understanding and generalreflection on their learning, in the social context ofthe classroom;

• the development of the pupils’ social awareness:understanding and feelings of belonging.

We investigated these areas of interest by the identificationof periods of classroom interaction (episodes) which werejudged to be significant and of interest. For example, areflective episode might be when a pupil showed signs ofnew understanding, perhaps relating it to some knowninformation, or asking for an explanation of somethingpuzzling. In the second area of interest, an episode ofsocial awareness might be when a pupil expressed someview about the class group, or leaned over to help a peer.The identified episodes in each area made up a ‘bank’ ofreference cards which could be checked and revisited in arange of flexible ways. The two researchers independentlyidentified episodes from video and audio tapes andcross-checked at intervals.

Results and discussionThe development of conceptual understandingPupils developed an increased understanding of conceptswithin their local study, the main evidence for which isderived from 95 episodes, identified from transcripts ofclassroom interaction. These are periods when pupils’interests were engaged and their understanding appearedto develop. Some were planned and orchestrated by theteacher; others were initiated and maintained by pupils;

most but not all involved the teacher’s active participation.There was a marked increase in the number of suchepisodes during the term: 50 were identified during thelast three weeks, compared with 15 during the first threeweeks. And during the last few weeks pupils made amuch greater contribution to classroom talk: on averageabout 40%, compared with only 5% in the first session.

Pupils’ developing conceptual understanding during thecourse of the Project included ideas of time and space (thehistorical and the geographical), and were generally orspecifically, vaguely or precisely, expressed. Episodeswhich were identified showed pupils’ reflection andunderstanding in these broad areas, and the signs of somegeneralising of their understanding; all occurred duringsocial interactive teaching situations. More than one pupilwas commonly involved in an episode; the teacher did notalways participate (although she was usually present);and no attempt was made to test the pupils’ understandingmore formally. The interest lay in their conceptualdevelopment during shared group experiences.

An immediate finding was that four pupils (Colin, Ken,Victor and Pauline) were prominent in the identifiedepisodes. The remaining four pupils also participated, butmade fewer contributions to discussions overall, and theprogress of individual pupils is considered in more detaillater in this article.

Teacher participationThe teacher was a very active participant and produced,on average, 70% of the word total and over 40% of theconversational turns, although (as noted) these proportionsdecreased during the term. Two-thirds of her utterancesexplicitly encouraged pupils to reflect, to clarify and tojustify their ideas, often by pointing out ambiguities, errorsand a lack of consistency. The following are examples:

‘What would a fortune teller be telling us about thepast?’

‘So just by looking for a few minutes at the mapswe’ve found out that…’

‘Do we know that this is actually true or is it just usthinking?’

There was abundant evidence in the data that the groupsetting was one in which the teacher was encouraging thepupils to think about what was being discussed, to ‘gobeyond the given’ in Bruner’s phrase.

Pupil participationWhereas about half of the identified, reflective episodeswere deliberately planned by the teacher to help pupils todevelop and to consolidate their conceptual understanding,others were initiated and often maintained by the pupilsthemselves, and arose spontaneously within the groupcontext. They include examples of pupils’ requests forinformation, their expression of ideas and discoveries,and the relationship of new and old information. In


addition to these very important signs of intellectualengagement and interest are others which directly indicatethat the pupils were learning through social interaction,when, for example, they commented on and evaluatedtheir classmates’ contributions, gave explanations andoffered help. The majority occurred during the last threeweeks, demonstrating the pupils’ increasing participationand confidence, and correspondingly their teacher’s movetowards a less directive role in the group setting.

Evidence of pupils’ progress and understanding is shown by:

a) The production of ideasThe planning of their video proved to be by far the mostsuccessful session as the responsibility of deciding thecontent was very stimulating:

‘We could make up two posters saying “Here comesthe video”, and “Thank you for watching the video”.’

‘And we could make a lantern… and the light couldgo out and we’d all have to rush all the way back justbefore we get to the end.’

‘Somebody could come out and then introduce it.’

‘I’ve got a good idea to tell the class what he said.’

‘We could go up that corridor and we’d have the bigblackboards covered in black to make sure it’s all dark.’

Long utterances, the use of complex sentences, conditionals,hypotheticals, and ideas of responsibility and sharing arestriking features of these later contributions. Sharedactivities were the context in which pupils sometimesdiscussed their discoveries with each other.

Ken. (to whole group) ‘Can I show yousomething?… It’s just like a flat space…’Pauline. (to K) ‘You see if you look through (whiledrawing artefacts).’

b) Making linksIn several episodes a pupil’s satisfaction at encountering anew piece of information, and relating it to something thathe or she already knew, was evident, and was shared withclassmates and teacher.

Donald. (Linked home with a planned visit to an oldcottage) ‘My Mum says, she lived in the oldendays… how in your house only certain rooms wereheated…’

There were also several examples of local facilitiestaking on new meaning as pupils learnt of their historicalassociations.

c) Responding to each otherThere was increasing evidence that pupils were listeningto contributions from their peers, judging their relevanceand learning to justify their criticisms:

Donald. ‘Andrew Carnegie was born in 1875.’Pauline. ‘But he went to America in 1848.’

Commenting on Alan’s performance as a miner duringrole play:

Victor. ‘You wouldn’t be standing up, Alan.’

d) Disagreeing with the expertA general increase in confidence combined with reflectionson each others’ contributions, extended in the later sessionsto pupils’ responses to adult experts:

Colin. ‘Not all in the one room… they had a separateroom.’Teacher. ‘There was a room down the stairs.’Colin. ‘… and upstairs.’Donald. (Hearing that the world is round) ‘It doesn’tfeel like it’s round, eh?… when you walk’ (does so)‘it feels… you’re not going down like this’ (bendsknees).

e) Clarification by pupilsAt the end of term there was further evidence that theteacher’s initially dominant role was reduced, when apupil asked a question and another answered on her (theteacher’s) behalf.

Ken. ‘What’s a brainstorm, Miss?’Pauline. ‘That’s a good idea… a brainstorm is a goodidea.’

Pupils’ social awareness, understanding and feelingsof belongingThis second area of interest can only be briefly discussed.Class activities embedded in the Project which appearedparticularly significant were ‘Circle Time’ and ‘RolePlay’. The evidence indicates that these activities wereespecially meaningful to those pupils who were leastobviously cognitively engaged by the content of the Project.

Circle TimeCircle Time activities were introduced at an early stage,and the class used a conch shell as a ‘talking object’.Consequently, there was a significant reduction in theoverall noise level, and opportunities were provided formore reticent pupils to contribute to the discussion.Donald, with his quiet voice and slow manner, had thetime and the opportunity to express his point of view.Greg, reticent, but alert and responsive in body language,kept non-verbal channels open and continued to listen andto maintain eye contact.

Circle Time was also beneficial in keeping in check thosepupils who might otherwise dominate discussions.Pupils’ turn taking and listening improved, and theybegan to show respect for their peers’ contributions.

Role PlayRole play activities proved invaluable for those pupilswith the most pronounced emotional difficulties. All the


pupils enjoyed them and were animated, excited andenthusiastic; both verbal and non-verbal communicationbecame more co-operative and collaborative, without theencouragement or the participation of the teacher. Pupilswere more spontaneous, more accepting and moreappreciative, and applauded each other at the end ofsessions.

Individual pupilsIn addition to their general participation, individualpupils’ contributions were examined and, although thefour pupils noted were more prominent in the identifiedepisodes, they all made observable and significantprogress.

AlanAlan was, without question, the pupil of most concern tohis teacher. He had experienced a very disturbed year inhis personal life, was often found not to be listening, notengaged and not fully involved in discussions. He mademany irrelevant spur of the moment remarks and sometimeshis responses to questions seemed to arise from vagueword associations which were meaningless in the context:

Park Ranger. ‘What’s a navigator?’Alan. ‘Crocodile.’

In the group setting Alan’s classmates became moreaware and critical of his irrelevant contributions, and theirawareness may in fact have helped to focus his attentionon several occasions.

Pauline. (to T) ‘Alan’s being silly…’ (later) ‘What’she talking about?’Victor. ‘Alan, it’s got nothing to do with that.’

Alan did respond well to role play, and was able tobecome immersed in the activity. His teacher commentedthat it was one thing that he related to and had reallylearned from. On one occasion he lost his self-absorptionsufficiently to try to clarify the teacher’s understanding.His response was significant for, in her words:

‘… he does not usually show an interest in whatother people are saying or in anything to do with theProject or indeed most of the work done in theclass… although of reasonable ability.’

The observations suggest that Alan’s great difficulty insocial awareness and in focusing on classroom activitiescould be addressed through enhancing his sense of groupmembership and his own responsibility within the class,particularly through drama and role play.

ColinColin, of all the class, showed most change in hisinvolvement in planning, producing ideas, and respondingto others, especially during the last weeks. He wasparticularly responsive to the visits, and was animated indiscussion afterwards. His curiosity was often aroused aswhen on seeing a satellite photograph:

Colin. ‘That’s funny, Miss, because space is dark,right? How did they get a picture from space?’

This was a real change for Colin, as the teacher commentedat the end of term:

‘Initially he would talk about something and itwouldn’t be related to the subject. I feel he hasbecome more focused and more willing to keep towhat we’re discussing. Certainly, he has involved hisown experience and brought this to the group. He hasinvolved his parents and shown an interest in what isin the classroom, on the walls, and round about…and he has been very enthusiastic.’

She noted too that Colin was learning not to interrupt andto keep to the topic under discussion.

The activity range, including role play and visits to thelocal environment, was especially congenial to this pupilwith his severe difficulty in reading. He commented thathe had been very interested in the past and the differenceswith the present. Colin endorsed group activities sayinghe got good ideas, both directly from the others andbecause they helped him to ‘spark off’ his own. Insummary there was no question that Colin’s socialand intellectual development was fostered, or of hisenthusiastic participation.

KenKen was actively involved throughout the Project, askingfor information and showing generalisation of hisknowledge and a thirst for facts. He enjoyed providinganswers, and had a relatively well-developed knowledgebase, he knew about the Internet, about existing oldrailways in the town, and talked about going toAmerica.

He was initially uncomfortable with group work:

‘…because we’re all different people… we’re not thesame people because some person says somethingand someone says something else… it makes it moreawkward.’

However, about halfway through the term he maderemarks like:

‘That’s a good one, Pauline… and Joe is agreeingwith me on one thing… we do a poster and a sign.’

Ken’s participation underlined the value of field-trips andvisitors to the class. He was enthusiastically responsive,asking the teacher direct questions, and related new factsto his existing knowledge base:

Teacher. ‘They used to think the world was flat butit’s not, it’s round.’Ken. ‘How did people find out it was round?’

At the end of term the teacher commented:


‘He doesn’t particularly get on with the other childrenin the class. He acts as if he is superior to the otherswhen, in actual fact, that’s a defence because heknows that he’s good at numbers but he’s reallystruggling with reading and writing… and whateveryou do there seems to be an involvement of readingand writing. He also has difficulty with sequencing.If he is told to say something, he has difficulty withthat, so I suppose I shouldn’t really be surprised thathe found it difficult to co-operate.’

Despite his difficulties Ken was one of the most reflectiveparticipants, and his endorsement on completion of theProject could hardly have been bettered.

Ken. ‘You’ve got to think and you enjoy it… youenjoy it. When someone asks you a question you’vegot it right there in your head.’

DonaldDonald had an unsettled background and was judged tohave emotional as well as learning difficulties, tending toalienate his classmates by inappropriate comments andtactile behaviour, making working with them problematic.He was not very active in reflective episodes, but hisrelatively few contributions were evidence of real interestand involvement, as he was able to make links with hisprevious knowledge. A striking example was his thinkingabout the implications of the world being round.

Donald. ‘It doesn’t feel like it’s round when youwalk (demonstrates).’

He was also very interested in aspects of hardship andmade frequent references in discussion to how thingsused to be and to changes over time. He remembered themuseum visit vividly and during role play he wasemotionally involved and animated. At the end of theProject his teacher commented that:

‘… he has a tendency to sit and cop out of what ishappening, but when he was given the responsibilityof the group, he rose to the occasion.’

Donald himself said he had learned from the Project byseeing things and by listening hard. The social benefitsfor him were evident, and he said, ‘it was a lot of fun’.

GregGreg’s extreme reticence in mainstream primary schoolwas the main reason for his placement in the special unit.Shortly after his arrival, when the Project was alreadyunder way, the teacher asked Greg whether he had workedin groups at his primary school. His negative responsemay perhaps go some way to accounting for hisunwillingness to make oral contributions during classactivities. He made very few spontaneous comments andthey hardly figure in the cognitive episodes beingdiscussed in this section, apart from a suggestion of aplace to visit which, unfortunately, was not understood byhis teacher. However, the observations and the video

evidence show that he remained alert and attentive, thathe did not shy away from non-verbal interaction and thathe kept communication channels open, maintaining eyecontact and listening. Shortly after his arrival he said inthe course of a class discussion about their personalstrengths, ‘I’m good at listening.’

Despite his reticence Greg was another pupil for whomrole play seemed especially promising. His normallyrather impassive face became more animated as he playeda non-speaking character and mimed enthusiastically.

Given the brevity of Greg’s attendance and the lack ofexplanation for his unwillingness to speak, one could onlysay that he was part of the group, that he watched andlistened and that his main difficulties seemed unlikely tobe resolved without sensitive and appropriate groupexperiences. It was, therefore, very encouraging to hearhis teacher, a year after the Project, state that Greg nowspeaks and takes turns in group discussions.

JoeJoe had been severely affected by a recent family tragedy.He was described by the teacher as very demanding,having difficulty in the give-and-take of relationships, aswell as in communicating and working with others. Thegroup work involved in the Project might therefore beexpected to be particularly taxing for him. Academicallyhe experienced difficulty in generalising knowledge, andin ordering his thoughts. His ability was judged to be thelowest in his class.

At the end of the Project, however, his teacher said:

‘Joe has shown he’s trying to use experiences fromhis past and from discussing with his Mum at homeand he has brought this back to school with him… achild with very poor academic ability who hasstruggled to take part.’

Joe’s social difficulties were apparent at the start of theProject and he was asked to leave the group on severaloccasions as he was aggressive, loud and disruptive, andfound it very hard to sit and listen to others, especiallywhen they were not concerned directly with his owncurrent interests. On these occasions, however, he soonreturned and hovered on the edge of the group as thoughsimultaneously drawn and threatened by it, but as theProject developed he not only managed to stay with thegroup, but at the end of term was contributing ideas indiscussion, and evaluating their relevance.

Joe. ‘I think we should have somebody introducingthe part about Andrew Carnegie. I’ll do that.’Joe. (on making the video) ‘It pointed out what waswrong and I noticed my behaviour.’

Joe’s quite lengthy reflective and spontaneous commentswere signs of his increasing ability to participate and toattend in situations which he had previously foundextremely difficult.


PaulinePauline, despite home difficulties, was among the mostactive participants, particularly in producing ideas duringthe latter part of term. She was responsive to discussion,interested in new information, which she was ready torelate to her general knowledge. Her skill in keeping trackof progress, and her awareness of accuracy and relevanceis particularly interesting:

Donald. ‘Andrew Carnegie was born in 1875.’Pauline. ‘But he went to America in 1848.’

and

Pauline. What’s he talking about?… he’s spoiling it.’

Along with Colin, Ken and Victor, she was especiallyenthusiastic, producing many ideas in the session wherethe video was planned. Her teacher’s final remarks werethat, although Pauline’s voice was generally dominant, shewas shy to speak when making the video, and disappointedwhen her plan did not turn out as well as expected. Herteacher recognised Pauline’s interest in history, whichwas evident from the transcripts. Pauline’s contributionswere sometimes passed over by her teacher who saw heras tending to monopolise discussions, to be intolerant ofless able pupils, and loud and aggressive, although shecould communicate well and had much to offer in the wayof past experience. Our evidence of her participationconfirms this judgement. At times, the fact of her beingthe only girl in the class may have influenced both herteacher’s perceptions and her own behaviour (loudness ofvoice and bossiness).

VictorVictor was also one of the most active class members andprobably the one the teacher found easiest to teach. Shedescribed him as able to work independently and with asmall group, to organise the less able members, andbeing, ‘… generally very tolerant but negative in hisexpectations of himself’. He was 11 when he movedfrom a mainstream primary school to the unit, as it wasanticipated that he would have difficulty in a very largesecondary mainstream school. He had problems withreading and maths and tended to be careless.

His teacher commented at the end of term that he becamefrustrated at times, and that during a visit he had becomebelligerent when asked to pay attention. She noted that hewas especially interested and involved in the topic ofmining and that (like Pauline) he enjoyed thinking ofdifferent ways of presenting the information. She had nodoubts at all that he had benefited. Of all the class, heappeared most at ease in the group situation, and wasespecially adept and responsive to questions and invitationsto participate. Compared with his classmates he had theability to monitor both his own work and the progress ofdiscussions or group activities. His mainstream primaryschool experience may well have helped him to contribute.The reflective episodes that Victor initiated are notable intheir relative sophistication:

Victor. ‘Oh, I put the wrong one! I put 1964… Ithought it was the Road Bridge.’

He responded to other pupils’ suggestions in a way thatwas acceptable to them:

Victor. ‘I don’t think they had motor bikes in thosedays, so why did you draw a motor bike?’Colin. ‘Because I saw one and that was in wartime.’Victor. ‘Andrew Carnegie wasn’t in the war.’

Pupils’ views on their learningThe pupils’ views and knowledge at the conclusion of theProject were assessed through focused discussion, whichconcentrated on their understanding of history andgeography; sources of information; new learning; andwhat they believed had helped them to learn. Theirteacher was not looking for specific information but forunderstanding and reflection.

It was heartening that, although the four pupils who hadbeen most prominent throughout the Project made moremature and complex contributions, the others showedevidence of both interest and gains in understanding.Even Alan, who often found it hard to focus his attention,provided relevant answers.

a) What does it mean to you when someone says ‘history’or ‘geography’?

Greg. ‘Looking at old things.’Joe. ‘Different people, old-fashioned things.’Donald. ‘What happened in the past and doesn’thappen now, and what we used to use and don’t usenow.’

More complex answers included:

Ken. ‘History is joined up with geography.’Victor. ‘You do geography every day. It’s finding outthings.’

b) Ways of finding out included

Pauline. ‘If you get a map you can go to D----- andfind out where things are.’

All were able to remember visits they had made andanything they had brought back as evidence.

c) Their own learningPupils were asked what they now knew, that they hadn’tknown before:

• Alan referred to his role playing.• Greg mentioned something he had missed but seenon video.• Joe referred to his awareness of his behaviour onvideo.• Pauline said she had learned, ‘a lot of things aboutmines and that’.


• Colin, Ken and Victor all talked of their enhancedawareness of change and stability.Colin. ‘It’s change. It’s still the same but the buseschanged and some buses were a wee bit old.’Ken. ‘You get old stuff and new stuff.’Victor. ‘I learned that there were changes but thereweren’t hundreds of changes… there was still stuffthere that you could go and see.’

d) What helped them remember and think about thehistory and geography of the town?

• Alan. (Again looking back to role playing) ‘Ienjoyed it… I was acting like a mother.’• Joe. Talked of listening to what a visitor told them.• Greg. ‘Going to places.’• Colin. ‘Reading, it helps me remember.’• Victor. ‘Drawing pictures and writing stories.’• Donald. ‘I’ve seen it and listened to the teacher.’• Ken. ‘Finding out things… it’s more interesting.’

And he endorsed the cognitive gains from learning in agroup when he said:

‘You’ve got to listen so that you know what you’regoing to say. You’ve got to think and you enjoy it…you enjoy it. When someone asks you a questionyou’ve got it right there in your head.’

The teacher reported the following changes in herteaching:

‘I would say it has had an effect on the way Iworked. I did devote far more time to sitting with thechildren and talking. I think my concern has alwaysbeen that if there wasn’t something down on paper, itmeant we hadn’t done anything… but I have beenwilling to spend more time just on the talking andthat is something I will continue with.’

Finally she reported that during her work with her presentclass, her priority had been to devote more time to groupdiscussion, more to the use of role play, to making videos,and to recording group activities.

ConclusionInitially the teacher had reservations about the feasibilityand value of group work for her pupils, for reasons whichwill be readily understood and recognised by manyteachers: the range of ability within even a group of eight

pupils with learning difficulties, and the fact that they didnot like, or relate well to, each other. With these came alack of respect for each others’ ideas, undue dependencyon the teacher, and social immaturity, shown by a failureto engage in the kind of social behaviour that couldreasonably be expected of pupils at this stage. On the otherhand she recognised the increasing importance of socialcompetence for her pupils as they developed.

This small study provides evidence that all the pupilsbenefited from the introduction of the group learningexperiences. The group measures over the ten weeks ofthe project showed that pupils gradually spoke for longer,had more extended conversations with each other, andwere involved in more interactions. Individual pupils’different needs were met in different ways and, as wehave seen, the four most intellectually able were thosewho provided most ideas in discussion, were aware ofrelevance and consistency, and worked at a more complexconceptual level. It was also evident that the interest of allpupils was aroused and that their understanding wasenhanced and, although some were not as prominent asothers in the more obviously academic activities, theywere nevertheless absorbing information and gainingconfidence. More striking, however, are their levels ofemotional engagement and an increasing social awareness.

The whole class showed pride and enthusiasm in thevideo that they made and the process of planning andselecting extracts from the videos made during a range ofactivities was clearly salient and engaging. The need toannounce and explain their chosen excerpts proveddemanding for pupils with little developed audienceawareness. Group identity takes time to establish and mayeasily be disrupted. It was only towards the end of theterm that pupils spontaneously talked of helping eachother and responded to classmates’ suggestions. Theincrease in pupil-to-pupil conversations is one sign in ourdata that the teacher was no longer the channel throughwhich every class member communicated. Neverthelessher role in guiding group discussions and other activitiesshould not be underestimated. Pupils with learningdifficulties benefit from the kind of contingent, responsiveteacher-behaviour that is frequently shown in our study,including the effective use of talk that encourages pupils’reflection. The eight pupils were not yet able to managetheir own group learning, but their teacher-managedgroup experiences were productive in ways that she hadnot anticipated, and that could be built on for their futurebenefit.

ReferencesBangert, R., Kulik, J & Kulik, C. (1983) ‘Individualised

systems of instruction in secondary schools’, Reviewof Educational Research. 53, 143-158.

Brown, A., Metz, K. & Campione, J. (l996) ‘Socialinteraction and individual understanding in acommunity of learners: the influence of Piaget andVygotsky’, in J. Voneche (ed.) The Social Genesis ofThought: Piaget and Vygotsky. Geneva: ArchivesJean Piaget.

Carpenter, B. (1997) ‘The interface between theCurriculum and the Code’, British Journal of SpecialEducation. 24 (1), 18-20.

Clark, C., Dyson, A. & Milward, A. (eds.) (l995)Towards Inclusive Schools. London: DavidFulton.

Croll, P. & Moses, D. (1985) One in Five: theAssessment and Incidence of Special EducationalNeeds. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.


Daniels, H. (1990) ‘The modified curriculum: help withthe same or something completely different?’, in P.Evans & V. Varma (eds.) Special Education: Past,Present and Future. London: Falmer Press.

Goddard, A. (1997) ‘The role of Individual EducationalPlans/Programmes in special education: a critique’,Support for Learning. 12 (4), 170-174.

Gross, J. (1996) Special Educational Needs in thePrimary School: a Practical Guide. Buckingham:Open University.

Hart, S. (1996) Beyond Special Needs. London: PaulChapman.

Lipman, M. (1988) Philosophy Goes to School.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Pollard, A. (l993) ‘Learning in primary schools’, inH. Daniels (ed.) Charting the Agenda:Educational Psychology after Vygotsky. London:Routledge.

Scottish Office: Education and Industry Department (1994)5-14: a Practical Guide. Edinburgh: The Scottish Office.

Sebba, J., Byers, R. & Rose, R. (1993) Redefining theWhole Curriculum. David Fulton: London.

Watson, J. (1996) Reflection through Interaction: theClassroom Experience of Pupils with LearningDifficulties. London: Falmer Press.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Address for correspondenceJudith WatsonUniversity of EdinburghHolyrood RoadEdinburghEH8 8AQEmail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication: July 1998

Thanks are due to Jane Ross and Dorothy Holliday for their invaluable assistance.

THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELDDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL STUDIES

Distance Learning Programme

MEd/Dip Inclusive Education

Course Directors: Felicity Armstrong and Len Barton

This course is designed for all those with an involvement in the management and provision of educationwhether this is realised in ‘special’ or ‘mainstream’ provision, through all age phases of school andpost-16 colleges. The course is written from a commitment to the principles of an inclusive education,which we would define as one which seeks to respond to individual differences through an entitlementof all learners to common curricula and to be equally valued and recognised, regardless of any apparentdifference or difficulty.

The course allows students to pursue their own professional interests through a study of 4 Modules:• Insider Perspectives• Difference, Difficulty and Inclusive Education• Learning, Management and Curriculum• Cross-cultural Issues in Special and Inclusive Education

MEd students write a 20,000 word dissertation based on their own small-scale enquiry.

For Further particulars write to Mrs T Earnshaw, University of Sheffield, Dept of Educational Studies,388 Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JA, or telephone 0114 222 8116 (answerphone), or [email protected] (quote ref BJSE).

working in groups: social and cognitive effects in a special class

Documents