Abstract
This case study compared preservice primary school teachers' and primary school teachers' experiences with multi-grade teaching in the 2018–2019 academic year. The sample consisted of 17 fourth-year students in the department of primary school teaching education of a public university and 14 multi-grade teachers from 12 schools in Turkey. The preservice teachers and multi-grade primary school teachers developed similar lesson plans and executed similar learning processes. Although the multi-grade teachers claimed that they used different methods (brainstorming, drama, observation, etc.), the preservice teachers observed them mostly use Q&A and direct instruction techniques. The preservice teachers did not use multidisciplinary teaching activities but instead showed students videos and slides and designed textbook-based activities. They did not use different methods to plan a multi-grade lecture. Multi-grade teaching training offered by the faculties of education should be interdisciplinary and encourage collaboration among teachers from other branches (e.g., teacher agency).
Introduction
Teaching is what makes us human. It seems to be done in classrooms, but it is actually done in the heart. The word shapes us when written on the heart, not on paper. It is, in a sense, “social engineering.” To achieve this, primary school teachers should have an interdisciplinary perspective and provide learning environments for students with different personalities and prior knowledge. Primary school teachers have multiple responsibilities because those years underlie future development. This process involves classroom management, selection of activities, and assessment varying by grade level and school type. Single-grade and multi-grade classrooms are the two sides of the same coin. While single-grade primary school teachers teach only one grade, it is different for multi-grade teachers. Single-grade teachers develop activities for one grade and one subject. However, multi-grade classrooms are a “nightmare” for teachers because they have to design the class to appeal to every grade level in the classroom (Blease & Condy, 2014). In a multi-grade classroom, one teacher lectures to two or more grade levels (Hargreaves, Montero, Chau, Sibli, & Thanh, 2001). They are common and sometimes mandatory in regions where there are many students but few teachers (Çıkrık, 2017).
Multi-grade teaching was discussed extensively in Turkey for the first time in 1951. Based on Prof. K. V. Wofford's analysis, first, second, and third graders were grouped as one multi-grade classroom, and fourth and fifth graders as another (Deniz, 2019). Multi-grade teaching was officially put into practice with a draft in 1968. Core courses (life sciences, social studies, and science) are also taught in multi-grade classrooms as of the 2000–2001 academic year. Multi-grade classrooms included first, second, third, fourth, and fifth graders until the 2012-2013 academic year. With the new regulation, the duration of primary education was reduced to four years (Al, 2019). Multi-grade teaching is common in many European countries (Netherlands, Norway, England, Scotland, Spain, Italy, and France), especially in less densely populated regions (Checchi & Paola, 2018). Multi-grade teaching is used to address educational challenges and provide high-quality and efficient education (Brunswic & Valerien, 2004; Little, 2006). According to Butler, “multi-grade teaching, depending on its type, can improve student performance” (1998, p. 89). Besides, Kaka, Dehraj, Rao, and Memon (2019, 69) said: “curriculum of multigrade classes need to include such topics which are integrated and easy to select a common topic for multigrade class.” For that reason, integrating disciplines with different ways (interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, multidisciplinary eg.) could be a way of possible solution as well.
Studies on multi-grade teaching address literacy and text analysis in primary school (Açan, 2015; Utlu, 2019; Wilkinson & Hamilton, 2003), teachers' views (Aikman & Pridmore, 2001; Arıcı, 2015; Blease & Condy, 2014; Brown, 2010; Coşkun, 2018; Demir-Çetin, 2019; Deniz, 2019; Dirik, 2015; Doğan, Çapan, & Cigerci, 2020; Engin, 2018; Erdem, 2018; Erdost-Özenir, 2019; Kuzu & Aslan, 2012; Mason & Burns, 1995; Mason & Doepner III, 1998; Mulryan-Kyne, 2004; Ocak & Yıldız, 2011; Ocakcı, 2017; Summak, Gören-Summak, & Gelebek, 2011), effectiveness of methods and strategies employed by multi-grade teachers (Balcı-Sekin, 2019; Blease & Condy, 2015), challenges of multi-grade teaching (Çıkrık, 2017; Durdudiler, 2019; Göçer, 2014; Gönül, 2019; Özkan, 2019; Şekerci, 2015; Temizyürek, 2019), preservice teachers' views on multi-grade teaching (İzci, 2008; İzci, Duran, & Taşar, 2010; Sağ, 2011; Taşdemir, 2014), views of students and their parents, and program developers on multi-grade teaching (Berry, 2001; Buaraphan, Inrit, & Kochasila, 2018; Butler, 1998; Checchi & Paola, 2018; Hargreaves, 2001; Kara, 2020; Kivunja & Sims, 2015; Kucita, Kivunja, Maxwell, & Kuyini, 2013; Küçük, 2016; Msimanga, 2020; Quail & Smyth, 2014; Şeker, 2014; Shareefa, 2021; Silva-Peña, Precht, O’Brien, & Jara, 2020), program development for the “Multi-Grade Teaching” course offered by the faculty of education (Karakuş, 2019), technological pedagogical content knowledge of multi-grade primary school teachers (Kaya, 2015), theoretical analysis of multi-grade teaching (Aksoy, 2008; Benveniste & McEwan, 2000; Bruce, 1991; Hargreaves et al., 2001; Irvin, McLaughlin, Irvin, & Doda, 1999; Little, 2006; Lloyd, 1999; Mason & Burns, 1996; McEwan, 1998; Mulryan-Kyne, 2007; Veenman, 1995), and violence-bullying among students of multi-grade classrooms (Rambaran, van Duijn, Dijkstra, & Veenstra, 2019). However, there is no research on both theoretical and applied aspects of multi-grade teaching in the eyes of preservice teachers and primary school teachers. Primary school teachers see multi-grade teaching as “a great nuisance and something that is hard to achieve” (Summak et al., 2011). This makes it imperative to look into the training offered by the faculties of education because how well primary school teachers perform multi-grade teaching depends on how well the faculties of education train them. We believe that determining the views of preservice teachers who learn multi-grade teaching in theory and those who put it into practice will increase their performance. Berry (2001) also argues that it is necessary to analyze what methods and strategies the multi-grade teachers employ in practice.
Research questions
The main research question of this study was, “What are the multi-grade teaching experiences of preservice teachers and multi-grade teachers?” The study also sought answers to the following sub-questions:
What kind of lesson plans do preservice teachers develop and execute within the scope of the course “Multi-Grade Teaching”?
What are preservice teachers' observations of multi-grade teachers in schools?
What do multi-grade teachers think about multi-grade learning processes?
Method
Research design
This study investigated preservice primary school teachers' theoretical lesson plans within the scope of the undergraduate course “Multi-Grade Teaching” and multi-grade primary school teachers' performance in real learning environments. This was a case study, which is a qualitative research design. The case study was the research design of choice because it is a convenient method for studies seeking to find out the “what,” “how,” and “why” of a phenomenon (Yin, 2018, p. 40).
Participants
The sample consisted of 17 fourth-year students (13 women and four men) of the department of classroom education of the Faculty of Basic Education of Muş Alparslan University and 14 multi-grade primary school teachers (five women and nine men) from 12 schools in the district of Merkez of the city of Muş in the academic year 2018–2019. Participants were recruited using criterion sampling. Multi-grade primary school teachers had one (n=2), two (n=1), three (n=4), five (n=4), six (n=2), or nine years (n=1) of work experience. They all had been trained in classroom teaching. Nine of them had taken a theoretical multi-grade teaching course, while four had taken an applied multi-grade teaching course. The main objective of criterion sampling is to elicit as much information as possible about a phenomenon in question (Patton, 2014, p. 238). The inclusion criteria for the preservice teachers were as follows: (1) taking the multi-grade teaching course, (2) having prepared a lesson plan, and (3) having agreed to participate in the study. The preservice teachers observed voluntary multi-grade teachers in real-life classrooms (at least one). Table 1 presents the general characteristics of the schools.
General characteristics of schools
| School | Distance to Muş (km) | Multi-grade classrooms | Number of primary school teachers | Number of students | Total number of classrooms |
| A | 5 | 1+2, 3+4 | 2 | 33 | 2 |
| B | 20–21 | 1+2+3+4 | 1 | 15 | 2 |
| D | 50 | 1+2, 3+4 | 2 | 24 | 2 |
| E | 40 | 2+3, 1+4 (In the first semester, the first and fourth grades were single-grade classrooms, but they were combined as the teacher was appointed to another school) | 2 | 38 | 3 |
| F | 20 | 1+2, 3+4 | 2 | 39 | 2 |
| G | 15 | 1+2, 3+4 | 2 | 28 | 2 |
| H | 16 | 1+2, 3+4 | 2 | 24 | 2 |
| I | 17 | 1+2+3+4 | 1 | 6 | 1 |
| J | 17 | 1+2, 3+4 | 2 | 17 | 2 |
| K | 45 | 1+2, 3+4 | 2 | 31 | 2 |
| L | 25 | 1+2, 3+4 | 2 | 40 | 2 |
| M | 3 | 1, 2+3, 4 | 3 | 43 | 3 |
Data collection tools
Data were collected from the preservice teachers' lesson plans (for natural sciences, mathematics, Turkish, social studies, and life sciences courses), observations, and views of their observations. The multi-grade teachers also observed the preservice teachers putting their lesson plans into practice in their multi-grade classrooms. Therefore, the data also included the multi-grade teachers' observations and views of the preservice teachers' performance. Using more than one data collection tool improves credibility (Glesne, 2014). Participants' documents, field observations, and views were used to ensure data diversity. Observation is used for triangulation. In other words, it is one of the integral components of triangulation assessment, together with the interview and document analysis used to prove findings (Merriam, 2015). The multi-grade teachers' observations and views and the preservice teachers' lesson plans and observations were used for analysis. The preservice teachers' observations and evaluations of the multi-grade teachers' performance provided data diversity on multi-grade teaching.
The preservice teachers developed lesson plans and observed classes as participant observers once a week for nine weeks on specific dates and took field notes during the observation sessions. The multi-grade teachers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview form consisting of easy-to-understand and unbiased questions based on expert feedback (an expert with a Ph.D. in primary school teaching training, an expert working on a Ph.D. thesis in classroom teaching, and an expert with a Ph.D. in Turkish teaching). A pilot study was conducted with three primary school teachers, and the form was finalized based on their feedback.
Data collection and analysis
Each preservice teacher developed a lesson plan every week from March to May 2019 for multi-grade classes. The researcher gave them feedback on their lesson plans every week. They conducted participant observation for three months (March to May 2019) in the multi-grade classrooms of the schools in the district of Merkez of the city of Muş. They made observations in different classrooms of the same schools. Figure 1 provides information on the observation process.
General information on observations
Citation: Hungarian Educational Research Journal 13, 2; 10.1556/063.2022.00132
Data were coded using second-cycle coding and analyzed using inductive content. The first cycle involves the contextual categorization of data (Saldana, 2019), while the second cycle involves the revision and analysis of data encoded in the first cycle and the association of categories, codes, and themes with one another (Glesne, 2014). The researcher firstly coded the lesson plans, then the observational data, and lastly, the interviews. Another researcher with a Ph.D. in primary school teaching education and is currently conducting qualitative studies checked the codes, themes, and categories. The themes and categories were finalized based on consensus.
Credibility and consistency
The study was conducted for three months (March to May 2019). Legal and ethical permission was obtained. Participation was voluntary. All information about participants and village schools with multi-grade classrooms were presented in detail. An expert was consulted for impartiality in qualitative data analysis. The category names were modified based on expert feedback. Participants were assigned pseudonyms (Aylan, Ela, Suat, etc.), and observation schools were assigned codes (A, B, C etc.) to ensure confidentiality and protect their anonymity. The preservice teachers observed multi-grade teachers without any intervention. The preservice teachers' lesson plans, observations, and views and the multi-grade teachers' observations and views of the preservice teachers' performance were used to ensure data diversity.
Limitations
The study had two limitations. First, data were derived from preservice teachers' weekly observations and teaching performance between March and May in the second semester of the 2018–2019 academic year. Second, the results are specific to the multi-grade teachers of the primary schools in Merkez/Muş and the fourth-year students of the department of primary school teaching education of the faculty of education of Muş Alparslan University.
Results
The results of the first sub-question
This section addressed the theoretical lesson plans developed by the preservice teachers within the scope of the course “Multi-Grade Teaching.” They put their lesson plans into practice simultaneously in multi-grade classrooms of first and second graders, third and fourth graders, second and third graders, and first, second, third, and fourth-graders. They simultaneously lectured life sciences and social studies, social studies and natural sciences, mathematics and Turkish, and life sciences and mathematics courses. They also lectured one course to more than one grade level simultaneously, such as teaching Turkish to first and second graders or math to third and fourth graders. Table 2 provides a general assessment of the lesson plans.
Preservice teachers' lesson plans for multi-grade classes
| Theme | Code | Preservice teachers |
| Introduction/Attention | Use of materials (videos, slides, worksheets, textbooks, etc.) | Emel, Saliha, Şeyma, Gamze, Suna, Zeynep, Salih, Merve, Eda, Nihade, Fuat, 2Nihal |
| Q&A | Aydan, Emel, Salih, Merve, Eda, Murat, Nihade, Fuat, Nihal | |
| Talking about a case/Telling a story | Emel, Salih, Fuat | |
| Play | Nihal | |
| Learning-Teaching Activities | Use of materials (videos, slides, activity papers, textbooks, etc.) | Aydan, Şeyma, Gamze, Zeynep, Salih, Merve, Eda, Nihade, Nihal, Kerime |
| Q&A | Saliha, Suat, Gamze, Suna, Zeynep, Salih, Nihade, Nihal | |
| Lecturing | Suat, Gamze, Suna, Salih, Nihal | |
| Reading | Saliha, Merve, Fuat | |
| Problem Solving | Murat, Nihal | |
| Play | Şeyma, Merve | |
| Experiment | Zeynep | |
| Enactment | Saliha | |
| Observation | Nihade | |
| Concept Map | Nihade | |
| Talking about a Case | Nihade | |
| Evaluation | Worksheets/Textbooks/Test/Activity assignments | Emel, Suat, Saliha, Şeyma, Gamze, Suna, Zeynep, Salih, Merve, Eda, Murat, Nihade, Fuat, Nihal, Kerime |
| Q&A | Aydan, Saliha, Nihal | |
| Discussion | Aydan | |
| Turning into a story | Saliha | |
| Lecturing | Saliha | |
| Play | Nihal |
Zahide: “She lectured in the Q&A format, which was effective.”
(Learning-Teaching Activities, Q&A)
The results of the second and the third sub-questions
This section discussed the preservice teachers' observations of the multi-grade teachers' lectures and focused on the multi-grade teachers' views of learning processes. The results showed that multi-grade teachers had no daily lesson plans. Table 3 provides a general assessment of the preservice teachers' observations. The results about the multi-grade teachers' views of learning processes were grouped under three headings; “principal authorized teacher practice (Table 4),” “learning-teaching process (Table 5),” and “multi-grade teaching (Table 6).”
Preservice teachers' observations of multi-grade teachers
| Theme | Category | Subcategory | Multi-grade teachers |
| Learning-teaching activities | Choice of Method/Technique/Approach | Q&A | All Teachers |
| Lecturing | Emre, Kadir , Salim, Zahide, Furkan, Gökhan, Ayhan, Beril, Efe, Harun, Funda, Aybüke | ||
| Drama | Salim, Emre | ||
| Discussion | Gökhan | ||
| Brainstorming | Gökhan | ||
| Individualized education plan development | Zahide | ||
| Use of materials | Textbooks/activity papers | Salim, Emre, Kadir, Gökhan, Ayhan, Harun, Funda | |
| Evaluation | Homework assignments | Test/Activity papers/Textbooks | All teachers |
Multi-grade teachers' views of principal authorized teacher practice
| Theme | Code | The multi-grade teachers |
| Negative | Excessive administrative duties/Workload | Emre, Kerem, Harun, Zahide, Gizem, Gökhan, Ayhan, Beril, Funda, Aybüke |
| Administrative duties as an obstacle to teaching | Emre, Harun, Gizem, Ayhan, Funda, Aybüke | |
| Dealing with everything at the same time | Salim, Gökhan, Ayhan | |
| Not enough time for oneself | Emre, Kadir, Zahide | |
| Positive | Learning administrative affairs | Salim, Emre, Kağan, Zahide, Gökhan, Beril |
| None | Salim, Kadir, Kağan, Funda | |
| Experience | Emre, Zahide, Funda | |
| Process planning | Emre, Zahide | |
| Prestige | Kadir |
Multi-grade teachers' views of the learning-teaching process
| Theme | Category | Subcategory | Multi-grade teachers |
| Multi-Grade Life Sciences Course | Choice of Method/Technique/Approach depending on the topic | Talking about a case | Salim, Emre, Zahide, Gizem, Ayhan |
| Presentation | Salim, Kağan, Beril, Aybüke | ||
| Turning the abstract into the concrete | Emre, Zahide, Beril | ||
| Q&A | Emre, Gökhan, Ayhan | ||
| Discovery | Kağan, Ayhan | ||
| Education outside the classroom | Emre, Funda | ||
| Tests | Zahide | ||
| Puzzles | Zahide | ||
| The six thinking hats | Emre | ||
| Station | Emre | ||
| Discussion | Ayhan | ||
| Drama | Emre | ||
| Brainstorming | Ayhan | ||
| Use of materials | Textbooks | Kadir, Harun, Ayhan | |
| Activity papers | Beril, Funda, Aybüke | ||
| Smartboard | Ayhan, Aybüke | ||
| Multi-Grade Science Course | Choice of Method/Technique/Approach depending on the topic | Q&A | Emre, Zahide, Gökhan, Ayhan, Beril |
| Presentation | Emre, Kağan, Gizem, Beril, Funda | ||
| Discovery | Kağan, Gizem, Beril, Funda | ||
| Experiment | Salim, Emre, Zahide, Aybüke | ||
| Lecturing | Zahide, Gökhan, Aybüke | ||
| Education outside the classroom | Kadir, Ayhan, Funda | ||
| Observation | Zahide | ||
| Drama | Gizem | ||
| Showing and getting it done | Zahide | ||
| Brainstorming | Emre | ||
| Discussion | Gökhan | ||
| Use of materials | Computer/projector/smartboard | Salim, Aybüke | |
| Textbooks | Harun, Gizem | ||
| Multi-Grade Social Sciences Course | Choice of Method/Technique/Approach depending on the topic | Talking about a case | Salim, Emre, Gizem, Beril, Aybüke |
| Q&A | Salim, Emre, Ayhan | ||
| Lecturing | Emre, Zahide, Gökhan | ||
| Turning the abstract into the concrete | Emre, Zahide | ||
| stories | Salim | ||
| Brainstorming | Ayhan | ||
| Drama | Emre | ||
| The six thinking hats | Ayhan | ||
| Presentation | Kağan | ||
| Discovery | Kağan | ||
| Education outside the classroom | Beril | ||
| Discussion | Ayhan | ||
| Use of materials | Computer/projector/smartboard | Ayhan, Funda, Aybüke | |
| Textbooks | Kadir, Harun, Ayhan |
Multi-grade teachers' metaphors for multi-grade teaching
| Category | Metaphors | Multi-grade teachers |
| Need | Mother | Gökhan, Beril, Funda, Kadir |
| Country Being president | Emre | |
| Dealing with all parts of the market | Salim | |
| Seven-armed dragon | Harun | |
| Octopus | Aybüke | |
| Awareness | Rainbow | Zahide |
| Patience/labor | Farming | Gizem |
| No response | – | Kağan, Ayhan |
Eda: “The teacher did direct instruction and Q&A, but he could have used some other methods as well. All he did was talk about the topic. The materials were not enough, I mean, he didn’t use enough materials. He couldn’t use many methods and techniques. The downside was that the students had difficulty understanding the lecture. He was the only one who was active during class.”
(Learning-Teaching Activities, Choice of Method/Technique/Approach, Q&A)
As for the second and third sub-questions, there is an inconsistency between the preservice teachers' observations of the multi-grade teachers and the multi-grade teachers' statements about their own performance. The preservice teachers observed that the multi-grade teachers used methods and techniques similar to those they had in their lesson plans. On the other hand, the multi-grade teachers claimed that they used different methods and techniques in their lectures.
Salim: There is nothing good about the principal authorized teacher practice for the teacher. I mean, he has to be in charge of everything; for example, when other teachers are discussing with parents, he has to deal with it as the principal. He is responsible for all the duties of a principal, and on top of that, he has to plan the class and deliver it and deal with all other things about the school, like repairs, paint, and paperwork, and whatnot. As an advantage, he learns how to do filing and draw up a staff absenteeism list, so he learns how to do paperwork.
(Negative, Dealing with Everything at the Same Time)
Table 5 presents the multi-grade teachers' views of the learning-teaching process.
Ayhan: “I mostly present cases in life sciences classes because real-life examples make the students more attentive and make what they learn stick. I show some videos on the smartboard and also use the textbooks. As I said, I use the methods of talking about a case, Q&A, brainstorming, discussion, and discovery learning because they make the students more engaged and the class more productive. I generally use the smartboard, computer, and textbooks.”
(Choice of Method/Technique/Approach Depending on the Topic)
Table 6 presents the metaphors generated by the multi-grade teachers for multi-grade teaching.
Kadir: A multi-grade teacher is like a mother who is a superhero (Doctor, Nurse, Chef, Organizer) because she always takes care of her students. You always have to search for new things and improve yourself.
(Need, Mother)
Discussion and conclusion
This study investigated what multi-grade primary school teachers and preservice primary school teachers thought about multi-grade teaching.
Results shows that the preservice teachers could not successfully implement multi-grade teaching because their lesson plans lacked interdisciplinarity and different methods and techniques. This is because “Multi-Grade Teaching” is a theoretical course that lacks activities integrating different age groups and disciplines. In other words, fresh graduates are ill-equipped for multi-grade teaching. Research also shows that students of the faculties of education do not receive adequate training in multi-grade teaching, and therefore, have no idea about it when they enter professional life (Silva-Peña et al., 2020). Moreover, the faculties of education offer little to no training about teaching in rural regions or care less about it than other educational programs (Checchi & Paola, 2018; İzci, 2008; Little, 1995). The faculties of education in Turkish universities changed “Multi-Grade Teaching” from a core course to an elective course titled “Alternative Education Practices in Primary School” in 2018 (URL 1). However, the new course also falls short of providing an adequate basis for multi-grade teaching. The courses on multi-grade teaching offered by education faculties are insufficient (İzci et al., 2010). Teachers can modify their teaching methods and techniques to overcome this problem and positively change students' learning (Checchi & Paola, 2018). Schools should be supported to develop programs and train their teachers for effective multi-grade teaching (Colbert, 1999). Also, resources should be managed in such a way that schools can employ well-trained multi-grade teachers (Juvane, 2005). However, the multi-grade teachers in this study did not pay much attention to interdisciplinarity and different methods and techniques and instead took refuge in Q&A sessions. This result shows that multi-grade teachers focus on things other than classroom activities and professional development. Multi-grade teachers talk about insufficient physical and technological infrastructure, ineffective communication with students and their parents, and harsh environmental conditions and village life (Anılan, Kılıç, & Demir, 2015; Başer & Karaman, 2015; Çapuk & Ünsal, 2017; Çıkrık, 2017; Demir-Çetin, 2019). However, Quail and Smyth (2015) see multi-grade classrooms as settings that allow different age groups and grade levels to learn effectively.
All multi-grade teachers held Q&A sessions and used direct instruction and gave homework assignments (evaluation stage) based on textbooks or activity papers in their classes, regardless of the core course (life sciences, social studies, or natural sciences) even though students in multi-grade classrooms tend to devote all their energy to homework assignments, resulting in passive learning (Aikman & Pridmore, 2001). Unlike our results, Jordaan (2006) states that multi-grade classes allow teachers to make their own decisions about learning-teaching processes and develop and execute their own lesson plans. Mulryan-Kyne (2005) also argues that multi-grade teachers can use different methods and materials and integrate different disciplines (drama, music, physical education, visual arts, etc.) for all grade levels. Msimanga (2020) and Shareefa (2021) state that multi-grade teachers can set up learning stations (reading, mathematics, fine arts, etc.) and make use of customized activities to contribute to students' learning. Haingura (2014) suggests that multi-grade teachers should design creative and engaging in-class activities. The multi-grade teachers in this study performed poorly, probably because they are ill-prepared for classes, know little about new teaching methods, have little time for professional development due to the principal authorized teacher practice, and fail to adopt a multidisciplinary approach to teaching due to the lack of field knowledge. It may also be related to multi-grade teaching practices varying from country to country. However, some studies show that insufficient time and resources prevent multi-grade teachers from performing effective in-class activities (Abay, 2006; Çıkrık, 2017; Köksal, 2009; Little, 2006; Mason & Burns, 1996). The multi-grade teachers in this study just checked the annual lesson plans online instead of developing daily lesson plans, which is probably because the Ministry of Education and the faculties of education do not have a joint educational policy or training project for multi-grade teaching (Kucita et al., 2013). Another cause may be that multi-grade teachers have little time to prepare lesson plans because they have to devote a significant amount of time and attention to performing principal authorized teaching. The multi-grade teachers in this study also stated that the principal authorized teacher practice prevented them from performing their profession because they were overwhelmed by workload and administrative tasks they had to tackle at the same time, which earlier studies have also reported (Göçer, 2014; Gönül, 2019; Mason & Burns, 1995; Mulryan-Kyne, 2004; Summak et al., 2011; Veenman, 1995, 1996). They regarded multi-grade teaching as a challenging task that required multitasking, and therefore, could not devote enough time to in-class learning-teaching activities. They also argued that undergraduate education was only theoretical. Kucita et al. (2013) also note that multi-grade teachers feel incompetent because they are inadequately trained in multi-grade teaching. Therefore, most teachers have little to no experience in delivering multi-grade classes before they enter professional life. In college, most preservice teachers are trained in single-grade teaching (Kivunja & Sims, 2015; Mulryan-Kyne, 2007), which also explains our results. The multi-grade teachers in this study delivered their lectures mostly in a monotonous fashion. The multi-grade teachers and preservice teachers designed similar learning-teaching processes. The preservice teachers repeated the mistakes they criticized the multi-grade teachers for. Training and collaboration can help multi-grade teachers better plan their lessons and stay organized (Benveniste & McEwan, 2000; Seashore-Louis & Marks, 1998). However, some of the multi-grade teachers stated that the principal authorized teacher practice helped them learn administrative tasks and gain experience. This result shows that multi-grade teachers are interested in investing in their personal development and careers.
The multi-grade teachers generated the metaphors of “need,” “difference,” and “patience/labor” to describe multi-grade classes, which was similar to earlier studies (Yener & Atalay, 2018).
Suggestions
The following are suggestions based on the results:
For multi-grade teaching training, the faculties of education should offer activities (e.g., teacher agency) that encourage students to develop an interdisciplinary perspective and collaborate. The Ministry of Education and the faculties of education should collaborate to develop applied teacher training programs.
Preservice teachers and multi-grade teachers should plan their lessons together and get professional support to improve different teaching methods. The faculties of education should offer applied courses on multi-grade teaching and collaborate with national education provincial directorates to allow students to put theory into practice.
Multi-grade teachers should get help from preservice teachers to perform multiple tasks at the same time. Preservice teachers should take an internship in schools with multi-grade classrooms to develop teaching skills and reduce multi-grade teachers' workload.
The results of this study are limited to the multi-grade teachers of the village schools in a city in the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey and the students of the faculty of education of a university in the same city. Therefore, future studies should focus on teachers and students from different cities and analyze the effects of classroom activities on students.
About the authors
Ayça KARTAL is Assoc. Prof. Dr. and a faculty member at the department of primary school education in Muş Alparslan University. Her lines of research are related to interdisciplinary education in primary school, social studies education and drama in education.
Elif GÜVEN DEMİR is a doctor and a faculty member at the department of primary school education in Düzce University. Her lines of research are related to elementary mathematics education, primary school teaching and teacher education.
Acknowledgments
This study was created by developing the paper which was presented in “The European Conference on Educational Research (ECER)” in Geneva (online) between 6 and 9 September 2021.
References
Abay, S. (2006). Problems teachers faced in learning and teaching process in a combined class practise (Publication No. 186586) [Master Thesis, Atatürk University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Açan, M. (2015). Describing the process of beginning reading and writing instruction in a multigrade class: A case study (Publication No.397412) [Master Thesis, Gazi University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Aikman, S., & Pridmore, P. (2001). Multigrade schooling in ‘remote’ areas of Vietnam. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(01)00012-8.
Aksoy, N. (2008). Multigrade schooling in Turkey: An overview. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.05.002.
Al, H. (2019). An investigation of the relationship between classroom management skills and job satisfaction of teachers working as principals in multigrade classes (Publication No. 600796) [Master Thesis, Atatürk University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Anılan, H., Kılıç, Z., & Demir, Z. M. (2015). Become teachers in rural areas: Perspective of classroom teachers. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 10(11), 149-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8450.
Arıcı, F. (2015). The use of basic education right in combined classrooms (Publication No. 394940) [Master Thesis, Akdeniz University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Balcı-Sekin, D. (2019). The effect of teaching life science course with drama on social skills level in the multigrade classes (Publication No. 574725) [Master Thesis, Fırat University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Başer, Z., & Karaman, A. C. (2015). Enacting the national curriculum in a rural elementary school: A qualitative study of a beginning language teacher's experiences. Elementary Education Online, 14(1), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.67314.
Benveniste, L. A., & McEwan, P. J. (2000). Constraints to implementing educational innovations: The case of multigrade schools. International Review of Education, 46(1/2), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003922321999.
Berry, C. (2001). Achievement effects of multigrade and monograde primary schools in the turks and caicos islands. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(01)00014-1.
Blease, B., & Condy, J. (2014). What challenges do foundation phase teachers experience when teaching writing in rural multigrade classes? South African Journal of Childhood Education, 4(2), 36-56. https://doi.org/10.4102/SAJCE.V4I2.203.
Blease, B., & Condy, J. (2015). Teaching of writing in two rural multigrade classes in the western cape. Reading & Writing, 6(1), 1- 9. https://doi.org/10.4102/.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057071003607428.
Bruce, M. (1991). Teaching and learning in the multigrade classroom: Student performance and instructional routines. ERIC clearinghouse on rural education and Small Schools Charleston WV. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED335178.
Brunswic, E., & Valerien, J. (2004). Multi-grade schools: Improving access in rural Africa? https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000136280/PDF/136280eng.pdf.multi.
Buaraphan, K., Inrit, B., & Kochasila, W. (2018). Current policy and practice concerning multigrade teaching in Thailand. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 39, 496-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.06.008.
Butler, A. (1998). Multigrade practices and music: Student perceptions of class environment. Contributions to Music Education, 25(1), 87-100. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24127069.
Çapuk, S., & Ünsal, M. (2017). The factors affecting professional development of classroom teachers working in village schools. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 12(25), 193-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.12334.
Checchi, D., & Paola, M. D. (2018). The effect of multigrade classes on cognitive and non- cognitive skills. Causal evidence exploiting minimum class size rules in Italy. Economics of Education Review, 67, 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.10.003.
Çıkrık, M. (2017). The problems of teachers who work in multigrade classes (examples in denizli and Erzurum) (Publication No. 481787) [Master Thesis, Pamukkale University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Colbert, V. (1999). Improving the access and quality of education for the rural poor: The case of the new school in Colombia. Paper presented at the Development of Primary Education in Africa: a refresher study programme for World Bank staff. IDS, University of Sussex, Sussex.
Coşkun, M. (2018). The evaluation of reading comprehension skill of first grade students educating in split classes and united classes (Publication No. 498724) [Master Thesis, Ordu University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Demir-Çetin, P. (2019). Teacher opinions on the first reading and writing education in the multigrade classes (Publication No. 554017) [Master Thesis, Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Deniz, O. (2019). Investigation on opinions of new classroom teachers on their first teaching of literacy in multi-grade classes (Publication No.565632) [Master Thesis, Trabzon University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Dirik, E. (2015). Multigrade class teachers' thoughts towards the application of the multiple intelligences of theory (Publication No. 415649) [Master Thesis, Gaziosmanpaşa University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Doğan, F. Ş., Çapan, S. A., & Cigerci, F. M. (2020). Dilemmas in teaching English in multigrade classrooms: Classroom teachers’ perceptions on English as a foreign language course. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 14(1), 52-68. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1253545.pdf.
Durdudiler, A. A. (2019). Investigation of the satisfaction level and life satisfaction of class teachers working in the combined classes (Publication No. 602508) [Master Thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Engin, G. (2018). The opinions of the multigrade classroom teachers on multigrade class teaching practices (multiple case analysis: Netherlands-Turkey example). International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(1), 177-200. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.129.13.
Erdem, E. (2018). The opinions of teachers who work in primary schools with multigrade classes and independent classes relating to social skills of students (Publication No. 488911) [Master Thesis, Fırat University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Erdost-Özenir, G. (2019). The comparison of multigrade class and single-grade classteachers metaphors about school concept (Publication No. 580127) [Master Thesis, Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Glesne, C. (2014). Nitel araştırmaya giriş (Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction) (Trans. Eds. A. Ersoy & P. Yalçınoğlu). Ankara: Anı Publishing.
Göçer, V. (2014). The problems experienced in multigrade classes: A case in malatya province (Publication No. 394673) [Master Thesis, Zirve University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Gönül, İ. (2019). Views on the problems of the teachers that assigned in the multigrade classes (Publication No. 554351) [Master Thesis, Amasya University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Haingura, S. S. (2014). An investigation of multigrade teaching at three primary schools in the Kavango region, Namibia [Unpublished master thesis]. Stellenbosch University. https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/95830.
Hargreaves, E. (2001). Assessment for learning in the multigrade classroom. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(01)00015-3.
Hargreaves, E., Montero, C., Chau, N., Sibli, M., & Thanh, T. (2001). Multigrade teaching in Peru, Sri Lanka and Vietnam: An overview. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(01)00013-X.
Irvin, J. H., McLaughlin, H. J., Irvin, J. L., & Doda, N. M. (1999). What research says: Crossing the grade level gap: Research on multiage grouping. Middle School Journal, 30(3), 55-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.1999.11494589.
İzci, E., (2008). Class teacher candidates’ views toward joint class teaching. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 7(25), 111-122. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/esosder/issue/6139/82368.
İzci, E., Duran, H., & Taşar, H. (2010). An investigation in multigrade class teaching with respect to primary school teacher candidates’ perceptions and in views of primary school teachers working in multigrade classes. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 19–35. http://kefad.ahievran.edu.tr/Kefad/ArchiveIssues/PDF/f0389106-ce54-e711-80ef-00224d68272d.
Jordaan, V. A. (2006). Facilitators course on multi-grade teaching. Bloemfontein: Free State Department of Education.
Juvane, V. (2005). Redefining the role of multi-grade teaching. Policy lessons, options and priorities. Paper presented at Ministerial Seminar on Education for Rural people in Africa, Ethiopia, 7-9 September.
Kaka, G. A., Dehraj, M. A., Rao, A. H., & Memon, M. N. (2019). Challenges to primary school teachers in multigrade schools and their possible solutions. Journal of Education and Practice, 10(28), 67-70. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/download/49980/51626.
Kara, E. (2020). Comparison of key values of primary school students in the multi-grade and in the single-grade (Publication No.624227) [Master Thesis, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Karakuş, F. (2019). Curriculum development study on the multigrade classroom teaching course (Publication No. 562214) [Doctoral Diss., Çukurova University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Kaya, E. (2015). The determination of technological pedagogical content knowledge levels of multi grade school teachers (Publication No. 399403) [Master Thesis, Fırat University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Kivunja, C., & Sims, M. (2015). Perceptions of multigrade teaching: A narrative inquiry into the voices of stakeholders in multigrade contexts in rural Zambia. Higher Education Studies, 5(2), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n2p10.
Köksal, K. (2009). Birleştirilmiş sınıflarda öğretim [Teaching in multi-grade classrooms] (5th ed.). Ankara: Pegem Publishing.
Kucita, P., Kivunja, C., Maxwell, T. W., & Kuyini, B. (2013). Bhutanese stakeholders’ perceptions about multi-grade teaching as a strategy for achieving quality universal primary education. International Journal of Educational Development, 33, 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.05.009.
Küçük, F. (2016). Multigrade and split grade students' acqusition level of self confidence, charity and susceptibility to innovation values in social studies curriculum (Publication No. 421730) [Master Thesis, Bartın University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Kuzu, H., & Aslan, S. (2012). Investigation of views of multigrade classroom teachers on life sciences curriculum (a qualitative study). Turkish Studies – International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 7(2), 693-706. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.3364.
Little, A. (1995). Multi-grade teaching: A review of research and practice. Occasional paper No. 12, Overseas Development Agency, London. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED459042.pdf.
Little, A. W. (2006). Education for all and multigrade teaching: Challenges and opportunities. Dordrecht: Springer, ISBN 978-1-4020-4590-5.
Lloyd, L. (1999). Multi-age classes and high ability students. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 187-212. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069002187.
Mason, D. A., & Burns, R. B. (1995). Teachers' views of combination classes. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(1), 36-45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27542008.
Mason, D. A., & Burns, R. B. (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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066003307.
Mason, D. A., & Doepner, III, R. W. (1998). Principals' views of combination classes. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(3), 160-172. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27542147.
McEwan, P. (1998). The effectiveness of multigrade schools in Colombia. International Journal of Educational Development, 18(6), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(98)00023-6.
Merriam, S. B. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Ankara: Nobel Akademi Publishing.
Msimanga, M. R. (2020). Teaching and learning in multi-grade classrooms: The lepo framework. Africa Education Review, 17(3), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2019.1671877.
Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2004). Teaching and learning in multigrade classrooms: What teachers say. The Irish Journal of Education, 35, 5-19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30077492.
Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2005). The grouping practices of teachers in small two-teacher primary schools in the republic of Ireland. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(17), 1-14. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ722349.
Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2007). The preparation of teachers for multigrade teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.003.
Ocak, G., & Yıldız, S. Ş. (2011). The evaluation of the applicability of the 2005 social studies curriculum in multigrade teaching in terms of teacher views (a qualitative research). Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(2), 873-879. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ927381.pdf.
Ocakcı, E. (2017). Investigation of the class management qualifications and the views of multigrade classroom teachers about class management (Publication No. 469425) [Master Thesis, Atatürk University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Özkan, Ş. (2019). The examination of undesirable behaviours of multigrade classroom students in classroom management and the methods the coping with them (Publication No. 587249) [Master Thesis, Atatürk University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Publishing.
Quail, A., & Smyth, E. (2014). Multigrade teaching and age composition of the class: The influence on academic and social outcomes among students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.06.004.
Rambaran, J. A., van Duijn, M. A. J., Dijkstra, J. K., & Veenstra, R. (2019). Peer victimization in single‐grade and multigrade classrooms. Aggressive Behavior, 45, 561–570. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21851.
Sağ, R., (2011). Developing a self-efficacy scale for becoming a teacher in multigrade classes. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41, 386-397. http://efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/shw_artcl-708.html.
Saldana, J. (2019). The coding manual for qualitative researchers .Ankara: Pegem Akademi Publishing.
Seashore-Louis, K., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1085627.
Şeker, H. (2014). The status of academic and social success of students who graduated from multigrade schools, inHigher levels of education (Publication No. 366392) [Master Thesis, Gazi University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Şekerci, K. (2015). Analyzing the burnout levels of teachers working in multigrade classes (case of Şanlıurfa province) (Publication no. 439891) [Master Thesis, Zirve University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Shareefa, M. (2021). Using differentiated instruction in multigrade classes: A case of a small school. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(1), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1749559.
Silva-Peña, I., Precht, A., O’Brien, T. V., & Jara, C. (2020). Far away, but yet so close. Urban teacher education and rural schools: Directors’ point of view. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1772892.
Summak, M. S., Gören-Summak, A. E., & Gelebek, M. S. (2011). Problems encountered in multi-grade classes and teachers’ suggestions for possible solutions (a case study in Kilis province). Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(3), 1221-1238. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jss/issue/24243/257017.
Taşdemir, M. (2014). The views of prospective primary school teachers about multigrade classes: Expectations and metaphors. Turkish Studies - International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(2), 1459-1475. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.6269.
Temizyürek, S. (2019). Investigation of the problems of teachers working in the combined classes (sample of Kayseri province) (Publication No. 597136) [Master Thesis, Erciyes University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
URL 1. https://www.yok.gov.tr/kurumsal/idari-birimler/egitim-ogretim-dairesi/yeni-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlariretrieved on 15.09.2020.
Utlu, G. (2019). Assessment of text processing process in multigrade classes (Publication No. 574892) [Master Thesis, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065004319.
Veenman, S. (1996). Effects of multigrade and multi-age classes reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 323-340. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066003323.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Hamilton, R. J. (2003). Learning to read in composite (multigrade) classes in New Zealand: Teachers make the difference. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00105-1.
Yener, Y., & Atalay, F. (2018). The metaphorical perception of the class teacher candidates regarding multigrade class and multigrade class teacher. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3), 1822-1840. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/555540.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). USA: California.
