Children’s Social Behavior in Relation to Participation in Mixed-Age or Same-Age Classrooms
Diane E. McClellan & Susan J. Kinsey

Abstract

Research on the social and cognitive effects of grouping children in mixed-age (where there is an age span of at least 2 years among children) versus same-age classrooms is gaining increasing interest among practitioners and researchers. The present investigation used a teacher rating scale, based on research into the correlates of children’s social skillfulness and acceptance by other children, to assess children’s social behavior in mixed- and same-age classrooms. Confounding variables such as the child’s age and sex, the teacher’s educational level, and classroom practices were statistically controlled. Further, a pretest of teacher ratings of kindergarten children who were later assigned to either a mixed- or same-age first-grade classroom showed no preexisting behavioral differences. Findings suggested a significant positive effect on children’s prosocial behavior as a result of participation in a mixed-age classroom context. In addition, fewer children appeared to experience social isolation in mixed-age classrooms than in same-age classrooms. Aggressive behaviors were significantly less likely to be noted by teachers in mixed-age than in same-age classrooms. Follow-up ratings were taken of third-grade children, all of whom were by then enrolled in same-age classrooms. Children who had previously participated in mixed-age classrooms continued to be rated as significantly less aggressive and significantly more prosocial by their third-grade teachers. No differences were found in friendship patterns between children previously enrolled in same-age versus mixed-age classrooms.


The Importance of Social Development

Significant results in both the academic and affective domains favoring mixed-age classes have been demonstrated by a number of researchers (Anderson & Pavan, 1993; Marshak, 1994; McClellan, 1991; Miller, 1991; Nye et al., 1995; Pratt, 1986). Particularly noteworthy is Anderson and Pavan’s review of 37 studies, which demonstrates improvement in test scores on standardized tests and improved attitudes toward school for students in mixed-age classes and especially for "blacks, boys, underachievers and students of low socioeconomic status" (p. 50). Of approximately 18 studies that looked specifically at low-income populations and mixed-age grouping, mixed-age emerges as a structure that, overall, promotes higher achievement scores, stronger social development, better self-concepts, and more positive attitudes toward school (Anderson & Pavan, 1993). Results are more pronounced the longer students are involved in mixed-age programs.

Theoreticians and researchers suggest that there is evidence that the growing child’s social interaction is important in the development of his or her cognitive abilities (Rogoff, 1990; Tizard, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978). In an extensive review of current research on brain development, Caine and Caine (1991) conclude that "emotions and cognition cannot be separated" (p. 66). Indeed, social cognition may lay the foundation for cognition in general within both the development of the individual person and the genetic heritage of the species (Chance & Mead, 1953; Humphrey, 1976; Jolly, 1966; Tizard, 1986). If this is the case, we might look at mixed-age groups as providing the child with a rich and complex social environment that contributes to both greater social facility and greater cognitive competence.

Social behaviors of prominent interest to researchers because of their impact on developmental outcomes (Parker & Asher, 1987) include friendship patterns, prosocial behavior, and aggressive behavior. In the following section, we will discuss the role that each of these behavioral subsets plays in children’s development. We will also discuss research exploring the relationship of mixed- and same-age grouping to friendship, prosocial, and aggressive behaviors.


Friendship, Prosocial, and Aggressive Behaviors

Research by Bloom (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987) suggests that the quality of young children’s social competence accurately predicts academic as well as social competence in later grades. Social rejection in childhood decreases children’s opportunities to achieve social competence (Parker & Asher, 1987) and is increasingly considered a serious problem that adults often fail to acknowledge or correct (Olweus, 1989). A study by Asher, Hymel & Renshaw (1984) revealed that unpopular children are significantly more likely to report episodes of loneliness than popular children. Additional research suggests that children experience greater social isolation (Adams, 1953; Zerby, 1961) in same-age than in mixed-age classrooms. Classes that are highly unidimensional, a construct frequently associated with same-age grouping, are reported to have more social "stars" (Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1984) but also more rejected and/or neglected children.

How well a child is liked by other children, or the child’s "sociometric status," has been identified as one of the most accurate ways of selecting children who might be at risk for a variety of serious problems later in their lives (Parker & Asher, 1987). Neglected or withdrawn children have been shown to display significantly greater increases in prosocial behavior when paired with younger peers than when paired with same-age peers (Furman, Rahe, & Hartup, 1979). With the added practice and confidence these children gain, their social skillfulness may increase and lead to greater acceptance by children of all ages.

Prosocial behaviors include helping, sharing, cooperating, and caring for or taking responsibility for another (Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxler, & Chapman, 1983). The capacity for prosocial behavior has been shown to increase with age in cultures where children are given opportunities and expected to help in the care of younger children (Whiting & Whiting, 1975). The provision of opportunity for prosocial action makes mixed-age groups highly pertinent. While it is not suggested that same-age mates do not behave prosocially toward one another, there is some evidence that younger children are more likely to elicit prosocial behavior from children than are same-age mates. The physical appearance or "babyness" of young children may make them more likely to evoke caregiving behaviors from children older than themselves. Furthermore, children are more likely to direct their assistance seeking or dependent behavior toward older rather than same-age or younger children (Whiting & Whiting, 1975). These two conditions may make it likely that prosocial behavior will emerge more frequently in mixed-age classrooms than in same-age classrooms. Finally, because of the classroom structure, teachers in mixed-age classes are more likely to ask children to help one another than teachers in same-age classrooms.

Children who are aggressive and disruptive are often disliked and avoided by other children (Dodge, 1983; Hartup & Moore, 1990). Over time, aggressive children tend to associate more frequently with other aggressive children, thus reinforcing and solidifying an aggressive behavioral pattern (Ladd, 1983). Because aggressiveness and social rejection in childhood are the most consistent predictors of later life difficulties (Parker & Asher, 1987), conditions that vary in the extent to which they foster or reduce aggressive and disruptive behavior bear careful examination. Indicators that same-age classrooms may be related to higher levels of physical and verbal aggression than mixed-age classrooms may be of particular importance.

Bronfenbrenner (1970) argues that the concentration of same-age peers is a major factor in the extremely high incidence of aggressive, antisocial, and destructive acts in United States society. On the other hand, individuals who are familiar with one another are more likely to avoid aggression and respond positively to one another than are individuals unfamiliar with one another (Marler, 1976; Sherman, 1980). Because children in mixed-age classrooms live together in the same classroom for 2 or more years, it is likely that mixed-age groups may promote prosocial behavior in children, and concomitantly reduce aggression. Thus, the mixed-age classroom may help children who are or who are aggressive and/or disruptive before formal intervention becomes necessary.

Furthermore, it may be that the mixed-age setting is more likely than a same-age setting to avoid the polarization of teacher and students by facilitating an atmosphere of shared responsibility for classroom order. Research supporting this hypothesis is provided by Lougee and Graziano (1985) who observed that children given the opportunity to provide leadership for younger children in rule enforcement not only assisted the teacher in reminding younger students of classroom procedures but also tended to improve in their own behavior.


Mixed-Age Education as a Vehicle for Educational Reform

According to William Miller (1995) of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District of Ann Arbor, Michigan, "Educators have merely accepted the age-graded organizational structure as a way of doing things within the system of public education. As our society has changed, so must our schools" (p. 3). In the face of the lack of success in widespread implementation of alternative educational contexts, the "factory" model of education remains the predominant educational model in America’s schools (Cuban, 1989).

However, there is increasing evidence that this model is inconsistent with a wealth of recent research on the developing human brain (Caine & Caine, 1991; Huttenlocher, 1990; Kandel & Hawkins, 1992; Squire, 1992) and the kinds of educational strategies that bring about optimal learning and development. Ample research (see Ames, 1992; Johnson, Johnson, Johnson-Holubee, & Roy, 1984; Johnson, 1991; McClellan, 1994) demonstrates that children think more, learn more, remember more, take greater pleasure in learning, spend more time on task, and are more productive in classes that emphasize learning in well-implemented cooperative groups rather than in individualistic or competitive structures. Recent empirical findings demonstrate academic gains for students participating in mixed-age classrooms (Nye et al., 1995). This research supports the supposition that children’s opportunities to interact with more advanced and less advanced peers strengthen their cognitive skills, including, it is likely, social cognition. Additional support for the benefits of the mixed-age classroom is generated by research demonstrating that behaviors elicited in younger children when relating to children older than themselves include more mature and cognitively complex play (Goldman, 1981; Mounts & Roopnarine, 1987; Howes & Farver, 1987). These younger children also exhibit less reliance on adults and greater reliance on their peers for help in caretaking and problem-solving situations (Goldman, 1981; Ridgway & Lawton, 1965; Reuter & Yunik, 1973).

In conclusion, it appears from previous research that mixed-age grouping may be one aspect of a classroom environment that enhances the development of social and cognitive abilities (Piaget, 1977; Tizard, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978).


Refining Our Knowledge of the Effects of Mixed-Age Grouping

Predominant social/emotional effects of educational contexts (including mixed- or same-age grouping) that have been considered by researchers are children’s attitude toward school and self-concept development. While no adverse social effects have been demonstrated in previous research, conflicting or inconclusive results on the influence of mixed-age structure on classroom behavior (Sundell, 1994; Veenman, 1995) suggest the need for more refined and definitive investigations, particularly delineating what constitutes the "mixed-age classroom." Veenman (1995), for example, notes that of the 11 studies meeting his criteria for inclusion in a meta-analysis directed at the cognitive effects of mixed- age versus same-age grouping, only two studies presented evidence of initial comparability of the experimental and control groups. Further research is needed to more specifically determine both the nature and impact of the mixed-age classroom.

In the following sections, we explore the potential of mixed-age versus same-age grouping for predicting children’s prosocial, friendship-making, and aggressive behaviors. Our intent is to establish greater control over the many variables that may confound attempts to investigate the apparent differences between classrooms that have a mixture of ages and classrooms that are grouped according to an age span no greater than 1 year. Our investigation should not, therefore, be considered an exploration of multiage or mixed-age grouping as a broad philosophy that includes such approaches as cooperative groups, interest centers, and opportunities for child-directed projects. Rather, our exploration of mixed-age grouping is along the more narrow lines of what precise contribution the mixing of ages itself makes to children’s social development. We have taken several steps to tease out differences in the power of mixed-age versus same-age classrooms in predicting children’s aggressive, prosocial, and friendship behaviors.

First, we performed a pretest on kindergarten children who were all enrolled in same-age groups to detect potential initial differences that might account for later differences in social behavior at first through fifth grade. Second, we took steps to insure that the schools participating in the study were similar in their philosophic and procedural approach to children’s education, regardless of whether children were enrolled in mixed-age or same-age classrooms. Third, using multiple regression data analysis, we controlled statistically for the many child, teacher, and classroom variables that might confound the validity of mixed-age versus same-age classroom in predicting children’s social behavior. In so doing, we hoped to identity if, and to what extent, mixed-age grouping, versus child, teacher, and classroom characteristics, makes a unique contribution to the creation of a classroom milieu that supports children’s social development.


Discussion

Oden & Ramsey (1993) note that the usefulness of research into children’s social competence is often compromised because researchers, in an attempt to design carefully controlled studies that eliminate confounding variables through contrived random assignment situations, lose ecological validity. Such research may prove significant and provide a sizable effect size but provide little information about the variable of interest when it is related to dozens of other variables that are at play in a typical classroom, community, and family. We cannot control for or change the numerous genetic and environmental social characteristics that a child brings to the classroom. But we can begin to identify those variables in the classroom—through investigations in real classrooms as well as experimental and observational studies—that have unique as well as cumulative effects on children’s social behavior and development.

We have learned a great deal in the last dozen years about individual differences in children’s social acceptance by peers, but we know far less about the classroom contexts that affect children’s social behavior and acceptance. A large portion of the research that concerns itself with children’s social development has focused on the role of the individual child’s behavior as a major factor in his or her status as accepted, rejected, or neglected by peers (Oden & Ramsey, 1993). Less attention has been paid to the possibility that the kinds of environments that are created for children may affect their social behavior with their peers and may influence levels of rejection or neglect by peers. It may be that environmental factors such as the inclusion of a relatively large number of children of the same age in one group, vying with one another for a place in the classroom community, exacerbates the very social deficits in children that we then attempt to measure and/or ameliorate through individual interventions with children deemed inadequate in social skills.

The presence (Kagan, Reznick, & Gibbons, 1989) and tenacity (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983) of individual differences in social skills and acceptance, and subsequent effectiveness of social skills training, have been documented and are not disputed. Rather, the issue of interest in this study is what kinds of social environments encourage, in our classroom communities,the growth and, where necessary, remediation of children’s social skills. Specifically, the question of interest in this study has been whether the way children are grouped (homogeneously or heterogeneously) potentially contributes to children’s social behavior for better or worse.

Although there are clearly limitations to this study, we believe the data and questions raised warrant further study. Specifically, the data suggest that participation in a mixed-age classroom does predict that children’s behavior will be more prosocial, more grounded in friendship and acceptance by peers, and less fraught with aggression than does participation in a same-age classroom.

Although parent and child pretests at kindergarten indicated no significant differences in social behavior, children who participated in first through fifth grades in same-age versus mixed-age groups were not assigned randomly to these groupings; nor were teachers. Various teacher and classroom variables were controlled for statistically to minimize these differences, but the complexity of all that goes into determining whether a teacher will choose to teach in a mixed- or same-age classroom is, in all likelihood, more complex than those variables we were able to control for. Future research might explore the random assignment of teachers (trained in both approaches) to a mixed- or same-age context.

Many other questions have yet to be explored. For example, are there age spans (2, 3, 4 years?) that are most beneficial to the social development of children in a mixed-age classroom (Katz, Evangelou, & Hartman, 1990)? Do children in mixed-age groups need to be taught particular skills for functioning in this kind of environment? Fuchs et al. (1996) offer evidence that children who are specifically trained in facilitating the learning of others (rather than lecturing their younger peers, for example) are more effective in bringing about cognitive growth in the process of helping children solve an intellectual (or presumably social) problem. Many other questions remain to be explored as we attempt to maximize the benefits of the mixed-age classroom among a constellation of complementary approaches to children’s learning.

The carryover of reduced aggression in children who moved from a mixed-age to a same-age experience is interesting because of research that demonstrates that increased aggression is one of the most stable and predictive variables for later life difficulties (Parker & Asher, 1987). In addition to possible long-term consequences, the importance of short-term benefits in classroom variables should not be considered inconsequential. As Forman notes (Reggio Emilia electronic discussion group, September 7, 1996), [information on REGGIO-L can be found in the Reggio Emilia section of the ECAP/ITG Web site] long-term effects are not necessarily a reliable measure of the merits of a particular teaching method: "If we refine our attention to the form of improved performance, then we can support methods that render these forms. Every child has a right to be competent within and in terms of the current month. If we pay close attention to the months, the years will take care of themselves."

Mixed-age grouping is not a magic bullet, nor is it a technique we recommend that teachers use without consideration of complementary teaching and learning strategies. Rather, it is an approach that teachers interested in innovation may come to see as part of an evolving sense of the many characteristics (cooperative learning, the Project Approach, learning centers, and a decentralized classroom, for examples) that contribute to educational environments they believe are most beneficial for children’s intellectual, academic, physical, dispositional, social, and emotional development.