Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Teaching for Young Learners
Vol. 3:1 (2021) ► pp.66–92
Survey Article

Pedagogical challenges of foreign language teaching in mixed-age primary school classrooms

A teacher-researcher’s insights

| University of Leipzig
An increasing number of primary schools, mainly in western European countries, have established mixed-age (M‑A) classrooms due to the belief of the teaching community in the pedagogical and social benefits of this approach. In the area of foreign language teaching, the M‑A approach has gained popularity, particularly at the primary school level. However, despite the increase in the number of M‑A foreign language classrooms, the benefits of this approach remain unclear. This lack of clarity might be caused by the lack of research on M‑A teaching practices in foreign language classrooms. In this article, I first describe what M‑A classrooms are and address relevant research findings on M‑A teaching. At the heart of the article, I address in detail some important pedagogical challenges of M‑A teaching. Specifically, I consider in what ways and to what extent differentiated instruction is possible in these classrooms. Later, I discuss the issue of the “right” approach to M‑A teaching and provide some pedagogical suggestions.
Keywords: young learners, primary school classrooms, foreign language teaching, differentiated instruction, mixed-age
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1What are mixed-age classrooms?
    • 2.2General education research on M‑A classrooms
      • 2.2.1Research on cognitive and social benefits of M‑A classrooms
      • 2.2.2Research on teaching practices in M‑A classrooms
    • 2.3Research on mixed-age foreign language classrooms
      • 2.3.1Models of mixed-age language teaching
      • 2.3.2Research on peer interaction in mixed-age classrooms
    • 2.4Summary of research on M‑A classrooms
  • 3.Pedagogical challenges of M‑A language classrooms
    • 3.1Differentiation for students’ interests
    • 3.2Differentiation for students’ language skills
    • 3.3Differentiation through teacher’s scaffolding
    • 3.4Differentiation through peer interaction
  • 4.Some pedagogical suggestions for M‑A primary school language teaching
    • 4.1The “right” approach for a mixed-age primary school classroom
    • 4.2Combining same-age and mixed-age teaching
    • 4.3Tasks and storyline in M‑A primary school classrooms
    • 4.4Promoting peer assistance and peer mediation
  • 5.Conclusion
  • 6.Future directions
  • References
Published online: 16 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19016.kos
References (52)
References
Ahlquist, S. (2013). ‘Storyline’: A task-based approach for the young learner classroom. ELT Journal, 67(1), 41–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Motivating teens to speak English through group work in Storyline. ELT Journal, 73(4), 387–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Batstone, R., & Philp, J. (2013). Classroom interaction and learning opportunities across time and space. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 109–125). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, M. (1998). A multiple intelligences road to an ELT classroom. Carmarthen: Crown House.Google Scholar
Brewster, J., Ellis, G., & Girard, D. (2012). The primary English teacher’s guide. Harlow: Penguin English.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching, The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 381–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davin, K. J., & Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 461, 5–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doff, S., & Giesler, T. (2014). Jack in search of Jill. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der individuellen Förderung im Englischunterricht. In T. Bohl, A. Feindt, B. Lütje-Klose, M. Trautmann, & B. Wischer (Eds.), Friedrich Jahresheft “Fördern” (pp. 79–81). Seelze: Friedrich.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, S. S. (2014). Unterrichten in altersdurchmischten Klassen mit Young World 1–4. Baar: Klett und Balmer.Google Scholar
Gerard, M. (2005). Bridging the gap: Towards an understanding of young children’s thinking in multi-age groups. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(3), 243–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, P. (2011). The special value of children’s age mixed play. American Journal of Play, 3(4), 500–522.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, R., & Slavin, R. E. (1992). Achievement effects of nongraded elementary school: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 621, 333–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinzmann, S., Ries, S., & Wicki, W. (2015). Expertise „Altersdurchmischter Fremdsprachenunterricht im Fach Englisch. Forschungsbericht, 511. Luzern: Pädagogische Hochschule Luzern.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J. (2003). Multiage teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(1), 5–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huff, C., & Raggl, A. (2015). Social orders and interactions among children in age-mixed classes in primary schools – new perspectives from a synthesis of ethnographic data. Ethnography and Education, 101, 230–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyry-Beihammer, E. K., & Hascher, T. (2015). Multi-grade teaching practices in Austrian and Finnish primary schools, International Journal of Educational Research, 741, 104–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalaoja, E., & Pietarinen, J. (2009). Small rural primary schools in Finland: A pedagogically valuable part of the school network. International Journal of Educational Research, 481, 109–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, L. G., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J. (1990). The case for mixed-age grouping in early education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.Google Scholar
Koerrenz, R. (2011). Schulmodell: Jena-Plan. Grundlagen eines reformpädagogischen Programms. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.Google Scholar
Kos, T. (2017). Peer assistance among mixed-age pairs in mixed-age EFL secondary school classrooms in Germany. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 61–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Patterns of interaction: Analysis of mixed-age peer interactions in secondary school classrooms in Germany. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 9(1).Google Scholar
Kuhl, P., Felbrich, A., Richter, D., Stanat, P., & Pant, H. A. (2013). Die Jahrgangsmischung auf dem Prüfstand: Effekte jahrgangsübergreifenden Lernens auf Kompetenzen und sozio-emotionales Wohlbefinden von Grundschülerinnen und Grundschülern [Multi-grading on trial: Effects of learning in multi-grade classes on students’ competence and socio-emotional well-being]. In A. Schulze & R. Becker (Eds.), Bildungskontexte: Strukturelle Voraussetzungen und Ursachen ungleicher Bildungschancen (pp. 299–323). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landrum, T. J., & McDuffie, K. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated instruction. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 18,1, 6–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, E., & Lindahl, E. (2011). The effect of mixed-age classes in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 121–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Little, A. W. (2007). Education for all and multigrade teaching: Challenges and opportunities. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
(2004). Learning and teaching in multigrade settings. Background paper for UNESCO (2005). EFA Global Monitoring Report. Retrieved from [URL]
Mason, A., & Burns, R. B. (1997). Reassessing the effects of combination classes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 31, 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2007). The preparation of teachers for multigrade teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 501–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pape, M. (2016). Didaktische Handeln in jahrgangsheterogenen Grundschulklassen. Eine qualitative Studie zur Inneren Differenzierung und zur Anleitung des Lernens [Didactic action in heterogeneous primary school classes. A qualitative study of inner differentiation and guidance in learning]. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
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(0), 80–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saqlain, N. (2015). A comprehensive look at multi-age education. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(2), 285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shamir, A., & Tzuriel, D. (2004). Children’s mediational teaching style as a function of intervention for cross-age peer-mediation. School Psychology International, 251, 58–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, J. K. (2014). Teaching young learners in English as a second/foreign language settings. In M. C. Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (4th ed.). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning & Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Song, R., Spradlin, T. R., & Plucker, J. A. (2009). The advantages and disadvantages of multiage classrooms in the era of NCLB accountability. Education Policy Brief, 7(1). Retrieved from [URL]
Smit, R., & Engeli, E. (2015). An empirical model of M‑A teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 741, 136–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thoren, K., & Brunner, M. (2019). State-wide implementation of mixed-age learning: Which types can be identified, and do they differ in their school and teaching quality? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 22(2), 279–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurn, S. (2011). Individualisierung ernst genommen. Englisch lernen in jahrgangsübergreifenden Gruppen (3/4/5). Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and Noncognitive effects of multigrade and multiage classes: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 319–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagener, M. (2014). Gegenseitiges Helfen. Soziales Lernen im jahrgangsgemischten Unterricht [Helping each other. Social learning in age-mixed lessons]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waschk, K. (2008). Öffnung des Englischunterrichts in der Grundschule: Studien zur Wahlfreiheit und Lernerautonomie. Duisburg: Univerisitäts Verlag Rhein-Ruhr.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 students of different proficiency Llvels: Their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL students. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts-Taffe, S. B. P., Broach, L., Marinak, B., McDonald Connor, C. & Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2012). Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher decisions. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 303–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, A., & Tedick, D. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom: Does heterogeneous grouping promote peer linguistic scaffolding? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yule, G., & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 401, 539–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Komorowska, Hanna & Jaroslaw Krajka
2024. Trends in European language education policy on teacher education: Teaching foreign languages to young learners. Glottodidactica 51:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.