GROUP TEACHING

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28234, 23 March 1957, Page 6

GROUP TEACHING

Present Problem Of Large Classes

CHANGES WOULD BE COSTLY

[.Specially written for “The Press” by the headmaster of a Christchurch primary school.}

CCHOOLS were originally established for the mass instruction of more than 100 pupils at a time by one teacher, discipline was of the rigid army type, learning was by rote and there was no movement in class except to orders. Buildings found their model on the prison or barracks plan and the efficiency of the teacher measured by the number of pupils he could control and silence'to the point of being able to hear a pin drop. Payment to teachers was according to results obtained in examinations by inspectors.

The whole development of our school system has been away from its original concept. Discipline has become less rigid, there has been a development of greater personal contact between teacher and taught, the teaching syllabus has been widened greatly, there is much more freedom for the child to be “natural,” a greater recognition of individual differences in children, and more emphasis on what a child needs as a child.

Now, it is the Education Department which decides which subjects shall be taught in our schools, how many teachers shall be appointed to each school and which lays down the general pattern of what is desirable in our schools. And at every move away from the original rigidity of the system, some people have approved the new step, some have expressed regret. However, it is one thing for the authorities to declare that the school should do certain things, and an entirely different thing to carry the suggested changes into effect. Any and every change in the classroom must be made, not by the authority which declares it to be desirable, but by the practising teacher in the classroom. Therefore, the change from class teaching to group teaching involves the teacher in the problem of interpreting and applying the principle in a practical manner.

In this application and interpretation, a great deal will depend upon the capacity and skill of the individual teacher concerned; and teachers, like any other group of people, have widely differing capacities and skills. So, if group teaching means to some teachers (or parents) that you divide your class into groups for every subject of the curriculum, if the assumption is that children will teach themselves, that the groups can always control themselves, that the work of the class will go on if the teacher sits back and allows the children to “have their heads,” then parents, as electors, might just as well close the schools and save some of their income tax. It is obvious, of course, that no responsible authority would regard the things I have mentioned as in any way a justifiable interpretation of an educational principle. If such practices occur, and I do not know whether they do or not, no-one should hesitate to say that the teacher must be at fault. Keeping in mind the very essential idea that we must not

throw away the past completely when we make changes involving human relationships and the equally valid thought that existing conditions determine the extent to which changes can successfully be made, let us have a look at this principle of group teaching, envisage what it could really do in our schools, calculate how much of the Aold-fashioned class teaching we must justifiably preserve, and discuss the practical issues which condition the extent to which the change may be made successfully. “What Is a Class?” The first question we must ask is, “What is a class?” In our New Zealand schools it is a group of 40 to SO pupils (and may be more) half of whom are children of average ability, roughly a quarter who have a limited capacity, and a quarter who have ability well above the average of children of their age. Two or three of these may be very bright indeed, and the same number in the other quarter may be of very limited capacity. Group teaching means that the teacher of such a class tries to divide his pupils into these three groups and endeavours to teach them accordingly. It means that most pupils may proceed at a pace suitable to their ability, and surely that is good. It also means-that the upper groups will do more advanced work than other? and that children of lower capacity will follow a limited course but will understand it Surely that is good, too. Group teaching also means that the teacher divides his class for some subjects, such as the three r’s and treats the class as a whole for others. He might take the class as a whole for singing, but divides it for swimming instruction. Another teacher might group it for singing. There are no rules or absolutes. Each teacher must decide how far he can reasonably go according to the class in which he finds himself and according to his capacities and skills. Where he can teach ability groups and retain the power to see that all children in the class are being properly taught and supervised, and also, quite often perhaps, teach the class as a whole when economy of time or ordinary common sense makes that course the better one, then he is following a sound interpretation of the principle we are discussing.

Sound in Principle I have tried to show that group teaching is sound in principle because it gives the teacher the prospect of closer educational contact with your child and therefore the chance to teach him on better lines, and that it is both unwise and unnecessary to throw away the class lesson on all occasions.

There is the third point: “What are the existing conditions in our schools which will affect the extent to which the change can be made successfully?” Here I must go purely into the realm of opinion, which is simply this: teaching two or three groups in a large class of 40 or 50 and more pupils places very large demands upon the teacher. In a class of 20 or so in a small country school, the problem is great enough, but double the class and I would say that you quadruple your difficulties. So if the Education Department is in earnest over this matter and wishes to extend the idea of group teaching, it will have to reduce the size of classes very much indeed and provide from public funds much more technical facility and equipment, in our schools. That means money, and that means your income tax and mine. So here we have a desirable reform for our schools. Group teaching could mean that the teacher will have a closer association with your child by teaching him in a group according to his ability.

But, if efficiency is really desired, this is going to cost money in the shape of smaller classes, more classrooms and equipment. If the changes are carried out by teachers in large classes—and I would call any class large if it is over 30—then the successes will come only at the price of placing an unfair burden even on teachers of above-average capacity and skill, and that is no way to introduce any reform. Surely the approach is first to provide the proper and reasonable facilities for the job, and not leave the work to the willing horse. Education in New Zealand has been lifted along too much in the past by the willing horse. Ask your school committee how much the willing horse has to work. If the large class continues, there will be many failures among teachers when they attempt to use a group system of teaching. Lack of supervision, groups “teaching themselves,” and so on, these things will happen and perhaps have happened, but such failures lie at the door of the teacher concerned or at the door of the authorities who decide how many teachers a school shall have. Therefore I suggest to those who make it their concern to point out the weaknesses which may and do arise from a system of group teaching—and it is useful and desirable that weaknesses' should be pointed out—that they base their questioning upon something like the following:—

1. Is the system inherently wrong in principle? 2. Is the teacher at fault in interpreting the idea? 3. Is the class too large? The principle appears sound. To the second question the answer could be yes or no. As for the third, I would say that many failures would be turned to successes in a smaller class. And to conclude what I hope might be a basic for discussion by parent-teacher associations connected with our schools, it seems fair to say that as long as the large class continues to dominate the educational scene, many teachers, realising that it is the large class which is the nigger in the woodpile, so to speak, will continue to work their classes largely as a whole, do the little that 40 or 50 children's demands will allow them to do for the very bright and very dull, and take the risk of perhaps being discredited by the idealists whose feet do not tread upon classroom ground.