This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]

On: 04 April 2013, At: 07:27

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cambridge Journal of Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccje20

The power of Interactive Groups:

how diversity of adults volunteering
in classroom groups can promote
inclusion and success for children of
vulnerable minority ethnic populations
a

Rosa Valls & Leonidas Kyriakides

Department of Theory and History of Education, University of

Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
b

Department of Education, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Version of record first published: 08 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Rosa Valls & Leonidas Kyriakides (2013): The power of Interactive Groups: how
diversity of adults volunteering in classroom groups can promote inclusion and success for children
of vulnerable minority ethnic populations, Cambridge Journal of Education, 43:1, 17-33
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2012.749213

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Cambridge Journal of Education, 2013

Vol. 43, No. 1, 1733, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2012.749213

The power of Interactive Groups: how diversity of adults

volunteering in classroom groups can promote inclusion and
success for children of vulnerable minority ethnic populations
Rosa Vallsa* and Leonidas Kyriakidesb
a

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

Department of Theory and History of Education, University of Barcelona, Barcelona,

Spain; bDepartment of Education, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
(Received 31 March 2010; nal version received 17 May 2012)
Despite the limited success of grouping students by attainment in enhancing
educational achievement for all, this practice is still widely followed in European
schools. Aiming at identifying successful educational actions that promote
high academic achievement and social inclusion and cohesion, part of the
EU-sponsored Europe-wide INCLUD-ED project analysed different ways of
grouping students in classrooms. A classication was developed that distinguishes between three ways according to two dimensions homogeneity/heterogeneity and use of human resources. This classication differentiates among
mixture, streaming, and inclusion. In this paper, an example of inclusive action,
Interactive Groups (IGs), is explored in depth. Based on grouping students
heterogeneously and including adults from the community in the classroom, IGs
address educational inequalities and enhance learning for students participating
in them. Empirical data obtained from three case studies in schools in Spain
indicate that IGs are one of the most successful inclusive actions implemented in
these schools.
Keywords: grouping; interactive Groups; inclusion; educational effectiveness

Introduction
In increasingly diverse societies, dealing with diversity in schools has become crucial in terms of both learning and social repercussions. Decisions about the criteria
for grouping students within classrooms are part of the response to this reality. In
recent decades, discourse on inclusion has become widespread, and it is now considered the most desirable option for achieving both equity and social cohesion. In
fact, the agendas of standards and inclusion are expected to work together
(Dyson & Gallannaugh, 2007), and an effort has been made to shift away from the
perception of a dichotomy between excellence and equity. Empirical studies provide
support for these changes research has already indicated that segregation does not
lead to better results for all. While high achievers do not benet signicantly when
placed in homogeneous groups, pupils in low-ability groups have been shown to
perform less well than their peers in mixed-ability classrooms and have fewer
opportunities to benet from peer effect (Braddock & Slavin, 1992; Zimmer, 2003).
A necessary step, then, is to identify grouping alternatives in diverse classrooms
*Corresponding author. Email: rosavalls@ub.edu
2013 University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

18

R. Valls and L. Kyriakides

that promote better academic achievement and overall enhanced learning and lead
to success for every child.
In this paper, we analyse a specic grouping arrangement that has proven successful in terms of improving the academic performance of students in mixed-ability
classrooms. The ndings presented here are based on data from the INCLUD-ED
project (6th Framework Programme, European Commission, 20062011). INCLUDED is the only Integrated Project focused on schooling that was funded by the
European Commissions Framework Programmes of research. The main objective
was to analyse educational actions that contribute to overcoming inequalities and
promoting social cohesion in Europe, as well as those that generate social exclusion, particularly focusing on vulnerable and marginalised groups. The resulting
knowledge provided a scientic basis on which to guide European Union (EU) policies and contribute to the inclusive growth objectives of the Europe 2020 agenda,
including promoting social innovation for the most vulnerable, in particular by
providing innovative education, ghting discrimination and integrating migrants
(European Commission, 2010). More specically, ndings from the INCLUD-ED
project are playing a role in helping Europeans meet the Europe 2020 target of
bringing down the school dropout rate (European Commission, 2011).
After describing the research methodology, we discuss the limitations of
traditional ways of grouping students. Next, we outline existing evidence about the
benets of working in heterogeneous small groups of students and the role played
by families in childrens learning. Then we narrow our focus and discuss a specic
form of classroom organisation based on heterogeneous groupings with reallocated
resources: Interactive Groups (IGs). IGs are characterised by the involvement of
diverse adults who do not necessarily have professional teaching experience. The
participants may be students relatives or other people from the community and
may have little educational background. We analyse the elements that make this
inclusive practice successful and the benets it entails for students. Finally, we
conclude with a summary of the main contributions of this type of classroom
organisation.
Methods
Data reported in this paper come from three case studies conducted in two primary
schools and one secondary school in Spain. These case studies were carried out
within the INCLUD-ED project following the critical communicative methodology
(CCM). CCM is based on the principle that the meaning of social reality is agreed
upon by contrasting the expertise of researchers with the experience, interpretations,
and recommendations of social agents (Gmez, Puigvert, & Flecha, 2011). Egalitarian dialogue is a critical precondition for this contrast. Egalitarian dialogue is
achieved through the elimination of the interpretative hierarchy between the
researcher and the participants in the research when the dialogue established
between the two groups reaches communicative rationality as described by
Habermas (1981). The validity of an individuals opinion is based on the power of
the arguments and the justication provided to support the statement, rather than on
the hierarchical position the individual occupies in the research a claim of power
(Habermas, 1981). Egalitarian dialogue in the CCM process is reected from the
beginning of the research study researchers and those participating in the research
share and agree on the objectives of the research and maintained throughout the

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

Cambridge Journal of Education

19

research process in the interpretation of the reality being analysed. This incorporation of egalitarian dialogue helps to ensure that the needs of the end-users are considered and addressed through the research. This egalitarianism is possible because
the CCM approach is based on the premise that all subjects are capable of language
and action (Habermas, 1981) and are not cultural dopes (Garnkel, 1967), and
therefore all subjects can be protagonists in the process of knowledge construction.
Egalitarian dialogue in the CCM aligns with Freires dialogical theories (2003)
in which dialoguers establish a horizontal relationship based on mutual trust. In
establishing this type of relationship, most excluded people participating in research
increase their critical awareness, which makes them actors capable of analysing and
actually transforming their situations of exclusion (Freire, 2003). However, the
unique roles of the researcher and the participants do not disappear. The end-users
role is to provide insights that are taken into account as key contributions throughout the entire research process, as part of a dialogue oriented toward creating scientic knowledge to overcome the inequalities affecting them. The researchers role is
to provide the accumulated scientic analysis on the issue which is under study
while using plain language to break the methodological gap between themselves
and the individuals participating in the research.
Data collection
Following these theoretical principles, three case studies were conducted under the
second study of the INCLUD-ED project,1 concretely two case studies of primary
schools (one of which included students with disabilities) and one case study of a
secondary school, all of them in Spain. The selection of the schools was based on
two criteria. First, schools had to show evidence of educational success (reected
by the academic outcomes of students) in relation to other schools in similar sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts. The data to support the outcomes were
obtained from schools ofcial tests that allowed greater comparability and objectivity in identifying successful schools. Second, schools had to be located in areas
with a low average socioeconomic status, and serve children from cultural or ethnic
minority background among its student population.
Aiming at studying how grouping strategies may contribute to enhance academic achievement in these schools, researchers paid particular attention to the
ways students were distributed for instruction according to two dimensions: homogeneity/heterogeneity and use of human resources and support. Qualitative evidence
drawn from a cross-case analysis has highlighted IGs as a specic inclusive practice
that has generated both academic success and inclusion (CREA, 2008), constituting
a sound alternative to traditional grouping strategies. Our analysis focuses on this
particular way of grouping students within classrooms, which was implemented in
the three case studies mentioned above.
Each case study involved 10 open-ended interviews with teachers, students, and
family members; one communicative focus group with teachers; and ve communicative observation sessions in classrooms (Table 1).
Communicative focus groups and communicative observations are grounded on
the theoretical principles of the CCM. A communicative focus group is a natural
group of people and aims to obtain information by reaching consensus through
egalitarian dialogue between the group and the researcher. Unlike a traditional focus
group, the focus is not only to obtain information from the discussion emerged in

20

R. Valls and L. Kyriakides

Table 1. Data collection techniques.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

Case 1:
primary
school
Case 2:
primary
school
Case 3:
secondary
school

Open-ended
interviews

Communicative focus
group

Communicative
observations

Three relatives
Three teachers
Four students
Three relatives
Three teachers
Four students
Three relatives
Three teachers
Four students

One communicative
focus group with
teachers
One communicative
focus group with
students
One communicative
focus group with
teachers

Five communicative
observations in
classrooms
Five communicative
observations in
classrooms
Five communicative
observations in
classrooms

the group, but also to achieve a joint interpretation oriented to improve end-users
lives. The researcher does not only moderate the discussion but also contributes the
scientic knowledge he or she possesses. This joint interpretation of reality pursues
to generate scientic knowledge that responds to the end-users needs and,
ultimately, transforms social reality.
In the communicative observation the researcher observes and collects information, and participates in the situation being observed along with the people or
groups who are the object of the research. A dialogue among these different participants can be held before, during, or after the observation in order to share on an
egalitarian basis the goals of the observation as well as the interpretation resulting
from it.
Limitations of traditional grouping strategies: mixture and streaming
Based on the need to better understand diverse forms of grouping students, and the
different impact they have on student achievement, two dimensions were considered
in the study: students heterogeneity or homogeneity, and the reallocation of human
resources. Based on the analysis of both dimensions, three types of student grouping were identied: mixture, streaming, and inclusion (INCLUD-ED Consortium,
2009) (Table 2).
Mixture
Mixture involves traditional classrooms in which diverse students are mixed
together in a large group with a single teacher. In Mixture classrooms children tend
to work individually in a context based on teacherpupil interaction where group
work strategies are not often used (Cohen, 1994). As a traditional classroom, there
is one teacher who guides the whole class, according to the principle of equal
opportunities. However, responding to the increasing diversity of students and their
educational needs is difcult within this model because one teacher alone cannot
attend the different needs of her or his students (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2009).
Thus, in practice, mixture leads those children with most difculties to fall behind
mainstream students in the class (Slavin, Madden, Karweit, Dolan, & Wasik, 1992).
This has been particularly shown in relation to students with disabilities (Fitch,
2003).

Cambridge Journal of Education

21

Table 2. Main characteristics and types of mixture, streaming and inclusion.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

Basis

Mixture

Streaming

Inclusion

Equal
opportunity

Difference

Equality of
results/equality of
differences
Heterogeneous

Student
Heterogeneous Homogeneous
grouping
Human
One teacher
More than one
resources
teacher
All together or Together
Separate
separated?
(1) Classroom
(1) Mixedactivities are
ability
organised according
classrooms
to ability level: (a)
ability groups in
different classrooms;
(b) ability groups in
the same classroom
(2) Remedial groups
and support are
segregated from the
regular classroom

More than one

teacher
Together

Separate

(1) Heterogeneous
ability classrooms
with reallocation
of resources

(2) Inclusive split

classes with
mixed- ability
students

Source: INCLUD-ED Consortium (2009).

Streaming
The second type of student grouping emerged as a response to the problems posed
by mixture. According to the European Commission, Streaming refers a group of
practices involving tailoring the curriculum to different groups of children based
on ability within one school (European Commission, 2006). Streaming includes
grouping students by attainment in different classes and within classes too. This is
referred to by various names, such as curriculum differentiation, ability grouping, or
setting, depending on the country and specic characteristics such as whether the
differentiation is permanent or temporary.
Scholars have discussed the negative effects of streaming for decades (Braddock
& Slavin, 1992; Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Flecha, 1990). Research has shown
that streaming increases the differences between students performance levels, thus
clearly disadvantaging low-achieving students (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). Pupils
placed in low-achieving groups are the targets of poor expectations, enjoy fewer
resources, and are asked to solve less-challenging activities (Chorzempa & Graham,
2006; Hallam, Ireson, & Davies, 2004). These children receive less instruction and
receive instruction at a slower pace, with more repetitive and mechanical tasks, as
well as less encouragement to think critically (Flores-Gonzalez, 2002). Research has
also suggested that the placement of students is strongly linked to their social and
economic condition, with students from cultural and ethnic minority groups and
those from low socioeconomic backgrounds disproportionately placed in low-ability
classes (Oakes, 2005). Overall, according to the analysis of large quantitative data
sets, schools in which streaming is implemented do not achieve better general performance levels than those in which streaming is not implemented (OECD, 2007).

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

22

R. Valls and L. Kyriakides

Although research has convincingly demonstrated that neither excellence nor

equity are achieved via streaming, it remains a common practice in many educational systems (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2009). Data from PISA (Programme for
International Student Assessment) 2009 showed the trends in using ability grouping
in secondary schools. The survey asked principals across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries whether students were
grouped by ability into different classrooms or within one classroom, and whether
these groupings were made in all subjects or only in selected ones (OECD, 2010).
On average, results from the survey indicated that 13% of students were in schools
whose principals reported grouping students by ability in all subjects (OECD,
2010). A national survey conducted in Spain aiming at identifying types of students grouping (CREA, 20092011) showed that 57.9% of primary schools and
54% of secondary schools grouped their students by ability inside the classrooms.
The limitations of both mixture and streaming to raise academic achievement of
all students makes it necessary to identify and analyse other grouping strategies that
have proven the benets of working in heterogeneous groups. Furthermore, the
effect of peer interaction and interaction with diverse adults for improving learning
will also be taken into account.
Overcoming the limitations of mixture and streamed classes: heterogeneous
small groups of learners, and learning with non-professional adults
A large body of literature has stressed the advantages of types of classroom organisation that involve interaction and cooperation among students, taking advantage of
their different levels of attainment (Hallam et al., 2004; Slavin, 1991). Working in
small collaborative groups contributes to the improved development of ideas and
problem solving, and allows interactions of higher cognitive learning to take place;
compared to whole-class teaching, working in small groups leads to students
improved academic performance (Galton, Hargreaves, & Pell, 2009; Howe, 2010).
Research has shown that peer interaction inuences learning (Webb, 1989), leads to
improve reading and learning outcomes (Gillies & Ashman, 1998) and advances
physics understanding (Howe, Tolmie, & Rogers, 1990). Students with migrant and
minority backgrounds and students with disabilities particularly benet in cooperative and small groups (Johnson & Johnson, 1981; Stainback & Stainback, 1996).
Further, no research has been found that supports the hypothesis that high achievers
might be held back by low achievers within such groups. Indeed, high achievers
gain as much as low achievers do from cooperation, compared to traditional classes
(Slavin, 1991).
In this type of classroom organisation, the teacher is in charge of promoting peer
interaction and dialogue, and of developing conditions and activities that facilitate
cooperation and positive interdependence. Indeed, research on group work has
provided extensive support for the idea that simply leaving students together in a
small group cannot by itself full the potential of interaction in terms of individual
development and learning (Barron, 2003). Interdependence and interaction between
students must be specically promoted (Cummins, 2004; Slavin, 1991). Recent studies have highlighted these ndings by (1) exploring the roles teachers play in encouraging effective group collaboration (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Scheerens &
Bosker, 1997; Webb et al., 2009) and promoting the development of childrens language skills for reasoning (Mercer & Sams, 2006), and (2) indicating the possibilities

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

Cambridge Journal of Education

23

of training students to cooperate and work in groups (Baines, Rubie-Davies, &

Blatchford, 2009).
In light of the research ndings, cooperative classroom organisation is suggested
as a promising way to promote the success of diverse students in heterogeneous
groups, thereby overcoming the limitations of the mixture approach. The benets of
heterogeneously grouping students can be increased by involving adults from families and other community members in classrooms. Research has shown that parental
involvement in their childrens education has a positive impact on several aspects
of childrens development and academic performance (Desforges & Abouchaar,
2003). The extensive review conducted by Goodall and Vorhaus (2011) offered key
evidence from best practices in parental engagement and on their childrens
improvements in educational outcomes. These positive inuences occur in the area
of language, for example, as a result of shared reading with parents (Senechal,
Pagan, Lever, & Ouellette, 2008). Specically, parents engagement in students
language learning is important for minority students when the home language is different from the language of instruction (Chavez-Reyes, 2010; Good, Masewicz, &
Vogel, 2010; Panferov, 2010). In mathematics, families involvement in and encouragement of their childrens learning at home also improves students achievement,
increasing their scores on standardised achievement tests (Sheldon & Epstein,
2005).
Homeschool partnerships, involving joint efforts between teachers, students,
parents, and communities, have also demonstrated positive impacts on school success by increasing opportunities and support for students to improve their learning
(Bojuwoye, 2009; Christenson, 2004; Goodall & Vorhaus, 2011). Additionally, family and community involvement and cooperation with the school reduce disciplinary
actions, improve student behaviour, and facilitate a school climate that promotes
learning (Sheldon & Epstein, 2002).
This body of research reveals the important role of non-teacher adults, mainly
family members, as resources to improve learning. Promoting family involvement
in childrens schooling allows the two contexts to be connected and coordinated,
multiplying the efforts to achieve student success. IGs entail the involvement of
these adults in facilitating childrens learning interactions in small heterogeneous
groups to promote inclusion for all students, becoming an alternative to mixture
and streaming.

Inclusion and Interactive Groups: promoting inclusive classroom practices

Interactive Groups have been identied as a particular practice of inclusion. The
term inclusion has been used to describe school organisations that attempt to
respond to the needs of a diverse student body in a shared learning environment to
learn the general curriculum; inclusion also incorporates the idea of restructuring
schools to respond to all students needs (Ainscow, 1999). This approach has been
studied as a way to include students with disabilities and those with minority backgrounds in schools. Proponents of inclusion seek to end the segregated provisions
and reduced educational content often offered to students with special needs and
those from vulnerable groups. Further, the inclusion approach provides increased
achievement and school effectiveness for all children (Black-Hawkins, 2010; Rouse,
2006).

24

R. Valls and L. Kyriakides

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

The analysis of inclusion conducted within the INCLUD-ED project is in accordance with this denition; it places particular emphasis on nding appropriate ways
to reorganise both the human resources and the supports that students need, thus
avoiding the segregation and curriculum differentiation that streaming entails, and
maintaining high expectations for all students (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2009).
IGs: heterogeneous ability classroom involving adults from the community
IGs involve creating heterogeneous ability groups in classrooms with the reallocation
of human resources. In IGs, more adults are involved in the classroom; members of
the community, including the students relatives and friends, come from beyond the
school walls and participate in the classroom to increase learning interaction between
students and adults. Thus, the human resources available in the community are used
to support student learning.
The following analysis is focused on a description of the structure and operation
of IGs as well as a summary of the evidence of their benets, based on interpretations collected from students, families, and teachers. IGs are based on the theoretical principles of dialogic learning (Aubert, Flecha, Garca, Flecha, & Racionero,
2008) and other theories that emphasise the role of interaction and dialogue in
learning (Vygotsky, 1978; Wells, 1999). In accordance with dialogic learning, when
teachers and other adults promote dialogue and cooperation in class, students reach
higher learning levels. Vygotsky (1978) stated that children achieve their potential
level of development via the resolution of problems with an adult guide and in
cooperation with more capable peers. While in ability groups, low achievers are
deprived of contact with their most capable peers; IGs, in contrast, ensure this type
of cooperation, facilitated by the additional adults in the classroom. In accordance
with Vygotsky (1978), who in his denition of the zone of proximal development
referred to adults in general (not only to education professionals), in IGs adult
guidance is provided by not only teachers but also non-teacher adults from the
community. IGs seek to increase and diversify pupils interactions in order to attain
greater levels of dialogicity and improve learning.
Structure and operation of IGs
As part of the eldwork conducted in the schools studied, six observations were
carried out in the classrooms organised into IGs; these observations help illustrate
how the practice works. IGs entail splitting the class into small heterogeneous
groups, each of which is supported by an adult (a professional or a volunteer).
Every group contains approximately four or ve students, and is heterogeneous in
terms of ability level, gender, culture, language, and ethnicity, as well as other characteristics. In the case of the 12-year-olds classroom observed in Case 1, the 20
students were split into four IGs, and students from minority backgrounds (two
from Morocco, one from Argentina, and one from Ecuador) were distributed among
the different groups. Four adults (the teacher and three volunteers) helped the
students to solve successfully the activities by means of encouraging dialogic
interactions and peer support.
The additional adults in IGs are often family and community members, former
students, volunteer university students, and other adults from community organisations and associations. In the case of this classroom, the volunteers were three

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

Cambridge Journal of Education

25

mothers. Thus, the human resources that already exist in the community were
activated to support and strengthen student learning.
The teacher prepares a different curricular activity for each of the small groups
and talks to the other adults before the session, describing the activities to them,
elding questions, and reminding them of their role as facilitators. During the observation, a session on mathematics was being conducted and the specic activities
focused on calculation, geometry, proportions, and percentages. After each group
worked on an activity for about 1520 minutes, either the students or the volunteer
moved to the next table, so each group of students worked on a different task with
a different adult. In approximately an hour and a half, all students in the classroom
worked on the four different curricular activities and interacted with four different
adults.
IGs illustrate that support for learning can be offered not only when an expert
provides knowledge, but also when other adults promote supportive interactions
between students with different ability levels and backgrounds, always based on the
same curriculum content, objectives, and activities. In Case 1, one of the interviewed fathers who regularly participated in IGs described the way in which the
classroom is organised and the role played by the adult facilitators:
We divide the classes into different groups, and then the volunteers who go into the
classroom help to ensure that these small groups of children [work] independently. In
other words, we help and assist from the rst moment onwards, but we only help
[to ensure] the organisation in the class [is effective] Each adult is in charge of one
of these little groups, and so the exercises or work is rotated between these little
groups.

Diversity of volunteers: increasing engagement and motivation in classroom

activity
IGs seek to ensure diversity not only among the students in each group, but also
between the adults collaborating in the classroom. The case studies showed that the
more diverse the group of adults, the more diverse ways they have of contributing
to childrens learning. Beyond the teachers and other education professionals, when
parents, community members, and former students participate, a range of different
interactions, learning strategies, and educational resources are provided. Additionally, the diversity of volunteers experiences and knowledge connects with the students everyday experiences outside school this is an added value of IGs not
found in other methods of classroom organisation. By connecting the school with
the outside context, volunteers increase the meaning children attribute to schooling,
as well as facilitate the transformation of the overall learning context. Moreover, the
volunteers different backgrounds involve multiple types of cultural intelligence
(Ramis & Krastina, 2010), abilities and knowledge that teachers might not have,
but which are crucial to respond to the needs of diverse students. One 12-year-old
girl from Case 1 described the difference that working with adult volunteers entails
in terms of increased interest and engagement in classroom activity, precisely due
to the adults various experiences:
With the volunteers you have a lot more fun because they are people from other countries, well its like you change things, instead of having a class just with the teacher,
you have a class with the volunteers and people get more involved because its
nicer and they make more effort and it works better.

26

R. Valls and L. Kyriakides

As the quote above illustrates, working with different people in the classroom motivates children, and therefore promotes increased learning. Further, better learning
facilitated by the participation of adult volunteers can, in turn, increase student
motivation. As a group of seven-year-old students discussed their experience in IGs
in Case 2, they described increases in both motivation and learning due to the
participation of other childrens parents:
Interviewer: Who comes along to the groups?
Student: Pedro and Sylvias mums, and also Borjas mum.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

Interviewer: And do you like them coming along?

Student: Yes!!!!
Interviewer: Why? Is that because they help you?
Student: No, its because we learn with them!

Motivation to learn is also increased when volunteers include former students, who
are now secondary school students and live in the same neighbourhood where the
primary school is located. These students become attractive academic role models
for the primary school children. Although they do not talk in the same way as
teachers or parents, they are strongly committed to helping children learn through
group work, and can provide more understandable explanations to the students. A
12-year-old student in Case 2 explained the ways in which a female adolescent
volunteer provided helpful explanations:
The way she talked We joked and laughed and then when you didnt understand
something, she would say it in a way so we understood it better because there are
times that we dont understand the book, but when she explains it, we do!

Similarly, the father of a student from the school studied in Case 2 reected on the
fact that involving more adults in learning activities means that students understand
that they can learn from people other than teachers and their own relatives:
Its about saying, goodness me, well its not only the teacher who says things, or my
father who can say things to me, or he can help me, or he can set some limits, but
there are also other people who come into the school and they can also help me out
and they can also set some limits for me. And this helps them.

Relatives and students perceptions of having a diversity of adults involved in

classrooms support the added value of diversifying pupils interactions by bringing
in people from the community.
IGs: positive impact on childrens academic achievement
Organising classrooms in IGs has proven to have a positive impact on childrens
academic achievement. It allows up to four activities to be completed in one lesson
that according to our observations used to take between one hour and one and a

Cambridge Journal of Education

27

half hours. In IGs, engagement in learning activities is intensied and, therefore,

learning is accelerated. For professionals and students, this is one of the most
valuable advantages of IGs. A teacher in the Case 3 secondary school summarised
her perception of the ways in which students take advantage of IGs in terms of
doing more work:

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

Accelerated learning has been proven. When we work in Interactive Groups, the
students are constantly active They carry out activities which they are not able to
do in regular school classes: one group completes the activities, whereas the other
group is not able to do so. In the alternative grouping [IGs] they all complete all the
activities.

IGs are in fact oriented toward academic achievement and particularly toward
improving instrumental learning, which is the basis for developing the knowledge
and competencies required to succeed in the information society. According to the
data collected, instrumental subjects such as mathematics and language are the ones
in which IGs are most commonly used. This emphasis on improving instrumental
learning is reected in student outcomes. A teacher from the secondary school
studied described the signicant progress of students in language and literacy as a
result of working on this area in IGs:
I have noticed an improvement in language They [the students] have made
progress in the way they express themselves, in the way they explain things This
year we have worked on writing a lot, including the development of texts invented by
students. And well what seemed unthinkable last year, suddenly in second year
there are students who are writing an extended paragraph by themselves.

According to teachers, family members, and students, children with behavioural and
attention problems, or limited ability to engage, often change their attitudes when
they work in IGs. These students become highly motivated to learn and participate
in the group activity and therefore conict is signicantly reduced. Volunteer
participation directly inuences student behaviour and class climate. The following
reection was provided by a teacher in the school in Case 1:
Interviewer: And have you noticed that when there is a mother with no education in
the class whether the boys and girls behave better, whether they are more
motivated?
Teacher: When they have a teacher who they know can be with them, can guide them
their behaviour changes a lot, and also their interest. You know? It is not just a
teacher at the blackboard, but rather each group has its own helper.

Benets for students with disabilities

Students with disabilities receive support from adult volunteers, their classmates,
and the teacher, as well as from the special education teacher, who provides extra
support in the interactive group when necessary. This atmosphere is very different
from what these students experience in mixture or streamed classrooms. In Case 2,
7.3% of the students presented special needs or learning difculties and they were
included into the regular classrooms where they received the support required. The
observation conducted in two classrooms organised in IGs revealed the key role that

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

28

R. Valls and L. Kyriakides

volunteers play in promoting peer interaction to support students with special needs.
Furthermore, the role played by the special education teacher has changed. She
often intervenes as one more of the adults assisting any of the students in the classroom, thus making her pedagogic expertise available to all students. As the special
education teacher explained: And there was a point when my role almost disappeared because the other classmates in the group and the volunteers [managed to
help them] So I withdrew little by little.
Carles, a 12-year-old boy who had several speech and learning difculties, was
placed in a special education programme in primary school. He was used to going
outside the classroom to receive special attention and he was not integrated into
his class group at all. When the school decided to implement IGs, Carles returned
to the regular classroom with his peers. As another child in the group described,
Carles learning improved thanks to the interaction with others, the social
well-being, the friendship, and the help that he received from different teachers,
classmates, and volunteers. His mate explained:
Student: When he doesnt understand something, because there are some words which
are very strange, well he asks for them, he asks the whole group for help, and He
learns quite a lot more
Interviewer: Do you think that IG are good for him?
Student: Yes, because before he used to fail the exams, and now he gets sixes or
sevens and is doing quite well.

Added value of involving volunteers from the community in multicultural settings

The case studies showed that the involvement of adults in interactive groups entails
additional benets in the case of multicultural schools. The three schools had an
important percentage of students with minority background. In Case 1, the students
with minority background represent 15% of the population, in Case 2 they are 27%
and nally, Case 3 serves 26% of them. Particularly in Case 2, IGs had an impact
on the attainment of recently arrived students, as a teacher of the school reected:
We have two girls who arrived from Colombia at Easter, and today I have just given
them a reading comprehension test and their level is within the normal standards I
have noticed that they have been really involved helping each other, right? in interactive groups, and those types of activities, and perhaps part of this good result has
been possible because of this.

In this case the classroom teacher emphasised the importance, particularly for immigrant students, of beneting from peer learning and mutual help by working in IGs.
Her insights are common among other teachers involved in IGs and are consistent
with the literature on group and cooperative work (Galton et al., 2009; Howe,
2010; Slavin, 1991; Webb, 1989).
In addition, when adults from different cultures participate as volunteers in interactive groups they help students move away from stereotypes and improve cohesiveness as well as learning. Immigrant children and children with different cultural
and linguistic backgrounds benet from the presence of adults with a similar background, as, for example, such cultural continuity bridges language gaps, helping

Cambridge Journal of Education

29

migrant students engage more fully and ultimately to complete the same activities
as their peers (Alexiu & Sord, 2011). Overall, IGs facilitate involving in the classroom the cultural diversity which exists in the community. Through the focus group
conducted in Case 1, teachers discussed the impact of having volunteers with
minority background participating in IGs. Two of them agreed on the positive reaction of children when volunteers with minority background participate in IGs:
Interviewer: And do the children like it?

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

Teacher 1: They love it. They feel more Lets see for example if an Arabic volunteer comes into the classroom to do interactive groups the Maghrebi students feel good
because well they see its not only the autochthonous students who have volunteers
who come in and help them.
Teacher 2: but also the others [Roma students] For example, the day when a
Roma former student came in, they [Roma students] were ultra enthusiastic and
their eyes were shining because it was really lovely and I thought it was great.

Teachers interviewed recognised the positive impact that the participation of volunteers with minority background entails for all children, particularly enlightening
how these volunteers become role models for migrants and Roma students in the
school context.

Challenges of implementing Interactive Groups

One of the challenges associated with the implementation of the IGs, especially in
their beginning, is to make students aware that their goal is not just to nish the
activity by themselves, but to ensure that the whole group completes the task. This
leads to a second issue: some students tend to give the solution to their peers rather
than describing the processes followed and helping others understand by themselves. The peer dialogue and support that IGs seek to promote do not arise simply
because a diverse group of students is gathered together. Rather, the adults who participate in IGs are in charge of promoting this type of dialogue and supporting
interaction between students so that every child can maximise his or her learning
potential. Because these adults primary role is to help all children participate in
group dialogues, and support interaction among all so that each pupil can complete
the activities, volunteers do not need specic qualications or academic credentials.
In fact, the low self-condence of some adults who have little education and do
not feel capable of helping children in their learning activities is another difculty
faced by schools implementing IG. The coordination with the teacher before the
activity, which resolves any doubts volunteers may have and reafrms their role as
interactions facilitators rather than teaching curricular contents, helps volunteers
conquer this difculty.
IGs also entail difculties for teachers at times, as they are not accustomed to
working with more adults in the classroom, especially when those adults are not
other teachers. Therefore, some teachers are reluctant to work with IGs due to this
reason. However, oftentimes, the evidence of improvement that they observe in
other groups in the school encourages those who are reluctant to introduce the
practice in their own classrooms.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

30

R. Valls and L. Kyriakides

Conclusion
Our analysis under the INCLUD-ED project identied Interactive Groups as a particularly successful action that strengthens the learning process, improves the learning environment, and increases the outcomes of the children involved. This
classroom arrangement emerged as an alternative to traditional forms of classroom
organisation that do not respond successfully to student diversity in todays schools.
IGs are based on the benets of both, peer interaction when pupils are working
in small groups and the involvement of parents and diverse adults from the community in childrens learning (Goodall & Vorhaus, 2011). Previous analysis about the
impact of having additional support staff in primary and secondary classrooms
showed an increased individualisation of attention, easier classroom control, and
more pupil engagement (Blatchford, Bassett, Brown, & Webster, 2009). IGs take a
step further by involving a reallocation of human resources already present in the
community into heterogeneous ability classrooms organised in small groups. In
doing so, IGs face the limitations of the traditional classrooms (i.e. mixture) and of
those classrooms organised in homogeneous groupings (i.e. streaming).
In IGs, students belonging to vulnerable groups and those deemed to have special needs benet particularly from this classroom organisation. The analysis of IGs
provides evidence that the learning processes of disadvantaged students can
improve, not by segregating them or adapting their curricula to lower standards, but
by maintaining high expectations for all of them and providing the necessary support. We understand IGs as an inclusive action because this classroom organisation
tries to respond to the idea of restructuring schools to attend to all students needs
(Ainscow, 1999; Black-Hawkins, 2010; Rouse, 2006). In IGs, the focus is on the
promotion of peer interaction, dialogue, and mutual aid, which is particularly
enhanced through the incorporation of other adults in the classroom. These adults
are actually community resources who are activated and included within the
classroom to support all students. IGs take into account the impact of parental
involvement in childrens education (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Goodall &
Vorhaus, 2011) and take advantage of including parents and other adults and the
diversity of the interactions they introduce into the classroom. As our results
revealed, this sort of participation increases student motivation and their opportunities to learn, and accelerates the pace of learning. These adults also promote a
supportive classroom environment, an increase in self-esteem in relation to learning,
and a high level of cohesiveness. A variety of volunteers and collaborators take part
in the learning process: family members, community members, students, and other
volunteers help students and promote interaction between them. IGs work because
increasing the participation of the community in the school also increases the
resources and knowledge available to help all students and, in the end, because the
educational success of these children becomes a community issue.
Note
1. The INCLUD-ED project consists of six integrated sub-projects.

References
Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. London:
Routledge Falmer.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

Cambridge Journal of Education

31

Alexiu, T.M., & Sord, T. (2011). How to turn difculties into opportunities: Drawing from
diversity to promote social cohesion. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21
(1), 4962.
Aubert, A., Flecha, A., Garca, C., Flecha, R., & Racionero, S. (2008). Aprendizaje dialgico en la sociedad de la informacin [Dialogic learning in the information society].
Barcelona: Hipatia.
Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., & Blatchford, P. (2009). Improving pupil group work interaction and dialogue in primary classrooms: Results from a year-long intervention study.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 95117.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307359.
Black-Hawkins, K. (2010). The framework for participation: A research tool for exploring
the relationship between achievement and inclusion in schools. International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 33(1), 2140.
Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., & Webster, R. (2009). The effect of support staff on
pupil engagement and individual attention. British Educational Research Journal, 35,
661686.
Bojuwoye, O. (2009). Homeschool partnership a study of opinions of selected parents
and teachers in Kwazulu Natal Province, South Africa. Research Papers in Education,
24, 461475.
Braddock, J.H., & Slavin, R.E. (1992). Why ability grouping must end: Achieving excellence
and equity in American education Paper presented at the Common Destiny Conference.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Chavez-Reyes, C. (2010). Inclusive approaches to parent engagement for young English
language learners and their families. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, 109, 474504.
Chorzempa, B.F., & Graham, S. (2006). Primary-grade teachers use of within-class ability
grouping in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 529541.
Christenson, S.L. (2004). The familyschool partnership: An opportunity to promote the
learning competence for all students. School Psychology Review, 33(1), 83104.
Cohen, E. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New
York: Teachers College Press.
CREA. (2008). Report 3: Educational practices in Europe. Overcoming or reproducing
social exclusion? INCLUD-ED Project. Brussels: European Commission.
CREA. (20092011). Formas de agrupacin del alumnado y su relacin con el xito escolar: Mixture, streaming e inclusin. Pan Nacional I+D+I, Secretara de Estado de
Universidades e Investigacin, Ministerio de Educacin y Ciencia, Madrid.
Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A
contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.
Cummins, J. (2004). Language, power and pedagogy. Bilingual children in the crossre.
Clevedon, UK: Cambrian Printers.
Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A literature review.
London: Department of Education and Skills.
Dyson, A., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007). National policy and the development of inclusive
school practices: A case study. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37, 473488.
European Commission. (2006). Efciency and equity in European education and training
systems SEC(2006) 1096. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2011). Tackling early school leaving: A key contribution to the
Europe 2020 agenda. Brussels: European Commission.
Fitch, F. (2003). Inclusion, exclusion, and ideology: Special education students changing
sense of self. Urban Review, 35, 233252.
Flecha, R. (1990). La nueva desigualdad cultural [The new cultural inequality]. Barcelona:
Hipatia.
Flores-Gonzalez, N. (2002). School kids/street kids: Identity development in Latino students.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

32

R. Valls and L. Kyriakides

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., & Pell, T. (2009). Group work and whole-class teaching with
11- to 14-year-olds compared. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 119140.
Garnkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gillies, R.M., & Ashman, A.F. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative
groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
74657.
Gmez, A., Puigvert, L., & Flecha, R. (2011). Critical communicative methodology: Informing real social transformation through research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 235245.
Good, M.E., Masewicz, S., & Vogel, L. (2010). Latino English language learners: Bridging
achievement and cultural gaps between schools and families. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 9, 321339.
Goodall J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement (DfE
Research Report RR156). London: Department for Education.
Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reasons and the rationalization of society; Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason.
Boston: Beacon.
Hallam, S., Ireson, J., & Davies, J. (2004). Primary pupils experiences of different types of
grouping in school. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 515533.
Howe, C. (2010). Peer groups and childrens development. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Howe, C.J., Rogers, C., & Tolmie, A. (1990). Physics in the primary school: Peer interaction
and the understanding of oating and sinking. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 5, 459475.
INCLUD-ED Consortium. (2009). Actions for success in schools in Europe. Brussels:
European Commission.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1981). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences on interethnic interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 444449.
Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language and Education, 20, 507528.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Science competencies for tomorrows world: Results from PISA 2006. Retrieved from http://www.pisa.
oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). PISA 2009
results: What makes a school successful? Resources, policies and practices (Vol. IV).
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091559-en
Panferov, S. (2010). Increasing ELL parental involvement in our schools: Learning from the
parents. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 106112.
Ramis, M., & Krastina, L. (2010). Cultural intelligence in the school. Journal of
Psychodidactics, 15, 239252.
Rouse, M. (2006). Enhancing effective inclusive practice. Knowing, doing and believing.
Kairaranga, 7, 813.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford,
UK: Pergamon.
Senechal, M., Pagan, S., Lever, R., & Ouellette, G.P. (2008). Relations among the frequency
of shared reading and 4-year-old childrens vocabulary, morphological and syntax comprehension, and narrative skills. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 2744.
Sheldon, S.B., & Epstein, J.L. (2002). Improving student behaviour and school discipline
with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 426.
Sheldon, S.B., & Epstein, J.L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 196206.
Slavin, R. (1991). Synthesis of research of cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48
(5), 7182.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B.A. (1992). Success for
all: A relentless approach to prevention and early intervention in elementary schools.
Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1996). Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms:
Facilitating learning for all students. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Cambridge Journal of Education

33

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 07:27 04 April 2013

Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness
research. London: Falmer Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of
Educational Research, 13(1), 2139.
Webb, N.M., Franke, M.L., De, T., Chan, A.G., Freund, D., Shein, P., et al. (2009). Explain
to your partner: Teachers instructional practices and students dialogue in small groups.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 4970.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of
education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmer, R. (2003). A new twist in the educational tracking debate. Economics of Education
Review, 22, 307315.