i
COMPARISON OF MULTI-GRADE TEACHING
WITH MONO-GRADE TEACHING
AT PRIMARY LEVEL
By
Ghulam Nasir ul Haq
(09-NUN-0066)
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Education
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Northern, University Nowshera
Pakistan, 2017
ii
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION
I Ghulam Naseer ul Haq hereby state that my Ph. D. thesis titled, “Comparison of
Multi-grade Teaching with Mono-grade Teaching at Primary Level”, is my own
work and has not been submitted previously by me for taking any degree from this
University (Northern University, Nowshera) or anywhere else in the country/world.
At any time if my statement is found to be incorrect even after my graduation the
university has the right to withdraw my Ph. D. degree.
Name of Student: ________________________
(Ghulam Naseer ul Haq)
Date: _______________
iii
PLAGIARISM UNDERTAKING
I solemnly declare that research work presented in the thesis titled,
“Comparison of Multi-grade Teaching with Mono-grade Teaching at Primary
Level,” is solely my research work with no significant contribution from any other
person. Small contribution/help whenever taken has been duly acknowledged and
that complete thesis has been written by me.
I understand the zero tolerance policy of the Higher Education Commission
and the Northern University, Nowshera towards plagiarism. Therefore, I as an
Author of the above titled thesis declare that no portion of my thesis has been
plagiarized and any material used as reference is properly referred/cited.
I understand that if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above
titled thesis even after award of Ph. D, degree, the university reserves the right to
withdraw/revoke my Ph. D. degree and that Higher Education Commission and the
university have the right to publish my name on the HEC/University Website on
which names of those students are placed who submitted plagiarized thesis.
Student/Author Signature: ___________________________
Name: ___________________________
(Ghulam Naseer ul Haq)
iv
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
This is to certify that the research work presented in this thesis, titled, “Comparison
of Multi-grade Teaching with Mono-grade Teaching at Primary Level,” was
conducted by Ghulam Naseer ul Haq under the supervision of Prof. Dr. R.A. Farooq.
No part of this thesis has been submitted anywhere else for any other degree. This
thesis is submitted to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (Northern University,
Nowshera) in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the field of Education, Department of Education Northern University
Nowshera.
Student Name: Ghulam Naseer ul Haq Signature:_________________
Examination Committee:
a) External Examiner 1: Name Signature:GülsünKurubacak
(Designation & Office Address)
Prof. Dr. Gulsun KURUBACAK
Anadolu University College of Open Education
Group Coordinator of R&D and International Relations, Office #313
Yunusemre Campus, Eskisehir 26470, TURKEY
b) External Examiner 2: Name Signature:Nilgün Tosun
(Designation & Office Address)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nilgun Tosun
Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology
Faculty of Education, Trakya University, Kosova Campus
Edirne - TURKIYE
c) Internal Examiner : Name Signature:__________________
(Designation & Office Address)
Prof. Dr. Wazim Khan
Dean, Faculty of Education
Qurtaba University of Science and Information Technology,
Hayatabad, Peshawar (Pakistan)
Supervisor Name: Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq Signature:____________________
Co-Supervisor Name: Prof. Dr. Rabia Tabassum Signature: _________________
Name of Dean/HOD: Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq Signature:____________________
v
DEDICATION
To my beloved family (Razia Khanum, Atta and Gul, Laila and
Waqar, Jawad and Saman, Kaneez Aaminah and Kaneez Fatimah,
Haider waqar and Umer Atta) whose share of time I have utilized in my
study.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements x
Abstract xi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 2
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 3
1.3 HYPOTHESES 3
1.4 DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY 4
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 4
1.6 METHOD AND PROCEDURE 5
1.6.1 Population 5
1.6.2 Sample 5
1.6.3 Research Instruments 5
1.6.4 Data Collection 6
1.6.5 Analysis of Data 6
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 7
2.1 EDUCATION AND MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 7
2.2 MULTI-GRADE TEACHING IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 9
2.3 MULTI-GRADE TEACHING IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE 13
2.4 RATIONALE BEHIND MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 14
2.5 MODELS OF MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 15
2.5.1 Quasi Mono-grade Curriculum Model 15
2.5.2 Differentiated Curriculum Model 17
2.5.3 Multi-year Curriculum Cycle Model 17
2.5.4 Learner and Materials Centered Curriculum Models 18
2.6 SITUATIONS FOR MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 19
2.7 TEACHING STRATEGIES IN MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 21
2.7.1 Thematic Teaching 22
2.7.2 Grouping Techniques 22
2.7.3 Cooperative Learning 22
2.7.4 Whole Group Teaching 23
2.7.5 Small Groups 23
2.8 ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 24
2.9 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES 28
2.9.1 Advantages of Multi-grade Teaching 28
vii
2.9.2 Disadvantages of Multi-grade Teaching 30
2.10 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS 31
2.11 TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 33
2.12 EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MULTI-GRADE TEACHING 36
2.12.1 Classroom Management Techniques 36
2.12.2 Instructional Strategies 36
2.12.3 Planning for Curriculum 37
2.12.4. Instructional Materials 38
2.12.5 School and Community 39
2.13 PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS 40
2.13.1 Characteristics of Performance of Students 41
2.13.2 Methods of Performance Assessment of Students 41
2.13.3 Role of Teacher Performance 42
2.13.4 Developing Classroom Performance 43
2.13.5 Goals and Objectives of Students’ Performance 44
2.13.6 Assessment of Students’ Performance 44
2.13.7 Validity in Performance 45
2.14 REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCHES 46
3. METHOD AND PROCEDURE 64
3.1 Population 64
3.2 Sample 64
3.3 Research Instruments 64
3.3.1 Validity 65
3.3.2 Reliability 65
3.4 Research Design 65
3.5 Treatment 66
3.6 Data Collection 69
3.7 Analysis of Data 69
4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 72
4.1 Analysis and Interpretation of Data of Class-IV 72
4.2 Analysis and Interpretation of Data of Class-V 78
Discussion 83
5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 88
5.1 Summary 88
5.2 Conclusions 89
viii
5.3. Recommendations 90
BIBLIOGRAPHY 91
ANNEXURES 104
Annex-A Pre-test for Class-V 104
Annex-B Pre-test for Class-IV 105
Annex-C Post-test for Class-V 106
Annex-D Post-test for Class-IV 107
Annex-E Lesson Plan for Mono-grade Teaching for Class-V 108
Annex F Lesson Plan for Mono-grade Teaching for Class-IV 109
Annex G Lesson Plan for Multi-grade Teachimg 110
Annex H Results 111
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Comparison of mean scores of experimental and control groups of class-
IV on pre-test.
63
2. Comparison of mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control rol
groups of class-IV on pre -test.
64
3. Comparison of mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control rol
groups of class-IV on pre -test.
64
4. Comparison of mean scores of experimental and control groups of class-
IV on pos-test.
65
5. Comparison of mean achievement scores of low achievers of
experimental and control groups of class-IV on post-test.
66
6. Comparison of mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control
groups of class-IV on post-test.
66
7. Comparison between pre-test post-test achievement scores of control group
of of class-IV.
67
8. Comparison between pre-test post-test achievement scores of
E experimenital group of class-IV.
68
9. Comparison of mean scores of experimental and control groups of class-V on
on pre-test. .
68
10. Comparison mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control
groups of class-V on pre-test.
69
11. Comparison mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control
groups of class-V on pre-test.
70
12. Comparison between the post-test mean achievement scores of
experimental and control groups of class-V on pre-test.
70
13. Comparison of of mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control
groups of class-V on post-test.
71
14. Comparison of of mean scores of high achievers of experimental and
control groups of class-V on post-test.
72
15. Comparison between pre-test post-test achievements scores of
control group of class-V.
73
16. Comparison between pre-test and post-test achievement scores of
experimental group of class-V.
73
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, the researcher offers his sincerest gratitude to his supervisor
Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq, Dean Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Nothern
University, Nowshera, who has supported him throughout his research project with
his patience and knowledge whilst allowing him room to work in his own way. The
researcher attributes the completion of this research project to his encouragement and
effort and without him this research project would not have been completed or
written, one simply could not wish for a better or friendlier supervisor.
The researcher feels highly indebted to Prof. Dr. Rabia Tabassum, a
distinguished scholar, motherly teacher, who generously guided the researcher and
the researcher is thankful to Prof. Dr. Jamil Sawar for his valuable tips during the
research work. The researcher is also thankful to Dr. Muhammad Idrees, Syed Ehsan
naqwi, Dr. Eid Akbar, Dr. Muhammad Nasir, Dr. Ayaz Ahmad, Mr. Zafar Iqbal,
Controller of Examinations, Muhammad Malik, Deputy Registrar, Mr. Maqsood and
all other staff who help him. The researcher is also thankful to Mr. Habib ur Rahman
Gilani, Managing Director OPF, Mr. Israr Khan Jamali, Deputy Managing Director,
Mr. Ahmed Yar Bhuttar, Executive Director, Mr. Saifur Rahman, Director General,
Hafiz Khalid Saeed, Laeeqa Ambreen, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Naseem,
Directors OPF. The researcher is also thankful to Mrs. Nafees Zahra, Mr. Wajid Ali,
Mr. Farooq Sadiq, Mr. Zeeshan Sheikh, Syeda Warda, Raja Ayub, Raja Shahid Ali,
Babar Ali and all my colleagues who inspired and persuaded him to complete the
study.
Ghulam Nasir ul Haq
xi
ABSTRACT
Multi-grade teaching is a situation where a single teacher is incharge of more
than one grade levels at a time in one classroom. In multi-grade classrooms in
Pakistan, children of varying ages sit together in one classroom and are
simultaneously taught the same subject material. Multi-grade teaching can be
compared with its counterpart mono-grade teaching where classrooms are pre-
arranged grade wise. The study was aimed at comparing multi-grade teaching with
mono-grade teaching at primary level. The major objectives of the study were: (1)
To investigate the effect of multi-grade strategy on the performance of primary
school children in the subject of English; (2) To compare multi-grade teaching
strategy with mono-grade teaching strategy at primary level; (3) To find out the
effectiveness of multi-grade teaching at primary level; and (4) To give
recommendations to suggest suitable method of teaching English through multi-
grade teaching at primary level.
To achieve the above mentioned objectives, following null hypotheses were
tested: (1) There is no significant difference between the mean scores of
experimental and control groups on pre-test; (2) There is no significant difference
between the mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control groups on
pre-test; (3) There is no significant difference between the mean scores of high
achievers of experimental and control groups on pre-test; (4) There is no significant
difference between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups on post-
test; (5) There is no significant difference between the mean scores of low achievers
of experimental and control groups on post-test; (6) There is no significant difference
between the mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control groups on
post-test.
Sample of the study included 60 students of classes IV and V of Army public
School Noshera (Class IV=30; class V=30). These students were divided into two
xii
groups,i.e. experimental (multi-grade teaching) and control group (mono-grade
teaching. Each group had 30 students (Class IV=15; class V=15). The sample
students were divided into experimental and control groups on the basis of two pre-
tests (separate for class IV and V) scores through pair random sampling. “Pre-test
Post-test Equivalent Group Design” was used for this study. Experimental group was
taught by multi-grade teaching strategy whereas mono-grade teaching approach was
applied in control group. Treatment continued for six weeks. Data were collected by
administering two post-tests (separate for class IV and V) at the end of treatment.
Data obtained through pre-tests and post-tests were tabulated, analyzed and
interpreted by applying t-test. In the light of data analysis and findings, it was
concluded that the performance of control group (mono-grade) was significantly
better than that of experimental group (multi-grade). It was recommended that if at
all multi-grade is to be continued the teachers should be equipped with mult-grade
strategy through in-service training. For pre-service education of teachers the teacher
education curriculum be revised accordingly.