Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-2053
  • E-ISSN: 2589-207x
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ahlquist, S.
    (2013) ‘Storyline’: A task-based approach for the young learner classroom. ELT Journal, 67(1), 41–51. doi:  10.1093/elt/ccs052
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs052 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2019) Motivating teens to speak English through group work in Storyline. ELT Journal, 73(4), 387–395. doi: 10.1093/elt/cczo23
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cczo23 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. 10.1075/lllt.34.09ch6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.34.09ch6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Berman, M.
    (1998) A multiple intelligences road to an ELT classroom. Carmarthen: Crown House.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brewster, J. , Ellis, G. , & Girard, D.
    (2012) The primary English teacher’s guide. Harlow: Penguin English.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruner, J. S.
    (1960) The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bygate, M.
    (2016) Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching, The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 381–400. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566 [Google Scholar]
  8. Davin, K. J. , & Donato, R.
    (2013) Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 5–22. 10.1111/flan.12012
    https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12012 [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. Ellis, R.
    (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Frank, S. S.
    (2014) Unterrichten in altersdurchmischten Klassen mit Young World 1–4. Baar: Klett und Balmer.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 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:  10.1080/02568540509595068
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540509595068 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gray, P.
    (2011) The special value of children’s age mixed play. American Journal of Play, 3(4), 500–522.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gutiérrez, R. , & Slavin, R. E.
    (1992) Achievement effects of nongraded elementary school: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 62, 333–376. doi:  10.3102/00346543062004333
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062004333 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heinzmann, S. , Ries, S. , & Wicki, W.
    (2015) Expertise „Altersdurchmischter Fremdsprachenunterricht im Fach Englisch. Forschungsbericht, 51. Luzern: Pädagogische Hochschule Luzern.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hoffman, J.
    (2003) Multiage teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(1), 5–17. doi:  10.1080/02568540309595019
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540309595019 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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, 10, 230–241. doi:  10.1080/17457823.2015.1017514
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2015.1017514 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hyry-Beihammer, E. K. , & Hascher, T.
    (2015) Multi-grade teaching practices in Austrian and Finnish primary schools, International Journal of Educational Research, 74, 104–113. doi:  10.1016/j.ijer.2015.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kalaoja, E. , & Pietarinen, J.
    (2009) Small rural primary schools in Finland: A pedagogically valuable part of the school network. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 109–116. doi:  10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. Koerrenz, R.
    (2011) Schulmodell: Jena-Plan. Grundlagen eines reformpädagogischen Programms. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 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:  10.1515/eujal‑2017‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0013 [Google Scholar]
  24. (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]
  25. 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. 10.1007/978‑3‑531‑18985‑7_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18985-7_11 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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:  10.1080/09362830903462441
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903462441 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lindström, E. , & Lindahl, E.
    (2011) The effect of mixed-age classes in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 121–144. doi:  10.1080/00313831.2011.554692
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.554692 [Google Scholar]
  28. Little, A. W.
    (2007) Education for all and multigrade teaching: Challenges and opportunities. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2004) Learning and teaching in multigrade settings. Background paper for UNESCO (2005). EFA Global Monitoring Report. Retrieved fromhttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146665
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mason, A. , & Burns, R. B.
    (1997) Reassessing the effects of combination classes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 3, 1–53. doi:  10.1080/1380361970030101
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1380361970030101 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mulryan-Kyne, C.
    (2007) The preparation of teachers for multigrade teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 501–514. doi:  10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Nunan, D.
    (2004) Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667336
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667336 [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. 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:  10.1080/01421599979752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01421599979752 [Google Scholar]
  35. Saqlain, N.
    (2015) A comprehensive look at multi-age education. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(2), 285. doi:  10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p285
    https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p285 [Google Scholar]
  36. Shamir, A. , & Tzuriel, D.
    (2004) Children’s mediational teaching style as a function of intervention for cross-age peer-mediation. School Psychology International, 25, 58–97. doi:  10.1177/0143034304024782
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034304024782 [Google Scholar]
  37. 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]
  38. 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 fromwww.indiana.edu/~ceep/projects/PDF/PB_V7N1_Winter_2009_EPB.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Smit, R. , & Engeli, E.
    (2015) An empirical model of M‑A teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 74, 136–145. doi:  10.1016/j.ijer.2015.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  40. Storch, N.
    (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9922.00179
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179 [Google Scholar]
  41. 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:  10.1007/s11618‑018‑0841‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-018-0841-z [Google Scholar]
  42. Thurn, S.
    (2011) Individualisierung ernst genommen. Englisch lernen in jahrgangsübergreifenden Gruppen (3/4/5). Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tomlinson, C. A.
    (2014) The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 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:  10.1007/s10648‑010‑9127‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 [Google Scholar]
  45. 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:  10.3102/00346543065004319
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065004319 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wagener, M.
    (2014) Gegenseitiges Helfen. Soziales Lernen im jahrgangsgemischten Unterricht [Helping each other. Social learning in age-mixed lessons]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑03402‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-03402-3 [Google Scholar]
  47. Waschk, K.
    (2008) Öffnung des Englischunterrichts in der Grundschule: Studien zur Wahlfreiheit und Lernerautonomie. Duisburg: Univerisitäts Verlag Rhein-Ruhr.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 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: 10.1353/cml.0.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1353/cml.0.0008 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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:  10.1177/136216880607074599
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599 [Google Scholar]
  50. 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: 10.1002/TRTR.112
    https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.112 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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. 10.1075/lllt.45.06you
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.06you [Google Scholar]
  52. Yule, G. , & Macdonald, D.
    (1990) Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40, 539–556. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1990.tb00605.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00605.x [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error