Diversity of Conditions and Forms of Learning Interaction as a Factor of Academic Performance

In light of the increasing diversity within schools and classrooms, the issue of risks and opportunities for the success of every child is becoming increasingly significant. This article offers an overview of the current research on the relationship between the diversity of school and classroom compositions and the academic achievement of students. It also explores approaches to organizing cooperative learning and peer tutoring in heterogeneous classes. The possibilities and limitations of existing research in educational policy and pedagogical practice are examined. The potential of cultural-historical psychology, particularly the socio-genetic psychology of educational interactions, is substantiated for further research.

Introduction

Russian schools are becoming increasingly diverse in terms of student composition. Differences concern native language, ethnicity, academic achievements, physical abilities, and the socio-economic status of families. In this regard, the questions of how these changes affect the opportunities for developing abilities and obtaining a quality education for students from different groups, and how to manage and teach in the general education for the success of each child are relevant.

The relationship between the diversity of school and class compositions and students’ educational achievements is actively studied in education science [12; 14; 26; 38; 39; 40]. The number of studies on the effects of organizing learning interactions in heterogeneous peer communities aimed at strengthening relationships and improving academic results is growing [13; 27; 29; 46].

In Russian science we find limited interest in these topics so far [2; 3; 5], despite the fact that it is precisely in the tradition of cultural-historical psychology that the initial focus is on differences in the development of intelligence and speech of children, conditioned by the social circumstances of their lives [1; 6], the idea of the child’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) as the distance between the level of his actual development, determined with the help of tasks solved independently, and “the level of the child’s possible development, determined with the help of tasks solved by the child under the guidance of adults and in cooperation with his smarter comrades ...” [1, p. 42], fundamental ideas about the mechanisms of developing learning interactions [7]. Meanwhile, the variable composition of schools (classes) by abilities, social and cultural experience, on the one hand, and the differences in the forms of learning interaction and guidance from the teacher, form a unique combination of ZPD, which will require adequate methods of diagnosis and design of developing learning communities.

In this article, we provide an overview of the current state of research on the relationship between the diversity of school (class) compositions and students’ educational outcomes, approaches to organizing cooperation and learning interaction with peers representing different groups.

Academic staff of the school (class)

Schools and classes may differ in the academic characteristics of the composition (ability or achievement) of students. Most studies of the effect of achievement variance (standard deviation of achievement in a class) on individual student achievement find predominantly positive effects [5; 18; 42], but there are studies that have found a negative effect [23] or no effect at all [30; 40].

Studies of the influence of class or school achievement levels on individual achievement evidence that students achieve better in communities with high average academic achievement [30]. This effect is most pronounced for high-achieving students [5]. Results for low-achieving students receive mixed results [42].

Research on ability grouping shows little or no overall effect on student achievement [34; 45], with advantages for high-achieving students in homogeneous ability classes [34] and for low-achieving students in heterogeneous classes [5].

To explain the influence of homogeneity/heterogeneity of composition on academic performance, theories of social learning (A. Bandura) and comparison (L. Festinger) are proposed. It should be noted that studies of this type do not actually take into account differences in the organization of learning interaction in classes.

In turn, studies of the features of interaction and joint learning of peers with different levels of abilities, including allowing students with low levels of abilities to develop, are still few in number. It is characteristic that in the most recent review of the history of research on collaborative and cooperative learning, this aspect was not thoroughly considered [50]. At the same time, it is possible to highlight a study demonstrating that in mixed small groups, students with high abilities formed teacher-student relationships that were effective in supporting students with low levels of abilities [49]. In another study, class heterogeneity was specifically considered as an opportunity for academic progress and cognitive development for all students due to the restructuring of the learning situation: students with low levels of results, when completing a task that they could not complete independently, received advantages due to interaction with a partner with a high level [15].

Socio-economic composition of the school (class)

The impact of the socioeconomic composition of a school (class) on student performance is a well-studied issue. Students in a school with a more advantaged socioeconomic composition (SEC) on average demonstrate higher educational outcomes than students in a school with students from a less advantaged group [41]. The effect persists after accounting for individual SEC and is more significant for student performance than it is alone [2].

The identified connections serve as the basis for promoting a policy of equity and desegregation through regulation of the composition of schools and classes (abandonment of tracking and selection, introduction of vouchers and lotteries for low-income groups, opening access to private schools, etc.). On the other hand, there is a search for pedagogical approaches that take into account differences in class composition, for example, differentiated learning [38]. Successful examples of solving the problem of inequality of opportunity that arises in socially segregated school communities through the organization of social interaction are the experiments of R. Perret-Clermont [8].

Schools (classes) with immigrant students

Research on co-education of students from immigrant and native families has focused on assessing the effects on academic outcomes of both groups. Findings are mixed across national samples, with some finding no convincing evidence of a negative or positive effect associated with the proportion of immigrant students in classes. [31]. Others have found evidence of small [16] or significant negative effects on local residents [35; 36]; on immigrant [44], negative effects on both groups [36], positive effects [33].

With regard to ethnic diversity in classrooms, the available evidence is also mixed: it hinders the academic performance of immigrant children but has no significant effect on the academic performance of indigenous students [22]; it has a positive effect on the academic performance of students [26], including minorities [17; 39]; and it has both a negative and positive effect depending on the academic composition and generation of minorities [30].

The prevailing view in the current debate is that the negative relationship between the representation of immigrant students in schools and the achievement of their classmates is mainly due to the fact that migrants are grouped in the same schools as disadvantaged students from the local population, and that socio-economic characteristics are the primary factor [12].

Moving from composition effects to interaction effects, we find studies showing that intergroup contacts contribute to improved relationships, intercultural understanding, and increased educational outcomes for children from migrant and local families [25; 29].

Research into the practices of organizing learning interactions in culturally diverse classrooms reveals the mediating role of peers and teachers in the acquisition of cultural tools by minority students [21], and the effects of constructing dialogue forms of peer interaction based on mutual assistance in language acquisition that do not place minority children in a subordinate position [25].

Inclusive school communities

Some studies demonstrate predominantly positive effects on cognitive and psychoemotional development, academic results, socialization, educational trajectory and employment in children with SEN who studied in general education classes compared to those who studied in special education classes [19; 23; 32]. The results of meta-analyses show both the presence and absence of pronounced effects [20; 37]. Differences in the effects are associated with the parameters of inclusive education [24], the socio-economic composition of classes in which students with SEN are included [43].

Today, it can be considered a generally accepted idea that the inclusion of students with special needs requires more than simply placing children with special needs in regular classes together with their peers without special needs, but, above all, organizing social interaction between children.

To study the relationships of children with and without special educational needs in inclusive classes, the concept of “social participation” is most often used, and the study of interaction is conducted using the categories of “cooperative learning” or “cooperative oriented learning”, “peer tutoring”, “peer-mediated interventions” .

The focus is on the effects of students’ acceptance or non-acceptance of each other [10; 11; 28]; development of social skills and improvement of social interaction in children with special educational needs [13; 47]. Peer teaching (including when a student with special educational needs acts as a mentor) has a positive effect on the social development and academic results of students with special educational needs, but not in all cases [46]. Less attention is paid to studying the features of organizing joint work in inclusive groups (positions of participants, functions of interaction, etc.), the role of the teacher in its coordination, and the corresponding effects. It was shown that in most cases, students’ interaction in groups was carried out in a free form, in which tasks or functions of interaction are not distributed between students by the researcher [4].

In turn, an experimental study of the development of higher mental functions of children with special educational needs in the context of specially organized educational interactions with adults and peers without special educational needs, conducted by A.V. Konokotin, demonstrated a variety of developmental effects: changes in the methods of interaction, relationships, and thinking [3].

Conclusion

We conducted an analysis of the current field of research on the correlation between the diversity of school (class) compositions and educational achievements, approaches to organizing social and learning interactions between peers from different groups.

In the first case, we found a significant body of research, the results of which are ambiguous, but in general allow us to identify the risks and benefits for student performance with a particular configuration of school (class) composition and propose solutions on this basis, primarily for educational policy.

The issues of pedagogical aspects of organizing interaction in various learning communities remain insufficiently studied. Methodologically limited experimental solutions are used, focused more on strengthening relationships in the community than on developing students’ abilities and achieving academic progress. It is critically important for Russian education today to stimulate research to substantiate management and teaching methods that respond to the diversity of the school community and the characteristics of individual groups of students to achieve success for everyone [9].

In this regard, cultural-historical psychology has significant potential and methodological advantages, and, above all, social-genetic psychology of learning interactions, offering theoretical positions and experimental practice for changing the methods of learning cooperation between children and adults using signs means that expand the ZPD and transform the processes of thinking, understanding, and communication [3; 7].

Research in this area will be useful for developing an original Russian educational model that responds to the challenges of diversity and inequality in relation to foreign approaches to multicultural and inclusive education.

1. Vygotskii L.S. Umstvennoe razvitie detei v protsesse obucheniya. Moscow—Leningrad: Uchpedgiz, 1935. 135 p. (In Russ.).
2. Kersha, Yu. D. Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskaya kompozitsiya shkoly kak faktor vosproizvodstva neravenstva v obrazovanii. Education Studies = Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2020, no. 4, pp. 85-112. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2020-4-85-112 (In Russ.).
3. Konokotin A.V. Vklyuchenie detei s osobymi obrazovatel'nymi potrebnostyami i normativno razvivayushchikhsya detei v sovmestnoe reshenie uchebnykh zadach (na primere resheniya zadach na ponimanie mul'tiplikativnykh otnoshenii). Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2019. Vol 15, no. 4, pp. 79-88. DOI:10.17759/chp. 2019150408 (In Russ.)
4. Konokotin A.V. Obzor psikhologicheskikh issledovanii po probleme organizatsii sotsial'nykh vzaimodeistvii uchashchikhsya v inklyuzivnykh klassakh [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2018. Vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 45—52. DOI:10.17759/ jmfp.2018070105 (In Russ.)
5. Kuz'mina, Yu., Ivanova, A. Vliyanie akademicheskogo sostava klassa na uspevaemost' v nachal'noi shkole u uchashchikhsya s raznym urovnem nachal'nykh akademicheskikh sposobnostei. Obuchenie i individual'nye razlichiya = Learning and individual differences, 2018, no. 64, pp. 43—53. DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2018.04.004 (In Russ.)
6. Luriya A.R. Rech' i intellekt derevenskogo, gorodskogo i besprizornogo rebenka: Eksperimental'noe issledovanie. Leningrad: State publ. RSFSR, 1930, 192 p. (In Russ.)
7. Rubtsov V.V. Sotsial'no-geneticheskaya psikhologiya razvivayushchego obrazovaniya: deyatel'nostnyi podkhod. Moscow: MGPPU, 2008, 416 p. (In Russ.)
8. Rubtsov V.V. Sotsial'no-psikhologicheskaya kontseptsiya intellektual'nogo razvitiya rebenka A.N. Perre-Klermon. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 1996. Vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 20—26. (In Russ.)
9. Rukovodstvo («korobochnoe reshenie») po sozdaniyu v shkole druzhelyubnoj sredy dlya detej s sindromom deficita vnimaniya i giperaktivnost'yu (SDVG), disleksiej/disgrafiej i detej iz semej inostrannyh grazhdan. Metodicheskoe posobie: rukovodstvo dlya pedagogov, psihologov i roditelej / S. V. Alekhina, E. E. Artemova, E. V. Bochkina [i dr.]. Moskva : MGPPU, 2022. 208 p. (In Russ.)
10. Khusnutdinova M.R. Osobennosti sotsial'nogo vzaimodeistviya uchashchikhsya v sisteme inklyuzivnogo obrazovaniya [Elektronnyi resurs]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2016. Vol. 8, no.1, pp. 62—75. DOI: 10.17759/psyedu.2016080106 (In Russ.)
11. Yudina T.A., Alekhina S.V. Klyuchevaya kategoriya analiza otnoshenii v inklyuzivnykh klassakh [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, Vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 71—77. DOI:10.17759/jmfp.2018070108 (In Russ.)
12. Agirdag, O., Van Houtte, M., & Van Avermaet, P. Why Does the Ethnic and Socio-economic Composition of Schools Influence Math Achievement? The Role of Sense of Futility and Futility Culture. European Sociological Review. 2011. Vol. 28 (3), pp. 366—378. DOI:10.1093/esr/jcq07010.1093/esr/jcq070.
13. Aldabas, R. Effectiveness of peer-mediated interventions (PMIs) on children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD): a systematic review. Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 190(10), pp. 1586—1603. DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2019.1580275.
14. Belfi, B., Goos, M., Pinxten, M., Verhaeghe, J. P., Gielen, S., De Fraine, B., & Van Damme, J. (2014). Inequality in language achievement growth? An investigation into the impact of pupil socio‐ethnic background and school socio‐ethnic composition. British Educational Research Journal. Vol. 40(5),pp. 820-846. DOI: 1002/berj.3115
15. Ben-Ari, R., Kedem-Friedrich, P. Restructuring heterogeneous classes for cognitive development: Social interactive perspective. Instructional Science, 2000. Vol. 28(2), pp. 153—167. DOI: 10.1023/A:1003806300757
16. Bossavie, L. The effect of immigration on natives' school achievement: does length of stay in the host country matter? Policy Research working paper, WPS 8492. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. 2018. URL: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/702871529934288951/The-effect-of-immigration-on-natives-school-achievement-does-length-of-stay-in-the-host-country-matter (Accesed: 10.08.2024).
17. Braster, S., Dronkers, J. The positive effects of ethnic diversity in classrooms on the educational performance of pupils in a multi-ethnic European metropole. Education and Society, 2015. Vol. 33(2), pp. 25-49. DOI:7459/es/33.2.03.
18. Chiu M. M., Chow B. W. Y., Joh S. W. Streaming, tracking and reading achievement: A multilevel analysis of students in 40 countries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2017. Vol. 109(7), pp. 915-934. DOI:10.1037/edu0000188.
19. Cole S. et al. A longitudinal study to determine the impact of inclusion on student academic outcomes // Center on Education and Lifelong Learning. Indiana University. 2019.
20. Dalgaard N. T. et al. The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2022. Vol. 18(4). DOI:10.1002/cl2.1291.
21. De Abreu G., Elbers E. The social mediation of learning in multiethnic schools: Introduction. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2005. Vol. 20, pp. 3-11. DOI: 10.1007/BF03173207.
22. Dronkers J., Van der Velden R. Positive but also negative effects of ethnic diversity in schools on educational achievement? An empirical test with cross-national PISA-data. in: Integration and inequality in educational institutions, edited by M. Windzio. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer, 2013, pp. 71-98
23. Duflo E., Dupas P., Kremer M. Peer effects, teacher incentives, and the impact of tracking: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in Kenya. American Economic Review, 2011. Vol. 101(5), pp. 1739-1774. DOI: 10.1257/aer.101.5.1739.
24. Dyssegaard, C. B., Larsen, M. S. Evidence on inclusion. Department of Education: Aarhus University. Copengagen: Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research, 2013. 55 p.
25. Elbers E., De Haan M. Dialogic learning in the multi-ethnic classroom: Cultural resources and modes of collaboration. In Van der Linden & P. Renshaw (eds.), Dialogic Learning: Shifting Perspectives to Learning, Instruction, and Teaching. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2004, pp. 17- 43.
26. Fekjær S. N., Birkelund G. E. Does the ethnic composition of upper secondary schools influence educational achievement and attainment? A multilevel analysis of the Norwegian case. European Sociological Review, Vol. 23(3), pp. 309-323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcm003.
27. Ferguson-Patrick K. Cooperative learning in Swedish classrooms: Engagement and relationships as a focus for culturally diverse students. Education Sciences, 2020. Vol. 10(11), pp. 312. DOI: 10.3390/educsci10110312.
28. Fitch, E. F., Hulgin, K. M. Achieving inclusion through CLAD: Collaborative Learning Assessment through Dialogue. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2008. Vol. 12(4), pp. 423—439. DOI:10.1080/13603110601121453.
29. Haan M., Elbers E. Peer tutoring in a multiethnic classroom in the Netherlands: A multiperspective analysis of diversity. Comparative education review, 2005. Vol. 49(3), pp. 365-388. DOI:1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02271.x.
30. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Markman, J. M., Rivkin, S. G. Does peer ability affect student achievement?  Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2003. Vol. 18, pp. 527—544. DOI:1002/jae.741.
31. Hardoy, I., Mastekaasa, A., Schøne, P. Immigrant concentration and student outcomes in upper secondary schools: Norwegian evidence. European Societies, 2017. Vol. 20(2), pp. 301—321. DOI:10.1080/14616696.2017.1402120.
32. Hehir T. et al. A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education. Abt Associates, 2016. 36 p.
33. Hermansen A. S., Birkelund G. E. The impact of immigrant classmates on educational outcomes. Social Forces, 2015. Vol. 94(2), pp. 615-646. DOI:1093/sf/sov073.
34. Hoffer T. B. Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and mathematics. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 1992. Vol. 14(3), pp. 205-227. DOI: 3102/0162373701400320.
35. Hu F. Migrant peers in the classroom: Is the academic performance of local students negatively affected? Journal of Comparative Economics, 2018. Vol. 46(2), pp. 582-597. DOI:1016/j.jce.2017.11.001.
36. Jensen P., Rasmussen A. W. The effect of immigrant concentration in schools on native and immigrant children's reading and math skills. Economics of Education Review, 2011. Vol. 30(6), pp. 1503-1515. DOI:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.08.002.
37. Krämer, S., Möller, J., Zimmermann FInclusive education of students with general learning difficulties: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 2021. Vol. 91(3),pp. 432-478. DOI: 10.3102/0034654321998072
38. Lavrijsen J., Dockx J., Struyf E., Verschueren K. Class composition, student achievement, and the role of the learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2022. Vol. 114(3), pp.498—512.  DOI: 10.1037/edu0000709
39. Maestri V. Can ethnic diversity have a positive effect on school achievement? pEducation Economics, Vol. 25(3), pp. 290-303. DOI: p10.1080/09645292.2016.1238879.
40. Opdenakker M. C., Damme J. V. Relationship between school composition and characteristics of school process and their effect on mathematics achievement. British educational research journal, 2001. Vol. 27(4), pp. 407-432. DOI: 1080/01411920120071434.
41. Perry L.B. (2012) What Do We Know about the Causes and Effects of School Socio-Economic Composition? A Review of the Literature. Sport Education and Society. Vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 19—35
42. Rjosk C. Dispersion of Student Achievement and Classroom Composition. In Nilsen T., Stancel-Piątak A., Gustafsson J.E. (eds), International Handbook of Comparative Large-Scale Studies in Education: Perspectives, Methods and Findings. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham, 2022, pp. 1-33. DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-38298-8_47-1.
43. Scharenberg K., Rollett W., Bos W. Do differences in classroom composition provide unequal opportunities for academic learning and social participation of SEN students in inclusive classes in primary school? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2019. Vol. 30(3), pp. 309-327. DOI: 1080/09243453.2019.1590423.
44. Schneeweis N. Immigrant concentration in schools: Consequences for native and migrant students. Labour Economics, Vol. 35, pp. 63-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.labeco.2015.03.004.
45. Slavin R.E. Ability grouping in secondary schools: A response to Hallinan. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 60(3), pp. 505-507. DOI:10.3102/00346543060003.
46. Toulia A., Strogilos V., Avramidis E. Peer tutoring as a means to inclusion: a collaborative action research project. Educational Action Research. 2023. Vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 213-229. DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2021.1911821.
47. Travers H. E., Carter E. W. A systematic review of how peer-mediated interventions impact students without disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 2022. Vol. 43(1),. 40-57. DOI: 10.1177/0741932521989414.
48. Virdia S. Ethnic Peer Pressure or School Inequalities? Ethnic Concentration and Performance in Upper-Secondary Schools. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 2018. Vol. 10(2), pp. 155-180. DOI:10.14658/PUPJ-IJSE-2018-2-10.
49. Webb N. M. Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 22(5), pp. 366-389. DOI: 10.5951/jresematheduc.22.5.0366.
50. Yang X. A historical review of collaborative learning and cooperative learning. 2023. Vol. 67(4), pp. 718-728. DOI:10.1007/s11528-022-00823-9.