Grouping Students Across Grade Levels

Karkhana Samuha piloted a Novel Engineering lesson in collaboration with Saraswati Niketan School, with whom we had collaborated to co-design a making space. The Novel Engineering course was designed to get the students to immerse in a children’s story from Nepal, and define the problems faced by the characters. They would then use engineering to solve any of those problems.

The teachers involved in the making space had selected about 16 students for the four-week long course. One 90 minute lesson would be conducted each Friday, after the school was over. Rabina Maharjan, the principal of the school, shared that they deliberately selected all girls for the course because they had observed that boys often tend to dominate the space and activities even if they are the minority. She shared during the third week of the course that had there been just 4 or 5 boys in the class, the girls would have been limited to the role of audience. Without boys to take the lead, the girls were forced to participate and work, she added, explaining their decision to make this lesson all girls. Through this positive discrimination, the teachers wanted girl students to have more agency in the making space.

The students they had selected ranged from grade 4 to grade 9. During the course, they worked in groups of 3 or 4 students. The groups weren’t carefully planned and the teachers allowed the students to create mixed groups of their own choice. Except for one group in which the students were all from grade 6 and 7, most groups had a significant gap in terms of grade. This led to some unexpected challenges during the course. The initial assumption of the facilitator and teachers was that by mixing the grades, the older students would be able to mentor the young ones and keep them engaged. While it did happen, there were also some more nuanced issues that emerged. In this article we explore those challenges that emerged while grouping students across different grades.

In the introductory lesson, the facilitator asked the students to think like a writer. He handed them worksheets designed to better understand the characters. Students need to re-read the story and fill the worksheet. In a group with a significant grade gap, the older student filled in the worksheet but she also consulted the younger members on what to write. She often listened to younger members, but if she didn't think that it was right, she wrote something of her own. In doing so she also explained why she thought her answer made more sense.

The older girls seemed caring towards their younger partners. They did the writing part, but also asked the younger ones about their thoughts. The older students seemed to have felt responsible for their younger partners; felt accountable for engaging them, but at the same time they also felt the need to generate the "correct" responses.

Towards the end of the class, the teachers picked a student who hadn’t spoken much during the lesson. The facilitator asked her how it felt to work with someone from a different grade. The girl didn’t speak for some time, and one of the teachers tried to help her. Later the same question was posed to Lalita, her partner from grade 9. Lalita shared that Parvati had a reading problem, so it was difficult for Lalita to read while explaining the terms and meaning to Parvati. She added that reading without interrupting would have been easier but she had to pause frequently to explain things, and it got her confused.

Next week, the students re-read the story and worked on defining some problems they noticed. Lalita read the story out loud, pausing after each page to explain things to Parvati. When Lalita saw Parvati looking at the book next to her, from the other group, Lalita told her to not look there. It also seemed that Parvati didn't put much effort into reading because Lalita paraphrased the text for her. After the reading was over, the facilitator asked the students to share the problems they noted. Lalita encouraged Parvati to share the problems from their group, and asked if she wanted to do it. Parvati shared in their turn.

Most young girls from grade 4 had a hard time listening to their peers talk about the problems. They poked each other, whispered and made faces. The facilitator asked one of them to repeat what he had just said, to get her to listen.

The next step in the lesson was for students to use a worksheet to prototype solutions. To get the grade 4 students engaged, Rupesh redistributed students in groups of 3 such that each grade 9 student had partners from lower grades. In the newly formed groups, two of them had one grade 9 student with 2 students from grade 4 and 5. Some of the students were absent in this class and that too prompted the facilitator to form new groups. The older girls willingly took on the role of mentors for their younger partners. They seemed to feel responsible to engage the young girls, to make sure they participated in the process and learned. The facilitator or the teachers didn’t ask them to do this, but all the grade 9 girls seem to have internalized this responsibility. It was evident in the way they talked to the young girls and their reaction to their actions.

Let’s have a close look at the interactions in some of the groups. Nisha from grade 9 was partnered with Binisha and Sushila from grade 4 and 5. They had received the solution planning worksheet. Nisha held the pen and wrote for their group. In doing so, she often asked her younger partners for their thoughts.

Nisha then asked the girls if their group should solve the problem related to storms and winds, or any other problem listed in their sheet. The girls looked unsure. Seeing them indecisive, Nisha asked Sushila if it was not the idea that she had suggested. As no one spoke, Nisha decided that they'd stick to the same problem. Their interaction wasn't peer-like, and had a hierarchy that seemed partly to be born out of the responsibility Nisha felt towards her juniors. She often asked the girls to answer the questions, given in the worksheet, first. She told them that she’d share after hearing them.

Minutes later, Nisha asked one of the teachers if wind energy could do what they had planned. They had come up with the idea of a fan to tackle the storm. Lalita, seated nearby, laughed and said no before the teacher could respond. Nisha immediately said that the junior girls had suggested the idea.

This dynamic could be seen in other groups as well. The grade 9 students wrote, and asked questions to engage the lower grade students.

In another group, Anu from grade 9 told her young partners to listen whenever they look distracted. Anu asked them to name the materials they might need. When Anu asked her to name more materials, Ranjita, one of the young girls, abruptly told Anu to ask Ayusha, as well, pointing at her. It seemed that Anu missed having someone she could discuss ideas with in her group. Her younger partners often smiled shyly when Anu asked their opinions or ideas.

In Lalita’s group, Parvati sat between Lalita and Sarita, both from grade 9. Lalita communicated with Sarita mostly. Parvati, who was from grade 5, seemed to be listening mostly, with her chin in her palm.

In the third week, the session started with a discussion on the term prototype. The older students listened intently while the younger ones leaned on the table and fidgeted. All the 16 students were present so the students were asked to move back to their original groups from the first class. It was a bit tricky to distribute 16 students into groups of 3 each. There was some confusion and hesitation from the students, so the facilitator allowed them to make groups as they wished but with students from different grades. The students soon formed groups, communicating through whispers and expressions. One grade 9 girl asked two junior girls if they are from the same grade, and asked them to not sit together.

The facilitator asked all groups to write the names of the materials they needed to build their projects. The students didn’t refer to their worksheets from the previous classes. Also, because some had ideated different projects from the ones they were currently working on, the setting of groups had become confusing, especially for the juniors.

Each group had to select a fetcher, who was responsible for getting materials from the shelves. Lalita asks Kusum, from grade 6, if she wanted to be the fetcher. Kusum said no, and Lalita asked Kabita, the girl from grade 8 to take the role. It took time for the students to get materials because the table beside the shelves left little space for students to stand and get materials. This problem continued until the tables were moved.

A grade related hierarchy had been emerging since the outset of the course, and was becoming more visible as the students started to build their projects. In Lalita’s group, Kabita returned to their table with a packet of popsicle sticks in her hand. She asked Lalita how many popsicle sticks they needed. Lalita told her to leave the packet on the table. Kabita complied. Then she went to get a motor. Lalita, later, asked her to get a motor with a fan attached to it, seeing one with another group.

In Anu’s group, she explained her project idea to Sandhya, her group mate from grade 5. The project was about the solution she had come up with in the last class - a tower to house a siren and a windmill. Sandhya paraphrased her idea, explained her understanding of why Anu had used cardboard at the bottom, and about the choices of other materials. In this group Ayusha from grade 4 was the fetcher. Anu asked her to get straws but Ayusha didn't know the location, and what a straw was. She tried asking a teacher but did get the material eventually.

In Lalita’s group, Kusum got the task to cut the popsicle sticks. Initially, Lalita was cutting the popsicle sticks meticulously to exact lengths. She handed Kusum a sample and taught her to measure it along a popsicle stick and cut the latter using scissors. Kusum tried it, but it seemed tough for her. The grip of her hands on the scissors looked strenuous. She didn't mention it to anyone, and no one seemed to notice it either.

In another group, Ranjita from grade 4 was also cutting popsicle sticks to size. Her struggle was similar to that of Kusum. The juniors were being given the menial tasks of cutting, marking, holding things for the seniors to connect. The reason they weren’t getting many tasks related to fetching might be because they didn’t know the materials very well.

In Anu’s group, she worked diligently to roll a paper along a straw. She tried to stick the ends to give it a cylindrical shape. Her partners from grade 4 and 5 sat idle and watched her work. Anu didn’t address or acknowledge them.

Anu, working on her project, told Sandhya that she had seen the design of their project on YouTube, and chuckled. She asked Ayusha to fetch some popsicle sticks. Ayusha asked Sandhya to come along. Anu assigned the two girls tasks related to cutting paper and fetching stuff. She gave Ayusha an exact measure about cutting pieces of paper. The junior girls then got the task to cut pop sticks with scissors. It looked difficult, as with Kusum and Ranjita. Sandhya handed Ayusha a sample stick to check the length and cut. Ayusha didn't get it initially, and Sandhya told her to use the stick to measure before she cut. After trying Ayusha handed the stick back to her peer and said that she couldn’t cut it.

Anu later sent Sandhya to bring 2 LEDs. On return, she had brought three and asked Anu if they needed two.

In the group of 4 girls, Ranjita looked disengaged. Looking at the group, it didn’t look like Ranjita was a part of it. The other 3 students were from grade 6 and 7, and seemed to have better team work. They talked and laughed as they worked on their project. The last time I saw Ranjita engaged in the group was when she had held a motor and popsicle sticks for a grade 7 teammate to join. Only the two of them were on their table at that time. Others might have gone to get materials.

In the final week, the students continued working on their project. The theme of the lesson was iteration and the students had to improve on their projects from the last class. The work distribution was more or less identical to the previous lesson. The seniors built the projects and the juniors assisted them.

Lalita had assigned the same tasks from last week. Kabita was to cut the sticks, and Kusum helped her glue them together.

Anu noticed one more member in her group and asked the facilitator if there could be four members in a group. Her tone of voice indicated that she didn't want to engage another junior in her group. The facilitator said that they could have four people, and Anu called the new member near her and explained that they were trying to make the base wider for balance.

In their respective groups, Aayusha and Ranjita were keen to be fetchers. Aayusha brought some glue and handed it to Anu. She rolled a paper to make a pillar and asked the girls to fetch a piece of cardboard.

Sandhya and Aayusha got a new task of cutting sticks. Aayusha held them and Sandhya cut them. It seemed quite difficult for them. They showed the cut stick to Anu and asked if it was fine. Anu, without glancing at it, replied that it was. She was busy folding cones for the windmill. Anu later scolded them for making noise and not cutting sincerely, and Aayusha blamed Sandhya for it. They looked happy when Anu said that they had cut the right size pieces.

Sonika, the new girl in Anu's group, eagerly asked her if she needed another strip of tape. The juniors seemed eager to participate in any capacity the seniors would permit. Anu folded the cardboard pillar herself, cut the edges, and expressed frustration with herself. Perhaps she felt that there wasn’t enough time to engage her junior members.

As the time was coming to an end, the grade 9 students seemed in haste. They engaged less and less with their juniors and tried to focus on completing their projects. In Lalita's group, Parvati and Kabita were still cutting popsicle sticks. Kusum didn't have much work and stood holding scissors for Lalita. Later in Anu’s group, Sonika too got the same work and spent much of her time holding and fetching materials for Anu. Perhaps impatient with her juniors, Anu asked the facilitator if the juniors could create a story based on the project while they (seniors) did their work. The facilitator then asked the two grade 4 girls to work on the story. With reflection time approaching, Anu asked her junior members if they knew the responses to share during the reflection.

In Lalita's group, Kabita was writing the story initially, but later I saw that she was back to cutting sticks and Lalita was writing the story. Lalita explained that Kabita didn’t know how to connect the story with the prototype. Lalita wrote the story in a hurry, without the line on the top that connects letters of a word in Devanagari script. After Kabita finished cutting, Lalita handed her the notebook and told her that the story was written, and asked her to draw the lines she had omitted.

Lalita’s and Anu’s groups weren’t able to complete their projects. One reason behind it was that their designs were a bit ambitious for the available time. Lalita asked the facilitator if they can work on their projects later and complete them even if the course was formally over.

While wrapping up the class and cleaning the space, Sonika asked Anu if they’ll complete their project. Anu told her that she and Lalita will stay back to complete their projects, and that she didn’t need their help. She then gave them materials to put back on the shelves. Sonika seemed dismayed, and said that she wanted to complete the project but Anu didi had asked her to not work on it. Anu, likewise, seemed disappointed with their project as well as how she worked in her group. She thought that Sonika in her group knew a lot and was helpful compared to the two girls from grade 4, whom she described as restless. She said that it was challenging to make them understand. But she also sounded sympathetic towards their young age and said that she should have treated them better. Although she wasn’t happy with the fact that they made mistakes in gluing the fan and also damaged the motor by gluing the wires together.

During the series of four lessons, the grade gap between the students had a significant impact on the group dynamics, student engagement and ultimately on the projects the students created. The concepts of hierarchy, success, collaboration and roles were highlighted as the students engaged with each other throughout the four-week course.