Hi Listers,
I know you have all been waiting with baited breath for the collaborative discussion series #2, so here it comes..
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LOSS OF CONTROL IN THE CLASSROOM-
LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE BY TEACHERS-
FEAR OF THE LOSS OF CONTENT COVERAGE-
LACK OF PREPARED MATERIALS FOR USE IN CLASS-
TEACHERS' EGOS-
Reasons Why Teachers Resist Collaborative Learning Techniques
LOSS OF CONTROL IN THE CLASSROOM
Perhaps the biggest impediment to CL lies in the fact that many teachers feel they give up control of the class if they give more responsibility to the students for their learning. When a teacher lectures she/he gets the feeling that the content is being covered, because it has been presented to the students in an orderly fashion. Many teachers provide lecture notes in an attempt to guarantee student coverage. Collaborative learning techniques encourage students to formulate their own constructs and ways of understanding the material. The constructivist ideology is foreign to most teachers who have been trained in the didactic method of lecturing.
LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE BY TEACHERS
It takes a great deal of confidence in one's self and one's students to transfer the responsibility of learning to the student or even to share some of the responsibility. Many teachers lack the self confidence to try methods which may expose them to potentially difficult situations. These may occur when students ask unanticipated questions or act in socially unacceptable ways. CL redefines the role of teacher from expert to facilitator. The focus on the student reduces the opportunities teachers have to demonstrate their expertise and might call into question their teaching ability. He/she has to be sure he/she has something to offer, as a person, before a class can be allowed to take some control. Some people cannot face the risk.
There is also a fear of looking stupid. Teachers are defined as being experts in their fields, able to answer any and all questions. In a CL environment students may ask questions in a manner which is difficult for the teacher to understand. Sometimes it takes another class member to articulate a question or answer a fellow student's question using vocabulary which they can understand. Allowing and encouraging students to answer each other's questions is contrary to the typical teacher centered class. CL contradicts the concept that teachers are repositories of subject knowledge, whose role is simply to pour into the open, empty and willing minds of students their vast
FEAR OF THE LOSS OF CONTENT COVERAGE
Teachers fear a loss in content when they use CL methods because group interactions often take longer than simple lectures. Students need time to accumulate enough information in order to be able to use it within their groups. They need time to work together to reach a consensus and/or formulate minority opinions for presentation to the whole class. A major function of CL involves teaching students how to work together effectively. Also, teachers superimpose onto CL their current experiences with the lecture method. For example, many students do not understand the material despite excellent presentations by the teacher and therefore perform poorly on content based tests. Teachers therefore conclude that the situation would be even worse if students work with other students who may be having similar problems. The reality is that when students become involved in their learning their performance rises. Initially groups do work slowly as they learn how to function cooperatively, analyse what works and what doesn't work for their groups, and receive training in conflict resolution. But as students get used to the process, their level of retention and critical thinking increases to the point where they can move through the curriculum faster. If students started using CL at the elementary levels, less time would be needed for training at the secondary and college levels. Thus many of the concerns college teachers have about keeping up with their schedules would be addressed.
LACK OF PREPARED MATERIALS FOR USE IN CLASS
The use of CL techniques requires teachers to build a set of handouts which create interdependence among students and provides a basis and reason for their working together. Current textbooks generally offer a set of questions at the end of each chapter which are usually answered by students individually. A few publishers are beginning to tailor their texts to offer one or two questions which can be answered by groups, but supporting materials are not included. Teachers must develop worksheets, project descriptions and other appropriate materials. In addition, few suggestions are provided in the teacher manuals about how to institute group activities. For teachers who are new to CL, this is a major impediment. Teachers generally adhere to the methods and materials with which they are most familiar, since a major expenditure of effort and time is required to revamp curriculum materials.
TEACHERS' EGOS
Many teachers are wrapped up in their own self importance and enjoy being the center of attention. The class is their stage and it provides them with an opportunity to show off their knowledge and expertise. Lecturers do not trust students to learn. They think they must tell them what to learn and provide all the structure for the learning to take place. The egotistical side of teaching must be overcome in order for teachers to involve their students actively in the learning process.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RESPONSES:
From: Helen Sitler <hsitler@WESTOL.COM>
Subject: Re: CL series #2
Maybe CL is difficult for teachers to adjust to because as a culture we're
not very good at waiting to see results. Lecture followed by test produces
instant results. Students either "got it" or not. Students working
collaboratively don't always generate predictable results, so before we can
respond we have to decide what the things they did generate mean. It also might take them longer to reach certain goals. So our cultural penchant for the instant (you know - instant cash, microwave meals in minutes, fast food) has to take a back seat to processes that will work themselves out in their own time. That's a tall order.
In addition, teachers can't always leave their classrooms saying "This is
what I accomplished today." Sometimes (often?) I truly don't know what I've accomplished on a given day. A week or even several weeks later I'll know, but on the day of any given activity, I'm usually not sure. It's only when the students have adopted the concepts as their own and put them to use that I can tell they've "got it." For some students it will take the entire semester to have that kind of ownership over what we did 6 weeks ago.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Annette Gourgey <FMCBH@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: Re: CL series #2
In response to the comments about student resistance to CL:
I, too, have had many of the same problems. After struggling with them
for several semesters, with lots of advice from Ted, as well as encouragement to share my experiences with the list, I will contribute some things which I hope are helpful. I have used CL in basic math, statistics, writing, and critical thinking.
First, I think the type of students does make a difference. My community
college students who are older are the easiest to work with. My youngest
and most remedial freshmen take the longest to get used to working
together. Ted has posted tips for getting students prepared to work
together which I've found very helpful: first, have them pair off
just to get acquainted and introduce their partner to the class on the
first day; then have them work just with one other person for a while,
before having to get used to a whole group. Match them up differently
until they have had a few weeks getting to know different people in
the class. It helps a lot to emphasize that they are getting to know new friends and that the purpose of the grouping is for them to help each other.
In fact, it is usually necessary to take some time to explain to the class what the purpose of the groupwork is--not only the particular task, but why it is being used in general. It's good to encourage them to ask questions and to listen to complaints sympathetically and address them where possible.
I've heard that students hate getting a group grade because they want their own contribution recognized and don't want to carry the less hard-working students. I hate assigning grades to groups myself, so I don't give graded group projects much. Instead, I stress that the groups are for helping each other generate and clarify ideas and for getting input from others that they wouldn't get working alone.
I've also found that I need to be extremely clear on what I want
the groupwork to accomplish, and how groupwork will accomplish it
better than another method. Accordingly, I try to match the task
with the working method carefully. I don't use groups all the time,
but alternate with interactive lecture/discussion depending on the
goals. When I design a group task, I make the procedure and instructions
very clear so students don't have to guess what I want when I'm not sure
myself. That was one of my biggest challenges when I started.
On how to group people together, I'm still experimenting. Others
on the list have posted better ideas than I can on ways to match people by
personality or working style. Some suggest assigning roles to group
members--leader, listener, recorder, etc. I've had mixed success
doing that; if students are resistant, they resist sticking to their
roles. I've had better luck starting with pairs and gradually expanding
the group size to 4. Some say never to let them choose their partners.
I usually give in on this because I get less resistance, and only
separate people if they collude to goof off.
For those who consistently come unprepared, regardless of whether or
not groups are used, perhaps it is necessary to speak to these students
individually, or build in an immediate positive or negative consequence
for being prepared or not. Usually I collect homework, record who has
done it, and make that a small part of the course grade, and most
students do comply.
Here are some sample tasks I have used for CL. In math, students
must help each other solve problems that are harder than they could
do on their own. In statistics, I distribute an article that uses a technique they are learning and they have to draw conclusions or answer some open-ended questions about the findings of the study. In writing, I distributed a protocol for interviewing each other on a topic on which opinions differ, and summarizing what they heard to the satisfaction of the opinion-giver. These were then used as material for writing their essay. In all cases, I stress that the purpose of the groups is to help each other, learn to listen, and get useful input they can't get alone. After a group task, all groups
share with the class what they have discovered.
Two important consequences for me in using groups have been that quiet students talk more in groups than in the large class, and that when the groups share I often learn new ways of looking at the material that I didn't think of before. This is true even in a subject like math or statistics where you'd think there is only one right answer. There is always a different way to approach a problem, and I let them know that I am learning from them as well as they from me. The "lectures" also get livelier and more interactive after students have worked together.
If this sounds idyllic and always successful, it absolutely isn't! Some of my classes take half the semester to get comfortable working with each other. Some of my tasks don't work and I see ways I have to improve them. It is often a slow process. It helps to be flexible, to observe what works with what students, and to try lots of different approaches. (Once I discussed with a class why something did not work and admitted a mistake I had made, and it actually made them feel freer about the class because it was OK to acknowledge mistakes.) You have to find both what works
for you and what works for your students. As noted, I use groups only when I think that method is the most effective for the task at hand. But after about 4 semesters of experimentation, I am beginning to feel that I'm discovering the style that fits me as a teacher, and that it has benefits that I wouldn't get if I taught only in the traditional way I did before.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Dr. Bob Holderer" <RHOLDERER@EDINBORO.EDU>
Ted,
I appreciate receiving your materials on collaborative learning.
I just have one question. Are there articles dealing with student
motivation? One big problem with any type of collaborative learning
is to get the unmotivated to actually take part in this type of
activity. Often reluctant students will simply not talk nor
cooperate--or they will talk about this Saturday's party at such and
such fraternity.
I realize that we will never get students flocking to collaborate like
they would to grab the last few free tickets to a football game, but
those who seem to need this type of experience the most will often be the most reluctant to buy into it.
Thanks for your post. Do you know of any scholarship that deals with CL methods and reluctant learners? I'm a perfectionist, and it
bothers me when I see students waste away valuable class time.
Obviously, students start working when I loom over their heads as I
walk around the class, but I would love to see them work when I can't be three feet away. There's got to be something out in print
concerning this.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"FMCBH@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU" "Annette Gourgey"
I have some immediate reactions to your latest post on why teachers
don't use CL. Although I am becoming an ever stronger convert to
CL, I still worry about coverage. I became aware last week that my
stat class is about one chapter behind the others, which makes me
worry about covering all the topics I'd like. I remind myself that
I am behind because I keep bringing in extras from the newspaper
to have them read and discuss on statistics in real life, which
other instructors don't do. Also, I am taking a lot more questions
in class than I used to get in the old days when I just lectured.
Then, I just zipped through my lectures out of the textbook and
"covered" more material, but few students ever asked for clarification and the exams indicated that while they could compute adequately, they really didn't understand what the material meant.
The student questions are another by-product of the CL method: I
don't delude myself that my lectures were so good that no one had any questions. I think they either felt less free to ask, or so passive, and the material so abstract, that they didn't know what their questions were.
The other issue is the one of outside preparation. I work harder
to prepare for class developing CL projects than I ever did when
I lectured. I am always modifying and updating my materials depending on current events and students' reactions. Interactive classes are also less predictable than lectured ones, which can be a source of anxiety as some projects may not come off as well as one hopes. (I had one "disaster" last semester, an article on demographics of single motherhood with charts that were too hard for them and where I think some minority students took offense at the finding that most single welfare mothers in NYC were minorities. But it clarified for me the level and topics they can learn from better.)
What all this comes down to is that it really takes a strong belief
in the value of the method to keep doing it because it is a much harder
way to teach in the short run. I think it's harder for many students
in the short run as well. Only teachers with a real commitment to
it would do all this extra work and extra worrying. What keeps me
committed to it is that my classes are so much more interesting and
fun now, I can share with them what I really enjoy most about statistics, and they and I learn so much more this way.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Helen Sitler <hsitler@WESTOL.COM> wac-l
Ted, just some quick thoughts about your part 2 hindrances to use of CL.
-about coverage. It's one of the great myths of teaching. Janet Emig called
it "magical thinking"--what gets taught is what gets learned. Ha! I think
most of us feel that some coverage of material is necessary, but we're
kidding ourselves if we think that what we teach matches up with what
students learn. Jane Tompkins in an article in College English (if you want
the exact citation I can get it) writes that what we do is what we teach.
If we want our students to engage in thoughtful interaction with course
material, then that's how our classes have to be structured. I guess the
problem lies in sorting out the difference between coverage and learning.
-about loss of "expert" status. As a teacher of writing, I think it's
vitally important to let students witness some of the struggle writers go
through. Most of the time, all students ever see from "expert" writers is
polished prose. What lies behind the scenes is the chaotic messiness of
numerous drafts, doodling, diagrams, chats with colleagues, etc. Modeling
of the writing process helps student writers realize that EVERY writer,
including their teacher, struggles. The first time I did this I was very
nervous, for the reasons you state. It's risky and scary to expose oneself
as a learner among learners. Time in the classroom, though, has provided
ample evidence that it's worth the risks. At least I think so. Sometimes
my demonstrations don't work. Those times usually turn into the very best learning experiences for us all. Having a firm belief in the above, I was brought up short one day when a colleague of mine talked about how hesitant she was to demonstrate something risky like writing. Turning to feminist theory, she noted that a female composition instructor who allows herself to fail in front of a whole class only further cements the notion that women have limitations. She viewed such demonstrations as potentially damaging not only for herself, but for women in general.
After much thought about my colleague's beliefs, I've decided that in my
classroom modeling and demonstrations will still go on. Ultimately I think
it's more damaging for the students, especially the weak writers, to go on
thinking there's some secret about writing that they don't know. Still, the
comments about gender stereotypes gave me pause. Maybe something for you to think about as you compile more information for your own work.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: jbell@CCM.HOWARDCC.EDU
Subject: Re: group grading
Retta: What might group grades be useful?
I have a friend who did well in college and was near the top of his class in business school. He went to work for a consulting company who send him away for training. He was on a team and he completed the exercises very quickly and did very well. However, he was marked down because he had not worked with his team. The task was a team task and not individual. He had never had experience with groups and did not think about how he could best help the team. He learned to distinguish between being on a team vs being one of a group. My perception is that the college faculty I know, work well alone, but judging from meetings I go to, they do not work well as a team. Our business instructor here has changed her classes over to be almost entirely team oriented since the businesses her tell her they are looking for people who can work with other people. Jim Bell
_____________________________ Reply Separator
Subject: group grading
Author: TIPS@fre.fsu.umd.edu at INTERNET
The recent thread re: collaborative learning brings to mind some TIPS discussion a few months ago about group grading, and I see these as related issues.I like to use group work in class, and I have developed a
number of group projects, group discussion assignments, etc., for use in my classes. I don't know whether students learn more as a result of the group activities, but I believe that they contribute positively to "morale" in the classroom, and they seem to help students to form relationships with classmates that carry over into study groups for exams. However, I do not ever grade group activities, beyond credit v. no-credit. When I was a student (Looonnnggg ago), I hated having assignments that resulted in group grades. I wanted to have sole control over the grade I received. I was an "A" student, and I didn't get much out of working in a group with students who were, in some cases, struggling just to pass. I resented the fact that either they could coast on my efforts and the efforts of other conscientious, serious students, or else I had to be penalized because of something over which I had no control, namely, the (lack of) effort of less
capable and less serious students. My daughter, now a college sophomore student with a 4.0 GPA, shares my aversion to group grading. She has asked me how instructors can defend this practice as being fair to the strong students (she acknowledges that the "C" and "D" students probably like it). I have not been able to defend the practice at all, and I would like to hear how TIPS-folk who use group grading justify it.
Retta E. Poe Department of Psychology Western Kentucky University
Bowling Green, Ky. 42101
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: <MORRIS@TWSUVM.UC.TWSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: group grades
I teach a program planning course where I use group project grades and
formerly taught a computers course where I used group project grades.
All members of the group get the same grade on the project. However,
each individual must turn in a grade for each member of their group,
including themselves. In addition to the grade, they must write a
justification of the grade. Their grades are factored into the
participation grade, usually 20 percent of the final grade. The
participation grade is a combination of class and group participation.
I tell students on the first day that it is a sliding scale and I have
been known to give 0 points for participation if group consensus is that
they have tried to get the person to carry their fair share - defined
by the group - and have been unable to do so.
In 10 years of using this form of grading I have not had any students
complain or comment negatively on course evaluations about it. I think
this is because they get to choose their groups and so feel they have
some responsibility if they are unable to work well with the other
people in the group. Although everyone gets the same grade on the
project, there is an effect on the course grade and they have input
to this. Also I tell them that it is up to them as to how to divide
up the work. The group can decide to give someone a lighter load because
they are having personal problems or for whatever reason without
justifying it to me. They are to try to work out problems in group
dynamics and workload within the group. If they cannot, they can come
to me as a mediator. As a last resort they can drop a member any time
up to turning the project in if they have gone through the steps to try
to get the person to carry their part of the project. In 10 years I have
only had one group get to the point of dropping a student.
Joyce Morris Public Health Sciences Wichita State University
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Dennis Goff" <dgoff@main.rmwc.edu>
Subject: Re: group grading
Kirsten Rewey wrote
> I do know of at least one professor at SVC who does use group work in a
> capstone majors-only class. I believe that he gets around the problem of
> loafing by having individuals in the group grade other group members'
> performance. Has anyone else tried this technique? If so, how did it turn
> out?
I tried this one semester in Research Methods. I had the students conduct small group research projects and present the results in a poster session. I assigned one grade to each poster based on quality of design and presentation. I had the students assign grades to everyone in the group, including themself based on effort. I averaged those (dropping the occasional score that was out of line with the others) and used that average to adjust the grade for the poster. (The grades on the posters were probably slightly inflated in case social loafing had hurt a project.) The students were very happy with the arrangement. I was happy that the loafers did not get rewarded for riding the coat-tails of the working students. Despite all of that - we have moved to individually written research proposals in that course.
Dennis M. Goff Dept. of Psychology Randolph-Macon Woman's College
Lynchburg, VA 24503
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Gayle Wolfe, Professor of Psychology"
Subject: Re: group grading
I have used group grades for over ten years in both Developmental and Abnormal Psychology classes. The students are required to give a group presentation to the class on a topic or topics the group selects from designated chapeters in the textbook. I frame the group projects as a cross-cultural experience. Thus I talk about how in the USA we tend to put a high value on the individual, but that in other cultures a high value is placed on the group. (in Developmental Psychology I use the Childworld Series which looks at development from a cross-cultural perspective so this theme of the individual versus the group is discussed in the films as well). I then discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of both. I tell the students that in their groups they are responsible for everyone in the group...and part of what they are to learn is how to get others to work who may not be cooperating. Thus, it is clear to them that I expect that they do have control over those that are not putting effort into the project. I give the groups the option of choosing to deduct points from a student's group grade, or if necessary to drop the student from the group ( thus receiving a 0 for the group grade) if the student is not working. I give them some guidelines but the group makes the decision about a student who is not cooperating. Now the point here is that students need to
learn that they do indeed have influence over others' behaviors and how to experience and use that influence. Typically the groups are reluctant to
confront a student who is missing meetings or just not doing his or her
share of the work, but I encourage them to use basic confrontation skills and offer to mediate if necessary. Overall the group projects turn out to be
excellent and students get a much better sense of what it might be like in
a society that values what will benefit the group over what benefits the individual. I am sorry this is so long but I hope I have given you an idea ofwhat I mean by a cross-cultural experience and the sense of shared responsibility. Please feel free to contact me for any further information.
Gayle Wolfe, Ph.D.,LPC____________Phone 540-727-3068
Germanna Community College_________FAX__540-423-1009
PO Box 339 E-Mail GCWOLFG%VCCSCENT.BITNET@VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU
Locust Grove, VA 22508 bitnet users GCWOLFG@VCCSCENT.BITNET
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Kathleen T. Doherty" <Kathleen.T.Doherty@cc.gettysburg.edu>
Subject: Re: group grading
I have used several different ways to grade group projects. In my lab
class, students work in groups but must hand in individual papers. They
also do a poster. I divide the grade for the poster three ways -- part of
it is content, and another part is presentation (visual aesthetics, etc.).
For these two parts, I assign a group grade. The final third of the grade
comes from the student's ability to discuss their research with others.
We have an undergraduate research day where students from several labs
present their posters. I browse through and 'listen in' when students are
fielding questions from other students and faculty concerning their
research -- thus this grade is individually based. It seemed to work well
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: ATHOMAS@bentley.edu
Subject: Re: group grading
Like several other list members, when I have students work in groups,
I still grade each student as an individual (although their ability to
handle group work is part of their grade). I have tried having the
students grade each other's work (within each group), but haven't had
much success. The students don't like it, and they tend to just give
everyone in the group high marks -- or if there is a group member
who is disliked, they mark that person down regardless of his or her
contributions. For my current group project, I am asking each group
to turn in a written summary, signed by all group members, listing
what contributions each person made -- and I will take this into
account when grading.
Ann Muir Thomas Bentley College
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Michael Scoles" <MICHAELS@cc1.uca.edu>
Subject: Re: group grading
My approach to this problem is to ask each member of the group to
distribute a fixed number of points to the other members. Fractions
aren't allowed, and I use a total number of points that can't be
divided by the number of group members. For example, in a 4-person
group, I might ask each person to distribute a total of 14 points to
the other 3 members. I haven't had a problem with "social outcasts",
but it becomes very obvious, both from the peer evaluation and
individual projects, if someone isn't doing their share. BTW, this
peer-evaluation can influence the course grade by as much as 1/2 of a
letter grade.
* Mike Scoles * michaels@cc1.uca.edu *
* Department of Psychology * voice: (501) 450-5418 *
* University of Central Arkansas * fax: (501) 450-5424 *
* Conway, AR 72035-0001 * *
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"ROCKWOOD@cup.edu" Rocky
In a fairly recent article in COLLEGE TEACHING [side note: I'm not screaming, I'm using upper case to indicate italics--how else can one do that?] 35.4,"The Kolb Model Modified for Classroom Activities," Marilla Svinicki and Nancy Dixon cite a 1979 unpublished study that found that both students (4433 in five midwestern institutions) and teachers indicated that they would "ideally like to experience less formal lecture and more of other teaching methods" (141), but it doesn't happen. The authors cite the usual suspects and then add: "But an additional and perhaps more subtle source of a limited approach to instructional methodology could be the absence of a theoretical framework for
selecting and organizing classroom activities to enhance learning." They then apply Kolb to a proposed solution.
A very recent book, Tony Grasha's TEACHING WITH STYLE (Pittsburgh: Alliance, 1996) covers a full range of teaching and learning styles in an integrated approach and actually presents suggested ways to teach a given topic using three different methodologies. It's the only book I know that uses teaching and learning stories in a complementary way. I reviewed the book for the most recent issue of THE NATIONAL TEACHING AND LEARNING FORUM. What made me connect the book with Marilla's article and the topic is that Tony advocates establishing what he calls a "conceptual base" (read theoretical framework) as a first step in any approach to teaching. He argues that every teaching methodology/strategy HAS a conceptual base, whether the teacher realizes it or not.
Did you attend the NCTLA conference on "Collaborative" learning at Penn State in June 1994? One of the issues that emerged was the problem of definition, particularly between Coop and Collab. Another issue (actually, I raised it) was the need for some kind of national clearing house for Coop/Collab that could sort out all of the different "flavors" of Coop/Collab and provide guidelines for the necessary theoretical framework. At the time, I thought maybe NCTLA and/or AAHE could fund it, but maybe it would be worth a FIPSE try. (FIPSE did fund Jim Cooper's Coop Newsletter, which attempted to bring all of the flavors into communication."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: ROCKWOOD@cup.edu Coverage in CL
I find two aspects to this topic. First, is it safe to assume that once one
has lectured on a given subject it is "covered"? Or that lecturing has some
special kind of power? All anyone who even thinks about this has to do is get a look at a sample of the notes students take from even a "best" lecture. Unless that person's experience differs radically from mine or anyone I know who has tried it, the result is humbling and deflating. Even the good students get only half--at most--of the material: everything else is garbled, reversed, or misunderstood. When I discovered this more or less by accident about a dozen years ago, I immediately decided that if I wanted students to get things like dates, names, definitions, and titles right or understand concepts accurately, I would have to give them a handout. I still follow this practice today. The point of all this is: no teaching method guarantees coverage. When one factors in the demonstrated falloff in accurate retention in lectures from 80% after 12 minutes very quickly to 20%, he has to realize that lectures are simply inefficient as the sole means of conveying material for more than 12 minutes at a time.
Lots of other studies validate that active learning increases the probability both of retention and deep rather than surface learning. What I do in classes is add other kinds of active learning to the menu besides Coop/Collab. I have had success with student-originated study guides based on a reading list, a teacher-of-the-day program (one teacher from each base or task group, depending on what's going on), dialogic journals (both hard copy and electronic), and group presentations, among other things.
What I have consistently found is that the students will do more work than a teacher would ever dare to assign. For example, with student-originated study guides, I require that each student write an original study guide (I do monitor these) and fill in the study guides of six or seven other students to the satisfaction of the originator. For doing this the students get a certain percentage of their final grade. What I find is that students write far more elaborate responses than required and do more study guides than required. I've even had students come back after a year or two and say how useful they continue to find the study guides, which have become standard resources for them.
We may not be able to teach students all that we want them to know, but we can teach them how to learn what they need to know.
Finally, as I'm sure others recognize, as students get more accustomed to
Coop/Collab, they also get more efficient at completing the tasks.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"FRARY@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU" "Bob"
To: IN%"k12assess-l@lists.cua.edu"
This post really caught my attention. I have recently retired, and we
are seriously considering moving from our supposedly idyllic university community. A major factor motivating this move is concern about the education of our daughter, age 10. In our district, the the middle school has gotten ridiculous, and "collaborative learning" seems to be at the center of the problem. They have ability grouping only for prealgebra. All other classes are constituted to have abilities ranging from retarded to bright. Teachers are encouraged (told?) to arrange instruction as group projects, and the groups are supposed to mirror the class ability distribution. The bright students end up teaching the less bright, which may be good experience but doesn't result in their learning the top- level concepts in any course. As for the curriculum, what gets covered in most classes depends on what the students are interested in or how fast
the class progresses. In other words, no one seems to know in advance what will actually be taught. Worse, we have found in travelling that this approach to "education" is widespread. Does anyone know of a place where it hasn't taken hold? Does anyone know of school systems that have not gotten into this anti-intellectual mode? For example, districts that:
1. use ability grouping wherever feasible
2. have specifications for content coverage in all courses and direct
teacher supervision toward insuring that the content is covered
3. emphasize individual work and responsibility and NEVER permit
automatic assignment of the same grade to all members of a group
4. do not permit disruptive students (special education or otherwise)
in regular academic classrooms
5. do not have programs for the "gifted" but instead provide stringent course work for all above average students who are willing to work hard
6. do not have affective goals, such as raising students' self-esteem,
love for learning, etc., except as the natural result of academic
success
When I read the original post, my thought was, good grief, why would anyone wonder why there would be resistance tocollaborative learning? What evidence is there that that approach yields higher levels of achievement? Maybe we just need to look for a good private school.
Robert B. Frary Professor Emeritus
Office of Measurement and Research Services 540-231-5413
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24060-0438 Facsimile 540-231-9998
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"L-ACLRNG@PSUVM.PSU.EDU" "Active and Collaborative Learning" John Wright
The recent collaborative discussion contribution on the reasons why teachers resist collaborative learning techniques was an excellent and succinct summary. I would like to add one more important reason to the list.It is a central reason why faculty at the University of Wisconsin- Madison Dept. of Chemistry have been reluctant to embrace collaborative learning and why the people who have tried it have not gotten good results:
Fear that the students will get the central concepts wrong
When faculty teach in the lecture style, they are careful to present the material so they are certain that it is correct. Faculty feel that they have done their jobs if the information is presented correctly and clearly. It is then up to the students to assimilate it. If the students construct many of the concepts by collaborative techniques, faculty cannot be sure there aren't misconceptions and incorrect information. And of course there are misconceptions. Misconceptions and incorrect information are part of the learning process and dealing with them is part of the thinking process that collaborative learning is attempting to develop. That is a very difficult concept for faculty to accept, especially if they want to control the process and if they don't trust the students to handle the subject matter.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@PEN.K12.VA.US>
Subject: Re: ALTLEARN Digest -
Ted,
I found your second post on this "discussion" to be a bit long on
accusations and a bit short on logic. Your topics 2 and 3 would be better organized as: Loss of Control in the Classroom, Lack of Self Confidence by Teachers, and Teacher Egos are similar, and Loss of content coverage and Lack of Prepared Materials for use in Class are likewise similar to each other, and less similar to the aforenamed topics.
Truthfully, I hope that your book provides better arguments and/or solutions to the problems you raise with the implementation of this newest fad, but as I read the Reasons Why Teachers "Resist" CL, I am reminded of the many similar fads that have come and gone in recent years, many of which sank quickly when their proponants got to the point where they took similar cheap shots at the non-proponants. (What does Madeline Hunter, for example, think of your method? Or Rita Dunn???)
You state the "fear" of loss of control of the learning environment is
what keeps many teachers from making the enormous change to CL. If you were limiting your discussion to post-secondary classrooms, you may have an argument, but under "Loss of Content Coverage", you state that until/unless children learn to use CL in the elementary schools, it it will not be time/cost-effective in secondary and college level classes. It is in those lower levels of classes, Elementary and Secondary, where teachers' performances are judged by the level of control over the behavior, learning, and "neighborliness" of their classes. Teachers who permit loud, undisciplined students to interfere with the learning in their own or nearby classrooms, do not generally get the chance to take another "whack" at it.
The didactic method has been around for a very long time, and there have been many ideas sprung up that promised to surpass the lecture, yet the lecture persists. Ideas that have relied on belittling or pigeonholing opponents' (teachers') philosphies and experiences have bit the dust more quickly than others that could stand on their own merits. Myself, I have used a successfully used a facilitative approach that addresses individual learning needs, which is neither the didactic method I "was trained in", nor the CL approach. Further, I did take a class in which the prof used a CL project and it was a negative learning experience. (What do you do when the "group" decides to take unethical "short-cuts"???)
Loss of content coverage and Lack of Materials are greater problems than you admit. Teachers are paid to teach the content, and are supplied materials to work with. Your contention that teachers should teach the CL process in lieu of content and your dismissal of the value of well-chosen texts and materials for home-made maybe-as-good's are not defensible. If teachers were expected to (or could) write the texts & materials for the content, they would need far more time allotted per course, and deserve much higher pay. Yet, even at the post-secondary level where realistic amounts of not-in-class times are available to teachers, this is not the case. For Elementary & Secondary teachers, the 30-40 min. per day "planning time" isn't enough time to develop texts in addition to lessons, experiences, lectures, tests, grades & conferences.
What struck me as most illogical in your arguments are the apparent contractions between two of your "reasons". On one hand, you say that teachers lack self-confidence, which prevents them from trying "new" methods, and on the other, you say that teachers' egos are what trips them up. Which is it? Could those teachers with egos be ones who believe as strongly in the rightness of their methods as you do with yours????
While I have seen much information that suggests to me that
collaborative learning has benefits for some learners, especially learners from non-mainsteam cultures, the arguments you have presented here would, quite frankly, turn me off. Your "reasons" as presented, insult teachers' intelligence, methodology, philosophies, and experiences.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"p.knight@lancaster.ac.uk" "Knight P"
Robert B. Frary shared his worries about the schooling of his 10 year old daughter. It sounds bad.
Can't help with US schools but can say:
1. Collaborative learning is very powerful in some subjects at some times;
2. Groups and tasks need to be structured to reward individual effort.
3. Why don't people read the (extensive) literature before doing things like this?
Peter T Knight, Educational Research Lancaster University, UK
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Linda Lane <fga2@BEST.COM>
I wanted to repond to the discussion aboutWhy Teachers resist Collaborative Learning Techniques.
My "favorite" reason was not one of the topics given but I assume others have experienced the same??
I don't mind giving up authority and I find it rewarding but challenging to create good CL lessons, but class after class, my students do not like the experience for one primary reason: there are students, often a large number, who come unprepared to perform the task, even when the assignment was given days before. They can't contribute and they frustrate the others.
There are also students who can't contribute because their skills are much weaker, and there are those who can't function in a small group setting without causing leadership problems (even with handouts and discussions of CL rules). Without fail, my good students beg me not to put them in groups; they'd rather do the assignments individually, so now I allow
this as an option. Also, if I ask the class "Do you want to do this as a group?" I get, especially in my writing classes, "NO, you tell us the information; that's why we are here, because we don't know the answers. I explain the benefits of CL and how it is so important in the real world; they still resist. The vocal ones frequently insist they don't want to learn from the others in the class, "who don't know anything more than they do or less"; in this situation, they say, it is ambiguous what the correct responses are because teachers always encourage all answers and try to be positive; they feel they are not getting what they need to know but rather are getting short changed in CL.
I do as much CL for practice (non-graded tasks) as possible but few graded ones.
A note: I teach developmental reading and writing, not college level or lit classes, at a 2 year college. I'm sure that makes a difference
but has any one out there had this reponse? Any solutions?
Linda Lane English Department Foothill Community College
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 (415) 949-7453
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: walt <WEBARL00@UKCC.UKY.EDU> WaltBarlow
In response to Linda Lane's post concerning students' reluctance to participate in CL activities:
I, too, have met strong resistance to CL activities in writing classes. I have
taught ENG 101/102, as well as advanced writing classes, and in every case I hear students beg, shout, and plead to not be forced into "group work." I have to admit that while earning my MA I, too, was forced into "group work" in an advanced composition course that had mostly undergrads and 1-3 grad students in it. The group work was a dismal failure because those of us who were diligent and on track consistently were penalized for other members of our group who were slackers. Not only do I find it odd to insist that students learn from
other peers rather than their instructor, but I find it near criminal to force
students to be responsible for others when others can have such a negative
impact on their grades. I finally had to physically threaten one of our group members to carry his end of the workload as I was about to earn the only "B" in my graduate education.
I have heard that CL can and does work well for some instructors, but I have yet to see or meet one, except in non-graded tutorial/workshop settings.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: rewey@acad1.stvincent.edu (Kirsten Rewey)
Subject: Re: CL: taking it seriously
On 10/14 Jim Bell wrote:
> Ted: What I find most difficult is getting the small leaderless groups
> to take seriously the time they have during class to work together.
> How do you get groups to stick on the topic, take discussion
> seriously, and challenge each other? I provide them with social
> psychology information about groups and roles. I stress the importance
> of groups. I do not grade discussions. I have read that it is not good
> to give group grades or grades that are earned by one and then get
> applied to all in the group. I am looking for ideas on what to do.
Jim -
When you give students general information about groups (and how
they function) students are often unable to transfer the general information into specific hints about how to interact.
In order to get the students to interact and take the task seriously you might try giving groups different questions and asking each group to make a presentation to the class. THe peer pressure of talking in front of the class might help them to take the task seriously.
In addition, nmy graduate research on cooperative post-secondary
techniques emphasized the position that students' interactions need to be
structured. You might want to check out the followng:
O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., Hall, R. H., & Rocklin, T. R.
(1987). Cognitive, social/affective, and metacognitive outcomes of
scripted cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79,
431-437.
O'Donnell, A. M., Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., & Rocklin, T. R.
(1985). Effects of cooperation and editing on instruction writing
performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 54, 207-210.
Spurlin, J. E., Dansereau, D. F., Larson, C. O., & Brooks, L. W.
(1984). Cooperative learning strategies in processing descriptive text:
Effects of role and activity level of the learner. Cognition and
Instruction, 1, 451 463.
Kirsten Rewey Department of Psychology St. Vincent College
Latrobe, PA 16560
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++