Hi Listers,
This is the third discussion in the CL series on why teachers do not use collaborative learning more. This series may appear somewhat negative because I am focusing on why people do not act, but I think it is helpful to understand what discourages people from taking action before you can seek change. After the fourth set of topics I will propose a set of actions which might encourage teachers to try CL in their courses.
This discussion looks at the following reasons:
LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES-
CONCERN WITH TEACHER EVALUATION AND PERSONAL ADVANCEMENT-
STUDENTS' RESISTANCE TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUES
LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH CL TECHNIQUES AND CLASS MANAGEMENT-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
Assessment is a major concern frequently expressed by teachers who are unfamiliar with CL. They presume that individual accountability will be lost or that one student will dominate the group or do all the work for the group. They are unfamiliar with how to assess group efforts and assign grades to groups. Often they assume that only one process is appropriate for assessing student performance.
CL as defined by Johnson and Johnson (1987) specifically calls for individual accountability as one of its five major components. Another one of the five elements is interdependence, which includes group grading and a reward system for group improvement. The two ideas are complimentary, not contradictory. Because teachers are not trained in alternate assessment techniques they naturally assume the worst, i.e., that the students will not be able to understand and deal with these testing procedures.
Techniques available for assessing groups include: teacher observations during group work; group grading for projects; students grading each other or evaluating the level of contribution made by each member to a team project; extra credit given when groups exceed their previous average or when individuals within a group exceed their previous performance by a specified amount; use of a mastery approach whereby students may retake tests after receiving extra help from their groups or the teacher; and the use of individual quizzes, exams or assignments.
Alternate assessment techniques provide an additional benefit in that teachers can build in reward systems for individual performance and group performance. These reward systems may consist of extra points toward a grade, certificates of achievement, extra time to work on special projects, class recognition for good group efforts or special recognition for work well done.
CONCERN WITH TEACHER EVALUATION AND PERSONAL ADVANCEMENT
The question of teacher evaluation is of great concern to many teachers who consider using collaborative learning techniques. In order for teachers to be properly evaluated the supervisor must understand the nature of this method and accept it as a teaching paradigm. If the department head is a proponent of the lecture method of teaching then, his/her understanding of what he/she observes will be limited (Bliss 1986). This problem can be overcome by developing a process whereby the teacher and evaluator work closely together to review the class objectives and methods.
CL classes often appear to be chaotic since groups work differently than individuals. A noise level exists, even if muted, which is inconsistent with what takes place in a lecture class or with discussion formats (Forest 1996). It takes a few moments to refocus the class when the teacher wishes to bring everyone together to go over the material, or make observations about what is going on in the groups. Groups sometimes digress from the topic at hand and need to be brought back to working on the task. Several students may request the teacher's attention simultaneously. To someone who is untrained in CL these activities may appear to represent ineffective teaching, which in turn may lead to a poor classroom evaluation.
STUDENTS' RESISTANCE TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUES
A cause for concern by teachers starting CL is the initial student reaction. Students have not been trained to cooperate in an academic environment. The primary approach in our schools is one of competition for grades and recognition. Teachers need to sell the concept of CL to the students by making clear what the objectives are and what the benefits will be. Until the students become comfortable with this new method, they will express concerns and doubts. Additionally, CL encourages student input on methodology. Not surprisingly, some of this feedback may be critical. Student criticism may be new to many teachers.
Students feel that the lecture method is "easier" because they are passive during the class while apparently receiving the necessary information. In contrast, interactive classes are very intense. The responsibility for learning is shifted to the student, thus raising the level of critical thinking by each student. This situation is both mentally and physically tiring. The students initially respond by complaining and lobbying for a return to the good old lecture days. For a new CL practitioner this can be very disconcerting. To the more experienced teacher, this is just part of the process all groups go through as they learn how to use CL techniques, and begin to see and appreciate its benefits as they move away from the comfortable paradigm of the lecture method.
Also, students may perceive the teacher as not doing his/her job. Collaborative classrooms are student centered whereas in typical classes teacher performance is seen as central to the class. In order to address this concern, teachers need to make clear to the students why they use a particular technique and what the outcomes will be from the activity. Another way for teachers to overcome this perception is to spend time with the groups or with individuals during the class. Teachers may walk around the class to observe groups interacting, make suggestions or ask leading questions in order to help facilitate the groups. The frequent emphasis upon and explanation of their roles in the CL process is a critical task teachers must do in order for their students to fully understand what they are observing.
LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH CL TECHNIQUES AND CLASS MANAGEMENT
A number of perceived problems are associated with classroom procedures. Teachers are often concerned about the potential dominance by a few students or a few students doing all the work. These questions can be addressed by assigning roles to students and rotating the roles, allowing students to assign performance grades to each other anonymously and specifying what percent of the total assignment was completed by each member, and by the teacher observing each group and making suggestions for more equal participation. Group processing throughout the semester also helps address these issues. Questions about what to do with quicker class members and/or groups who finish a given assignment early can be resolved. Additional activities can be developed or a reward system can be created whereby students are allowed to socialize or work on other materials provided they do not disrupt the students who are still working.
Collaborative learning is difficult to sustain. As in any real life situation, repetition leads to boredom. (This is certainly true if one uses the lecture approach continuously.) A significant advantage to CL is the variety of classroom activities available to the experienced teacher. When adopting CL the teacher needs to learn the new techniques, practice them, introduce them into the classroom and work with the students to practice the new methods. Also, it is often necessary to convince the students of the benefits of working together. The fact that the responsibility for learning is being shifted to the students is hard for some students to adjust to.
Other problems: CL involves trial and error approaches. Not every activity works exactly as planned and constant modification is needed. Some activities work better with some groups than with others and classes react differently to each situation. In some institutions CL is seen as cheating because the educational pedagogy recognizes and rewards individual effort and competition and discourages cooperation among students. Also, students who are exposed to CL and have enjoyable experiences in a supportive educational environment have a difficult readjustment back to other classes where CL is not used.
If the institution has a perspective that says what is going on is material coverage instead of material mastery then the teachers will be less concerned about what students are learning and more concerned about including as much material as they can in a class period. Content versus learning centered classes are the primary focus of modern educational systems. In addition, thinking about learning primarily as a social interaction is a strange idea for most instructors, students and administrators, who expect to see the teacher controlling the class through lectures and/or teacher directed class discussion. Another potential problem arises for students who learn best by the auditory modality and who may be distracted by noise in the class. This problem can be addressed through student social skill development which identifies acceptable ways for students to talk and interact in class.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RESPONSES:
From: Barb Bloemhof <bloemhbl@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Jess, you can't feed steak to a baby... I wouldn't push it if people
don't want to try the CL approach. But, I would continue to communicate
the benefits, in a level, non-preachy way... people need information on
why doing "something new" will benefit them, and you have that role.
Just make sure that they know that you are *sincere* in your statement
that *they have the choice* and whatever they choose is going to be OK
with you... be careful that you don't implicitly communicate that the
midterm is somehow not as good as the team project in your eyes, because
then you will be introducing a costly new dynamic.
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Jess Brewer, UBC Phys (604)822-6455, FAX 222-1074 wrote:
> Well, I am about to offer my students the OPTION of what I presume
> would be considered a CL exercise: they can choose between (a) the
> usual midterm exam; (b) an individual term project; and (c) a team
> project in which all members of the team get the same mark. This
> in a second-year honours Modern Physics course where such things
> do not usually occur. My prediction: 75% will opt for the exam,
> the rest will go the project alone, with the possible exception
> of 2 or 3 adventurous souls who look beyond GPA. We shall see;
> I will do what I can to "sell" the advantages of a group project
> (you can be more ambitious, etc.). Here is my question: if they
> don't WANT to learn teamwork and mutual support and community
> spirit and synergistic creativity and all that good stuff, is it
> my duty to MAKE them do it? Must I lecture them on the insidious
> evils of individualistic competition? Hmmmm? -- Jess
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Kim or Melodie Mackey <mackeys@alaska.net>
Subject: CL A mom's view
My mother recently sent me an email about collaborative learning. Her
perspective is interesting since she was a teacher from about 1955 to 1980, first six years in California followed by 20 years in overseas schools. I am sure that wiser heads than I have answers for some of her questions on CL. Current California teachers might note the similarities/differences in
education then and now in your state.
How are the groups set up? Are the bright kids in class "sprinkled" around so that every group gets at least one such kid? I did a lot of group stuff over the years but I remember one of the best was when I put the 4 brightest kids into a group all by themselves and had them do a time line..wow! What a fantastic job they did (their reward for doing the best one in class was to go down to the high school...this was in Milan...and present their work to a senior class as well as get to go out to lunch with your Dad!..they were only 8th graders so that was a big deal for them..)Anyway,it seems to me that you have to sometimes give the bright kids a chanceto work together too.
When I taught 46 kids in a 7th grade self-contained class in
Lamont, Calif.(my first 2 years of teaching)I was forced to do a lot
of things in groups and I must admit I sprinkled the bright kids so
that l or 2 were in each group. I relied on them(bright kids)to help
me with teaching so that I could have some semblance of discipline.
Ye gods,that was a hard teaching job from the standpoint of numbers
alone(kids ranged in age from ll to l6..the l6 year old was really
sweet so he wasn't a problem).Anyway to conclude,I think the idea of
kids learning from kids is OK in concept,but very hard to put into
practice if you believe the brightest kids shouldn't have to do the
job of teacher for you. I'm not quite sure I see the entire concept
of "collaborative learning" from the standpoint of what the bright
kids get out of working with dumb kids?!? Do they learn compassion?
Is that the idea? If so,I think what bright kids should be learning
is challenging intellectual ideas..stretching their brains,so to
speak,as far as is possible. ...not learning how to become social
workers!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"divines@sm1.gte.net"
I am interested and concerned about the issues mentioned here under the
heading of "Teachers Unfamiliar with Alternate Assessment Techniques". You cited Johnson & Johnson (1987) listing 5 necessary compenents of CL, one of which is individual accountability. The techniques you listed, however, were all related to group-awarded or group-derived grades, except the reference to a mastery learning approach, which might involve students being re-taught, if need be, by group members or others until such time as they are able to meet certain performance requirements. And this, for me, is the crux of the matter. The decision about the kind of assessment to use should be based on the kind of learning outcome we're trying to assess, not the kind of teaching or grouping strategy being used. The second paragraph went on to cite additional advantages of "alternate assessment" methods as the opportunity to build in extra reward systems (individual and group). Same question: what are we trying to assess? No problem with the recognition awards, or extra time, etc., but extra points toward grades? based on what? individual or group achievement? The whole issue becomes confounded with grading...for parents, report cards, etc. I know there are many advocates of CL who don't want to hear about these things, but unfortunately it has to be dealt with....and yes, I'm one of those people who keep bringing it up. That doesn't mean that I don't see value in the strategy, or that I don't wish to see more use of a variety of assessment strategies being used in all classrooms, because I do. One of my main responsibilities, however, is to help classroom teachers and school
administrators incorporate such assessment strategies with traditional
methods in existing frameworks of school organization.
Katherine P. Divine, Supervisor (Kathy) Research and Evaluation Services
Pasco County School Board
e-mail: kdivine@mail.firn.edu (or) divines@gte.net
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: SCOTTDM@wofford.edu Don Scott Wofford College Spartanburg, SC
A comment on the comments about Coop. Learning:
After nearly 15 years of doing business via CL, these conclusions jump
out and grab me:
CL is more trouble for students than sleeping through a lecture, or passing
information from eye to hand without passing through brain. That's not
intended as a sarcastic comment--I also developed skill in transcribing note while mind was basking at the beach. Value of CL for students is the
opportunity to actively practice some thinking.
CL should not be just another way to look up a list of facts to memorize. Value of CL for students is the creative give-and-take necessary to solve problems.
CL is valuable for me because I have a daily observation of each student's
state of understanding. That beats 3-4 exam occasions per senester.
Thus, another value of CL for students is the daily feedback they receive for their performance.
and we all know how reinforcement shapes behavior....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: ATHOMAS@bentley.edu Ann Muir Thomas Bentley College
Hmmm...
Looking through the latest installment on CL... I would say the biggest
problem I am having is that the students don't understand why I won't
just "give" them the information they need in a lecture format. As one
put it, "You have the Ph.D.; you know the material, so you should be
telling us what we need to know." At the same time, the students really
get into group work once they stop grumbling. A lot of this is the
social aspect -- group work is *fun*.
As I move into the second half of my general psych course (the more
standard, "basics of psychology" part, as opposed to the critical
thinking part, which we just finished), I am thinking about how to
structure the classes. Lecturing makes sense for presenting facts,
concepts, theories etc. but I still want to be sure the students can
apply what they know. So I am looking at lecturing for 30-45 minutes
each class, and doing some kind of "group work" or applications for
the remainder. We'll see how it goes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"gmead@tripath.colosys.net" "Gail Mead"
I have been following these postings. I must admit there is little
offered up to engage me. However I do support raisin this topic up before
a large group of eeducators who may be stuck in a paradigm of days almost gone by (hopefully). As I was reading this posting it occurred to me that you might be interested in views of learners who find all the things you mention as standard to be not standard. I am the princiipal and lead facillitator of a small private independent learning center. The learners here are not bothered by the albatros of grades. They are smart, quick thinking delightful people. To not collaborate would be something they couldn't imagine. They do a fair share of independent studies but when they choose to work with others the model is one J&J would , I believe, find surprisingly more liberated then the once 'extreme' view CL was held in.I intend to print out some of your postings and ask them for some feedback. If you would be interested I'd be happy to share it.
Colorado Creative Education Gail S. Meade - Director
P.O. 1383 *Stucker Mesa* The Learning Center
Paonia,CO 81428 U.S.A. gmead@colosys.net
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: mks@fireant.ma.UTEXAS.EDU (Martha Smith)
To: amte@csd.uwm.edu
You commented that your discussion on why people do not use
collaborative learning more might appear negative because you are
focusing on why people do not act. It definitely does seem negative
to me, and not just for that reason. It also at times seems to take a
negative view of teachers who have not adopted collaborative
learning. For example, under LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH ALTERNATE
ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES, you write,
"Assessment is a major concern frequently expressed by teachers
who are unfamiliar with CL. They presume that individual accountability will be lost or that one student will dominate the group or do all the work for the group."
I would replace the last sentence by what I think is both
more realistic and respectful, namely,
"They may have had or heard of experiences of what was called
collaborative learning where there was not individual accountability
or where one student dominated the group or did all the work for the
group."
I believe that teachers are basically rational beings who weigh the pluses and minuses of ideas according to the information they have available.
This brings up one big obstacle that runs throughout all your
discussion: teachers do not have enough accurate information about
CL. I believe that focusing on this aspect would be a more positive
approach, and therefore more effective. For example, when you
introduced discussion of this issue on the AMTE listserve on Sept 22,
you wrote,
"WHY MORE TEACHERS DO NOT USE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUES
Considering the overwhelming number of benefits created by the
use of collaborative learning methods, it is surprising that so few teachers
use this paradigm. The cause lies in the current educational system which
emphasizes content memorization and individual student performance through competition."
I wondered at the time why you didn't list any documentation
of the benefits. I think this needs to come before any other
discussion of why people don't adopt this paradigm -- they can't
reasonably be expected to unless they see the benefits.
Another problem left out is the time involved in implementing
CL (or any new paradigm). In my experience, most teachers find time
at a premium. Case studies of and testimonials from teachers' who
have gotten around this obstacle would, in my opinion, be far more
constructive than analyzing why teachers "resist" CL. Again clear
documentation of the benefits is crucial. It's not reasonable to
expect people to go to a lot of effort to implement something if
they're not convinced that it's worth the effort.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Ladnor Geissinger <ladnor.iat@mhs.unc.edu>
To: amte@csd.uwm.edu
I certainly agree with Martha Smith's comments about the CL series
content, intent and tone. I tried to say something similar much
earlier but was not as tactful as she. She argues for clear
documentation of the benefits tacitly assuming that there are some, I
brashly questioned whether they existed.
Anyone ready to comment on E.D.Hirsch's new book, The Schools We Need,
and Why We Don't Have Them? Do you all keep a copy of the glossary in
your briefcase to whip out and consult whenever you note tattletale signs
of educationese or psychobabble? And what about the highly touted
success of the teacher ed program at Trinity Univ in San Antonio (one of
seven models held up as exemplars, it's claimed).
Ladnor Geissinger
Math Prof at UNC Chapel Hill & Math Chair at IAT
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: in%"amte@csd.uwm.edu"
Subj: CL response
Martha and Ladner question the tone of my posts on CL and I agree they are somewhat negative. In previous posts I have asked the question "how many teachers use CL" and the responses were overwhelming. very few people have even tried it. I followed up this question by asking Why? The statements I have offered as topics for discussion came out of those
answers and my own discussion with dozens of local educators. People who
criticize Cl the most appear to have the least experience or information
about the topic and make clains which are directly addressed by all CL
trainer and CL manuals.
Look around at your own institution and then tell me how many teachers use active, hands on, group work to involve their students in their own learning process. I suspect it will not be very many.
As for the resaerch, the Johnsons have written a book listing all
the research on CL which highlights and discusses the benefits. If you
are really interested and are not presenting this question as a straw man
argument then I suggest you contact them. The book is titled "Cooperation
and Competition- Theory and Research" by David Johnson and Roger Johnson, Interaction book Co., 7208 Cornelia Dr., Edina, MN 55435 Phone 612-831-9500. The book cites several hundred papers and ameta-analyses on CL.
My own irritation comes when people make incorrect or derogatory
statements about CL when they obviously have had limited experience in this area. My enthusiasm, on the other hand, comes from the impact that I see this method has on students and contrary impacts of pure lecturing. I also find it ironic that I use lectures as part of CL but I have found few if any teachers who lecture using CL techniques, and these are the people who are most critical of CL.
There I feel much better now!
Ted
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"rhorvath@cci-29palms.com" "Rick Horvath"
Your five topics cover a wide area, however, I have found that coop learning is avoided not so much for the topic reasons, but for student
behavior/discipline reasons. In recent years students seem to be less
motivated to learn regardless of the teaching strategy employed. The
behavior of one individual in an inclusive or mainstreamed classroom can
undermine the best coop lesson plan. I am not saying that all the
discipline problems are special ed students. I am saying that students are
not held accountable or responsible for their actions outside of school and
subsequently do not learn good cooperative skills. You cannot leave that
responsiblity completely on the school's shoulders. One student in a
classroom that disregards others or the authority of others can turn a coop
classroom into a waste of time and energy. Coop classrooms are good for 90% of the students. We have to make accommodations for the other 10% in another type of classroom.
R L. Horvath Resource Specialist
REPLY from Ted Panitz
Thanks for your response to my post. My experiences have been just
the opposite of what you cited. I find that when students are working
in smaller groups on a project or worksheet or class assigment, it
becomes impossible for one student to disrupt the class. This is because
no one else cares if someone is acting out. The other students are too
busy working together to even notice. It is possible for a student to
disrupt an individual group, but if this happens it is quite legitimate
to seperate that student from the group and have him/her work alone. Then the group work becomes a reward or something to be earned and not a chore.
I find that when I lecture prior to assigning groups their work that
students who want to disrupt the class talk under their breath to each other or write notes or openly kid around. I manage to get them under control but it takes a few moments away from my presentation and breaks the train of thought we are in. They can do this because I am the focus of the class and it becomes easy to break into my lecture either by poor behavior, rudeness or for the more sophisticated students asking questions which may or may not be appropriate. When we go into groups and I walk around helping them their stage is removed and the behavior usually stops. Many students are just seeking attention so Cl removes their opportunities for showing off.
By the way I teach at a community college and still see the same behavior patterns that high school teachers report. Se Le Vie! Huh.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"chrisman@wolfenet.com" "r. c. chrisman" (Bob)
Ted,
I have used a simple technique for CL in my classes:
1. The class defines criteria for assessing effective group work (I record
on board, and have them copy after we reach concensus).
2. Each group assesses its own effectiveness using the criteria above.
In all cases, "on task," "active listening," and ensuring everyone speaks
have been student generated criteria. While my students are in college, I have have heard many success stories from educators at all levels.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: powell@direct.ca (Ross Powell)
Subject: Re: CL series #2 & polarization
Ted, et al. -
Hmmmm. Discussion on this seems to be going rather slowly and addresses the issues raised for "series #2" only in a roundabout way.
Thought it might be time, therefore, to voice some misgivings I have about
topics 2 & 3 as listed together in this series:
>
> LOSS OF CONTROL IN THE CLASSROOM- topic2
> LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE BY TEACHERS- topic 2
> FEAR OF THE LOSS OF CONTENT COVERAGE- topic 3
> LACK OF PREPARED MATERIALS FOR USE IN CLASS-topic 3
> TEACHERS' EGOS- topic 3
To me, this list of subtopics has a generally disparaging tone. Oh, there
is one that speaks to a practical concern about the availability of
material, but on the whole the implication is that some kind(s) of
dispositional attribution(s) best explain this "resistance." This is
reinforced, for me, by the seemingly offhanded way the analysis of this
issue is conducted. Thus, the statement:
"Perhaps the biggest impediment to CL lies in the fact that many teachers
feel they give up control of the class..."
leaves me wondering why this is singled out as being "perhaps the biggest." Is there really clear data on this? If not, on what grounds is it made salient?
Why not presume, for example, that "the biggest impediment" is simply that few teachers feel they know what they're doing with collaborative
techniques? Let's not be fainthearted about why lecturing is so popular:
it's what we feel we know. We've been on the receiving end of it for many
years during which we've seen it deployed with a wide range of age groups by a variety of different personalities who have impressed us with thediversity of their particular talents and foibles. Whether we really *do*
understand what's going on pedagogically in "the lecturing method," we
certainly feel as though we understand it and our role(s) within it. This
can hardly be said for "collaborative learning techniques," even among
those who have attended one or two workshops illustrating their use.
It seems to me that there is already scorn aplenty organized around this
topic without adding to it, even inadvertently (as I'm nearly sure is the
case here). Those using primarily lecturing techniques tend to be
presented as stuck in a practice adopted out of convenience rather than
choice, those attracted to CL as fad-struck seekers for an unlikely
panacea. While it *might be the case that one way to get around this kind
of polarization is to increase our understanding of why CL techniques are
not more widely employed, I think it has to be done VERY carefully so as to avoid making things worse.
I worry that the above list, and the casual way the underlying analysis is
presented, may do just this.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "William C. Mead" <wcm@ROADRUNNER.COM>
Subject: Re: CL series #2 responses
A couple of thoughts occurred to me on reading this post...
>... 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.
I'd like to reinforce Annette's point here by saying that CL doesn't have to be "all or nothing". There are at least two ways in which teaching can be split: 1) CL should be used for only part of a course, to provide an enrichment activity, rather than to carry the entire subject matter; and 2) perhaps one could set up a project where the group work is supplemented by individual work and vice versa, and give both a group and an individual grade (a little speculative-- but this is a little bit parallel to the way team work functions in science and engineering in industry).
>From: "Dr. Bob Holderer" <RHOLDERER@EDINBORO.EDU>
>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.
And everybody would benefit from some of it!
>...Although I am becoming an ever stronger convert to
>CL, I still worry about coverage.
Whatever teaching method is used, there is always a trade-off between
breadth of coverage and depth, and between exposure to new material
and mastery. These tradeoffs just have to be made. I think it's
a good idea to go for some depth and some breadth. On the average,
especially in primary and secondary education, I think there was
when I was passing through, too much emphasis on breadth and to
few opportunities to delve deeply into a topic. But the opposite
extreme wouldn't be a good way to proceed, either.
>... the comments about gender stereotypes gave me pause. Maybe
>something for you to think about as you compile more information for >your own work.
If the students encounter male teachers who are also willing to share
the process of creating, the gender bias issue will not matter much.
If the male instructors, on the whole, are unwilling to share the
process of creativity, then I would hope the female ones would have
the courage to do the right thing, in spite of "image" issues.
I am a whole lot less interested in perceptions and image than in
what is the best way to proceed. In this case, I agree that it is
important for students to have at least some experience with the
process of creation. Infalibility of the instructor is
counterproductive.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++