Having used Problem Based Learning in my classroom, I found Ryan's article interesting if a bit outdated. Although it requires more time than traditional teaching methods, problem based learning is an excellent way to introduce mathematical concepts, particularly in Geometry, where so much of what we do can be represented physically.
Although Ryan's use of e-Talk and Hypercard is dated, the ideas and goals presented are still valid and achievable using current technology. To illustrate this point, I'll use the "Tower Wars" project I do for Geometry and include a few plans I have to update the project for the 21st century.
The idea behind the project is for students to build the tallest tower (that remains structurally sound) given 50 popsicle sticks and certain restrictions (types of adhesives, other materials, etc). The first time I assigned the project, I simply gave the students the rules, let them put themselves in groups, and gave a due date. The second time around, sensing a need for more structure and the opportunity to teach additional skills, I implemented two more "stages" to the project.
The first stage required each group to submit a blueprint of the tower they were designing, with three different angles of views and notes on the design specifics. The second stage required students to build a digital proposal similar to the blueprint using an online Ajax-based application and submit their proposal to me in PDF format. I found that requiring these two extra pieces served two benefits: 1) it required students to build a 21st century skill set by forcing them to learn and use a software program that they were not familiar with and 2) it forced them to spend more time planning and designing their towers.
My ideas for the future fall in line with what Ryan was suggesting in the article. My main goal is to improve collaboration. Currently this is the greatest roadblock that the students encounter. Because this project falls during our surface area and volume units, there is not a great deal of time for work to be done in class, therefore most work is done independently after school. Most of the students in my Geometry class are sophomores and do not have driving licenses. Face to face collaboration is hard for the groups to achieve and most often, one group member does the majority of the work. My plan is to set up some sort of online collaboration solution where students can synchronously or asynchronously work on the design of the project. Although Ryan's hypercard solution is outdated and limited, there are several solutions that I am looking into integrating into this project.
References: RYAN, C., & KOSCHMANN, T. (1994). THE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING LABORATORY: A TECHNOLOGY-ENRICHED ENVIRONMENT TO SUPPORT PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING. IN RECREATING THE REVOLUTION: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 15TH ANNUAL NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING CONFERENCE (NECC) (PP. 160-167). BOSTON, MA.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Haller and Cooperative Learning
This article caught my attention for two reasons. First, it was done at NC State, which doesn't mean a whole lot but it does add a nice touch. Second, Haller describes how the same scenario resulted in two different methods of cooperative learning problem solving.
I found the results somewhat troubling, as I would expect college students to be able to manage better in a group environment. At the same time, I understand how the interactional difficulties can occur. In fact, I believe some type of difficulties can be expected out of groups of any age or sex demographic. Most importantly, I now have a much clearer idea of what to look for when I assign my students activities to work on in groups.
As a teacher, I have seen both the Transfer of Knowledge and Cooperative Sequence scenarios take place. Although Haller is quick to point out that the sample sizes are not large enough to pinpoint any statistical conclusions, the Cooperative Sequence was most popular among female groups. My observations in my classroom have also pointed to this. Within a mixed group or a group of males, the Transfer of Knowledge method usually wins out, with one dominant participant taking the role of "teacher." It is usually in the groups of girls that true group collaboration takes place. However, it is important to note that each method has its strengths.
Haller's tips for minimizing problems with cooperative learning are very useful. Although this article speaks towards engineering education, the guidelines that Haller presents are useful in the high school setting as well.
As educators, we are taught from the beginning that group environments and cooperative learning are very beneficial in ensuring that a maximum number of students become proficient in the course of study. However, creating a successful cooperative learning environment is not easy and it does require planning, effort and responsiveness on the part of the instructor. Failure to do so can result in an unpleasant experience and minimal gains in student achievement. As Haller lists methods for improving collaborative learning, she is also quick to point out how interactional problems can detract from the learning that should be taking place.
References: Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L., & Felder, R. M. (2000). Dynamics of peer education in cooperative learning workgroups. Journal of Engineering Education 89(3), 285-293.
I found the results somewhat troubling, as I would expect college students to be able to manage better in a group environment. At the same time, I understand how the interactional difficulties can occur. In fact, I believe some type of difficulties can be expected out of groups of any age or sex demographic. Most importantly, I now have a much clearer idea of what to look for when I assign my students activities to work on in groups.
As a teacher, I have seen both the Transfer of Knowledge and Cooperative Sequence scenarios take place. Although Haller is quick to point out that the sample sizes are not large enough to pinpoint any statistical conclusions, the Cooperative Sequence was most popular among female groups. My observations in my classroom have also pointed to this. Within a mixed group or a group of males, the Transfer of Knowledge method usually wins out, with one dominant participant taking the role of "teacher." It is usually in the groups of girls that true group collaboration takes place. However, it is important to note that each method has its strengths.
Haller's tips for minimizing problems with cooperative learning are very useful. Although this article speaks towards engineering education, the guidelines that Haller presents are useful in the high school setting as well.
As educators, we are taught from the beginning that group environments and cooperative learning are very beneficial in ensuring that a maximum number of students become proficient in the course of study. However, creating a successful cooperative learning environment is not easy and it does require planning, effort and responsiveness on the part of the instructor. Failure to do so can result in an unpleasant experience and minimal gains in student achievement. As Haller lists methods for improving collaborative learning, she is also quick to point out how interactional problems can detract from the learning that should be taking place.
References: Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L., & Felder, R. M. (2000). Dynamics of peer education in cooperative learning workgroups. Journal of Engineering Education 89(3), 285-293.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Comments on Wilson
In his research paper, Wilson describes his experiment with guided design and serial decision making and the outcomes he noticed. To basically sum up his experiment, he presented a large class with a ship-wreck scenario in which they must rate the usefulness of several items recovered from the shipwreck. Each individual creates and list and then small groups are formed, where each group comes up with a list. Then, the "accuracy" of each list is checked against a list created by an expert.
What struck my interest from this article is that this is the same basic method that Green Hope's (the school where I teach) administration uses at faculty meetings for including the faculty in problem solving. Anytime there is an issue they wish to tackle, we break into smaller groups. Each group then presents its solution and we discuss the results as one large group again.
I can echo many of Wilson's observations pertaining to the experiment. Wilson (2004) mentions "Six of the sixty-two teams experienced the “monster” of team learning. One three-
person team failed to reach a solution in the time provided, experiencing complete
collaborative breakdown in their deliberations (p. 8). I have seen this in our faculty meetings. Teachers can be particularly ornery, especially when presented with a task that they do not want to participate in. I have seen groups not come up with any result at all, or only have a couple of answers thrown together for the sake of having something.
However, as Wilson also observed, most often the outcome is positive. Individuals have opinions on topics that are often a little extreme, or based on incorrect assumptions. The group atmosphere is good at pulling in common sense without ignoring innovative ideas. Also, the logistics of sharing information is much more efficient using this method. It is very difficult for good ideas to be heard when dealing with a larger group. Many people are afraid to speak their mind and others are all too willing.
One variable that Wilson takes into account is the existence of an "expert" within groups. He was able to recognize these individuals by their score being higher than that of the group (with regards to accuracy). This also exists in the faculty meetings that we have. Often times we deal with issues that I know nothing about. Many times there is a large number of people in the group who are ignorant to the issue at hand. As Wilson noted, the experts typically understand that they are the expert of the group and help guide the decision-making process in the right direction.
References: Wilson, P. N. (2004). Mutual gains from team learning: A guided design classroom exercise. Cardon Research Papers in Agricultural and Resource Economics (No. 2004-07). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
What struck my interest from this article is that this is the same basic method that Green Hope's (the school where I teach) administration uses at faculty meetings for including the faculty in problem solving. Anytime there is an issue they wish to tackle, we break into smaller groups. Each group then presents its solution and we discuss the results as one large group again.
I can echo many of Wilson's observations pertaining to the experiment. Wilson (2004) mentions "Six of the sixty-two teams experienced the “monster” of team learning. One three-
person team failed to reach a solution in the time provided, experiencing complete
collaborative breakdown in their deliberations (p. 8). I have seen this in our faculty meetings. Teachers can be particularly ornery, especially when presented with a task that they do not want to participate in. I have seen groups not come up with any result at all, or only have a couple of answers thrown together for the sake of having something.
However, as Wilson also observed, most often the outcome is positive. Individuals have opinions on topics that are often a little extreme, or based on incorrect assumptions. The group atmosphere is good at pulling in common sense without ignoring innovative ideas. Also, the logistics of sharing information is much more efficient using this method. It is very difficult for good ideas to be heard when dealing with a larger group. Many people are afraid to speak their mind and others are all too willing.
One variable that Wilson takes into account is the existence of an "expert" within groups. He was able to recognize these individuals by their score being higher than that of the group (with regards to accuracy). This also exists in the faculty meetings that we have. Often times we deal with issues that I know nothing about. Many times there is a large number of people in the group who are ignorant to the issue at hand. As Wilson noted, the experts typically understand that they are the expert of the group and help guide the decision-making process in the right direction.
References: Wilson, P. N. (2004). Mutual gains from team learning: A guided design classroom exercise. Cardon Research Papers in Agricultural and Resource Economics (No. 2004-07). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Reflection on Kulik
Although the audio-tutorial method has its place among certain subjects, the thought of math classes being taught in this method makes me cringe. Having participated in an online math course during my undergrad at UNC Pembroke, I have reservations about math being taught in almost any distance method that does not allow an instructor to:
a) show how a problem is solved
b) get immediate feedback on how a student is doing
c) view the facial expressions of a student
d) assess not just the final answer but also the processes taking place in a student's work
That being said, the audio-tutorial method offers quite a bit as a supplementary method of instruction, particularly with the current multimedia capabilities that are present. For the subjects I am teaching, I envision a tutorial with visuals, audio and motion that allow students to take individual concepts and review them as deemed necessary.
Where the audio-tutorial method offers a great deal of promise is in the sciences and social studies subjects. In science, it allows students the benefit of being able to progress as they comprehend the material. Multimedia elements are able to help teach concepts and keep the material from being too dry. While there is no substitute for a hands-on lab, interactive applets do provide some level of experimentation with laws and theorems. For social studies, there are already vast resources available that cover our world and its' history in great depth. All that is needed is an organizational layout and the instructor can almost be replaced in many cases. When all that a history teacher does is lecture, he lends himself to replacement pretty easily.
As technology has evolved over the past fifteen years, the audio-tutorial method has become an increasingly rational method for inclusion in public education. While an audio-taped lesson would be very dry, the inclusion of photos, video and non-linear interactivity allows such a lesson to be spiced up to where it is bearable for the student. It still requires more effort and self discipline on the part of the student, but in return offers the learner a chance to break free of the structure enforced by the traditional learning environment.
References: KULIK, J. A., KULIK, C. C., & COHEN, P. A. (1979). RESEARCH ON AUDIO-TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION: A META-ANALYSIS OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES. RESEARCH IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 11(4), 321-341.
a) show how a problem is solved
b) get immediate feedback on how a student is doing
c) view the facial expressions of a student
d) assess not just the final answer but also the processes taking place in a student's work
That being said, the audio-tutorial method offers quite a bit as a supplementary method of instruction, particularly with the current multimedia capabilities that are present. For the subjects I am teaching, I envision a tutorial with visuals, audio and motion that allow students to take individual concepts and review them as deemed necessary.
Where the audio-tutorial method offers a great deal of promise is in the sciences and social studies subjects. In science, it allows students the benefit of being able to progress as they comprehend the material. Multimedia elements are able to help teach concepts and keep the material from being too dry. While there is no substitute for a hands-on lab, interactive applets do provide some level of experimentation with laws and theorems. For social studies, there are already vast resources available that cover our world and its' history in great depth. All that is needed is an organizational layout and the instructor can almost be replaced in many cases. When all that a history teacher does is lecture, he lends himself to replacement pretty easily.
As technology has evolved over the past fifteen years, the audio-tutorial method has become an increasingly rational method for inclusion in public education. While an audio-taped lesson would be very dry, the inclusion of photos, video and non-linear interactivity allows such a lesson to be spiced up to where it is bearable for the student. It still requires more effort and self discipline on the part of the student, but in return offers the learner a chance to break free of the structure enforced by the traditional learning environment.
References: KULIK, J. A., KULIK, C. C., & COHEN, P. A. (1979). RESEARCH ON AUDIO-TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION: A META-ANALYSIS OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES. RESEARCH IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 11(4), 321-341.
Thoughts on Davis
The Keller Plan sparked my interest because it offers a means to implementing differentiated instruction. Educators have always struggled with how to allow students to move at their own pace, typically giving up and teaching to the middle third of the class. The Keller Plan allows students to receive a study guide and learn individually. Also of important, it allows for asynchronous learning, offering the flexibility for distance education.
21st century technology now makes the Keller Plan (or atleast many elements) feasible in classroom environments across multiple ages and disciplines. I have a Blackboard site set up for my Geometry and Algebra 1 classes which hosts a variety of notesheets, interactive educational tools, links and textbook resources. Although very few of students ever log on (ahh the bane of teaching academic non-honors courses), it is available should they ever develop a wild spark of interest.
Davis (p2) points out the disadvantages of the Keller Plan, particularly in its most traditional sense. It is tough to provide the personal attention needed for the Keller Plan to operate when teaching in the traditional classroom setting. Also, distance courses require much more self-discipline on the part of the student (ironic, given this post is a week late).
In the high school setting, one possible workaround for these drawbacks is an ICR (inclusion) classroom, where a special education teacher is assisting a traditional classroom teacher in a core class, often with a high number of special needs students present. I am teaching an ICR Algebra 1 part 2 and an ICR geometry and am planning on implementing many of the Keller characteristics in the class. I've been looking for a way to allow my brighter students to work at their own pace and this shows quite a bit of promise.
References: DAVIS, R. L., & RAGSDALE, K. M. (N.D.). DESIGN OF AN EFFECTIVE, WEB-BASED, GLOBAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT USING THE KELLER PLAN.
21st century technology now makes the Keller Plan (or atleast many elements) feasible in classroom environments across multiple ages and disciplines. I have a Blackboard site set up for my Geometry and Algebra 1 classes which hosts a variety of notesheets, interactive educational tools, links and textbook resources. Although very few of students ever log on (ahh the bane of teaching academic non-honors courses), it is available should they ever develop a wild spark of interest.
Davis (p2) points out the disadvantages of the Keller Plan, particularly in its most traditional sense. It is tough to provide the personal attention needed for the Keller Plan to operate when teaching in the traditional classroom setting. Also, distance courses require much more self-discipline on the part of the student (ironic, given this post is a week late).
In the high school setting, one possible workaround for these drawbacks is an ICR (inclusion) classroom, where a special education teacher is assisting a traditional classroom teacher in a core class, often with a high number of special needs students present. I am teaching an ICR Algebra 1 part 2 and an ICR geometry and am planning on implementing many of the Keller characteristics in the class. I've been looking for a way to allow my brighter students to work at their own pace and this shows quite a bit of promise.
References: DAVIS, R. L., & RAGSDALE, K. M. (N.D.). DESIGN OF AN EFFECTIVE, WEB-BASED, GLOBAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT USING THE KELLER PLAN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
