Cooperative Learning vs. Small Group Method

I am taking a course, Constructivism Strategies for E-Learning, through the Department of Educational Technology here at UBC, and we’ve been exploring different instructional strategies. It’s funny, but I thought I knew what “cooperative learning” was, but there are so many different definitions of it! I found the exercise in comparing strategies valuable, and decided to share my thoughts.

Cooperative learning and SGAM (small group activity method) are similar in that students discover content and teach it to one another and to the class, with the teacher is “guide on the side.”  The focus of the description of each focuses on the specific set up of the classroom activity, such as number of students in each group, how long each portion of an activity is, etc.

Cooperative learning differs from, and seems more effective than SGAM in that groups in cooperative learning are sustained over longer periods – perhaps working on a problem/project for a whole unit or a whole year, while in SGAM the description seemed only concerned with a 30 minute to 1 hour period. In addition, in SGAM, students are working with others, but the sources we were led to did not seem to be mention a focus on teaching students the skills necessary to work effectively in teams, such as listening effectively, interjecting politely and ensuring everyone has a voice.

Both cooperative learning and SGAM are problematic in that they seem to undermine some key aspects of constructivism. For instance, in cooperative learning, diversity of students is addressed but there is no provision for students to have individual thinking time – or at least this is not documented. I don’t think that a student should simply work alone and they need to learn how to work with others, but what if a student learns best by processing content alone first, then sharing their ideas? How do these students access learning?

Cooperative learning and SGAM each have students working in groups which addresses the social nature of learning and all the aspects of the works of Piaget and Vygotsky that speak to this. However, cooperative learning and SGAM are too prescriptive, which seems to contradict the “guide on the side” persona that the teacher is invited to take. Depending on the amount of control exercised by the teacher, the ownership over learning and the complex process of knowledge construction could be compromised. Hopefully, teachers wouldn’t be too invasive with their interventions and hopefully they wouldn’t just set up the class in groups and give an activity and assume the learning happens as long as the students talk it out. The question that teachers need to ask themselves constantly is where the balance lies between being too controlling and too “hands-off”?

February 15, 2013Permalink Leave a comment

Categories of Research in Education

Humans characterize things as a way of gaining a better understanding. Research methodologies are no different. However, as Lawrence Sipe and Susan Constable (1996) point out in their article summarizing research paradigms, we need to beware the oversimplification that characterizations can bring – not so easy when what we naturally like to do as humans is categorize things, especially as we are coming to grips with them. We can’t stop characterizing altogether, but Sipe and Constable rightly point out that categorizations may imply a dichotomy (either THIS way or THAT way) or assume a univocality (neat word, eh?) – that there is only one way to look at a concept. The consequence in research, and anything else in life for that matter, is that unique characteristics get lost.

Sipe and Constable are specifically referring to the categorization of research as either “qualitative” or “quantitative” – but of course, one might use both these strategies to triangulate data, or a more reflective research method that doesn’t really fit into either of these categories. Then we run into the problem that these categorizations mean something slightly (or perhaps drastically!) different depending on the field you’re in. So here we see an example of where categorizations, especially long standing ones, fail us.

One aspect of the article that made me stop was Sipe and Constable’s (1996) point that characterization of a research methodology does NOT imply the use of a particular method. Surely some methods would lend themselves to be used by those utilizing certain research methodologies. For example, a clinical interview method might be used by someone prescribing to a qualitative methodology. However, one would not say uniformly that using one research methodology (i.e.: qualitative) means that the researcher is necessarily using a particular method (i.e.: interview). This makes perfect sense, but is not something I had thought of before reading this article. Quite a few of our guest presenters in my Research Methodology in Education course use multiple methods, each of which supports the use of the other!

Another place that made me stop was the characterization of the relationship between researcher and researched given by Sipe and Constable (1996). I have read enough educational research to know about clinical interviews and the various ways this is done to understand students and teachers and others in the educational research process. However, the characteristics given in the article highlight the importance for me in deciding whether or not the research subject should be informed about the research process or not, and to what extent the researcher her/himself lets themselves be analyzed as part of the research process. While some could argue that research data is confounded if the researcher becomes part of the research, there are other schools of thought – A/R/Tography and Currère as examples – where the subject matter is enhanced by the exploration and questioning of the researcher’s worldview (deconstructivist – see article). If we truly respect reflective practice in our teachers, then surely why not reflective practice in our educational research? I can see, of course, the difficulty this may cause for those in the context of copyright laws and BREB ethics approval applications that demonstrate the serious, disciplined side to research. However, I can see now the arguments that could be given for different forms of educational research and how heated the debate could become!

February 11, 2013Permalink Leave a comment

Ethnomathematics

I’ve just recently been doing some readings on ethnomathematics. From what I’ve been able to figure out, ethnomathematics is the study of mathematics of different cultural groups. Its goal is to teach value for one’s own culture, respect for another’s culture, and curiosity to learn more about different cultures while teaching mathematics in a cultural context. That being said, it is a fairly new and ever growing and changing field of mathematics education, so the definition can vary significantly at this point, informed by the life experiences and culture of the person giving the definition!

Ethnomathematics is likely controversial because it does not conform to the needs of advocates who support traditional, computational, arithmetic and algebra driven curricula (see math wars). It requires a more exploratory and interdisciplinary approach to the subject. However, if one is to embrace ethnomathematics, one then opens themselves up to examining the way mathematics is done in all cultures, rather than only the canonically respected mathematics that was done in Europe that is still taught today. Often teachers balk at “multicultural mathematics” because it means an awkward application of mathematics to, say, number systems at the beginning of the year that quickly gets seen by the teacher as a waste of time because it doesn’t tick boxes on the list of curriculum objectives. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding.

Ethnomathematics also opens the door to issues of culture and representation in mathematics and in education in general, which many teachers may not be emotionally prepared and/or educationally trained for (or simply not be interested in dealing with). However, Ron Eglash (2009) exposes a way that we can use culture as a bridge to math – and nicely tick some of those curriculum objectives as well – while integrating art and mathematics in exploration of weaving or architecture or religion. While I can’t provide the article due to copyright, check out his TED Talk.

In addition, D’Ambrosio’s (2001) more philosophical piece seems to imply that ethnomathematics is a way to explore the diversity of cultures while simultaneously being something that students can gather themselves around. While cultures, such as Inuit and Navajo and Maya, may have different perspectives on the distribution of time, the heavens, and agriculture due to their proximity to the equator – in essence, they have different ethnomathematics – these cultures are united by the fact that they have come to ways of knowing through interaction with their environment – in essence, that they have ethnomathematics. Both D’Ambrosio and Eglash, it seems, agree on the rich, paradoxical “unity through diversity” that ethnomathematics can bring to the classroom.

This is an interesting area for teachers to explore if they’re looking for interdisciplinary learning to come alive in their classroom!

References

Eglash, R. (2009). Native-American analogues to the Cartesian coordinate system. In B. Greer, S. Mukhopadhyay, A. Powell, & S. Nelson-Barber (Eds.). Culturally responsive mathematics education (pp. 281-294). New York: Routledge.

D’Ambrosio, U. (2001). Ethnomathematics: Link between traditions and modernity. The Netherlands: Sense. (Chapter 2).

February 7, 2013Permalink Leave a comment

Power in Leadership

This semester, I am taking a survey course in educational leadership – Leadership in Educational Organizations – through the Department of Educational Studies here at UBC, which is taught by Dr. Mark Aquash. It has been good so far to explore issues in leadership and see how the research can aid decision making and actions taken in leadership positions. We read and responded to an article called The Seven Principles of Sustainable Leadership, by Andy Hargreaves and Dean Fink, and I wanted to share my thoughts.

In the article on Sustainable Leadership, by Hargreaves and Fink (2004), I most identified with the principle “Sustainable Leadership Spreads.” At my previous school, UNIS Hanoi, I was the grade level coordinator for sixth grade and had the opportunity to experience how difficult it really is to “spread” leadership around. While a school can offer a position where there is a need, this is just the first step. Some saw my position as one of simple busy work, while I saw it as an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of the students transitioning from elementary school to middle school. I never thought of it before, but a position could mean different things to different people, which could have any number of consequences! As the position evolved, more decision-making capacity was given to the “middle managers” like grade level coordinators, department heads, and the like at the school. This was an improvement as it “spread” leadership to more than just the administration team, allowing more teachers to have more input. In addition, the school “spread” leadership in different ways by providing opportunities throughout the year to present an element of one’s classroom practice, usually with educational technologies, in workshops set up in various forms, led by Clint Hamada and Michelle Matias. In this way, the school provided both long and short-term opportunities for its teachers to demonstrate leadership in their respective fields, which has positive effects for staff morale and collegiality.

I like the fact that C.M. Shields‘ article, “Hopscotch, Jump Rope, or Boxing” (2005), acknowledges the existence of power and the differences between men and women.  Often it’s so cumbersome to acknowledge these things due to peoples sensitivities, and some of the dangers inherent in stereotypes. I wonder, as a leader, how you can ensure that you are spreading power fairly among men and women – or among other categorizations of groups. I guess the first question is – is it your power to spread in the first place? Dr. Helen Timperley says that leadership is inevitably distributed, a point that I like. But that is a whole other discussion!

I felt the concept Shields mentions that the work at the university itself was gendered was the idea I most connected with in her article – but I think that’s due to a recent class I took with Dr. William Pinar. Shields’ article talks of a few of the women leaders in the university observing that the care for others and other elements of the jobs done in their universities were themselves gendered. I agree with Dr. Pinar that the teaching profession is gendered – whether there are a majority of women teaching at our schools or not, the caregiving role of teachers has for centuries been seen as feminine.  But Dr. Pinar goes further to state how he feels the teaching profession is treated with contempt and mistrust – and that the gendered state of the teaching profession is the reason why teachers are not given the same professional courtesy as, say, doctors, lawyers or engineers (have a look at one or two of his many books – they make an enlightening read).

Shields’ article only touched on this briefly, but I would be curious to know if the work of professors in higher education is gendered in a similar way – and how this affects the “spread” of leadership in this sector.  I’m also interested to see how the gendered status of the teaching profession affects the work of administrators.  Are administrators gendered feminine too since they work in this gendered profession, or do administrators transcend this gendered role since they are “in charge”, and is this status seen in public eyes as “male” and thus given the status it deserves?  And, whatever the answer is, how does this affect the “spread” of leadership.

There’s no simple answer to this question, but one worth considering. As you can see, these articles brought out a scatter of thoughts!

References

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, 61(7), 8–13.

Shields, C. M. (2005). Hopscotch, Jump-Rope, or Boxing: Understanding Power in Educational Leadership. International Studies in Educational Administration, 33(2), 76–85. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19363506&site=ehost-live

Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395-420. doi: 10.1080/00220270500038545

 

October 17, 2012Permalink Leave a comment