Group Learning Environments

The models that we'll be looking at today are 1) Guided Design, 2) Cooperative Learning, 3) Problem-based Learning and 4) Situated Learning or Cognitive Apprenticeships.

Similarities and differences:

One of the main similarities I noticed is that most of the models fall back on or directly rely upon a problem-solving based curriculum. Guided design and cognitive apprenticeships seem to particularly focus on teaching particular methodologies, which can then be used in realistic situations. Problem-based learning also includes teaching the method of solving a problem, but is or, at least, can be more focused on the actual problem than the methodology. Cooperative learning seems to be a very broad group of learning plans that involve teamwork and usually, but not necessarily, problem-solving, often through group discussion and teaching. All of these methods tend toward a constructivist model of learning, meaning that students are supposed to construct their own understandings of the content rather than being told how content fits together. This seems to be naturally true of the problem-solving and analytical focus of all of these models.

Initial reactions:

The Hope - The great advantage to these models centers around the development of two skill sets: decision making and interpersonal communication. These are two skills sets that students will most definitely need in their future jobs and lives in general. Decision making is one of the toughest things to teach students, but by putting them in self-directed learning situations, they must decide how to react, approach material, communicate with others, which sources are appropriate (etc ad infinitum). This may be difficult for students at first, but with appropriate coaching and scaffolding, students should be able to get the hang of it relatively quickly. The second skill set they will be developing will not come as easily. Interpersonal communications that allow for real group learning to happen require a certain level of maturity and mutual respect among group members. This can be harder to achieve. Modeling and reinforcing appropriate interpersonal skills is necessary, as well as the mediation process. Though these skills may be harder to teach, they will be infinitely helpful to students in life. With mastery of these skills, students will be more confident and take more ownership of their actions.

Another advantage is the motivation and interest level of the activities that most of these models call for. It is much more interesting to try to figure out what a culture is like by digging through artifacts and figuring out what they mean or design your own trebuchet than to memorize facts without context. These activities tend to be highly engaging, therefore keeping students on task and in the material.

The Concern - One of the problems I think could be the development of critical thinking skills. Group members provide a certain kind of scaffolding for each other. If there are students in a group who are better at decision making or critical thinking they can provide a model and help for their fellow group members. On the other hand, it may also be true that the students who are better at the processes may dominate, rather than coach or help other students. Weaker students may learn the problem-solving process well, but not necessarily become better critical thinkers. I think that these group projects would need to be supplemented with appropriate individual activities that would illustrate acquisition of critical thinking skills.

The most obvious potential problem is the group dynamic. We come from a culture believing in the power of the rugged individual and many school situations have become highly competitive.That mindset is part of what creates the interpersonal problems and breakdown of group dynamic. Part of the commitment to group work is the commitment to teaching students about how group dynamics work and the interpersonal skills they need to make a successful cooperative learning environment. I think gaining this commitment from the students is much harder than the group work, in and of itself. 

Group work really requires less focus on the self and more focus on a community. Methods like the Jigsaw method try to use a self interested position (you will be graded and have to be the expert) to get students to work well in groups (teaching other students and acting as a group expert). I am not sure if I am convinced that this kind of ultimatum will work, particularly not at the primary or secondary level. The assumption made by all of these models is that the students will be motivated to work toward group success. A practical downside of this is that if you give your students a "group sink or swim" ultimatum, the motivated students might do all of the work, while the under motivated students will ride their coattails or bring the group grade down. The downside of giving individual participation grades within the group is that each student might still be motivated only to do the work for themselves (and their individual high grade), rather than working together to achieve an interactive learning situation. I think it is a complicated balancing act, one that could create hostility in students if not kept in check.

One last issue I have with the majority of the readings, particularly for cognitive apprenticeships and problem-based learning, is that most of them are based on data at the higher education level and more specifically applied engineering and medical schools. These are excellent settings and material types for PBL and cognitive apprenticeships, because students are learning trades in which you gather information, analyze it and then act upon it. Medical school is a trade school, so it is easier to put students into problem-solving or even simulation type situations. This is not as easy in primary and secondary education - not impossible, but not easy. The concerns about transferring problem solving skills to real life are less problematic when the problem students are solving are a simulation for the job they hope to have. When you are trying to get students to pretend to be mathematicians or archaeologists or economists, none of which may be in their future, it is harder to accept that they will be able to extrapolate the skills and be able to apply them generically across curriculum.

For my classroom?

 I would certainly like to try to implement some of these models in the classroom I think group work tends to work best when students are given clearly assigned and clearly defined roles within the group. This way it is clear who is responsible for what and accountability is a cut and dry issue. I also think it makes it easier for students to understand what they need to do to make their group work successful (i.e. complete their role). 

One of the ways that I think helping a class (as a whole) to perform better collaboratively is to make it a part of the classroom culture as a whole. If students are assigned one project as group work, it is different from the normal interaction routines that they experience in the classroom. If the whole nature of the class is to work together in groups (for common disciplinary goals/rewards, for group participation, etc), then a transition into a group project will not be as alien.  Johnson et al. give a great overview of how to create a positive interdependence between group members, promoting this kind of learning community outlook. I think they make clear that only by teaching the appropriate social skills and values will cooperative learning really work.

Possible Web Resources:

Google Drive - Students can share and work collaboratively on documents. 

Google Hangout - Students can have meetings outside of class from their homes or anywhere with an internet connection. The screen sharing capabilities are particularly nice for certain kinds of projects.

Simple Machines or Forumotion - Two free forum hosting sites, which could help students have thoughtful discussions about their group work - more time to think or prepare a researched response, which may lead to new hypotheses or solutions to problems.

Individualized Learning Environments

This unit we examined two types of individualized learning environments: Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) and the Audio-Tutorial Approach (A-T).

What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

Both of these models want to focus on allowing the student to move through material at their own pace, mostly independent of the traditional classroom or lecture/discussion setting. Both models seem to try to maintain some connection between the students and the faculty, such that students are always provided with the assistance they need and to create some sort of faculty presence within the learning experience.

One thing that struck me was that the PSI model is a mastery-based model, which requires students to be able to demonstrate their knowledge before moving on to the next objective. The A-T model does not require mastery before students move on, but in its traditional form does require more contact with faculty for review and quiz sessions, in which students may be asked to present or recall any of the course material studied. I tend to be in favor of mastery-type models, because it helps to remove the fear of failure, which allows students to be more at ease in the learning environment. That being said, this is not always an option, given the time and resource constraints of most educational environments.

What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

My initial reaction to both models in their traditional forms was that they would be very time intensive and require a lot of time scheduled during which the teacher observes students doing their work, in case they need help. Given the technological advancements since the birth of these models, I think there are better ways of handling those issues. The one barrier that I do not foresee being eliminated is the time it takes to develop these kinds of programs. Gathering materials, creating coherent curricula and then creating all of the necessary digital materials for these programs will just take time. I think the benefit to spending that time is that teachers (hopefully in groups) will create databases of resources that can be used in and out of the classroom. I thought of many ways of incorporating these ideas into classroom style teaching, as it occurs in most primary and secondary school settings. Using the A-T style approach, teachers can provide the lecture style material outside of class, while using in class time for review, guided practice and group/collaborative learning. My favorite parts of the PSI model are the focus on mastery (as opposed to merely testing) and the clear statement/testing of objectives. Letting students know what is expected of them and then having a guiding process through to demonstrated mastery is important in any classroom.

Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

I wouldn't (couldn't?) attempt to use any of these formats in their original forms in a public high school classroom - it's just not set up that way. There are many facets of each of these models that I feel would fit nicely into that learning environment. I would be in favor of delivering material A-T style to students outside of the classroom. This would combine short podcasts, videos, text and short assignments that students would complete out of class, so that they could come prepared to engage the material in the classroom. I would also try to incorporate the PSI-favored explicit objectives, mastery and tutored (as opposed to lectured) style of in-class interaction. Rather than lecturing material to students, they could engage the material in guided and independent practice, either independently or in groups, with teacher assistance for a more student-centered approach.

Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online? 

For the PSI model, I think that LiveBinders would be a great resource for this type of program. It could be a great way to organize different units and objectives for completion. Also, any website creation programs like Weebly or GoogleSites would be useful in creating a platform and organizational tool for material where students can easily access it.

For the A-T model, the first tool I thought of was VoiceThread. I can't think of a better way of putting audio-visual material together in a way that is so accessible for students. Podcast hosting sites would also be super-helpful with this model, so Podbean or Blubrry are options. Also Audacity is a great open source audio recording tool. 

Students on Steroids

No, this is not a controversial sports post, but about what Thomas Friedman, author of The World is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, calls the technological "steroids" that are creating a "flatter" world. Friedman writes:

        "I call certain new technologies the steroids, because they are amplifying 
         and turbocharging all the other flatteners." (Friedman, 187)

By flatteners, he means the technologies that are making it easier for everyone to be more connected and have a more equal chance to participate globally. The "steroids" he mentions are the technologies that speed up connectivity, allow for transfer of more data more quickly to anywhere in the world. He points out that "year after year we have been able to digitize, shape, crunch, and transmit more words, music, data and entertainment than ever before" (Friedman, 188). So the question is: what does this mean for students and teachers?

The students of today are natives of this technological wave, they are the people who will most easily navigate and adapt with the technology that is already shaping their lives in so many ways. This inundation with technology in our everyday lives has spread to education already with the prospect of many schools moving towards ubiquitous (or 1 to 1) computing. While bringing technology to the classroom has been an ongoing process for a while, this kind of transition will force a change in the way that teaching and learning are viewed. Rather than having some teachers believe that project-based and student-centered learning are the key to continued success, teachers will be forced to see that traditional, lecture-style teaching methods will no longer be appropriate in ubiquitous computing settings.

While many students are familiar with the "steriods" Friedman refers to and would love to use them in the school setting, they may not particularly understand what changing to a student-centered learning style will entail. This is not just a change for teachers, but a major change for students. They can no longer rely on sitting and half listening to a lecture and asking a few questions in class to cover their grades. Student-centered learning requires students to take initiative in their own educations. While this involves more choice (usually seen as an advantage to the students), they will also have to help drive themselves and be more ambitious if they want to succeed in school.

So are these steroids, which will allow students to engage their peers and information in new and exciting ways, going to help them by relieving some of the academic pressure of studying and finding information? Or is it going to make their jobs as students much more difficult with every higher standards of presentation and engagement?

The answer may be "both".

The tech... it's coming

Today I start a course called Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning. I'm pretty excited to see what is going to come of this new course. I've already begun to upload photos, update profiles and get back around to this blog, so that I have some place to post of the online goodies.

We've recently moved back to the US from Hong Kong and now are out in Salt Lake City. It's a new place with a new outlook. Some of that will probably make its way into the future blogging as well.

Educational Standards and Global Learning

As No Child Left Behind is left behind and Common Core Standards make their way in to US educational policy, global learning has become the hot topic of educational dialogue. The big question is ‘how will our nation’s children fare in the ever diversifying, ever globalizing world?’ It is becoming more and more obvious that the problems our younger generations are going to have to solve will be global problems, whether it pertains to the economy, demographic shifts or the environment. Many believe that the way to prepare our students to take on these challenges is through global learning.

To me, global learning is learning that creates and enhances 1) student awareness of different cultures, globalization and its impacts and 2) the ability to interact effectively in an increasingly global world; that is, global learning is learning to be a better global citizen. Yong Zhao notes that these global “citizens must be able to competently negotiate cultural differences, manage multiple identities, comfortably interact with people from different cultures, and confidently move across cultures as well as the virtual and physical worlds” (“Education in the Flat World: Implications of Globalization on Education”, EDge vol 2, no 4). To master these skills, students must become more aware, more tolerant and more appreciative of cultures other than their own. As other countries move toward preparing their students to speak multiple languages, travel across national borders, be more emotionally stable and promote creativity and individuality, the US needs to move in the same direction. Zhao notes that much of what motivates US movements toward a more global education is worry about international competition. If the US wishes to compete with other countries, then it should consider the competing training methods and move to improve upon them in creating its own standards.

What the recent US standards of education point to is that those concerned with how our students perform in international competition are short term strategists. While they seem to be economically motivated – what will keep the US ahead in the sciences, maths and technologies so that we can keep an economic stronghold on innovation? – their vision is short-sighted. No Child Left Behind focused on high stakes testing at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Unfortunately, none of these demographics are particularly money-earning, money-spending or money-creating. Are those test scores really indicators of how much these students will contribute to that demographic in adulthood? I think not. US educational policy makers must come to the understanding that the long term success of the US in innovation was not achieved by those with high test scores (Einstein reputedly did not score well in math, but without his innovative ideas, where would our understanding of physics be?), but by those with the creativity and interest to pursue problems to the end. These are the money-creators (those that create the ideas/businesses that increase profit, jobs on the market, jumps in technology, paradigm shifts, etc). These are the people that change the times, rather than changing with the times. Right now, these people are expanding their ideas and businesses into the growing global community, aware that it is already the frontier to be on. This is the community in which our current students will have to live and work.

US Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan commented in May 2010 about international engagement and collaboration through education, but still seemed stuck in Cold War terms: he compares investing in education as “our generation’s ‘moonshot’.” He goes on to say that “like the space race, it involves a healthy rivalry with other advanced nations.” It seems strange enough to call Cold War competition “healthy rivalry”, but to compare this to the developing education program of engagement and collaboration is flat out counter-intuitive. While I believe that “healthy” competition can add urgency and interest into the system, it is better to avoid Cold War terminology that could easily move the dialogue to memories of cultural superiority and paternalism, which undermine international cooperation and collaboration. Despite this awkward diction put forth, Secretary Duncan did heavily stress the movement of education to prepare students for building international relationships and fluency in other languages to support future international and collaborative ventures.

With these goals of international collaboration and cooperation in mind, what must global learning become to achieve those goals? The most obvious global learning facets – awareness, tolerance and appreciation of different cultures – tend to come to mind, but for students to succeed in increasingly diverse communities, the ability to interact with internationals and those with cultural differences will be equally important. Two of the major skill sets involved in that ability are multilingual and cultural fluency. One can speak a language, but without the cultural fluency to be able to interact with native speakers of that language, it will be hard to grasp the full meanings of things such as idioms and body language. Another is skill set understanding how to be a critical and creative thinker in unfamiliar or collaborative environments. Without these interactive components of global learning, international collaboration and cooperation would be impossible.

What is your definition of global learning? How do you think students need to be prepared for an increasingly globalized world? Leave a comment!

This entry was also posted at Global Learning Dialogues. Please visit for more entries on Global Learning. This post is also being submitted to YeahWrite, so please go vote later this week!

On a random note

What is up with this lap booking thing? It sounds like a great idea, but every time I go to a website, I have a bunch of religiosity shoved down my throat on every page.

Now don't get me wrong. I have nothing against being religious or spreading the word (in general), but I would like to find a site that explains something to me about lap booking and how it might be useful for older kids in the classroom while still saving my future (and I might add hypothetical) job in the public school system of America. No ten commandments, no prayer circles, so I'm guessing probably no crosses on every page of a lap book. But usually these sites have no instructions provided and very small pictures.

Other than the fact that every lap booking site seems to suggest that the only people who home school (where lap booking is all the rage) are people that accompany their "C is for Crickets" lap book with Crosses and sCriptures to teach the lifeCycles of bugs, it sounds like an interesting and creative idea. I can see older kids (I'm talking high school) doing some interesting projects in this kind of format. It would be a nice way for them to have and create long-lasting major artifacts in their classroom experience that can be used to teach others, be read aloud or explored by younger and older kids.

It seems silly to be very broadly lesson planning at this stage (the still getting certified stage) of my teaching career, but these kinds of ideas excite me. I'd love to hear any recommendations for creative learning sites with these kinds of projects illustrated.

Do you make lap books with your kids? Have you heard about them? Let me know in the comments.