Differentiated Instruction and Assessment in the College Classroom
Don Livingston
A paper presented at the 12th
Conference on College and University Teaching,
Abstract
Thirty-three undergraduate education majors participated in an introductory foundations of education class where constructivist philosophy and teaching strategies were practiced through a learner-centered, highly interactive course curriculum. Designed to promote academic rigor, as well as offering many choices for the students, the course curriculum required that the students negotiate the way in which they intended to demonstrate their understanding of the required concepts and content through the completion of both individual and cooperative group assignments. These differentiating assignments, assessments, and evaluations gave more opportunities for students to show their understandings of the concepts and content required for this course. The primary goal for the course was to bring about an enduring understanding of what it means to teach as a constructivist.
Introduction
Although I have been teaching future educators for over five years in a department that embraces a constructivist teaching philosophy, I never fully taught a course in a constructivist way. Sure, I have modeled these methods and always have some sort of role playing in my classes where my students act as if they are school children learning in a constructivist classroom. But, these methods were merely contrivances of how an orthodox constructivist classroom would operate.
As an assistant professor in the midst of mid-tenure review, I was afraid that if I did teach the way I wanted my students to teach that the department chair, the dean, and even the President might find out about it! My cathartic moment came after a discussion I had with a class comprised of early childhood seniors where they complained that, although the education faculty expected them to teach young children through a constructivist philosophy, few in the department were teachin’ as they were preachin’. After much thought about this discussion, I decided to go for it. Not only did I believe that it was critically important to design a class based entirely on constructivist principles, I also chose to showcase the course to my peer review team and superiors during my mid-tenure review.
Theoretical Framework for the Course
class=Section2> Maybe the
most frustrating teacher educator lament is why our graduates don’t teach how
they were taught to teach. Infused in most accredited teacher programs is a
constructivist philosophy grounded in developmental theory of the child, yet
when we visit our local schools we are hard pressed to find much, if any,
evidence of child-centered pedagogy. It is quite apparent that there is a great
disconnect between the teacher education curriculum and teacher practice in the
field. Julie Ranier (1999) makes an important point when she asks how can we
expect teachers to teach constructively if they were not taught constructively
in their teacher education program. Ranier and Guyton (2001) suggest that
teacher educators implement the primary principles of constructivism in teacher
preparation to transform their students. When teachers build upon prior
knowledge, students begin to build personal understandings. What this
means is that teachers need to be learning facilitators, rather than dispensers
of knowledge (Phillips, 1995).
Learning is mostly an affective, dramatic, and emotional event that requires instruction that consumes the learner’s whole being in the process. As opposed to strategies grounded in behaviorism, this process values creativity by constructing new connections. Fundamental to constructivism, learning that can be transferred to situations outside the classroom is first taught at the conceptual level (Fishman & McCarthy, 1998). This means for true learning to occur the learner must actively participate in the process. While constructivism is not a prescriptive theory for curriculum, there are certain strategies that promote a creation of an active learning environment. What seems to work best are those methods that are cooperative in nature, manifested in the many forms of differentiated instruction throughout the curriculum. One of the primary objectives of differentiated instruction is that it acknowledges that not all students learn the same way. By offering instructional choices, students can use the learning style (s) that works best for them. The differentiated instructional process begins with an assessment of the students’ prior knowledge and experiences. Following this assessment, differentiated instruction uses strategies such as the project method approach, presentations, reciprocal teaching, discussion, aesthetic experiences, peer-to-peer teaching, cooperative learning and discovery learning. Writing reflections are most certainly key components of instruction as they are occasions for the students to examine their feelings about concepts. Learning in such an environment positions the teacher as a facilitator, rather than as a lecturer; meaning that although the teacher organizes, manages and creates the learning environment, it is the students who are actively involved in the teaching and learning process (Thomlinson, 1999).
There are formidable barriers to teaching constructively in the higher education setting. As Ranier (1999) concedes, constructivist teaching is a complicated affair because the power relationships extant in the academy do not support the above principles. Probably, the biggest hurdle to overcome is in the area of content knowledge and assessment. Because there are specific content and assessment requirements associated with every higher education course, the chosen teaching philosophy and strategies must satisfy these specific content and assessment objectives. Seemingly at odds with these desired outcomes, constructivist teaching values the learner’s own personal meaning gained from the experience. This was my challenge, to teach through constructivist principles, while meeting the objectives set forth by the department and the college.
Rather than begin the process with questions such as, “how do we best cover the topic” or “what learning experiences should we use,” Wiggins and McTighe (2001), suggest a backwards design where the process begins by determining what the learner must perform to demonstrate understanding. That is, one begins at the end.
Drawing from the work of Wiggins and McTighe (2001), the first step in the process is to determine what goals and standards are desired. Next, determine what evidence would clearly show that the goal and standard has been satisfied. Third, plan learning experiences and instruction that are the most effective. In Wiggins and McTighe’s (2001) backward curricular design, one must think like an assessor when specific performances are required by the curriculum.
After the desired goals are determined, Wiggins and McTighe (2001) recommend that these goals and standards be prioritized into three categories: 1) worth being familiar with 2) important to know and do, and 3) enduring understandings.
The category Worth being familiar with are those things we want our students to hear, read, view and encounter. The Important to know and do group describes the knowledge and skills that we believe are essential to the course. Enduring understandings are big ideas that transcend beyond the classroom, lie at the heart of the course, and are deemed important and interesting by the student.
Among the desired goals, those placed in the enduring understandings category are clearly the most important, because when the learning experience is truly transformational, it is personally meaningful, thus rarely forgotten. Yet, there are times when it is most effective to transmit worth being familiar with knowledge, and there are other times when knowledge and skills that are important to know and do becomes a process of discovery through a transaction with the teacher.
John Miller
(1996) framed these three orientations to teaching as transmission, transaction
and transformational positions. Miller (1996) described the transmission
position as an orientation where learners acquire information by reading text
or listening to a lecture. The transactional position is one where the learner
is engaged in an active dialogue with the teacher to discover the answer to the
problem posed by the teacher. Through a
transformation position, the learner is encouraged to make novel connections
that are personally and socially meaningful. It is essential that future
teachers are prepared to teach for both individual and social meaning – to
teach for transformation (Fishman & McCarthy, 1998).
Linda Nilson
(2004) ranked various types of instruction based on the educational objectives
desired. Lecture, Recitation, Discussion should
be used to transmit knowledge and assess comprehension of content. Writing
and Speaking Exercises, un-graded in-class activities, cooperative learning,
peer-to-peer feedback, case method and problem–based learning methods are used to encourage discovery and transactions with
others. When a personal or social transformation is desired, Nilson (2004)
suggests that the teacher chooses dialogue, inquiry-based learning, role
plays, simulations and games and service learning with reflection to achieve this
goal. When Nilson’s (2004) taxonomy is blended with
Miller’s (1996) teaching positions and Wiggins and McTighe’s (2001) curricular
design, a planning template can be formed as illustrated in the table
below.
|
Teaching Position |
Curricular Priority |
Type of Assessment |
Type of Instruction |
|
Transmission |
Worth being familiar with |
Traditional Quizzes and Tests |
Lecture, Recitation, Discussion |
|
Transaction |
Important to know and do |
Traditional Quizzes and Tests or Performance Tasks and Projects |
Writing and Speaking Exercises, Un-graded in-class activities, Cooperative Learning, Peer to Peer Feedback, Case Method, Problem–Based Learning |
|
Transformation |
Enduring understandings |
Performance Tasks and Projects |
Dialogue, Inquiry-Based Learning, Role Plays, Simulations and Games, Service Learning with Reflection |
William
Doll’s (1993) scholarship is particularly instrumental for planning because it
helps us negotiate a break from a traditional view of teaching and learning
while, at the same time, provides a framework from which a curriculum that
meets our goals and standards can be developed. In Doll’s words, “The concept of transformation is central to
curriculum – thereby transforming curriculum materials, thoughts, and participants”
(Doll, 1993, p. 162-163). As Doll (1993) illuminates the messy, indeterminate
aspects of learning, he also gives this indeterminable learning process a frame
from which we can plan and assess our students’ performance. Doll situates the
transformational learning process into four general constructs: richness, recursion, relations and rigor.
Doll (1993)
defines richness in the curriculum as
a text that strives for deep, multiple meanings and possibilities. For the
learner to be transformed, it is important that the curriculum not be highly
structured or rigid with regard to desired outcomes. Of course, we want desired
outcomes, but we want the ownership of these outcomes to be the learner’s. This
is why the curriculum should be somewhat inefficient to allow room for the
instructor and the learner to negotiate the content, form, and style of the
evidence required as proof to demonstrate that the goal has been satisfied.
What Doll
(1993) means by recursion is an
iteration of experiences that interlock with one another. Rather than isolated
activities, a recursive curriculum has a holistic quality which allows for
reflection. Recursion is closely linked to the concept of relations because the interlock developed provides opportunities to
connect everything together. When recursion and relations are concomitant
processes operating within the curriculum, the learner can begin to see the big
picture that the structure is trying to paint.
Probably the
most important aspect of the curriculum is rigor.
Rigor is essential for transformation because it prevents the curriculum from
“falling into either rampant relativism or sentimental solipsism” (Doll, 1993,
p. 181). To be sure, there are many definitions of rigor. Aristotlean logic
states “quod est demonstratum” (thus, it is demonstrated), while in Descartes
rational mind, rigor was defined as “no reasonable person could doubt” (Doll,
1993, p. 182). These two ways of
thinking are based on observations that can be measured and manipulated with
precision. Doll challenges us to think in a different way when he warns that
quantitative measurement is often incorrect.
Rather than a closed system approach toward a definition of rigor, Doll
(1993) suggests that we evaluate our students based on their novel interpretations,
connections, combinations, and playfulness with ideas. We want to see to what
degree did the student uncover hidden assumptions and offer new possibilities
about the topic.
At first, Doll’s ideas
may appear to be too open-ended for freshmen and sophomore students to handle.
Then again, perhaps this is the transformational method that can break the
“give the teachers what they want” pattern learned so well by most students in
most high schools.
Planning the course
Using Wiggins’
and McTighe’s (2001) backward design, I began the planning process by mapping
out the sequence as follows:
Step 1- Determine what my goals as well as the department’s
desired goals are for the course.
Step 2. – Prioritize these desired goals into the three
categories.
Step 3. – Create performance assessments and evaluation
rubrics.
Step 4. – Select instructional methods
Step 1 - Determine the department’s and my desired goals for the course
The content and concepts that I had to satisfy through this introductory course were issues that are germane to the teaching profession. Although I was compelled to cover the essentials mandated by the state, such as professional ethics and standards, there were departmental objectives that were stated in the course catalog in such a way that allowed for much flexibility and experimentation. Exceptionality, diversity, curriculum, accountability, contemporary issues, educational history and law were among the topics that had to be addressed. While teaching this content was essential, my primary goal was to transform my students to think about teaching in a totally different way.
Step 2. – Prioritize these desired goals into the three categories.
The enduring understanding that I
wanted my students to ink indelibly into their psyche was the theory of
constructivist teaching and how to put it into practice. What I thought were
important things to know were the professional standards, exceptionality,
curriculum, accountability and the law. I also thought that it was essential to
know the importance of celebrating diversity, the effects of the back-to-basics
revolution on schools and their ethic responsibilities as an educator. While I
thought that it was worth being familiar with educational history, I was more
concerned about the concepts that transcend educational history rather than
yearning for my students to recall the date when Horace Mann became education
secretary of
Table 2. Prioritizing the course curriculum
|
Priority |
Desired Goals |
|
Worth being familiar with |
educational history, facts about constructivist teaching |
|
Important to know and do |
professional standards, exceptionality, diversity, contemporary issues, ethics, curriculum, accountability, and law |
|
Enduring understandings |
know the theory of constructivist teaching and how to put it into practice |
Step 3. – Create
performance assessments and evaluation rubrics.
Evolving from an analysis of the prioritized desired goals, I decided that the evidence should be presented in three ways: 1) individually, 2) through permanent cooperative groups and 3) and through flexible cooperative groups. Next, I created a calendar that showed when each assignment was due and how it was to be presented. Although individual accountability was essential, it was also critically important that students learn socially through peer-to-peer and group opportunities. Thus, the learners were assigned to permanent cooperative groups, which I named intra-group teams. For specific presentations, they were also required to join with members from other intra-groups to form temporary groups, which I called inter-groups.
Specific details about how to satisfy the requirements for each assignment were described in a section of the syllabus called Requirements for Assignments. One requirement for every presentation was that it was to be an aesthetic experience where the content was delivered through an art form such as drama, dance, song, visual representations and/or video. Given its propensity to become a hi-tech lecturing surrogate, PowerPoint was not an option. Another requirement was that the presentations be interactive with many opportunities for the other students to actively participate.
While I was the sole evaluator for
the individual assignments, the intra-group and inter-group assignments were
evaluated jointly by me as well as the other students in the class using a
pre-prepared rubric. Also, the students were required to evaluate their own
performance, as well as the others in their teams, using a questionnaire that
asked among other things, “How well did your group work together?”
The portfolio assessment method was used as a comprehensive assessment tool to demonstrate the students’ accomplishments holistically in a coherent, organized way. Through a narrative included in the portfolio, the students had the opportunity to weight their individual assignments and group assignments from lowest to highest. As required by my college, a final examination, worth 30%, was given as a summative assessment to evaluate my students’ competencies with regard to the required concepts and content.
Step 4. – Select instructional methods
The instruction
strategies and assessment methods that the students would use were: aesthetic
experience, discussion, hands-on-learning, peer-to-peer teaching, reciprocal
teaching, project method, reflective writing, discovery learning through
research, peer critique, self assessment and assessment by the professor.
The first individual assignment in the course was a reflective essay called the End of Your Life. In this essay, students were directed to write about what accomplishments, both professionally and personally, they had achieved at the end of their lives. The idea behind the assignment was to challenge the students to think about if they could envision themselves as a teacher. There was a field experience component to the course where the students assisted a teacher of elementary or middle-grades children in a local school for two hours per week. An individual reflection about this field experience was assigned to also help them decide if a teaching career was in their future.
Because I wanted my students to get a feel for voices that were challenging the dominant discourse in this era of educational reform and accountability, my required texts were: Christensen and Karp’s (2003) Rethinking school reform, Swope and Miner’s (2000) Failing our kids: Why the testing craze won’t fix our schools and A.S. Neil’s (1960, 1992) classic free-school book Summerhill: A new view of childhood. Using publications Rethinking school reform and Failing our kids: Why the testing craze won’t fix our schools, the students in their intra-groups decided who among them would teach them the texts. Through this peer-to peer teaching strategy, the student responsible for a particular part of the readings was directed to write a summary and teach the content to the other group members. In addition to peer-to-peer teaching, there were three individual reflective writing assignments, where the students related the concepts expressed by A.S. Neill in Summerhill with their personal feelings about how they view childhood and teaching.
Given that my college draws students who mostly attended traditional public schools, I thought that it was important to get them thinking about different approaches to schooling. To bring about an awareness that there are other ways to educate children, ten inter-groups were formed to give presentations about Waldorf, Friends, Montessori, Foxfire, elite, home, Afro-centric, same-sex, gay schools and free schools.
Because
understanding the fundamentals of different curricular orientations is an
important aspect of this introductory course in education, I designed
assignments, named Biographical Sound-bites that required the students to
present the main idea of each theory as told by key scholars in the field. The
five Biographical Sound-bites were titled: The Essentialists, The Progressives,
The Perrennialists, The Social Reconstructionists and Contemporary Curriculum
Theorists.
Scheduled
along with the ten alternative schools and the five curricular orientation
presentations, six more inter-groups were formed to
address specific topics in education. The Children’s Books group exposed class,
race and gender bias in children’s literature, while the Textbook Detective
group checked widely used textbooks for historical accuracy. The Pop Culture
group showed the influence of popular culture on student learning, whereas the
Professional Organizations group and the Ethics, Professionalism and the Law
group presented the pedagogical, ethical, and legal issues that affect
education today.
Given these teaching and learning
strategies, the students decided what concepts were worth knowing and what
performance method would best deliver the content to the rest of the class.
This was the scary part for me because I was required to cover certain concepts
and content, yet at the same time, I had to respect the students’ judgement
about what meant the most to them. Another fear that I had was that at the end
of the negotiations there would be an unequal work distribution allocation
among individuals in the respective groups. Although I must admit that I was
unsure about all of this at the time, my gut kept telling me to trust the
students.
Getting the Class Prepared for this Style of Teaching
On the
first day of class I made inquiries about how they had been taught in the past.
I found out that none of the students participated in a course where peer
assessments, differentiated instruction and evaluation were practiced. Only
three of my thirty-three students had ever experienced cooperative group work
at the college level. Some expressed concerns that cooperative work has serious
drawbacks, particularly when it comes to slackers. After reflecting on the
first day, I was dubious that these students could handle what was about to
happen in this class. Although I had these misgivings, turning back at this
point was surely not an option. The cat was already out of the bag.
On the
second day, I assigned each student to one of eight intra-group teams. Because
there was much out-of-classroom work required, I formed these groups based on
where the student resided thinking that those who lived in the same dormitory
could meet more easily. Although there were some questions about what would be
required for each assignment, it appeared that all eight groups negotiation
went very well. As an assignment to be turned in on the third day, I asked each
group to give me their contracts for the rest of the semester.
On the
third day, the contracts were submitted with the assurance by everyone that
they had all of the assignments covered. When I looked at them over the
following weekend, I found the work distribution to be quite fair. Based on
their learning styles and personality types, some chose to do more of the
readings and teach that content, while others jumped at the opportunity to work
with other s to give performances to the whole class.
On the
fourth day of class, I asked the first inter-group that was scheduled to
present a performance to the whole class, called “biographical sound bites, the
Essentialists,” to meet with me after class. It was during these after-class
meetings where I gave the groups some direction and suggested specific readings
for the topic. At these meetings, the students decided who among them would
research a particular aspect of the topic’s content. Perhaps the most difficult
part of these after class meetings was reaching a consensual time when they all
could meet to decide how they were going to teach the content through an
aesthetic experience. I warned them that the after class meetings would not
adjourn until a commitment was made to meet again and that missing the out of
class group meeting was equivalent to an absence from a regularly scheduled
class meeting time. These after-class meetings became a regular event with
groups that were scheduled next to perform on the course calendar.
At the end
of each class, those in the inter-group who led the performance, or the student
who led an intra-group session, were required to submit a possible test
question for the final examination. These questions were shared with everyone
in the class with the assurance that I would only choose questions for the
final from the ones submitted. The only provision was that the questions had to
be conceptual in nature. Finally, if there was a performance given during the
class period, the students who gave the performance completed a completed
self-evaluation, while non-participants completed peer evaluations.
Student Feedback
I wrestled
with how to gather quality data about my students’ perceptions of how the class
was taught and how much they thought they learned during it. What I decided to
do was to solicit their comments using a list of the constructivist strategies
used during the class. The students were asked to comment on the following
statements:
|
Aesthetic
Experience is delivering content through
visual arts, drama or electronic media etc. One requirement for your
presentations is for them to be an Aesthetic
Experience. Assessing
others, sometimes referred to as Peer Critique, the students evaluate
one another. The intent of this assessment method is to illuminate the
perceptions of others. The guiding philosophy of the Education Department is Constructivism, a theory where
students are active in the learning process, learning is enjoyable yet
rigorous, and the students make their own meaning. By being taught in a
constructivist college classroom, are you learning how to teach in this way? With regards to Content
and Concepts Learned, how does the teaching and evaluation methods
compare to traditional ways of teaching and assessing? In Cooperative
Learning, the student does not compete against any individual student.
Because the strategy draws from the strengths of each person in the group,
advocates of cooperative learning say that the sum is greater than its parts,
meaning that collective effort results in deeper understandings. Discussion is used after the student has been introduced to a new
concept. I choose to use discussion after a reading assignment. Interactivity, sometimes called hands
on learning, has the student active in the learning process. One
requirement for your presentations is for them to be interactive. One of the primary objectives of differentiated
instruction is that it acknowledges that not all students learn the same way.
By offering instructional choices, students can use the Learning Style (s) that works best for them. The theory behind Peer
to Peer Teaching is that students learn much from each other. Our reading
journal assignments are examples of Peer
to Peer Teaching. Presentation is a technique used in reciprocal teaching, where the student becomes the teacher. The Project Method
is a teaching strategy that can be either cooperative or individual. Your
intra-group and inter-group presentations are group projects while your
portfolio is an individual project. Writing Reflections
is an occasion for the students to examining their feelings about concepts.
Reflections were used in response to the book, Summerhill. Using Research
as a teaching strategy is a type of discovery
learning, where the student independently finds and interprets knowledge.
When I direct your group to research through specific sources or ask your
group to include certain concepts or content is discovery learning. An example of reflection as a learning strategy, Self assessment is where you evaluate
your own performance. Teacher
Assessment is where the professor
evaluates your work based on the assignment and in comparison with the work
of others. Teacher as Facilitator, rather than as a lecturer, means that although the professor
organizes, manages and creates the learning environment, it is the students
who are actively involved in the teaching and learning process. Overall Please make any comments about how satisfied you are with the class. |
The
ultimate basis for this decision was that I wanted to use the student
evaluation that follows as a heuristic to teach the labels given to the
overarching concepts that I thought were worth knowing.
Data Analysis
The data
gathered from the students’ feedback was broken down into recurrent themes to
illuminate similarities and differences (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). To paint
a picture of how my students felt about the course, representative responses
were selected to make connections among the recurrent themes.
Overwhelmingly,
the responses about the aesthetic experiences described them as fun and
creative. The aesthetic experiences made
learning more entertaining, interesting, interactive and held the attention of
the students. Comments such as, “I will remember things better, good form of
showing what you know, delivered the material in real life, not boring books,
addressed our learning styles, gave us a better understanding of the topic and
it really got the class involved” were representative selections which suggest
that the students perceived aesthetic performances as useful strategies. There
were, however, two comments that gave me pause to think, “I’m not sure if the
class is sure about which is more important – the creativity of the project or
the detailed information” and “students paid too much attention to the art and
not enough on the content.” Although
only two students out of thirty-three expressed this feeling, I believe that it
is important to listen to this particular critique because the first priority
for the performances is that they must meet their conceptual and content
objectives.
Of those
who found the peer-to-peer assessments useful, comments such as “you learn
about others and can see different work styles,” “showed us what everyone else
thinks of us”, and “helps the other students to understand their own progress
and where they need to improve.” Others said that the peer critique made them
work harder knowing that their classmates would be part of the evaluation. This
sentiment was summed up best through this frank comment, “ I like this because
your friends won’t lie to you. If you sucked, they would tell you.” Along with twenty-five positive comments such
as these, there were eight responses that expressed feelings that the peer
critiques were too harsh, personal attacks, emotionally difficult to do and one
student felt unqualified to evaluate others.
Aside from
two students who were unsure if such a chaotic style would work, the remaining
thirty-one students found that constructivism changed their view about teaching
and affected how they would teach in the future. There were also comments about
how much behind the scenes work is necessary to teach constructively. Most said
that the methods were enjoyable,
rigorous strategies that promoted higher order thinking.
With
regards to the content and concepts learned, there was just one negative
comment that came from a student who was still smarting from less than a
glowing peer critique. This student would prefer traditional evaluations done
by the professor. The other thirty-two students praised the hands-on
activities, encouraged student opinions, learned more, kept them awake and gave
the students a sense of collective pride through their group activities.
Thirty
students enjoyed the cooperative group work evidenced by responses such as,
“gave me a great base of support and an open environment for learning, learned
from other people’s input, each person brought something unique to the project,
there was no competition among us, was not embarrassed to ask questions and the
weakness in the group is worked on by everybody to improve.” Of the three who disagreed, one student
stated that cooperative learning doesn’t always result in a deeper
understanding. The other two apparently felt that they were doing most of the
work in their groups. From the outset, I feared that slackers would cause the
hard working students to feel as if they had to do most of the work, yet I am
pleased that only two students found this to be a problem.
Unanimously,
the students thought that our discussions were very important for expanding
thinking and affirming personal opinions. Representative responses include,
“discussions give me the choice to pick which point of view I like, helps me
understand what going on, allows each student to express his/her opinions and
it opens up new thoughts about the subject.”
The
comment “another great way to learn, but difficult to plan” was the only
critique of hands-on learning. All thought that hands-on learning was an
affective learning strategy. Many students expressed that they learn better and
more through hands-on learning. One student remarked that “I’m learning stuff
sometimes not realizing it.” Another wrote, “Just sitting and reading does not
teach me, but interaction and hands-on is how I learn.”
Here, too,
all of the students were unanimous that offering instructional choices based on
different learning styles was very important. One student remarked that,
“everyone learns in different ways. It is important to vary the teaching style
so that each student can learn effectively.” Another noted that offering
instructional choices, “helps the student not to get discouraged and gives them
the capability to learn in their own way.”
Many added that this class gave them to chance to excel by giving them
the opportunity to, as explained in one student’s words, “choose the style that
works best will help us actually learn the material.”
Peer-to-peer
teaching drew the most negative comments from the students. Nine of the
thirty-three said that some students who were teaching did not know the
material very well, many times important parts were omitted from the teaching,
not learning much, did not trust the peer teacher, and some were nervous that
the professor did not tell the class what was important and what was not. On
the positive side, the rest of the students are on record saying that “everyone
can learn a lot from the people around them, helps keep the work load down, it
helps us become better teachers, you get someone else’s thoughts on an
issue.” There was one thread that
expressed how affective peer-to-peer teaching was because, “when the students
teach each other, they can put it on their level” and the strategy works given
that “we have a lot of things in common.”
Most of
the accolades directed toward reciprocal teaching were about how important it
is for teachers to be effective public speakers. Another main thread was the
recognition that you learn the best when you must teach something to someone else.
On the negative side, there were five comments that fell into three categories:
not enough time to prepare, unsure if what they chose to teach is what the
professor wanted, and fear of speaking in front of the class.
A unique
critique elicited about the project method was that this sort of assignment was
very stressful to complete. Others said that there was an unequal work
distribution in their groups, it was too chaotic, and a few students would
simply prefer to work on their own. Aside from seven negative reactions to the
project method, the rest of the class thought that a mixture of group and
individual project work was important and many expressed how creative they
became during the process. One student wrote that the project method was an, “
excellent strategy because you learn how to work as a team. On the other hand,
a portfolio is good because you can see the specific work and effort that an
individual has put in. Also, in a portfolio, you see the progress that the
individual has made throughout the semester.”
The
students found the reflective writing process to be personally worthwhile. Most
expressed that they enjoyed writing about how they felt about a particular
reading assignment. It was also mentioned that reflective writing required a
substantiation of opinion by backing it up with references to the assigned
readings. Also, the strategy worked because it compelled the students to read
the selections. One student expressed, “what concerns me about the strategy is
that reflective writing is an easy grade.” True, if the professor wants to
encourage a personal voice, a thoughtful, well-written reflection is difficult
to excoriate. The only other criticisms were two comments that were not germane
to the reflective process, as one objected to the number of assignments and
another wrote that I should have held a discussion after each assignment was
submitted.
Using
research as a teaching strategy for discovery learning elicited many responses such as, “I don’t like it, but I
know that it is necessary to learn new things” and “this is a great way to
learn, but as almost every student, I don’t like it.” One student remarked that some students
seemed to be simply reading directly from photocopied text rather than learning
the material before they presented it. All students, including the
aforementioned students, said that doing research was essential to their
learning. “When you find it and see it for yourself, it always sticks better”
was one comment which represented the majority of students’ feelings about
using research as a type of discovery learning.
Except for
three comments that pointed out that self-assessment was difficult because one
tends to be harder on oneself, the remaining thirty students noted that it was
a great way to express how they wanted to be evaluated, to point out strengths
that may have been overlooked and a good way to see what improvements were
needed. The power to have some influence on their grades was also a dominant
theme. One student wrote, “If you put a lot of hard work and effort into an
assignment, then your grade should reflect that, and you are the only the
person who knows if you deserve the grade,” while another said, “I like this
because it feels as if I am in control of my grades.”
The comments about my role as a facilitator, rather than a lecturer, were unanimously favorable. Students seemed to feel that this strategy empowered them to take control of learning in a more autonomous environment. There were so many varied accolades for this teaching position that it was hard to capture the essence expressed throughout the selected responses. Hopefully, these comments adequately illuminate their feelings toward it, “We can work on our own ideas instead of having a teacher tell us what to do,” “ I like the idea that the teacher does not teach and the students do,” “ This should be activated in every classroom,” “ the class is more relaxed and you don't feel pressured to do so much when you are really doing a lot,” “ this helps prepare us for teaching – we are getting to see how to teach a class, and it certainly makes the student do the work to learn the material.”
When
responding to the statement, “teacher assessment is where the professor
evaluates your work based on the assignment and in comparison with the work of
others,” there were six responses that strongly took issue to the latter part
of the phrase, “and in comparison with the work of others.” One student curtly
summed up the others’ objections, “I do not think that any student’s work
should be compared based on others’ work. Each person is an individual who has
their own learning style.” Interestingly, the remaining twenty-seven responses
expressed a yearning to have an evaluation by the professor because, “you just
can’t trust grading to other students’ opinions, I trust my teacher’s opinion,”
“this is a must because you are the teacher and the ultimate grade giver,” “should be used more in this class,” and “ I
like this because it offers an educated, experienced opinion on performance.”
Overall,
the students were extremely pleased with how the class was taught and the
amount of content that was being learned. Words and phrases such as
“enjoyable,” “ learning a lot,” “ very satisfied,” “ it has challenged me to
think more on my own than any other class I have taken thus far,” “ I love the
class!” “I would gladly go into a classroom with methods such as these,” “ and
the class is a pleasure and joy to come to,” “ I look forward to attending
every Monday, Wednesday and Friday” were found throughout. While much
exuberance was found in the data, there four comments that suggested that a few
students, although satisfied overall, were less than satisfied with particular
aspects of the course. Specifically, these students were critical of time
requirement to perform numerous presentations, that there was too much
out-of-class time required, group dynamics were testy at times, not confident
that the method was sufficient preparation for the final examination.
Hooray for Diffendorfer Day!
There are
some great books in the literature about mustering the courage to teach as a
constructivist, but the Dr. Seuess book,Hooray
for Diffendorfer Day (Prelustsky & Smith, 1998) is my recommendation
for anyone who is unsure if this pleasurable and creative way of teaching and
learning will prepare students to pass a high stakes test. The student in my
class who was concerned that s/he would not be prepared for the final
examination reminded me of the same angst that Mr. Lowe, the principal of
We also
have a principal,
His name
is Mr. Lowe.
He is the
very saddest man
That any
of us know.
He
mumbles, “Are they learning
This and
that and such and such?”
His face
is wrinkled as a prune
From
worrying so much (Prelustsky & Smith, 1998, p. 9).
Although
incessantly worried, he steadfastly held the trust that his faculty understood
how children learn, and allowed them to teach accordingly. Assuredly, the
favorite teacher Miss Bonkers rose to say,
Don’t
fret! She said. You’ve learned the things you need
To pass
that test and many more-
I’m
certain you’ll succeed.
We’ve
taught you that the earth is round,
That red
and white make pink,
And
something else that matters more-
We’ve
taught you how to think (Prelustsky & Smith 1998, p. 25).
If you
haven’t read the book, I am truly sorry that I must tell you the ending,
consequently ruining your delightful surprise, for the
Reading
this book to my students as we approached the final examination period hardly
assuaged any fears of failure. Yet, the end result was the same as the
Most of the students’ final examination grades
positively correlated with their portfolio grades. That is, the higher the test
score, the better the portfolio was in terms of
rigor and presentation. There were not any students who did poorly on
their portfolio and well on the final examination. Aside from two young men who
failed the course because they were too busy pursuing non-academic interests, the
final semester grades consisted of a few A’s , mostly B’s and some C’s; a
distribution conforming with my department’s grading pattern. I was
particularly pleased that except for leading a short, whole group discussion
after each reading assignment, the amount of time that I dominated the
conversation and the students were passively listening was minimal.
So, do I
exclaim hooray? Not as of yet. This course was an introductory course in
education, one in which I could take some risks. There is another course that I
teach, Early Childhood Curriculum, a senior level course where the stakes are
at their highest. In the state where I teach, a future teacher must pass the
Praxis II examination, an Educational Testing Service Examination that is the
gatekeeper to a career in teaching. The Praxis II is an assessment of how well
the future teacher understands the concepts, supported by content knowledge,
necessary to teach young children. From my experiences teaching this foundation
of education class, I have become convinced that constructivist teaching
strategies will satisfy both conceptual and content objectives required by most
college courses. So what am I afraid of, Principal Lowe?
References
Doll, W. (1993).A post-modern perspective on curriculum.
Miller, J. (1996). The holistic curriculum.
Nilson, L (2004). The right tool for
the job: Matching methods with objectives. Session
presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the SACS Commission on Colleges.
Phillips, D. (1995). The Good, the Bad, and the
Ugly: the many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher. 24, (7). 5- 12.
Prelustsky, P. and Smith, L. (1998).
Dr. Seuss hooray for Diffendoofer Day!
Thomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to
the needs of all learners.
Rainer,
J. (1999). Faculty living their beliefs. Journal
of Teacher Education, 50 (3), 192-199.
Rainer, J. and Guyton, E. (2001).
Structures of community and democratic practices in graduate teacher education,
teacher change, and linkages facilitating change. Action in Teacher Education, 23, (2). 18-29.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990).
Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2001). Understanding by design.