In
the learning resources this week Siemens describes how social constructivist
learning and technology interact. For me
his explanation shed light on how much we need social learning. He explains that information is abundant, more
plentiful than the human mind can process so we must share learning with others
(Laureate, 2010). Also Siemens states
that technology networks are rich. Rich
technology networks help people to create richer communicative networks. These strong communicative networks allow for
social constructivist learning that Orey describes in the learning resources
this week as a model of learning where students construct meaning by
collaborating with others (Laureate, 2010).
Social learning is centered in working with others, and so is
cooperative learning.
According
to Johnson and Johnson cooperative learning has several key pieces. Cooperative learning requires positive
interdependence where each group member realizes they are accountable for the
success or failure of the whole group, individual and group responsibility,
encouraging interaction, interpersonal skills and processing to ensure goals
are met (Johnson & Johnson, n.d.). According
to our resources, McRel also suggests that these five components are critical
in the cooperative learning process. In
the cooperative learning model each student must realize that each group member
plays an important role when working together in order to achieve success. The same can be said for social
learning. Working with others requires a
symbiotic relationship.
The
tools that Pittler, Hubbell, Kuhn and Malenowski discuss in the learning
resources this week can help forge and promote this type of synergy. Their suggestions include creating a
multimedia project such as a movie or building a website, using the internet,
ePals, collaborative organizing tools such as shared calendars, and
collaborative simulation games (Pittler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenowski,
2007). Along with these ideas students
can use blogs, wikis, podcasting software, Microsoft Office programs or even
Voice Thread technology like we used in our course this week. All of these tools can promote cooperative
learning where students work together to create a common product.
The
question then becomes how to group and assess students to maximize social
learning. In our learning resources they
suggest informal, small groups of varying ability levels (Pittler, Hubbell,
Kuhn & Malenowski, 2007).
Traditionally I have used very random grouping such as numbering off or
assigning students a number then drawing numbers to avoid ability grouping but
I wonder if I should group students with more purpose. What grouping techniques do you favor or
suggest? I welcome any feedback from my
Walden colleagues.
References
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive
Producer). (2010). [Webcast]. Connectivism
as a learning theory. Baltimore: Laureate Media.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive
Producer). (2010). [Webcast]. Social
learning theories. Baltimore: Laureate Media.
Johnson, D.W & Johnson, R.T.
(n.d.) An overview of cooperative learning. Cooperative
Learning Institute and Interaction Book Company. Retreived from http://www.co-operation.org/?page_id=65
Pittler, H.,
Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with
classroom instruction that works. Alexandria: ACSD.
Jenny -
ReplyDeleteYes, grouping can be an issue sometimes. The easiest way is to always arrange students with those closest. However, if it a game or an activity is competitive, a group with very high level students versus a group of students that are not so high, can prove to be less motivating and fun for many. In that case, trying to form groups with different levels can help.
If the levels are not so easy to read or the class is new, it can be good to make the activities or tasks more suitable for many kinds students. For example, include thinking questions, visual questions, drawing activities, multiple choice, etc. I often did jeopardy review games in my classes and I made sure that the questions involved all kinds of learning questions that catered to many kinds of learning styles. It really made the students try hard. Once one group found what they were good at they did it until the category was finished but had to try hard to keep their winning streak for the rest of the categories.
The other point you mentioned is assessing. I find it very challenging to assess for groups. I did a few group projects in the past and found it very hard to assess the members. I often found that one member will do most of the work while others sit around. I even found myself straying from large group projects. However, I am starting to think about them again and I realize I need to set up specific criteria for the projects that make clear rules and assignments for each member of the group. Assessing each other in the group can be a great way to give insight on what each member is doing and how well they are doing it. In the larger projects that take up more time, arranging groups based on various abilities are good. I think a short survey can help see what students are good at and what they are bad at.
Jenny,
ReplyDeleteHow do you get students to realize that in a group project they have an important role? I find this the hardest role when teaching group projects. I personal know that I tend to take charge when I am in a group. I rather do the work to make sure that it is done.
I group students by ability. I teach SpEd. I have small reading groups that are already put together. I use these groups. I use math groups also, I have more students in reading and a better block of time. These students are taught more technology. It is how my schedule worked out year.
Jeremy, I agree with you when playing games it needs to be fair. That is hard with some groups. If I play a whole class game I make sure that I have all grade levels mixed up together.
I love to see how the older students help the younger students. I also love to see how the higher functioning students help students that have more need. It great to watch!