Week 7: Grouping, Differentiation, and Technology

Description:

Slavin (2012) starts out this chapter by stating, “effective instruction takes a lot more than good lectures” (p. 250), and the perfectly describes the purpose of this chapter. From groups to technology, the decisions we make in our classrooms on a daily basis have a direct impact on how our students progress. 

Analysis:

Because there are many different components to effective instruction, teachers look to different models to determine what best suits the needs of their students. John Carroll described that idea that there are different components to teaching, and these different components need different amounts of time allocated to them depending on the situation. The QAIT model stems from this idea and stand for quality of instruction, appropriate levels of instruction, incentive, and time. Savin (2012) states, “For instruction to be effective, each of these four elements must be adquate” (p. 251). This model requires that we as teachers consider all of the different types of students entering our classrooms. They are all coming from different backgrounds with different experiences and skill sets. Teachers really struggle with making adequate accommodations for so many different types of students. Savin (2012) notes that “accommodating instruction to student differences is one of the most fundamental problems of education and often leads to politically and emotionally charged policies” (p. 253). Different countries deal with this different, and in the U.S. it has changed over time. While students used to be assigned to different tracks, they are now sometimes grouped by ability within classes. Some students even have their own programs developed for them where they work independently at their own pace. Teachers hear about abilities and differences every day, and each solution comes with its own positives and negatives. Research on grouping students by class according to their abilities shows that it isn’t very effective. We have already discussed collaborative and cooperative learning, and the lack of that type of learning in these types of classes is one of the reasons for their downfall. When low-performing students are around other low-performing students, there are no good leaders and role-models for them to learn from. Additionally, measures that group students in these classes may be unreliable. In my school, I don’t see much class ability grouping, Instead, I see a lot of untracking, where the focus is on “placing students in mixed-ability groups and holding them to high standards but providing many ways for them to reach those standards” (Slavin, 2012, p. 256). Those who voice issues with untracking are not the parents of the low-achievers, but the parents of the high-achievers. They tend to think that this slows down the progress of their children in an attempt to speed up the progress of the others. In a mixed-ability class, within-class ability grouping is an option for teachers, and this is usually seen in elementary classes, especially in reading. 

No matter how students are grouped, teachers must differentiate their instruction to meet the needs of everyone. One way to differentiate instruction is to use peer tutors. Savin (2012) states, “Research evaluating the effects of peer tutoring on student achievement has generally found that this strategy increases the achievement of both tutees and tutors” (p. 260). As we have all heard time and time again, “The best way to learn something thoroughly is to teach it to someone else” (Slavin, 2012, p. 260). Teachers can also tutor students. 

Some students need more than just differentiation to be successful. For those students, programs are put in place to help them achieve everything they are capable of. Students are at “at-risk” fall into three categories: compensatory education, early intervention programs, and special education. Compensatory education programs “are designed to overcome the problems associated with being brought up in low-income communities” (Slavin, 2012, p. 263). The largest program that falls in this category is Title I, a name with which we are all very familiar. Title I, funded by the federal government, offers services to students who come from low-income families. Where compensatory education programs focus on remediation, early interventions programs focus on prevention. An example of an early intervention program is reading Recovery, a program that provides one-on-one reading tutoring to students in first grade. Comprehensive school reform programs are “schoolwide approaches that introduce research-based strategies into every aspect of school functions” (Slavin, 2012, p. 266). A popular CSR program is Success for All, which puts in focus in serving disadvantaged communities. This program provides tutoring, family support, and help with curriculum implementation. Savin (2012) states, “Longitudinal studies of Success for All have shown that students in this program read substantially better than do students in matched control schools throughout the elementary and middle grades and that they are far less likely to be assigned to special education or to fail a grade” (p. 267). 

Technology also helps with differentiation and adds another important component to instruction. Computers, tablet, interactive whiteboards, and clickers are now commonplace in classrooms across the country. Since the integration of these devices is recent, there isn’t much research. However, there is no doubt that the Internet gives teachers many more opportunities to get students engaged in the material. Webquests, simulations, and ease of communication helps “students become active, creative learners” (Slavin, 2012, p. 273). 

Reflection:

This was a very interesting chapter to me. I’ve always gone back and forth about whether or not I think students should be grouped by ability or merged in classes, and I definitely see the pros and cons to both. Honestly, I see it differently as a parent than I do a student. When students are grouped together, they learn from each other—in a perfect world. Yes, ideally the strong students raise the level of the class for the weak students, thus helping everyone. As a teacher, I know that this isn’t always the case. It is sometimes? Of course, but not always. Low-achieving students often come with behavior problems and a host of other issues that demand a lot of time on behalf of the teacher. I understand that teachers should differentiate and it shouldn’t matter, but the reality of the situation is that teachers don’t have enough time to plan 30 different lessons for each student in a class five times a day. If I consider each individual child, I’m planning for 150 different students in one day. This is impossible.

Like is the case with everything else, grouping really depends on the situation. Tomlinson (2015) outlines the social disparities that come along with tracking: “Tracking perpetuates class and race-based disparities as assignment to high track classes reflects a disproportionate number of White and mid to high income students and assignment to lower track classes reflects a disproportionate number of student of color and students from low income backgrounds” (p. 204). She also notes that when tracking occurs, there is often a rise on specific class choice. On the opposite end of the spectrum, she notes that “evidence also suggests that heterogeneous classrooms with focused attention to students’ varying needs, and in the context of high quality curriculum and instruction, can benefit a very broad spectrum of learners” (Tomlinson, 2015, p. 204).

This made me think of a situation we had in my school just this past year. The school used to let anyone join the gifted class as a part of the “honors” section of the class. Students who didn’t pass the gifted test but made good grades could opt for the challenge even though they weren’t gifted. Next year will be the first year that students can’t do this, and they are very upset. Students who aren’t technically gifted will be placed in the regular classes. They see this as unfair because they know that it won’t be as challenging and they won’t learn as much. This is disappointing, and I think a lot of this depends on the climate of the school and the teacher. 

Now, I also see the other side of the equation. I’ve seen over and over again a strong student in a “normal” class help a struggling student “see the light,” and it is very rewarding for me, for the students—for everyone. There is something that I love about mixed-ability grouping that makes it the best way in my opinion: it is real world. In the real world students have to work and collaborate with all kinds of people, not just the people who are most like they are. In the article “Mixed-Experience Classes can work well together with a little Creative Thinking,” Debbie Block (2011) outlines the experience of a middle-school orchestra teacher and her struggles after she couldn’t divide her beginning and advanced students into two different classes. What did she do? She had them teach each other and found that her reminders to the advanced students to teach small things like posture “also made them look at their own posture and instrument position” (Block, 2011). In addition to the peer tutoring, she also gave the advanced students an independent assignment to ensure they remained challenged. 

These readings definitely made me think about the different levels I have in my classes and encouraged me to utilize what I have to make the experiences better for everyone. In the future, I think I’ll use more grouping to ensure that my students have the opportunity to learn from one another daily.

References:

Block, Debbie Galante. 2011. "Mixed-Experience Classes Can Work Well With a Little Creative Thinking." Teaching Music 18, no. 4: 58. MasterFILE Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed June 25, 2016).

Slavin, R.E. (2012). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tomlinson, C. (2015). Teaching for Excellence in Academically Diverse Classrooms. Society, 52(3), 203-209.

Week 6: Student-Centered Instruction

Description:

Cooperative learning has been proven to be successful when used appropriately in the classroom. This type of learning promotes critical thinking, creative thinking, and problem-solving skills for students. Cooperative learning is largely based on ideas from the constructivist theory, which believes that students learn more when they take control of their own learning.  

Reflection:

When discussing student-centered instruction, Slavin (2012) talks a lot about the view of constructivists. The “essence of constructivist theory is the idea that learners must individually discover and transform complex information if they are to make it their own” (Slavin, 2012, p. 218). Thus, students are active rather than passive participants in their classes and in their education. There are a few different concepts that fall under this theory. One is that of social learning—the idea that students learn from others while watching and observing others work. Another is the zone of proximal development, the “idea that children learn best the concepts that are in their zones of proximal development” (Slavin, 2012, p. 219). Another concept, cognitive apprenticeship, explains that learners gain knowledge through close interaction with an expert, whether child or adult, in the field or subject. Lastly, scaffolding is emphasized, as it helps students go more in-depth with a subject by providing and then slowly taking away assistance for students. When it comes to the organizational structure of learning, the constructivist view prefers a few. One is the top-down approach, where the teacher presents a complex problem or situation and the student work to figure it out. The view also places an emphasis on cooperative learning and the idea that students will learn more if they work together to solve problems. Through discovery learning, students are encouraged to learn on their own using hands-on experiments and projects. This type of learning helps students “learn independent problem-solving and critical-thinking skills” (Slavin, 2012, p. 222). Similarly, a self-regulated learners are good at using their learning strategies to solve problems. 

Cooperative learning works well with the constructivist view. In cooperative learning, students work together in small groups “to help each other learn” (Slavin, 2012, p. 229). These groups may vary in size, and the groups may work together for varying lengths of time. There are many different cooperative learning methods. One of these methods is the student teams-achievement divisions (STAD). In this model, students work in four-member teams of mixed performance level, gender, and ethnicity. In this model, the teams work together to ensure that all members of the team have mastered the information. Students quiz individually, but the quiz scores from the group form team scores that can earn the team certain prizes and/or rewards. Individually, students are also trying to meet goals with their individual quiz scores. Another method is jigsaw, where students are in groups of six members. In these groups, each individual is responsible for a certain portion of the assignment. Members of different groups with the same assignment come together to compare information. These students then teach their groups what they have learned about their specific section. Overall, research strongly suggests that more improvement is made when cooperative learning is used than when traditional learning is used. However, two conditions must be met for this to be true. The first is that there must be some kind of reward for the groups who do well. The second is that there must be individual accountability: “The success of the group must depend on the individual learning of all group members, not on a single group product” (Slavin, 2012, p. 234). 

Ultimately, the goal is to teach students problem-solving and thinking skills. 

Analysis: 

I use a lot of what I thought was cooperative learning in my class, but after the reading, I realize I just really do group work. My group work isn’t organized or substantial enough for it to constitute as cooperative learning. However, I love the idea, and I think it is great in the classroom for many reasons, but mostly because it emulates what students will face in the real world. I didn’t know about the different methods of using cooperative learning prior to this reading, add I really enjoyed reading about them. I will definitely use the STAD or jigsaw method, or maybe take bits and pieces from each. The most important information I gained from this reading was the information on what must occur for cooperative learning to be meaningful. I do typically offer a reward for a winning or successful group, so I’m pretty good here. However, I do not usually have individual as well as group goals or scores, so I need to implement this. I often have the issue of one or two group members doing all of the work, so this would eliminate that. I love the part of the jigsaw method of students teaching each other, and this also helps account for individual learning. 

In her article “Student-Centered Instruction: Involving Students in their own Education,” Brown (2008) describes two student-centered learning models used in music education. In one of them, Arts PROPEL, involves students in each of its three main art forms: music, visual art, and imaginative writing. In this model, “involving the students in their own assessment is crucial and at the art of the Arts PROPEL philosophy” (Brown, 2008). One way students do this is through the use of portfolios. These portfolios allow students to assess their work and look for growth along the way. Though I don’t teach art, this really stood out to me because I can use this same idea with writing portfolios. In this way, students take control of their own learning. This can also be couple with cooperative learning to have students assess other members of their groups. 

References:

Brown, J.K. (2008). Student-Centered Instruction: Involving Students in Their Own Education. Music Educators Journal, 94(5), 30-35.

Slavin, R.E. (2012). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. 

Week 5: The Effective Lesson

Description:

In Chapter 7, Slavin (2012) discusses direct instruction. He walks through the steps a teacher goes through during a lesson, and discusses how to ensure that learning has taken place. Slavin (2012) states that “direct instruction is particularly appropriate for teaching a well-defined body of information or skills that ll students must master” (p. 185). Slavin also discusses the use of discussions during instruction.

Analysis:

As teachers, we all use direct instruction every day in lessons where we “transmit information directly to your students, structuring class time to reach a clearly defined set of objectives as efficiently as possible” (p. 184-185). Direct instruction is what we think of when we think of that traditional lesson we learned how to teach. It typically has some type of introduction or attention-getter, it requires that we tell students what they will learn, activate prior knowledge that will be useful in learning the new material, and then teach the new material, making proper emphasis where necessary. When teaching the material, the teacher must make (ahead of time) several decisions that will greatly influence the outcome of the lesson. The teacher must make ideas clear and easy for students to understand, must provide explanations and work examples, and should give demonstrations and illustrations throughout. According to Slavin (2012), “visual representations are maintained in long-term memory far more readily than information that is only heard” (p. 192). Teachers must also pay attention to how much attention the lesson is getting from students, as it is important to keep them engaged. Teachers can use humor and/or stories to keep students interested. After teaching the new material, teachers must assess the students informally to ensure that the students are understanding what is being taught. Learning probes are different ways of asking students for brief responses about the lesson and can give you immediate feedback. No matter how it is done, teachers must check for understanding. One popular learning probe is through questioning. Just like everything else in a lesson, this requires some pre-planning. A teacher must know what questions he/she will ask, know how she will ask them—whole-class response, random student selected, etc. After the large group section of the lesson is complete, a teacher should usually assign some type of group or independent practice. It was a surprise to me to read that “Research on seat work, or in-class independent practice, suggests that it is typically both overused and misused” (Slavin, 2012, p. 199). To make independent practice more effective, teachers should make the time limited, monitor students closely, ensure they can do the work before assigning it, and make sure all directions are clear and easy to understand. Teachers must, of course, provide feedback for this independent work. 

The purpose for the whole lesson is, of course, to ensure that students will later be able to transfer that knowledge to another situation. This is called transfer learning, and  it “depends on the degree to which the information or skills were learned in the original situation and on the degree of similarity between the situation in which the skill or concept was learned and the situation to which it is being applied” (Slavin, 2012, p. 205). To ensure that students can do this, teachers can create lessons in context, and/or create small or large group discussions. In these types of situations, the teacher is more of a facilitator while the students take control of much of what is going on. Savin (2012) state, “Research on small-group discussions indicates that these activities can increase student achievement more than traditional lessons if the students are well prepared to work in small groups and if the group task is well organized” (p. 211). 

Reflection:

I go through the routines mentioned in this chapter on a daily basis. One of the biggest surprises of teaching for me was the amount of preparation that goes into one class period. Sometimes it seems that one minute of teaching takes ten minutes of preparation. It was interesting to me that we place too much emphasis on independent work, and Slavin’s statement about it (cited above) made me really think about it. I do tend to give more independent work as homework, but I can understand why it isn’t as helpful as some other types of assignments. I think teachers are more and more encouraged to have students participate in what Slavin calls “transfer learning.” Because of the nature of my subject, we are often linking information and thinking creatively. One of the biggest types of instruction I employ in my class is discussions. I enjoy having discussions for many reasons. It shows me what the students know and how they think, but it also gives a few students leadership practice, and it allows them to take control of their own learning. The students must do the work beforehand, but it is amazing to have them read and annotate a chapter of a novel and then hear the different types of connections they make to the current world. There are some books I read every single year, and the students always come up with something new that I’ve never thought of. 

In the article “Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined Improvisation,” Sawyer (2004) discusses the idea of teachers “performing” and that this approach is now widely used and becoming unsuccessful. I do notice this, and it is sad. Sawyer (2004) states that the problem with teachers performing—reading off the script with rehearsed timing: “[T]he metaphor of teaching as performance is problematic, because it suggests a solo performer reading from a script, with the students as the passive, observing audience” (p. 12). Direct instruction definitely has its place, but this is why I prefer to have the students engaged in not only the activity, but in the process of deciding what is most important. 

References:

Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.

Slavin, R.E. (2012). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Week 4: Cognitive Theories of Learning

Analysis:

Slavin begins the chapter discussing the different types of memory. Our short-term memory is what everything initially enters into, but it can only stay here for a few seconds. If the information isn’t immediately used, it will disappear. Working memory is another type of short-term memory. If we use the information by categorizing it or connecting it with previously learned information, we are using our working memory. In order for something to be transferred to our long-term memory, we must continually use the information. Our long-term memory is divided into three parts: memory of personal experiences (episodic), memory  of facts and generalized information (semantic), and memories of knowing how to do something (procedural). The levels-of-processing theory asserts that we process information on different levels, and these levels determine the likelihood that we will remember it. For example, if we just look at something, we don’t have as great of a chance of remembering it as if we give a name to it or associating meaning to it. Automaticity occurs when information goes beyond out long-term memories; recalling the information is automatic and requires no effort.

Though we typically feel like we don’t remember much of what we learn in school, Slavin (2012) insists that we actually do: “Whatever students have retained about 12 to 24 weeks after instruction, they may retain forever” (p. 152). What does matter, though, is the type of instruction. According to Slavin (2012), students who sat through traditional lectures lost much more of the knowledge than those who had instruction that utilizing role playing. The levels-of-processing theory suggests that when we associate meaning to something, we are much more likely to remember it. 

Recent research on the brain has found that “the brain’s capacity is not set at birth but is influenced by early experience” (Slavin, 2012, p. 154). This tells us that it is important for children to constantly be using their brains and utilizing the information. Savin (2012) states, “As a person gains in knowledge and skill, his or her brain becomes more efficient” (p. 155). 

Those who study memory are of course interest in what causes one to forget information. One reason we forget information is by interference: the information is interrupted before it is stored in the working memory because there isn’t time to rehearse the material. Another type of interference, retroactive inhibition, causes us to forget information because other new information is interjected. 

Teachers have the duty of teaching in a way that leads to information being stored in a student’s long-term memory. There are different methods that help achieve this. One is verbal learning, which includes paired-associate learning, serial learning, and free-recall learning. Imagery may often help a student remember information because it helps the students visualize information. Teachers can also try to ensure that the learning is meaningful, though sometimes rote learning is necessary. One theory of meaningful learning is the schema theory, which suggests that “information fitting into an existing schema is more easily understood, learned, and retained than information that does not fit into an existing schema” (p. 167). Teachers can make current learning more relevant by linking it to previously learned information using advance organizers and/or analogies. Teaching strategies should also help students organize information. This may include the use of note-taking strategies and/or the PQ4R method. 

Reflection:

I didn’t read anything in this chapter that was particularly surprising, but a lot of it was interesting. I don’t usually think of the “scientific” reasoning for certain things, so that part of it is new to me. For example, I knew that the more times something is repeated, the more likely it is to be remembered. However, I didn’t know about working memory and how quickly something stored in our short-term memory is actually forgotten. 

One thing that I did find as shock is Slavin’s (2012) idea that “people retain a large portion of what they learn in school” (p. 152). I don’t feel like I remember much of what I learned in school, but according to the reading, I’m just not utilizing it or I didn’t use it enough when it was initially learned to move it into my long-term memory. This may be useful for me in my classes. Since research suggests that something remembered for 12 to 24 weeks after instruction is retained forever, this makes it incredibly important that I review, review, review what is taught in my class. For something that is taught in August, my revisiting that information until May will pretty much ensure that it is moved into the students’ long-term memories. 

There is a lot in the chapter about the idea that information is much more easily remembered for students when it i something with which they can associate meaning. Additionally, Slavin makes note that we learn more as our brains are continually engaged. Thus, a student sitting in my class who already knows what we are learning isn’t benefitted by the lesson because he/she is not gaining any additional knowledge. These two things are very important to the way students are taught. Not only does the material need to be differentiated so that information isn’t repeated, but we need to ensure that students are associating meaning with whatever they are learning. In some cases this may mean explaining to them why something is important or relating the material to something else, but in other cases in may meaning allowing them to choose between topics or giving them space to be creative and relate the material to their own interests and passions. 

t is no secret that we all learn differently. Some of us are visual while some of us are auditory. Presenting material in multiple ways in important, as is creating effective ways to help students organize learning that is rote. This may include helping them with note-taking strategies, summarizing, and/or concept-mapping. Savin (2012) states, “A growing body of evidence supports the idea that having students explain in writing the content they are learning helps them understand and remember it” (p. 170). This is concerning to me because students don’t often write much anymore. When notes come on the screen, they immediately want to take a picture. If they are required to “write” something, they are usually typing it. For me, I must actually write information to remember it, and I don’t know that they are growing up understanding that. Something else to take into consideration when helping students learn is the time of day. Young (2015) suggests that age has a direct relationship to when the brain is most active. While older people peak in brain activity in the morning, young teens are still active in the afternoons. However, “16 and 17-year-old girls performed better on tests of factual memory if they studied the material at 3 pm rather than at 9 pm, but acquired skills involving movements faster if they practiced in the evening.” At my school, certain classes (usually math and English) are scheduled during the morning time slots when available. However, a lot of it is just luck of the draw. I know that there is a huge difference in 7th period and 1st period! 

References: 

Slavin, R.E. (2012). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Young, E. (2015). KNOW IT ALL. (cover story). New Scientist, 226(3014), 30-35.