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.