SF active overview

SF active overview

Introduction to the Active Classroom and

Social Collaborative Learning

Teaching through a new Pedagogy

Pst. Richard Lancaster-Shanks, MBA MEd DBS (c)

Business Dept., Springfield International School Founder and Director- Global Resource Centre

Dear Parents and Students,

There are as many ways of “doing class” as there are stars in the sky. Ultimately, how class is done depends on the overall pedagogical style of the teacher and how efficiently he or she might get students to “dive in” to the content of the class and how deep their immersion will be in the curriculum.

Over the past 30 years, many new concepts and techniques have been developed that have had varying degrees of success in getting students to attain the knowledge and skills that are needed for a certain subject area. Howard Gardener brought forth the concepts if ‘Multiple Intelligences” in 1994, which made huge leaps forward in terms of the transmission of ideas and knowledge. Just prior to Gardener’s work, in 1993 Flemming and Mills brought in the concept of differing neural processors that revolutionized the way teaching was done, to great success. Many others brought in new theories on cognitive development that are currently being used today in schools around the world.

Older theories of learning, such as “constructivism”, “social collaborativism”, and “learning by teaching” have taken on new meanings in light of new technologies and theories of learning, which are now reaping huge benefits in the modern 21st

century classroom.

Needless to say, the days of the “passive student” are gone. A “passive student” is defined as one who sits in class, receives what a teacher says, and does homework or activities based on external instructions. In the case of passive learning, the student has almost no ownership of his or her learning, as it is dictated by an external source. The passive learner is locked into a mode of “receiver”.

In the old days, information was limited to actual physical libraries, text books, media and teacher’s experiences. Access to data has exploded exponentially to the point that these have become obsolete sources of unique information, as any search on Google will testify to. A student can read, watch or listen to lectures at the click of a button from a variety of sources, going way beyond what can conceivably be covered in a text book or a class lecture. In addition, students can no longer be satisfied with simple classroom acquisition of knowledge, or they will quickly be left behind.

Thus, new skills and new strategies have become necessary to “push the envelope”, or bring students into a broader and deeper understanding of academic content. A revisit to constructivists such as Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky, applied together with the addition of modern technology, have cemented new methodologies of learning that have proven amazing. Thus, the concepts of “active learning” and “social collaboratism” have taken on a new shape in the digital classroom.

Learning is meaningful when knowledge is incorporated into structures of knowledge already possessed by the individual. To produce this meaningful learning, conditions should be set in the classroom that support the following conditions:

• The logical significance: refers to the logical sequence of processes and consistency in the internal structure of the material.

• Cognitive Psychology (previous knowledge) : The student must have ideas that will act as a link between pre-existing cognitive structure of learners and new ideas.

• Affective: positive disposition, subjective learning provision

Today, active-collaborative learning meets these needs and has emerged as the leading new approach to classroom instruction. One important reason is that numerous research studies have revealed that students completing collaborative learning group tasks tend to have higher academic test scores, higher self-esteem, greater numbers of positive social skills, fewer stereotypes of individuals of other races or ethnic groups, and greater comprehension of the content and skills they are studying. Students working in high-performance collaborative workgroups tend to cover cognitive learning tasks and course content at a much faster pace than passive stand alone study and solely independent learning. Furthermore, the perspective of students working as "academic loners" in classrooms is very different from that of students working in "collaborative learning academic teams".

Even with its increasing popularity a large majority of teachers continue to be using only general group tasks- but not collaborative learning tasks. Merely because students work in small groups does not mean that they are cooperating or collaborating. This emphasis on academic learning success for each individual and all members of the group is one feature that separates collaborative learning groups from other group tasks.

To be successful in setting up and having students complete group tasks within a collaborative learning framework, a number of essential elements or requirements must be met. The exact number, name, and order of these requirements vary from one author to another. However, nearly all agree that, in one way or another, the elements listed below are essential. These include:

• Face to Face Interaction, desks arranged in 3-6 member groups

• The teacher must take a step back and become a “facilitator”, taking a more passive role in the classroom and encouraging each student to become more and more “active”.. and “proactive”.

• Each student must daily “drive” the curriculum- “Learning by Teaching” (German: Lernen durch Lehren; or the “LdL” methodology) is an excellent methodology to accomplish this task. This is now called “Power Teaching” or “Power Learning” in the USA.

• Each student must take ownership of the curriculum’s development within the group from its inception, including the planning process for delivery.

• Limited external interference, so all students “own” the targeted outcome.

• A clear set of ESOs (expected student outcomes) and training for the team on planning and setting course work (including guidelines and/or deadlines for each unit of work, assessment period, etc).

• Training and directions on task completion and daily work routines.

• Heterogeneous groups with Positive Interdependence and Social Interaction, behaviors and attitudes (this may take some time to develop from scratch).

• EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCCESS

• Immediate and frequent access to must learn information such as the course syllabus, SoWs (Schemes of Work), planners, notes and other teacher facilitated material.

• INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY

• Regular post-activity reflection (Debriefs) on group performance and behaviors

According to Vygotsky, learning is divided into two levels: First through interaction with others and then integrating that knowledge into our own mental framework which is “interpreted” and “filtered” through our own pre-learned experiences. Piaget observed that learning could be through interaction with the environment. We know that an imbalance, or a “learning block” occurs when an individual is confronted with new knowledge and the individual has no “PLK” (pre-learned knowledge or experience) to base it on. Within the context of a group, the “PLK BASE” is much greater than a single individual, and with open dialogue, the combined sum of the team’s relevant “PLK” will exponentially multiply each member’s ability to grasp new concepts. Thus, in a group that is socially collaborative, learning become exponentially greater in terms of content understanding, as well as content volume.

In LdL, students become teachers in order to improve the learning-process. Learning becomes more effective when students could engage in active tasks. This method of teaching received broad recognition starting in the early 1980’s, when Jean-Pol Martin developed the concept systematically for the teaching of French as a foreign language. In 1987 he founded a network of more than a thousand teachers world-wide that employed LdL in many different subjects and globally documented its successes and approaches in different subject areas. Many of these initial teachers became trainers of the methodology in later years and it’s success grew. From 2001 onwards, LdL has gained more and more supporters as a result of educational reform movements in both Europe and America.

After intensive preparation by the facilitator, usually over the course of several weeks if the students are new to the method, students become responsible for their own learning and teaching. New material introduced to the class might be given a brief discussion by the “facilitator” (called a provocation and intro), and then is divided into small units and student groups of not more than six people are formed. Each person on the team familiarizes himself with a strictly defined area of the new material and gets an assignment to teach the whole group in this area. The material should be worked on didactically and methodologically (impulses, social forms, summarizing phases etc.) by all members of the team. The teaching students have to make sure that their audience (the other team members) have fully understood their message/topic points and must therefore use different means to make it happen (e.g. short phases of group or partner exercises, comprehension questions, quizzes, power points, q and a, etc.). An important effect from LdL is to develop the students' cognitive and emotional sensibility for interdependence, or in effect, building a neural network connecting all team members. Students are often referred to as “neurons” and facilitators/teachers the “frontal cortex”. This interdependence is a clear result of establishing within the classroom a well developed Affective environment (Bloom’s Affective Domain).

The activities conducted in LdL during the various lessons phases and their consequences are summarized in the following table:

Phases Students' behavior Facilitator's behavior Additional comments

Preparation at home

The students work intensively at home, because the quality of the classroom discussion (collective intelligence, emergence) depends closely on the students' preparation. Students (neurons) who are not prepared or who are often absent are not able to react to impulses or to "fire off" impulses themselves.

The teacher (the frontal cortex) has to know the content because he or she must be able to provide provocations to dialogue, intervene at any time, completing or giving incentives in order to enhance the quality of classroom discussion if necessary. The exploration and investigation of new content becomes part of the student inquiry process and not “handed over” by the facilitator. The facilitator’s position is to provide “provocations” for students to “find” answers to questions using all of the resources available.

Using LdL means that lesson time will not be used in order to communicate new content but instead for interaction either in little groups or with the entire class (collective knowledge constructing). The homework should prepare the students to interact on a high level during the lesson

Interactions during the lesson

The students sit in facing desks. Each student listens with concentration to the other students, takes daily notes, and asks questions if something in the explanations is not clear. Each student is to prepare for an active dialogue with the “teacher” of the group for that day.

The facilitator looks for concentration and intelligent engagement of the content during the explanations by students, so that each student may explain their thoughts openly and with a feeling of “security” (Bloom’s Affective Domain). Daily assessment can easily be used using Bloom’s Cognitive Hierarchy while observing the interactions.

Using LdL means that during the presentations and interactions, the teacher has to take a passive role to allow the construct to take place, interjecting only as necessary.

Introduction: information gathering two by two

Using "human resources": the students briefly present the new topic and let the other students discuss what is new about this topic.

The facilitator looks to see if the students really exchange their knowledge, and assess cognitive interaction.

Using LdL means that the students' already existing knowledge about the new topic will be "inventoried" by each team member and used to gain quick understanding of the new topic.

4

SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) of the Active Learning Classroom

Classroom Essentials

1. Students must arrive early to class. At the bell, all laptops must be opened, Unit Work Files (containing notes and homework) on the laptop opened and dated, all ready to begin discussion and taking notes. 2. Students must have their laptop charged and ready for each class. Homework must be completed and ready for review if necessary. 3. Absolute silence is required when the facilitator has the floor or makes an announcement. 4. Absolute silence is required when someone is presenting or teaching. (12-inch voice rule for interactions). 5. All students will complete their homework on time and submit their work the team’s Scribe for uploading to the team’s Homework Folder each Friday. 6. All UWF’s will follow the prescribed format (a template is available for all students). 7. Students will have a valid Google e-mail account, and active Google Drive by the first week of class, and register with the Facilitator for permissions on the class’s Google Drive. 8. Students must become familiar with the Cambridge website, and have downloaded the course’s syllabus, as well as all work and planners set by the facilitator. 9. Students must revise available documents each week on the class’s Google drive. 10. Written reports must follow a modified MLA format, with cover page (a template is available). 11. Unless accompanied by a written request from a parent with a valid reason, late reports, homework or make up tests/quizzes/presentations will not be accepted. 12. Homework files will be due on the last day of the week when a unit is completed (according to the course’s SoW), but may be revised at anytime by the facilitator. 13. All teams will submit Final Project Reports and Portfolios at the end of each semester prior to the final exam, which evidence each team’s activities during the course of the semester. This is done in hard copy. 14. Bloom’s Cognitive Hierarchy will be used as a basis for assessment, rubrics are available. 15. Make up presentations or exams will be held by appointment, during lunch period, breaks or after school. 16. All students must regularly communicate their progress with the Facilitator and team members, keeping Google Chat active for team conferences or facilitator conferences. 17. All members must review new files and updates each week on the Class’ Google Drive and be aware of all due dates, projects and assignments. 18. All students will keep the classroom spotless, desks in order and trash in trashcans. 19. Students may not eat or bring drinks other than water to class. 20. Students must have all required materials each day, including textbook, laptop, pens and pencils, calculator or other items as need. Permission to leave the class will not be given once class has begun. D-Cards (Demerit cards) must also be on hand each day.

List of Work and “Chores”

1. UWF (Unit Work File). This contains all of the homework and class notes of the student. It is to be uploaded weekly to the teams’ “homework” folder, and a copy kept on each student’s computer for use each day in class and at home for homework. At the end of each Unit of Work (from the SoW), it will be marked and a grade given over content. It must be ready at any time for review by the facilitator to evidence homework. A template is available in the team’s documents folder, and each file must closely follow the template for each day’s sections.

Included: homework (end of chapter questions from text book, activities chosen by each team, and other as assigned), and daily “diary” or notes of team’s sessions. Students must answer at least 5 questions individually each week from end-of-unit (EOU) questions regarding the SoW points covered that week.

2. Daily Teaching: Each student will take turns teaching their team for 15-20 minutes, concerning the topics the team has chosen in the unit. The frequency of this activity depends on the team’s number of members, with smaller teams having a rotation more frequently, one student per day. The “teacher” will prepare prior to his or her class, with activities, white board (brain board) work and even power points or games if necessary. Team members will asses the teacher on depth of knowledge (they will also have to prepare each day by completing their homework and/or reading assignments) to be able to perform their functions well. The facilitator will be observing each team, the teacher presenting and the team’s interactions and engagement. Students should teach at least 3 classes per term.

3. Planning: As this is a student-centered, active program, students must take ownership of their studies and learning. To do so, they must know exactly what is expected of them by Cambridge. At the beginning of each semester, each team will review their Cambridge syllabus, and the facilitator’s approved Scheme of Work (SoW), identify what expectations are required for each unit, and divide the workload over the school’s academic calendar. They will know what is to be learned, what week each topic is to be covered and what text pages will need to be read. As the students design the course, there is no confusion over “what to do”. They will then prepare a Term Planner at the beginning of each Term, which will take that information, and expand on the team’s activities, define homework each week, teaching and presentation (or writing) assignments and topics. Finally, as they identify the text that aligns with each unit, each team will bullet point what items are critical and that they do not know as a team, for the Facilitator to teach or introduce at the beginning of each class. All planners are submitted to the facilitator for approval prior to implementation by the teams.

4. Weekly Assessment Activity: During the 1st term, 

students will learn to work as a team, set goals and report orally as teams and with power point presentations. This not only aids each student in setting goals as a team, but in the recall of what they have learned in a much greater degree than simply reading and doing homework. Oral presentation also give students the ability to develop critical thinking and evaluation skills, which will enhance their skills for he Cambridge exams. After Term 1, students will be given a choice whether their weekly assessment activities would continue to be oral presentations, quizzes or paper-based activities, or through bi-weekly 3-page (800 word) essays or reports. These papers are designed to help the student develop the written skills necessary to sit a Cambridge exam.

7

---

5. 1 Term paper, 3 pages plus conclusion/summary, following the MLA format with a cover page (a template is available) in the team’s documents folder. This is a 750 word + paper, including a strong conclusion concerning a topic point assigned by the Facilitator. This paper is due at the end of Term 1 and Term 3 prior to Term exams. Students should be prepared to present 3 times per term (or submit 3 papers per term). Students preferring to do written assessment could be given quizzes, asked to write short essays, or given other paper-based activities to be assessed en lieu of oral presentations or written reports (only after the first term).

6. 1 Final Semestral Presentation, 10 minutes with Power Point covering a research topic, assigned by facilitator. This needs to be done prior to the revision week at the end of each semester, and covers the application of concepts earned during the semester within the context of each team’s project.

7. 1 Semestral Project. This is a team project which will be evidenced through the final presentation and report, as well as with the team’s portfolio. The focus of these activities to apply knowledge and concepts learned in an actual setting to develop practical skill and knowledge. Teams will be encouraged to develop a business project.

I hope that this booklet will be of benefit to each of our active teams and their families. Please feel free to contact me at any time and I will be glad to help in any way possible.

Many Blessings,

Mr. L.

RECOMMENDED READING

Balkcom, Stephen. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1992. ED 346 999. Cohen, Elizabeth G. RESTRUCTURING THE CLASSROOM: CONDITIONS FOR PRODUCTIVE SMALL GROUPS. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1992. ED 347 639. Hamm, Mary, and Dennis Adams. THE COLLABORATIVE DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1992. ED 353 348. Holubec, Edythe Johnson. "How Do You Get There from Here? Getting Started with Collaborative Learning." CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION 63 (Spring 1992): 181-84. EJ 455 133. Johnson, D. W., R. T. Johnson, and E. J. Holubec. CIRCLES OF LEARNING: COOPERATION IN THE CLASSROOM, 4th edition. Edina, MN: Interaction Book, 1993. Kagan, Spencer. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Collaborative Learning, 1992. Kagan, Spencer. "The Structural Approach to Collaborative Learning." EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 47 (December-January 1989-90): 12-15. EJ 400 491. Slavin, Robert E. STUDENT TEAM LEARNING: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING. Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1991. ED 339 518. Slavin, Robert E. "Synthesis of Research on Collaborative Learning." EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 48 (February 1991): 71-82. EJ 421 354. Stahl, Robert J. "A Context for 'Higher Order Knowledge:' An Information-Constructivist (IC) Perspective with Implications for Curriculum and Instruction." JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL LEARNING 11 (1992): 189-218. Stahl, Robert J. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN SOCIAL STUDIES: A HANDBOOK FOR FACILITATORS. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1994. Stahl, Robert J., and R. L. VanSickle, eds. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN THE SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM: AN INVITATION TO SOCIAL STUDY. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies, 1992. Stephens, Robert J., and Robert E. Slavin. THE COLLABORATIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: EFFECTS ON STUDENTS' ACHIEVEMENT, ATTITUDES, AND SOCIAL RELATIONS. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, 1992. ED 349 098. ERIC journal for Education. WIKIPEDIA: www.wikipedia.org

Additional Publications on Active Learning

R.M. Felder and R. Brent, "Active Learning: An Introduction." ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4), August 2009. A short paper that defines active learning, gives examples of activities and formats, and answers frequently-asked questions about the method. R.M. Felder and R. Brent, "Learning by Doing." Chem. Engr. Education, 37(4), 282-283 (Fall 2003). A column on the philosophy and strategies of active learning. L.G. Bullard and R.M. Felder, "A Student-Centered Approach to Teaching Material and Energy Balances. Part 2. Course Delivery and Assessment." Chem. Engr. Education, 41(3), 167-176 (2007). Description of an implementation of the stoichiometry course that made extensive use of active and cooperative methods. M. Prince, "Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research." J. Engr. Education, 93(3), 223- 231 (2004). A paper by Michael Prince reviewing the research evidence for the effectiveness of active learning.

Additional Publications on Collaborative Learning

R.M. Felder and R. Brent, "Cooperative Learning." Chapter 4 of P.A. Mabrouk, ed., Active Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences, ACS Symposium Series 970. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 2007. A general overview of definitions and methods of cooperative learning and a review of CL applications in chemistry. R.M. Felder and R. Brent, "Effective Strategies for Cooperative Learning." J. Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69-75 (2001). Tips on forming teams, dealing with dysfunctional teams, grading team assignments, and using cooperative learning in a distance learning environment. R.M. Felder and R. Brent, "FAQs-3. Groupwork in Distance Learning." Chem. Engr. Education, 35(2), 102-103 (Spring 2001). L. Cardellini and R.M. Felder, "L’Apprendimento Cooperativo: Un Metodo per Migliorare la Preparazione e l’Acquisizione di Abilità Cognitive negli Studenti," La Chimica nella Scuola, 21(1), 18- 25 (1999). Methods and benefits of cooperative learning. (In Italian, with an English abstract). R.M. Felder, "Active, Inductive, Cooperative Learning: An Instructional Model for Chemistry?" J. Chem. Ed., 73(9), 832-836 (1996). B. Oakley, R.M. Felder, R. Brent, and I. Elhajj, "Turning Student Groups into Effective Teams." J. Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9–34 (2004). Techniques for avoiding dysfunctional teams, dealing with them when they arise, and helping students acquire the skills they will need to form high- performance teams. B. Oakley, D.M. Hanna, Z. Kuzmyn, and R.M. Felder, "Best Practices Involving Teamwork in the Classroom: Results from a Survey of 6435 Engineering Student Respondents." IEEE Transactions on Education, 50(3), 266–272 (2007). How instructors form and guide teams and implement cooperative learning can have a dramatic effect on students' satisfaction with the team experience and their sense of the extent to which the course learning objectives were met. C.R. Haller, V.J. Gallagher, T.L. Weldon, and R.M. Felder, "Dynamics of Peer Education in Cooperative Learning Workgroups." J. Engr. Education, 89(3), 285-293 (2000). Conversation analysis of work sessions of student groups is used to identify patterns of teaching-learning interactions and interactional problems.

Accounting for individual effort in teamwork

D.B. Kaufman, R.M. Felder, and H. Fuller, "Accounting for Individual Effort in Cooperative Learning Teams." J. Engr. Education, 89(2), 133-140 (2000). Study of the use of a peer rating system in an introductory engineering course. The study examines the incidence of students receiving low ratings from all their teammates, inflated and deflated self-ratings, identical ratings given by all teammates to one another, and possible gender and racial bias in the ratings.

Publications on Inductive Teaching and Learning

M.J. Prince and R.M. Felder, "Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases." J. Engr. Education, 95(2), 123-138 (2006). Descriptions of several common inductive methods, including inquiry learning, problem-based and project-based learning, discovery learning, case-based teaching, and just-in-time teaching, and a survey of their applications in engineering education and the research base that confirms their effectiveness. M.J. Prince and R.M. Felder, "The Many Faces of Inductive Teaching and Learning." J. College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14-20 (2007). Pros, cons, and comparisons of several different inductive teaching methods (inquiry-based learning, discovery learning, problem- and project-based learning, case-based

10