This week we are reflecting on how we have positively changed our practice during our postgraduate journey to address one of the themes or subthemes from the reading “Supporting future-oriented learning and teaching: A New Zealand perspective”. I chose Theme 4: "Changing the script": Rethinking learners' and teachers' roles.
- Why did I make this change?
Our students were working in groups co-operatively but not collaboratively. This meant that some students who always wanted to “work in a group or with a buddy” needed to be redirected by teachers to participate in the group work.
- How was this change triggered during my learning journey at The Mind Lab?
Upon completing the Week Two session on 21st Century Learning Design, and Week Five on Growth Mindsets, it occurred to me what may be missing that would move our students from being just co-operative to collaborative.
- Are there any theories or literature that support my change?
According to García-Valcárcel, Basilotta, & Salamanca, 2014, p. 66, “Collaborative learning encourages students to see situations from different perspectives, creates an environment where they can practice social and leadership skills (social benefits), and provides a satisfactory learning experience that significantly reduces anxiety (psychological benefits). ITL Research Innovative Teaching and Learning. (2012), wrote about students were working collaboratively when they were having a shared responsibility, made substantive decisions and the work was interdependent. To understand the students who appeared to be opting out of their learning, Dweck, C. S. (2006) spoke about “low effort syndrome” and how this presented as a student who was reluctant to participate in the learning because of their fixed mindset and reluctance to risk take. So when reading Kozar, O. (2010) it provided us with the understanding that the students require a diverse list of possible means to be able to contribute to a project that would afford them success and ability to draw on their strengths. We also discovered that to personalise the learning, students like to be able to make choices about learning tools (Buchem et al., 2014 as cited in Thibodeaux, Cummings, & Harapnuik, 2017, p. 3). This lead to us brainstorming to list all the possibilities our students could think of to use as learning tools both digital and analogue. We also drew on Roblyer, M., Edwards, J., & Havurulik, M. (1997) who wrote about Vygotsky and his work on the Zone Of Proximal Development. For our students age and the stage they are at, it was prudent to scaffold this change so they are able to work in that sweet spot between gaining success and being given a challenge. After the process, we wanted the students to reflect on the success of both the end product and the process of working collaboratively. Spiller, D. (2009) Eventually it would be ideal to remove the scaffolding and for students to be knowingly working collaboratively.
- What have I learned from implementing this change?
Working collaboratively for some student does not come naturally and can be emotionally and socially confronting. Some are still finding their strengths and getting to know themselves as learners. They all agree that they are able to produce a superior product for having worked collaboratively. It was a chance to bring the school values to life and to be actively operating in the learning environment. The reflective process needs to be used productively as a spiral, so the students are not starting from the beginning each time and have a chance to build upon their success in developing their collaborative skills.
References:
Dweck, C. S. (2006). The truth about ability and accomplishment. In Mindset: The new psychology of success (1st ed.). New York: Random House
ITL Research Innovative Teaching and Learning. (2012). 21st Century Learning Design Rubrics. Retrieved from Microsoft Partners In Learning website: https://education.microsoft.com/GetTrained/ITL-Research
García-Valcárcel, A., Basilotta, V., & Salamanca, C. L. (2014). ICT in Collaborative Learning in the Classrooms of Primary and Secondary Education. Communicar, 42(21), 65-74. Retrieved from https://www.revistacomunicar.com/
Kozar, O. (2010). Towards Better Group Work: Seeing the Difference between Cooperation and Collaboration. English Teaching Forum, 2010(2), 16-23. Retrieved from https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/forum_article_towards_better_groupwork_seeing_the_difference_between_cooperation_and_collaboration.pdf
Roblyer, M., Edwards, J., & Havurulik, M. (1997). Learning Theories and Integration Models. In Integrating educational technology into teaching (pp. 54-77). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Thibodeaux, T., Cummings, C., & Harapnuik, D. (2017). Factors that Contribute to ePortfolio Persistence. International Journal of ePortfolio, 7(1), 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.theijep.com
Spiller, D. (2009). Assessment Matters: Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment. Retrieved from Waikato University/Teaching Development Unit website: http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/pdf/8_SelfPeerAssessment.pdf
Hi Shona. Great post. I too think that making the shift from co-operation to collaboration is a big challenge. I struggle with the group being truly interdependent as my students are of such mixed ability. It is hard to find tasks where they truly need the input of all members to succeed. Good luck with the rest of the course.
ReplyDelete