Some parts of this week’s reading were highly relevant to my teaching engagement at NDSU, as I teach sections comprising 21-22 students. Teaching with small groups, thus in general threw light on what group learning can facilitate in a class set-up. Since, we have also been working on our Teaching Philosophies, it was interesting to find strategies related to our teaching goals in the readings (I think I did manage to connect some concepts!).
It was surprising to see the most bandied about term ‘active learning’ as called misleading in the Davis reading, since apparently there is no passive learning. I wonder what the rest of the class thinks about this. I agree with Davis that the goal of higher education should be to inculcate higher order thinking in students by developing their skills and capacities in that direction. Since, I am a proponent of ‘connecting the dots’ for deeper understanding, I also am with Davis that students benefit greatly when they reflect on what they are doing and what they have assimilated so far. I really like the idea of informal study groups as mentioned by both Lang and Davis. They allow students to connect the dots or quickly apply the concepts learnt in class. Due to their ad-hoc or more fluid nature, they help students ‘think on their feet’-a must for these frenzied times.
Lang quotes Davis on some of his strategies for group work that students tend to retain more when they work in groups as opposed to individually. One of Lang’s approaches for having heterogeneous informal learning groups and homogeneous formal learning groups is interesting, but has a moot point. Wouldn't having the strongest students work together and the weakest together, create an intellectual imbalance and a sense of injustice/apathy in the class? I want to understand what the class’s stand is on this issue. The other approach of asking students for their preferences for dates, topics etc. and using that to group the class is more practical, in my opinion.
Davis’ approach for students ‘sinking or swimming’ together, when split in groups is too ‘puppies and rainbows’, (quoting CAP). I don’t think that all students, despite the general goodness of their hearts, are equally conscientious. Some of them are more than ready to sink, as they know someone will act as a buoy and bail them out. But, the aspect of group grading and the individual assessment of the students’ outlines and annotated bibliographies, is a good antidote to the ‘social-loafing’, group-think and shirking menace.
As an alternative to lectures and discussions, I favor the idea of service learning. It syncs well with my goal of application-oriented learning as service learning integrates theory and practice (though I have my cynicism as well-a case of been there, done that). I’d like the class to further discuss the ramifications of service learning and whether it just sounds good on paper.
I don’t agree with Davis’ idea of having the students choose their own group-mates. To quote Nancy, “We don’t get to choose our co-workers in real life.’. And, quite honestly, they will never budge from their comfort zone this way. Lang tends to agree that self-selection can make the groups susceptible to group think, as friends-as-group-mates, won’t challenge or refute the other person’s idea. Out of the group activities mentioned by Davis, I am inclined towards Concept Maps, Jigsaw (excellent for connecting the dots) and KWL. I was excited to see the section on Inquiry based instruction-specially guided inquiry- as it is one of my teaching goals. It makes perfect sense to me, for the students to develop the abilities to formulate good questions and contribute to the process of ‘spirited inquiry’.
No comments:
Post a Comment