GBCIM-Group-Based Collaborative Instruction & Multimedia
GD-Guided Design
CL-Cooperative Learning
PBL-Problem-Based Learning
SL-Situated Learning and Cognitive Apprenticeships
Key similarities or striking differences
The obvious goal in GBCIM is for students to utilize people and resources other than themselves, traditional resources, and the teacher to learn. The four models explored in this session had several commonalities, including a substantial increase in teacher planning, a hope for increase in student social skills, and a reflection component. A few similarities between models were obvious as well. The CL Jigsaw approach and PBL push individuals go off to learn on their own before reconvening. PBL and SL use experts for resources, although guided design encourages thinking like an expert. With the exception of CL, they all have a specific focus on real life and practical experiences. There was not consistency with forms of assessment.
Initial reactions, barriers, benefits
Preliminary design played a major role in the success of each model provided. The readings pointed out ways in which a carefully planned design could eliminate or improve certain conditions, with the exception of a few human characteristics. Teachers would have to go well out of traditional comfort zones to execute these, but with success would likely find the effectiveness and student engagement to be worth it. In all cases, students who overcome the barriers would be considered prototypes and naturally succeed/improve in the way the learning theory intended. A few of my thoughts about the four models follow.
The formulaic quality of GD would work well for those who benefit from such structure, however, seems restricting based on the potential selection of questioning and problems. Students could define a new problem from the null information in their project, nonetheless. There also the conflict of students trying to think traditionally not grasping the information, but this lack of motivation could occur with any model. CL sounded most familiar, especially the problems that occur with member roles and concerns for equal participation. Problem-based Learning and Situated Learning are more adamant about consulting experts, which is not always feasible in a typical classroom setting. Although multimedia was helpful for simulation, information gathering from experts was still required. I felt that phone survey recipients may be less reliable.
Use in teaching
It seemed as though pieces of all the models provided would be useful. I could appreciate the step-by-step process of guided design aligned with the opportunity to think creatively. For in-service teachers, this could certainly be used to help them understand classroom dilemmas with integrating technology. Having a recipe-like structure to follow can make extra work appear simpler. Cooperative learning would be useful for teachers when learning to use new tools in the same manner as discussion boards. If one student is more knowledgeable, they can coach another without interrupting or delaying learning.
Problem-based Learning seemed a bit infinite and sounds too time-consuming for the short periods of time I may work with in-service teachers who would be more likely to need the breadth that this model lacks. I think I could safely say that my former Art students informally did PBL when encountering new ideas and materials in class, though. Situated Learning made me think of when I went on field trips to artist studios, but we were on limited time schedules. When I taught high school, this model would have been perfect for aspiring artists who needed that insight to make career decisions. I don’t, however, think it would be practical for my intended work with in-service K-12 teachers unless they were willing to give up a chunk of summer vacation...
Web-based tools or resources
From what I recall, most of the group-based learning models have already been explored in terms of Web use in some regards. Nevertheless, I am listing a few that I think would be helpful for components of the different models.
Synchronous meeting and idea recording/exchange- conferencing applications and software Skype, Elluminate or note-taking like Wall Wisher, Google docs, or a shared online journal like Penzu
Expert substitution- interactive software simulation, videos of an expert volunteer who will accept follow-up questions electronically, or a designated student interviewer could follow the expert (video-shadow)with a list of questions prepared ahead by a group
Written information resources- legitimate online databases (library, museum)
I agree with your post. I believe there are great components to each of the models, but they are extremely time consuming to plan. However, I like that you mentioned if the students can overcome the barriers, the students' success would be worth the extra planning. These models are geared towards providing opportunities for students to work together. Being that I teach middle school, these models are difficult to implement because my students lack sufficient social skills and therefore do not get along with one another very often. However, out of the four models we learned about, I think cooperative learning would work best for my students because those who quickly catch on can help the others. They seem to like teaching others how to do something. It makes them feel special! :)
ReplyDeleteI like your post and how you began with a summary and then led into your reflections. I agree that these models seem time consuming and those were the thoughts that I had while I was doing the reading. I think that the only way to overcome the time demands are too effective utilize your PLC/T and have each member complete a portion and then implement this styles through out multiple classrooms. The PLT does come with its set of barriers like teacher comfort with technology and a willingness to design and revise. I think if the teachers work together then we can model these cooperative learning styles for the students.
ReplyDeleteDave
I like that the Jigsaw approach consists in segmenting the content into smaller number of complementary aspects and assigning each to a group of learners), who should analyze and study each content so that particular group member can become an experts in that content area.
ReplyDeleteWhat I also like about these learning models it compels learners to share their knowledge with their peers and this makes them understand how the individual contribution is unique and vital for the group to succeed. According to Kerr and Bruun (1983), this increases individual involvement, helping those who usually feel isolated and participate marginally.
Ooh! I hadn't thought of the possibilities of these theories in terms of teacher development! That's a great thought! I very much see how that could be done, as you suggested, in teaching teachers how to integrate technology. Doing Problem-Based Learning with teachers might have to be a more long-term time period like over the Summer, or in some of the year-long collaborations such as those in which I engage. Thanks for some good things/possibilities for me to consider!
ReplyDeleteGreat points, Preference! I read in one of your comments to a peer's post your reported dislike of group work. I think that's true in most of the classes where I've assigned or been involved in group work and is another barrier to implementing these approaches. However, as you said, there are many benefits, too (one of which is learning that you'll have to deal with group work in real life).
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your detailed list of tools that could be used for each of the various aspects of a web-based module grounded in one of these approaches. It's exemplary and very helpful as you all embark on the next step of creating your own module!