MAT674 Assignment 3A - Cooperative Learning

One of the most developing concepts regarding differentiated science lessons involves cross-content learning.  What I mean by this is being able use more than one subject standard along with diverse ways of looking at things that still produce an effective learning outcome.  In Science the use of Language Arts tools can add valuable effects to any science learning standard.  The best use of this crossover can be produced using lab reports.  Lab reports use a variety of information, data, and input to disclose procedures and outcomes.  Communicating the details is very important regarding this subject.  When students work together in teams the added extra persons within this content standard adds to the idea that two heads are better than one. 

            When I set up groups to perform an experiment I use pre-assessment data previously collected to set up for writing teams.  I value this information to enforce those writers that show competence and heterogeneously set them up with students who may need additional writing support, especially my ELL’s.  Since every student will often be responsible for his or her own report, I value this type of grouping, even if copying is involved in the process.  Generally, students who may not get the information in the beginning, when they start to write they must connect what they are writing to some general understanding.  That is why heterogeneous grouping is best for writing lab reports.

            When examining the experimentation of the lesson I use a homogeneous pair grouping so that each ability level matches the other.  This ensures that one student with an above ability level does not actively perform all the work while the other sits and watches.  When students of equal ability are paired, the experimentation process generally is performed at equal levels.  Once the experimentation is complete, I break up the groups into heterogeneous groups to perform the writing assignment of recording the lab reports.  This is where the above ability students are used as an asset to help those struggling.  I like to pace the room during this process and often hear student’s questions, “why did you guys do it this way”, or “how did you come up with that result.”  When this occurs, I know the grouping process is working to my advantage.  The writing becomes more homogenous as a result.  The overall improvement can be seen in the reports that are produced.  Even though the process may vary according to the level of experiences, I use examples of writing products for what I am looking for.  This way all the groups can use writing examples as a tool to produce the standards outcome level I am looking for. 

            As a future assessment tool, I often have the students group their note taking to expose their level of expressive writing.  When students take notes, I consider this a “thinking on paper” approach to understanding how they are processing the information being presented in the experiment (Mckenna & Robinson, 2014, p. 30).  The notes being taken prior to the completed lab report expose the level of discourse used during the discovery process.  From these notes I can support the process of transactional writing to help differentiate both individual context as well as what the group as a whole might be deducing from the lesson.  This formative information gathering is useful when establishing future groups and also helps differentiating how the groups perceive the information presented.  Lastly, when I develop my tests or quizzes this information in invaluable to establish the goals for individual differentiation according to multiple intelligence design and the use of content standards.

            When I select cooperative grouping I like to consider the constructs of multiple intelligences and determine how my students can represent their knowledge by interacting with the world around them.  Even if writing is not the most important goal of the lesson, often communication is.  I do not feel that passive learning is the best way to teach information.  To engage the students in the learning process requires what I call active encounters.  Actively involving them by encountering the concepts, ideas, designs, and viewpoints of others helps express the idea of opening up multiple intelligences.  When students group with partners they become aware of other viewpoints that may differ from their own experience or from the view the teacher may have one-dimensionally presented.  Students encounter learning in new ways that develop thinking outside what they are confortable with.  Diversity is opened up into a more thematical way and new approaches to viewing subjects is expanded.   From this expression of the lesson, I openly discuss the group findings to further expand diversity and other points of view.  This type of discussion dictates the direction I will take when producing summative assessments for both individuals and group.

            Grouping is the teacher’s best tool in understanding how students communicate in the real world of science.  Crossover learning involving writing and reading is to me considered the gateway to understanding diversity.  This type of interactive learning creates an active role for both the students and the teacher to develop how they can view the content standards connectively and independently.  When the students group both heterogeneously and homogeneously within the lessons, comprehension improves by opening up different views of how our world around them works in their favor.  This helps students understand how to take more risks and also how to develop empathy for others.  This to me is the overall value of solving real-world problems through group orientation in the classroom.       

           

Reference:

McKenna, M. and Robinson, R.  (2014).  Teaching through text: 2^nd Edition. 

            Pearson, Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.J.