UCSC LINKS PROJECT FINAL PAPER ON TEACHING APPROACHES

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to examine three different teaching approaches: adult-run, child-run, and collaborative in an informal teaching environment. The question that we were asking was if there was one method that would be more appropriate to apply with the children at the UC Links project computer lab located at Barrios Unidos. The focus group for this paper are future UCSC Links project undergraduate students. The methods we used were a questionnaire for the local experts on teaching methods, data analyst of field notes from the UC Links lab, and empirical research on teaching methods. The results that were found indicate that the collaborative approach was chosen and successful more than the other two approaches, because of the sharing of ideas between the child and the undergraduate. However, it is important to consider the importance of careful observation of the child’s needs. Children’s sensitive cultural backgrounds and differences in learning need to be considered before applying any teaching approaches to the child.

Paper

Tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me and I understand. (Chinese proverb)

I formulated a questionnaire with several questions regarding teaching approaches. Here is a sample of the questions:

1. Which method of teaching do you like and use the most? Why?

2. If you had choose between adult-run, child-run or collaborative teaching methods, which would you choose? Why?

3. We know that children learn in different ways. Are there any global teaching methods that work well with all children?

I e-mailed these questions to a visiting researcher, Professor Eugene Matusov, Ph.D. in the Psychology Department at UCSC and two teaching assistants at the University of Santa Cruz: Jamy Stillman, B.A. (graduate student in education) & Pablo Chavajay, M.S. (graduate student in psychology). I also, posted a web discussion note for the undergraduate students enrolled in Psychology 100K, working with the UC Links project, in the Winter quarter 1997 at UCSC and asked them, “What teaching approaches have they found to be most useful for them and the children at UC Links computer lab?” I was interested in seeing if there was one teaching approach that was used and preferred more than others at the UC Links computer lab. It was interesting to see that there was a preference in teaching approaches with the undergraduates as well as the professor and T.A.’s; that being the collaborative approach however, there is a need on behalf of the teachers to be sensitive in observing each individual child’s needs, and applying the proper teaching approach and method.

The response I received from Professor Eugene Matusov, Ph.D. was very interesting with regard to questions #1.

He stated,

“I really like the collaborative approach to teaching [because] it emphasizes the notion of a community of learners. I think [that] guidance is a form of learning when the teachers learns about the student in the context of the subject matter. As to methods, I prefer all the approaches that work for a given situation with a given student in a given moment. I try to learn as many teaching methods as possible and flexibly incorporate them into my teachings.”

We see that he prefers the collaborative approach to teaching, but note that it depends more on the student and the situation.

Jamy Stillman’s (B.A. graduate student in education) response to question #1 was very similar to Professor E. Matusov’s response, but she raises some thought provoking issues about preparing children for collaborative learning environments.

She states,

“I think that I like to use a balanced approach to teaching and learning. Collaborative learning is very effective when used properly. What many people don’t understand is that kids (just like adults) need to be taught how to work collectively. This of course requires facilitating community building activities so the kids are ready to work together as a community of learners. Unfortunately, this type of learning (where kids are learning from each other as well as from the teacher and the teacher is learning from the kids’ experiences) requires a great deal of patience and is challenging to manage. When it works out, however, the results can be glorious because everybody feels responsible for and inspired by the learning!”

In Jamy’s response to question #2 she raises a good point about collaborative teaching by noting that children cannot work together all the time. She suggests that children need to have some quiet time to work alone. If children are forced to work together all the time they will become bored and tired with the exercises.

She states,

“In my class, I like to alternate activities. For instance, I may facilitate a cooperative math lesson in which students work in groups of 4 and with manipulative. I know that this winds them up so I would likely plan a quiet “in their seats” lesson to follow it. That way, there is more effective learning time.”

Jamy helps to bring up a important issues here, that every teaching approach has its own time and place to be most beneficial for the teacher and students.

In Pablo Chavajay’s,. (M.S. graduate student in psychology) answer to #1 he warns us of the necessity of the teacher to be open and sensitive to the students own differences in a cultural context.

He states,

“I think that the method of teaching that I use is one that is primarily by activity and context in which the teaching and learning is taking place. Based on the nature and overall goal of the activity or learning situation, the methods of teaching that I would use are based on the premise of providing sensitive assistance to the learner when it is needed. In this case, the learner assumes increasing responsibility for his/her own learning as well as other’s learning. I would like to think of these method’s of teaching/learning I use as involving teachers and learners as active participants who try to find a common ground from which to negotiate and share decision making in search of a common goal. In my opinion, such approaches move away from dichotomous interpretations, of for example teachers assumed to know more students assumed to know less to a conception of teaching/learning that focus upon creating bridges between participants ideas and experiences in different cultural contexts.”

Pablo leads us into a discussion about how important it is to observe cultural differences in students to help meet their needs. If we can familiarize ourselves with the cultural backgrounds of all of our students it will greatly improve our abilities to facilitate sensitively, observe and apply teaching approaches with children. In Pablo’s discussion to #2 he discusses just how important it is as teachers to be good observers with students.

He states,

“I think adult-run, child-run, and collaborative approaches may work in some situations, but not in others. The activity in which the participants are involved may somehow dictate what approach becomes more suitable. I think our job “as teachers” is to become keen observers in term of recognizing what approach may be more effective in a particular situation with particular participants...”

His own preference of teaching approaches is the collaborative approach, because of the multiple opportunities to share and challenge new ideas and issues between students/teachers.

All three persons responded to #3 in the same manner. Each noted that the most important aspect in global teaching is to observe and be sensitive to the cultural aspect of each students background and needs. Teachers need to provoke meaningful dialogue with students in order to provoke intrinsic motivation within students.

The UCSC web field notes from UC Links computer lab were very helpful in discovering which teaching approaches work best with the children at the computer lab. The field notes suggest that the collaborative teaching approach was chosen and worked more often than not. But, it is notable that many students suggested that providing sensitive assistance to the learner when it is needed was very important. Here are some quotes from the undergraduates (UCSC, winter 97).

Student #1, “I think personally I have found the collaborative approach the best. It seems as though more learning takes place on the part of both people. I think that collaborative teaching and learning are most conductive to the computer lab and how it is set up. I feel that in any combination adult-child, adult-adult, child-child collaborative learning and teaching seem to dominate at the lab.”

Student #2, “I generally try to use the collaborative approach to teaching, because it is a compromise between adult and child run, but also, because I feel that the children have some very valuable ideas, and also, they have the right to have a say in how they are taught.”

As one can see, the collaborative approach seems to be the favorite approach, because of the sharing of ideas between the child and undergraduate.

Jamy Stillman had suggested that I look into Constructivist teaching and learning models. On the World Wide Web page called, (“Constructivist Teaching and Learning Models”, Pathways 1996). They describe this method as follows.

“Constructivist is an approach to teaching and learning based on the premise that cognition (learning ) is the result of “mental construction.”

In other words, students learn by fitting information together with what they already know. Constructivists believe that learning is affected by the context in which an idea is taught as well as students’ beliefs and attitudes.”

On another web page called, (“In a Constructivist Classroom,” 1996). They discuss that teachers must respect students' ideas and encourage more independent thinking. The Constructivist method involves creating a environment that students to feel safe in voicing their unique ideas and helps them try to figure out problems by discussing the ideas with other students. This method allows students to utilize their past knowledge to build on to problem solve. The approach allows students to think beyond the normal physical boundaries and reach into abstract ideas. This is how they say a Constructivist classroom should be conducted.

“Student autonomy and initiative are accepted and encouraged. The teacher asks open-ended questions and allows wait time for responses. Higher-level thinking is encouraged. Students are engaged in dialogue with teacher and with each other. Students are engaged in experiences that challenge hypotheses and encourage discussion. the class uses raw data, primary sources, manipulatives, physical, and interactive materials.”

The Constructivist Model seems very similarly to the Collaborative Approach to teaching. It allows each student the opportunity to build knowledge from past experiences and knowledge. Both, allow students to feel comfortable in expressing their ideas and asking questions.

From the responses from the questionnaire and the field notes of all involved at the UC Links computer lab it seem that the collaborative approach to teaching is preferred in both informal and formal learning environments. At the site of the UC Links project, the undergraduates are considered the ones with knowledge about the computers and some of the children are considered the game experts. The children and the undergraduates collaborate and share information, making the lab a conductive environment for this approach. However, it is important to consider the importance of careful observation of the child’s needs. Children’s sensitive cultural backgrounds and differences in learning need to be considered before applying any teaching approaches to the child. As Caine and Caine (1991) suggest, “Each brain is unique” (p.87).

References

E. Matusov, Ph.D. (personal communication February, 1997)

P. Chavajay, M.A. (personal communication February, 1997)

J. Stillman, B.A. (personal communication, February, 1997)

UCSC Psychology 100K undergraduates field notes (winter 1997)

Caine, R.N. & Caine, G. (1991). Making Connections: Teaching and The Human Brain. Alexandra, V.A. Association for Supervision and Curriculm Development.

Constructivist Teaching and Learning Models. Pathways (1996) http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrmnt/drugfree/sa3const.htm

In a Constructivist classroom... .(1996) http://diogenes.sedl.org/scimath/compass/v01n03/class.html

Special thanks to the children at: UCSC LINKS PROJECT