From: Alison Wishard
Email: alioop@cats.ucsc.edu
Course: Psychology 100K, Development of Thought and Language
College: University of California at Santa Cruz
Instructor: Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych100K
ChildrenObservations: Yes
Date: 21 Mar 1997
Time: 18:31:37
Remote Name: ss1mac-19.ucsc.edu
Acknowledgments
This paper is an extension of a group project conducted by Jose Anguiano, Gretchen Burk, Michelle Gustafson, and myself. I would like to thank and acknowledge them for the time and effort they contributed in the research and writing of this paper. I extend deep appreciation to the participating children, local organizations, and the university research team for their participation and respect of our (the undergraduates) own personal goals. I thank my dear friends Nicole Daro, Eduardo Guerra for their contributions in editing and in the discussion of ideas. Finally, I would like to thank my mother, Mary Wishard, for her continuous availability to bounce ideas off of and her contribution of her own experiences as a home school teacher. Their help is greatly appreciated and has contributed a great deal to the final product which is this paper.
The purpose of this paper is to determine which type of teaching approach (adult-run, child-run, or collaborative) is most successful in an informal learning environment utilizing computers and related technology as the main activity. The focus is on the UC Links project which sponsors an after school computers program for at risk youth in the local Santa Cruz area. In addressing this question, the paper is broken down into five sections: (1) broad research on existing theories and methods of teaching and learning , (2) a discussion on the relevance of play and computer games/simulations in the process of learning and cognitive development, (3) strategies promoting learning in an informal environment, specifically geared towards the undergraduate’s role in the UC Links project, (4) an interview of three voices in the field of education working with UC Links, (5) and an analysis of the field notes written by the winter 1997 undergraduates based on their experiences working with the children participating in the UC Links project. Empirical research concerning traditional and innovative teaching, schooling, and learning philosophies and methods are discussed, the role of computer games in promoting cognitive development.
The results of the analysis indicate that the collaborative and child-run approaches were used most often, with collaborative experiences yielding the highest percentage of successful interactions. However, it also suggests that no one approach works best for all children or for all activities, rather it is the specific situation (based on the needs of the child, activity, and adult) that dictates the teaching approach necessary. These results follow much of the empirical research concerning learning and appropriate teaching methods to best facilitate learning.
Alison Wishard
Introduction
There are various theories and methods for teaching children whose successfulness and effectiveness is at least partially dependent upon the learning environment in which it is applied. The idea for this research came about while discussing which teaching approach would be most beneficial and effective in an informal learning environment, particularly that of an after school computers program located at a local outreach program for at risk youth, sponsored by the UC Links project. The UC Links project is aimed to form partnerships between the University of California (Santa Cruz), a local outreach program, between the parents of the children participating and the research staff, and between other interested research teams. Our goal is to understand which teaching approaches are most beneficial to the children in this informal learning environment. The idea is that the collaboration between the children, undergraduate students, university professors, researchers, staff of local organizations, and parents will foster a supportive environment that motivates the children to learn and pursue higher education. The local outreach program is particularly aimed at promoting non-violence, providing a safe, healthy environment for the children to be after school, rather than be on the streets.
The goal of the UCSC undergraduate psychology class which worked with the children participating in the program was to observe the development of language and cognitive skills. Together these three groups are able to join their goals and efforts to create a safe, educational, and fun atmosphere for these children.
It is important t to keep in mind that the focus of this program is on learning not teaching, and that the adults (undergraduate students) are there to facilitate learning through providing assistance to the children when needed. In tackling our research question of which teaching approach used by the UCSC undergraduates is most successful with the children at we first broke down the teaching approaches into three types: Adult-Run., Child-Run, and Collaborative We then analyzed this topic under four different areas:
- broad research on existing theories and methods of teaching and learning,
- a discussion on the relevance of play and computer games/simulations in the process of learning and cognitive development,
- strategies promoting learning in an informal environment, specifically geared towards the undergraduate’s role in the UC Links project,
- an interview of three voices in the field of education working with UC Links,
- and an analysis of the field notes written by the winter 1997 undergraduates based on their experiences working with the children participating in the UC Links project.
We hope that this research will facilitate a better understanding for the future undergraduates involved in the UC Links project concerning their role in guiding the activities with the children, facilitating learning and fun, and concerning which approach(es) are most successful and when. Hopefully, this research will also prove helpful to parents, teachers, caregivers, and researchers involved in teaching children in an informal environment.
Jose
Existing Theories and Methods on Teaching and Learning
I hear, and I forget; I see, and I remember; I do, and I understand (Confucius)
What is learning? Where and how does it happen best? How can it be improved? These can be very complicated questions to which we may not have very many clear answers. They are questions that can be very problematic, and that have kept researchers occupied for years. For anyone to attempt to tackle these questions definitively would be perhaps asking too much. The focus of this section is to explore a several existing ideas on teaching and learning, both those widely accepted and those forging new grounds, with an attempt to come to a clearer understanding regarding the many questions and uncertainties we all have concerning teaching and learning.
Many works have been published with the purpose of reforming our current education system, and most are criticisms of the traditional, historically accepted methods of teaching. Traditional methods are defined as heavily structured, disciplined, having a lecture format, and set in a competitive environment such that students are definitively preoccupied with the grade received rather than the process of learning. These reforms call for new and innovative ways of teaching, encompassing free and flexible environment, concerned with the interest of the students, and their participation in their acquisition of knowledge. An education crosses the boundaries of the classroom and real life situations. Following the theories of Tharp and Gillmore, “The principles of good teaching are not different for school than for home and community. When true teaching is found in schools, it observes the same principles that good teaching exhibits in informal settings.” (Tharp and Gillimore, 1988). These approaches are contrasted with the memorization approaches taken by many traditional educators.
Memorization is often facilitated through adult-run teaching approaches, based on the deficit model or banking model of education which states that what is needed is a transfer of knowledge, from the teacher to the student, in an effort to fill the ‘gap’ made by the lack of knowledge. accordingly, through memorization, it is expected that the information “deposited” will be easily retrievable when needed. Many scholars would argue that, “Memorization does not create a need to know something. Only when students are trying to do something with a new fact will they learn it and build generalizations from it.” (The Institute for the Learning Sciences, 1994). Memorizing facts or concepts is often out of context and almost always requires retrieval separate from the over all picture, thus inhibiting generalizations to other areas and inhibiting the “learning” process.
Teachers commonly confuse techniques of rapid question and answer with effective teaching. Tharp and Gillimore go on to call the above mentioned teaching methods examples of “automatic” teaching. In which teachers assign highly structured worksheets and “manufactured” reading materials, in order to assess individual development. (Tharp and Gillimore, 1988) An argument can be made for this repetition in that it builds familiarity, but it should not be employed without the support of other strategies. Surely no one would argue that having complete mastery over the alphabet, everyday math problems, and the English language is not desirable.
Paulo Freire (1985) discusses the role of schooling as a mechanism for social control, teaching students to abide by the ‘rules’ and subscribe to certain cultural standards. He explains that for most educators the goal is “to adapt the learner to his environment”, and to facilitate a transfer of knowledge from the educator to the student, knowledge which serves as the base for maintaining the status quo. This emphasis on the transfer of information from the teacher, the sacred holder knowledge, to the student, whose empty mind is in need of information, trivializing the role of the student in the process of learning. He suggests an alternative to this Dehumanizing education which is based on a ‘transfer of knowledge’, rather supporting a more Humanistic education, focusing on learning as ‘an act of knowledge’. Freire’s notion of Humanistic education requires the educator to work with the experiences that the students bring to school, and other learning environments, making the material personally relevant to all students. This becomes “an invitation to make visible the languages, dreams, values, and encounters that constitute the lives of those whose histories are often actively silenced.” (Freire, 1985: xxii). In an effort to transform the common experience of “learning” within the school from a transference of knowledge to an act of knowledge it is fundamental that the educator personally involve the students in the process and validate their personal experiences, not only those presented by the educator.
One example of a strong attacks on the current educational system in California come from two inner city gang organizations who criticize the quality of education received by the children of Los Angeles. In an article written about a cooperative plan between two previous rival gangs, it was stated that, “With traditional teaching methods we may become encumbered by years of conforming education and bureaucratic regimentation” (July 1992). This demonstrates that people are tired of receiving an overbearing, socializing education, one that imposes dominant cultural values and standards. The people want an education that is more human and personal and less cluttered by bureaucratic, regulations, and rules.
Reforming Traditional Education (1995) offers a list of nine points of action to assist in moving away from a deficit-model, adult-run teaching approach to move towards a method which focuses on inclusion rather than exclusion of all students on the learning process, validating their role in their own education. Included are a few supporting sentences to clarify the points made by the author:
To this extreme, the Sudbury Valley School, based out of the New England area, calls for a complete child-run approach to education and goes as far as letting the children determine all aspects of their education. They decide which classes to attend, when to go to their classes, and when they feel they are ready to learn to read or write. It focuses on letting the child’s curiosity guide their education. The school is run on the ideas of self motivation, self regulation, and self criticism. One of the most important components of the school is its desire to promote a general atmosphere that is open, honest, trustworthy, and free of fear. (Greenburg, 1991)
Further criticisms of traditional schooling refer to it as left brained and I.Q based. Theoretically, left brain thinking is logical, sequential, rational, analytical, and objective; contrasted with right brain which is random, intuitive, and holistic. There are calls to move away from such a one sided ideology to a more open minded view. (Institute for the learning sciences, 1994) Past methods have been labeled weighted in favor of verbal linguistic and logical mathematical intelligence, and are criticized for their need of a more balanced instruction; instruction that incorporates arts, self-awareness, and communication (Institute for the learning sciences, 1994).
Overall these criticisms call for instruction that moves away from the mere task of memorization, away from a simple “transfer of knowledge” towards instruction that includes the students in an “act of knowledge”. They call for more practical skills as part of learning. The consensus seems to be to create a more balanced method of teaching and learning where students are motivated to learn, and teachers seek to fulfill their students interests.
Computer play and cognitive development
Improving education and the learning environment of our children is a significant topic of concern for most educators, parents and the community at large. There has been extensive experimentation with innovative teaching techniques which increasingly include the use of electronic media such as the internet, the World Wide Web, and manipulative CD ROM computer games. The goal is to facilitate learning through the use if multi-media and innovative technology. In this section of the paper the focus is on the promotion of learning in an informal learning environment which incorporates the use of computers and electronic media as a medium to promote fun, play, leaning and development. Following the main goal of innovative education programs to facilitate learning in the children, the emphasis placed on the educator is that of helping to facilitate such learning, not forcing it to occur. This requires the educator to be able to decipher which “teaching approach” will best facilitate learning for the child, based on their individual needs and the needs of the activity. Most importantly it requires an open space for both the adults and the children to learn from and to teach one another, facilitating the ‘act of knowledge’ rather than the ‘transfer of knowledge’. (Money, 1996)
The presence of computers in the educational setting is becoming a norm and those classrooms which do not have access to computers or the internet are being considered deprived. There is little controversy that computer skills are a necessity for success in school and in life, however, much debate has arisen concerning the various popular use of computers, such as for playing games and to access the many “inappropriate” WEB sites easily available through the internet. The common argument against kids playing computer games is that it is taking away from their desire to read, that it is filling their heads with violence and a “shoot ‘em up” mentality, and that kids are spending too much time ‘playing’, when they should be concentrating on learning.
However, there is a significant amount of research supporting the opposite side, stating that computer games and computer ‘play’ are beneficial to cognitive development in children. In L.S. Vygotsky’s discussion on the ‘role of play in development’, he concludes that play is a leading factor in child development and that through the strict subordination to rules, play creates a zone of proximal development for the child enabling them to perform beyond their daily behavior. Accordingly, ”...play contains all developmental tendencies in a condensed form and is itself a major source of development.” (Vygotsky, 1978: 102). The child moves through play activity, proceeding from imaginary play, to play guided by strict rules. In both cases the creation of an imaginary situation is considered the means to developing abstract thought. This type of ‘imaginary situation’ can be applied to the imaginary world presented in the computer and the process in which the child moves through play can be equally paralleled to the advancement in computer games.
An article from the journal Simulation & Gaming, “Promoting learning through games and simulation”, Peter Robinson (1996) deals specifically with the benefits to learning available through playing computer games. The focus is on promoting learning not teaching, the role of computer games in promoting learning, and the role of the teacher in facilitating and organizing the learning activity. The distinction is made between the practical definition of learning, where learning is equated with memorizing, and a more accurate definition where learning is considered an approach to knowledge and life, “that encompasses the acquisition and practice of new methodologies, new skills, new attitudes, and new values necessary to live in a world of change.” (Robinson, 1996), where simulations and imagined situations, such as computer games, can induce learning. Essential to all learning is an activity where the learner is involved with the material or skill to be learned. All games and simulations provide are a form of experiential learning in which the learner or player is actually engaged in the experience. The experience (the game) provides a series of problems needing solutions, and decisions made lead to a new situation, problem, and need for a new decision. Thus, the total experience is in actuality a series of micro-experiences. Robinson places the main importance on ‘debriefing’ after playing games as the key component in the use of games to promote learning. Debriefing is described as, “the process by which the experience of the game/simulation is examined, discussed and turned into learning.” Accordingly, a fundamental element in debriefing is reflection. Reflection, as a vital part of learning, is seen in computer games in the process of verbally working through the problems and difficult situations presented. The process of debriefing is laid out in five different stages:
The teacher is not the focal part of the learning experience, rather than depositing information, the teacher rather acts as the manager of learning resources, whose role is a combination of that of an organizer, facilitator, and a learner working collaboratively with the students. It is essential that the teacher lets the simulation flow in an effort to not disrupt or draw attention away from the learning experience, whether or not the student is making wrong decisions or not following rules properly. “It is up to the teacher to assist the flow or dynamic of the game or simulation, to facilitate the debriefing, and thus to promote discussion and reflection.”( Promoting learning through games and simulation, 1997). This model appears to discourage the use of the adult-run approach in which the teacher is the holder of knowledge, and rather encourages both the child-run and collaborative approaches, holding the student as an equal participant in the educational experience.
Promoting Learning in an Informal Environment
We seek to offer ideas on how to provide a positive experience for the children who participate in informal learning environments such as the one found in the UC Links project. Here the focus is on ways in which the undergraduate students (as educators, learners, and collaborators) can most effectively facilitate learning and social development through their own interactions with the children, and through the interactions between children as a peer group.
When an adult works with children it is important that the adult keeps his or her dialogue decentered. To decenter is to move away from one’s own perspective and knowledge base (center), and to attempt to come to the position of the person with whom one is conversing. This is necessary for communication to exist among all people, yet it is particularly relevant when working with children. In order to share our knowledge with children, adults need to remember to take on the imaginative and sometimes naive viewpoint of a child. The following quote is conversation between a parent and child regarding the child’s first day of school. Here we see the confusion that blocked learning when the teacher failed to decenter towards the imaginative perspective of a child:
I spent that first day picking holes in paper, then went home in a smoldering temper. “What’s the matter, Love? Didn’t like it at school, then?” “They never gave me the present.” “Present, what present?” “Well now, I’m sure they didn’t.” “They did! They said: ‘You’re Laurie Lee, aren’t you? Well just you sit there for the present.’” “I sat there all day but I never got it. I ain’t going back there again.” (Donaldson, 1978)
The undergraduates in the UC links program need to remember what it was like to be a child. In this informal setting, the children view the undergraduates as friends, not as teachers. The undergraduates need to act accordingly and decenter from the teacher role. The undergraduate’s purpose in the program is not to dispense their knowledge to the children, but rather to guide the children’s learning and overall development and provide a good role model as a representative of the university. This is not to say that the undergraduates will not educate the children. Learning will take place naturally within the interactions of the undergraduate and child, whether it be learning social skills or actual ‘school’ skills. However, the undergraduates should not feel responsible for teaching the children something new. Decentering also applies in a general sense. This means that one who wishes to educate cannot hold a standard set of expectations for all children. As a collaborator of learning with children, one must be flexible and sensitive to the students’ needs, which may vary depending on the activity or dynamics of the situation. Taking on the role of collaborator rather than teacher means assessing what the child needs as opposed to focusing on what you think they need to know. In order for any learning to successfully take place, the material must be relevant to the child. Thus an educator must incorporate an awareness of the varying cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds of the children, in an effort to draw on personal experiences and make the information culturally relevant.
It is crucial to promote a positive sense of self-esteem during the middle childhood years. The following adolescent years are extremely trying on children and if a healthy self-esteem is not already in place during middle childhood, it makes life even harder on the child during adolescence. Additionally, low-self esteem appears to hinder learning. Children tend to have a higher self esteem in cooperative learning environments than in settings which stress competition (Sroufe, Cooper, & DeHart, 1996). Therefore, in order for learning and social development to occur in an informal setting, the educators should not match the children against each other by comparing their achievements.
Another useful technique for the undergraduates is Jerome Bruner’s idea of scaffolding. This strategy involves providing ongoing guidance, hints, feedback and/or advice in order to contribute to the advancement of the learner’s Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky’s term for that area just beyond the learner’s current capabilities) (Sroufe, Cooper, & DeHart, 1996). Children also implement this tactic when working with their peers or younger children. Scaffolding occurs in successful peer tutoring programs.
In the case of a cross age tutoring program (fifth graders helping younger students) at an elementary school in Stanford, the tutors came from the same Latino cultural background as the tutees. This made it easier for the tutors to decenter to the tutee’s perspective. Also, the younger children viewed their tutors more as friends than teachers. The use of scaffolding, Decentering and the friend versus teacher factor were three ingredients of this successful informal learning environment (Vasquez, Pease-Alvarez, & Shannon, 1994).
Informal learning environments are optimum for collaboration among the children. As opposed to a typical classroom, the less structured surrounding of an informal environment allows the children to talk with each other, build off one anothers creativity, and learn to get along. In a paper presented to the Jean Piaget Society in 1982, researcher E. Forman proposed three important factors that facilitate cognitive advancement in cooperative learning situations among peers:
Returning to the specific example of the UC links outreach program in Santa Cruz, the undergraduate students could set up a group activity following the aforementioned guidelines and then take a position in the background. The undergraduates should remain present as a resource of information for the children, but they should not run the activity (Baker-Sennet, Matusov & Rogoff, 1992). This idea of a central activity and goal being used as a means to facilitate cognitive development in cooperative learning environments brings us back to the idea of ‘debriefing’ suggested by Robinson. A group debriefing session could be used as the central activity, one in which each person is responsible for their own learning along with the overall functioning of the group as a whole. Following Robinson, debriefing is essential in order for computer game playing to have a long term effect on the process of learning. This coincides with Forman’s three factors to promote learning. Perhaps these two theories should be taken more seriously in the organization of the program and in the activities guided by the undergraduate students.
Interviews
A questionnaire with several questions regarding preferred and existing teaching approaches was sent to three of the prominent voices on education participating in the program.
We 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 California at Santa Cruz: Jamy Stillman, B.A. (graduate student in education) & Pablo Chavajay, M.S. (graduate student in psychology). We 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 they found to be most useful for them and the children at UC Links computer lab. We were interested in seeing if there was one teaching approach that was used and preferred more than and which one seemed to be most successful. 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. The approach that was preferred most was the collaborative approach, but there is a need on behalf of the teachers to be sensitive in observing each individual child’s need and apply the proper teaching approach and method.
The response we received from Professor Eugene Matusov, Ph.D. was very interesting concerning questions #1. He stated,
“I really like the collaborative APPROACH to teaching it emphasizes the notion of a community of learners. I think 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 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!”
Additionally, she raises the point about collaborative teaching and learning 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 that 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 work to its full potential for benefits for the teacher and students.
In Pablo Chavajay’s 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 methods of teaching that I use is one that is primarily by activity and context in which 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 methods 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.”
Chavajay continues with 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 facilitate our ability to sensitively observe and apply teaching approaches with children. He emphasizes the importance of the teacher being a sensitive observer of the students in order to decipher which approach is most appropriate. 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 in teaching approaches is the collaborative approach, because of the multiple opportunities to share and challenge new ideas and issues between students/teachers.
There was a consensus concerning the question raising the idea of a ‘global’ or universal teaching method applicable to all children. It was 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 dialog with students in order to provoke intrinsic motivation within students.
The UCSC web field notes written by the undergraduate students give us an inside look at which approaches are considered most successful and which are preferred by both the children and the undergraduate students. Their responses favor the collaborative teaching approach, stating that it proved to be successful more often than not. Coinciding with the three “education experts” and much of the empirical research 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. 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. The collaborative approach seems to work well at the UC Links computer lab, because of the informal learning environment with the computers and games. The undergraduates are considered to be the ones knowledgeable 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. 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.
FIELD NOTE ANALYSIS
UCSC undergraduate students participate in the UC links program working in conjunction with the local outreach project by providing assistance and companionship to the children participating in the after school computers program. Their role is to assist in the technology room which contains approximately 20 computers, a scanner, internet access, a printer, and various CD ROM games(mostly in English, some in Spanish). Their role is not to ‘teach’ or tutor the children, but rather to ‘play’ computer games with them and help to facilitate an enriched environment providing experience with computers, through which cognitive and language skills can develop. The students take on various approaches in their ‘play’ with the children which are referred to in this study as “teaching approaches”(however, they were not teaching curriculum, rather providing guidance). The students are assigned to play with and observe the children and write one field note per week reflecting on cognitive and language development The field notes written by the current (winter 1997) UCSC undergraduates working with the UC links program will be used to provide specific data as to the frequency of each teaching approach used by the undergraduates and the overall successfulness of the experience. Two main criteria were used in analyzing these field notes:
A successful interaction between undergraduate and child is considered one in which the child had a ‘good’ and ‘fun’ experience, not necessarily whether the child actually learned a new skill or ‘cognitively developed’.
Each interaction was between at least one child and one undergraduate, sometimes more. The total number of interactions is compared to the total number of positive and negative experiencing resulting in each of the three approaches. I attempted to follow certain patterns between undergraduate and child, child and game, and undergraduate and teaching approach. This strategy of analysis provided some very interesting suggestions as to the success of each approach and their universality in benefiting all or the majority of children.
For practical reasons the games were divided into four types based on the interaction requirements of the children:
There appears to be quite a bit of mixing between approaches, almost exclusively between child-run and collaborative. In a total of 60 interactions analyzed 53 were either child-run or collaborative, while 52 were successful/positive interactions between the child and undergraduate. The collaborative approach was used in 33 interactions with 29 being positive. The child-run approach was used in 20 interactions with 17 being positive. The adult-run approach was used in 7 interactions with one negative experience with a cognitively demanding game. The teaching approach which resulted in the highest percentage of negative experinces was the child-run approach.
This shows that the collaboration between adult and child is definately beneficial to the overall experience. It appears that the vast majority of the undergraduates practice either a child-run or collaborative teaching approach with the. Considering that this is an informal learning environment, it seems that most undergraduates are consistent in trying to provide informal guidance and to unobtrusively help create a positive atmosphere for the children where they can have fun and learn at the same time. The patterns noted between child and undergraduate do not appear to be widely significant, however there does appear to be relative patterns of familiarity formed between certain undergraduates and certain children which could have a possible influence on the successfulness of the teaching approach due to increased familiarity. However, the effects of these patters are not discussed in this analysis.
The patterns emerging between the game being played and child does appear to be significant with children continually returning to the same few games and engaging in similar interactions with the undergraduates. It seems that some children have become invested in a few particular games which they continually return to, building each day on their saved game from the day before. This demonstrates that the child is successfully building off the skills they learned previously to be reapplied to a new situation.
The correlation between game and teaching approach seems to be the strongest and most influential in determining which teaching approach will be engaged in and what the overall experience will be. This signifies the possibility of the child directing the teaching approach through their needs with the game. It seems that certain games facilitate certain teaching approaches. ‘Oregon Trail’ and ‘Where in the World is Carmen San Diego’ (cognitively demanding games) are both examples of games which commonly require a more collaborative interaction between two or more people (either child and undergraduate or child and child).
Collaboration appears to be necessary to work through the game and be able to progress to the next level. Accordingly, there are games that do not require so much collaboration and facilitate a child-run approach (action-arcade games). This could either be due to the child’s level of expertise in the game and their lack of need for assistance, or that the game doesn’t particularly lend itself to collaborative participation (such as in action games). The analysis of these field notes provided by the UCSC undergraduates suggests that no one approach works best for all children or for all activities, rather it is the specific situation (based on the needs of the child, activity, and adult) that dictates the teaching approach necessary. At times the child may be searching for some adult-run assistance while at others they may be more comfortable engaged in a child-run approach. It seems that the type of game being played and the temperament of the relationship between child and undergraduate are major influences that cannot be overlooked.
These results support much of the empirical research done and the information given by the local “experts” (the professor and two teaching aids working with the undergraduates and the UC links program). The findings of this analysis that the most appropriate approach to be used appears to be dependent on the constructs and dynamics of each individual experience is supported by the Constructivist theory and, accordingly, necessitates the Decentering of the ‘teacher’ or educator to be more receptive of the child’s needs. The use of scaffolding or ZPD, which rely on what the child already knows to enable him/her to reach a new level is particularly evident in the children who continually return to the same games and build off of what they had achieved the session prior, often working with the same undergraduate who engages in the same teaching approach. This idea that what is to be learned must be personally relevant follows along the lines of much current research conducted in the area of learning, particularly with the ideologies of Paulo Freire on education.
Following the direction of the research, Pablo Chavajay supports the findings of this analysis that the most significant determinant of which approach is most appropriate lies in the particular activity being engaged in and the specific needs of the child.
“The activity in which the participants are involved may somehow dictate what approach becomes more suitable. I think that our job ‘as teachers’ is to become keen observers in terms of recognizing what approach may be more effective in a particular situation with particular participants.”
This requires a ‘decentering’ approach, taking a non-egocentric stand to better understand the perspective of each individual child, allow space for their specific needs to be expressed and of the dynamics of the game and interaction to facilitate the use a particular approach.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this research was to determine whether one particular teaching approach is most effective in working with the children at the local outreach program, given the dynamics of the program and the activities provided. Both the empirical research and the theories employed by the local “education experts” support the results of the analysis of the field notes written by the UCSC students during the winter 1997 session at the UC links project. That is, that the most important aspect to having a successful interaction between child and undergraduate is an approach which embraces sensitivity towards each individual child’s needs in relation to the constructs of the game or activity engaged in. Each approach proves to have its merits in certain situations and no one approach is effective in all situations, that is no one approach is universal. What does appear to be universal, however, is the need for sensitive observation on the part of the teacher in order to best suit the needs of the child and facilitate cognitive and language development in an enriched environment. We found that sound teaching methods in an informal teaching environment can transfer over not only to similar informal situations, but even at home or in the community. We hope that this research can help provide additional insight to those interested in similar issues. TABLE 1
Operational Definition of Teaching Approaches
APPROACH DEFINITION
1.) Adult-Run: Responsibility for learning, guidance, and joint activity is taken by adult (traditional classroom environment). Adult’s stress is on transmission of knowledge. For example: doing things for the child; giving the child answers, leash-like guidance (leading children to the adult-desired answer).
2.) Children-Run: Responsibility for guidance and joint is given to the children. The adult provides enriched learning environment and minimum guidance when asked by a child for help. Adult’s stress on kids’ creativity, novelty, and discovery. For example: letting the child do most things on their own, giving the children hints or clues but not answers (in order not to prevent children’s creativity) when the they ask for help.
3.) Collaborative: Responsibility for guidance and joint activity are shared between the adult and the children (creating transformative, interactive environment). The adult is responsible for the guiding process while the children are responsible for how to manage their own learning. Adult’s focus on promoting child’s agency and child’s transformation of participation in the activity. For example: both the child and the adult work together on the activity goal shared by the; both can provide answers and raise questions according the activity demands; there is a lot of sharing and conversing going on between the child and the adult. TABLE 2
Operational List of Game Categories
CATEGORY GAMES
(1) Cognitively Demanding: - Where in the World Carmen San Diego? - ¿ Dónde Está Carmen San Diego? - Treasure Cove/Mountain - Oregon Trail - Mine Sweeper
(2) Creative-“Click Around” -Snoopy’s Campfire -School Bus Series -Lion King -Doll House
(3) Action/Arcade -Space Invaders -Pac Man -Galactica -Dig Dug
(4) Technical Assistance -World Wide Web & Internet - Program assistance
Bibliography
Baker-Sennett, J., Matusov, E. & Rogoff, B. (1992). Social process of creativity and planning: illustrated by children’s palycrafting. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.) Contexts and Cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 253-281). Hertfordshire, England: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s Minds.l NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Greenburg, D. R. (1991) . Free at Last: The Sudbury Valley. Schools, Sudbury Valley: School Press.
“On Emotional Intelligence; A conversation with Daniel Goleman”, Educational Leadership, Volume 54, September 1996.
Money, W. (1996). “Applying Group Support Systems to Classroom Settings: A Social Cognitive Learning Theory...”. In: Journal of Management Information Systems; January, 1996. Available: http://www.elibrary.com/s/maya/getdoc.cgi
Robinson, P. (1996). Promoting Learning Through Games and Simulations. Games and Simulations: September 1996. Available: http://www.elibrary.com/s/maya/getdoc.cgi
Russell, G. R. (1995). “What’s your EQ?”, Time, October 2.
Sroufe, L.A., Cooper, R. G. & Dettart, G. B. (1996). Child Development: It’s Nature and Course (3rd ED,) NY: McGraw-Hill.
Vasquez, O. A., Pease-Alvarez, L., & Shannon, S. M. (1994). Pushing Boundaries: Language and Cultures in a Mexican Community. New York: Cambridge University Press. ch. 6.
Tharp, R. G., and Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning , and Schooling in Social Context, Cambridge University Press.
Unknown, (1992). “Bloods and Crips: plan to rebuild Los Angeles”, IN Z magazine, July 1992.
Unknown (1994). Institute for the learning sciences,.
Unknown (1996).Learning Resource Development Center.
Unknown, (1995).Reforming Traditional Education,.
