empowering learning through the teach-learn model · research in authentic pedagogies has also seen...

GIL06042 AARE 2006 Conference, Adelaide Engaging Pedagogies

Empowering learning through the Teach-Learn Model©

Gurdish k. Gill

Graduate School of Education University of Western Australia

[email protected]

This document is copyright protected. Author Permission is required for use and reproduction.

Abstract Empowering student learning has been a central concern facing educators and policy-makers. This paper discusses empowering and engaging learning and learners through the concept of peer-tutoring (PT) – a two-tier framework that embodies principles of constructivism and social-constructivism. This approach based on the researcher’s self-initiated Teach-Learn Model, highlights the importance of recognising the multiplicity of roles learners can be entrusted with – primarily the teacher and learner. Motivated by the Teach Less, Learn More initiative by the Ministry of Education (Singapore), this learning platform aims towards less teacher-directed learning. The Teach-Learn Model which forms the basis of PT draws strength from weaving together various pedagogical principals – such as collaboration, co-generative dialogue, reflection, blended learning, and maximising learner diversity – within a tight, structured framework of learning. The PT framework was introduced for Junior College Students in their second year for General Paper. Implemented first at the group, then individual level, the framework requires students to go through a comprehensive learning process encompassing, planning, group-think, documentation, peer-teaching, reflecting and reviewing. Each of these processes is infused with relevant learning objectives, framed within an innovative, challenging and student-centred discourse learning environment. The learning experience has noted overwhelming benefits in both learning processes and outcomes – boosting learner confidence, motivation to achieve, content mastery and management, seeing improvements in grades – because learners appreciate the opportunity to be drivers of their own learning and that of their peers. Challenges were managed creatively by giving learners reflective voices as “co-tutors” to suggest changes and improve the Teach-Learn model. Keywords: New Pedagogies

© 2006 Gurdish Gill

1


Introduction Recent years have been characterized with numerous reforms in education – often at a systemic level, targeting broad areas of education such as curriculum, education policy, assessment, teacher and learner roles to name a few. These reforms have been a result of recognizing learners as equal partners in changing and reforming the classroom learning experience – especially with classrooms becoming more learner-centric and greater control being devolved to learners. Consequently, this change in ideologies has seen the rise of ‘authentic pedagogies’ (Newman & Associates, 1996) which mainly comprise innovative curriculum and assessment. These authentic pedagogies focus on the learner and are premised on giving voice to the student’s process of learning and knowledge development – aiming to engage learners. This is opposed to traditional classrooms where knowledge development is an abstract process, often clouded in the authorial stance of the teacher. This kind of a traditional, restrictive environment thus, alienates and reduces ownership of learning. More authentic environments based on principles of empowerment are deemed to be more beneficial and raise interest in learning because they engage in both individual learning and “negotiated understanding [where they learn] within a context” (Abu, 2005). These authentic environments are often based on teaching and learning using innovative and creative methodologies which promote deep learning (Biggs, 1993; Entwistle, 1998) as opposed to learning based in rote-memorization, with the overall aim of enhancing the critical thinking competencies of learners. Additionally, such forms of learning also re-energize the roles of educators and recognize their capacities in designing authentic and democratic learning opportunities. This paper aims to find out if such innovative learning can empower learning and the implications it has for learning processes and outcomes. This is a significant issue of consideration as compared to the many forms of authentic learning possibilities available, this paper espouses that having a well-framed, structured approach to learning – with pedagogy underpinning and informing the design of any learning model – can possibly generate positive learning outcomes as opposed to applying models in an ad-hoc and occasional manner. The model recognizes that for a truly authentic learning environment to be successful, it is necessary to expose students to multitude levels of learning opportunities and roles within a coherent, unified holistic frame instead of only one kind of leaning opportunity such as collaboration alone. This paper thus explores a researcher-designed model of learning that blends various learning environments and core pedagogical approaches that are instructionally and developmentally significant – the Teach-Learn Model©. In this model, junior college students in their senior year are cast in the role of peer-tutors and are given a high level of autonomy in driving their own and their peers’ learning in their engagement with the subject, General Paper – managing their roles as both teachers and learners, with the end product being a rich-student generated discourse. They are involved not just as peer-tutors and learners, but also co-tutors who contribute significantly in shaping, managing and suggesting improvements to the learning model and experience. This paper will discuss the notion of authentic pedagogies and situate the model within recent theory and practice; it will outline the core principles of the model and what it involves, explain the study and report the key findings and discuss some considerations for practitioners. Authentic Pedagogies Authentic pedagogies have become the education buzzword in the recent years and are closely aligned with education restructuring and reform and in totality even considered a product of the ongoing research and education narratives. One of the forerunners in this area includes Newman and Associates (1996) whose work has been quintessential in refocusing teacher work towards the “vital elements of student learning” (Cheng, 2003). Previous attempts to rethink classrooms often centered on teacher work in terms of recreating learning environments, reinventing curriculum or refocusing on pertinent skills – however, what is crucial today is the quality of learning and the processes of intellectual development. While, the previous elements of skills and environments is still important, ensuring shifts in learning from being mere absorption and reproduction to active construction and application are more significant. This results in “achievements which are significant, worthwhile and meaningful” (Cheng, 2003). Central to authentic pedagogies are three strands that Newmann states that would define authenticity of learning:


2


1. Construction of Knowledge 2. Disciplined Inquiry 3. Value of Achievements beyond school

These three ideas place the learner as the central agent in the learning process both in a constructivist and social-constructivist environment. In a constructivist environment, learning is individuated and is “an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based on their current or past knowledge” while in a social-constructivist perspective, “learning is a social process and knowledge is socially and culturally constructed” (Abu, 2005: 2). Taylor et al (2002) have suggested in the latter environment, “knowledge as constructing” and “knowing as participating” best capture the ongoing learning dialogues that characterize the community of learners.

Another model, closely aligned with Newmann’s model is the NSW model of authentic pedagogy in Table 1. It develops and explicitly outlines the key dimensions and elements that are necessary in considering the authenticity of learning and outcomes.

Table 1. New South Wales Model (NSW) of Pedagogy

Dimensions & Elements of the NSW Model of Pedagogy Intellectual Quality Quality Learning environments Significance

Deep knowledge Explicit quality criteria Background knowledge Deep understanding Engagement Cultural knowledge

Problematic knowledge High expectations Knowledge integration Higher order thinking Social support Inclusivity

Metalanguage Student self-regulation Connectedness Substantive communication Student direction Narrative

(extracted from: Ladwig & King, 2003) Intellectual quality refers to fostering critical capacities, complex and challenging learning in students and this is to be situated within quality learning environments premised on student navigation, initiative and achieving high outcomes. It is interesting to note that establishing criteria and high expectations are reflected in this dimension. Research (Gill, 2005a) has often shown that setting out rigid criteria or alienating students with demanding expectations has been known to negate and disempower learning. Perhaps, it is necessary to reconsider these or review how learners can be engaged in establishing and defining these areas. Together, these two dimensions make learning that is significant because it is situated and meaningful, where the construction of new knowledge resonates for learners and can be related to previously known information or the learner’s cognitive structure (Ausubel, 1978). While, it may be impossible for any particular learning instance to encapsulate all aspects of the either models, it is imperative to incorporate and consider as many of these aspects as possible to ensure holistic learning. What is noted to be central in authentic pedagogies is the responsibility and agency accorded to learners in managing learning. Armstrong has noted in as early as 1983 that when learners only see the teacher as the centre and authority of knowledge, they fail to become change agents in defining or leading their learning. Learning empowerment Research in authentic pedagogies has also seen another consistent theme – empowerment. This concept cascades into learning processes, environments, teacher roles to name a few. While, research on authentic pedagogies broadly examines concepts, literature on empowerment focuses on issues of power, equity, access and relationships. These areas are very important since they look into classroom ideologies and situate the learner and teacher. It is therefore essential to recognize that reforming and authenticating classrooms and learning should integrate both – pedagogy and ideology. There have been several proponents for empowerment – past literature (Auerbach, 1995; Janks & Ivanic, 1992; Rockhill, 1993) approached the issue from a sociological stance, looking deeply into issues of politics of education especially in ESL contexts – while these remain relevant, this research is


3


concerned with classroom power-play and stakeholder roles. Friere (1980) was one of the first to consider the relationships and learning processes in classrooms and was seminal in getting systems to move away from the ‘banking concept’ of education that assumes learners to be passive agents without control over their learning. This idea is linked to Sullivan’s (2002) idea of ‘power-over’. While, this may still persist to some extent in different instructional environments, educators are definitely more cognizant of the negative implications it has for learning and have been more proactive in reframing their classrooms along the ‘power-with’ and ‘power-to’ frameworks (Sullivan, 2002). Robinson (1994:7), for instance highlights the notion of empowerment as being,

A personal and social process, a liberating sense of one’s own strengths, competence, creativity and freedom of action; to be empowered is to feel power surging into one from other people and from inside, specifically the power to act and grow.

This all-encompassing definition situates empowerment as an individual and collective process and focuses on how empowerment should be a reciprocal and active process, which includes both teacher and learner in a power-sharing environment (Page & Czuba, 1999). Such a notion, should thus inform any authentic pedagogies we may adopt.

Other more recent conceptions of empowering discourses have also highlighted the right to make decisions (Ashenden & Milligan, 1993) and express one’s “voice” through processes of negotiation and student engagament (Kordalewski, 1999; Stone, 1995) in a “constructive and critical” (Bottery, 2000: 2) way and the ability to express “ownership” (Duhon-Haynes, 1996; Robinson, 1994) over work done. However, the right to make independent decisions is often not possible within institutional hierarchies (Hughes, 1998) because top-down approaches often act as hindrances by advocating compulsory structures or requirements. The notion of ‘choice’ (Mendoza, 2000; Stone, 1995) is also important in allowing students to become independent thinkers. However, this issue remains highly debated as the common fear cited in literature, is that allowing for a lassiez-faire approach may consequently result in loss of control and signal poor structure. However, denying choice can alienate learners from the processes and place them on the periphery. This is thus a continual struggle that needs to be negotiated.

Glickman (1989; as cited in Robinson, 1994: 12) has also postulated that empowerment develops and instils the initiative to “solve problems independently”. This definition is extremely crucial for this research because this is a core learning outcome that students need to be able to achieve. Besides that, Weissglass (1990; as cited in Robinson, 1994: 12) has critically put forth how empowerment encompasses the “process of supporting people to construct new meanings where learning is ideally about “communities of learners helping each other transform latent capabilities to active powers for the enhancement of all” (Duhon-Haynes, 1996: 6). These perspectives on empowerment are vital as they would inherently lead to learners’ process of self-actualisation. Dimmock (2000: 85) has further argued that through the provision of “intrinsically rewarding experiences…[learners will] enhance their personal growth, integrity and autonomy” and this would be reflective of a truly empowering education – one that has allowed learners to achieve a sense of self-efficacy and greater awareness. What is important to note overall is that moving from theory to practice requires significant thought, selection and appropriate design and implementation. The most effective learning frameworks are organized and structured; and incorporate both, aspects of authentic pedagogies and empowering power structures, recognizing the value of learners as designers of learning (Jonasson, 1994) and getting them to feel the “urgency of being in control of their own learning” (Ratneswary, 2005:3). Teach-Learn Model© The Teach-Learn Model was developed and constructed with rich insights gathered from an understanding of the pedagogical principles which are central to student learning. This model is primarily influenced by the ‘Teach Less Learn More’ (TLLM) initiative drawn up by the Singapore Ministry of Education with empowerment as a basic premise. The TLLM initiative is an important one since it advocates the need to empower students with the power to negotiate and manage their own learning through various innovative pedagogies and self-learning. With fewer teacher directives, it is hoped students will take proactive steps to enhance their learning, take pride in their learning and consequently


4


become high achievers since there is greater ownership. With research informing practice, the Teach-Learn model aimed to maximize on providing students with authentic experiences with rich, deep learning as core outcomes and learning experiences. Central to this model is the metaphor of students as drivers – such a powerful image signifies a shift towards recognizing the constructive capacities students can be empowered with in developing their own learning. It also signals a change in the authorial role often played by teachers. Instead, this model aims towards reducing the authorial gap between teachers and students and create a reciprocal learning environment, with students leading change. In the model, students are simultaneously managing two roles, that of a peer-tutor and a learner. It is through this Teach-Learn experience that students’ interest can be motivated and their learning can be empowered.

The model has a two-tier framework – collaborative to individual learning – as noted in Table 2.

Table 2. Teach-Learn Model© Overview

Tier Type of Learning Details Processes Instructional Environment

Tier 2

Advanced

Individual Learning � Self-Learn � 1 cycle

1. Planning 2. Documentation 3. Peer-teaching 4. Reflecting 5. Reviewing

Â Â Â Â Â

Reflect on topic individually Work on articulating ideas coherently Teach the class as an individual Consider views of Tutor and peers against own work Reflect on new perspectives and edit work

Tier 1

Basic

Collaborative Learning

� Mixed ability grouping

� 2 cycles

1. Planning 2. Group-think 3. Documentation 4. Peer-teaching 5. Reflecting 6. Reviewing

Â Â Â Â Â Â

Reflect on topic individually Reflect on individual perspectives as a group and come to a consensus Work on articulating ideas coherently Teach the class as a pair Consider views of Tutor and peers against own work Reflect on new perspectives and edit work

Overall, the strength of this model lies in its ability to merge authentic, challenging and instructionally relevant learning principles that span across collaboration, student-generated text and discourse, reflection, blending and weaving. Learning commences at tier 1 with the cooperative strategy since working in groups often provides a non-threatening environment of learning (Chee, 2005) and some leverage to negotiate the new roles in which students have been cast which works positively to enthuse learning. Additionally, since this was students’ first encounter with the PT experience, group solidarity functioned as a positive environment to manage doubts, lesson demands and issues of confidence when it came to teaching the rest of their peers. Central to the focus on collaborative learning as a starting point in this framework, is the fact that collaboration provides an authentic experience and is a key learning outcome for students. This learning avenue further provides a social context for interaction allowing diverse, competing and complementing perspectives to meet and forms a basis for constructing new knowledge. It is through co-generative dialogue that, students’ perspectives and knowledge development is enriched – ensuring students “learn faster and more efficiently, have greater retention, and feel more positive about the learning experience” (Bressan & Yap, 2005: 2) resulting in crucial cognitive and individual development (Brown et al, 1992). However, what distinguishes this model from other ad-hoc cooperative learning initiatives is collaboration; which in this instance is enhanced through mixed ability grouping. The rationale for such grouping is the potential to capitalize on cooperation amongst peers and ensure a good interaction between students of varying abilities. It is often felt that regular learning encounters do not provide sufficient opportunities for students of varying academic abilities to work together as research has suggested a tendency for students to work with their usual group of peers. Thus, proactively “engineering” such learning opportunities can have numerous positive benefits. This then functions as a microcosmic peer-learning opportunity within the larger PT framework generating numerous ongoing learning circles.

Students in their groups go through six critical learning steps in Tier 1 of the PT framework. Once groups have been allocated their topics for PT, they are required to do some individual brainstorming and


5



6

map their own understanding of the topic, before they come together as a group to consolidate. This additional step, individual reflection, is critical to prevent “cognitive loafing” (Tschannen-Moran, 2000) as often within a group environment, some students feel a lesser impetus to work and contribute their ideas. This also allows for blended learning as different students would seek different types of information or resources in their planning and reflection process and when they arrive at the second step, they would be able to enrich the entire process of knowledge construction. With the process of group-think, students learn to grapple with different perspectives that arise through ongoing dialogue and debate. This process is central to tier 1 as it is at this point that the mixed-ability grouping would benefit and students are exposed to whole spectrum of views and ideas on a single topic. Once consensus is reached, students document their ideas into a presentation vehicle choosing any form that can deliver their message. Once ready, students according to their assigned PT dates, would teach the class. In this study, most groups had 4 students and given the total number of students and available time, the PT process in tier 1 went through two cycles. In the teaching process, students were required to do several things as noted in Table 3.

Table 3. Teaching Tasks During TL Session Teaching Tasks Details Objectives Interpretation � Explain their interpretation of the question

� Highlight possible misinterpretations � Successfully managing task requirements � Raising awareness of other (mis)readings

Structure � Teach the essential components of an essay by breaking down the structure

� Internalizing essay discourse (for assignments and exams)

Content � Develop the topic with examples � Highlight source of ideas � Experiment with new/radical arguments

� Exposure to a variety of information � Challenged by more critical

understandings Tackle � Continually manage questions and doubts raised by

others � Challenges one to critically think about

the work � Raises ownership of work (through

defending work) Renew � Accepting and integrating other perspectives raised by

tutor or peers � Ability to take positive criticism and

feedback

As evident in each of the tasks and the objectives, the teaching process is a challenging and demanding process, however successful management of the requirements produces critical, reflective thinkers and at the same time fulfils curriculum objectives, within an authentic environment. At tier 2 of the model, the process focuses on individual learning. This shift is purposefully crafted into the model as it is necessary to ensure that the core skills are also being internalized at the individual level, since such form of learning is situationally significant as a result of the high-stakes environment of exams and testing. Furthermore, this will ensure that students are genuinely taking ownership of their learning and that of others. It also functions as a useful platform to provide the tutor with feedback on how the student has progressed instead of depending on regular written assignments. Perhaps, what is more important is the tutor can also manage the growth of the student not just intellectually or cognitively but also interpersonally, intrapersonally and affectively since this learning avenue is challenging and closely aligned to actual real-world experiences where individuals will need to develop their own voice. This tier is therefore highly important for these reasons and is a valuable domain in the teaching and learning processes. There are no significant differences except in tier 2, the individual does not go through Group-Think and will be managing the brainstorming individually. The model was implemented across a period of a year in the students’ senior year in college. This was considered a crucial learning period as they were preparing for a high-stakes examination at the end of the year. The implementation starts with the teacher and follows right through to the actual PT session. Each stage involves various kinds of activities and tasks and associated learning outcomes situated within relevant pedagogical principles and learning environments as noted in Table 4.

A

AR

E 20

06 C

onfe

renc

e, A

dela

ide

Enga

ging

Ped

agog

ies

200

6 G

urdi

sh G

ill

7

Tabl

e 4.

Tea

ch-L

earn

Mat

rix©

GIL

0604

2

© A

gent

Stag

eA

ctiv

ityLe

arni

ngEn

viro

nmen

t Pe

dago

gica

l Pr

inci

ple(

s)

Lear

ning

Out

com

es

Tim

elin

e

Plan

ning

ª

Se

tting

up

mix

ed a

bilit

y gr

oupi

ng

ª

Topi

c se

lect

ion

ª

Tim

elin

e pl

anni

ng

- -

1-2

wee

ks

Obj

ectiv

e se

tting

ª

E

xpla

in ru

les

ª

Def

ine

prog

ram

me

stru

ctur

e

ª

Out

line

optio

ns

ª

Cla

rifyi

ng d

oubt

s

Teac

her-d

irect

ed

Inst

ruct

iona

l 2-

3 w

eeks

bef

ore

PT

impl

emen

tatio

n

Teac

her

Topi

c al

loca

tion

ª

Giv

e ou

t top

ics

to 1

st g

roup

-

-

-

2 w

eeks

bef

ore

actu

al P

T se

ssio

n Pl

anni

ng

ª

Brai

nsto

rmin

g at

an

indi

vidu

al le

vel

ª

Dev

elop

ing

reso

urce

s to

sha

re

ZDE

1

Inde

pend

ent-t

hink

ing

Ref

lect

ion

� In

tern

alis

e kn

owle

dge

Gro

up-T

hink

ª

In

divi

dual

s co

me

toge

ther

to s

hare

un

ders

tand

ing

ª

Neg

otia

te m

eani

ng m

akin

g &

kn

owle

dge

ª

C

onse

nsus

ª

C

onte

nt in

tegr

atio

n

ZDE

2

Col

labo

rativ

e

Ref

lect

ive

Soc

ial-

cons

truct

ivis

m

PT

Gro

up

Doc

umen

tatio

n ª

In

form

atio

n de

velo

ped

to b

e pr

esen

ted

in a

coh

eren

t who

le

ª

Mul

timod

ality

in d

ocum

enta

tion

proc

esse

s is

enc

oura

ged

-

� D

eep

lear

ning

With

in a

per

iod

of 2

w

eeks

Teac

her

Pro

of

Subm

issi

on

ª

PT

grou

p su

bmits

a p

roof

of t

each

ing

mat

eria

ls fo

r the

tuto

r to

have

a lo

ok

ª

Com

men

ts re

serv

ed u

ntil

PT

sess

ion

Teac

her l

earn

ing

ZD

E1

Inde

pend

ent-

thin

king

� C

onte

nt

Dev

elop

men

t �

Und

erst

andi

ng

stud

ent c

ogni

tion

� M

anag

ing

lear

ning

w

eakn

esse

s

2 da

ys b

efor

e PT

se

ssio

n

Cla

ss

PT

Ses

sion

ª

Te

ach

& Le

arn

(Tea

cher

s +

Stud

ents

) ª

D

ynam

ic e

xcha

nge

thro

ugh

dial

ogue

&

criti

que

ª

C

onte

nt in

tegr

atio

n ª

C

ontin

ual f

eedb

ack

ZDE

3

Col

labo

rativ

e

Lear

ner-d

riven

Soc

ial-

cons

truct

ivis

m

� C

onte

nt

Dev

elop

men

t �

Con

fiden

ce

� M

otiv

atio

n

� D

eep

lear

ning

Ses

sion

is 4

5 m

inut

es

PT

Gro

up

Rev

iew

& R

efin

e ª

R

efle

ct o

n fe

edba

ck g

iven

ª

In

tegr

ate

new

kno

wle

dge

or

alte

rnat

ives

into

PT

less

on

ª

Subm

it fin

al le

sson

to b

e co

mpi

led

into

vo

lum

e

ZDE

2

Col

labo

rativ

e

Ref

lect

ive

Soc

ial-

cons

truct

ivis

m

� C

onte

nt

stre

ngth

enin

g

1 w

eek


What is unique about this model is that each learning process is not self-contained or compartmentalized; instead at every stage learning is blended and draws from various aspects. For example, collaboration does not end with the group-think and planning for the PT session; instead, it carries on during the PT session with a larger collaborative circle and even at the review process as noted in the PT cycle in Figure 1 – with its purpose at each stage of learning being specific and instrumental to learning.

Also central to this model is the way learning interaction develops and is sustained. It is argued that collaboration is not the only type of learning interaction one can have. Instead, learning occurs when one interacts with other forms of discourse such as texts, one’s own assumptions, amongst others. The strength of this model is in forming various zones of dynamic exchange (ZDE) which encompass dynamic interaction at various levels. Research sometimes de-emphasizes the importance of interaction at the level of the self, however, this model reinforces that it is necessary for some reflective engagements and interaction of the individual mind with learning resources before interaction at the level of groups would even be effective. Thus, the model has 3 levels of ZDE as seen in Figure 2, starting with the individual and moving outwards like a ripple effect.

Smaller PT Circle

Sharing

Teaching

Text

Peer-Tutor(s) Class

Tutor

1. Planning

Reflecting

4. Peer-teaching

3. Documentation

2. Group-Think

Dynamic Exchange

Multimodal sources

Online

Print

Critique

Resource Development Brainstorming

Consensus New Perspectives

5. Reviewing

Documentation Group-Think

Figure 1. PT Framework


8


In the innermost circle, the interaction is between individual cognition and various texts and discourses one encounters in the research and brainstorming processes. At this level, the individual builds ideas and concepts based on the interaction with texts and goes through processes of reviewing and refining one’s conceptual models. This interaction than spreads outwards when collaboration takes place within the peer-tutoring group. Here, each individual’s conceptual models and ideas are continually challenged, validated, reviewed and refined until, group consensus is reached on all aspects of the subject matter they will be teaching the rest of their peers. This interaction finally spreads further to include the rest of the class including the tutor. At this zone, the exchange is rigorous and ideas and concepts are further constructed and reconstructed. Feedback, sharing, critique amongst others are processes that dominate his stage. The outcome is an environment premised on student discourse and generation of student text. Study Once the model was designed, it was piloted and implemented for college students in their final year of study for the subject General Paper. This group was chosen for several reasons:

1. High level of maturity 2. Academic rigour faced by the group 3. Pressures of high-stakes examinations

Additionally, they were in the process of consolidating knowledge and preparing intensively for the examinations. Given the intensity of their study and the urgency to do well, it was felt that this model would be best for this group of students as it could generate positive implications for their learning outcomes and experiences. The model was used for the subject General Paper because it is a subject centered on generating authentic texts based on students’ own sets of arguments and is often situated

Central Zone of Dynamic Exchange

PT Learning Center

Self-

learning

PT C

T

PT PT

C C

T T

ZONES of DYNAMIC EXCHANGE (ZDE) ZDE1 : Cognition & Text ZDE2 : Intra-group (Group, text, Individual) ZDE3 : Central zone with active exchange & construction

Figure 2. Interaction Pattern in PT


9


within a highly discursive environment, thus validating its effectiveness. The PT framework was piloted across three different classes of varying academic abilities which fit along the continuum of a low, mid and high ability range. The range of students were purposefully selected to see if such a learning model favoured particular academic ability ranges more than others or if it was in fact non-discriminating and had equal implications for all involved. The PT framework was in progress for a whole year in 2005. Before, the model took effect for the students, time was spent in forming peer-groups and selecting a range of questions students will need to handle. This process was not very time intensive given the fact that the tutor had a good sense of who the students were from their junior year. In alternative scenarios, some kind of profiling or academic grade distribution may be needed if the tutors are not familiar with the group they supervise. Tier 1 of the model was carried out in the first academic semester and Tier 2 was carried out in the second academic semester. The key research questions this paper was concerned with were:

1. Does the Teach-Learn model empower students (and to what extent)? 2. Is the Teach-Learn model able to achieve positive outcomes in both learning processes and

learning outcomes? Once, the model was in progress, there was extensive observation and active reflection on the part of

the tutor as a means to understand how students were aligning their learning with the espoused aims and design of the model. To ensure a good understanding of the implications of the model on students as well as the tutor, data sources were triangulated – to ensure consistency and relevance amongst the findings. Thus, throughout the year, student grades, level of interest and quality of work amongst other things were monitored to understand the impact the model had on students’ learning outcomes and experiences. This active teacher observation provided continual feedback and was instrumental in fine-tuning and enhancing the model for future implementation. At the end of the year, students from all classes were also surveyed as a means to gather feedback on the PT model. The survey mainly focused on students’ perceptions on how the model and PT experience shaped and impacted their learning outcomes (i.e. both intrinsic and extrinsic) and processes (i.e. what they found enhanced or stifled learning). The survey was made up of different sections requiring students to rate the usefulness of the programme, 25 questions each on learning outcomes and process, designed using a 4-point likert scale ranging from 0-3 and finally ending with open-ended questions that allowed students to develop their insights and feedback further and genuinely empowering and providing them opportunities as co-tutors to provide suggestions on how the PT framework can be enhanced. This process of giving them voice was essential as the tutor considered these peer-tutors as critical change agents and thus instrumental in reforming the learning environment and overall experiences.

The survey results were then analyzed using thematic coding to gather an understanding of students’ perceptions and learning engagements with the PT model. The survey responses were analyzed to gather findings on the impact of the model on two critical areas, learning processes and outcomes and tried to measure, in which area students felt greater benefits. Their responses on the survey also functioned as a basis to develop interview questions to probe into recurring areas that seemed to be important to students and required further elucidation. The interview instrument was then administered to two students from each of the academic ability range for a comprehensive and fair gauge. The results gathered from the different data sources consequently provided an evaluation of the extent to which such a learning model enhanced and empowered learning outcomes and processes. Analysis of study Overall, the study of the Teach-Learn model showed highly positive results. Through various means, student outcomes were maximized. The model validated and enthused learning and learners significantly and this was supported through actual improvements in grades, student insight and overall growth in the learners’ abilities to manage the demands of such an innovative and learner-driven experience. The study was interested in the level to which students felt they were empowered and looked at key areas such as:

1. Rating the usefulness of the programme 2. Impact on Learning (comparing processes and outcomes) 3. Areas for improvement


10


It must be noted though, since this is the first study, the results were analyzed only for the most important components. Further studies are being conducted as the sample of students is widened with a more in-depth focus and analysis. Usefulness of the PT Programme The PT programme which was based on the Teach-Learn model was on the overall, extremely well received by all students. Everyone felt that the programme achieved all that it had espoused and that was good because they felt this ensured a good match at the level of theory and implementation – a feature sometimes arguably absent when curriculum reforms are made. Figure 3 highlights the responses students provided in the overall evaluation of the programme.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ratings (Extremely useless to extremely useful)

% o

f std

uent

s

Figure 3. Rating the usefulness of the PT Programme It is highly evident that students generally provided very positive ratings with 100% agreeing that the PT programme is useful and effective, with 90% of students giving a rating of 5 and 6 (i.e. extremely useful). Some of the key reasons noted for the success and effectiveness of the programme was that it was structured and organized but still gave students the space to experiment and control learning. By providing clear guidelines and scaffolds, students were given a broad direction – but not one that stifled their ownership in the meaning-making process. Some of the typical responses included:

The opportunity for us to be able to have a detailed look at the demands of any essay question is given to us in peer tutorial. Through peer tutorial, we develop the natural instincts for us to question ourselves with thoughts like: “Is this point answering the question?”; “Am I accurately giving my points in relevance to the question requirements?”; “Are my explanations to the point and not side tracking?” These will help us at writing an effective essay to answer questions. Also, the basis of Peer-Tutorial lessons is “Comments & Criticism” which is essential in learning.

Science Faculty

It has helped me develop more content especially for topics I would normally never try in a test or assignment. I like working with my friends as I get to see how others think about a question especially those who tend to do well in their essays. It is a good learning experience and it is definitely a challenge to be a teacher

Science Faculty I think it is a good programme that is different in the learning style as students become teachers. It is quite a powerful way to learn as the tutors need to know what they are teaching, but at the same time, we get to teach a topic and this has a lot of benefit. A lot of different learning taking place like sharing, teacher imput, research, etc all at once, so it’s very dynamic. Quite a challenge, but a good experience.

Arts Faculty


11


The programme brings about added benefits because one learns, firstly, while preparing for their respective teaching sessions and, secondly, when one listens in class. Also, by getting the whole class to participate and throw in ideas, we have a larger pool of knowledge. Rather than just relying on the teacher, everyone can now throw in something they feel is relevant to the topic. Though the conventional method of relying on the teacher is good, it is quite impossible for the teacher to know everything as well. Arts Faculty

Clearly, the model has enriched and empowered learning by providing opportunities to be challenged in a fully student centered environment. Impact on Learning One of the key areas this research was interested in was comparing the impact of the model on learning processes (LP) and learning outcomes (LO). In this research, learning processes referred to the multitude of ways in which learning was done – looking at the actual processes such as collaboration, reflection, reviewing, teaching amongst others, the learning environment, roles of students and teacher. Learning outcomes on the other hand, referred to the results of learning through such processes. The outcomes referred to both extrinsic, measurable ones like student grades as well as intangible outcomes such as sense of confidence, motivation, ability to think critically, sense of learning accomplishment to name a few. The survey completed by students gave equal weightage to both these aspects to examine what if any, differences or similarities might result. The overall results were generally encouraging and interesting. Table 5 highlights the comparisons between processes and outcomes.

Table 5. Comparison of Learning Processes (LP) and Learning Outcomes (LO)

Difference between LP & LO

Interpretation of Bands % per band Optimal Learning Zones

-3 -2 -1

LP>LO

8%

0 LP=LO 18% 1 2 3 4 5

Small difference

LP<LO

32%

A Desirable learning

environment

58%

6 7 8 9 10

Large Difference

LP<LO

36%

11 Significant difference LP<LO

6%

B

Learning environment requires some fine-tuning

42%

It is clear that close to 60% are able to maximize both LP and LO, which would be the most desired in any learning environment. Additionally, despite 42% seeing some imbalance between LP and LO, it is encouraging to note that LO both tangible and intangible have been significant – a positive indication of this model’s ability to empower student achievement as well as growth in both the intellectual and personal senses as generated from the first phase of the research findings. One of the most significant and valuable outcomes have been the noticeable improvement in actual student grades. Improvement was noted across all three academic ability bands with students in the mid and high ability bands actually moving from one grade to another, overall as a class. Table 6 highlights these figures.


12


Table 6. Impact of Teach-Learn Model© on Student Grades from 2004 to 2005

Ability Band

2004 Final Exams

Grade (Band)

2005 Test 2005 Mid-terms

2005 Final Exams

Grade (Band)

Overall Improvements

Low 48 C5 50.8 50.9 52.5 C5 +3.5 Mid 54 B4 55.4 56.4 60.1 B3 + 6.1 High 54.4 B4 56.5 57.5 61.5 B3 + 7.1

The results generally show all three ability bands showing improvement, even though the low ability band still remains in the same grade banding. The other two ability bands have shown extensive improvement in being able to progress as a class to the next grade over the course of the year, both exceeding the projected scores set for them. These two bands have also noted a higher number of distinctions and maintained high pass rates as noted in Tables 7 and 8.

Table 7. Impact of Teach-Learn Model© on distinction1 rates from 2004 to 2005

Ability Band

2004 Final Exams


2005 Final Exams


Low 0 0 0 6.7 + 6.7 Mid 0 5 20 20 + 15 High 0 5 20 30 + 30

Note: 1Distinctions are granted at the 65% mark and above based on the Cambridge A’ Levels Examinations

Table 8. Impact of Teach-Learn Model© on overall pass1 rates from 2004 to 2005

Ability Band

2004 Final Exams


2005 Final Exams


Low 66.7 80 80 87 + 20.3 Mid 85 95 95 95 + 10.0 High 95 100 902 100 + 4.2

Notes: 145% is considered a pass based on the Cambridge A’Levels Examinations 2The drop n oted between the test and mid year was a result of skewed results due to unforeseen circumstances

The high ability students clearly benefited through overall improvements in producing quality grades – noting high increases in distinctions, almost 5 times more than the low ability students. The improvements in pass rates is lower because they have already been performing at very high levels at the commencement of the Teach-Learn model, thus the focus was on improving quality of grades and other learning processes. It is however noteworthy to highlight the significant increase in pass rates for the low ability class. This increase is important as meeting minimum pass requirements will have implications in university applications. Being able to secure at least a small percentage of distinctions is also a good indicator of the impact of this learning model. Longer term implementation would continue to see progressive increases. Part of the reasons for the slower increase in grades for the low ability students is their proficiency in language – General Paper being a subject that is based on linguistic proficiency, fluency and argumentative structure, makes this aspect difficult to develop over such a short time. However, argumentative structures and content inputs definitely saw much improvement as a result of the model and this was noted accordingly by the students’ responses,

Before the peer tutorials my GP essays lack focus and direction. The content of my essay was often lacking as well. With the peer tutorial, I was given a chance to be critical in spotting the mistakes of others and in the process I was also able to understand the mistakes that I myself was committing. The peer tutorials also


13


exposed me to content that I would not have usually thought of or did not “have”, thus helping to widen my horizon.

Arts Faculty Expose us to different types of questions and the different ways to tackle them. Most importantly it also makes us realise the common mistakes that we make. It broadens our thinking as we get to hear different views from classmates. Tutor makes us ponder our mistakes which make us remember it when we do our essay

Science Faculty The increases are thus very encouraging and highlights the model as a central learning tool in improving learning and outcomes significantly as noted by a student,

…but the most important thing was that my essay writing improved a lot, I was now able to get more decent grades. I also became more flexible in thinking. Being a teacher, teaching my friends was an interesting and new way to learn, even though it was hard at first. Overall, I think the programme is good and valuable and should continue. Arts Faculty

The improvement in grades also led to improvements in other LO such as desire to excel further or try more challenging topics. Students from all bands, especially those in higher tiers felt that when the model validated their efforts through results, they were more motivated to push themselves harder. This was evident through observation of their graded tasks or types of questions attempted in tests and examinations. Other LO that were critical to student was ownership of the final product – students were highly pleased with having a whole set of essays that went through dynamic review and refinement. This they felt would aid their learning significantly. Also notable as a LO was the effect on students’ attitudes – generally most students displayed greater interest in learning, managing learning difficulties and willingness to take risks. Such improvements were highly desirable as it has long-term implications for coaching motivated learners, instead of learners who were only interested in short-term academic goals. The model also saw notable improvements in empowering LP. It was felt that that model was essentially ‘dynamic’ and trained them to think critically through many processes. The key areas highlighted as being empowering were, collaboration, teaching and critical reflection. Collaboration was cited as a key learning process as it trained students to not only take ownership of their own thoughts and ideas but learn to critically engage with the many competing perspectives they may encounter in developing their essay discourse. Many felt that the collaboration opportunities present within this learning model are manifold, with the circle of collaboration increasing every time as noted in Figure 2. Many felt that the environments engineered to allow such collaboration to take place were useful and meaningful to learning and very different from the kinds of unstructured interactions they usually undergo. Students also found the teaching process to be a unique experience and as one student noted, “a chance we usually don’t get.” They felt that it was a very challenging way to learn because they had to not only develop the content, they had to know it and be able to teach the rest of the class. What they thought was really helpful was when people questioned their ideas or get them to explain their rationale for certain arguments – being able to effectively manage the questions posed by both tutor and the class trained them to know they work better and ideally developed “deep learning’”. This is important as often students learn content or skills by rote and are unable to retain the information in their long term memories for new applications in the future. However, some students did find the process fairly intimidating as well, especially since it was a new experience and required all of them to adopt fairly radical model of thinking and learning. Students felt greater scaffolding in managing the teaching experience would help in the long run. Finally, students also found the reflection process which was embedded in the model an integral process. Getting students to constantly reflect on their work, thoughts, interpersonal learning engagements was deemed to develop cognizant and aware learners. It also developed the critical eye in learners as they engaged with the learning materials and processes. However, as with the other processes, learners felt, this process could also improve – perhaps by outlining some critical reflection steps that learners need to take in enhancing their learning. These reviews and suggestions are being considered extensively and will be developed into a refined version of the model.


14


It was interesting to note however, that while students maximized both their LO and LP, some slippage between the two was noted. Many found that LP were rated marginally lower than LO. Some of the key reasons to account for this slippage include:

1. High-stakes pressures 2. Students’ mental Models

The pressures of testing and examinations is perhaps one of the biggest struggles both educators and learners face. It is one insidious facet of education that often problematises and stands in contradiction to the reform-minded principles continually espoused. It perhaps accounts for the limited implementation of novelty practices in classrooms. Students use it as a yardstick for how and what they learn. With such pressures, students try to glean outcomes before they prioritise their learning experiences. Many who felt that the processes would not be immediately relevant for the exams thus found the processes time and energy consuming. It must be noted however, that such a fallacious perspective is grounded only in the short term. If one were to examine the processes, most of the key processes help students internalize information and learning practices for the long term – a learning validity that can be used in future learning. It is thus necessary to correct these mindsets and rethink how traditional assessment truly develops student competencies, especially for the long term (Gill, 2005b). Another issue that accounts for the slippage relates to the mental models students have of learning and of themselves. Students often see learning as residing with the responsibility of the teacher. Seeing them as sources of information, instruction and clarification, students often fail to internalize or shoulder the learning responsibility. Thankfully, with more student-centered initiatives in the classroom, this mindset is slowly changing as learners recognize that learning is an active process that requires their equal if not greater involvement. However, learners often consider themselves to be incapable of transforming learning, especially those of lower academic ability. This perspective however needs to be changed and learners need greater assurance that the learning is a continual cycle with mistakes being an inherent part. Areas for Improvement While, the research has noted many positive results in LP and LO, it has also raised some issues of consideration especially in terms of boosting and enhancing the LP especially since there is a sizeable proportion of students who feel that the model can be fine-tuned and processes can be reworked. Some of the key areas highlighted for consideration from the perspectives of the students and teacher include:

1. Managing roles as ‘Teacher for the day’ 2. Increasing and motivating student engagement 3. Differentiated reception across academic ability bands 4. Moderating level of student autonomy 5. Feedback and assessment

These issues and challenges noted through the first phase of the study will be discussed and evaluated in a future paper once more data is collected and generated. It is felt that once some of the gaps are addressed in these areas, the influence, impact and validity of this model in transforming the learning experience will be numerous and far-reaching. Conclusions and considerations In moving towards the future, educators need to adopt a reform-minded perspective and capitalize on the roles that learners play in enhancing their own learning. Giving the voice both in the design and evaluation of learning can significantly inform educators of the processes that motivate and empower learning, which consequently generates positive repercussions for practice. Integrating innovative tools of learning that are designed primarily around student discourse, empowerment and learning ownership make for powerful tools for coaching and mentoring and in developing high achievers. Embracing the model and


15


the underpinning pedagogical design and principles and implementing it as a dominant and central means of teaching and learning will work a long way towards engaging developing holistic learners.

References Abu, Z.A. (2005). ‘The place of learning in online discussion’, Paper Presented at the Centre for Research, Pedagogy and Practice

(CRPP) Conference Singapore, May 31 – June 3, 2005. Armstrong (1983). ‘Learner responsibility in management education or ventures into forbidden research’, Interfaces 13: 26-38. Ashenden, D. & Milligan, S. (1993) Signposts to Restructuring Schools. Parts II and III, Canberra: National Council of Independent

schools. Auerbach, E. (1995) ‘The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in pedagogical choices’ in J Tollefson (ed) Power and

Inequality in Language. Chapter 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ausubel, D. (1978). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning, New York: Grune & Stratton Biggs, J. (1993). ‘From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach’, Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1):73-85 Bottery, M. (2000) Education, Policy and Ethics. Chapter 1, London: Continuum. Bressan, S & Yap, L.Y. (2005). ‘A structured approach to online peer-learning and assessment’, Paper presented at the International

Conference of Education (ICE), National University of Singapore, 6-9 December 2005 Brown, A.L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A. & Campione, J.C. (1993). ‘Distributed expertise in the classroom’, in

G. Salamon (ed) Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 188-228.

Chee, M.L. (2005). ‘Revisiting the teaching paradigm: integrating emotion with learning and its pedagogical implications’, Paper presented at the International Conference of Education (ICE), National University of Singapore, 6-9 December 2005

Cheng, B. (2003). Online collaborative tools and constructivist learning environments. Department of Education & Traning, New South Wales. (Online) Available: lrnlab.edfac.usyd.edu.au:8300/topics/AuthenticPedagogy.pdf (Accessed on 12th December 2005)

Dimmock, C. (2000) Designing the Learning Centred School: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. London: Falmer. Duhon-Haynes, G. M. (1996) ‘Student Empowerment: Definition, Implications and Strategies for Implementation’, Paper Presented at

the Third World Symposium, Grambling State University, Louisiana. Entwistle, N. (1998). ‘Approaches to learning and forms of understanding’, in B. Dart & Boulton-Lewis, G. (eds) Teaching and

Learning in Higher Education, Caberwell: ACER, pp72-101 Freire, P. (1980). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gill, G.K. (2005a). Empowering student learning: A Case Study on college students’ perceptions on the extent to which Project Work

(PW) empowers them. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Western Australia Gill, G.K. (2005b). ‘The complexities of assessment & testing: Reviewing assessment for learning’, Paper presented at the

International Conference of Education (ICE), National University of Singapore, 6-9 December 2005 Hughes, K.J. (1998) ‘Antecedents to Empowerment: A Preliminary Investigation’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 22(2):

229-247. Janks, H. & Ivanic, R (1992) ‘Critical language awareness and emancipatory discourse’ in N. Fairclough (ed) Critical Language

Awareness. Chapter 13, London: Longman. Jonassen, D.H (1994) Thinking technology: towards a constructivist design. Educational technology, 34 (4), 34-37 Kordalewski, J. (1999) ‘Incorporating Student Voice into Teaching Practice’, Eric Digest [Online] Available: http://www.ericsp.org [21st

August 2003]. Kreisberg, S. (1992) Transforming power: Domination, empowerment, and education. Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press. Ladwig, J.G. & King, B.M. (2003). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: An annotated bibliography. Accessed on 15th February

2006. Available: http://www.curriculumsupport.nsw.edu.au/qualityteaching/docs/Annotated_Bibliography.pdf

Mendoza, L.P. (2000) ‘Empowerment of Students – How can we Succeed?’ Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematics Education into the 21st Century: Mathematics for Living, Jordan [Online] Available: http://math.unipa.it/~grim/jourdain.htm [6th June 2004].

Newman & Associates (1996). Authentic Achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Page, N. & Czuba, C.E. (1999). ‘Empowerment: What is it?’, Journal of Extension 37(5):1-8. Robinson, H.A. (1994) The ethnography of empowerment. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. Rockhill, K (1993) ‘Gender, language and the politics of literacy’ in Brian Street (ed) Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. Chapter 6,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stone, S.J. (1995) ‘Empowering Teachers, Empowering Children’, Childhood Education, 71(5):294-295. Sullivan, A.M. (2002) ‘Pursuit of Goals in Partnerships: Empowerment in Practice’, Paper presented at the Australian Association for

Research in Education International Education Research Conference, Brisbane, Australia 2002. Talyor, P.C., Gilmer, P.J. & Tobin, K. (2002). ‘Preface: Introducing transformations’, in P.C Taylor, P.J. Gilmer & K.Tobin (eds),

Transforming undergraduate science teaching. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, pp ix-xxiv. Tschannen-Moran, M., Uline, C., Hoy A.W. and Mackley, T. (2000). Creating Smarter Schools Through Collaboration, Journal of

Educational Administration, 38(3) 247-271.


16

empowering learning through the teach-learn model · research in authentic pedagogies has also seen...

Documents