November 9 - November 19
Chapter 3
Presently I am sitting with a fourth grader who experienced some difficulties in the classroom and I took the opportunity to chat with the youngster about group experiences that he has had while at Baker-Butler. One group experience that he remembers fondly is making the pyramid in second grade and how he took personal pride in making the best thing that he could to put into the pyramid for others to see. In our discussion he also shared with me that he likes working with others because he learns from them. He said that sometimes in a group someone might share something he doesn't know and that helps him to learn new things. He also told me about a group experience where they were making a biome poster and one member of the group did not do his part and this caused the group not to get best grade that they could get. The student told me that he did not think that it was fair that the student who did not do the work got the same grade as the other group members. The conversation that I just had with this fourth grader is amazing to me because it shows how reflective children can be when we empower them to share their thoughts.
The authors mention the "fairness" piece of group collaborative work that the student shared with me and I am sure that many of us have had experiences similar to the one of the fourth grader. How can we as teachers structure our groups up front so that the issue of fairness does not raise its head with our students?
I just finished rereading chapter 3 - a couple of thoughts that hit home.
ReplyDeleteOn page 41 "And we know from decades of research splitting kids into high, medium, and low groups isn't the answer, and in fact hurts everyone." My question is - why are we continuing to group children this way? Why do we use some research to drive our instruction and not other research?
Small group skills - I thought this was really powerful information. Teaching students and teachers these skills would change our work and our learning.
The statement on page 43 "Effective groups are made, not born" is something that I will be spending some time on.
Speaking of time:....
I have to address this issue again. The inquiry model, small group work, conferencing with students, allowing the time for real authentic work to go on in our classrooms takes time. I really wonder who ever thought that ONE teacher in a classroom of twenty or more children could possible take care of all the tasks at hand.
Is it possible to rethink staffing and support in our classrooms. Could we actually look at having teaching assistants, co-teachers in the room working together and meeting individual students needs?
Talk about small group collaboration. Wheww! I am done.
Thanks for "listening."
Kathy
Kathy, I love that you mentioned the quote about grouping. For all of my years in education the heterogeneous vs. homogeneous debate has been one that I cannot believe we still are having. A lot of the pressure comes from parents, especially the parents of the high achieving students. I wish that the parents of the struggling students would be more vocal about class groupings, but that never seems to happen. The other argument that we often hear is that it is too difficult for one classroom teacher to work with all spectrums within a classroom and that it is much easier to work with similar leveled students. I understand both arguments but I do wish that the grouping question could be put to rest and that we were able to use researched best practices all the time.
ReplyDeleteOne question that arose for me when reading about students working in small groups is when the author mentioned that we all have strengths and small groups provde opportunities for individuals to use their strengths and for others to learn from them. Sometimes though I wonder how our weaknesses ever will be minimized if the sronger students always are taking on the same roles in a group. I guess that teachers must structure the groups so that the various roles, especially that of the leader, are rotated.
The time question does drive much of what we do. I look forward to hearing the response of others to this one.
We have little to no control over next year's rising class from the previous grade level to the next which is inherently going to be heterogenious as a grade level. What happens next is why we spend much time in the spring deliberating over who goes into what classroom which requires flexing to maintain a quality mixture of students for each classroom. So, it seems counterintuitive that we would then want to group kids at the new grade level. For me, the concept of (small group) collboarative grouping makes sense as the author's point out in the section on ways small groups matter. In terms of group fairness for the members, I can make some general comparisons to our large-group PLC meetings as an adult community of learners and the needs of the collaborative groups there. Many of the same principles apply to us as they do the students described in the chapter, even in the "kids who dislike group work" section. Thanks to you that have posted so far!
ReplyDeleteOur classes really aren't heterogeneous (at least in third grade). If you look at the data in School Net of the students coming to us, it is very obvious that there are 2 "higher" classes and 2 "lower" classes. (The parents recognize this as well.) This is, in part, due to the identified gifted kids always being clustered together into one or two classes. Are we thinking of changing this practice so that each classroom truly represents a cross-section of our population?
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'll get off of my soapbox and mention a few other things that struck me:
Inquiry Circles fits well with Responsive Classroom! At the beginning of the year, we collaborate on our classroom rules and consequences. In a similar fashion with inquiry circles, group members create their own way of being together.
Another similarity with Responsive Classroom--teachers introduce materials and give kids time to "explore." With inquiry circles, group members are given a few minutes to socialize informally with each other.
On the topic of working alone--it would have helped me last year to read this chapter. I had an autistic student who I always assigned to a group when there were group projects. It never occurred to me to adapt the structure for him (duh!) and let him work alone. It would have been so much more productive for him and everyone else. :)
I'm excited about reading more and learning strategies for developing my students' social skills. I'm thinking that for my Professional Learning Goal next year I would like to do some purposeful work with Inquiry Circles. Maybe our book club could continue into next year as we support each other and put some of these ideas into practice...?
The adult collaborative groups are the best for me. Last year the people interested in planning the family reading night did an amazing job. The members self selected to be on the group and then self selected again when it came to specific jobs. The product was superb because there was so much buy in from everyone.
ReplyDeleteJanice has some great points that we need to keep in mind if we want to continuoulsy improve our work in this area. Thanks, Janice!
ReplyDeleteSue and I both see connections to our adult learning community as well, thanks, Sue!
I see the value of group work in our classrooms and for the most part, I feel it is effective when each child will be graded on a specific area of the project or group work. It was enlightening to read about the "maintenance" activity that should be expected in a group situation - I had never thought of it this way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as a parent, I watched my son complete a "group" project by himself last week because no one else was doing anything on it (there were 6 group members) and there is no follow-up by the teacher. The group members are a heterogeneous group who prefer to "slide by" on the work of one or two. Not the message teachers should be sending their students.