My research study was based at Urbana Middle School and spanned the time frame of January - March of 1996. My students are seventh graders who are arranged in teams of approximately 140 students. The classrooms on the team are heterogeneously grouped, and also contain fully included students with individual educational plans. Therefore, full inclusion allows for a variety of students and abilities to thrive together. The learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, and the behavior disordered sit side by side with the gifted, and average student. The student population is approximately 32% minority. In reflection, the average Urbana Middle School classroom is a complex menagerie of abilities, cultures, and temperaments.
Along with my two fellow researchers, I created two cooperative group lessons, which had uniquely different levels of teacher involvement. The first lesson was very structured and guided. The second activity was presented a month later, and had a more inquiry learning based focus, that is, students were given free reign to develop and guide their own activity and presentation. I harbored great suspicion about the rate of success for the second approach. But, as I reveal the results, you will perceive how gratifying the entire experience was to an itinerate skeptic.
Students were involved in a study of the continent of Europe. The first step in the "guided cooperative group activity" included the teacher arrangZing the groups for success. The groups were delicately balanced with high, middle, and low achievers. Personalities were matched to allow for the best possible group spirit and cooperativeness.
Once the students were acquainted in their assigned areas, they were given a three page assignment document, which included a personal responsibility check list. This described in great detail, how and what they were to research. Each group, received through a random drawing, the name of a nation in Europe. They were given three days in the library to thoroughly research the country in Europe. The document very clearly asked for distinct facts about the nations. For example, students were required to research leadership, literacy rates, agricultural products, draw a flag and a map, and describe interesting tourist sites, just to mention a few detailWs. (The complete document is attached in the appendix). Students were expected to each assume, at least, two tasks. Therefore, each child would receive an individual grade on "their" portion of the final presentation, thus allowing for group, as well as, individual accountability.
After the three days of intense research, the students actually taught their classmates a lesson. The presentation was based on the summarized notes, which students copied, and then placed on an overhead projector. Their classmates were expected to copy this information to be used on an open notes exam. The student performances were very organized and professional. Students showed their hand-made versions of the map and flag of the nation. Some had even taped the national anthems, and played those as part of their introductions. By all appearances, this lesson was a smashing success. Great learning and teaching had taken place.
The group evaluation was based on three criteria. The first grade was the individual grade which reflected the quality of their performance on the two tasks they had completed. This grade obviously, varied from student to student. The second grade was a presentation grade, that assessed the organization, quality, and professionalism of the lesson. The third grade was a combination of the previous two. Many students received three A's and the activity garnered many positive comments from students. Most were very pleased with their grades, and I felt secure that a great deal of learning had taken place. Students had become experts on their assigned countries, and had created copious notes from their classmates on the other countries.
A month following the first activity, I introduced to students a cooperative group activity on a nation in Africa. Unlike the previous experience, I did not choose the groups, rather I informed students that they may arrange the groups as they wished, but every student in the class was to be included in a group, somewhere. I secretly agonized for the students who would not be picked by their peers. But, much to my surprise, the forming of groups was relatively smooth and pain free. I had invested little confidence in the character of my students.
My instructional guidance took 10-12 minutes, and included no written materials, what so ever. Instead, I orally directed students to research a country in Africa. They were to decide what visual and factual information was valid and important enough to teach to their classmates. There were no responsibility guidelines-- no given facts to discover. Rather, students were the navigators of their own lesson, with the added burden of being responsible for teaching the other students. Just as in the first experience, the research time spanned three days. As previously, the names of the nations were obtained through random drawing.
A "few" students asked me what they should include, but my standard answer was, "Please ask your group what is important for the other students to learn." I did encourage them to be creative, and move beyond copying the previous lesson, but I offered no further guidelines. I awaited with great anticipation the first class presentation.
One of the secret notions I had harbored, along with my fearof allowing students to choose their own groups, was that students would mimic the format and fact formulation of the first lesson. However, once the student presentations began, I was again pleasantly shaken and surprised. Yes, students frequently repeated the same "basic facts," but the format and other information showed great creativity and investigative thinking .
Some students gave their presentation like a news broadcast. They had top national news and facts, a weather broadcast, cultural events, and human interest. It was ingenuous and theatrical. Another group, chose to have a skit about an indigenous tribal group from their nation. Others used such creative devices as, native foods or clothing to enrich their presentation. It seemed that each group attempted to outperform the previous. A significant number of students used some version of a game to assess student learning. Geographical Jeopardy was constructed by a group , however, they allowed the students to use the notes they had just given, to answer the challenging questions. Invariably, the games included candy for the winners, and in many cases the losers, as well. The scope and range of these presentations was very intense, interesting, entertaining, and appealing for both the peer teachers and learners.
Students received two grades for the lesson assessment. One grade was given for all the written materials, or visuals which the group had generated. No individual recognition was assigned. The group received the second letter grade, for the presentation itself. The valued components were organization, creativity, professional-ism, and accuracy.
It is a pleasure to ponder over the passage of these two different learning experiences, both with such positive and promising conclusions. The first experience, although commonly "touted as sound educationally," was much less sound, creatively. The second experience was very open and required students to actually think and research in greater depth, since they did not know what to expect as "the right answer." Students waded through information to choose those facts they deemed most valuable to teach. They learned the awesome responsibility of being held accountable for determining the learning of others. They were not only learning about a nation in Africa, but they were learning to sort and discriminate through mounds of information, and then to compact and present. It is said there is no better way to know something than to be able to teach it to others.
In retrospect, both of these learning experiences were productive and positive. Neither was totally utopian, but each had its particular strengths. A week after Phase II, I spent a portion of the class period interviewing my five different classes of students. They informed them that I was audiotaping their responses, and was genuinely interested in their honest opinions.
I asked students to respond to a series of questions about the two activities. Lessons were described to refresh their memories about the processes. In one of the questions, students were asked which lesson they enjoyed the most, and why. The consensus leaned towards the inquiry style activity (Phase II). Students supported their convictions with these types of comments: "It was more of a learning experience because we could basically cover everything, instead of chosen facts." "I liked to choose our own groups, and pick our friends, and also there was room for more creativity." " I learned more in Phase II because I could learn what I wanted to learn about, and not just in uniform ways." Student voices were very clear in their overwhelming endorsement of independence in learning.
There were a few dissenting opinions. Three students voiced that they preferred the structured activity. They felt that it was easier, and they knew exactly what I wanted them to accomplish. They felt that they could visualize the task, understand the teachers expectations, and see closure for the lesson. A few stated that it could be a disadvantage to pick their own groups. They felt that sometimes students would choose friends and then the socialization would deter them from their ability to concentrate, and accomplish the project. But, these voices were certainly in the minority.
Also, I asked students if they felt that participating in the structured activity first, had been an asset to success in Phase II. Most stated that they truly preferred the more open assignment, however, the structured activity, had served as a pseudo training session. They felt that the first lesson prepared them to be more inventive and creative during Phase II. The overall conclusion, when asked for a show of hands, was that the Phase II inquiry lesson was more fun, provided a better learning opportunity, and allowed for greater creativity. Certainly, I should listen to the young voices and contemplate ways to change.
| Go back to the main page of the Comparative Study of Structured and Inquiry Learning |