They say you can't teach the same thing to two groups of kids in the same with and expect the same results. They are correct.
Last semester, I spent my observation time in second and third hour, so I saw this group of students as well as another. This semester, I am with World Studies the whole time, but I did sit in on a session of Mr. Tree's third hour World History class to further explore the different cultures in a classroom. It's surprising not only how different World Studies is from third hour, but also how different the first trimester's session of third hour World History is from the current trimester's group. Even though probably half of the class is the same, the dynamic is totally different. Your audience, then, is extremely variable as a teacher, even between hours of a required class for all 10th graders.
To give some background, the third hour group from last trimester was, in Mr. Tree's opinion, his most well behaved class. There were a number of special ed students in the class, as well as a para pro to assist them. Students were generally respectful and on task.
Many of the students, including the special ed students and the para pro, remain in third hour this tri, while others have changed, making the class more talkative than before, but the manner in which the class is talkative is very different from World Studies. Observing third hour on the day that there was the large group work activity that I discussed in the previous post, there were some definite differences. Though the classroom had groups of talkative people, the discussion seemed to be largely on task. The discussion and environment seemed to be much more respectful than in World Studies, where open animosity is somewhat common, and passive aggressiveness is the norm. A few students did offer pointed comments to others, but the level of segregation in only one's typical friend groups was not as high, with disrespectful comments limited to one student, who was quite smart and had a disregard for his classmate's feelings. Additionally, segregation could best be viewed on a scale of popularity, where one could observe the students who played "the cool sports" (i.e. boys' basketball, girls' soccer) gathered together within work groups (and out of them in their free time and seating in class), and other students gathered in groups accordingly within their social strata.
This is somewhat different from World Studies. On the same day to which I was just referring, the students were even more segregated within these large groups. Oftentimes, the segregation was on the basis of race. There are a number of Black males in World Studies, who almost always group together socially in class, while in third hour, there is only one Black student, so this situation does not arise. Mr. Tree has said that were this an American history class, he might bright race more to the forefront. One day, a white student made a racist comment (which the group of Black students next to him thought was hilarious), Mr. Tree deflected and ignored the comment with no discussion about it. I asked him after class if he would ever try to use that as a teachable moment, and he said that in this case, he wished he had pulled the comment maker aside after class and discussed it with him, but that he had forgotten to. Mr. Tree added that were this the American history class he used to teach, he likely would have made a full class discussion about it, as race plays heavily into American history.
The comparative lack of social grouping in third hour point to the fact that first, all classes will simply be different, and teacher's must be responsive to the social environments in each of them to make sure that the class has a positive learning environment, and second, that classes which are obviously different, in this class with one spending two hours together, and with a different racial composition in a school where racial mixing (i.e. the lack of it) is a problem, both personal conflicts and friendships can grow quite strong and both hinder and help the learning environment, depending on how they are treated.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
The Problem with Group Work
The class's clique-ey-ness in seating presents challenges when faced with group work as well. This is not to say group work falls on its face, but sometimes there are unexpected obstacles.
This was most obvious when I was teaching a lesson one day. Granted, I'm not the actual teacher and my word is generally afforded less heed than Mr. Tree's, but I had thought my plans were rock solid. To keep students from flowing between groups, I had note cards with numbers on them that I passed out. Students were to enter groups of 3-4 based on the number on their card. For most students, this is not how it happened. This became clear when I heard students discussing switching groups and the like. Though I felt this was somewhat irritating, as I had purposely assigned groups outside of the students' cliques, I did not think it was worth a power struggle, nor that I had the authority to back up any rules that were outside of the norm in the classroom. Then students began merging groups, and it was possible that this sort of fluidity was a norm in the classroom, but probably more likely that I was an interloper who did not afford much respect, especially if I was going to make students read difficult text. In this case, the class's social environment was clear to me in a different way as well. A couple of students either switched groups or gaped at the group they were put in because of personal differences. Despite what some students have told me, not all in this class "are friends," and many members have a strong distaste for other members (or sometimes, nearly all members) of the class.
Another activity, this time with Mr. Tree at the helm, showed a more limited version of the issues arising with group work with in the class. There were three groups, so each group had about eight students. The students did largely remain within their groups, but with such large groups, students were able to segregate themselves within each group, and those who did not wish to participate really had no impetus to do so. So they didn't. Additionally, within a space as large as 1/3 of the classroom seating, were able to segregate themselves spatially as well.
More recently (today, in fact), there was more group work and yet another interpretation of the ground rules for groups. In this activity, the class evenly had three readings divided amongst themselves more or less evenly, and then were split into groups unrelated to this reading, so as to be able to jigsaw the reading and have members of the group who had reach each. Students counted off in 3s for this, and then Mr. Tree would take one group while Brandon took one and I a third. Mr. Tree's group was about 10, as was mine, but Brandon's was only 5. Additionally, nearly every member of one clique was in my group. This was likely not a coincidence.
The problems with group work pose a couple of conclusions about the class culture. First, students act in their self-interest. Given no constraints regarding where they should be, students will choose to be with their friends. Second, the way students work in group work, i.e. some will complete the task quickly, while others won't even begin to complete, points to the necessity for clearer group work expectations and norms.
This was most obvious when I was teaching a lesson one day. Granted, I'm not the actual teacher and my word is generally afforded less heed than Mr. Tree's, but I had thought my plans were rock solid. To keep students from flowing between groups, I had note cards with numbers on them that I passed out. Students were to enter groups of 3-4 based on the number on their card. For most students, this is not how it happened. This became clear when I heard students discussing switching groups and the like. Though I felt this was somewhat irritating, as I had purposely assigned groups outside of the students' cliques, I did not think it was worth a power struggle, nor that I had the authority to back up any rules that were outside of the norm in the classroom. Then students began merging groups, and it was possible that this sort of fluidity was a norm in the classroom, but probably more likely that I was an interloper who did not afford much respect, especially if I was going to make students read difficult text. In this case, the class's social environment was clear to me in a different way as well. A couple of students either switched groups or gaped at the group they were put in because of personal differences. Despite what some students have told me, not all in this class "are friends," and many members have a strong distaste for other members (or sometimes, nearly all members) of the class.
Another activity, this time with Mr. Tree at the helm, showed a more limited version of the issues arising with group work with in the class. There were three groups, so each group had about eight students. The students did largely remain within their groups, but with such large groups, students were able to segregate themselves within each group, and those who did not wish to participate really had no impetus to do so. So they didn't. Additionally, within a space as large as 1/3 of the classroom seating, were able to segregate themselves spatially as well.
More recently (today, in fact), there was more group work and yet another interpretation of the ground rules for groups. In this activity, the class evenly had three readings divided amongst themselves more or less evenly, and then were split into groups unrelated to this reading, so as to be able to jigsaw the reading and have members of the group who had reach each. Students counted off in 3s for this, and then Mr. Tree would take one group while Brandon took one and I a third. Mr. Tree's group was about 10, as was mine, but Brandon's was only 5. Additionally, nearly every member of one clique was in my group. This was likely not a coincidence.
The problems with group work pose a couple of conclusions about the class culture. First, students act in their self-interest. Given no constraints regarding where they should be, students will choose to be with their friends. Second, the way students work in group work, i.e. some will complete the task quickly, while others won't even begin to complete, points to the necessity for clearer group work expectations and norms.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Musings on Seating Charts
To mark the inaugural post of this blog investigating the classroom environment in Mr. Tree's 10th grade World Studies classroom, I will discuss the use of and problems surrounding seating charts in the room. We have investigated the effects of social groups on the learning environment in this classroom, and how individual personalities create and react to this environment.
To give further background on the class and school situation, this class occurs first and second hour at a school outside of Lansing. The class combines the required World History and English 10 classes that sophomores have to take. The same students are with Mr. Tree for the first two hours of the day, generally spending the first hour on history and the second on English. The two are often linked thematically or by time and place. Though in a rural to suburban area, the high school is a school of choice for students in Lansing. This creates an environment in which students who differ socioeconomically and often racially are mixed together at the high school level.
Along with the personal differences that mark any classroom environment, this racial divide asserts itself as a major dividing force in Mr. Tree's class. Mr. Tree is an extremely laid back teacher. He allows students to do much of what they please while in class, so long as they are not being highly disruptive. This is an avowed philosophy. "I don't allow it to become a power struggle," said Mr. Tree. "I'll hear other teachers saying certain kids are giving them a terrible time and I think 'really? I've never had a problem with that student.'"
Now back to the topic of seating charts. In the beginning of the year, Mr. Tree gave a seating chart to his World Studies class. They did not always follow it, and in keeping with his philosophy, he did not force them to. This had worked for him before and worked in other hours this year. In a third hour class I recently observed, students generally did sit where they chose, but the classroom environment, though somewhat talkative, was positive and respectful. In World Studies, however, it can often turn to competing voices and disengaged students. Throughout the year, this problem has worsened.
About halfway through the second trimester, Mr. Tree sought to address this. He gave the class a new seating chart, displayed on the projector as they walked in. Most students followed it, but even on the first day, a number of students had traded places with one another. Mr. Tree brought this up and made some students move. Shortly after, they had traded again.
Later, Mr. Tree grew annoyed with this continued situation. During a particularly loud day, he became irritated with the class and got the class's attention and remonstrated them for talking. He reminded them that they have not been sitting in the correct seats. He then returned to the day's topic without making them move back to their given seats or telling them that they would have to tomorrow. And they did not.
The amount of time these students spend together, and their ability to cloister themselves, have allowed cliques to develop. Often these cliques form on the lines of race and social group. Gender seems not to be a significant factor, but the most vociferous cliques are mostly male. Today, the way in which the students generally sit consists of four cliques of 3-4 students, while a number of groups of two friends who sit near other exist as well. There is mixing between some groups who sit near each other, but not all.
In this case, the lack of a followed seating chart has brought ill to the class, but not having a seating chart has its merits as well. Not subjecting students to a chart can make them feel more comfortable in class, as well as create a more relaxed atmosphere. Additionally, power struggles can be avoided. In this class, they often are. But at what cost?
To give further background on the class and school situation, this class occurs first and second hour at a school outside of Lansing. The class combines the required World History and English 10 classes that sophomores have to take. The same students are with Mr. Tree for the first two hours of the day, generally spending the first hour on history and the second on English. The two are often linked thematically or by time and place. Though in a rural to suburban area, the high school is a school of choice for students in Lansing. This creates an environment in which students who differ socioeconomically and often racially are mixed together at the high school level.
Along with the personal differences that mark any classroom environment, this racial divide asserts itself as a major dividing force in Mr. Tree's class. Mr. Tree is an extremely laid back teacher. He allows students to do much of what they please while in class, so long as they are not being highly disruptive. This is an avowed philosophy. "I don't allow it to become a power struggle," said Mr. Tree. "I'll hear other teachers saying certain kids are giving them a terrible time and I think 'really? I've never had a problem with that student.'"
Now back to the topic of seating charts. In the beginning of the year, Mr. Tree gave a seating chart to his World Studies class. They did not always follow it, and in keeping with his philosophy, he did not force them to. This had worked for him before and worked in other hours this year. In a third hour class I recently observed, students generally did sit where they chose, but the classroom environment, though somewhat talkative, was positive and respectful. In World Studies, however, it can often turn to competing voices and disengaged students. Throughout the year, this problem has worsened.
About halfway through the second trimester, Mr. Tree sought to address this. He gave the class a new seating chart, displayed on the projector as they walked in. Most students followed it, but even on the first day, a number of students had traded places with one another. Mr. Tree brought this up and made some students move. Shortly after, they had traded again.
Later, Mr. Tree grew annoyed with this continued situation. During a particularly loud day, he became irritated with the class and got the class's attention and remonstrated them for talking. He reminded them that they have not been sitting in the correct seats. He then returned to the day's topic without making them move back to their given seats or telling them that they would have to tomorrow. And they did not.
The amount of time these students spend together, and their ability to cloister themselves, have allowed cliques to develop. Often these cliques form on the lines of race and social group. Gender seems not to be a significant factor, but the most vociferous cliques are mostly male. Today, the way in which the students generally sit consists of four cliques of 3-4 students, while a number of groups of two friends who sit near other exist as well. There is mixing between some groups who sit near each other, but not all.
In this case, the lack of a followed seating chart has brought ill to the class, but not having a seating chart has its merits as well. Not subjecting students to a chart can make them feel more comfortable in class, as well as create a more relaxed atmosphere. Additionally, power struggles can be avoided. In this class, they often are. But at what cost?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)