Why group work?

Hi, everyone!
I've been enjoying the thoughtful and interesting posts on this week's articles, and I've been wondering about a couple of questions. I'd love to hear your opinions.

When teachers talk to me about their use of group work, they usually tell me two things.

1. They think group work is helpful because it lets the 'strong' kids explain things to the 'weak' kids.
2. They think group work is helpful because the teacher can go around and help the 'weak' kids individually, while the 'strong' students help each other.

What do you think about these uses of group work? Helpful, unhelpful?

Group Work vs. Cooperative Learning

I mentioned in my other post that I loved the way that the Boaler article talked about interactions between students and this article also discusses the relationships that students have with each other when working in group settings. This is a very important aspect of group work that I often forget about because we assume that students already have relationships with each other. Although this might be true, students don’t always have the most positive relationships and we need to explicitly teach how to be respectful and how to properly contribute to a group.

We have talked a lot at my school about cooperative learning this year, which emphasizes the importance of students working in groups and each student having a specific role. It prevents students from sitting in the group and not participating. Vygotsky is referenced as promoting the opportunity for students to talk about what they are learning, which means that group discussions are important, but they are only valuable if all members are able to speak and be heard.

Chizhik: Equity and status in group collaboration...

I have always believed in the necessity of discourse and have prescribed to Vygotsky's theory of the connection of thought to language. I have used discourse at every opportunity possible in my pedagogy (mathematics and all other subjects). This article by Chizhik has me now rethinking several areas of my teaching practice. Firstly, the structure and use of tasks within group work. Although, as Chizhik states, single answer tasks have its place, I will still need to ensure I am using more variable answer tasks. Secondly, although I already give roles to students within group work, I was not doing so with the urgency that I now feel regarding the impact of inequitable group collaboration on individual learning. As pointed out in Chizhik's research, I will now also inform groups of the multiple skills required to be successful, that all group members should understand the final answer and encourage them to learn from each other. Collaboration is a problem with students in my school and realizing the impact on individual learning I am hopeful this added focus will allow for a more equitable pedagogy. Lastly, although Chizhik points out that, the "race-specific findings... should not be used to stereotype individual students" and "...the differences...arise from the hegemony with American culture." p.197 I have to say, this research has me rethinking the arguments for Afrocentric schools. Although I am adamantly against segregated schooling, I now have a slight understanding of the argument some may have for the necessity of this grouping for improved learning. I am not completely convinced though, because as Chizhik concludes, if we (as educators) pay attention to the impact of equity and status within group collaboration and the tasks given (single vs. variable) it is possible to better influence the learning of all students.

Key points, questions, and reflections from the Boaler article

In reading the Boaler article, there were several points that resonated with me in her discussion of complex instruction and the work at Railside:

1.  "Put simply, when there are many ways to be successful, many more students are successful" (page 42)

The use of open-ended problems is at the heart of this statement.  I think we all know that we should use more open-ended problems in our classrooms but what are the barriers preventing us from doing so?

2.  "The roles contributed to the complex interconnected system that operated in each classroom, a system in which everyone had something important to do and all students learn to rely on each other" (page 42-43)

This felt like a vision statement to me.  I've played around with roles but have not had this type of success.  I found that some roles, such as resource manager, were not 'meaty' enough.  This role in particular is finished fairly quickly and the child is left watching as the others play out their role.  I would have liked Boaler to address some of the explicit teaching and modelling that the teachers had to do to get students to be an effective 'facilitator' or 'team captain' etc.  These skills do not come naturally to students.

3.  "If student feedback is to address status issues, it must be public, intellectual, specific, and relevant to the group task" (page 43)

Assigning competence is a new term to me but the practice is not.  In reflecting back, I can think of specific students in my elementary classes who benefitted from this.  I wish I did it more often and was more intentional.  But I wonder, how would secondary students react to this?  Would they welcome it or resent the spotlight?

This statement also connects to her later statement about effort over ability. If we give students feedback based on their work, it gives them the message that their effort will bring about success.  Dylan Wiliam calls this descriptive feedback. 

4.  "...it was critical to the success of the students that teachers kept the demand of lessons intellectually high, by providing complex problems, and by following up with high-level questions" (page 44)

The statement contributes to our discussion about the deficit model of thinking about low-achieving students.  It is so easy to dismiss the use of complex problems with a 'my students can't handle those kinds of problems' comment but Boaler clearly articulates that the use these problems contributed to student success.  

5.  "...students learned something extremely important that would serve them and others well in their future interactions in society, which is not captured in conceptions of equity that deal only with test scores or treatment in schools" (page 45)

This (relational equity) is not easily achievable so this makes Railside's success even more amazing!  Teaching is complex and success does not come with quick fixes.  

I really appreciated Boaler's summary that, "at the heart of this system is the work of the teachers and the many different equitable practices in which they engage".  

With that in mind, I wonder about the types of supports that were provided for these teachers.  I'm sure there were obstacles and challenges on the way, so how did the school get the teachers to persevere with this way of teaching?  

Comments on the Adler Article

There were a few quotes in the Adler issue that I found interesting and would like to comment on:
In reference to Helen’s reflection she indicated that she had “gone on too long.” I find that whenever I discuss the vocabulary associated with a concept the pacing is really important. If I stay on a subject too long then I lose the attention of a large portion of the class. For example, when discussing slope with relation to any given linear relation and graph, it’s important for me to recognize when it’s time to move on and come back to the concept at another opportunity. I realize that slope is an important idea but there is always a point when the students tune out.

“some mathematical ideas are difficult for pupils to verbalize precisely and with meaning”
I find that some students hate verbally communicating what they are working on. I was like that. Sometimes the concepts are hard to put into words, and a student will make the argument that in showing the work mathematically they are still ‘communicating’ what they are doing, just not verbally. I still believe that communicating using words is an important activity, but only when appropriate. In addition, I sometimes feel that because much of the math is often out of any context, communicating what is happening is made that much more difficult.

Bilingual mathematics learners

Reading through the article by Moschkovich, i feel that there has been a connection made to the term "deficiency" , "of vocablary" and "multiple meanings". This association has a very negative conotation to it as in classifying students entirely incapable due to such gaps in their language. However, i feel we cannot ignore these gaps as they influence theire capability in communicating in a foreign language.Even though it is sad that assessment is based on students' capability of interpreting mathematical concepts in the foreign language, it is only fair to expect that students' be able to convey their understanding to their peers. This would ensure their success as citizens in the foreign country.
Therefore, i cannot completely dismiss the fact that emphasis should be given on vocabulary building and understanding of multiple meanings.
I do however, agree with the article in that too much emphasis on english vocabulary can deter students from advancing further as they would get de-motivated from constant stress. Their success should be celebrated as well, if they are capable of explaining a concept through diagrams,gestures and stories in simple language it is crucial to make account of this and motivate students further to make such associations.

Example of a word wall

Here's an example of a word wall that has a picture or example attached to it.  It's from a Grade 7 classroom.

I wonder if a tool like this would be helpful for students and make room for the mathematics.