In the conclusion of my Reflection on Personal Philosophy, I was expressing my belief in the need for a ‘journey’ of continuous reflection, which is essential for teachers who strive to become “thoughtful and wiser” (Moore, 1998, pp.6), to stay in love with the profession, and to grow. Going “beyond pedagogical questions to philosophical ones”(Parker, 1994, pp. 43), teachers become researchers. This implies asking “harder questions”, writing about every aspect of teaching, and expecting “our research to move us to a better understanding of our students and to better practice” (pp. xiv).

Arends, Winitzky and Tannenbaum (1998) suggest considering six “classroom indicators” when analyzing  “the dominant form of instruction taking place in the classroom” (pp. 72). The indicators were proposed by Larry Cuban in 1993 in “his study of constancy and change in American classroom from 1880 to 1990” (Arends et al, 1998, pp.72). The indicators refer to the arrangement of furniture in the classroom, the degree of children’s movement, the tools for instruction and evaluation, the amount of student and teacher talk, the grouping of children, and the presence of learning centres. In my opinion, all the above indicators are tightly connected to the amount of group work that goes on in a class. Seeing it from both the perspective of the student and the perspective of the teacher, I consider group work a concept worth reflecting upon. At this point, I see cooperative learning as vital. Nonetheless, I have come to realize that teachers need to be willing to put a lot of effort in order to find the best strategies that make group work effective.

Thinking back to my school years, as paradoxically as it may seem, the best and most qualitative communication among us, the students, took place during math class. Math was the only class that I associate with talk, with movement, and with discussions and debates. Even if none of the terms “cooperative learning” or “group work” were ever mentioned, math was the most engaging and stress-free class. In all other subjects, work was done either as a whole group or independently. Consequently, I felt extremely uneasy when I realized how many of our MT assignments were supposed to be done in groups. I wasn’t used to working with another person, to sharing responsibilities, and to having to agree with someone else’s ideas and views. Nonetheless, throughout the year, I realized that if all group members get to know each others’ strengths, weaknesses, and working pace, and if they respect each other, group work can be very efficient. Moreover, group work can lead to better results and it can be fun, too! Not only does group work elicit satisfaction with one’s own achievement, but also satisfaction with the team’s achievement. Thus, group work may be considered a ‘tool’ in developing altruism instead of self-centeredness.

Moreover, during my practicum experiences, I realized that teachers work in teams and the more they respect each other, the better their program is implemented.

From the teacher’s perspective, I consider that the ultimate purpose of group work is to motivate children to work in order to reach their maximum potential. By sharing thoughts, the children get to know and respect each other. They develop communication and social skills. They increase their self-confidence by becoming “experts” in certain areas, according to the responsibility each of them has as part of the group.

As I had described in other entries, I used group work in both practice teaching placements. I always felt successful doing group work with the grade five class in my first practice teaching placement. I felt less successful when trying to implement group work in my second placement in a grade eight class.  Moreover, during my second practicum, I had the opportunity to observe one grade eight class working in groups with several teachers. The impression I received left me asking a number of questions. I am not questioning the usefulness of group work. My questions have to do with the strategies used by teachers to make group work effective and educational, rather than recreational. Bennett and Rolheiser (2001) state, “a lot of educators think that because their students do group work, they are applying the strategy of Cooperative Learning” (pp. 5). Bennett and Rolheiser compare group work done without inquiry into effective strategies to a musical instrument that is expected to “magically jump into your arms and start playing” (pp. 5).

One of the three teachers I observed at W JHS used very clear instructions when describing each class’ expectations. The children were indeed doing some work, and they were not wandering about the classroom. However, part of the project was supposed to be done at home. The project involved selling items and making a real profit and it was considered by everyone a success. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it is easy to be ‘successful’ when extrinsic motivators easily engage everyone.

The second teacher I observed divided most of her classes in two parts. After she taught the lesson, she would invite the students to work in groups on different experiments and data analysis. In each group, however, only one or two students were doing the required work. The other ones were busy focussing on other topics, such as “Buffy, the Vampire Slayer.” What puzzled me most was that the teacher didn’t try a seating change. According to Stumpf Jongsma (1991), “teachers should not be reluctant to reassign students to groups and even alter the groups themselves. … Groups should be changed, added to, and deleted from, as indicated by the dynamics of the group. Most important, teachers should reassign students to different groups if change is appropriate” (pp. 611).

The third type of group work I observed was supposed to be a culminating task of a novel study unit. In groups, the students were expected to respond to the novel in an original way. One of the ‘teams’ worked on the response in class. Some teams pretended to do work, while others didn’t even try to hide their chatting about completely different topics. They told me they had already finished their work at home. In my opinion, in-class group work should be associated with quality work.

My intention is not to criticize the teachers whose classes I had the opportunity to observe, but to learn from what I noticed. As Hubbard and Power (2003) state, “by becoming researchers, we hope to find strategies to develop more principled classroom practice” (pp. xiv). I regularly use cooperative learning in my Saturday Romanian class, too. I remember clearly how frustrated I felt when I first tried this approach with my students. Since then, I have reached the point where I cannot imagine my class not working in groups, not talking to each other, not moving around the classroom, or preparing themselves for different presentations. However, at times, I feel my students could do more, work harder, be more focussed and waste less time. As Bennett and Rolheiser (2001) state, “effective group work is complex. It takes thoughtful work over time in order to achieve results” (pp. 143).

In my second year research project, I will focus on motivators for learning mathematics. I agree with Van de Walle and Folk (2005) who believe that, “students who are more comfortable in an environment that is not answer-oriented and teacher-directed begin to develop confidence. They talk more, share more ideas, offer suggestions, and challenge or defend solutions of others.” (pp. 25). Sharing ideas in math can only happen if children have the opportunity to work in groups. Hence, group work in math will also be part of my focus.

Group Work is this year’s last entry to my portfolio. Looking back at all the entries, I realized that I frequently touched upon the idea of cooperative learning. Consequently, it must be an important and complex aspect of my teaching philosophy. As Bennett and Rolheiser (2001) define it, group work is, “one of the most amorphous and researched of all the instructional processes” (p. 143). However, I understand that asking “harder questions”, writing about every aspect of our teaching and expecting “our research to move us to a better understanding of our students and to better practice” (Hubbard & Power, 2003, pp. xiv) is part of the responsibility and duties that come along with the teaching profession!

Group work - done in mathematics or science, using portfolios in the classroom, modelling, professional development opportunities, writing along with the students, motivating students, being courageous enough to be a teacher – all these facets of teaching are now part of my portfolio. I chose to reflect on these points because I consider them as complex aspects of teaching, worth asking “harder questions” about.

 

 

 

 

References:

 

 

 

Arends, R., Winitzky, N., & Tannenbaum, M. (1998). Philosophies of Education. Exploring

teaching. Boston: McGraw Hill.

 

Bennett, B. & Rolheiser, C. (2001). Beyond Monet: The artful science of instructional integration.

            Toronto, ON: Bookation Inc.

 

Hubbard, R. & Power, B. (2003). The art of classroom inquiry. A handbook for teacher-researchers.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, xiii – xviii.

 

Moore, K. D. (1998). Classroom teaching skills. Boston: McGraw Hill.

 

Paulson, F.L., Paulson, P.R., & Meyer, C. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio. Educational

Leadership, Feb., 60-63.

 

Stumpf Jongsma, K. (1991). Questions and answers: Grouping children for instruction: some

            guidelines. The Reading Teacher, 44 (8), 610-611.