These readings approach CRM from the perspective of cooperative, negotiated and responsive team work between teachers and students perhaps in contrast to some of the skills we have been observing in class! Do you support the ccopertive, negotiated, responsive approach?
Crispene Nathan | (172.16.17.88) | Friday, 1 June 2001 11:20:20 AM
Yes I do support the cooperative, negotiated, responsive approach for better CRM.
This method does give the student resposiblity for their own actions and outcomes,
it empowers them and teaches them to communicate and negotiate for what they want.
I liked the practical and concrete advice in Readings 13 and 14. But I'm sure
that it would take a lot of practice and self-training on my part to behave this
way with my students and to teach them to behave simililary. Instead of negotiating
and compromising, being a "boss" seems a much easier path to take, especially if
the power is already arbitarily given to you. The person evoking some of the Rudolf
Steiner principals seemed to be expecting WAY too much from little kids, in my view.
She seemed to wanting advanced mature development that most adults don't even possess.
Caroline Eaton | (172.16.17.96) | Friday, 1 June 2001 3:59:10 PM
I really liked Reading 13. It covered a lot of the ideas and theories that we have explored in Study One. I strongly advocate group work if it is well structured.
. In my experience as an ESL teacher I found group work rewarding and stimulating, both in terms of intellectual development and student motivation. One of the things that I am
becoming more aware of as I progress along the very long road of this course is that you have to be very clear in your instruction and involve the students in classroom decisions.
I took the former for granted and had not even given serious thought to the latter. I think that you have to establish rules from day one and be consistent in their
application. I can see the merits of being a "lead" teacher and I would not want it any other way. Gone are the days when you could "rule" in the classroom by "tyranny". I think that the "art" of co-operative teaching and learning involves adopting
a variety of teaching strategies and the implemention of a wide range of learning methododologies. Further, I believe that in time, these strategies and methodlogies will be demanded of us by both the market force and our "customers," the students.
Personally, I hate the idea that students are our customers...does that then make us retailers??? I thought teachers had a higher professional status, perhaps I was wrong.
Jenny Layzell | (203.54.133.51) | Friday, 1 June 2001 5:19:16 PM
The more I read about class-room management, the more I am coming to the belief that it is up to me, as the teacher, to develop my own style. It is really helpful to have these readings as support and for advice. But in the end it is up to me to establish a style that I am confident to try. I really like the idea of a democratic classroom as expressed in article 13. "Empowering" the students in co-operating in the classroom gives them opportunity to contribute in developing the classroom into a more friendly, supportive and encouraging place to learn . Isn't that what we as teachers are striving for ? Not just with our students in class but with the whole school. The ethos of St Pauls Grammar is of the kind that I would enjoy being a part.
Lesley Thurston | (203.54.81.211) | Saturday, 2 June 2001 5:38:51 PM
As with most of my other discussion responses, I believe the co-opertive, negotiated, responsive approach will work, but it will depend on the class I am teaching. As I've said before, every class of students will be different and therefore the teaching methods and management approaches used will vary throughout my teaching career. I agree with Jenny's response above that reading these articles is helpful, but in the end it will be up to me to develop teaching and management styles that are comfortable for me and work for the students I will be teaching. I do believe that school is a place that should be fun and exciting for students, and the classroom should be a positive and comfortable environment for them to learn in, therefore they will always have a right to be involved in some of the decision making in the classroom. I'm fairly sure that I will not be the type of teacher who dictates to students and therefore I will always involve my students in making certain decisions about their learning.
Lesley Thurston | (203.54.81.211) | Saturday, 2 June 2001 5:40:01 PM
As with most of my other discussion responses, I believe the co-opertive, negotiated, responsive approach will work, but it will depend on the class I am teaching. As I've said before, every class of students will be different and therefore the teaching methods and management approaches used will vary throughout my teaching career. I agree with Jenny's response above that reading these articles is helpful, but in the end it will be up to me to develop teaching and management styles that are comfortable for me and work for the students I will be teaching. I do believe that school is a place that should be fun and exciting for students, and the classroom should be a positive and comfortable environment for them to learn in, therefore they will always have a right to be involved in some of the decision making in the classroom. I'm fairly sure that I will not be the type of teacher who dictates to students and therefore I will always involve my students in making certain decisions about their learning.
K Gard | (198.142.215.174) | Sunday, 3 June 2001 10:25:44 AM
Like most of the other respondants, I believe that a lot of the decisions I make about CRM approaches will depend on the specific dynamics of the class I am teaching. I think in most cases I will need an integrated approach that draws on various techniques of CRM. I do like the idea that students can take responsibility and negotiate with me, the teacher, but I think that this approach will work much better with older students. As students get older they will have a clearer idea of what they want out of the course, and the responsibility to know what they should get out of it; perhaps this cooperative, responsive approach could be used more as students progress through school.
Clare Taylor | (61.12.0.102) | Sunday, 3 June 2001 2:40:01 PM
These readings depress me. Eveything they report/discuss/suggest seems either inspiring, insightful or plain commonsense but they read like the authors are doing sales pitches to convince reluctant buyers. Are contemporary teachers/schools really as backward and authoritarian as the tone of these writings suggest?
One of the key messages for me so far in CRM is that in this teaching business we'll surely reap what we sow. If we start with the assumption that kids will be little shits and if we have relationships with them based on mistrust/dislike/contempt/fear/authoritarian methids of control then chances are lots of them will be little shits. If we assume we will be in charge in positive ways and explicitly communicate that assumption we will probably be in charge, at leat most of the time. If we assume kids can be reliable, trustworthy, interesting, inherently likeavle, responsive to reason and fairness, chances are we'll have relationships with them that bear out those assumptions. That's been my expereince, mostly, with kids (people). Of course there will always be exceptions that depress/torment/amaze/delight us.
I thinksome people in our class react to these readings along the lines of "yeah, sounds OK but what about out in the real world?". I agree that the real test for those of us who feel comfortable with the co-operative, responsive, negotiated (CORN) appraoch to CRM, and teaching in general, will come when we find ourselves in schools that have no history or culture of CORN methods. We may feel isolated and insecure and revert ot reliance on the traditional power relationships because we hope it well establish our credibility. And what about the students whose life expereince contradicts the values we're trying to endores and teach? The 'difficult' students who come form abusive or otherwise dysfunctional families or, more moderately, from families that operate according to traditional views about the roles of parents and children? Will it take never-ending patience, faith, courage and bloodymindedness to stay optimistic about human nature? What I fear is reaching the point wher I dismiss my optimism as mere naivety.
Jenny, I agree. We will each need to find our own"voive" as teachers, informed by pedagogy but authentic to who we are as individuals.
Georgina Birch | (129.78.72.104) | Monday, 4 June 2001 10:37:04 AM
I do believe that a co-operative classroom is imperative in todays society. In a society which is so multicultural, a co-operative environment is so important and for the teacher this is a significant mile stone from past teaching practises. I believe that co-operative working groups are essential and such a notion is what is now discussed in management theory. Secondly, the idea of helping children deal with their own problems in an interactive, heuristic learning setting is a great new model way of looking at things. But of course as mentioned in this reading it is important not to forget that tyhe complexity of individual human beings and their links with the environment (what ever cultural they are living) has led not only to a range of interpretive ideas and notions but also a wide variety of belief systems and lifestyles. This heuristic learning idea is therefore only one of several methods we can choose to use as a teacher in dealing with the children.
Antonio Knezevic | (129.78.64.5) | Monday, 4 June 2001 10:38:11 AM
Very generalised readings, I mean we cannot implement a straight foward approach to any teaching. The main thing is to breakdown the fear of students and ourselves in order to create some sort of order. To work with the dynamics of the local community and to establish a community education system. Students are often bored in classes this is not because of the content it is because of the teacher in most cases. Being fair is the key to all teaching no matter how old the students are, being fair and organised are the keys. Logical instruction is the best bet, we dont need to follow all the readings just try and learn from your mistakes.
Reema Hozeiran | (172.16.17.91) | Monday, 4 June 2001 10:39:01 AM
Yes, I support the above approach as this style of teaching will increase children's ability to cooperate and to prepare them to realities of adult's life, which requires a lot of cooperation working.
It provides each student with a higher self-esteem, effective social skills and willingness to accept responsibilities for learning & behavior.
I agree with Glasser 4 points about "Achieving a Quality School" as outlined in session 13.
I believe the points outlined in session 14 about " some strategies for Handling Difficult Student" are very good ones and I will have the same joy if I could change a difficult student to a good one.
Emma Skoczylas | (129.78.104.218) | Monday, 4 June 2001 10:47:07 AM
I truly believe that co-operative classrooms are the way to go. It wasn't so long ago that I was a student, and I can honestly say that students often get very little imput as far as the classroom situation goes. By allowing students a little more freedom, independance and imput, I think they will show their appreciation. Allowing them to help come up with classroom rules for instance might be more incentive for them to stand by them. Treating students (older ones especially) as responsible young adults might just "push" them to prove to their classroom teacher that "Yes, we can be what you think we are". Giving them options, alternatives and choices takes the mechanical side of school away. Listening to their sides of things as we might do for a friend tells students that they are important to us. I truly believe that teachers can learn just as much from their students as the student can from them. I've noticed that children pick things up quickly, for instance computer skills. Personally, I am enemy to all computers, so if my students could show me some shortcuts etc regarding computers, I would listen to their advice gratefully. There is no shame in learning something from a student, and I actually think it would do much for their self-esteem and confidence.
The idea in article 12 about getting all of the class into a circle and then discussing whatever needs discussing is a great idea. I think moreso for Primary students though. Often issues are not addressed early enough, and what could have been resolved quite quickly and painlessly can turn into a serious problem. If kids are brought up from an early age (ie Primary) in the belief that they can voice their concerns in a "public" environment, it is more likely to stick. It is also a chance for the students to discuss issues that THEY wish to discuss, rather than "Today we'll be looking at the reign of Gaius Caesar -who would like to make some initial comments?". Most other froms of co-operative learning have some choice to it, but basically the teacher makes the decision of what students will learn in their groups. I do think students would appreciate the chance to discuss freely THEIR concerns.
Another pro regarding co-operative learning is that kids relate better to kids. If I could not understand my maths problem, I turned to my mate Amanda, and we tried to figure it out between us. If all else failed, we approached the teacher, but we preferred not to have to do that. Certainly there is no shame in asking teachers questions, but some students are embarrassed to do so or whatever. Friends/Peers are less likely to judge us or think us "stupid" (in the minds of students). Permission to mingle with other students regarding class-based queries is a fabulous idea. Naturally I as a teacher would need to constantly walk around my classes to ensure that groups were actually discussing the issue for that lesson though....
Allison Throwden | (129.78.104.104) | Monday, 4 June 2001 10:47:29 AM
I am a firm believer in the benefits of cooperative classroom management and learning. I think it exposes students to an environment similar to what they will face after school in the work place. However, students are not adults yet and maybe this approach could not be used all of the time or with all class groups. I would wait and see the class to determine what methods I would initially use and would aim to reach cooperative class management in the future.
Hannan Ibrahim | (129.78.64.5) | Monday, 4 June 2001 10:57:30 AM
What can I respond to about these readings.Lets just say I found these readings to be such common sense.Are theachers so bad at schools these days that we need writers to implement logical CRM in classes and schools.We know that if communication is lost between teachers and students the affect will be disasterous.Students will begin to label you as a teacher who has no empathytic qualities,authoritarian based ideas that demands respect,power etc......I like the idea as teachers negotiating with students and finding a commen ground of respect between teacher/student relationship.The key to basic human communication is respect for one another and if that is lost in us as beings then we have lost as people and teachers.
Kat H. | (203.54.227.116) | Tuesday, 5 June 2001 9:15:57 PM
I totally support this approach, if you can make it work it would make learning more fun for the students and teaching more fun for us. The only problem I can see is with making it work. It all sounds like common sense in a way, but at the same time it is clearly a lot of work (and perhaps a case of 'easier said than done') and I don't know that it would work in all classes or for all students. At the same time I definately think it is worth the effort to try.
Luzviminda Macasaquit | (203.76.17.27) | Tuesday, 5 June 2001 9:50:40 PM
Yes, I do support cooperative, negotiated and responsive teamwork between students and teachers. In cooperative learning students are given opportunity or chance to communicate with each other and share their own ideas. It gives them the responsibility to work for their own actions and outcomes. I really enjoy my study 1 class as it gives me the opportunity to express my ideas and communicate to other people and I really learn from them. This approach is new to me and I don’t know if this will work in my Math curriculum, as this requires sequential and logical solution. May be in some ways.
Matthew Louttit | (203.63.158.2) | Wednesday, 6 June 2001 12:48:38 PM
Readings 11, 12,13 and 14: These readings approach CRM from the perspective of cooperative, negotiated and responsive team work between teachers and students perhaps in contrast to some of the skills we have been observing in class! Do you support the cooperative, negotiated, responsive approach?
Naturally this approach sounds attractive and liberating for students, so I support it, but with a keen sense of the limited way in which truly co-operative, negotiated, responsive learning can be permitted by the curriculum and other rule-making structures in the present State school system. This question also makes me think of the quite insidious ways personal prejudice can inflect classroom management practices if we are not firmly committed to sharing power - ie, real, social power - with students.
1 Co-operative
In CRM the word ‘co-operative’ is far more often applied to students than to our own teaching practices and this is significant. It is the students’ lack of co-operation that is framed as the basic behavioural problem at the typical school. Is it realistic for us ever consciously to ‘co-operate’ with the needs of the students - ie, act to help students meet their needs? If yes, this will entail giving up some of our power. Students complicate the task of giving up power by expressing their demands for it in irritating and often deliberately insulting behaviour. When feeling under threat the last thing we want to do is give up any power. On the contrary - we want to cling to whatever power is already ours. ‘Many of us experienced the autocratic approach’ to schooling as students (Campbell, Session 13) because the operators of schools were too upset by our very claims for power to consider ceding power as a solution to our demands.
2 Negotiated
We need to be sure that the choices we offer to students are meaningful and place at risk our institutional power as the teacher. Rusin (Session 15) draws on the work of Kohn, whose book Beyond Discipline I read a year or so ago before I had thought to train as a teacher. I was impressed with Kohn’s concept of the ‘psuedo-choice’ (quoted approvingly in Rusin), which is defined as the sort of choice Henry Ford offered buyers of the Model T: ‘You can do the exam or not do the exam, but we’ll judge you on the results of the exam’. It can be argued that since all people under age 18 are required by law to attend school, none of the ‘choices’ they are offered in these institutions grants them any genuine autonomy. We should not call what few decision-making opportunities we offer students a ‘negotiated’ curriculum since all the negotiation takes place within the high-walled structure of the school and within whatever disciplinary rules are laid down by the staff and principal.
3 Responsive
Here I think teachers have a larger stake in the outcome for students. In the harsh light of reason students can be seen to have little choice but to co-operate with and accept our ‘negotiated’ disciplinary demands on them because of the institution power of the school. But teachers still have the basic freedom of setting the style of personal and pedagogical interactions they offer to students. We can be responsive to students by employing strategies like inviting the power-hungry to prepare the lab equipment (Glasser); by pointedly not rewarding the tactical tears of students who have learned that choosing helplessness gets results (Driekurs); by strategically ignoring a verbal outburst of frustration at disciplinary action (B Rogers), by building ‘angry corners’ and ‘sad corners’ for primary-age students (Jacobsen, Session 12); and even by teaching students basic meditation techniques in the form of breath control (Jacobsen).
We should still of course be alert to the assumptions that shape our responses to students. A recent evening current-affairs show presented a school that was claimed to have done something radical with its non-performing, problematic boys. Although the principal of the school was interviwed, the piece was short on detail. But given the footage that was shown, the school’s new strategy seemed to amount to three things: (i) lessons in some subjects were now sex-segregated though the school was co-ed; (ii) boys in primary and middle school were now put through a morning physical exercise routine with the express purpose of burning off their ‘excess energy’; (iii) girls were now given instruction in relaxation techniques.
I thought this was all imaginative, sensible policy as I watched it, but realised afterwards that there was no reason why anxious, hyperactive boys would not benefit from the relaxation techniques or sedentary girls from the morning exercises. This radical school had responded to boys’ and girls’ ‘demonstrably different needs’ in a way that actually left the gender stereotypes underlying the social problems untouched. I conclude from this news story that our most innovative responses to student behaviour problems will not always stand up to careful reflection about the personal needs and prejudices that inform them.
Steph Lawson | (210.50.30.4) | Wednesday, 6 June 2001 3:01:49 PM
I agree with Allison's comment that cooperative learning could not be used all the time in a classroom. As we have discussed in our Study 1 class, not all students benefit from group work. Some students prefer to, or work better in individual learning environments. Having said that, I believe that cooperative learning is a powerful strategy to not only encouraging the students to be responsible for their own learning, but providing them with the necessary social skills which are so important for interacting in life. While I find it a little daunting that by choosing cooperative learning then I will be surrendering some of my power, surely I will gain great satisfaction knowing I have empowered my students, and will hopefully "inspire the desire" (George Glanville)in them to learn.
I also like the idea of giving the students more say in their own education. Why shouldn't they be allowed to negotiate class rules with their teacher? After all, they're the ones that have to abide by them. As one teacher in the reading pointed out, often the students were harsher on themselves than she would've been, or came up with rules similar to what she had in mind anyway. By allowing them to do this, students are going to feel trusted and valued, which I think will reflect positively on their classroom behaviour. As was mentioned in reading 14, "students in effective schools see rules and teachers as fair and necessary, even if they don't like some individual rules and penalties." By democratically constructing the rules and penalties, the old excuse that 'it isn't fair', just doesn't hold.
Yuki Tagana | (202.7.209.121) | Wednesday, 6 June 2001 10:59:34 PM
Although I had always prefered to work on my own rather than working in groups, yes, now I do support cooperative and negociated learning as I experienced some very good cooperative learning style in our study 1 group. It is much more enjoyable and productive than when the teacher does all the talking. I agree with Steph in saying that students will feel trusted and valued if they take part in negotiating THEIR rules, curriculum...etc, and this will facilitate much better relationship between them and the teacher. I think kids are like this...the more you restrict them, the more they want to disobey you. Does anybody agree?
Yuki Tagana | (202.7.209.121) | Wednesday, 6 June 2001 11:00:45 PM
Although I had always prefered to work on my own rather than working in groups, yes, now I do support cooperative and negociated learning as I experienced some very good cooperative learning style in our study 1 group. It is much more enjoyable and productive than when the teacher does all the talking. I agree with Steph in saying that students will feel trusted and valued if they take part in negotiating THEIR rules, curriculum...etc, and this will facilitate much better relationship between them and the teacher. I think kids are like this...the more you restrict them, the more they want to disobey you. Does anybody agree?
young h | (198.142.202.108) | Thursday, 7 June 2001 9:12:02 PM
i strongly agree, but i wish to stress this is theory!! it will work as long as i/we believe!! i learned knowledge mostly observing, copying what teacher demonstrated then trying with my own hands. children will however, i am sure that they will surprise me in all possible angles i can not possibly imagine. this does not necessarily a bad thing.
cooperative, negotiated and responsive team work between teachers and students perhaps sounds magic moment of muli-solution package. this will involve lot of trial an error. i believe many will prove this has worked and will work contiually. and i am convinced that it is proven by many researchers who are much much more smarter than me.
as we discussed in CRM, we are dealing with each individual case of unique young genius in our future class. honestly i still don't know what my strategy is. maybe can not plan now until i meet with those challengers(students). but only means of resolving conflict is a way of negotiation and cooperative work which hopefully/magically come to settle.
as a scientist and young/inexperienced teacher, i will have to experiment what works best for me and for my students. it will take some sacrifice and sounds unethical, but with responsive team work it may direct us the right way. we all risk don't we.
Roslyn S | (129.78.64.5) | Thursday, 7 June 2001 10:55:56 PM
I think that a cooperative, responsive, negotiated approach to managing a classroom has a lot of value. I think that students will appreciate this approach if it is implemented successfully. Robert Slavin suggests two essential features for a successful cooperative learning approach and I think these are both really important - group goals and individual accountability [Educational Leadership 47(4):52-54]. I think that these are vital for motivation and direction and the success of the cooperative appraoch. I also agree with what others have mentioned above about expectations of students. You can't expect too much of a class, and the age and maturity of the students needs to be considered in a cooperative, negotiated approach.
Jenny Latham | (10.0.73.173) | Friday, 8 June 2001 7:43:31 PM
Cooperation and negotiation in CRM will lead to a responsive approach to the needs of the group as well as the individuals within the group. In cooperative groups we can see a positive interdependence (Reading 11) where a mixed ability of students is favoured. The teacher's role is moved from a dominant autocrat to the role of a facilitator/mentor. I liked the idea of specific roles being allocated (or decided by the group) like reporter, recorder, materials organiser etc. Ann Jacobson's article on interactive learning tended to be too high-brow and a little remote although factors like listening, working constructively and acknowledging the rights and responsibilities of others was evident. John Campbell's focus on 'democratic leadership' stressed the teacher as a team leader or 'lead manager.' "By choosing cooperative learning...the teacher surrenders some power, but in doing so, empowers students." (Campbell,113) In (reading 14) I particularly liked the concept of a motivated teacher having the ability to "INSPIRE THE DESIRE" in students of exploration and investigation. When a student gains ownership of their own learning, behavioural problems are minimised and feelings of pride and responsibility are maximised. I hope to work towards these outcomes by providing a positive, well-organised and supportive environment in the classroom.
Michael Hammonds | (129.78.104.104) | Wednesday, 13 June 2001 10:18:06 AM
The cooperative approach undoubtedly is the way to go about teaching if it is workable. The question is, how often will that be the case? Giving the students the opportunity to play a larger than normal role in decision making should inspire a positive response but unfortunately I tend to believe that the students who would respond best are the students who are the least likely to be a problem in the first place, namely, older and more mature students and 'good' students. Despite the potential drawbacks this approach is certainly worth exploring in practice.
Helena Ng | (203.109.250.96) | Wednesday, 13 June 2001 2:45:08 PM
Humans are very relational beings and considering the way our society is structured we NEED each other to live relatively happy and fulfilled lives. I believe all students need to learn how co-operate with one another and learn from each other. Peer learning is a very powerful agent. Children listen to each other and are influenced by each other. If we as teachers can harness that vehicle we are making our roles much easier. I therefore do agree with the notion of co-operative learning communities. This concept may demand higher CRM skills but if controlled properly we will be rewarded by seeing students interact with one another and ourselves in a mature, responsible manner, appropriate for their age groups. Also, students need to know that they have a role in their own learning process and we must therefore involve them by negotiating these issues with them.
Esther Choi | (210.8.224.3) | Saturday, 16 June 2001 4:02:16 PM
Yes, I do support the cooperative,negotiated and responsive approach... to a certain extent. I think it's an excellent approach for subjects like social studies, languages and even for science. In fact I think this would be the best way to approach these subject areas. But I am feeling a bit negative for the subject of mathematics. In order to make sure that students learn and understand concepts in maths, individual work must be encouraged otherwise not only will they hate maths (which is the case for sooo many students anyway) but also they'll never really grasp those important concepts. That is not to say that no cooperative learning should be done in maths classes but what I am trying to say is that this approach will have to be modified to suit maths classes.
Wendy Kemmis | (202.7.209.121) | Tuesday, 19 June 2001 9:01:03 PM
I like what Helena wrote: "all students need to learn how co-operate with one another and learn from each other. Peer learning is a very powerful agent. Children listen to each other and are influenced by each other". This is so true. How often did we beleive the gossip at school spread by our own friends rather than the solid information fed to us by our teachers!
I can't see how I personally will be able to apply cooperative learning all the time. Not only will different fields of study in my curriculum area affect this decision but also the fact that teaching approaches for individual learners (which seem to be regularly forgotten these days) will need to be addressed. In music, teaching strategies as far as composition goes can be divided into at least 2 sections: individual and group.
I support the cooperative approach as long as it applies. Common sense tells us this won't always be the case though.
INGRID SILCOCK | (210.8.232.5) | Thursday, 21 June 2001 8:19:33 PM
I believe as with many others in the class the benefits of co-operative learning are unanimous. So many times in life I experience from all age groups, when people are given a chance to act in a responsible manner as a result of either empowering them or giving them an oportunity to voice there own opinions.
The benefits of co-operative learning I believe is so important for learning life skills especially in the issues related to interacting with others in a variety of situations. As we all know, there are people in certain groups which you as an individual do not relate to. As adults we are able to be accepting of these differences an handle them in civilised ways. Students on the other hand need to develop these skills and what better than to in a way force them into situations where they are forced into dealing with other members of the class to work together to achieve a common goal. The benefits of high level thinking, problem solving self expression discussion, peer teaching, project based learning and problems with real life significance from co-operative learning is evidently a wonderful experience for students to participate in.
I believe the flexibilty between group roles is an important characteristic of this form of learning because because students are all individuals some will be inclined to take a dominant role in the group were others will be still forced to take less contributing roles. It is important that teachers I belive make sure everyone in the group swaps roles and responsibilties and also the students keep to these roles.
I beliveve also students should work with students they wouldn't usually work with, but also with their friends as well. I say this second point because when put in a group with friends I am of the opinion that (from personal experiences) you react in different relationships with your friends because of the motivation of achiveing something. It also allows students who are friends with each other, to interact and allow others students in the class to be involved with the relationship of the 'friend students'. Especially with younger students, they are forced to share their 'best friend' with other members of the class.
the idea of the length of time spent in groups needs also be carefully gaged by the teacher. Too often in my own experiences the group activity was drwn out too long and students became bored, resulting in a lack of direction. On the other hand, too short a time group work, could also encourage students to not work to their fullest potential knowing they won't need to work these students in the next lesson.
I was interested to read all the approaches about giving students responsibilty in the classroom setting, and the ways of engaging them in the learning experience. Dealing wth conflict was interesting also where I believe these skills need to be taught at an early age.
The teachers' role in all the approaches mentioned in the articles, is very significant and a strong sense of belief in the systems is important. If it doesn't work the first time give it another go with maybe a different approach. I am quite excited about experimenting with co-operative learning when I start teaching because I already strongly believe in the concepts and belive they can be benefitial for all students and threating individuals as individuals!
Catherine Huang and Eve Chen | (203.88.255.122) | Friday, 29 June 2001 12:36:11 PM
yes, we certainly support these approaches for better CRM. and we believe in the first sentence of ch11, " Because cooperation is the mose basic element of society. A society cannot exist without cooperation" and a classroom is like a reflection of our society.And the more the students cooperate with each other or in groups, the more they learn how to cooperate effectively in groups. But there are also individual characteristics and defferences that the teacher should take notes of because though the classroom is an ideal place for the students to develop cooperative skills, it is important taht the students knwo what they are doing! Not just negotiating dor the sake of it! they need to have good or supportive reasons or rationals behind their arguments ,too.
Jackie Saisithidej | (203.108.0.58) | Monday, 2 July 2001 11:37:01 AM
I fully support the co-opertive, negotiated, responsive approach. And as noted by several of the responses, the approach does depend very much on the relationship you havewith your students. It is an approach that needs time to develop. Some students (and teachers) may not be familiar with this approach and will be quite uncomfortable. The demarcation lines are not as clear and teachers and students will need to negotiate where the new lines will be laid and how solid these lines will be.
I am particularly attracted to this approach because I feel it empowers students and teachers. They negotiate how far they want to go; where they want to go; who take want to take on their journey of learning AND and take responsibility for the consequences (hopefully positive) of their decisions. That’s learning!!!
Bill Rusin | (203.213.3.27) | Tuesday, 23 October 2001 7:59:24 PM
It has been most interesting to read the responses that people have to the concept of cooperative, negotiated learning. Unfortunately the way in which the curriculum has been narrowed due to the unhealthy refocussing of high school towards a homogenised curriculum by the reemphasis of the School Certificate does not enable teachers to work in the classroom in such a way. It still can (and is) done by teachers, the very nature of an external exams causes teachers to react in very conservative and teacher focussed ways. This is a real pity. I hope this coming generation of teachers will have the ability to shape the nature of curriculum that allows schools and teachers greater autonomy that will in turn shape pedagogical practice.
Best wishes,
Alex | (198.142.153.160) | Monday, 29 October 2001 4:22:17 PM
I know what Kids are like with maths some like it and know lots about it but someone however hate it they make funny noises when the teachers say " please get out your maths pad" so i think that they should make a site were teachers and students can learn and help each other with there maths and problems about school and subjects
well i hope someone knows what i mean Best wishes,
dick | (66.76.66.209) | Wednesday, 30 January 2002 5:11:55 AM
This site sucks
dick | (66.76.66.209) | Wednesday, 30 January 2002 5:12:10 AM
This site sucks
dick | (66.76.66.209) | Wednesday, 30 January 2002 5:12:25 AM
This site sucks
dick | (66.76.66.209) | Wednesday, 30 January 2002 5:12:47 AM
This site sucks
dick | (66.76.66.209) | Wednesday, 30 January 2002 5:13:08 AM
This site sucks
dick | (66.76.66.209) | Wednesday, 30 January 2002 5:13:27 AM
This site sucks
dick | (66.76.66.209) | Wednesday, 30 January 2002 5:13:48 AM
This site sucks
dick | (66.76.66.209) | Wednesday, 30 January 2002 5:14:10 AM
This site sucks
dick | (66.76.66.209) | Wednesday, 30 January 2002 5:14:31 AM
This site sucks