The
Action Research Laboratory
Page Seven
Back to Table of Content
The
Realities of Being a Student in a Constructivist Classroom
Joseph
C. Senese
Highland
Park High School
A
paper presented at the
American
Educational Research Association Annual Meeting
New
Orleans, April 24-28, 2000
| Objectives | |
|
The Experience |
|
| Methods and Data Sources | |
| Findings |
Satisfaction Ratings |
| Recommendations | |
| References | |
| Expectations |
|
Although
constructivism as an approach to learning has been around for awhile, the ways
in which teachers move to employ constructivist principles in their classes have
been slow and evolutionary (Brooks and Brooks 1993). Constructivist teaching
requires a significant and deep change in teaching philosophy (Caine and Caine
1997a). A single-semester 12th grade elective English class in British
literature became the testing ground to see what effect the consistent and total
application of constructivist principles would have on student learning. The
class was designed to employ the principles of constructivism in every aspect:
course objectives, design, and processes. The expectation was that students
would take charge of their own learning. As
much as possible, the class was given over to the students. The only directive
they were given at the start of the first session was that they were going to
create a curriculum for a one-semester high school elective class in British
literature. The excitement was palpable as students created their own list of
behavioral expectations for the class (See appendix, “Expectations”). In
order to transfer the emphasis from getting a good grade to learning, I informed
students that there would be no tests or quizzes. Although they would receive a
quarter and a semester grade, I would not put a number or letter grade on any of
their work. Rather, I would give reactions to or feedback on their written work
(if they requested it), and our principal communication would take place in
quarterly conferences and in informal conversations. In
a letter sent home (See References, “Letter to
Parents,” <http://www.
d113.lake.k12.il.us/hphs/curriculum/senese/index.html>) as well as at the
school Open House, I shared information with parents about the structure of the
class and the theories supporting it. I deduced that the parents were supportive
of the reasons for fashioning a class based on constructivist principles because
they expressed the wish that more teachers would take this direction. The
students’ enthusiasm bubbled over in the first few days. The novelty of the
experience clearly excited and intrigued them. Incongruously, I predicted to
them that they would eventually get angry at me for not “teaching” them. As
appealing as the prospect of de-emphasizing grades, choosing their own
literature to read, creating their own assignments, and organizing themselves
into productive teams might be, those things all required added responsibility.
In fact, students did become disenchanted with the class at about the midpoint
of first quarter. The
semester began with students spending several class periods talking about their
experiences in high school. In week one they read an essay recently published in
Harper’s Magazine by Francine Prose about the sorry state of high school
English curricula (Prose 1999). We discussed the essay for several days, and
each student ended up writing Ms. Prose a response, the best three of which we
submitted to Harper’s. In
our discussions, students revealed how well they had learned to “play the
game” of school. They had learned to answer essay questions on tests according
to a teacher’s expressed political agenda. They had learned how to write to
please one English teacher only to find that the next year’s teacher did not
subscribe to that method or style of composition. They had, in short, learned to
jump through hoops based on teacher likes and dislikes. They had learned what
they were told was important to learn. This class, then, was a jolt for them,
and I accepted that they would have a period of adjustment after a career of
taking the lead from their teachers. For
me, the most pressing difficulty throughout the semester was determining how
loose a structure these students could comfortably work in without losing them.
In retrospect I allowed them to flounder too long at the start of the semester.
I had surmised that they would know how to organize themselves into teams
according to interests and that the class would naturally flow from that. It did
not work quite that smoothly. After
our initial discussions about what an English curriculum might look like, we
focused our attention on British literature. Adapting a technique from
problem-based learning (Know, Need to Know, Need to Do), students in small
groups created charts of what they knew about British literature, what they
needed to know, and what they would do to get that knowledge. It is at this
juncture that I fault myself for allowing them to stagnate. Students amassed
information about British literature and authors from the Internet (their
favorite research tool by far), but without a framework in which to put this
information, they did not know how to make sense of it. Always
hopeful that they would chose a simple means to organize themselves (and even
offering suggestions about how to do that), I stood aside each day and witnessed
their wrangling. In retrospect students would probably say that they floundered
for an entire quarter, but the indecision lasted about two weeks. During that
time, students came to class each day and argued about how to organize
themselves, how to choose a piece of literature, how to get started, and how to
act as a team. Early on I had given a suggestion of how to do that easily, but,
like everyone else’s ideas, it got lost the very next day. And so we entered
our private vicious circle of not being able to move forward. At the end of the
third week, I stepped in and forced them to choose a piece of literature that we
would all read. I would act the “teacher” and construct daily lessons for
them, but this would only be the starting point, a way to give us the push we
needed. It would also indicate to me their skills in English. They gladly
agreed. They
chose to read “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad, one of the densest
pieces of 20th century British literature. They had chosen it because it was the
shortest book on a list independently researched and compiled by one of the
students. During our first venture into British literature, I conducted the
class each day, structuring discussions, providing assistance, but also leaving
them to reach their own interpretations of the literature. Students set their
own deadlines (as a class) and shared their various reactions to Joseph
Conrad’s masterpiece. In this fashion we read a piece of literature together,
and students experienced testing out personal interpretations without being
hampered (or helped) by a teacher. They still had not learned to organize
themselves into groups. To
assist in that regard (and because they had exhibited a fear of tackling
poetry), I had them form their own groups, each choosing one of five Romantic
poets. The group researched their poet, read as much of his poetry as possible,
and selected representative pieces of his work. After discussing the poetry,
each group member wrote a position paper about that poet, recommending whether
or not to include him in the curriculum, sharing those conclusions with the
whole class. In order to demonstrate that they could learn from people other
than their teacher, I required that students send their papers to at least one
professor of English at any university. To improve their chances of getting a
response, many of them chose to send their essay to several professors. I have
to admit that I was surprised that about one-third of them received responses,
many longer than the original paper. There was a buzz at receiving a response.
Students then reported their findings to the rest of the class. The curriculum
started to take shape. Students recommended including four of the Romantic poets
in their curriculum. After
those two experiences with literature (which took about five weeks), students
were in a better position to elect a piece of literature that they wanted to
read. Students easily formed groups based on the literature they had chosen: a
Shakespearean play, Brave New World, Wuthering
Heights, Jude the Obscure, Hard
Times, Pride and Prejudice, or various pieces of
non-fiction. Students set up their own reading schedules (which were constantly
extended) and decided on the kinds of support they needed to understand the
literature. More often than not, they chose to structure themselves and their
work in the ways that had been modeled for them in school. Typically students
would read at night and discuss last night’s “assignment” in class the
next day. Sometimes they chose to read in class. I had to prod them to try some
other methods for learning about the literature, such as listening to
audiotapes, watching videotapes, checking literary criticism, or reading aloud. In
the end, we had to spend a class period discovering what to do when you don’t
know what to do (See References,“What do you do when you don’t know what to
do?” <http://www. d113.lake.k12.il.us/hphs/curriculum/senese/index.html>).
We posted their suggestions on the wall of the classroom for reference. The
lesson was obvious: students needed assistance in learning how to problem-solve.
They sometimes claimed that they could not understand a detail in the literature
or that they were stymied in their work, but they had difficulty coming up with
ways of addressing those elementary problems. Consequently, effective ways of
taking informed actions became a focus of the class. The
class proceeded this way for the rest of the semester. Students formed their own
reading groups based on a piece of literature that they wanted to read. During
class each day, students decided what they needed to do and how to do it. Most
often, especially as the semester wore on, they chose to work in other parts of
the building, sometimes meeting, writing, researching, or even reading. I was
also aware that many students used the freedom of unstructured class time to
play computer games, complete homework for other classes, and socialize. In
the final month of the course, students divided into groups to assemble the
curriculum that they were proposing for this class. They appointed themselves to
one or two committees: curriculum, editing, Internet, and presentation. They
decided that they needed to describe the curriculum that they had created, to
edit the work that they had produced to support that curriculum, and to publish
their curriculum and supporting evidence on a dedicated Internet website. Many
classes began with a general discussion about the upcoming presentation or
requirements for publication on their Internet website before students
dispersed. Students most often led these discussions by spontaneously popping up
to direct the interactions. Different students took leadership roles throughout
the semester, one student taking a more prominent role one time, then retreating
to the background and letting someone else lead. The list of literature chosen this way appears on the website that describes the course that the students had written (See “Curriculum,” <http://www.d113.lake.k12.il.us/hphs/ curriculum/senese/index. html>). As the chart of literature choices expanded, some students took it upon themselves to “fill in the holes.” They chose to read poetry or plays in areas that had few or no pieces of literature listed. Their design for the class next year seems to be a direct result of what students felt was lacking in their experience this year (See Curriculum, “How to use the curriculum,” http://www.d113.lake.k12.il.us/hphs/ curriculum/senese/ index.html). The
culminating product of the semester’s work is the curriculum published on the
Internet website (See “Curriculum,” <http://d113.lake.k12.il.us/hphs/curriculum/senese/
index.html>). The website describes the curriculum and the instructional
choices that students in a class would have. Students also created summaries of
the literature they included in their curriculum and sometimes created study
guide questions, provided resources, and suggested writing assignments. On
the day set aside for a final examination, students met to rehearse their final
exhibition. They then presented their curriculum to a panel of invited guests
including university professors, teachers of English from several high schools,
and administrators with backgrounds in teaching English. Students took turns
presenting various aspects of the curriculum including the history behind the
project, the choices they made, and their reactions to their experience. The
audio version of their entire presentation can be found at the website (See
“Presentation,” <http://d113.lake.k12.il.us/hphs/presentation/senese/
index.html>). They asked the guests for oral and written feedback on their
work. For
this elective English class, I put into practice beliefs about learners based on
constructivist principles: ownership of content, choice of methods for learning
and assessment, useful activities based on personal goals and beliefs, shared
inquiry, social processes, reflection on learning practices as well as content,
and production of varied and rich outcomes. Progress towards the objectives was
measured through student writing, surveys, focused conferences, parent
responses, grade distributions, and attendance records. Outside assessors were
used throughout the process to gauge student progress. Satisfaction
Ratings Student
satisfaction in learning in an atmosphere that allowed them to construct their
own meaning through personal learning was generally high. Students expressed a
strong appreciation for taking charge of their learning and sometimes exhibited
more ownership of their learning. In
end-of-semester surveys, 16 of 23 students (70%) mentioned that they most
enjoyed or appreciated the freedom that the class gave them to direct their own
learning. Clearly they took to the basis of constructivism: constructing their
own meaning in their own ways. Students, in this same survey, listed what they
had gained from the class. They were able to name the literature they had read,
secondary sources they used to illuminate the literature, and the writing they
had done. They also made specific references to the use of technology for
learning and communicating, a goal of all English curricula at the high school.
This student in particular was able to articulate how she gradually began to
appreciate the larger goals of the program:
Her
ability to intuit an understanding of the constructivist principles as applied
in creating this curriculum speaks loudly to the significance of this learning
theory. Not all students, however, had this experience. A minority of students
(2 students or 9% of the class) rated their experience very low (below 5 on a
scale of 1 to 10), complaining of a lack of direction and frustration with their
classmates and the teacher. Based
on the results of two surveys, one in which students rated their previous
English classes in high school and another in which they rated this English
class on a five point scale, thirteen students (59%) evaluated British
Literature with a higher score than their general English class experience.
Seven students (32%) rated this experience lower than previous English classes.
Of those seven students, only two rated this experience more than two grades
lower than their previous English classes. The difference between the scores
from the other five students was of a small margin (one or two grades lower).
Two students (9%) rated the two experiences as the same. A
statistical analysis compared the students’ rating of their previous English
classes in high school at the start of the year to their final rating of this
English class. The Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test showed no
significant difference between the rating assigned to English courses in general
and this course. The differences between the ratings cannot be called
statistically significant. I do presume, then, that students did not find being
in a teacher-researcher’s classroom to be a significantly better or worse
experience from any other English courses they have taken. I
had surmised that if interest were high, student attendance (notoriously bad for
high school seniors) would improve. Attendance seemed to be poor when the record
for the class is considered (on average, 10.33 absences per student for the
semester or 12.7% of the class). Almost 70% of the absences, however, were
attributed to fewer than half the students in the class. One possible
interpretation of this high (but not unusual) absence rate is that students did
not need to be in class to complete their work. The looseness of the class
structure allowed them to complete their self-directed learning outside of 3rd
period each day. There really was not a compelling need for them to be in
school. This very thing may have helped to relieve some of the stress that they
described as their perpetual school condition. In
a discussion early on, students admitted that grades do not reflect how much
they have learned in a class. Although no part of their performance in this
class garnered a letter or number grade, students did receive grades at the
quarter and semester. After writing a structured reflective document each
quarter, they met with me in a conference at which we discussed the rationale
for their self-assessment. I listened to their thinking and noted their
evidence. Because I wanted to de-emphasize grades as much as possible, in most
instances I agreed with their assessment. I raised the grade of one student who
had seriously underestimated his contribution to the design and maintenance of
the website. In the end, 67% of the students assigned themselves an A, 25% a B,
4% a C, and one student failed (for not turning in the reflection and class
evaluation even after a two-month extension). Their justification for their
grade ranged from comparisons to others, past grading history in English,
personal growth, and a sense of entitlement. When students composed the objectives of the course and presented them to the class for approval, they spent time arguing if the chief purpose of the curriculum was “to motivate students to take responsibility for their own education” or “to demonstrate an improved understanding of British Literature.” They determined that the former was the loftier and worthier goal. The means to achieving that goal would be the study of British literature. This deduction signified their interest in making the process of learning, not the content, the central aim of the class for themselves as well as for future students. Outside
assessors agreed. They noted that students seemed to have a good grasp of the
curriculum and they presented it articulately, but that the process of becoming
an independent learner was the greatest lesson of the class. Students had
created a short “response form” for their guests to complete during the
final presentation of the curriculum. Guests also communicated to me after the
presentation their impressions of the students’ work. In
general, the expert-guests commented that “…students who took this course
have become self-directed learners.” The organization and method of
presentation (using presentation software, entertaining audience questions,
requiring varied student participation) were appreciated. When asked if the
curriculum met its goal, several guests commented that only the students could
answer that question. One guest even stated that she had recommended the website
to another school contemplating a British literature course and that she herself
was using the students’ work on the website in her own sophomore English
class. Students expressed a strong feeling of validation from making the
presentation, especially those who took major roles in preparing and delivering
the presentation. The
final product showed depth of understanding of the content of the course as well
as a high interest in continuous learning. One student (who chose to continue
his study of British literature in a second semester independent study with the
instructor) put it this way:
As
a matter of fact, three students requested a second semester of the class, and I
accepted two plans. One student is currently studying 19th and 20th century
British novels; the other is continuing his survey of British literature.
Because
the purpose of this class was to design a living curriculum, the greatest
indicator of success will be how the course plays out next year using this
student-designed curriculum. All the students in this class have supplied me
with their email addresses so that students next year can be in contact with
them. The research will continue! All
students in the class agreed that the first weeks of the semester when they were
floundering were painful. Although they professed their love for freedom, they
needed assistance in dealing with it. They were unprepared (through no fault of
their own) to make decisions, to take hold of their own learning, or to organize
themselves into productive teams. Student leaders did arise each day, but
students found it difficult to follow anyone but the teacher. And, in this case,
the teacher was not playing the “game” of school in a way they understood.
When this class is taught next year, I will definitely need to begin with more
structure as I ease them into taking ownership of their learning. They will also
need assistance in how to organize themselves and make decisions as a group. As
much as they do “groupwork” in school, students are usually in competition
with each other. Requiring them to cooperate as a team is a learned skill that
must be taught. Improved
accountability is one area of the curriculum that remains to be addressed.
Students felt a great sense of freedom, but conferences with them revealed that
they did not trust their classmates’ ability to use their time wisely.
Students were quick to note that other students were not working on English
during their class time, that other students were unproductive, and that
individually they were doing more than their share of the work. Although
students raised concerns about accountability and grading, the class chose not
to devise a system to address those issues. Instead, students assigned that task
to the instructor who would be teaching this class next year. It was easier to
abnegate to the teacher their opportunity to address this thorny issue. One
problem loomed greater than any other. It was even mentioned by students who
rated the class high: the need to balance the choices and freedom with structure
and accountability. Interviews with students revealed that each individual had a
personal concept of what that meant. Some thrived with the freedom, others
faltered. It appears that the greatest asset of this class was also its greatest
liability. When I pointed out to students that they could impose their own
structures and standards for their performances, they balked. As one student
said, “If it doesn’t come from you (the teacher), it doesn’t seem real.”
The familiar system of teacher-directed instruction has taken its toll. A
first-quarter conversation with a student who does not see herself as a
particularly strong English student was very telling. This girl had chosen to
read and discuss The Taming of the Shrew with
another student. She reported that in her self-directed study she had referred
to Cliffs Notes, watched a video of the play, listened to it on tape, read it
aloud with her father and another classmate, and consulted some criticism. I
could tell that she had an appreciation of Shakespeare’s language and themes.
She had written a position paper about whether this play should be included in
the curriculum. Even with all these learning experiences, none of them
teacher-led, she concluded that she had not learned much. When I probed, she
admitted she felt that none of this was worth as much as teacher-made
assignments because she had directed her own learning. To
break this cycle of conditioning that students have so expertly learned,
teachers need to consider the unwritten curriculum. By that I mean that teachers
need to question what skills and processes (as well as content) they are
requiring students to learn. Just as we have helped students to learn things
such as neatness, punctuality, and responsibility, teachers have unwittingly
taught students to become passive, dependent, and competitive. Constructivism by
its very nature places the meaning-making of learning where it belongs, with the
students. Teachers need to provide more opportunities for students to accept
that responsibility. By the final year of high school many students, like this
one, are ready to accept that responsibility:
The
curriculum that this year’s British Literature class created will be used with
next year’s class. The structure that this year’s class yearned for has been
written into next year’s curriculum and can be detected on the website. The
content of the curriculum will continue to develop as more students experience
the class. In fact, the two students who are extending the class through
independent study are still expanding the website. As
I continue to conduct my action research next year, this class will offer more
evidence of how a constructivist approach will enhance the learning experience
for students and help them to achieve the ultimate goal of becoming
self-directed learners. The students in this British Literature class said it
best when they created the objectives for the class: “The
underlying purpose of this class is to motivate students to take responsibility
for their own education. This will be achieved by: · demonstrating an improved understanding of British Literature, ·
developing an ability to express thoughts clearly and concisely, and · fulfilling personal goals through prudent self direction and collaborative group
work” (Senese 2000). Given
an opportunity to seize control of their own learning, many students in the British
Literature class at Highland Park High School rose to the occasion. Future
research challenges me to discover how I can help all of them to do that. References
Brooks,
J. G. and M. G. Brooks. (1993). The case for
constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. Caine,
R.N., and G. Caine. (1997a). Education on the edge of
possibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Caine,
R.N., and G. Caine (1997b). Unleashing the power of
perceptual change: The Potential of Brain-based Teaching. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD. Prose,
F. (1999 September). “I know why the caged bird cannot read: How American high
school students learn to loathe literature.” Harper’s
Magazine. 76-84. Senese, J. (2000). British literature, Highland Park High School. <http://d113.lake.k12.il. us/hphs/curriculum/senese/index.html> .
British Literature EXPECTATIONS
Respect/common
courtesy
We
decided that the most important thing is to obey the golden rule. Treat others
as you want to be treated. Basically listen to all ideas and give everything a
chance. Don’t laugh at what people say; try to make everyone feel welcome and
comfortable. Honesty
This
means that you do not copy off anyone else’s work regardless of how bad you
might do. Asking another student for assistance/critique of his/her writing is
fine, but the work which you hand in must be yours and only yours. This also
includes plagiarism. In addition, students should be honest with each other.
Students are expected to express what they really think instead of just saying
what they think is “correct” or popular. Contributions to
the group
· All
students are expected to contribute at least a few comments of ideas to the
group. ·
Students
are also to limit themselves from dominating the conversations, thus preventing
others from participating. ·
Just as
importantly as contributing it is necessary to listen attentively to suppress
repetition of ideas and promoting more dynamic discussion. ·
It is
common courtesy to withhold from small chatter while someone else is talking,
thus distracting the speaker. Listen to peers
While
listening to others one must do the following: do not raise hands; no not talk;
do not get up and go to the bathroom. Smaller group
discussions
To
have discussions and debates in small groups so that it is easier and less
intimidating for everyone to talk.
Feedback
Feedback
is not only a novelty in this class but actually a necessity. As a class with a
relatively undefined curriculum, it is absolutely integral that feedback is
exchanged between student and teacher. We should be able to feel confident that
feedback is valid and valuable and should not be shirked because of shyness,
etc. In order to facilitate this feedback exchange, we must all feel that our
feedback will be received in an impersonal, unbiased manner. Growth as an
English student
We
all want to grow as English students. In order to do that we need comments,
constructive criticism, extra help if needed, and peer encouragement and
support. We want to grow in order to feel prepared for college. Time to meet
outside of class (appointment with secretary) Mr.
Senese is often in meetings due to his job as an Assistant Principal but is
always willing to meet with students. To make an appointment to see him, see Ms.
Santiago in A-209 (Assistant Principals’ Office). Flexibility
Whenever
students ask for extra time, there should be flexibility with due dates. Also
overall assignments should be flexible and allow for individual interpretation.
Students should be flexible with whom they work and avoid working with their
close friends.
Prompt returns on
work
This
is the obligation of the teacher. Provided that the students complete their work
in a timely fashion, they should receive it back from the teacher as promptly as
possible. Grades
Quarter
and semester grades will be based on each student’s growth in demonstrating an
understanding of British Literature, in developing the ability to write clearly and
concisely, and in applying skills that contribute to a quality final class
product. A grade each quarter will be negotiated in a conference that will
review the student’s work and progress. Therefore, each student will be
responsible for collecting evidence that shows development in these areas and
will be able to articulate that personal and group development. Peer review
If
a paper is assigned, we should take in-class time to meet in small groups to
analyze and discuss student work. In this session we would provide feedback and
comments. Clear communication
When
we have an assignment, there should be no questions about what it is, because
we’ll go over it thoroughly in class. If you don’t follow something, ask
about it. Breakdown of due
dates
Instead
of having one due date for the final project, projects will have multiple due
dates,(outline, biblio, etc.).
Work equally
divided
For
group things everyone has to do work. No one should do someone’s work for
them, but help is allowed.
Planning ahead
You
should plan ahead on assignments and due dates so that you are prepared for due
dates.
Follow through
Follow
through is an imperative expectation. Out of respect for your work as well as
the community’s, assigned work must be finished at the proper time. If an
individual is struggling with her or his task, it is preferable that we help
them through that task. We should take responsibility for each other as well as
ourselves. However, if the assignment is not completed, then disciplinary
actions of some degree should be taken. At this point, they are not yet
determined. Clear focus
Know
what you are supposed to be doing and working on that thing to the best of your
ability. Raising hands
If
having a nice discussion, raising hands is not completely needed. But if the
discussion becomes out of hand, then raising hands will be needed. It all
depends on how the situation or conversation is and how it is going. Bathroom at
appropriate times
Students
do not have to raise their hands and ask to go to the bathroom but they must use
discretion and try to leave at appropriate times.
Tardy
A
person is allowed to enter the classroom any time before the bell. If a person
enters at a time after that point that the class/teacher feels is disruptive,
they will receive a tardy. Disruptive can be determined/decided with the class
and Mr. Senese’s discretion. Mr. Senese promises that good communication with
him and with your classmates is the best policy. |
For more information about the Action Research Laboratory, contact
Joseph
Senese
Assistant Principal
Highland Park High School
433 Vine Avenue
Highland Park IL 60035
or at <jsenese@d113.lake.k12.il.us>
