From rows to groups : meeting the challenges

In this final part of the series on changing the classroom desk configuration from rows to groups (see Part1 and Part 2), I consider some of the challenges resulting from the changeover.

Learning together about working in groups

I’m still in the early days of learning to be an effective mathematics teacher, and arguably learning how to manage group activities introduces another level of complexity. One thing I did realise early on was the need to be explicit with students about the reasons why I rearranged the desks and we regularly discussed how to make the group configuration work better. I also asked students through my anonymous class surveys for their feedback. They told me they appreciated the group configuration, but did highlight areas I need to work on. Their main concerns were: that the group seating encourages them to be less focused; that sometimes it was hard to work alone without being distracted; and that during whole class instruction, the layout sometimes made it hard to see the teacher.  All of which begs the question - what about when we aren't doing group work?

How does the group configuration work with Direct Instruction?

As summarised by Hattie (2009),  Direct Instruction occurs when “the teacher decides learning intentions and success criteria, makes them transparent to students, demonstrates them by modelling, evaluates if they understand what they have been told by checking for understanding, and retelling what they have been told by tying it all together with closure” (p. 206).  Two other key elements are guided practice (in class) and independent practice (outside class). Hattie reports that Direct Instruction has one of the highest effect sizes (d=0.59) of all teaching strategies, so it remains an important tool in our kit - especially when understood as something other than just lecturing at students. A learning program designed exclusively on group activities has the potential to miss out on teacher modelling and guided practice, demonstrated to be particularly important when developing procedural knowledge (Marzano 2007, p.80) as well as opportunities for review*. Hattie is clear however that we do not need to choose between teacher-centred teaching or student-centred learning – we can and should achieve a blend of the two approaches.

So in this mixed-mode teaching environment, the classroom configuration needs to support Direct Instruction. When it's time for guided practice, the group configuration does seem to be at a disadvantage to the row configuration, it seems to require more effective classroom management skills to ensure students can work without distractions.  To help with the classroom management, I have two standalone desks on the side and move students who can’t focus to those desks temporarily. When it comes to teacher modelling – usually most efficiently done as whole-class instruction – the group configuration can make it harder for students who are ‘side on’ to see and hear clearly. I’m still working on optimising the sight lines for some desk and will experiment this year with students turning out their desks as needed.

So is rearranging the furniture worth it?  

Moving from rows to groups is certainly not without challenges, and the mere act of physically moving desks doesn’t magically transform teaching and learning. However it seems provide strong support for the outcomes I seek: learners working together, solving problems, sharing their learning and hopefully enjoying their time in math class. Looking at the bigger picture, I’m aiming to create an environment where students manage their own learning and develop the skills and inclinations to work effectively and creatively with others. These are the critical skills that will help my students in their future lives, more than their ability to factorise non-monic quadratic expressions (as much as I think that’s important!).

References

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning : A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.  Oxon : Routledge.

Marzano, R. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Update and a warning....
There is some research that strongly advises against arranging desks in group cluster. Here is an article from the Guardian that points at the work. Need to do some more thinking ...
Here is post by Pak Liam with a different take Classroom desk arrangements; Rows, Clusters or U Shape?

* This year I’m planning for students to take turns to perform the role of conducting reviews for the class – Reciprocal Teaching (d=0.74 !) More than one way to bake this cake!

Rearranging the desks: from rows to groups

At the beginning of Term 4 in 2011, I took the plunge and did this to my classroom:

When I first reconfigured the desks in my classroom from rows to groups, it was a leap into the unknown. Two factors pushed me to make the change: feedback from students that I was talking too much; and participating in some group activity sessions at the MANSW 2011 conference run by the incredible Charles Lovitt, which so clearly demonstrated to me the power of doing something different from lecturing in the mathematics classroom.

The change has not been without challenges, and I’ve been doing some hard thinking if I should continue using the group configuration during 2012. In the next few posts, I’m going to discuss why I’ve decided to stay with my group configuration, and then consider some of the challenges raised by the change, ask where Direct Instruction fits into the picture and finally think about the bigger picture beyond mathematics (yes - surprisingly there is one!).

Thanks to the many colleagues on Google+, Twitter and the AAMT mailing list who helped me reflect on this and consolidate my thinking.

Reason 1:To make the idea that the "student is their own teacher" central to my classroom

What message do high school mathematics students receive when they walk into a classroom with the desks arranged in groups? My hope is the message they receive is that in this classroom, an important part of learning mathematics will be working together. It’s possible they may also think the teacher is a bit odd, or that this reminds them of primary school, or that this is going to be a great opportunity to have a chat for the next fifty minutes. Hopefully these less helpful messages are dispelled once students receive a clear message I'm serious about using class time for learning and working on mathematics.

The benefits of peer learning are clear and measurable. John Hattie (2009) reports highly ranked effect sizes for Peer Tutoring (d=0.56) and Cooperative versus Individualist learning (d = 0.59). In Hattie’s description of his synthesis of best practice, he writes: "The remarkable feature of the evidence is the biggest effects on student learning occur when teachers become learners of their own teaching, and when students become their own teachers. When students become their own teachers they exhibit the self-regulatory attributes that seem most desirable for learners (self-monitoring, self-evaluation, self-assessment, self-teaching)" (p.22).

In contrast, what message do students receive when they walk into a classroom of rows of desks, all lined up to face the front? The predominant message is mathematics is a solitary activity, you will learn it from your teacher, you will practice and internalise it on your own. Don’t get me wrong - in no way am I saying I want to totally abandon teacher led instruction. As Hattie points out there is an important place of Direct Instruction, however I think the message of students taking control of their own learning is so important I want a desk configuration that reinforces it.

What do you think of this reasoning?

Part 2 considers two other reasons for staying with the group configuration: because it creates a positive environment that reduces "maths anxiety", and because of the effect it has on my teaching.

References
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning : A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.  Oxon: Routledge.

Standard Based Grading : Show me the evidence!

One of my university tutors, Dr Nigel Goodwin, would regularly have us recite a catechism whenever we discussed ideas in education:

Show me the evidence!

And what is our currency for measuring the evidence? [yell it!]... 

Improved student outcomes! 

Forget the talk, the opinions, the fads: show me the evidence of improved student outcome. Careful though -  this does not mean just using standardised test scores based on the 3R's! We mean peer-reviewed evidence that we can have confidence in.

In looking for evidence relating to SBG as currently formulated and being trialled by science and maths teachers, part of the challenge is the newness of this formulation. So as a proxy for evidence about SBG, I'm looking at evidence of effective teaching practice and seeing if there are connections to SBG.  And when it comes to evidence, there is a special place in evidence heaven for John Hattie.

Hattie is famous for his meta-analyses - a technique that allowed him to review student outcome data for 80 million students, as reported in 50,000 peer reviewed studies. Using the concept of effect size, Hattie produced a list to answer the question ‘What has the greatest influence on student learning?'. Even more helpful than just presenting data, in his book Visible Learning (Hattie, 2009) synthesises these results into an explanatory theory.

John Hattie's Visible Learning in a nutshell:

Visible teaching and learning occurs when learning is the explicit goal, when it is appropriately challenging, when the teacher and student both seek to ascertain whether and to what degree the challenging goal is attained, when there is deliberate practice aimed at attaining mastery of the goal, when there is feedback given and sought, when there are active, passionate and engaging people (teacher, student, peers) participating in the act of learning. It is teachers seeing learning through the eyes of students, and students seeing teaching as the key to their ongoing learning. The remarkable feature of the evidence is that the biggest effects on student learning occur when teachers become learners of their own teaching, and when students becomes their own teachers. When students become their own teachers they exhibit the self-regulatory attributes that seem most desirable for learning (self-monitoring, self-evaluation, self-assessment, self-teaching). (Hattie, 2009, p22)

How does this relate to SBG? And how might it suggest we extend our thinking about SBG? Some of the more obvious connections are worth stating:

Explicit goals: SBG is all about explicit goals.

Appropriately challenging goals: SBG allows teachers and students to decide - based on previous results and current  intentions, what an appropriate goal for each standard is. They aren't pie-in-the-sky goals, they don't relate to abstract numerical grades - they are focused "I would like to get Proficient in "Can factorise a quadratic"" - and they allow us to agree that perhaps this student should aim for Expert, not Proficient.

Deliberate practice ... : SBG allows us to make the link between focused effort and mastery. A caution we need to bear in mind with SBG is that by allowing students to sense "I'm done - I've mastered that skill" - we may undermine deliberate practice. Is this any riskier than traditional grading practices? Probably not - but it's something to consider. How can we use our new SBG tool to encourage ongoing, deliberate practice?

... focused on mastery learning :  Yep - that's SBG!

Feedback is given and sought : The major strength of SBG. As we implement SBG, it's important we encourage students to actively engage with the feedback provided by SBG. (Effect size: 0.73 - 1,287 studies).  And even more importantly, that we respond to the feedback. Hattie writes

 "it is only when I discovered that feedback was most powerful when it is from student to teacher that I started to understand it better. When teachers seek ... feedback from students as to what students know, what they understand, where they make errors ... then teaching and learning can be synchronised and powerful. Feedback to teachers makes learning visible" (p.173).

So the most powerful feature of SBG may well relate to Hattie's observation that the biggest effects on student learning occur "when teachers become learners of their own teaching" (p.22)  In other words - if we have the perspective that SBG is a tool that allows us to continuously evaluate to our teaching - we transform SBG from just being another grading system into a powerful tool for monitoring and adapting our teaching.

So rather than "Hmm.. Johnny still hasn't reach proficiency on 'solving right triangles for the hypotenuse - what can he do?" we say "Hmm.. I taught this concept to Johnny for three lessons - what can I change?". And that's where the money comes in!

With apologies to "Jerry Maguire"

Next in this series: looking at the work of Robert Marzano. The evidence considered in this post relates to student outcomes - for an SBG perspective on student motivation and engagement see the earlier post looking at the work of Andrew Martin.   SBG is also considered in relation to a developmental framework called The Circle of Courage.