"Chalk & Talk" versus "Cooperative-Expert Jigsaw"

SCHOOL: Houghton Valley

YEAR LEVEL: 5

TEACHER: Monica Mercury

FOCUS AREA: To investigate ways to improve student capability to participate and contribute; particularly student ability to work cooperatively.

'CHALK AND TALK'

To do this children learnt using a 'Chalk and Talk' approach:

• Teacher talks - children listen.
• A brief visual presentation.
• children read some text.
• Children do a follow-up activity about the text.
• Teacher and children have a brief discussion about what they did.

There is no social interaction amongst the students at all - they work independently.

COOPERATIVE 'EXPERT JIGSAW'

The 'Chalk and Talk' method was then compared to a 'Cooperative - Expert Jigsaw' method:

• Children form 'home' groups.
• They are given sheets of information on a topic.
• Children then form 'expert groups' with other students who have the same information as them.
• They read and discuss this information and make notes or draw diagrams to reinforce the new knowledge.
• Children then return to their 'home' groups and take turns sharing what they have learnt with the others.
• Teacher and children then discuss what they did and what they learnt.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

How much information can the students retain and record from using two different learning processes?

Do children learn more through the ‘Chalk and Talk’ method of attaining key information, or do they learn more via the ‘Cooperative - expert jigsaw’ method?

Can the children explain the process of both methods? Can the students say what the most effective method for them is and why?

SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR KNOWLEDGE:

Practitioner: I can take the information I have learnt and compare that country to New Zealand.
Apprentice: I can confidently recall the new knowledge I have learnt in detail.
Novice: I can listen to the information and record at least five facts about the topic.

SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR COMPETENCY:

(Cooperative 'Expert Jigsaw' only)

Practitioner: I can explain how to use an expert jigsaw to someone else and how to use it in another context.
Apprentice: I can listen to information and share what I have seen and heard with others.
Novice: I can listen to information and then record what I have learnt.

LEARNING STORY:

This ‘experiment’ was conducted during several sessions, over a period of two to three weeks.

I split my class into two groups based on an even gender and academic ability ratio - Roopu A and Roopu B.

PART A - "CHALK AND TALK"

In Week one of this project, I conducted a whole-class diagnostic assessment of the childrens’ knowledge of ‘Rwanda’. The initial and summative assessment were; an individual brainstorm with a venn diagram. The students used a different-coloured pen for the diagnostic assessment compared with the summative assessment.

The next step was to conduct, two separate ‘chalk and talk’ lessons. Roopu A started on Day One, (while Roopu B was out of the room), and Roopu B was on Day Two, (while Roopu A was out of the room).

Following that, there was a one-day space of time for the students to think about what they have learnt and then I revisited each group’s original diagnostic assessment separately (one group went out of the room and vice versa) and they added any new information they had learnt or retained. This assessed ‘Student Knowledge’.

PART B - "COOPERATIVE - EXPERT JIGSAW"

In the second week of this project, I conducted a whole-class diagnostic assessment of the childrens’ knowledge of ‘Romania’. The diagnostic and summative assessment was; an individual brainstorm with a venn diagram on the same page. The students used a different-coloured pen for the diagnostic assessment compared with the summative assessment.

The next step was to conduct, two separate ‘Cooperative - expert jigsaw’ lessons. Roopu A started on Day Three, (while Roopu B was out of the room), and Roopu B on Day Four, (while Roopu A was out of the room).

Following that, there was a one-day space of time for the students to think about what they had learnt and then I revisited each group’s original diagnostic assessment separately (one group went go out of the room and vice versa) and they added any new information they had learnt or retained. This assessed ‘Student Knowledge’ and with this method we also assessed ‘Student Competency’

PART C - ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

In the last week, there was an in-depth analysis and reflection component which evaluated what was done by the students and the teacher.

The class were asked to do a PMI for the ‘Chalk and talk method’ and a PMI the ‘Expert Jigsaw’ method. Conclusions were recorded about which method they felt was the most effective form of learning.

The students were also asked to write a recount of the steps used in the ‘Cooperative - expert jigsaw’ method, which was used to grade them according to the competency success criteria.

The teacher analysed the findings and reflected on what was done, how it was done and what could have been conducted better.

RESULTS:

In terms of knowledge, the following percentage of students demonstrated their knowledge at each of the three levels - Novice, Apprentice and Practitioner

Chalk and Talk: Novice 38%; Apprentice 38%; Practitioner 24%

Cooperative Expert-Jigsaw: Novice 37%; Apprentice 33%; Practitioner 30%

I also counted the amount of knowledge, (the different facts that were known by all the children), that students in each group demonstrated at the outset and at the end of each learning session. The following table shows the comparison:

Chalk and Talk: Beginning: - 57 End: - 140

Cooperative Expert-Jigsaw: Beginning: - 71 End: - 74

At the beginning and then at the end of the topic, I also assessed how many students were at Novice, Apprentice and Practitioner levels for the competency learning success criteria. The following table shows the numbers at each level.

Beginning: Novice: - 20, Apprentice: - 8, Practitioner - 1

End: Novice - 8, Apprentice: - 13, Practitioner: - 8

I also did a PMI with each group to find out what students thought of each teaching method.

Chalk and Talk

PLUS (+)
Really good, I found out heaps more stuff.
Fun! I learnt more about a new country.
I think you (the teacher) explained it really well.
It was very interesting and I learnt new information I didn’t know.
It was cool because we used the big-screen TV! It wouldn’t have been as interesting without the TV!
It was good because you knew nothing about it, but you got to learn.
I have seen Rwanda on a map – it was fun.
It was interesting having it on a TV – otherwise I wouldn’t get it.
I felt sad for the children who were abandoned.
It made me feel really lucky, not being in that situation.
Everyone listened
The presentation was good.
I liked the teacher reading it out.

MINUS (-)
There was not enough time to record information the second time.

INTERESTING
It is an interesting way to learn
It’s easier to remember stuff doing it straight away.
I like how we do the pre-test first, then we learn stuff and after that we did the post-test the next day.
I liked working by myself.
I feel a bit in the middle because it is a good way to learn, but then I was a bit frightened of not remembering.
I felt it was good information and quite fun.
It was exciting to learn about a new country.
It was good way of learning – I was concerned about having to work alone.

Cooperative Expert-Jigsaw

PLUS (+)
We had a continuum which had how much people know.
We had our own paper and information and we only had to remember some information.
This helped you remember information and we wrote it down
The ‘expert’ groups had to discuss things, which was good.
You could share your ideas with others.
We sat in groups to share our ideas.
Groups find out information from each other.
I liked the visual presentation.

MINUS (-)
You did not get as much information
It took longer.
It could be distracting and people could get off track.
Too long and a little boring
The information took too long to read.
We should have had a break in between.
I didn’t like that some people didn’t share properly.
We went from too many things – one to another.

INTERESTING
Some students preferred the traditional method (12 students)

(7 students) enjoyed working in with this method because they picked up more information by writing it down or doing a diagram – this helped them to remember things better.

(8 students) liked it when they were in groups – they felt they helped each other.

CONCLUSIONS:

Roopu A and Roopu B were able to retain and record more information from the ‘Chalk and Talk’ method.

Roopu A and Roopu B were able to record about the same amount of information as their prior knowledge from the ‘Cooperative – expert jigsaw’ method. There was only three more extra facts recorded during the post-test than there had been from the pre-test.

About half of each group preferred to work with the ‘Chalk and Talk’ method probably because they had the skills needed to work alone. The ‘Gifted and Talented’ students were all in this range.

The other half of each group preferred to work with the cooperative method because they enjoyed the social interaction and the ability to share ideas and information. All the children who have remeidal learning needs were in this category.

Using the methods and contexts, I can conclude that the 'Chalk and Talk' way of teaching proved more effective than the 'Cooperative - Expert Jigsaw' way of teaching, where the objective was for students to be able to retain and record the most knowledge and information.

However, this does not mean that the 'Cooperative - Expert Jigsaw' is a totally ineffective way of learning, but that it would be better utilised as a way to reinforce and embed knowledge already known and could be more effective in other contexts.

SIZE DOES MATTER

The students worked extremely well in smaller groups. Smaller class sizes make a difference.

Participating and Contributing at the Rocky Shore Part 2

School: Owhiro Bay

Year Level: Year 5/6

Teacher: Colin Thompson

Focus area: To investigate ways to improve student capability to participate and contribute including student ability to work cooperatively in a group.

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation:

Question for teachers: How can teachers and students co-construct anticipated knowledge for the theme ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’?

Questions for students:

• What do you know already about Owhiro Bay beach?
• What skills do you already have that might help you in this study ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’ beach?
• What attitudes or virtues do you already use or know you will use in this study ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’ beach?
• What do you (the students) think will come out of this study? ie: Outcomes or Learning intentions and success criteria?
• What do you (the students) think you will learn in our work on caring for Owhiro Bay beach? ie: Outcomes or Learning intentions and success criteria?
• What will you know at the end of the study?
• What new knowledge will you gain?
• What skills will you learn or practice by the end?

Question 2. Engagement:

Teacher Question: How engaged are the students when they have decided on the knowledge outcomes for the theme ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’?

Student Question:What do you want to learn in our work on Caring for Owhiro Bay beach?

Question 3. Knowledge:

Teacher Question: What is the growth of knowledge – beginning and end study?

Student Questions:

• What have you learnt in this study ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’?
• What new or different skills have you used or developed in this study ‘Caring for Owhiro Bay’?

Success Criteria for Knowledge
Expert: Students will be able to ask "How good is my knowledge and what more do I need to find out?"
Practitioner: Students will be able to find out why there is not more life in the rock pools and at the beach at Owhiro Bay and use this knowledge to take action.
Apprentice: Students will be able to present what they have learnt back to someone.
Novice: Students will be able to find out about rock pools and the Owhiro Bay and the life in it.

Question 4. Competency:

Teacher Question: What is the growth of student capability to Participate and Contribute in a group?

Success Criteria for Competency
Expert: The student knows and can explain their strengths and weaknesses, and knows what they need to do to improve their group skills.
Practitioner: The student will use group skills and apply these in a range of contexts eg playground, classroom, sports field."How can you do this again?"
Apprentice: Students can engage in group activities and explain what this looks like and sounds like.“What do you know about?” “What will I see/hear?”
Novice: Students can engage (take part) in group activities.

Learning Story:

Owhiro Bay’s key competency is Participating and Contributing. Effective Teaching Strategies were weaved into the learning to enhance the participation and contribution. Through the pilot children used co-operative groups regularly and many Effective Teaching Strategies like share, pair, square and bus stops and one stay the rest stray.

This topic was proposed by the community because they felt the children from Owhiro Bay needed to learn about their own local environment. Initially we (teachers) had professional development from Victoria University to prepare us for the direction that we were taking and to increase our background knowledge base. For the children it was essential to build up their knowledge base so that they had enough background to make relevant and considered decisions and eventually take some action to enhance and sustain their community.

The Science focus was integrated into English with Information Reports. This enabled the children to display their findings in a coherent written manner.

The science learning sequence:

LI: To find out what lives in Owhiro Bay’s coastline

The children used brainstorms, donuts and finally a KWL to establish their prior knowledge about their local environment. They were not restricted to identifying Rocky Shore creatures; however that was the direction we ended up taking. The children identified many of the common creatures but were less than forthcoming with the less common creatures.

The children went for two visits to the Owhiro Bay rock pools. The first visit was where the children examined and held different creatures, with a lot of exploring of the rock pools.

The second visit was with DOC who discussed the new Marine Reserve. They also discussed habitats of many of the local creatures. The children also had a visit to the Island Bay Marine Education Centre. Whilst the children were able to view and touch many coastal creatures, the weather prevented us from visiting the Island Bay rocky shore with a local ‘expert’.

LI: to group/classify the different types of living organisms

The children were given access to books cds and the internet. In co-operative groups they set about discussing then grouping and classifying the different type of organisms. Their scientific vocabulary increased with the use of the different resources. They were also starting to make connections about the communities and not just thinking about creatures in isolation.

LI: to investigate the living organisms at Owhiro Bay Coastline

This Learning Intention provided more learning of knowledge, to enable the children to develop further links and understanding of the Owhiro Bay coastal communities.

LI: to select and investigate a living organism

Again the focus was to enhance the children’s knowledge, this time specifying a single creature at Owhiro Bay coast to analyse. This included the implications of their habitats, food and breeding. The children also touched on the environmental impact/situation of their creature.

LI: identifying that all creatures need certain things to stay alive

This LI started with what humans need to survive then the children transferred this knowledge to what plants and animals need to survive. This also introduced the adjustments required for tidal changes.

Results:

Outcome 1. Knowledge:

Number of students who were ...

8. Proficient experts - at start [0]; at end [0]
7. Beginning experts - at start [1]; at end [1]
6. Proficient practitioners - at start [0]; at end [2]
5. Beginning practitioners - at start [0]; at end [7]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start [2]; at end [4]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start [8]; at end [9]
2. Proficient novices - at start [8]; at end [1]
1. Beginning novices - at start [6]; at end [1]

Knowledge effect size = 0.56

Outcome 2. Competency:

Number of students who were ...

8. Proficient experts - at start [0]; at end [0]
7. Beginning experts - at start [0]; at end [2]
6. Proficient practitioners - at start [0]; at end [4]
5. Beginning practitioners - at start [4]; at end [7]
4. Proficient apprentices - at start [2]; at end [5]
3. Beginning apprentices - at start [8]; at end [4]
2. Proficient novices - at start [7]; at end [1]
1. Beginning novices - at start [4]; at end [2]

Competency effect size = 0.63

Conclusions:

This pilot was a big learning curve for us all. personally it was a little more difficult because I did not get the initial training at the beginning. We originally started off envisaging that our particular pilot would last up to one year. We changed this and significantly reduced our questions after some clarification. Through discussion we finally came to a workable understanding as to how to include our AtoL PD into the pilot. In retrospect the two dovetailed very well, however the initial overwhelming number of questions did cloud our perspective of both.

The use of Effective Teaching Strategies certainly enhanced the children’s participation and contribution. However, as I was relatively new to a lot of the strategies they were used tentatively. As the pilot went on I found that the success that the strategies produced encouraged me to use them more.

Taking Responsibility for the Environment

School: Ridgway

Year Level: Y6/7

Teacher: Rod Scott

Focus area: Student awareness of and ability to use key learning tools for their achievement level (e.g. organisational tools, process tools, thinking tools, learning habits, technology, presentation tools, etc)

Research Questions:

Question 1. Implementation: How students identify issues, concerns, and interests that could become the focus of learning.

Question 2. Engagement: How engaged are students when they are involved in identifying themes/topics for learning?

Question 3. Knowledge: What is the growth in knowledge that can be expected of students when they learn through a theme that they themselves have identified

Success Criteria for Knowledge

Expert: Is aware of the consequences of their choices and plans to make more choices that have positive effects on the environment
Practitioner: Can analyse the effects on the environment and make choices accordingly
Apprentice: Can describe the positive or negative effects that their choices have on the environment
Novice: Can recognise that choices have positive or negative effects on the environment

Question 4. Competency: What capability can be expected of students to identify themes/topics for learning at the year 3 – 8 level

Success Criteria for Competency

Expert: Use graphic organisers to sort information and then use it to decide on a required next step (Finding out or action.)
Practitioner: Use a graphic organiser to sort information
Apprentice: Can describe how to sort information on a graphic organiser
Novice: Can retrieve information off a graphic organiser

Learning Story:

This aspect of our focus on personal responsibility followed on from our work outlined in the last blog. This time the focus shifted to the deep understanding of:

“Taking personal responsibility for the natural environment will have positive effects for the future of our world”

The unit was run across the middle and senior school.

We began our programme around this understanding with these provocations:

“Do I really care about the environment?”

“Can I make a difference?”

The big ideas we used to facilitate this were:

“Can people make choices that have positive effects on the environment?”

“Can people make choices that have negative effects on the environment?”

“What do people need to live?”

“What is the Natural Environment?”

Assessment was managed through use of the student engagement survey using the endpoint from the first set of surveys as the startpoint for the next.

Student knowledge and competency was assessed by the students self assessing using the standard rubric and a justifying comment. I also did some teacher confirmations across a sample group who verbally explained their self assessment. The rubrics were a result of a cooperative effort across the middle and senior school teachers.




We began the unit with a tuning in phase to try and engage the children. We used a variety of activities to achieve this such as:

If the world was an apple
Pressure on our world
First ideas brainstorm (What do you do that you show that you care about the earth)
Unpacking the big understanding and big ideas
Initial placement on rubric
The web of life
Rubbish Stock take around the school

We came to shared understandings around our big ideas through a variety of small group actions that brainstormed the questions, ordered the degree of effect, and reported back to the class the outcomes. This provided some hearty discussion and disagreement, but we eventually came to a landing on what we thought the big ideas meant.

After this we entered into our finding out phase which centred on two key aspects:

Science Fair
Take Action for Water

Ridgway School has over the past couple of years been encouraging the children to get involved in the Science Fair competition. This year we used it as a vehicle for the children to find out about the environment and the effects peoples actions had on it. The criteria was that any experiments the children undertook were related to the deep understanding and the big ideas.



As a consequence there were some excellent projects undertaken that explored many aspects of the deep understanding and big ideas. They provided a good discussion point and were on the whole very informative pieces of work. They also provided a great lead in to the “What do we do about it?” phase.



The final aspect to our finding out was the Take Action for Water unit run in conjunction with the Wellington Regional Council. It was interesting to note however that the idea of a field trip to study streams and factors affecting water quality met with considerable resistance from the children. The feedback from the children was that for a significant proportion of them, the whole “environment” thing had been over done and they were tired of it. This of course ran counter to our aim of increasing student engagement!

Whist the end engagement data wasn't where we'd hoped it didn't reflect this feeling in the class. The Take Action trip itself eventually proved to be a real motivator in driving the children to take action and possibly diluted the lethargy evident in the class.



At this point it was take action time.

As a result of this trip and the follow up activities the class decided on creating compost bins as an action we could take that would have a positive impact on our environment. To achieve this the children undertook some research into bin design and in cooperative groups went about using this knowledge to design a set of bins for the school.

Presentations were made by each group outlining how their bin met all the criteria a good compost bin should have and the whole class then decided on the winning design.

At the time of posting the bin was under construction.

Results:

Outcome 1. Engagement:

SCALE: 1 = never, 2 = not very often, 3 = about half the time, 4 = often, 5 = always

Mean level of engangement of students ...


Offered ideas- at start 3.2; at end 3.3
Asked questions - at start 2.9; at end 3.4
Listened to and thought about other's ideas and responded respectfully - at start 3.7; at end 3.8
Used positive body language related to task - at start 3.7; at end3.7
Perservered in order to enact related task - at start 4.1; at end 3.9
Showed evidence of being active learners outside school time - at start 2.0; at end 2.1
Showed interest in directing their own learning - at start 3.9; at end 3.7
Had behavioural issues that impacted on their learning - at start 1.8; at end 1.8
Show evidence of using what they have learnt - at start 3.9; at end 3.7

Outcome 2. Knowledge:

Number of students who were ...

8. Proficient experts - at start 0; at end 0
7. Beginning experts - at start 6; at end 6
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 1; at end 8
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 11; at end 9
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 8; at end 5
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 4; at end 2
2. Proficient novices - at start 0; at end 0
1. Beginning novices - at start 0; at end 0

Outcome 3. Competency:

Number of students who were ...

8. Proficient experts - at start 1; at end 2
7. Beginning experts - at start 8; at end 10
6. Proficient practitioners - at start 14; at end 16
5. Beginning practitioners - at start 8; at end 3
4. Proficient apprentices - at start 0; at end 0
3. Beginning apprentices - at start 0; at end 0
2. Proficient novices - at start 0; at end 0
1. Beginning novices - at start 0; at end 0

Conclusions:

As can be seen in the results there was an upward trend in the students self asssessment regarding their knowledge of the effects their choices had on the environment.

Competency in the use of Graphic organisers was already relatively high so the changes, whilst trending higher were not great.

The most interesting point was the student engagement. As stated engagement waned as the topic went on for a number of reasons.The most significant was the length of time we spent on the environment. Our idea to integrate it into the school curriculm activiies for the whole year proved to be counter productive in terms of student engagement. The intention was to focus on different aspect in different terms but this seemed to be too protracted to hold the children's interest and engagement.


Anecdotal evidence suggests that the "take action" phase did act to rekindled some interest. The children were animated and proactive in their efforts to "sell" their bin design and many were seen researching and designing through lunch and morning tea time. However when it came to the final engagement survey these observations were not borne out in their answers.


As a result our first 2009 Inquiry topic will be run over a shorter time frame and without the multiple phases we attempted this time.