Introduction
"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things", stated the French philosopher Jacques Rousseau. There is no better way to describe the difficulty of implementing non-traditional teaching methods. One of the hardest things for administrators and teachers to accept is the idea of change, though the mandate to reform public education has become a high profile, highly politicized, widely accepted inevitability. Indeed, increasing student’s test scores and decreasing classroom discipline problems will require new approaches.
The purpose of this study is to identify the effectiveness of non-traditional instruction in two high school social studies classes. Students’ academic achievement will be measured and compared after receiving non-traditional instruction and traditional instruction. In the classroom of one hundred years ago, the teacher established order, presented the rules and lectured. The students sat in straight rows listening and perhaps taking notes on their slates. In the new paradigm, student seating is adaptable, students are expected to move around and get "hands on" experience, while the teacher acts more as a guide and less as the sole authority.
Literature Review
Unfortunately, although we are well into of the 21st century and the rest of the world has changed, the present-day classroom has remained remarkably similar to that of 1900. Students no longer write notes on slates, and they often sit in moveable desks, yet many teachers still use the "I lecture; you listen and write" method of teaching. Despite the proliferation of electronic media and alternative methods of instruction, lecture is often the instructional tool of choice, forcing students to take notes and to listen carefully (O’Hara and O’Hara, 1998). A more contemporary approach to teaching is to adopt classroom practices or learning activities that align with the findings of research.
A study funded by the Rockefeller Foundation listed the following as suggested classroom practices: parental involvement, graded homework, direct teaching, aligned time on task, tutoring, cooperative learning, mastery learning, and teaching of learning strategies (Cawelti, 1999). There is a long history of research on non-traditional, cooperative, and student-centered instruction. The research indicates that cooperative learning may result in (a) higher student achievement and greater productivity, (b) more caring, supportive, and committed relationships among students, and (c) greater psychological health, social competence, and self-esteem. Johnson and Johnson (1989) have amassed a large body of evidence that suggests that cooperative learning can be one of the most effective tools teachers have.
However, many teachers feel more comfortable with the traditional "chalk and talk" techniques that deliver information in a pre-digestible format. By its very nature, cooperative learning can create philosophic difficulties for the traditional teacher who follows a prescribed curriculum. According to Sullivan (1996), one of the most successful cooperative learning programs is in the Greenwich, Connecticut School system. The Greenwich school system has been providing teacher training in cooperative learning since 1983. The program has been successful for two reasons. First, the teachers volunteer to commit to a cooperative approach. The program is not a required district plan. Secondly, training procedures are introduced in segments over the regular school year, and each segment is practiced and critiqued.
Goor (1993) finds that cooperative learning has been effective in meeting the needs of culturally diverse learners, students with disabilities in the general education classroom, and regular education students. Cooperative learning helps students make progress in terms of academics, social skills, and acceptance of diversity. In elementary school classrooms students are typically engaged in active learning; however, as students progress into middle and high school, their teachers use less activity-based instruction and more "intellectual" classroom methods. Yet, active learning would seem to increase motivation, develop valuable skills, and enhance learning in students of all ability levels and grade levels. Most modern researchers contend that teachers at the middle and high school levels need to incorporate more active learning into their classes (Siler, 1998).
Siler states that the key to active learning is "spatial dynamics". Spatial dynamics is an instructional strategy that teachers use to capture the student’s interest by allowing them to participate in learning. Spatial dynamics activities also demonstrate a teacher’s enthusiasm and commitment to the subject, which further motivates students and yields higher, level cognitive thinking.
Teachers who use only one teaching style day after day may limit students who may learn more effectively through a variety of teaching approaches. The common perception is that, over time, lecturers become stale and boring to students. Siler emphasizes that spatial dynamics enhance student learning in ways that traditional classroom instruction does not.
Unfortunately, many students are unable to master social studies because of difficulties in understanding and grasping the vast body of knowledge. Social studies teachers have traditionally relied on large group instruction, independent seat work and objective tests as their principal methods of instruction. Hendrix (1999) found that students in social studies classes learn better through active involvement, small group activities, and cooperative learning.
A popular non-traditional instructional approach is constructivism. A constructivist supports an environment where teachers and students learn together and share knowledge. Constructivist principles include discovery learning and "real world" classroom tasks, where the teacher serves as a facilitator and resource provider (Kaplan, 1999). William Glasser states, "we learn 80 percent of what we experience personally." Yet traditional education methods would seem to bear smaller yields than personal experience (Harvey, Sirna, and Houlihan, 1999).
Hands-on learning is another technique that constitutes a non-traditional approach. The "hands-on" curriculum centers on experiments, group activities, and real-life applications. Real-life applications of subject matter focus upon why students need to learn what they are learning. Schools where hands-on teaching and learning are the order of the day tend to be a little noisier, a little more active than traditional schools. Schools that teach the hands-on approach are more likely to be using an integrated curriculum. A thematic, integrated curriculum is where several teachers share the role as facilitator with students in a particular unit. The teachers focus on a particular theme and ensure that students become immersed in two or more subjects.
Teacher Centered Instruction v. Student Centered Instruction
Armuchee High School – American Government classes
January 24, 2000 – March 24, 2000
I taught the American Government classes. They received the same curriculum throughout the nine weeks. Both classes took a pre-test prior to each unit and the posttest was the same for each class.
The teacher-centered component involved traditional instruction where the teacher lectured, used the textbook, and promoted discussion. The student-centered instruction was non-traditional instruction where the students worked independently and in-groups on specific assignments. They discussed lessons in the text by focusing upon "real world" applications. The teacher used visuals, field trips, guest speakers, and current events to teach the lessons. The role of the teacher was to monitor the students and give advice or ideas so that they may draw conclusions and solutions independently or cooperatively.
Results
As stated by Johnson and Johnson (1989) have found, student-centered instruction seemed to motivate students to form closer relationships with one another in working together. Each student-centered group not only scored higher academically, but they also gained some social skills through cooperative work. On the other hand, the students in the teacher-centered classroom did not spend as much time working cooperatively and thus had less of a working relationship one with another. The teacher-centered lessons were geared around lecture and the individual work of the student. Both groups studied the same content, though each interacted with it in radically different ways. The first t-test chart shows how each group did on their first pre-test. The average of both groups pre-test scores were relatively even with a slight edge going to the student-centered group. After giving Test 1 to both groups, I realized for the first time that not only did the student-centered group average higher scores, they also stated that learning was easier due to the review games and group assignments. The remaining six weeks showed even greater improvement from the student-centered groups. In the student-centered condition, the morale of the class was higher as students seemed to enjoy the competitiveness and stimulation of group assignments.
As we started Unit 2, the roles had been reversed (the student-centered class received teacher-centered instruction and the teacher-centered class received student-centered instruction); the student centered group had a harder time adjusting to their new assignments. The next three weeks proved to be extremely difficult for both students and me. However, the results of test scores and amount of participation indicated higher achievement and better attitudes in the student-centered group.
The final three weeks scores were used as a comparison from the same group’s successes during the first three weeks. The treatment group was using some of the same strategies as they had earlier in the semester. Once again the students performed higher academically and retained more from their cooperative learning styles.
Students in the student-centered instruction showed higher degrees of academic achievement than students in the teacher-centered instruction in all conditions. My study involved three 3-week units. A pretest was used to assess that both groups had similar levels of knowledge on the topics to be studied. Both groups studied the three branches of government. The legislative branch was taught during the first unit or first three weeks. The executive branch was taught during the second unit. The final three weeks were lessons on the judicial branch of government. In the post-test assessments given at the end of the second, third and fourth weeks, the increase in student achievement in the student-centered group were statistically significant.
Again, the pretest given at the beginning of the second three weeks indicated both groups had comparable knowledge of the executive branch and its purpose. However, this time the student-centered group was given the teacher-centered treatment and the teacher-centered group was given a student-centered approach. Under these conditions, the student centered group scored higher on the posttests than the teacher-centered group (although results were not statistically significant). Thus, the student-centered approach seemed to yield better levels of achievement no matter what group received the treatment.
During the final three weeks, the original group was again given student-centered instruction. In all conditions, the academic performance and scores were higher for groups that were learning by student-centered instruction.
Conclusion
Each of the three units taught on the branches of government seemed to indicate that high school seniors perform and score higher with a student-centered approach, rather than a teacher-centered approach. Each unit of study showed that the treatment group, (student-centered group,) scored on the average higher than the control group (teacher-centered group.) Also, the participation of the student-centered group was much higher than that of the non-treated group. In the student-centered approach, students no longer had to sit in straight rows and do individual work throughout the entire period. The student-centered approach allowed students to be mobile and work cooperatively on various assignments. The seating arrangement was designed so that students might sit in a circle and hold discussions or move seats so that they might work in-groups. Also, the student-centered lessons seemed to highlight "real life" examples as the branches of government were introduced. With the addition of field trips, guest speakers, and current events, students seemed genuinely interested in learning. The teacher-centered approach relied more on the use of the textbook and lecture from the teacher only. This study confirms the findings of Goor (1993) that cooperative learning helps students make progress in the area of academics, social skills, and gives them a higher rate of acceptance in a diverse classroom. The study also corroborates the findings of Siler (1998) who found that teachers who captured the interest of their students by allowing them to be a vital part in the lesson and learning process were more effective. Although some have criticized the effectiveness of student-centered instruction in an age of standardized tests and minimal competencies, this study shows the true effectiveness of student-centered instruction on academic achievement and classroom participation.
Bibliography
Cawelti, Gordon. "Improving Achievement". The American School Board Journal,
(1999): 15-18.
Goor, M., and Schwenn, J. "Accommodating diversity and disability with
cooperative learning". Intervention in School and Clinic, 29 (1993): 6-16.
Harvey, Barbara Z., Sirna, Richard T., and Houlihan, Margaret B. "Hands-On
Learning". The American School Board Journal, (1999): 22-25.
Hendrix, James C. "Connecting cooperative learning & social studies". The
Clearing House, 73 (1999): 57-60.
Johnson, B., and Johnson B. "Cooperative learning: a new direction". Education,
117 (1989): 39-42.
Kaplan, Karen Cadiero. "Integrating Technology: Issues for Traditional &
Constructivist Pedagogies". Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 15
(1999) 14-18.
O’Hara, Margaret T., and O’Hara, John A. "Corporation learning: a paradigm
for learning in the 21st century". American Secondary Education, 27 (1998) 9-17.
Siler, Carl R. "Spatial Dynamics: An Alternative Teaching Tool in the Social
Studies." ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies, (1998): 179-180.
Sullivan, Joanna. "Implementing a cooperative learning research model: how it
Applies to a social studies unit". The Social Studies, 87 (1996): 210-216.
