http://www.wiredbrain.net/ I think "Children of the Dust Bowl: The True Story of the School at Weedpatch Camp " by Jerry Stanley (New York, Crown 1992) would make a great movie, documentary or public TV show. The history of the School at Weedpatch Camp is a model for American Education and is a classic as Mararenko's "Road to Life " is a pedagogical epoch of Soviet education. Ordinary people are seen doing exceptional work. Set during the irrational tragedy of the dust bowl, after the long trek on the "mother" road, Rt. 66, from Oklahoma to California, the refugees faced hunger and hate in the promised land. Then came the small hope of a government labor camp. The chance to work and survive. Leo Hart, the real hero, builds a temporary school for migrant children. ( Too bad Henry Fonda is no longer with us, he would have been perfect for the part. ) The children build their own school. The building becomes the real school for life. The work forces the reality that schools not only teach traditional skills and theory but become workshops of practice and the forges of character. The development of values by collective effort is the answer to today's crime, gangs, drugs, and emotional and material poverty. Adults and children learn self-respect and respect for others by hard, meaningful, joyful work. "The Children of the Dust Bowl " by Jerry Stanley dramatically relates how a few educators build a great school for "Okies" at a migrant labor camp. A camp made famous by John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath." ( The Film stared Henry Fonda. ) Their moral strength and good humor are rewarded by becoming a witness to the glory of children changing from thin, withdrawn, sad and frightened creatures to strong, clean, active, intelligent citizens. This movie could compete with "It's a Good Life" for emotional power. (Jimmy Steward would do it ) After an age of egotism, the triumph of the collective, of cooperative teamwork is especially meaningful. I think of an old socialist film "The Salt of the Earth" where collective effort brought new life to people and the land. Most important is how the story exhibits effective education at work. It reminds us the real education requires moral purpose. The work is a powerful example of the triumph of the human spirit. It has the emotional impact of the home run in the 9'th inning of the World Series with two outs. The poor and despised achieve a victory over the prejudice of their "betters." The community then wants to send their children to the School at Weedpatch Camp. They lean to respect each other. I would like to work on a project to find a producer and sponsor to make this book into a successful family movie. Hornbook Fanfare Outstanding Book of the Year Booklists Editor's Choice An ALA notable book Yours Sincerely, Peter E. Pflaum We need stable group over a longer time period and hours per day. The factory system represented by the Carnegie unit credit dices the student into intellectual pieces where nothing relates to anything else. You wouldn't expect that your office staff should shift rooms several times a day, have several supervisors with different goals and styles, and expect them to be highly productive. (Handy 6) Grouping Debate over grouping according to ability and achievement measures has continued since 1920. Sputnik (1957) heightened interest in identifying and encouraging children of high aptitude to enter scientific fields. Ability grouping often results in tracking where both students and teachers in low classes easily can become discouraged. Hall and Findley (1971) suggest one defect of this system is the small percentage of teachers who prefer to teach the low achieving groups. Goodlad (1984) views tracking as a repulsive practice that often begins in primary school. Evidence shows "higher-achieving students do not do better when together, and lower-achieving students do much worse when together. Tracking clearly discriminates and clearly perpetuates inequities among students . . ." (Glickman, 1991, p. 5). Recommended alternatives are groups of various sizes formed for special purposes and dissolved when the specified purpose has been accomplished. Goodlad reminds us of how much we learn by teaching others. Cooperative learning, peer tutoring, and student leadership are just some advantages of students helping each other. Leadership can change and rotate according to need. These practices are inherent to the structure of one-room and other small schools. Anton S. Makarenko devised such a plan in the Gorky Colony, a multiage school for wayward youth established in the Ukraine in the 1920's. After much trial and error, Makarenko successfully arranged a system of mixed detachments where all colonists except "the most glaringly unsuitable" (Makarenko, 1973, p. 356) served as leaders. Depending on the project, mixed detachments were scheduled and organized according to the job at hand. Upon completion of a task, the group was dissolved. Mixed detachment leaders were responsible for organization and quality control. A leader in one group served as a follower in others. Each colonist also belonged to a permanent detachment with a permanent commander. Permanent detachments formed a "nucleus for the colony" (Makarenko, 1973, p. 355). Standardized Testing Today In an opinion paper on reorganizing American education, Leona Tyler sees inadequate attention to individual differences; an excess of compulsion. Age grouping "is perhaps the worst possible strategy for maximizing the learning of individuals" (Tyler, 1985, p. 1). "A Proposal for Reorganizing American Public Education" cautions against focusing on averages of standardized test scores rather than on the spread of scores. This author criticizes reporters for lack of realization of a naturally occurring situation. They continue to be shocked at the finding that half of any group tested is below the average of the group. Human beings differ inherently in how much they learn and how rapidly they learn it. Yet we go on categorizing them by age and treating them all alike. What sense does it make to assign the same tasks to all members of an age group and expect them all to succeed equally well? (Tyler, 1985, p. 2). Holweide Comprehensive School Located in Cologne, West Germany, Holweide Comprehensive School is a contemporary example of quality education. The school began as an experiment in the mid- 1970's and serves the equivalent of American grades 5 through 11. Culturally diverse students include children of foreign guest workers and children from single-parent or poor German families. Almost all pupils are considered non- college bound. Teams of teachers remain with the same students for the entire six years of Holweide schooling. School administration is composed of only one teaching principal and two assistants who also teach. Students are not tracked according to assessed ability. Teacher teams determine how to group students and how to organize the school day. Readjustments are made as needed. Because of this structure, authentic accountability is possible. Since teachers have the same students for six years, former instructors cannot be blamed for pupil deficiencies. Teachers cannot pass problem students along to others. Teacher teamwork increases chances of defining appropriate ways to improve schooling of individual pupils. "Holweide's approach thus turns the usual bureaucratic, assembly-line processing of children into a teaching and learning enterprise, a moral community" (Shanker, 1990, p. 351). The School and Society Review of Carl Glickman's "Pretending Not to Know What We Know" Introduction Glickman observes, "For too long, professionals have gone about the business of teaching and operating schools in ways they privately admit are not in the best interests of students (Glickman, 1991, p. 4). Has the American public not noticed this aspect of our educational system? Glickman's statement is perhaps reminiscent of one well-known child's observation regarding an emperor, lacking attire (Anderson & Stevens, 1985, p. 24). The author points to substantiated evidence regarding sound educational practices; he notes dramatic dearth in implementation. Key Points Through identification and discussion of 11 points in 3 categories, Glickman describes what we know about teaching and learning. Traditional practices often continue in American education despite knowledge of ineffectiveness. When change is made, often ideas are implemented incorrectly. Responding to analysis (Mandeville & Rivers, 1989, p. 39) of her teacher effectiveness model, Hunter notes "a program should not be judged by a poor implementation" (Hunter, 1989 ,p. 67). Glickman suggests educators threatened by others' wisdom cannot run successful schools. Intelligent people often continue "leading stupid lives in stupid jobs" (Maslow, 1970, p. 49). Andersen's tale points to human nature's desire to appear intelligent. Those who can see the magic but invisible cloth are "smart and good at what they do. Those who can't see it are stupid and should be fired" (Andersen & Stevens, 1985, p. 4). As with Andersen's characters, inept educators are perhaps "anxious to find out if they [are] stupid or not, and whether they [will] lose their jobs (Andersen & Stevens, 1985, p. 5). Glickman suggests not all schools and not all educators are ready for innovation in American schools. The author's points regarding change parallel Michael Fullan's "10 Assumptions About Change" (Fullan, 1991). To address problems regarding change, Glickman proposes creating "elite" schools -- places where people "trust each other to share in decisions about teaching and learning. Elite schools are places where those with formal leadership responsibilities know . . . `power is achieved by giving it away rather than struggling for more' " (Glickman, 1991, p. 9). Glickman believes as Fullan states, "We should not expect all or even most people or groups to change" (Fullan, 1991). Unprepared schools should not be expected to change. They should rather be encouraged to sit and watch as elite schools progress and achieve through proper implementation of knowing what we know. Conclusion The emperor blushes but continues to lead the procession. After all, he is the emperor and must stay and do his job. Will America note the logic in Glickman's article? Will America note the logic in Maslow's classic? Or will educators continue to follow practices "pretending not to know what we know"? (Glickman, 1991, p. 4). Will educators, as the royal attendants, continue to follow "still holding the train that [isn't] there"? (Andersen & Stevens, 1985, p. 24). References Andersen, H. C., & Stevens, J. (1985). The emperor's new clothes. New York: Holiday House. Fullan, M. (1990). The meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Glickman, C. (1991). Pretending not to know what we know. Educational Leadership, 48, 4-10. Hunter, M. (1988/1989). "Well acquainted" is not enough: A response to Mandeville and Rivers. Educational Leadership, 46, 67-68. Mandeville, G. K., & Rivers, J. (1989). "Is the Hunter model a recipe for supervision? Educational Leadership, 46, 39-43). Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. RE: Teach the subject or the student? I try to teach people not subjects. I know most teachers feel it is their job to transmit a specific bit of information so the student has it. I respect that and understand it. For me I don't find it very interesting or FUN to do the same thing over. If I taught content it would repeat itself, class to class term to term. I hope I never have had to same class twice. I have said the same thing more than twice but not that often. So, its a personal preference to form groups, give them some kind of framework and encourage from the sidelines and make comments on their papers. I also don't like grading so have a point system - Students earn grades I don't give them - so they are free to say what every they want it can't influence their grade. I have no power except to give points and if they don't agree they can change them. (Mankaranko's idea) But the world does not come in subjects and contents - but a series of unclear and difficult situations. There are no economic or political or environmental or social problems - there are situations with all these and more elements. Sure specialization is great - but can also be a problem when the subject taught is what other people think - not a real description of reality. The subject is the subject - like theology - not understanding problem solving, discovery methods, research and experimental design - Isn't it better to learn how to find out - how to learn? Most of the things in books are old and maybe useless - certainly confusing. I have an Economics class this summer and the textbook wants to please everyone (to make money) and includes everything and every viewpoint and is just impossible! It creates a mix-mash in minds that can't handle simple relationships - cause and effect not multi-variate analysis and complex models. So what do they learn in my class (in groups)- the idea of Adam Smith and the pin factory - its history until it become PINS international. A simple simulation - KISS keep it simple and there is some hope they can move from one step to another. My wife, the English teacher, has a class - now let's write a story (OH) now let's write a paragraph (OH) now let's work on Sentences (OH) now these are the parts of speech! No point in going on if they don't have the basics. ************************************************************ RE: Active Learning, Cooperative Learning Please arrange to visit my classes M.W.F. at 8 or 10 P.M. I would like an appointmnet to see you. I also use Internet (See information on Co-op Learning I got from the net ) This is what I have found works for me in using groups and active learning. I have done this for years in school and industrial training and doing workshops. It's still experimental and you have to go with the flow of each situation and group. What makes it fun is that it is never the same. Don't worry about too many instructions, just do it! If you can find a small (really small) one-room type school (we think there are 10,000 of them) most will individualize and use many of these methods because they have to. You can't talk to a class of kids from 6 to 14 in one room. Each student needs a loose leaf notebook, dividers, and the groups needs a hole punch and stapler. The notebook is called the portfolio and contains all their work. It is turned in at the end for the grade. (I don't keep them but just check them out - since I've seen all the work in there) Work can be put into a group notebook but individual notebooks are better. If they use individual notebooks group work has to be copied for those who contributed. If you use a collective portfolio then the individual journals are separated by name in the back. I have a plastic milk carton hanging file. Each group has a folder. As they do their work they put it in the folder. I give points on the papers. After they are scored they take them back and put them into their notebooks (portfolio). I keep track of the points on Lotus 123 and make a graph of their progress. (They like that). I have a goal of 100 points. Everyone who get across that goal has a B. The A is a quality judgement. Evaluation is the points - I give 2 for A,B and C. A poor papers (project) gets .5 or .7, a OK is 1.5 excellent is 2. I don't have people evaluate each others work but I encourage group editing by a processor. Each activity has a reading (A) and an action task (B). I have collected a few dozen activities that take about an hour each. I still us a textbook but using a paperback library or a library or INTERNET would be better. The C part is a journal. The journal is not a diary but the statement of the ideas or concepts learned. These concepts are then related to life, and other concepts learned. The journal should give examples that show the student understands what they are talking about. This is an individual responsibility but come together in a package - Reading and research, activities, and journals - with a nice cover go into the file under the group names - winners, achievers, etc something positive. You work with one group at a time - get them started then use the in and out papers and reports as feedback and suggestions. They should learn to ask questions. The one room schoolhouse work this way, as does individualized instruction or multi-graded classes. For example there is an activity in housing, or lakes, or stories from history, etc. The group does some reading and discusses what they found. A member writes up a report (A). They then build a house, visit a lake, make a play, do a class report (Something active) (B) and have a report, video, whatever as a group effort. Each person then writes a journal on what did it mean to them(C). They earn points. My activities have to do with feeling, personality, creativity, setting goals, problem solving, growing up, sex race and age, conflict, listening, assertiveness training, human potential, institutions and political and social issues. I use personality style to create groups. The concrete sequential on one dimension to the abstract random on the other. A 20 question instrument give scores from 30 to 70. I line them up and create groups. It come from a value clarification process. I also use a form of nominal group process. (ask if you want to know more about this). The biggest problem is FREE RIDER, people who what to take credit for others work - the Little red hen problem. I don't have a good answer except that's life and to have the groups assign roles so that everyone has an equal share of work to do. Group pressures are greater than anything I can come up with but even that doesn't always do it. I have a big sign up that says OUT WITH FREE RIDERS - if people don't do their part the group should not put their name on it and they get no credit. Its fun, its easy, the students are happier and do better. There is less conflict and every class is an adventure you look forward to. Cooperative Learning Strategies and Children. ERIC Digest. Author(s): Lyman, Lawrence; Foyle, Harvey C. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Urbana, Ill. THIS DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT ACCESS ERIC 1-800- LET-ERIC Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy involving children's participation in small group learning activities that promote positive interaction. This digest discusses the reasons for using cooperative learning in centers and classrooms, ways to implement the strategy, and the long-term benefits for children's education. WHY TRY COOPERATIVE LEARNING? Cooperative learning promotes academic achievement, is relatively easy to implement, and is not expensive. Children's improved behavior and attendance, and increased liking of school, are some of the benefits of cooperative learning (Slavin, 1987). Although much of the research on cooperative learning has been done with older students, cooperative learning strategies are effective with younger children in preschool centers and primary classrooms. In addition to the positive outcomes just noted, cooperative learning promotes student motivation, encourages group processes, fosters social and academic interaction among students, and rewards successful group participation. CAN COOPERATIVE LEARNING BE USED IN EARLY CHILDHOOD CLASSES? When a child first comes to a structured educational setting, one of the teacher's goals is to help the child move from being aware only of himself or herself to becoming aware of other children. At this stage of learning, teachers are concerned that children learn to share, take turns, and show caring behaviors for others. Structured activities which promote cooperation can help to bring about these outcomes. One of the most consistent research findings is that cooperative learning activities improve children's relationships with peers, especially those of different social and ethnic groups. When children begin to work on readiness tasks, cooperation can provide opportunities for sharing ideas, learning how others think and react to problems, and practicing oral language skills in small groups. Cooperative learning in early childhood can promote positive feelings toward school, teachers, and peers. These feelings build an important base for further success in school. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS? According to Glasser (1986), children's motivation to work in elementary school is dependent on the extent to which their basic psychological needs are met. Cooperative learning increases student motivation by providing peer support. As part of a learning team, students can achieve success by working well with others. Students are also encouraged to learn material in greater depth than they might otherwise have done, and to think of creative ways to convince the teacher that they have mastered the required material. Cooperative learning helps students feel successful at every academic level. In cooperative learning teams, low-achieving students can make contributions to a group and experience success, and all students can increase their understanding of ideas by explaining them to others (Featherstone 1986). Components of the cooperative learning process as described by Johnson and Johnson (1984) are complimentary to the goals of early childhood education. For example, well-constructed cooperative learning tasks involve positive interdependence on others and individual accountability. To work successfully in a cooperative learning team, however, students must also master interpersonal skills needed for the group to accomplish its tasks. Cooperative learning has also been shown to improve relationships among students from different ethnic backgrounds. Slavin (1980) notes: "Cooperative learning methods" Cooperative Learning: Grouping Students for Success Coperative Computer Learning with Cooperative Task and Reward Structures Susan R. Seymour Introduction America is in a recession that is strangling budgets and challenging educational administrators to stretch existing resources. Compounding this challenge is the ever changing field of computer technology and the dire need to educate a technically competent work force. Currently, the United States is falling behind technological leaders such as Japan and Britain in our attempts to educate a technological work force. Although the reasons for this lack of success in teaching technology are diverse, the most common barriers are financial. These financial barriers are most noticeable in the regional inequities between suburban and rural schools and are manifested in the lack of computer equipment in schools, or outdated equipment not being replaced. (Mruk, 1987) Therefore, the teaching of computer technology is faced with a distinct educational problem: how can we educate more students using limited computer resources without sacrificing student aptitude or enjoyment of the learning event? Cooperative learning provides a plausible solution. Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy that encourages student success by alleviating overt competitiveness and substituting group encouragement. In cooperative learning, individuals work with their peers to achieve a common goal rather than competing against their peers or working separately from them. Research on the benefits of cooperative learning has shown an increase in academic achievement, positive attitudes towards learning and increased student satisfaction. Review of the Related Literature Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement The effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement has been well documented and research suggests that cooperative learning produces greater than the achievement than traditional learning methodologies. In fact, a review completed by Slavin in 1984, found that 63% of all cooperative learning studies analyzed showed increases in academic achievement. Slavin's review isolated the prominent characteristics responsible for increased achievement scores and discovered that cooperative task structures and cooperative reward structures were the two determining factors in the success of cooperative learning. This data is supported again in Slavin's 1990 meta-analysis when he concludes that methods emphasizing group goals and individual accountability are consistently more effective in increasing student achievement than other forms of cooperative learning. Although this holds true for the majority of research, a study completed by Okebukola (1985) included individual accountability and group goals and showed no significant positive effects on achievement. In addition, research conducted by Rich, Amir, and Slavin (1986) incorporated individual accountability and group goals but showed negative effects on achievement. Cooperative Learning Effects Other Than Achievement Cooperative learning models have shown effects other than academic achievement that contribute to the overall satisfaction of course participants (Salend & Sonnenschein, 1989). A wide variety of social benefits have been documented. Such benefits include: promotion of positive attitudes toward schooling (Johnson & Johnson, 1978), promotion of group socialization and cohesiveness (Slavin, 1990), decreased prejudicial attitudes (Johnson & Johnson, 1978; Slavin, 1990), encouragement of risk taking (Johnson & Johnson, 1975), fostering of self esteem (Slavin, 1990) and increased ability to see another's perspective (Slavin, 1990). Cooperative Learning and the Computer In almost all schools the number of students far exceeds the number of computers, however, individualistic education has dominated the use of computers (Dickson & Vereen, 1983). One student per computer is the tradition and few have challenged this in the research arena, although understanding the effects of cooperation at the computer could have economic as well as academic benefits. One untapped resource for education of computers is peer tutoring. Peer tutoring is the cooperation between two or more students in which one student actively takes on the teaching role. It has been an effective cooperative behavior in fostering intellectual and social growth (Hill & Helburn, 1981). In a recent study by Teer Teer & McKnight (1988), students using peer tutoring gained greater computer and relational skills than students working independently. Mehan (1985) suggests a natural tendency for students to collaborate at the computer regardless of adult supervision. Mehan states9 that when students are placed at a computer and "left to their own devices....(they) work out the details of task completion themselves, resulting in voluntary instead of compulsory forms of instructional activity". This tendency for students to rely on each other to work out problems is at the heart of cooperative learning. Research directly relating cooperative learning with computers is limited, but some excellent studies have been completed by Webb (1984) and Oh (1988). Webb's study evaluated group effectiveness in the teaching of computer programming to 30 students ranging in age from 11 to 14. The study dealt extensively with group planning and processing involved in the breakdown and dissemination of knowledge. Webb also looked at the relationship of cooperative groups to increased academic achievement and found that cooperative group learning was positively related to academic performance for students learning BASIC (a computer programming language). A study conducted at Illinois State University by doctoral student Hyun-an Oh (1988), looked at the effects of both cooperative and individualistic incen- tive and task structures on achievement in computer programming. His study ran for seven weeks during which he compared the performance of 114 university students enrolled in a introductory microcomputer course under three treatments. The treatments were variations of cooperative task, cooperative incentive, individualistic task and individualistic incentive. Oh's findings indicated that there were no differences in achievement between cooperative learning with computers and individualistic learning with computers. He also concluded that incentive made no difference in student achievement for either cooperative structures or individualistic structures. This conclusion was drawn from the fact that students who had no incentive performed as well as students with incentive in both cooperative and individualistic treatments.