Читать книгу Giving Students a Say - Myron Dueck - Страница 30

John Hattie's meta-data analysis of the factors that most affect student achievement shows "collective teacher efficacy," or CTE, as the number one factor (Waack, 2013). Donohoo (2017b) defines CTE as "a staff's shared belief that through their collective action, they can positively influence student outcomes, including those who are disengaged and/or disadvantaged" (para. 1). At first, I was surprised that CTE would be number one, but if you think about it further, it makes sense. When teachers believe that they are the most important factor influencing the success of their students, they're more likely to attend professional development sessions, read more books, and spend more time planning effective activities. Conversely, they will spend less time blaming socioeconomic factors, class size, and scheduling issues for their students' lack of success (Donohoo, 2017a).

It's possible that you're reading this book because you believe that you wield considerable power in determining the success of your students and you're looking for more tools to influence this effect. Now imagine assembling a group of teachers of that type and harnessing the synergistic power of that collective. That's how CTE became number one.

Considering the power of collective teacher efficacy, what might collective student efficacy look like, and how might we develop it in our learning environments? Consider those epic moments in your classroom, when the right factors collide and you see the power of student-led groups working toward pursuing questions, finding solutions, and learning from one another. Unfortunately, these instances were too rare in my classroom, but when they occurred, the experience was amazing.

If you have found it challenging to organize group-work activities in your classroom, take solace in some research suggesting that the learning potential of the group does not hinge on its being successful initially. In fact, the ability to learn effectively can be triggered when a group struggles and doesn't seem to understand the material or process. In a remarkable series of studies done in Singapore, students who worked in groups that explored a possible self-generated solution—and made mistakes along the way—were compared with students who received the "correct" solution through direct instruction. The study concluded that situations involving groups struggling to come up with solutions, even when they are completely incorrect, seemed to better prepare students to learn the "correct" solution once the teacher demonstrated it (Kapur, 2015).

As we pursue a student-centered approach to assessment, we want to imagine not only including the student but also attempting to harness this "power of the group." In designing clear, student-centered learning targets, consider elements that could be determined by the student collective—even if you end up tweaking these after students have struggled with the activity. Ben Arcuri and Russ Reid at Penticton Secondary School in British Columbia did just that.

In a novel approach to cross-curricular learning, Ben (who teaches chemistry) and Russ (who teaches geography) decided to combine their classes for a unit pursuing "geo chemistry." Specifically, their students sought to learn about the causes and effects of acid precipitation. Each group of students approached the topic of acid precipitation and its effects—such as those on soil, water, or infrastructure. The bulk of the learning targets were created by Ben and Russ, as shown in Figure 2.3.