Social Constructivism
Knowing that I wanted to work to teach my students the ways in which we can support each other as peers, I began my research by returning to the theories that ground my belief in a student-centered learning environment, starting with Social Constructivism.
Learning, according to social constructivist theory, is as much a social activity as it is an individual one. Each student learns according to their own unique “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD), in which development occurs when one encounters new learning just outside of the space in which independent capabilities exist. Individual learning does not occur without first learning through interpersonal relationships (Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky’s approach asserts that “An interpersonal process is transformed into an intrapersonal one. Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people..., and then inside the child. This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher [mental] functions originate as actual relations between human individuals” (1978, p.57).
As Social Constructivism believes that development begins on the social level, so does Social Learning Theory conclude that people fundamentally learn from one another. This happens through observation, imitation, and modeling (Bandura, 1971).
I knew that I worked to develop a whole-class community in which I worked to develop interpersonal relationships with my students. However, I had not given them opportunities to develop through their own social interactions. I worked closely with many of my students to provide them with the kind of feedback that stretches their thinking through their Zone of Proximal Development. What I had not taken the time to teach them is how to work with each other and develop those interpersonal relationships.
Learning, according to social constructivist theory, is as much a social activity as it is an individual one. Each student learns according to their own unique “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD), in which development occurs when one encounters new learning just outside of the space in which independent capabilities exist. Individual learning does not occur without first learning through interpersonal relationships (Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky’s approach asserts that “An interpersonal process is transformed into an intrapersonal one. Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people..., and then inside the child. This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher [mental] functions originate as actual relations between human individuals” (1978, p.57).
As Social Constructivism believes that development begins on the social level, so does Social Learning Theory conclude that people fundamentally learn from one another. This happens through observation, imitation, and modeling (Bandura, 1971).
I knew that I worked to develop a whole-class community in which I worked to develop interpersonal relationships with my students. However, I had not given them opportunities to develop through their own social interactions. I worked closely with many of my students to provide them with the kind of feedback that stretches their thinking through their Zone of Proximal Development. What I had not taken the time to teach them is how to work with each other and develop those interpersonal relationships.
Peer Response
In thinking about what was necessary for providing students a social learning environment, I knew that I needed to do more research on what it means to work in peer workshops during the writing process. Working through literature on these theories, I found evidence to support that there is enhanced productivity among students when they are able to give task-related assistance to each other (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Those environments in which cooperation is elevated above competition were found to be more effective. Students are able to promote each other and themselves in their work. To focus my energies, I want to look specifically at how my students might achieve these ends, with the specific use of peer response/review in writing.
For this project, I decided to define peer response as the "use of learners as sources of information, and interactions for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities normally taken on by a formally trained teacher, tutor, or editor in commenting on and critiquing each other's drafts in both written and oral formats in the process of writing” (Liu and Hansen, 2005). Under this definition, students should be able to look at each others' work and actively make an effort to learn from their peers and apply it to their own understanding. Students should not only write, but orally discuss their writing with each other. My students struggle with both of these abilities. They don't know how to talk to each other about their work, and often express that they are afraid to. I am hoping to work on both aspects of this situation. Rather than just writing comments and making improvements, I want my students to be unafraid of talking to each other and, ideally, excited about sharing their work with each other, rejecting the need for competition.
When looking at studies conducted on writing, giving feedback, and L2 (second language) development in relation to collaboration, Wigglesworth and Storch (2012) show that pair composition and processing of feedback allows for more cognitive processes because students can deliberate and test together.
Although this research is specifically related to collaborative writing for L2 development, it has useful connections to my classroom because it IS a language classroom, though most of my students are native English speakers. A few key points are made in this study that relate to and aid my research question are: First, it helped me identify specific conditions that contribute to collaborative learning: social relations among students, specific roles within the collaborative activity, and knowledge that can contribute to a developing group coherence. It also notes that for feedback and collaborative learning to matter, students must act on the feedback. It should be used as often as other types of writing/feedback.
My classroom was highly mixed in skill-level. I had students that could be in Seminar if there were space, and I had many that have IEPs that require an English support class in addition to the 9th grade class. The following study addressed the mixed-level classroom, particularly in regards to those students who are often struggle in the middle.
Saleh, Lazonder, and John (2007) studied how to best serve students who are not considered high- or low-achieving when it comes to collaboration. It found that heterogeneous groupings can leave out mid-level students as high-achievers become the mentors for struggling students. Active participation is a necessary part of collaboration, and teacher guidance is needed to show students how to work in those roles. The study argues for the use of group roles and ground rules for collaborative work to create collaboration that involves all students in the process, and concludes that mid-level students felt motivated to learn in structured groups, and that roles assignment reduces inequalities in participation.
It is only fair to admit that it is sometimes difficult to structure effective collaborative learning for my mid-level students. As I work to create a collaborative culture in my classroom, I need to be able to give these students roles that will aid in their learning as much as it creates a mentor/mentee relationship between high and low level students. It was this research that reminded me that the way my students were talking to each other mattered, because if all of my students should have a role, do they know how to take up that role? Do they know how to speak within that role?
If all students’ voices are to be valued, all students must be able to speak to each other, no matter their skill level. Collaboration is a skill for all students, so they must all have the chance to partake in it.
For this project, I decided to define peer response as the "use of learners as sources of information, and interactions for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities normally taken on by a formally trained teacher, tutor, or editor in commenting on and critiquing each other's drafts in both written and oral formats in the process of writing” (Liu and Hansen, 2005). Under this definition, students should be able to look at each others' work and actively make an effort to learn from their peers and apply it to their own understanding. Students should not only write, but orally discuss their writing with each other. My students struggle with both of these abilities. They don't know how to talk to each other about their work, and often express that they are afraid to. I am hoping to work on both aspects of this situation. Rather than just writing comments and making improvements, I want my students to be unafraid of talking to each other and, ideally, excited about sharing their work with each other, rejecting the need for competition.
When looking at studies conducted on writing, giving feedback, and L2 (second language) development in relation to collaboration, Wigglesworth and Storch (2012) show that pair composition and processing of feedback allows for more cognitive processes because students can deliberate and test together.
Although this research is specifically related to collaborative writing for L2 development, it has useful connections to my classroom because it IS a language classroom, though most of my students are native English speakers. A few key points are made in this study that relate to and aid my research question are: First, it helped me identify specific conditions that contribute to collaborative learning: social relations among students, specific roles within the collaborative activity, and knowledge that can contribute to a developing group coherence. It also notes that for feedback and collaborative learning to matter, students must act on the feedback. It should be used as often as other types of writing/feedback.
My classroom was highly mixed in skill-level. I had students that could be in Seminar if there were space, and I had many that have IEPs that require an English support class in addition to the 9th grade class. The following study addressed the mixed-level classroom, particularly in regards to those students who are often struggle in the middle.
Saleh, Lazonder, and John (2007) studied how to best serve students who are not considered high- or low-achieving when it comes to collaboration. It found that heterogeneous groupings can leave out mid-level students as high-achievers become the mentors for struggling students. Active participation is a necessary part of collaboration, and teacher guidance is needed to show students how to work in those roles. The study argues for the use of group roles and ground rules for collaborative work to create collaboration that involves all students in the process, and concludes that mid-level students felt motivated to learn in structured groups, and that roles assignment reduces inequalities in participation.
It is only fair to admit that it is sometimes difficult to structure effective collaborative learning for my mid-level students. As I work to create a collaborative culture in my classroom, I need to be able to give these students roles that will aid in their learning as much as it creates a mentor/mentee relationship between high and low level students. It was this research that reminded me that the way my students were talking to each other mattered, because if all of my students should have a role, do they know how to take up that role? Do they know how to speak within that role?
If all students’ voices are to be valued, all students must be able to speak to each other, no matter their skill level. Collaboration is a skill for all students, so they must all have the chance to partake in it.
Building Trust
According to the definition of "peer response" above, students have to be able to express their thoughts to each other orally, not simply in writing. Part of my needs assessment and own observations revealed that my students didn't necessarily like to talk to one another.
Trust involves an element of risk-taking that goes beyond confidence and self-efficacy. Regardless of whether or not students feel capable of their independent abilities, trust involves a willingness to share those capabilities with others. Even teachers are not necessarily trusted just for their expertise, and distrust can happen when educational activities involve partners. Regardless, trusting environments in education are necessary to promote learning and minimize alienation and marginalization (Farini, 2012).
According to Kelman (2005), trust can be built. Groups or teams that develop a "working trust" do not have to be friends. What is important is that they share a desire to succeed in solving a joint problem or completing a task. Interpersonal relationships can develop, but they come later, as they build the working trust together.
What I'm interested in learning and exploring with this action research is how that affects groups of students, as many students don't necessarily share the same desires or drive that their peers do, or they have differing levels of buy-in. How can I help students develop working trust if not everyone is working? Can interpersonal trust help move them in the right direction? And how do I approach it as the teacher/facilitator?
Trust involves an element of risk-taking that goes beyond confidence and self-efficacy. Regardless of whether or not students feel capable of their independent abilities, trust involves a willingness to share those capabilities with others. Even teachers are not necessarily trusted just for their expertise, and distrust can happen when educational activities involve partners. Regardless, trusting environments in education are necessary to promote learning and minimize alienation and marginalization (Farini, 2012).
According to Kelman (2005), trust can be built. Groups or teams that develop a "working trust" do not have to be friends. What is important is that they share a desire to succeed in solving a joint problem or completing a task. Interpersonal relationships can develop, but they come later, as they build the working trust together.
What I'm interested in learning and exploring with this action research is how that affects groups of students, as many students don't necessarily share the same desires or drive that their peers do, or they have differing levels of buy-in. How can I help students develop working trust if not everyone is working? Can interpersonal trust help move them in the right direction? And how do I approach it as the teacher/facilitator?
What about the teacher's words?
In the end, I know that if I expect my students to be engaging in meaningful talk as they progress through their novels, I also need to examine the teacher’s role (my role) in speaking and listening. As the authority figure in the room, and the one with perceived answers to everything, the teacher has far more influence on students than we might even desire. The way in which a teacher frames a request or an idea matters.
It is Deci (1995) who argues that excessive control through the use of extrinsic rewards can undermine extrinsic motivation and performance, and that “once people are oriented toward rewards, they will.. take the shortest or quickest path to get to them.” It is concluded that, instead of focusing on the reward, a teacher could instead focus on teaching the value of the thing itself.
It cannot be ignored that all of this happens through language. According to Johnston (2004), “language has ‘content,’ but it also bears information about the speaker, and how he or she views the listener and their assumed relationship.” In this case, words are actions. Tell a student she is destined for publication, she might entertain the idea of making it happen. It is argued that “language... actually creates realities and invites identities.” (Johnston, 2004)
This becomes relevant to the way in which people position themselves to one another, which happens through language (Davies and Harre, 1999). A teacher can position him or herself as giver (opposite of the receivers), or s/he can position themselves as leader or facilitator. Similarly, content can be positioned as “work” just by saying we “have to” do it, when that’s not how we want students to view it. When it becomes a chore or a demand, students already don’t want to do it. Framing it as a project or something that we “get to” to together shifts the perception of the task. If students are expected to be able to talk to each other in productive and meaningful ways, it is not solely up to them to create that learning environment. The teacher’s words, literally the way that the teacher approaches any given interaction, affects students.
It is Deci (1995) who argues that excessive control through the use of extrinsic rewards can undermine extrinsic motivation and performance, and that “once people are oriented toward rewards, they will.. take the shortest or quickest path to get to them.” It is concluded that, instead of focusing on the reward, a teacher could instead focus on teaching the value of the thing itself.
It cannot be ignored that all of this happens through language. According to Johnston (2004), “language has ‘content,’ but it also bears information about the speaker, and how he or she views the listener and their assumed relationship.” In this case, words are actions. Tell a student she is destined for publication, she might entertain the idea of making it happen. It is argued that “language... actually creates realities and invites identities.” (Johnston, 2004)
This becomes relevant to the way in which people position themselves to one another, which happens through language (Davies and Harre, 1999). A teacher can position him or herself as giver (opposite of the receivers), or s/he can position themselves as leader or facilitator. Similarly, content can be positioned as “work” just by saying we “have to” do it, when that’s not how we want students to view it. When it becomes a chore or a demand, students already don’t want to do it. Framing it as a project or something that we “get to” to together shifts the perception of the task. If students are expected to be able to talk to each other in productive and meaningful ways, it is not solely up to them to create that learning environment. The teacher’s words, literally the way that the teacher approaches any given interaction, affects students.
Takeaways
Searching through the literature took me in many different directions, but each piece always led me to the idea that classroom culture is something that can be built together with my students, and that peer interaction is necessary for building trust and knowledge among all students. If not built or taught specifically, some students can get lost in the masses, as high-need students get teacher attention and others are left out. I can see that I am not providing enough explicit support for my students in learning how to work together and interact as peers, inhibiting the constructivist learning environment I hope we can create together. It is important to recognize that the way I interact with students is a model for how they will interact with each other. I must focus my attention on my words as I explicitly give students opportunity to engage in nonacademic group activities, and explicitly teach students how to engage in peer review.