just to put mu 2 cents in in regards to the following
At 07:42 PM 5/8/96 EDT, you wrote:(generated by my Eudora program)
>Dewey asks:
>>wondering is how to get this sort of engagement more frequently if not most
>>of the time. Since it _can_ happen occassionally, then why not most of the
>>time?
>
> This has been a perennial question for me... What I've ended up doing
>in my intro to child development course is scheduling 10 small group
>sessions into the course--it's written plainly on the syllabus. Each
>small group session focuses on a topic. We use the Cole & Cole text
>(smile) so, for instance, on ch. 2 which covers "genes and the
>environment," the topic is the Nature vs. Nurture controversy using
>either IQ or gender differences as an example. The students are
>directed to read selected pages in the relevant chapter, and then to
>write a 2-page reaction paper, using examples from their own life.
>Then for the actual class, they break into small groups and discuss
>their papers among themselves. I take turns joining the different
>small groups; I ask them their names at this time and try to build
>some sense of connection with them as well as between them and the
>material. At the end of the class, we come together into a large
>group again and discuss issues that emerged in the small groups.
>For some topics (e.g., peer pressure) it works very well to have
>students use their small group experience as a springboard for
>contributing in the larger group as well, though it works less well
>for other topics (e.g., friendship in middle childhood). Anyway,
>when I first started doing this, students were QUITE resistant to
>the idea, but this last time I taught the course, I got comments
>like, "The small groups were the best part of the course."
>
> Robin
>
There is a game I often used, which works on small as well as on large
groups, in context of one session or the whole semester. It never failed to
stir up a lot of people and engage them in a vivid discussion and motivated
learning. I have first heard of this game, and had played it myself a long
time ago at a Conference of Yugoslav Psychologists (of what used to be
Yugoslavia).
This is how it is played in a nut shell (there are numerous variations):
Two sides are established among the participants (they can be individuals,
smaller groups 2-5; larger groups...). A controversial issue is very briefly
presented to them: let's say in our case: phonics vs. whole language
education. Depending on a class it can be almost anything: gender
differences in learning, individual vs social determinism, nature vs.
nurture etc. As Jay mentioned, unfortunatelly we have a whole lot of these
floating around. The groups are assigned a side to argue for or against.
They are not allowed to chose according to their initial preferences!! This
is a game - that's the rule. The instruction is to start a discussion from
the most extreme positions. There is also a moderator who observes and
controls the discussion. At some point, when the moderator thinks that the
basic extreme positions are sufficiently outlined, s/he stops the discussion
and switches the assigned sides. It is not easy for the discussants, because
they have to change the whole perspective. Another rule is not to repeat
previously given arguments. The discussion continues, and after a while,
there is a new switch... and so on. The most usual outcomes are: deepening
of the views, loosing the strict polarity of the issue and multiple
perpectives. The game doesn't lead to a "resolution" but to learnig and
refining the arguments. If it is played over time (during a semester),
students can get assignments to find out supportive evidence for their
arguments in the chosen literature.
As an example I'll describe a class of about 50 students (highschool)
discussing an issue of freedom of speech vs. legal prohibition of "socially
disturbing" movements. This was preceded by a report by one student on the
neo-Nazi rock music in Germany. The whole class of 50 was then artificially
devided into two large groups (those on the left side of the classroom vs.
those on the right side). I can only say that they argued not only in the
class (whith 4 switches of sides), but continued long afterwards, and
engaged in a substanital amount of learnig in different directions
(constitution, history, mass movements, psychology of agression etc...). It
was a hot topic. I have taught general psychology and developmental
psychology in a similar way, and there were always some issues which could
be made into "hot topics".
There are other games, too. In general, I thik that it is possible to engage
even larger groups of people into a very motivated activity which could
become a significant learning experience. Whether it is possible all the
time as Dewey would like, I don't know. We can at least arrange to have more
of those exciting moments.
Ana
_________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane
151 W. Tulpehocken St. Office of Mental Health and
Philadelphia, PA 19144 Mental Retardation
(215) 843-2909 [voice] 1101 Market St. 7th Floor
(215) 843-2288 [fax] Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 685-4767 [v]
(215) 685-5581 [fax]
E-mail: pshane who-is-at andromeda.rutgers.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------