If four heads are really better than one, what are the best ways to implement cooperative learning to make it more productive for developmental English students?
In Lev Vygotsky’s revolutionary books Thought and Language and Mind in Society, he outlines a developmental theory of learning, in which he articulates a definition of what he calls a “zone of proximal development (ZPD), which is “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Mind in Society 86).
Vygotsky notes that children are able to copy or imitate actions that go beyond their own capabilities, and this imitation, when cooperating and interacting with people in his peer environment (this could be peers or adults), eventually become “part of the child’s independent developmental achievement” (88, 90). By working with others, children are able to do more later on their own. This concept is key to a developmental theory of learning because it highlights how important imitation is to our development.
Such a concept has become highly important to the world of developmental/ESL English education. It is frequently found in the formats of modeling and cooperative learning in particular. In modeling, students see examples of the work they are expected to perform and then follow that particular style, becoming more competent through practice; cooperative learning also fits well with developmental theories of learning, because it allows students to work together to accomplish more. This is what Rashne Jehangir wrote about in her book chapter “Cooperative learning in the multicultural classroom.” Jehangir determines that through opening up controversial topics in a developmental education setting through the use of cooperative learning, students would learn more and also develop greater cultural awareness.
Jehangir first notes that the history of this issue has been examined since at least the 1960s. According to Parker Palmer, “‘there is a growing sense that teaching and learning don’t really happen unless there is some kind of building of relationships—not only between teacher and students but between teachers, students and subject’” (91). Jehangir also notes that other scholars believe in “‘constructivism where knowledge is actively built by learners, working together cooperatively and interdependently’” (91-92).
However, Jehangir quickly throws away the idea of simply putting students into group work, which she notes “does not result in the development of community, nor does it dissolve the competitive, individualistic behavior that many students think is expected of them” (93). She notes that for real cooperative learning, a teacher must facilitate, teach, and familiarize students with the process of working together (93). Jehangir believes that such a model of cooperative learning is particularly productive for developmental English because such a diverse and multicultural classroom will “use the rich tapestry of difference to allow students to teach each other” (96).
Recommendations that Jehangir uses to build such cooperative learning are to get students to define the word “community,” to “allow students to initiate ownership and accountability of the classroom experience” and have them state what they hope will come out of a classroom where peer interaction is crucial (97). Students must also create their own rules for their classroom community, while the instructor models and facilitates “appropriate use of the rules established by the students themselves” (97). Next, group activities that require students to listen carefully, consider what their partners have said, and give students time to self-reflect and summarize such discussions in the classroom are crucial (98).
I first learned about Vygotsky in Dr. Louise Phelps’ Productive Theory course during summer 2015. It was a particular turning-point for me in thinking about how to best approach my classes and students as individuals and as co-learners in the classroom space, but also made me think about NOVA’s policies for developmental education and if they are best being utilized.
First, I considered how learning such a method gave a name to something I already attempt to practice. I have always found group work to be particularly productive in classes. However, both Vygotsky and Jehangir made me think about how I am implementing such group work – do I need to spend more time, as Jehangir says, linking “classroom activities or assignments so that group members need each other’s input in order to be successful” (95)? I teach a developmental English course in which I, like Jehangir, discuss various controversial topics about race and gender. As Jehangir stated, do I need to spend more time than I do building a community classroom in which students feel safe? In addition, I normally let students choose their own work groups. These are often productive, but not always. Do I need to spend more time thinking about who is in which group to allow for greater ZPD possibilities? While I am highly intrigued by the idea of cooperative learning, I now fear that the little I am doing in my own classroom to facilitate it is insufficient, and I may need to consider other advice from readings for paper 4 to find better ways to implement cooperative learning into my classroom.
Finally, at looking at NOVA’s developmental English department as a whole, thinking about Vygotsky and Jehangir makes me question yet again (as I have in several other PAB entries) whether or not NOVA is implementing developmental education in the most efficient manner. Would mixing class time with “regular” and “developmental” students, while offering developmental students additional time with the instructor be more productive? It seems that if we want to move towards a productive, cooperative, and developmental theory of learning, such a model might be necessary.
Works Cited
Jehangir, Rashne. “Cooperative learning in the multicultural classroom.” Theoretical perspectives for developmental education. Ed. J. L. Higbee, & D. B. Lundell. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, General College, Center for Research in Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, 2001. 91-99. Print.
Vygotsky, Lev. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. Print.
Vygotsky, Lev. Thought and Language. Trans. Alex Kozulin. 1962. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1986. Print.