From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side Author(S): Alison King Source: College Teaching, Vol

Home , College

From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side Author(s): Alison King Source: College Teaching, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Winter, 1993), pp. 30-35 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27558571 . Accessed: 24/04/2013 15:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to College Teaching.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 205.175.123.23 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:15:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From on the to Sage Stage Guide on the Side

Alison King

In most college classrooms, the pro constructed?by each individual knower instead of being the "sage on the stage," fessor lectures and the students through the process of trying to make functions as a "guide on the side," facil listen and take notes. The professor sense of new information in terms of itating learning in less directive ways. is the central figure, the "sage on the what that individual already knows. In The professor is still responsible for pre stage," the one who has the knowledge this constructivist view of learning, stu senting the course material, but he or she and transmits that knowledge to the stu dents use their own existing knowledge presents that material in ways that make dents, who simply memorize the infor and prior experience to help them under the students do something with the infor mation and later reproduce it on an stand the new material; in particular, mation?interact with it?manipulate exam?often without even thinking they generate relationships between and the ideas and relate them to what they al about it. This model of the teaching among the new ideas and between the ready know. Essentially, the professor's learning process, called the transmittal new material and information already in role is to facilitate students' interaction model, assumes that the student's brain memory (see also Brown, Bransford, with the material and with each other in is like an empty container into which the Ferrara, and Campione 1983; Wittrock their knowledge-producing endeavor. In professor pours knowledge. In this view 1990). the constructivist model the student is of teaching and learning, students are When students are engaged in actively like a carpenter (or sculptor) who uses passive learners rather than active ones. processing information by reconstructing new information and prior knowledge Such a view is outdated and will not be that information in such new and per and experience, along with previously effective for the twenty-first century, sonally meaningful ways, they are far learned cognitive tools (such as learning when individuals will be expected to more likely to remember it and apply it strategies, algorithms, and critical think think for themselves, pose and solve in new situations. This approach to ing skills) to build new knowledge struc complex problems, and generally pro learning is consistent with information tures and rearrange existing knowledge. duce knowledge rather than reproduce it. processing theories (e.g., Mayer 1984), But how do we get from transmission According to the current constructivist which argue that reformulating given in of information to construction of mean theory of learning, knowledge does not formation or generating new informa ing? Such a change can entail a consider come packaged in books, or journals, or tion based on what is provided helps one able shift in roles for the professor, who computer disks (or professors' and stu build extensive cognitive structures that must move away from being the one who dents' heads) to be transmitted intact connect the new ideas and link them to has all the answers and does most of the from one to another. Those vessels con what is already known. According to this talking toward being a facilitator who tain information, not knowledge. view, creating such elaborated memory orchestrates the context, provides re Rather, knowledge is a state of under structures aids understanding of the new sources, and poses questions to stimulate standing and can only exist in the mind material and makes it easier to remember. students to think up their own answers. of the individual knower; as such, In contrast to the transmittal model il Change is never easy; usually, how knowledge must be constructed?or re lustrated by the classroom lecture-note ever, changes are easier to bring about by taking scenario, the constructivist model modifying existing practices than by places students at the center of the proc starting afresh. So, we will begin by ess?actively participating in thinking at some Alison King is an associate professor of edu looking practical active-learning mean cation in the College of Education at Cali and discussing ideas while making activities that can be incorporated into a fornia State University in San Marcos. ing for themselves. And the professor, typical lecture; then we will move on to

30 COLLEGE TEACHING

This content downloaded from 205.175.123.23 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:15:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions more the formal approach of coopera cause-effect relationship between two use their own words and experiences? tive an to an learning, alternative the lec ideas, inference, or an elaboration, not regurgitate the text or lecture. ture. will This sequence show how the and it always leads to deeper understand An active-learning activity that can can a professor make gradual transition ing. However, students do not spontane easily be incorporated into a lecture is to an ex from the role of sage that of guide. ously engage in active learning; they "think-pair-share." Let's look at must be prompted to do so. Therefore ample of how this works. Dr. Jones is we need to for ac to his 101 class Promoting Active Learning provide opportunities lecturing Anthropology tive learning to take place. A general rule on the role of language in culture. After means Active learning simply getting of thumb might be as follows: for each several minutes, he poses the question: involved with the information presented major concept or principle that we pre "What do you think would happen if we ?really thinking about it (analyzing, sent, or that our students read about in had no spoken language? Think about synthesizing, evaluating) rather than just their text, we structure some activity that that for a minute." After a minute he passively receiving it and memorizing it. requires students to generate meaning continues, "Now pair up with the person Active learning usually results in the gen about that concept or principle. For this beside you and share your ideas." eration of something new, such as a approach to be effective, students must Each of the examples of active learn ing listed in Table 1 can be similarly in corporated into a lecture and can be ac complished during a one- to four-minute Table Activities to into a Lecture 1.?Learning Incorporate pause in the presentation. When I use these tactics during a lecture, I simply for a few minutes and have Student activity Explanation or example stop talking students engage in one of the activities. Then I have selected students share the Think-pair-share Students individually think for a moment of their before continu about a question posed on the lecture, then product activity pair up with a classmate beside them to ing with my presentation. Students either share/discuss their thoughts work alone or collaborate in pairs. Generating examples Students individually (or in pairs) think up a new example of a concept presented Guided Reciprocal Peer Developing scenarios Students work in pairs to develop a specific Questioning scenario of how and where a con particular Now let's look at small group learning cept or principle could be applied processes. These are methods that pro Concept mapping Students draw a concept map (a graphic mote problem exploration and task com representation such as a web) depicting the students in small relationshps among aspects of a concept or pletion by working principle groups while also having individual stu dents in interactive with Flowcharting Students sketch a flowchart showing how a engage learning procedure or process works their peers. In these small groups the stu an con Predicting Given certain principles or concepts, stu dent is simultaneously active dents write down their own predictions structor of knowledge and a collaborator a about what might happen in specific situ with peers in a shared construction of ation meaning; the role of the professor is to rebuttals Students rebuttals for Developing individually develop guide and facilitate this process. arguments presented in the lecture and then Again, let's begin with an instructional pair up with another student to argue for that is can be used and against approach interactive, in with the familiar lecture Constructing tables/graphs Students develop a table or draw a graph conjunction representing information presented presentation format, and that gets stu dents involved in Analogical thinking Students propose a metaphor or analogy actively constructing for a principle or procedure meaning. This is an approach that I have I Problem posing Individual students make up a real-world developed and that call "Guided Recip problem regarding a particular concept or rocal Peer Questioning" (King 1989, then a principle, exchange problems with 1990, 1992). classmate for solving Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning is Students a of a common Developing critiques develop critique an interactive learning procedure that practice can be used by students in any area of Pair Students work in summarizes summarizing/checking pairs?one the curriculum to help them actively what's been presented and the other listens material in lectures or and checks for errors, correcting errors process presented when noted other classroom presentations. Students work in groups of three or four. They

Vol. 41/No. 1 31

This content downloaded from 205.175.123.23 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:15:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions are provided with a set of generic ques questions are content-free, such as, pies. Such cognitive activities force the tions to use as a guide for generating "What does . . . mean?" and "What explainer to clarify concepts, elaborate their own specific questions on the lec conclusions can you draw about ... ?" on them, reorganize thinking, or in some ture content (see Figure 1).With the help (see Figure 1). Dr. Tax-Fax expects his manner reconceptualize the material. of the question stems, each student indi students to use these generic questions to Webb's (1989) extensive research on vidually writes two or three thought-pro guide them in formulating specific ques interaction and learning in peer groups voking questions based on the lecture. tions on the topic of intangible assets. indicates that giving such explanations Following this self-questioning step of Within a few minutes, each student in improves understanding for the individ the procedure, students engage in peer the class (working individually) has ual doing the explaining. For example, in questioning. They pose their questions to selected appropriate generic questions the sequence of dialogue shown in Figure their group and then take turns answer and has written down one or two specific 2, Maggie asked her group for the defini ing each other's questions in a group dis questions. At another signal from Dr. tion of the term intangible assets, cussion format. Tax-Fax, the small groups begin their and Fred, in the first part of his re These generic questions are designed questioning and responding (see dialogue sponse, simply parroted Dr. Tax-Fax's to induce higher-order thinking on the in Figure 2). definition. However, Fred showed that part of students. For example, simply The students continue asking and an he actually had made some meaning for formulating specific questions (based on swering each other's questions for sev the term when he later explained why the generic questions) forces students to eral more minutes until Dr. Tax-Fax in the cookie recipe would be considered identify the relevant ideas from the lec dicates that their discussion time is over. an intangible asset, thus suggesting that ture, elaborate on them, and think about He then brings the class together to share he had reorganized his thinking by in how those ideas relate to each other and and discuss inferences, examples, and ex corporating that concept into his exist to their own prior knowledge. Respond planations generated by the different ing knowledge. Similarly, Sam's inclu ing to others' questions further extends small groups and to clarify any misun sion of Mrs. Field's cookie recipes as a such active learning. derstandings that the students might new example of intangible assets was an have had regarding the topic of intangi indication of reconceptualization on his A Classroom Example ble assets. part. Furthermore, Sam's explanation Professor Tax-Fax lectures to his in of how Mrs. Field's recipe (an intangi of class An the troductory principles accounting Analysis of Example ble asset) could lose value showed con for twenty minutes on the of intan topic Dr. Tax-Fax's students were engaged cept clarification?he really understood gible assets. Then he pauses, to signals in several forms of active learning during some of the nuances of the concept. Es the and the students turn to their class, their guided peer-questioning and re sentially, Sam was using his prior and form of three. Dr. neighbors groups sponding activity. First of all, they had knowledge to make sense of the newly Tax-Fax turns on the overhead projector to think critically about the lecture con presented concept of intangible assets. to a list of All of the display questions. tent just to be able to formulate their When students think about class ma specific thought-provoking questions. terial in these ways, they actively proc To generate those questions, not only did ess the ideas and construct for them Figure 1. Generic Questions the students have to identify the main selves extensive cognitive networks that What is the main idea of ... ? ideas of the lecture, they also had to con connect the new ideas and link them to What if ... ? sider how those ideas relate to one an what they already know (e.g., Mayer How does . . . affect ... ? other and to the students' own existing 1984). Developing such cognitive net What ... is the meaning of ? knowledge. Second, in order to answer works facilitates understanding and . . . Why is important? those questions, the students had to be makes it easier to remember the new What is a new example of ... ? able to analyze and evaluate ideas pre material. In the discussion precipitated . . . Explain why .... sented, apply the information in new sit by Sam's "What if ?" question, the three students the Explain how .... uations, generate inferences from the lec together explored between the How does this relate to what I've ture material, and identify relationships relationship maintaining learned before? among the concepts covered. value of unique intangible assets and What conclusions can I draw about More specifically, in order to respond dissemination of the information that ? to a student's question, the other stu makes those assets unique. In speculat What is the difference between . . . dents in a group had to construct expla ing on the effects that the newspaper ad and ... ? nations and communicate them. Ex vertisement might have for Mrs. Field's How are . . . and . . . similar? plaining something to someone else often business, they undoubtedly forged new How would I use ... to ... ? requires the explainer to think about and links among the ideas presented in the the material in new such as lecture and those ideas and What are the strengths and weak present ways, between their nesses of ... ? relating it to the questioner's prior knowl own prior knowledge. For example, Fred . . . or What is the best and why? edge experience, translating it into fa integrated the new information about in miliar terms, or generating new exam tangible assets with marketing/advertis

32 COLLEGE TEACHING

This content downloaded from 205.175.123.23 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:15:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions He knew that the generic questions would control the of the Figure 2. I-1Sample Guided Reciprocal Peer-Questioning Dialogue quality specific questions students asked and that those starts her off her first "What does Maggie group by reading question, 'intangible questions in turn would influence the assets' mean?" quality of student thinking and knowl discussion. All he FRED: Well, Dr. Tax-Fax said in the lecture that intangible assets are things edge building during that a company has that have value but aren't concrete?you can't ac had to do was structure the situation to tually see them like you can machinery or buildings or merchandise. allow that to happen. Therefore, after like and trademarks?stuff like that. But Things goodwill?and patents providing the guiding questions, he ar you have to count them on the books somehow. You have to come up ranged the class in groups of three with with a dollar value for them. And when you sell a company, the intangi ble assets are sold too. the requirement that they discuss the SAM: I suppose things like Mrs. Field's cookie recipes would be considered an topic of intangible assets by taking turns intangible asset too. asking and answering each others' spe FRED: I so. It fits the definition. not but Yeah, guess They're concrete, they're cific questions on the topic. Because this valuable. People love her cookies! Her cookies wouldn't be unique if reciprocal questioning-answering proce every cookie shop and bakery had the recipe. dure each individual to contrib SAM: Well, that's what I'm wondering about. I read in the paper a few months requires ago that someone called up to the headquarters of Mrs. Field's Cookies ute questions and answers, all members and asked if they could get the recipe for Mrs. Field's chocolate chip of each group were obligated to partiea The who answered the said that the cookies. receptionist phone recipe pate, but no one individual dominated could be and that the caller could even the on his credit bought put charge the discussion. card. Which he did. Somehow there was a miscommunication because the caller thought he was being charged two dollars for the recipe but when Professor Tax-Fax had his students the credit card statement arrived it was for two thousand dollars. The work in small groups because he knew caller was so that he an ad in the Mrs. Field's angry put paper offering that learning through peer-group inter chocolate chip cookie recipe free to anyone who called his number. And action results in cognitive benefits for he put the recipe on his answering machine. He got so many calls that he an each student far those that an printed the recipe in the newspaper along with explanation of what had beyond happened to him. The point of telling this story is that I wonder: Did Mrs. individual would experience working Gield's intangible asset drop in value because of that incident? What if alone. He was aware that in small group in the United States read that everyone paper? learning contexts such as Guided Recip Maggie: Then anyone could make those cookies! There wouldn't be anything rocal Peer Questioning students are special about Mrs. Field's cookies any longer. confronted with each others' FRED: Of course the recipe would be less valuable! conflicting Maggie: And then Mrs. Field's assets would be smaller and the value of her busi viewpoints on issues as well as differ ness would be less. ences in each other's prior knowledge of her business would decline because SAM: Also the volume probably people and current understanding of the topic, would make their own "Mrs. Field's cookies" instead of buying them. and, in attempting to understand each FRED: But would they? In our marketing class we learned that consumers in to other's views and come to agreement, day's society are pretty lazy?or at least they prefer the leisure time to do to their ing the work. And they'd rather spend the money to buy things than individual students have modify spend the time to make them. own thinking. Each member of such a SAM: who would use the So maybe only people enjoy cooking actually recipe, group makes important and necessary and all the others would continue to cookies from Mrs. Field. buy contributions to the construction of a maggie: In that case Mrs. Field wouldn't lose much in terms of her business. shared of the how SAM: But I don't think the real threat to Mrs. Field's intangible asset would be understanding topic; the general public. I think other cookie shops would start using her recipe ever, each individual's understanding to make cookies and then there would be more competition for Mrs. Field and expression of it are idiosyncratic. her business. could even advertise that and that would hurt They they Such learning exemplifies the social used her recipe. construction of knowledge?a model of FRED: Yeah, we learned in Marketing 101 that it's legal to say things like that in name. the process that is constructiv advertising and even actually mention your competitor's learning maggie: But why do you think Mrs. Field would offer such a valuable intangible ist in nature but that also emphasizes asset for sale at all? Especially at such a low price? And does that mean collaboration. that the actual value of that intangible asset is only $2,000? When Professor Tax-Fax ended the activity by calling on each group to share its ideas, he was extending the so but To cial construction of to a ing concepts (such as consumer charac obtrusive powerful ways. begin knowledge teristics and the deliberate comparison with, he provided the students with ques whole-class context. In doing so, he new and un with specific competitors) that he had tion starters written at the higher levels made sure that inferences across learned about in a different course. of Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of thinking. derstandings were disseminated and that if arrived at Dr. Tax-Fax's role in this activity was He was well aware of the importance of groups groups those purely facultative. As a guide on the side, carefully selecting the generic question conflicting meanings, differing would be revealed and he promoted knowledge building in un starters to be used. perspectives

Vol. 41/No. 1 33

This content downloaded from 205.175.123.23 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:15:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions et could be reconciled through further but unobtrusively arranges the context ous disciplines, consult Aronson al. whole-class discussion. and facilitates the process. Jigsaw activ 1978). ities are designed so that each student in Constructive Controversy a receives of the learn Guided group only part Effects of Reciprocal Another ing materials and must learn that part cooperative learning strategy Peer Questioning and then teach it to the others in the for use with large classes is constructive In this students In using Guided Reciprocal Peer group. Thus, each student's part is like controversy. procedure, work in teams of four; of students Questioning with a number of college one piece of a jigsaw puzzle; to under pairs within teams are to classes, I have found that teaching stu stand the whole picture, students must assigned opposing of a controversial issue. Each dents to ask their own thought-provok have access to all parts of the learning sides pair researches its side of the issue and then ing questions stimulates their critical materials. Because students must com the discuss the issue as a team. The thinking and promotes high-level dis bine their pieces to complete the puzzle, pairs of this discussion is to become cussion. Because of the reciprocal na each team member's contribution is purpose more informed about the issue and to ture of this procedure, all students ac highly valued. in collaborative construction of tively participate in the discussions. In implementing a jigsaw activity, the engage to win a debate about the Even those students who are reluctant professor divides the material to be meaning?not issue. After some to participate in class for fear of asking learned into several parts?usually no discussion, pairs sides and for the the teacher "stupid" questions are less more than five or six. Each part must be switch argue opposite side of the issue. each student hesitant about posing such questions to a unique source of information that is Finally, a on material their peers in a small group. comprehensible on its own without ref takes test the individually I have also found that students who erence to any of the other parts. Stu to determine that student's understand the issue. Constructive contro are taught to ask and answer thoughtful dents are assigned to "home teams" ing of be used in questions perform better on subsequent with as many members as there are versy might computer stu tests of lecture comprehension than do parts to the learning materials, and each courses, for example, to encourage to the issues inher students who use other comprehension team member receives one part of the dents explore ethical ent in the use of strategies such as unguided group dis material. Students reassemble into "ex computers, software, cussion or independent review (King pert groups" by joining all of the other and telecommunications. 1989, 1990). Such an improvement in students who received that particular Co-op Co-op learning suggests that the students who part. In their expert groups, students is a student-centered engage in this questoning-answering read and discuss their part of the mate Co-op co-op1 cooperative approach to learning and process actually reconceptualize the ma rial together to learn it thoroughly. can be used for the study of any unit of terial. In fact, tape recordings of the Then they return to their home groups course material or for any number of students' discussions have shown that and teach the part they learned to the research or students using Guided Reciprocal Peer other members of their team. problem-solving projects. Students work together in small teams Questioning give more explanations and In this way, each team member is an to investigate a topic and produce a highly elaborated responses to each expert in one part of the material to be that then share with other than do students who use either learned, and each team member learns group product they the whole class. Thus the name "co-op discussion or unguided reciprocal peer material from the other experts on the students cooperate within their questioning straegies, thus indicating team; thus, jigsaw emphasizes interde co-op": teams to something of benefit some degree of conceptual restructuring pendence. Finally, each student is tested produce to the are in or on the part of those particular students. independently to assess individual un class; they cooperating der to There are nine in derstanding of the complete set of mate cooperate. steps at Cooperative Learning rial. In this way, jigsaw emphasizes in implementing co-op co-op. Again, each step the professor guides the proc The same sociocognitive benefits that dividual accountability. ess from the side, facilitating students' derive from Guided Reciprocal Peer In a psychology course on theories of interaction with learning materials and Questioning can be obtained from other personality, for example, jigsaw might with each other. instructional approaches that call for be used to present material such as dif cooperative learning, such as Jigsaw, fering theories of personality, alterna Step 1. Student-centered class discus of an instruc Constructive Controversy, and Co-op tive approaches to assessing personality, sion. At the beginning Co-op. or specific examples of personality dis tional unit, the professor encourages the orders. In some cases, a jigsaw teach students to discuss their interests in the Jigsaw ing-learning approach might be used to subject to be covered. This discussion Jigsaw is a cooperative learning pro provide an overview of a particular should lead to an understanding among cedure commonly used in classroom set topic; in other cases, this approach the professor and all the students about tings (Aronson et al. 1978). In jigsaw, as might be used following the introduc what the students want to learn and ex with all cooperative learning ap tion of an area of study. (For develop perience during the unit. The impor proaches, the professor says very little ing specific uses for the jigsaw in vari tance of this initial discussion cannot be

34 COLLEGE TEACHING

This content downloaded from 205.175.123.23 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:15:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions underestimated because co-op co-op tent of the material. Non-lecture for 1989). Cooperative and collaborative will not be successful for any students mats such as debates, displays, team-led learning also have positive effects on who are not actively interested in a topic class discussions, videotapes, simula self-concept, race relations, acceptance related to the unit. tions, role-playing episodes, or demon of handicapped students, and enjoy strations are encouraged (as are the use ment of school (Slavin 1990). Step 2. Selection of student learning of overheads and audiovisual our students in such active teams. Students self-select into four- to materials). Engaging them to think five-member teams. Step 8. Team presentations. During learning experiences helps for themselves?to move away from the its presentation, a team takes over the Step 3. Team topic selection. In their the classroom and is for how reproduction of knowledge toward teams, students discuss their interests in responsible production of knowledge?and helps a the class time, space, and resources are the topics and then select topic for them become critical thinkers and crea their team. Each team should select a used. tive problem solvers so that they can with which its members 9. Evaluation. student topic identify. Step Being deal effectively with the challenges of centered, co-op co-op calls for the class Step 4. Minitopic selection. Just as the twenty-first century. to have considerable in how the class as a whole divides the unit into say learning is evaluated as well as the criteria to be sections to create a division of labor NOTE used in that evaluation. Therefore most among the teams in the class, each team 1. The description of co-op co-op is evaluation will be self-evaluation or divides its topic into minitopics to create adapted from S. Kagan, 1989, Cooperative the class a division of labor within the team. peer evaluation; however, may Learning Resources for Teachers, San Juan decide to include instructor evaluation Calif.: Resources for Teachers. Each team member selects a minitopic. Capistrano, also. Evaluation can take place on three 5. After Step Minitopic preparation. levels: (1) team presentations (generally their students work selecting minitopics, evaluated by the class or by the team it REFERENCES independently to prepare their mini self), (2) individual contributions to the Aronson, E., N. Blaney, C. Stephan, on the nature of the topics. Depending team effort (often evaluated by the team J. Sikes, and M. Snapp. 1978. The jigsaw main covered, the prepara classroom. Hills, Calif.: topic being or the individual student), or (3) a write Beverly Sage. tion of may involve Bloom, B. S., ed. 1956. Taxonomy of educa minitopics library up of the minitopic (often evaluated by sur tional objectives: The classification of research, data gathering through the team). educational goals. Handbook 1. Cognitive veys or experimentation, creation of an domain. New York: McKay. individual project, or some expressive A. J. D. A. Findings Brown, L., Bransford, R. Fer as a or activity such writing script creat rara, and J. C. Campione. 1983. Learn Studies of con ing a video. group-based learning, ing, remembering, and understanding. In ducted over the past twenty years, have Handbook of child psychology, vol. Ill: Step 6. Minitopic presentations. shown that such approaches to learning Cognitive development, edited by J. H. When students complete their mini Flavell and E. M. Markman, 77-166. New can be effective in increasing student topics, they present them to their team York: Wiley. achievement (Slavin 1990). However, mates. These should be Kagan, S. 1989. Cooperative learning re presentations achievement seems to result improved sources for teachers, San Juan Capis formal. Presentations and follow-up primarily when the cooperative ap trano, Calif.: Resources for Teachers. discussion should allow all team mem proach uses some sort of group goal King, A. 1989. Effects of self-questioning bers to gain the knowledge and experi training on college students' and stresses individual accountability. comprehen ence each. the sion of lectures. Educa acquired by Following when students are individ Contemporary Apparently, tional team members Psychology 14:1-16. presentations, discuss accountable for their ually learning-. 1990. Enhancing peer interaction the team topic like a panel of experts, (e.g., when each member of the group and learning in the classroom through re critiquing the presentations and noting must take a test) and a group goal is es ciprocal questioning. American Educa of and tional Research Journal 27:664-87. points convergence divergence. tablished when every individual in (e.g., -. The should time for 1992. Facilitating elaborative learn professor provide the group must understand the material feedback and additional time for teams ing through guided student-generated to the members have pass test), group questioning. Educational Psychologist 27 or team members to rework aspects of incentive to help each other learn the (1): 111-26. their in of that feedback. reports light material. Mayer, R. E. 1984. Aids to prose compre hension. Educational 19: Step 7. Preparation of team presenta This sets up a condition of interde Psychologist 30-42. tions. Students integrate the minitopics pendence. Under these circumstances, Slavin, R. E. 1990. Cooperative learning: for the team members tend to each presentation. (Panel pre group provide Theory, research, and practice. Engle sentations in which each member re other with elaborated explanations of wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ports on his or her minotopic are dis concepts and processes so that everyone Webb, N. M. 1989. Peer interaction and in small groups. International couraged as they may represent a failure will understand the material and will ex learning Journal of Educational Research 13:21-39. to reach cel on the test. As discussed earlier, ex high-level cooperative synthesis Wittrock, M. C. 1990. Generative processes to others of the material.) The form of the pre plaining something improves of comprehension. Educational Psycholo sentation should be dictated by the con one's own understanding (see Webb gist 24:345-76.

Vol. 41/No. 1 35

This content downloaded from 205.175.123.23 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:15:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions