Chapter 9 – Case Study 2
First let me apologize for getting my blog in late. I’ve been laid up in bed with a stomach virus and finally felt well enough to get up. The first issue I see in this case study is that Mike made an assumption about what knowledge the students were coming into the class with. The second is that they are not sure what and how they are being evaluated.
When Mike made the decision to use a constructivist theory in learning, wanting the students to actively learn and construct their knowledge (Woolfolk, 2007, p. 344), he did not take into account the prior knowledge that the students may or may not have in this subject. The students although having had History in high school may not remember the basic information or facts they need to feel secure in this method of teaching. This approach also may not be right for even the good students, I know that even though I’m a relatively outgoing person, I’m not sure I would be comfortable running around and talking to the long-term residents of a town, especially if I’m not from that area. Second is that the students did not know exactly what they were being evaluated on. Grading an exam that is based on speculation could be very hard for both the students and the teacher, because you may not feel the same way and with the teachers knowledge of the subject he may be biased on the way he evaluates each students response. This could lower a students self-efficacy, research shows that “if a sense of self-efficacy is low people may avoid a task altogether or give up easily when a problem arises (Woolfolk, 2007, p.366). I these students don’t understand how they are being evaluated or what exactly Mike is looking for they may not be motivated to try.
In a situation like this I feel that Mike needs to start the course by finding out what the student’s prior knowledge of the subject is and then giving a good overview of how the course is going to be conducted. Once he has determined the amount of knowledge the students have he could spend some time doing a review of the facts needed for the class and clearly state how they will be evaluated. I like the idea that he is using different ways of teaching to help the students learn about history, but he needs to make sure that he evaluates the students on different tasks. Not all students learn the same and some are not self-regulated learners. Mike should use this approach to supplement the class information being taught. It’s kind of like our research paper, case studies, simulations, etc, that we are using in this class. They are teaching us new ways of learning while still using our text and having an exam, this gives everyone the ability to learn and be evaluated in several different ways.
After the first exam Mike needs to talk to the students about what they liked or disliked about the exam and what the students feel would help. These students need to feel like they have a say in some of their learning. This will help keep their self-efficacy up and motivate them to try new ways of learning. Also, when the students asked him how they were being evaluated and he really could not answer and left the class flustered it showed the students that he may not be confident in the decision made in teaching this class. He needs to listen to the students and incorporate some of the student’s suggestions while still having them discover this new style of learning as a project instead of a whole class approach.
Mike’s department head should speak to him about what happened in the classroom and even maybe observe his class to see if there is something the chair can suggest for making the class run smoother. Maybe he can help by suggesting different teaching approach to incorporate into his class that will motivate the students and help them also learn different ways of learning.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Nice blog! I like your comments about asking for the students’ input regarding the class and the exam.