To compare the effectiveness of traditional school lessons under the guidance of a teacher and the joint work of students in groups, scientists conducted a series of experiments.
The University of Illinois (USA) study involved almost 800 fifth graders from 8 schools located in poor areas (the performance of students in these schools was significantly below the US average). Some of them worked on a project for six weeks, during which they had to discuss the proposed scenario and decide whether the residents of the village, who are worried about a pack of wolves living nearby, hire professional hunters to shoot these wolves.
Pass the tests
- Are you good at raising children?
- Why are you acting childish?
Schoolchildren were required to consider the problem from different points of view, taking into account environmental, economic and political factors. At the same time, some students discussed the situation with each other within the discussion groups, while others worked on the project in the traditional school format – under the guidance of a teacher. In this scenario, there was no single correct answer. The goal of the course was to teach children to make informed and thoughtful decisions based on a comprehensive analysis of the available information. At the end of the six-week project, the students had to write two essays, one of which required them to make a verdict (and justify it) – what should be done with a pack of wolves.
Read more:
- Learning foreign languages in a group: how to find your place
In the second essay, the student had to make a decision regarding a completely different scenario. In this case, it was about a boy named Jack who had a friend named Thomas. Thomas was the outcast in the class. Jack learned that Thomas had won a homemade car race but broke the rules by asking his older brother to help him make a car. In their essay, the students had to answer the question (providing their answer): should Jack reveal Thomas’ deception.
After reading the final essays, the researchers concluded that those students who discussed the wolf problem in discussion groups were much better prepared to solve the moral dilemma in the second scenario than students who worked through the wolf scenario in regular lessons under teacher guidance. In particular, they could look at the situation from different points of view and were able to find arguments in favor of each of them. They were also better able to weigh the merits and demerits of each possible solution to a problem. In their essays, they much more often appealed to moral principles and cited various practical considerations.
Read more:
- I can’t vacation in a group
Those students who discussed the situation with wolves under the guidance of a teacher coped with the second task no better than those students who did not participate in the discussion of the problem of wolves at all.
“Working in groups gave students the opportunity to move from a passive role as a listener to an active role as a participant in a discussion and a person who makes independent decisions,” says Xin Zhang, lead author of the study.
Подробнее см. Х. Zhang et al. «Improving Children’s Competence as Decision Makers. Contrasting Effects of Collaborative Interaction and Direct Instruction», American Educational Research Journal, December 2015.