Review of Theories and Approaches to Communication and Work in Groups.

Teacher A essentially uses the same approach and methods for every session. The sessions are highly structured and the same structure is applied in all sessions with little modification. The methods employed by the teacher are predominantly didactic; each session consists of a lecture accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation (a copy of which is given to each student at the beginning of the session) with no deviation from the order or structure provided by the PowerPoint slides. The lecture is interspersed with paper exercises based upon what the teacher has just covered which can be completed individually or in small groups and answers are then given for each exercise. Some discussion is encouraged but this is largely limited to discovering why students may not have arrived at the ‘right’ answer as a great deal of emphasis is placed upon getting the answers right. The teacher displays a leaning towards a cognitivistic approach and the analogy used by Kramlinger and Huberty of ‘the full pail of the wise teacher pouring its contents into the empty pail of the less informed learner’ (1990:42) certainly rings true as the teacher is imparting knowledge she possesses and we don’t. Further evidence of this is the fact that the learners’ knowledge is ‘tested’ periodically in each session by way of exercises that have ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers and again Kramlinger and Huberty, in their article Behaviourism Versus Humanism

Kirsty Harding

(1990:43), point to the use of tests as being a predominantly cognitivistic method. 

As with teacher A, teacher B often uses the same methods and approach in every session. However, the sessions are far less structured in nature and are often highly unpredictable. Whilst didactic methods are occasionally used, in the form of ‘miny’ lectures, such lectures are unstructured and are often the unplanned result of classroom discussion. There is a great deal of emphasis placed upon discussion, both in small groups and as a whole group, and these discussions are often based around a set reading exercise or similar text based exercise such as editing a piece of text. The exercises that are set in sessions differ substantially from those set by teacher A in that there is rarely a ‘right’ answer, the focus is essentially upon what the learners think about the task in regards to how easy or how difficult they have found it and how it could relate to their own learners experiences. The approach favoured by teacher B is far more difficult to categorise. There are some cognitivistic elements apparent in the short lectures given but these are certainly overshadowed by the humanistic elements present. Knowledge is built up through a mixture of lecture and discussion with the teacher largely acting as a facilitator. The most obvious humanistic element is the emphasis upon self-assessment and the learners’ drawing their own conclusions based upon their own experiences and insights ‘…. like drawing water from a well’ (Kramlinger and Huberty 1990:42).

The two approaches provide vastly differing experiences. On the one hand sessions taken by teacher A are very much teacher centred and require the learners to adopt a passive role in the learning experience and on the other hand there is a more student centred approach from teacher B in which the learners are encouraged, and indeed expected, to assume a far more active role in their own learning. However, whilst the two teachers provide

Kirsty Harding

such different experiences for the learners it is apparent that neither of them employs a great deal of differentiation in their practice and this has certainly had an effect on the learners’ attitudes and behaviour during sessions.

With few exceptions the learners in the group seem to prefer the methods adopted by teacher A, and this is evidenced by the disparate levels of unrelated chatter that can be seen in each session. For the most part during teacher A’s sessions there is very little talking amongst the learners whereas in teacher B’s sessions there is generally a great deal of talking that is unrelated to the subject matter. The majority of the group appear to feel much more comfortable with the structure of teacher A’s sessions, they are predictable, the exercises all have a ‘right’ answer and it is easy to identify and quantify exactly what has been learnt. During these sessions the learners are generally quiet and moderately attentive. In contrast the majority seem to find teacher B’s approach much more difficult, the sessions are extremely challenging, highly unpredictable and the knowledge gained during each session is much more difficult to pinpoint. Increasingly during these sessions I have become aware of the unspoken communication used by the learners, this takes the form of shuffling…. several learners will start to shuffle their papers and pack their bags before the teacher has finished speaking. This behaviour is something that teacher B has either not noticed or chooses to ignore as this is never taken as a sign that the learners have disengaged. This is an illustration of a point made by Dixon and Woolhouse, in their article The Relationship Between Teachers’ and Learners’ Individual Teaching/Learning Styles, that ‘what teachers think is happening in the learning situation, may not be what is actually happening from the learner’s perspective’ (Dixon and Woolhouse 1996:17). The implications of this are likely to be very negative should no apparent change occur either in the teaching methods used or the learners’ attitudes to the way in which they are taught.

Kirsty Harding

I can point to several reason why I believe the learners in the group react as they do to the two different approaches used by teachers A and B. Firstly, based upon discussion with other members of the group it has become apparent that they are most familiar, and therefore more comfortable, with cognitivistic methods as this was generally how they were taught during previous educational experiences. Secondly teacher A has certain personal qualities that appeal to the learners, she is funny and personable, and, without a doubt, didactic methods depend largely ‘…. upon the personal or charismatic qualities of the lecturer…’ for much of their effectiveness (Griffin 2002:56). Possibly the most important contributory factor has been that of context and explicitness of learning objectives for each of the modules. At the start of the modules teacher A was very explicit about the learning objectives of the module and the context of the teaching was set clearly. In comparison teacher B stated no learning objectives and no context for the teaching, indeed this did not happen for some time, this resulted in the learners feeling confused as to what they were expected to learn and why. Unfortunately for teacher B, and many of the learners in the group, this initial confusion has had a lasting effect.

With regard to my own personal views I can say without doubt that they have changed since the start of both the FENTO Level 4 Literacy course and the PGCE (FE) programme. My initial feelings regarding the sessions taken by teacher B were very negative, I found that the sessions were disjointed and was often confused regarding the purpose of the sessions. In contrast I always enjoyed the sessions taken by teacher A and believed that the methods employed by teacher A were more appropriate and effective. However, as my own knowledge of teaching methods and approaches has increased my opinions on the two teaching styles has changed quite dramatically. I still recognise that the methods employed by teacher A are effective in engaging the learners and that they are appropriate for the subject

Kirsty Harding

being taught, however I now also believe that these methods are also somewhat restrictive and limited in the sense that we, as learners, play a predominantly passive role in the learning experience and are not being challenged to develop our thinking beyond the sessions. In comparison my opinions of the methods and approach used by teacher B have become more positive. I am able to understand that these methods are being used in order to encourage the learners to engage in higher level thinking, to become more analytical and to develop a greater understanding of their own thought processes in relation to reading and writing. The sessions are very challenging, but the challenge is intended to enable the learners to take an active role in their own learning and to grow as ‘independent thinkers’. For this reason I can now see that in order to achieve this it is necessary to employ a wider range of approaches and that whilst some of the methods may seem ineffective with regard to the earlier two pails analogy they are actually highly effective at producing long term personal outcomes for the learners with regard to their own thinking and understanding of the way others think.

Kirsty Harding

Bibliography

1. Kramlinger, T and Huberty, T. (1990) Behaviourism Versus Humanism. Training & Development Journal. December 1990, p41.
2. Griffin, C. (2002) Didacticism: lectures and lecturing. In Jarvis, P. (ed) The Theory & Practice of Teaching. P55-69. London: Kogan Page Limited.
3. Dixon, T and Woolhouse, M. The Relationship Between Teachers’ and Learners’ Individual Teaching/Learning Styles (1996) Journal of Further and Higher Education. Vol. 20 (issue 3) p15.
4. Joyce, B, Calhoun, E and Hopkins, D. (1997) Models of learning-tools for teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.

 

---