Pp. 241
$39.95 ISBN 0-415-25826-X
When I began to read this book, I wondered if the level of
maturity, knowledge of qualitative and quantitative research
methodology, and ability of teenagers to conduct research on such
a grand scale was sufficient. Fortunately, the teens proved
themselves to be somewhat capable, mature youths and university
faculty researchers supported them.
As I began reading this book I became fascinated by the scope
of the research. Three successive cohorts comprised of a
representative fifth year high school student from each of the
following countries: Japan, South Africa, Scotland, Czech
Republic, South Korea, and Sweden visited one high schools in
each of the six countries named. One cohort visited Hong Kong.
Each of the three cohorts focused on one topic: motivation,
student learning, or self-evaluation. It was not clear which
cohort studied which topic each year.
The Learning School
The young researchers were part of The Learning School whose
genesis was the Global Classroom. This interconnected
partnership between schools in each of the above named countries
came about in the late 1980s. The schools in this partnership
share curricula and have exchange-student programs, for example.
Through this alliance, leaders from the partnership schools have
debated such issues as standards of education and
accountability.
As the end of the twentieth century approached, leaders from
the schools in the Global Classroom wanted a way to mark the
millennium and thus, the Learning School was born. The Learning
School is a group of learners, and not an actual building.
Student groups from the Learning School would live with host
families and work in the various school communities collecting
data through widely accepted qualitative and quantitative
research methodologies. Additionally, they would analyze and
present their data at Global Classroom conferences and other
venues.
A series of discussions via email, phone, fax, and letter
occurred between parents, students, and staff of the partnership
schools as to the logistics of creating an international study
group comprised of teenagers who would live with various host
families, for weeks at a time, and conduct research. They would
learn to deal with culture, cuisine, weather, and personality
differences, not to mention feeling of isolation and
homesickness. The Learning School student-researchers had the
other team members for support, but sometimes that was a
hindrance when patience was tested or tempers flared. Time was
spent securing monetary support for travel and insurance for the
teens, as well as finding host families with a teenage son or
daughter who attended one of the partnership schools. The
problem of language did not seem to be as large as I expected as
many people in the global community study/speak several
languages.
Research Design
Once the students fully understood the concepts and terms
pertinent to the subject matter, they discussed research designs
with university faculty. The Learning School project stipulated
quality research, but left the specific research design to the
teen researchers. This is potentially problematic, especially if
the youths did not have any background in research design.
Researchers in each cohort employed one or more of several
research techniques: 1) observation, 2) questionnaires, 3)
shadowing, 4) spot checking, and/or 5) audio taped interviews to
gather the data. Through shadowing, a Learning School
researcher followed a student throughout a day taking extensive
notes. Spot checking referred to a short list with a 4-point
Likkert Scale completed by individuals or whole classes to note
levels of motivation or learning. Learning School researchers
interviewed students, teachers, school leaders, and parents in an
effort to triangulate data and to compare perspectives. The
Learning School researchers could interview peers without making
them nervous, as the interviewees were likely to open-up to a
friendly peer. Each cohort used the research tools in slightly
different ways but always included a measure of reliability.
Beginning the Task
The first task was to get to know each of the schools. Since
they were located in six different countries, an initial trip to
each school was necessary. The students became familiar with the
curricular requirements and daily routines of each country and
school via the inaugural visit and communication with the team
member from that population. After visiting the schools, the
students determined the specific research questions and
methodologies they would employ. University faculty members
reportedly offered modest assistance where specifically needed.
As with many experienced researchers, new questions occurred and
were incorporated into existing research designs.
Benefits to the Students
Throughout the year abroad, Learning School researchers gained
many additional benefits. Their relationship with their host
families reportedly became, in some cases, quite close. The
teens made many friends, experienced living life out of a
suitcase, made travel arrangements via the Internet, exchanged
money, gained confidence, improved their problem-solving skills,
worked as teams, and learned patience. Learning School
researchers learned that tape-recorders can malfunction and
interview subjects can disappear. They learned to synthesize
their data and present their findings before large international
audiences comprised of parents, students, teachers, and
educational leaders. The above seems a daunting task, but one
the Learning School researchers sought out eagerly; so much so
that by year three, the cohort subdivided into several groups of
researchers who coordinate their schedules.
Although MacBeath and Sugimine served as editors for this
text, it was the students, teachers, and other individuals who
contributed relevant pieces and it is to this later group I refer
when I say “the authors” throughout the remainder of
the text.
Results
Chapter 5 offers comments from school leaders about the impact
the Learning School had on their individual school. Teachers in
the various schools claimed that they valued the Learning School
researchers and the data gathered by them. Some teachers at
Gymnásuim Zlín in the Czech Republic participated in an
in-service day where they were taught by the researchers using
methodologies the teachers’ used in their own classrooms
(i.e., lecture, discussion, hands-on). The teachers evaluated
the teaching and assessed how uninspiring or motivating each
teaching style could be and how it effected their own
students.
These young researchers became investigators. According to
the text, they presented themselves professionally and raised
interesting questions with teachers, students and
administrators. Teachers and administrators reported that they
learned many lessons from these youths (p. 52). Many discussions
began with data generated by the Learning School researchers.
Chapter 6 offers highly favorable commentary from attendees of
presentations the Learning School researchers made. These
attendees, distinguished researchers and presenters in their own
right, praised the youths for their findings, interpretations,
approach to research, and their confidence.
In order to understand the ethos of the fifth year students in
the partnership high schools, the researchers distributed
questionnaires to students in four of the schools (Sweden, South
Africa, Japan, and Scotland). The Learning School researchers
and the students differed in their interpretation of the culture
of the four schools. The researchers decided to delve deeply
into the mores of Harold Cressy High School in South Africa by
interviewing the teachers and students. The results of those
interviews are outlined in chapter 7.
Chapter 8 offers a portrayal of a typical school day in
Scotland, Sweden, Japan, South Africa and Hong Kong. The schools
ranged from very relaxed (Sweden) to highly structured (Hong
Kong). There seemed to be similarities, but also many
differences. High stakes testing is truly high stakes in some
countries as students can be denied entrance to particular
schools based on test scores.
The Learning School researches were struck by the differences
in classroom layout (chapter 9). Swedish students had the
opportunity to choose their seating for the day (table, desk, or
sofa). They noticed respect in the Japanese classrooms.
Students who were goofing off were prompted to pay attention, but
were not verbally chastised. The researchers noted elsewhere
that Japanese students did not feel free to raise their hands to
recite for fear of being incorrect and incur dishonor in the eyes
of their peers. The Scottish Chemistry classrooms were not
divided into traditional rooms as in the rest of the school, but
were an open classroom design. This allowed for easy movement
between classrooms for students and teachers, but was
distracting. Seating in German classrooms was in a horseshoe
pattern and allowed for lots of class discussion and
interaction. This chapter describes the classrooms in depth and
offers diagrams. There doesn’t appear to be much variation
in classrooms the world over.
Chapter 10 outlines the feelings the high school students held
for particular academic subjects. Those that are of a creative
nature were clearly preferred and social science classes came in
second. Fewer than ten percent of the respondents preferred
mathematics (p. 99). In fact, respondents indicated mathematics
was their least favorite more often that any other area. The
researchers delved deeper by asking respondents why they felt the
way they did. The authors provide tables and charts to display
their data, but no case analysis. I wonder how the feelings of
high schoolers in the United States, Canada, or Great Britain
would compare.
Chapter 11 is an analysis of the structure of the instruction
as taught by the teachers in the various schools in the
respective counties. It seems that homework, tests and
blackboard work are staples in the educational life of students
in the countries studied and in fact the reader might suppose
this to be true the world over. The authors pointed out that
student confidence and the presence of a relaxed learning
environment contributed to successful learning by students.
“Who [sic] do you learn most from?” is the
question that begins chapter 12. According to the student
respondents, most parents in the Czech Republic, Sweden and
Scotland offer “quite strong” encouragement for
learning, however, over half of the German parents offer only
“a bit“ of support for learning. Friends are seen as
“quite strong” encouragers of learning in the Czech
Republic, Sweden, Scotland and Germany. Student responders in
Scotland also considered teacher support for learning to be
“quite strong”. When asked what kind of teacher the
students wanted, students from across all schools indicated that
they wanted a teacher who was fair, who listened, was helpful,
could explain things, and was organized (p. 123). This finding
echoes research by Thompson, Greer, and Greer (2004).
Generally students like school but homework and exams cause
stress. At least that is a conclusion drawn from the data in
chapter 13. Learning School researchers administered a
questionnaire about school ethos to whole classes. 90% of the
students responded that they view teachers as very influential in
their education (p. 134). It seems that motivation and plans for
post secondary education played a large part in whether the
students liked school.
Chapter 14 begins by comparing and contrasting two Swedish
classes over a two-week period. Learning School researchers
visited a vocational class of first year students and then an
academic (social science) class of second year students. The
foci of the classes were different, but the authors suggest that
the respective teachers employed approaches that lent themselves
to the material and the needs of the students in order to produce
learning. Later the authors compare two sections of the same
Japanese class conducted over the same material and with the same
teacher, with very different results. The authors suggest that
outside influences acting upon the second of the two Japanese
classes produced the varied results.
One of the instruments the Learning School researchers used to
gather whole-class snapshot data was spot checks. Chapter 15
explains this instrument and displays tables of collected data.
This instrument, administered to students in the middle of a
class period, noted levels of engagement in the activities via a
4-point continuum. Learning School researchers and teachers also
completed the spot check instruments by noting their perception
of the students’ level of engagement in order to generate
triangulation. Of interest were the teachers’ perceptions
that matched the students’ self-reported level of
engagement.
The authors offered a thick description of the classes in
which they collected spot check analyses in the Czech Republic.
There was notably more engagement earlier, rather than later, in
the week. According to the authors’ analysis, more
engagement was noted when the learning style was “more
hands-on in the laboratory” (p. 156) and students became
more relaxed, but still engaged, when the teachers left the
room. The researchers compared spot check data gathered from
students and teachers and found that one teacher was not as
observant of his students and disagreed as to their level of
engagement.
Chapter 16 offers thick descriptions of three students (Gitta,
Naomi, and Kototo) throughout several days of school life. From
this chapter and the last one, the researchers conclude that
student motivation ebbs and flows throughout the day and the
week. This might be attributable to the teachers, student
interest, or to influences outside the confines of the
classroom.
As the reader might expect, no two students saw the same
lesson in exactly the same way. In chapter 17, Learning School
researchers used shadowing and spot-checking to study two pairs
of Japanese students and a pair of Swedish students. Students in
each pair 1) were good friends, 2) sat beside each other in class
and 3) followed the same schedule each day. The authors noted
that this raised the question about how attentive the teachers
were to their students.
The focus of the third cohort of the Learning School was
self-evaluation. Chapter 18 asked the question, “How good
are students at evaluating their own learning?” (p. 183).
The data for this chapter comes from the German students, because
that was the only complete data set at the time of the writing.
However, data from Hong Kong, Sweden, Scotland, and South Africa
was forthcoming. Generally speaking, the majority of studied
students reported that they 1) often thought about whether they
understood what they learned, 2) thought about the process of
learning, and 3) could identify their learning strengths. Once
identified, students reported they made use of their strengths,
however, more students reported that they seldom tried to
overcome their weaknesses. Three-fourths of the respondents
thought about their study goals at least “a lot” of
the time. 69.5% of the respondents were” always” or
“often” cognizant of the times when they learned
best.
According to graphed data, an interesting inverse correlation
appears between the two data sets on the subject of asking
questions and giving up when things are difficult. 51.5% of the
students rarely ask questions, and the same number of respondents
often tended to give up when faced with difficult schoolwork (p.
191). The same was true for the number of students who often
asked questions (33.7%) and the number who rarely gave up
(31.5%).
Later in chapter 18, the authors conducted probing interviews
with each of the shadowed students and with eight of the teachers
from Graf Friedrich Schule in Germany. Among the analyses the
authors made of the teacher interviews was 1) the pressure caused
by assessments meant that students expended less effort on
self-evaluation, 2) teachers encouraged students to think about
their learning and 3) greater emphasis needed to be placed on
students’ individual development.
Chapter 19 discussed that little enjoyed but universal
activity called homework. The authors for this chapter compared
the self-reported data about the 1) amount of time spent on
homework, 2) quantity, 3) where students felt most comfortable
completing their homework, 4) how the students felt most
comfortable completing homework, and 5) when did they complete
homework. The authors provide an interesting postscript in the
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) data
on hours spent per week on homework in various countries (p.
208).
Learning School researchers added another dimension by
interviewing parents of students from the partnership schools.
The themes generated and presented in chapter 20 are reminiscent
of parent-child relationships from around the world. Parents
want to guide and protect their teens, while the youth want to
distance themselves from parental control. Teens acknowledged
the need for direction on one level, but reported they felt
hassled by parents at times.
The authors of Chapter 21 discuss Japanese and South African
students’ and teachers’ perceptions of lifelong
learning – or learning outside the confines of formal
schooling. To varying degrees, the interviewees understood
learning as a continual process. In the Nara City Community in
Japan, a community center offers “…a remarkable set
of opportunities for people, free of charge. People can pick up
skills that they find interesting, and are learning
constantly…” (p. 223). The reader might wonder if
the teachers expressed views that they truly held or those they
thought the young researchers wanted/needed to hear.
As I read this book, I continually asked myself if students
are like this all over the world? I wonder how high schoolers in
traditional public schools in the United States would react to
having a five-minute break during the class period as some
European students have or the freedom and responsibility of the
Swedish schools.
Throughout the book the students reports, analysis, synthesis,
use of tables and graphs indicated a level of competence unusual
of many 17-19 year-olds. At times English language conventions
were a bit lacking, but did not make the reading difficult. What
was confusing was that sometimes I didn’t know about which
country the authors were speaking or to what cohort each
belonged. That background information would have been
helpful.
I found additional problem areas with this text. First, one
school in each country may not necessarily represent the entire
country’s school system. A reader may unintentionally, but
easily, over-generalize. It is hard to imagine that high school
students would make good researchers without rich faculty support
because many university faculty members hone research skills over
time. We do not know the criteria for selecting the
student-researchers, nor exactly what help the faculty
researchers offered. Finally, the n is often not
available when results are discussed.
Reference
Thompson, S., Greer, J., & Greer, B. (Summer, 2004).
Building blocks for successful teaching: Characteristics every
teacher should possess. Essays in Education. Available at
www.usca.edu/essays/vol102004/thompson.pdf.
About the Reviewer
Mary Ransdell is an assistant professor of
elementary education at the University of Memphis. She enjoys
her work with preservice teachers, both before and during their
professional semester, and with those preparing for national
board certification. Her professional interests include master
teachers and the use of cooperative learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment