Research / Readings on Collaborative Teaching (Innovative Learning Spaces)
|
What research is there that MLE raises student Achievement?
You're right that it's difficult to put your finger on research that categorically shows a link between space and outcomes for students. Unfortunately that's one of the drawbacks of working in a relatively recent area of education. Using digital devices for blended learning is in a similar position with a small but growing research base. It would be great to have 10 or 20 year longitudinal studies demonstrating raised outcomes for students from MLEs but that research simply doesn’t exist.
One of the trickiest aspects of research into MLEs is the fact that it’s possible to use poor pedagogy (i.e. strategies that are not evidence-based) in modern learning environments. It’s not as easy as saying if you change the environment, learning increases, because so much of it comes down to howthe environment is used. In fact, if a study were to suggest that learning increasely solely through a change in environment (and not the pedagogy) I would closely interrogate it. Because if what the students are being asked to do cognitively is the same in two different spaces, an change in outcomes is unlikely.
When looking at how a learning environment might be used well, we should look to the research around pedagogy. Attention should be paid to work such as the Best Evidence Synthesis on pedagogy (Quality Teaching for Diverse Learners), Te Kotahitanga and John Hattie’s Visible Learning to identify teaching strategies that are most likely to make a difference for our learners. Providing an environment that offers as many learning settings as possible to promote these kinds of powerful pedagogies (peer tutoring, reciprocal teaching, mastery learning, student agency over learning etc.) is crucial and for many schools this variety is offered through modern learning environments. To summarise the thinking in this area: MLEs make a difference because they give teachers more opportunities to use pedagogies that make a difference.
Another complicating variable is the fact that many teachers in MLEs work to develop skills that are not easily measured: providing science discovery areas to develop curiosity, quiet, withdrawal spaces to promote reflection and meta-cognition, independent study spaces to develop self-reliance and motivation etc, Again, providing these kinds of opportunities is possible in a traditional classroom, but it’s expensive to provide every classroom with every setting, and a school therefore gets more bang for its buck (and the resources can be of a higher quality) when working in groupings of 3:75 rather than 1:25.
Another area of research that we'd love to see more of is centred around the impact on teacher quality. The coaching, support and mentoring that is possible in a co-teaching/MLE environment has a strong backing in research and for my money, isthe area that holds the key to the greatest impact on outcomes for students: teachers working together (not separated and isolated by the building) to help each other be the best teacher they can be.
Having said there's not much research around, here’s one study that looks at the environment as well as the kind of learning that takes place within that environment (collaborative, student-centred, active learning) and demonstrates a remarkable increase in student learning. Only one study, and it’s at the tertiary level, but it's part of the trend we’re seeing that recognises that space is a container that can encourage us to use that space in positive ways, but by itself, it won’t transform learning:http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/pedagogy-and-space-empirical-research-new-learning-environments
You're right that it's difficult to put your finger on research that categorically shows a link between space and outcomes for students. Unfortunately that's one of the drawbacks of working in a relatively recent area of education. Using digital devices for blended learning is in a similar position with a small but growing research base. It would be great to have 10 or 20 year longitudinal studies demonstrating raised outcomes for students from MLEs but that research simply doesn’t exist.
One of the trickiest aspects of research into MLEs is the fact that it’s possible to use poor pedagogy (i.e. strategies that are not evidence-based) in modern learning environments. It’s not as easy as saying if you change the environment, learning increases, because so much of it comes down to howthe environment is used. In fact, if a study were to suggest that learning increasely solely through a change in environment (and not the pedagogy) I would closely interrogate it. Because if what the students are being asked to do cognitively is the same in two different spaces, an change in outcomes is unlikely.
When looking at how a learning environment might be used well, we should look to the research around pedagogy. Attention should be paid to work such as the Best Evidence Synthesis on pedagogy (Quality Teaching for Diverse Learners), Te Kotahitanga and John Hattie’s Visible Learning to identify teaching strategies that are most likely to make a difference for our learners. Providing an environment that offers as many learning settings as possible to promote these kinds of powerful pedagogies (peer tutoring, reciprocal teaching, mastery learning, student agency over learning etc.) is crucial and for many schools this variety is offered through modern learning environments. To summarise the thinking in this area: MLEs make a difference because they give teachers more opportunities to use pedagogies that make a difference.
Another complicating variable is the fact that many teachers in MLEs work to develop skills that are not easily measured: providing science discovery areas to develop curiosity, quiet, withdrawal spaces to promote reflection and meta-cognition, independent study spaces to develop self-reliance and motivation etc, Again, providing these kinds of opportunities is possible in a traditional classroom, but it’s expensive to provide every classroom with every setting, and a school therefore gets more bang for its buck (and the resources can be of a higher quality) when working in groupings of 3:75 rather than 1:25.
Another area of research that we'd love to see more of is centred around the impact on teacher quality. The coaching, support and mentoring that is possible in a co-teaching/MLE environment has a strong backing in research and for my money, isthe area that holds the key to the greatest impact on outcomes for students: teachers working together (not separated and isolated by the building) to help each other be the best teacher they can be.
Having said there's not much research around, here’s one study that looks at the environment as well as the kind of learning that takes place within that environment (collaborative, student-centred, active learning) and demonstrates a remarkable increase in student learning. Only one study, and it’s at the tertiary level, but it's part of the trend we’re seeing that recognises that space is a container that can encourage us to use that space in positive ways, but by itself, it won’t transform learning:http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/pedagogy-and-space-empirical-research-new-learning-environments
"Collaboration is the 'amplification' you get when you connect a bunch of people together…"
Collaboration is when the individuals involved are able to out perform themselves/ |
What is collaboration? |