# data[].attributes.body
At Foundations College Prep in Chicago's Roseland neighborhood students work in small groups in what they call "flex time." Students work some face to face with other students, one to one, with teachers practicing reading aloud and finding text evidence, writing sentences and solving math equations. The school concentrates on core subjects with the focus on small group instruction and differentiation. Students began the year in the 3rd and 10th percentile in math and reading on their state testing.

The goal for the teachers is for each student to get at least three small groups in math and reading. Some students who are farther behind may get four small groups a week. Students were grouped into small class sizes of 25 to 32 students. They adjusted their group size to accommodate more instruction to around 12 students in order to make most of their "flex
time." Teachers were striving to make most of their lesson time (group time) and technology. While students were being pulled into small groups for one on one or small group teacher time, other students were working on a variety of Tier II skills and progress monitoring skills on their computers  through online lessons.

Findings:
As the staff monitors the data collected through progress monitoring the teachers were adjusting small groups and watching students move toward their goal of growth for each student about two years in Reading. In math, students were given teacher-created assessments every 3 to 4 weeks and were watched to see their growth to 67 percent in math. Students showed a growth of a years worth by winter testing. In the future they are planning to implement and adjust flex classroom procedures for every class while helping teachers to improve their techniques in small groups. The teachers are also exposing some weak areas in early grade-level curriculum that need to be reviewed in order to show growth in later grades.

Reference:
Accelerate Institute. (2015). Focus on: small- group instruction, Accelerate Institute.
http://www.accelerateinstitute.org/files/9714/3811/3404/Foundations_Prep.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Teacher interventions in small group work in secondary mathematics and science lessons.

# data[].attributes.subject
Teacher interventions in small group work in secondary mathematics and science lessons.

# data[].attributes.body
Research shows that collaboration can be effective in student's learning. While students who work collaboratively may be successful some discussions lead to think that the students will be off task resulting in a waste of educational time (Hoffman, Mercer 2016). The study was conducted in math and science class in 7th grade.  Where the students were working on a project practicing discussion skills in small groups. These small group discussions serve as exploratory phases to prepare for whole-class discussions. Teachers know that managing group discussions is difficult, however subtle interventions can help encourage productive kids in the group to develop a dialogue helping them gain most of their collective thinking (2016). Some think that teacher engagement with content increases dependence on the teacher and removes the students initiative to be independent (2016). Conversely, when teachers don't provide enough information, students were not able to discuss the tasks meaningfully. The study was done on 10 math and 2 science classes over 18 hours and the study was researched by observation.

FIndings:
In this study the research group suggests that teachers model effective ways to talk and solve problems collectively after agreeing on "ground rules" for discussions with students (2016). Also, leaving a group "stuck" on a problem could be a waste of time and if the students are left to their own thoughts, students may need to being posed with a teacher's thoughts to begin their thought process again.

Resource:
R. Hofmann, & N. Mercer (2016) Teacher interventions in small group work in secondary mathematics and science lessons. Language and education, 30 (5), 400-416.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500782.2015.1125363?scroll=top&needAccess=true&

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ABSTRACT
Collaborative problem solving, when students work in pairs or small groups on a curriculum-related task, has become an increasingly common feature of classroom education. This paper reports a study of a topic which has received relatively little attention: how teachers can most usefully intervene when students are working in a group, but have encountered some sort of problem. The data used comes from a large-scale interventional study of mathematics and science teaching in secondary schools in south-east England, in which interactions between teachers and students were recorded in their usual classrooms. We identify the typical problem situations which lead to teachers' interventions, and describe the different ways teachers were observed to intervene. We examine the different types of intervention, and consider how effective they are in helping group work proceed in a productive manner. Finally, we offer some conclusions about the practical implications of these findings.

Introduction

Research suggests that collaborative activity can be effective in promoting students' learning, and group work has become increasingly common in classrooms throughout the world (Galton and Hargreaves ; Howe ; Mercer and Littleton ; Slavin ). However, while group work is potentially very productive, it commonly is not: and students often find engaging in collaborative work difficult (Baines, Blatchford, and Kutnick ; Galton et al. ; Howe and Abedin ). Three aspects of group work have been considered central for success. The skill to work collaboratively is well recognized as an important condition for productive group work (Gillies ; Mercer et al. ; Scott, Mortimer, and Aguiar ). Productive group work also requires tasks that are suitable for being tackled collaboratively (Cohen ; Hofmann 2008 . 2008. "Ownership in Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective on Pupil Engagement, Collaboration and Agency in the Classroom." Unpublished PhD diss., University of Cambridge. ; Howe and Abedin ). This paper focuses on a third important condition for supporting group discussions, how teachers manage group work in their classrooms, which remains under-researched (cf. Bennett et al. ; Osborne et al. ; Webb et al. ). Despite a reasonable body of evidence about how students should behave for group work to be effective, there is considerable vagueness and uncertainty about how teachers can best support and sustain subject-based discussions in groups. And while some research suggests that groups are most likely to be productive if teachers avoid intervening (Howe ), there is little doubt that if teachers simply leave groups to struggle a lot of educational time will simply be wasted.

The study reported addresses these issues with regard to group-based activity in secondary science and mathematics lessons, focusing on the role of the teacher as a monitor and guide for students' collaborative activity once it is underway. This study is part of the Ruthven, K., N. Mercer, K. Taber, P. Guardia, R. Hofmann, S. Ilie, S. Luthman & F. Riga (forthcoming). "A research-informed dialogic-teaching approach to early secondary-school mathematics and science: the pedagogical design and field trial of the epiSTEMe intervention." epiSTEMe (Effecting Principled Improvement in STEM Education) project (Ruthven et al. forthcoming Research Papers in Education. ), in which a research-informed pedagogical intervention programme was created to encourage mathematics and science teachers to use more 'dialogic' strategies (Alexander ; Mortimer and Scott ). The teachers involved taught students in Year 7 (11-12 years), the first year of secondary education in the English system. At the start of the project, each class took a module involving practicing discussion skills and developing class 'ground rules' for talk (Mercer et al. ; Mercer and Littleton ). Based on a synthesis of international research on effective pedagogy in science and mathematics, the intervention also drew on the notion of using carefully crafted authentic problems to encourage students to engage more deeply with the conceptual issues in both whole-class discussions and group activity (Ruthven et al. ; Ruthven and Hofmann ; Taber et al. ; Howe et al. ).

The collaborative group work in the epiSTEMe pedagogic approach entails that students work together on the task as a group to reach, through discussion, a group outcome on which all members agree. Group work serves as an exploratory phase for subsequent whole-class discussion; its purpose is the emergence of multiple student-initiated ideas which can be discussed in subsequent whole-class dialogue (Ruthven, Hofmann, and Mercer ), hence enabling students to come up with their own ideas about the task is central.

Teachers' pedagogical interventions to support small-group work: realities and challenges

A body of evidence suggests that, for group discussion to be productive, students should share their ideas and support them with reasons, discuss different views and resolve these to achieve group consensus (Howe ; Mercer and Howe ; Littleton and Howe ; Mercer and Littleton ; see also Bennett et al. ; Kyriacou and Issitt ). However, this research also suggests that such characteristics of group discussions are not commonly found in classrooms, and that teachers find managing group discussions difficult. The question arises as to whether teachers' habitual ways of intervening in small-group work enable students to make better sense of a set task and/or encourage the kinds of productive dialogue which will help them gain the most from their collective thinking.

Research findings on what teachers should do to support these processes during group work are divergent. Several studies suggest that teachers should withhold queries regarding the content of the task and instead ask general questions, such as inviting contributions (Baines, Blatchford, and Chowne ; Blatchford et al. ; Myhill ). It is thought that teacher engagement with problem content increases dependence on the teacher and removes students' autonomy and initiative with the task (Cohen b cited in Chiu ; cf. also Howe, Tolmie, Duchak-Tanner & Rattray ). Chiu (, 367) concludes that 'teachers who use questions to provide minimal problem content information can improve students' CL [cooperative learning] by bolstering their autonomy, initiative and interdependence'.

Other research, particularly on mathematics lessons, has found that non-content specific questions do not lead to students providing explanations (Franke et al. ; Henningsen and Stein ; Kyriacou and Issitt ; Meloth and Deering ). Henningsen and Stein () and Meloth and Deering () found that when teachers did not provide students with enough information, students were not able to discuss the task meaningfully. Henningsen and Stein argue that to maintain a high cognitive level in students' discussions and explaining, teachers need to model high-level performance and avoid removing the challenging aspects of the task. Webb et al. () also found that one of the strongest influences on how students talk together in groups is how their teacher talks with them.

Similarly, some authors have proposed avoiding immediate evaluation of students' contributions, arguing that to maintain high-quality discussions in groups, teachers need to focus on promoting the development of understanding rather than just the identification of correct answers (Henningsen and Stein ; Kyriacou and Issitt ; Myhill ; Rojas-Drummond and Mercer ). On the other hand, Chiu () found that when teachers evaluated students' ideas during group work, students were more likely to engage with the task than in the absence of evaluation. Chiu suggests that non-evaluative teacher interventions to a group were ineffective because they were not contingent on the group's current needs.

We suggest that these different views on what makes teacher interventions effective reflect the current limited state of understanding about these matters. Content-specific support may link with students' current needs and may help them reach a correct solution, but may come at a cost of reducing their own independent thinking and reasoning about the task. On the other hand, non-content specific feedback allows for student autonomy but may not be sufficient for helping students make progress. We suggest that teachers' interventions in small-group work need to be contingent on any difficulties that the students are encountering, but without inducing dependence on the teacher, (i.e. without removing the need for students' own collective thinking to achieve a proposed resolution). However, it is clear that we do not yet know what such interventions could look like in real mathematics and science classrooms. This is the focus and contribution of our current study.

Studies of existing classroom practice indicate that teachers' interventions during group work are usually prescriptive, focused on procedures and performance, and generate high student dependence on the teacher. Students' contributions are typically evaluated immediately; correct ideas proposed by students are accepted at face value (without seeking further justification), whereas incorrect student contributions are ignored and the thinking behind them rarely probed (Chiu ; Henningsen and Stein ; Mercer, Dawes, and Staarman ; Webb et al. ; Webb, Nemer, and Ing ). Webb and colleagues (, 109) speak of an 'entrenched culture of low-level questions and explanations' in (mathematics) classrooms. Researchers have found that getting teachers to change such established practices is difficult (Osborne et al. ; Webb et al. , ). Gillies and Khan () found that professional development training needed not only offer new strategies for intervention, but also to raise teachers' awareness of the purposes of group work. We suggest that it may be useful to take one step back from trying to change teachers' behaviour, and consider why they may intervene in group work in such ways.

Understanding the sociocultural norms and goals of classroom discussions

The ultimate aim of our analysis is to identify ways in which teachers can most usefully intervene in group work in mathematics and science classrooms, so that this can inform teachers' actions and teacher education. To present such different ways as simply alternatives which teachers could choose on any occasion would be naïve, and would ignore the practical reasons why teachers develop and maintain some of the interactional strategies that they do. We therefore need to examine the kinds of difficulties teachers may have in abandoning habitual strategies, and the culture within which those are embedded, which may make the take-up of new strategies difficult, or even stressful. We will argue that any proposals for change must take account of the temporal, conversational and activity structure of classroom life. To illustrate these aspects of the use of spoken language in classrooms, we will draw on theoretical approaches to education which recognize the role of language and sociocultural practice in learning.

Research on classroom interaction has established how classrooms are particular sociocultural settings, with their own norms and rules which are common knowledge to all participants (Edwards and Mercer /2013). These norms inform and shape teachers' existing practice in ways that can make the take up of new pedagogic strategies difficult. For example, research has illustrated how in classroom interactions, both teachers and students expect that teachers offer evaluative feedback on students' contributions. Such normative expectations are not simply 'bad habitual responses' of the teachers, but criteria for actions perceived as 'appropriate' by all participants in those cultural situations (Edwards and Mercer /2013; McHoul ; Sinclair and Coulthard ). Such expectations cannot be simply ignored if participants are to remain able and motivated to take part. Such implicit contextual frameworks are often quite well established, and so they can make it difficult to change the ways teachers and students interact, even if there are good educational reasons for seeking such changes (Hofmann 2008 . 2008. "Ownership in Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective on Pupil Engagement, Collaboration and Agency in the Classroom." Unpublished PhD diss., University of Cambridge. ; Rainio and Hofmann ).

It is for these reasons we argue that researchers need to pay attention to what the participants in a social practice are trying to . 2010. do through their interactions (Daniels ; Mercer ; Hofmann 2008 . 2008. "Ownership in Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective on Pupil Engagement, Collaboration and Agency in the Classroom." Unpublished PhD diss., University of Cambridge. ). Research suggests that teachers actively monitor groups and decide when to intervene (Chiu ), and we argue that understanding these decisions better would be helpful for considering the possibility of change. Culturally and historically formed practices, including classroom teaching, are motivated by the 'problem spaces' at which we oriented our actions within those practices (Edwards 2010 Being an Expert Professional Practitioner: The Relational Turn in Expertise. Vol. 3. Springer Science & Business Media. ). What we are suggesting is that any intervention which is to have a possibility of changing such established practices must take into account what the participants are trying to get done, what problems they are trying to work on and improve.

Research questions

Our analysis of teacher interventions in small-group work on the epiSTEMe mathematics and science problems addresses the following research questions:

1. In what kinds of situations do teachers intervene in groups, and why do they do so?

2. What strategies did the teachers we observed in the epiSTEMe project use when intervening in group work?

3. In what ways and to what extent are teachers' intervention strategies contingent on students' current understandings/discussion and what scope do they offer for enabling students' own thinking and ideas?

4. What evidence might be available to a teacher, during or after an intervention, about the effects of any strategies on students' behaviour?

Data and methods

The epiSTEMe intervention programme was designed to enable teachers of mathematics and science in English secondary schools make more effective use of dialogue in teaching their subjects in the context of rich tasks, and discussed and piloted with a group of participating teacher collaborators. The content of the intervention programme has been described in detail elsewhere (Ruthven et al. ), and such detail is not directly relevant to our concerns here. In summary, the materials consisted of four topic modules each containing a series of fully-developed lessons, inclusive of projection slides, teaching notes and student booklets, with carefully crafted activities for small-group and whole-class discussion. The group activities were designed to draw out differences of perspective relevant to the topic-related problem among members of a group, which could then be debated in the pursuit of an agreed solution. The aim was to get students thinking about the topic, bring out their thinking and enable the emergence of multiple common ideas and misunderstanding about the topic to be discussed in a subsequent whole-class dialogic plenary (see Ruthven and Hofmann ). The intervention teachers all received the materials and two days of professional development by the epiSTEMe team. The professional development provided to the participating teachers as well as the teaching materials for the project included specific suggestions for ways to guide and prompt students' discussions (drawing on research such as that described in Mercer and Littleton ; Galton and Hargreaves ; Howe ). It was made clear to participating teachers that an important aspect of their role in relation to such group work was to encourage students to use talk effectively for collaborative problem-solving (Ruthven, Hofmann, and Mercer ).

We observed 10 mathematics and 2 science teachers from the pilot and main intervention phases of the project, distributed across 8 schools. This yielded audio and video data of lessons (approximately 60 min each, 18 hours in total), as well as observation notes made in-situ by the first author. Descriptive summaries were first constructed of each lesson based on the field-notes and recordings. The analysis focused just on those 'episodes' in lessons when a teacher joined a group, and we define an episode as the total time the teacher spent with a group on any one occasion.

The analysis identified a total of a 104 episodes of teacher visits to small groups totalling over three hours of recorded data, with the average duration of a teacher intervention in a group around 2 min. Sixty-nine episodes found to contain interactive data were transcribed and analysed for their turn-by-turn interactions with the aim of identifying the specific interactive strategies used by teachers and their apparent communicative consequences during the teacher's visit. Each interactive move was compared to preceding and subsequent interactive moves, and each episode was repeatedly compared to other episodes in the same overall category and to other categories, including deviant cases, until there was sufficient evidence that a category was both robust and distinctive enough. The episodes were also analysed for the different 'problem situations' that they may have posed for the teacher. While the bulk of the analysis was conducted by the first author, for reliability and validity of the coding, both authors separately coded parts of the data set and compared results. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, and the refined categories re-applied across the data-set. Only strategies used at least by two teachers were included to ensure the reported strategies are not simply part of an individual teacher's personal style and repertoire. In fact, each discussed strategy was used by at least 5 different teachers, in at least 13 episodes.

Results

We will discuss and illustrate our findings through presenting two whole episodes (one from mathematics, one from science) as well as some further brief examples.

What kinds of situations arising during group work provoke teachers to intervene?

One of our aims was to identify the kinds of problematic group situations arising in the observed classrooms that provoked teachers to make a significant intervention. We observed that, on several occasions, the teachers joined a group just to check that the group was working, or to find out whether they had finished. No further interaction then ensued, and so such interactions are not included in our analysis. In 69 episodes, more prolonged interaction between the teacher and student took place. We closely examined and compared the starting situations in these episodes which the teacher faced upon entering the group. Our analysis suggests that these episodes fell into three types of situations in which a group was proposing

no ideas (illustrated by Example 4 below),

an incorrect idea (Example 3) and

a correct idea or solution (Example 2).

We suggest that it is worth noting how these different starting situations, as identified by our analysis of the discourse, relate to those identified by our participating teachers in their informal comments about implementing group work in the classroom.

We compared this analysis with comments from our participating teachers, who also identified broadly the three same categories. However, the teachers' conceptions of what was 'problematic' about these situations differed from ours. . 2004. "Adapting Teacher Interventions to Student Needs During Cooperative Learning: How to Improve Student Problem Solving and Time On-Task." , , V. Duchak-Tanner, and . 2000. "Hypothesis Testing in Science: Group Consensus and the Acquisition of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge." Students not proposing ideas was related by the teachers to the need to get the students working, while for us it was primarily a challenge of getting them thinking. Students proposing a correct idea or solution was typically perceived as problematic by teachers if it happened early during group work, because this would mean the group had nothing left to do while other groups worked on. Teachers did not raise our concern, which was whether this might mean that not everyone in the group understood why an idea was correct. Whereas students proposing incorrect ideas or answers was typically perceived by teachers as a problem requiring the teacher's active and immediate help (one of the teachers said: ' It is not my job to make students discuss incorrect ideas, it is my job to help them get it right'). In our view, on the other hand, the discussion of all relevant (even if incorrect) student ideas might be beneficial for the development of their understanding. The teachers' comments are in accord with prior research findings about mathematics and science teaching (Chiu 2004 2000 Learning and Instruction 10 (4): 361-391. ), and illustrate the kinds of problems teachers think their intervention strategies are expected to address. We will return to these matters in discussing our results. American Educational Research Journal 41 (2): 365-399. ; Howe et al.

All observed interactions were initiated by the teachers in two broad ways - a 'closed' way and a relatively more 'open' way. In 13 episodes (involving three different teachers), the teacher immediately began leading the students through the correct procedure for solving the problem. However, in 54 episodes, the teacher, at least initially, began a more open discussion about the task/solution process and invited students to contribute to it. Given our discussion about typical teacher responses to small-group work revealed by previous studies, this makes our data-set worthy of closer examination. (In the two remaining episodes, the teachers commented on an issue not related to the task, such as homework.)

What strategies did the intervention teachers in our project use when intervening in group work?

Authoritative strategies

In some episodes, the teacher initiated the interaction by taking the lead in the solution process. In some episodes, the teacher simply accepted a correct answer from a student at face value with no further probing, or led them through every step of the solution procedure, without exploring students' understanding.

Example 1

A4. S(1): Three

A5. S(2): Out of four?

A7. S(1): Four

A8. S(2): No, three.

[Probability_HS]

The sequence in Example 1 describes a group work situation in which two students each suggest a different answer, which represent the correct (A7) and an incorrect (A4, A8) answer respectively. The teacher ignores the incorrect answer (A6) and accepts the correct answer at face value (A9) without exploring students' thinking behind their different suggestions, thereby also closing down an opportunity for discussion. The teacher's intervention strategy maintains high teacher dependence during the search for a solution. The teacher also ignores two students' apparent misunderstanding (A4, A8). The teacher regulates both the form and content of the talk and does not invite students to actively think about the task: rather, the task is constructed as one of simply speaking the correct answers.

However, some of the interactions the teachers initiate with students who seem to be 'stuck' involve more engagement with the task content and students' thinking, even if the teacher maintains a regulative role over both form and content of talk. In Example 2, students express uncertainty but nonetheless present a correct answer ('statement R is incorrect') on Line B2.

Example 2

B1. T: Yes, lads.

B6. S1: Yeah.

B8. S1: One in six.

B9. S2: Unlikely.

[Probability_ FN]

In this interaction, the teacher repeats the answer offered by a student and asks the students to provide an explanation (B3). One student provides a partial correct answer (B4) which the teacher confirms as correct and asks for the missing information (B5, B7). Student 1 provides an answer (B8) which the teacher confirms as correct (B10). Another student provides an incorrect answer ('unlikely', B9) which the teacher ignores (B10), and moves on. In this episode, as in Example 1, the teacher still controls the structure and content of the talk. He does, however, probe the students' responses in a way that can be described as contingent (that is, it takes account of the disparity of views offered by the group members). Nevertheless, the regulation of the problem-solving process remains firmly in the hands of the teacher.

Initiating strategies

However, in the majority of the episodes the teachers did not take an immediate, authoritative lead in the solution process; and it is those episodes that we will discuss in the remainder of this section. We will first deal with how teachers initiate interactions with groups and then look at how they subsequently interact with students. We suggest those are core moments, pedagogically, wherein teachers have to make decisions about what to do, and in which the scope of the potential subsequent interaction is defined. We will present two longer episodes (Examples 3 and 4) and then discuss the strategies used by teachers in these episodes and across the data-set. In these episodes, the teachers do not immediately take over the problem-solving. Instead, they initiate the interaction with the group by using one or more of the following opening strategies:

1. inviting students to speak (Example 3);

2. listening silently to the discussion (Example 3);

3. making reference to the 'ground rules' of the activity (Example 4); and

4. focusing students on the task (Example 4).

In Example 3, it can be seen that the teacher invites the students to speak and listens silently and intently over several student turns while the students share their ideas and thinking at quite some length, reporting on a discussion they have had. In Example 4 (below), the students are stuck and initially not making any contributions. The teacher begins by making a general reference to one of the 'ground rules' that have been established in a previous lesson, that 'students are expected to decide on a shared answer'. After the teacher focuses the students on, and clarifies, their task, it can be seen that they go on to contribute relevant (if initially mathematically incorrect) ideas to the discussion.

Example 4

D2. S: Nothing.

D3. S: That I'm stuck.

D6. S: Everything.

D10. S: 1 in...

D12. S: 1 in...

D13. S: 4.

D14. S: ... 4.

D16. S: Yeah.

D18. [Overtalking]

D20. S: It's 1 in...

D22. S: It's not equal.

D24. S: It's not equal.

D27. S: That it's not...

D30. S: Probably.

D31. S: If it's bigger.

D33. S: No.

[Probability_IB]

There are many examples of use of such strategies across different lessons and teachers in our data. The teacher's reference to established ground rules in Example 4 is particularly interesting because it shows how a teacher can encourage a group to think about they might most productively interact to solve the problem. Prior research has shown that by establishing such rules, a teacher can encourage students to adopt ways of regulating their activity to make group discussion most productive (Mercer et al. ; Mercer and Littleton ). Other examples of references to ground rules in our data are:

[ 'Read a bubble out and then have a chat about it and see whether or not altogether you all agree or disagree.'] [ 'Okay, you all agree B, do you?'; 'What have you decided on this table?'] [ 'Who's got any ideas at all?'; 'You don't understand, who understands?'; 'Anyone want to help your team member?'] [ 'Go on, what were you going to say?']

Listening intently to what students say without immediately responding is also a way teachers can encourage students' discussions, illustrated on Lines C2-C5 in Example 3. Sometimes, teachers emphasize that their silence is not meant to imply criticism: 'I'm just listening'. Or teachers may focus students on the task at hand by reading the task out loud or asking students to read it out. But they also use more active strategies of focusing students on the task, such as asking students to explain the task, as in D4 and D7 in Example 4. If students say they do not understand, the teachers sometimes ask what students do not understand ( 'Tell me what it is you don't understand?').

Continuing interactive strategies

In the episodes in which teachers continue to encourage student discussion of ideas, we have observed four core strategies which teachers employed once they have begun interacting with a group in ways which do not involve closing down the discussion:

1. repeating relevant ideas expressed by students;

2. probing and exploring students' understandings;

3. encouraging students to compare and test ideas; and

4. identifying resources for thinking.

An example of a teacher repeating relevant ideas expressed by students is illustrated in Line C8 in Example 3, thus highlighting their relevance to the discussion (not necessarily indicating their correctness). Teachers also sometimes asked students to repeat what another group member had said - as illustrated on Line D21 in Example 4. They also sometimes reformulated what a student had said, so as to clarify it:

Example 5

[Probability_IE]

Such strategies have long been recognized as common in whole-class interactions (Edwards and Mercer /2013). Moreover, teachers sometimes probed and explored students' understandings behind the ideas and answers they offered. For example:

Why do you think that?

Convince me!

In Example 4, this is illustrated in Line D23 when the teacher asks the student to explain her thinking.

The teachers in the data also encouraged the students to compare and test ideas themselves, for example, by asking for others' perspectives and by asking others to comment on the idea of a group member, or by asking a student to explain an idea proposed by a group member, as in Lines D21-D26 in Example 4. This can help students notice that they have different ideas that could usefully be discussed and compared. This strategy is specifically illustrated in Example 6.

Example 6

[Probability_EB]

Finally, another strategy identified is to make available to students additional relevant resources for thinking about the problem. This can mean providing students with additional mathematical or scientific information relevant to the task, without taking them through the solution strategy (such as 'the probability of 1 means certain'). They may direct students to consider a specific resource e.g. 'Do have any information that might help you?' or 'So what does the table mean? Why is the table there? Is that helping us at all?'. For example, in Example 7 in lines G1 and G3, a teacher refers to a mathematical tool that the students have encountered earlier in another task which could help them solve the current problem.

Example 7

G2. S(M): -Table.

[Probability_IB]

How may the strategies support students' thinking and how may this become visible for the teacher?

The teachers in our study used a variety of strategies to encourage students to express and discuss their ideas. Table 1 lists the types of problem situations which teachers were observed to encounter when joining a group of students, and also shows which interactive strategies teachers were observed to use in dealing with them.

Inviting students to speak (Examples 3 and 4) is a general, non-content specific strategy which prior research suggests is insufficient in encouraging a focus on understanding and explaining (Franke et al. ; Henningsen and Stein Henningsen, M. , and . 1997. "Mathematical Tasks and Student Cognition: Classroom-Based Factors that Support and Inhibit High-Level Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning." , and . 2008. 1997 2008 What Characterises Effective Teacher-Initiated Teacher-Pupil Dialogue to Promote Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics Lessons in England in Key Stages 2 and 3: A Systematic Review. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. ). However, it is an easy way of initiating interactions with the group that avoids the teacher immediately taking over the task. Furthermore, the ways it was done by some of the teachers we observed enabled them to highlight the importance of student-initiated ideas. It also gave the teacher the opportunity to find out what difficulties the students were facing, and enabled subsequent contingent responses (Examples 3 and 4). If students are not proposing any ideas, the strategy of asking them if they understand what they have been asked to do (Example 4) focuses their attention on the content of the task and allows the teacher to be helpful, without being prescriptive. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 28: 524-549. ; Kyriacou and Issitt

The strategy of active listening (Example 3) can be considered contingent in that it does not disrupt students' current interactions and models the 'ground rule' of giving proper consideration to other people's ideas (Mercer and Littleton ; cf. Kyriacou and Issitt , and . 2008. . 2006. "Talk, Talk, Talk: Teaching and Learning in Whole Class Discourse." 2008 2006 Research Papers in Education 21 (1): 19-41. ). We have also observed teachers encouraging a group to strive for agreement in Example 3 (C14-C20). In response to such non-authoritative initiating strategies, students may subsequently elaborate their ideas at some length (Example 3), even if they were initially not discussing the task (Example 4). This may help a teacher recognize that such strategies are a good alternative to simply taking over the problem-solving process. What Characterises Effective Teacher-Initiated Teacher-Pupil Dialogue to Promote Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics Lessons in England in Key Stages 2 and 3: A Systematic Review. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. ; Myhill

Repeating ideas expressed by students (Example 3 C8; Example 4 D11; Example 5), probing students' understandings by asking them to explain further (Example 4 D23) and asking students themselves to compare and test ideas (Example 6) can function as contingent strategies that do not take over the authority from the students: they link with what students are currently discussing and suggesting while focusing students on understanding. Proposing resources for thinking (Example 7) can offer help that is targeted at students' current needs without evaluating their ideas or providing answers. It also guides students towards the useful heuristic strategy of looking for suitable resources to help their mathematical thinking in any situation.

Discussion and conclusions

Our study illustrates the range of ways teachers can intervene in students' group discussions in mathematics and science classrooms. Research on group work suggests that it is most productive for learning and the development of understanding if teachers 'model' effective ways of using talk to solve problems collectively, agree on suitable 'ground rules' for discussion with students, regularly remind students of those rules and (having set suitable tasks) allow students enough time to engage in thoughtful discussion (Howe ; Mercer and Littleton ; Slavin ). We have shown that some of the strategies used by the teachers we observed are compatible with those principles, while others are not. We also showed that teachers can intervene in group work in ways which are contingent on the difficulties students are facing at that point (which prior research has suggested is useful for promoting learning: Chiu ), without simply authoritatively providing or confirming a solution. One concern expressed to us by teachers is that a group which is 'stuck' on a problem may simply waste time if they are left to their own devices. Our analysis shows that some non-authoritative and non-evaluative strategies often are sufficient to help such groups to start proposing ideas and (re-)engage with the task. While we have no evidence from this study that some strategies promoted better learning outcomes than others, it seems reasonable to infer that those which encourage students to co-regulate their group work and bolster their 'autonomy, initiative, and interdependence' (Chiu , 347) are of pedagogical value.

In the early part of this paper, we also discussed the finding from prior research that teachers' habitual responses to classroom situations are difficult to change. Our perspective on this issue is that any proposal for changing teachers' current classroom practice needs to be embedded in an understanding of what motivates that practice, what purposes it serves. We drew on sociocultural and linguistic research to justify this view. We see practitioners' actions as oriented towards concrete and specific problems of practice (cf. Ruthven ). Teachers, like people in many demanding occupations, have to develop ways of dealing with problems as they arise. We have illustrated and applied this idea by framing our analysis of strategies by paying attention to what teachers themselves view as problems in group work, which any suggested new strategies must be capable of addressing. We have shown that some non-authoritative strategies can deal effectively with those situations that teachers see as problematic: supporting groups being 'stuck' or pursuing a wrong idea, or meaningfully occupying students who think they have 'got' the right answer straightaway. Earlier, we also reported that the reasons why teachers saw such situations as problematic were not the same as the reasons we had as researchers. Nevertheless, most teachers, we believe, would also welcome effective ways of getting students to re-engage with a task, to think more critically about ideas, to develop their own problem-solving abilities and not merely get the correct answer quickly but also be able to justify it. If we can show teachers that some of the non-authoritative interventional strategies identified in our study - as used by practising teachers like themselves, not merely being advocated by researchers - can serve to alleviate those kinds of problems and achieve other worthwhile educational aims, then they are likely to be seen as welcome additions to their repertoire of strategies. While different educational cultures prioritize talk in different ways (), reflecting upon the possibilities and local impact of changing established patterns of talk can be beneficial in any setting.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Institute of Physics and the Economic and Social Research Council for funding the epiSTEMe project (RES-179-25-0003), fellow members of the research team (Ken Ruthven, Christine Howe, Keith Taber, Stephanie Luthman, Paula Guardia and Fran Riga) for their support; and the participating students and teachers for their enthusiastic engagement.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

'Problem' situation

Interactive strategy

Students are not proposing ideas

Students are proposing incorrect ideas

Students are proposing correct ideas

References

Alexander, R.J . 2001. Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. : Blackwell.

, , , , and . 2010. "Talking Science: The Research Evidence on the Use of Small Group Discussions in Science Teaching." International Journal of Science Education 32 (1): 69-95.

. 2010. Being an Expert Professional Practitioner: The Relational Turn in Expertise. Vol. 3. Springer Science & Business Media.

Henningsen, M. , and . 1997. "Mathematical Tasks and Student Cognition: Classroom-Based Factors that Support and Inhibit High-Level Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning." Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 28: 524-549.

. 2008. "Ownership in Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective on Pupil Engagement, Collaboration and Agency in the Classroom." Unpublished PhD diss., University of Cambridge.

, and . 2013. "Classroom Dialogue: A Systematic Review Across Four Decades of Research." Cambridge Journal of Education 43 (3): 325-356.

, and . 2008. What Characterises Effective Teacher-Initiated Teacher-Pupil Dialogue to Promote Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics Lessons in England in Key Stages 2 and 3: A Systematic Review. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

, and . 1999. "The Role of the Teacher in Promoting Cognitive Processing During Collaborative Learning." In Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning, edited by and , 235-255. : Lawrence Erlbaum.

. 1995. The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk Amongst Teachers and Learners. : Multilingual Matters.

, and . 2012. "Explaining the Dialogic Processes of Teaching and Learning: The Value and Potential of Sociocultural Theory." Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (1): 12-21.

, , A. Christodoulou, C. Howell-Richardson, and K. Richardson. 2013. "Learning to Argue: A Study of Four Schools and Their Attempt to Develop the Use of Argumentation as a Common Instructional Practice and its Impact on Students." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50 (3): 315-347.

. 2005. "Improving the Development and Warranting of Good Practice in Teaching." Cambridge Journal of Education 35 (3): 407-426.

, , and . 2011. "A Dialogic Approach to Plenary Problem Synthesis." In Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, edited by , Vol. 4, 81-88. : PME.

Ruthven, K., N. Mercer, K. Taber, P. Guardia, R. Hofmann, S. Ilie, S. Luthman & F. Riga (forthcoming). "A research-informed dialogic-teaching approach to early secondary-school mathematics and science: the pedagogical design and field trial of the epiSTEMe intervention." Research Papers in Education.

Additional information

Funding

Institute of Physics and the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number RES-179-25-0003].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teacher interventions in small group work in secondary mathematics and science lessons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ABSTRACT Collaborative problem solving, when students work in pairs or small groups on a curriculum-related task, has become an increasingly common feature of classroom education. This paper reports a study of a topic which has received relatively little attention: how teachers can most usefully intervene when students are working in a group, but have encountered some sort of problem.

# data[].attributes.headline
TPACK Goes to Sixth Grade: Lessons from a Middle School Teacher in a High-Technology- Access Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
TPACK Goes to Sixth Grade: Lessons from a Middle School Teacher in a High-Technology- Access Classroom

# data[].attributes.body
This study of TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework) was done by observation and interview of 140 sixth grade students. Research was done in the classroom of one to one computers to students across 6 weeks. The students were working on projects on the Renaissance period including projects in language arts, reading and the final project was a culmination of all in a "fair" type event held for the parents. Science teachers participated and became researching instruments from the Renaissance period having students create Renaissance instruments and in social studies students wrote biographies of explorers and inventors. Students in math created a Renaissance business. The classroom teacher was interviewed 10 times between classes and after school reflecting on her lessons and clarifying reasons for the actions and implementation of technology made in the classroom. Observations were made to see the infusion of technology and interviews were done with the instructional coaches to help build knowledge of direction. Student final products were observed and the"fair" was attended to see the outcomes of the lessons.

Findings:
Knowledge of content, pedagogy (teaching methods, classroom management, lesson planning and implementation/ assessment) were all observed in the classroom. The teacher addressed many of these areas in stating objectives and through student inquiry so they were not addressed exclusively. The activities and student work demonstrated evidence in content knowledge. The teacher addressed many activities through the writing process, creating interviews, questioning and creating interviews for others as the students assumed roles for other characters and researched the time period.
Upon conclusion of the unit the teacher had the students create a poem using key ideas and words from sources they used throughout their research. Students were given options of creating a paper collage of found words for their poems or using an online source called Garage Band. The teacher had never used it before, but allowed the students to work through it and figure it out. Many of the students figured it out and helped others figure the site out giving students the opportunity for collaborative work.

Reference:
Marshall, S. & Wetzel, K. 2011-12 TPACK goes to sixth grade: lessons from a middle school teacher in a high-Technology- access classroom. Journal of digital learning in teacher education, 28(2), 73-81

# data[].attributes.headline
Teaching Mathematical Problem Solving to Middle School Students in Math, Technology Education, and Special Education Classrooms

# data[].attributes.subject
Teaching Mathematical Problem Solving to Middle School Students in Math, Technology Education, and Special Education Classrooms

# data[].attributes.body
The study of two instructional approaches to sixth grade students to solve math problems in math, technology education and special ed classrooms. 17 students with disabilities and 76 students without disabilities were taught using enhanced anchored instruction (EAI) or text-based instruction (TBI). Students were given a pretest and a post test on the hovercraft problem solving skills after 6, 13 and 22 weeks to assess knowledge and retention.

Findings: Showed that EAI and TBI students benefited from instruction in their math class but EAI students were able to maintain their learning in technology education classroom weeks later.

Resource:
Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z. D., Rueda, E., Hung, Y., &Danneker, J. (2004). Teaching mathematical problem solving to middle school students in math, technology education, and special education classrooms. RMLE Online: ResearchIn Middle Level Education, 27(1), 1-17.
https://ezproxy.una.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip&db=eric&AN=EJ807392&site=eds-live&scope=site

# data[].attributes.headline
Like a Chameleon: A Beginning Teacher's Journey to Implement Active Learning 

# data[].attributes.subject
Like a Chameleon: A Beginning Teacher's Journey to Implement Active Learning 

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, 29 seventh- grade students, 17 boys and 12 girls at Carswell Middle School. The teacher collected a variety of data including interviews, videos, student questionnaire and researcher log entries. The teachers were supported by the school administration to conduct active classroom environments and attempt to engage this idea in her co-workers as well. The teacher used a series of open ended questions about active learning as an instructional approach lead the interviews. The lessons that were taught were video recorded for study purposes. The students were asked at the end of the first semester to complete a questionnaire consisting of open ended question about their preferences in active learning strategies.

Findings:
The data was categorized into three sections: challenges, supports and student responses. As the two teachers did their research they found other team teachers who didn't support their findings of active learning to be helpful because the students leave her class overstimulated causing the students to be more "rowdy" than usual throughout the day. Another colleague challenge was trying to convince her team to incorporate an active learning project each quarter. The teachers rejected her proposal and decided to give their students a packet of questions to answer over the coarse of about 3 days individually. The teacher found other challenges in her research where she would have planned to do some anchor chart activities with the class as they come in and the requirements of her co-workers between classes withheld her from her classroom responsibilities when it came to prepping for the next class. She discovered that some students were not doing any thinking when it came to the small group activities as she was seeing some students off task causing her to neglect her formative assessment data.  Student responses were positive toward actively learning, the students loved the idea of getting out of their seats and working together on projects, they hated doing worksheets.

Resource:
Edwards. S. (2017). Like a chameleon: A beginning teacher's journey to implement active learning. RMLE online research in middle level education, 40 (4), 1-11.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19404476.2017.1293599?scroll=top&needAccess=true

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to follow the learning trajectory of a beginning teacher attempting to implement active learning instructional methods in a middle grades classroom. The study utilized a qualitative case study methodological approach with the researcher in the role of participant observer. Three research questions were explored: the challenges the teacher faced, the supports that enabled the teacher to implement active learning, and the students' response to active learning instructional approaches. Data collection occurred over nine months and included teacher interviews, videos of lessons, a researcher log, and student questionnaires. Data analysis revealed the importance of modeling, supportive mentors, management strategies, reflection, and resources for novice teachers to experience success in the implementation of active learning.

Introduction

In effective middle level schools, "students and teachers are engaged in active, purposeful learning" (National Middle School Association [NMSA], National Middle School Association (NMSA). (2010). 2010 2007; Harbour, Evanovich, Sweigart, & Hughes, ; Yair, ), and high levels of student engagement can lead to positive outcomes including increased academic achievement (Dotterer & Lowe, ; Valentine & Collins, ; Wang & Holcombe, ). Middle grades teachers need both the confidence and the skill to implement an active learning approach in their classrooms, and it is particularly imperative for beginning teachers to experience success with this type of instruction. This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. , p. 14). Active instructional methods are one way for middle grades teachers to get students more engaged (Downer, Rimm-Kaufman, & Pianta,

The purpose of this case study was to follow the learning trajectory of a beginning teacher who was attempting to implement active learning instructional methods in a middle grades classroom. The following research questions framed the study:

1. What challenges might a beginning teacher experience in implementing active learning instructional practices?

2. What kinds of support may help a beginning teacher overcome those challenges and effectively implement active learning instructional practices?

3. How do middle grades students perceive active learning instructional strategies?

An Active Learning Framework

One of the earliest champions of active learning, John Dewey (), advocated for students to be involved in experiential learning that engaged their hands and minds. He also suggested that learning activities should be social and that learners should use what they learn to achieve social ends (Dewey, ). In middle grades classrooms, young adolescents learn through experiences with the intellectual, social, and physical environments (Edwards, ; Nesin, ). Edwards () proposed an Active Learning Framework middle grades educators can use to plan instruction that is intellectually active, socially active, and physically active. While any given instructional strategy may overlap two or more of these dimensions, all three dimensions should be included in instruction (see Figure 1).

28 March 2017

Intellectually Active Learning

It is important for students to intellectually engage with the content and not passively receive information. Intellectually active learning requires students to move beyond memorization or basic understanding and to use higher levels of thinking such as analysis, synthesis, or critical thinking (Anderson & Krathwohl, Anderson, L. W. , & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). Association for Middle Level Education. (2012). 2001 2012 This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools. Westerville, OH: Author. ; Nesin, ). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. New York, NY: Longman. ). Young adolescents have an intense curiosity about the world around them, and instructional strategies such as problem solving, inquiry, and projects that capitalize on that curiosity can effectively increase student learning (Association for Middle Level Education [AMLE],

Socially Active Learning

Young adolescents are peer-oriented, and allowing middle grades students to be socially active in the classroom may enhance their learning (Brighton, Brighton, K. (2007). Bransford, J. , Brown, A. , & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2003). 2007 2003 How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. ), and this idea is applicable to young adolescents and can be incorporated in the classroom through partner work, small group activities, group projects, and whole class discussions. Coming of age: The education and development of young adolescents. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. ). According to Vygotsky, knowledge is socially constructed (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking,

Physically Active Learning

Young adolescents are active and energetic, therefore physical movement in the classroom is important (Nesin, ). Randler and Hulde ( Randler, C. , & Hulde, M. (2007). Hands-on versus teacher-centered experiments in soil ecology. Brighton, K. (2007). 2007 2007 Coming of age: The education and development of young adolescents. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. ). Teachers can enhance learning experiences for young adolescents who are still developing by allowing physical movement. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(3), 329-338.[Taylor & Francis Online] [Google Scholar] ) found that students in the middle grades were more engaged when they participated in experiential learning. As middle grades students enter puberty and develop physically, aspects of their body (e.g., the endocrine system) have yet to stabilize (Brighton,

Challenges to Implementing Active Learning

While active learning is an important aspect of instruction in the middle grades (AMLE, Association for Middle Level Education. (2012). 2012 This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools. Westerville, OH: Author. ), there is disconnect in practice because a traditional, passive approach to teaching and learning is still prevalent in many middle level schools (McEwin & Greene, ). Many teachers lament the challenges of implementing active learning instructional strategies (Wood, ). Edwards () studied nine middle grades teachers who successfully implemented active learning as a regular approach in their classrooms. The teachers shared common challenges in implementation, such as challenges related to the system, challenges related to students, challenges related to content, and challenges within the teachers. These teachers were able to overcome these challenges because they had three common characteristics: they were tenacious, they were student-focused, and they were willing to experiment. The nine teachers in the study were veteran teachers, but it is important to also consider what challenges a beginning teacher interested in implementing active learning instructional methodologies might face and what is necessary to help him or her overcome those challenges.

Methodology

I used a case study design for this research study. Case studies can be helpful in representing a typical situation, which in this case was the seventh-grade classroom of a beginning middle grades teacher. Yin ( Yin, R. (2009). 2009 Case study research: Design and methods, 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. ) suggested that case studies are useful when the researcher wants to consider the contextual conditions and understand their impact on the phenomenon. By selecting one classroom, it was possible for me to describe the challenges a typical beginning teacher may face in implementing active learning and also explore what supports might help a beginning teacher. According to Baxter and Jack (), an advantage of the case study approach is the close collaboration between the researcher and the participants, which allows them to tell their story while taking the context into account. As a result, the case study approach enabled me to better understand the reality of the participants.

Participants

The teacher in the seventh grade language arts classroom was Tiffany Johnson (pseudonym), who had just begun her first year of teaching. She previously served as a substitute teacher in a variety of middle schools during the one and a half years since she graduated from the middle grades education program at the local university.

There were 29 seventh-grade students in this second period classroom. Of the 29 students, 17 were boys and 12 were girls. Thirteen of the students were African-American, 12 of the students were Caucasian, two of the students were Hispanic, and two identified as multi-racial. It was a regular language arts class, and no students were identified as having special needs.

Setting

Carswell Middle School (pseudonym) was located near an army base in a suburban setting. This was the second year in a new building and the first year of the new principal who had just been promoted after being an assistant principal at another middle school in the district. The school population was growing quickly (1,044 students at the time of the study) due to expansion on the army base, and the typical class in the school had more than 30 students. School-wide standardized test results indicated that 47% of the students scored at the proficient level or higher on the state language arts assessment (Columbia County Board of Education, Columbia County Board of Education. (2016). Georgia Department of Education. (2016). 2016 2016 Free and reduced price meal eligibility. Retrieved from https://app3.doe.k12.[state].us/ows-bin/owa/fte_pack_frl001_public.entry_form ). Georgia milestones assessments. Retrieved from http://www.ccboe.net/files/_KUJJ7_/0d40c1ee4d3f79aa3745a49013852ec4/[state]_Milestones_14-15_Combined_for_Website.pdf ), and 36 % of the students in the school were on free or reduced lunch (Georgia Department of Education,

Position of the Researcher

In this case study, I was the researcher and took on the role of participant observer. To become fully immersed in the challenges of implementing active learning in a middle grades classroom, I posited that it was important for me to do more than observe. Therefore, I co-taught with Tiffany Johnson, the beginning teacher, during second period for one day a week. Yin ( Yin, R. (2009). 2009 Case study research: Design and methods, 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. ) argued that a distinctive advantage to becoming a participant observer is that it allows the researcher to "perceive reality from the viewpoint of someone inside the case study rather than external to it" (p. 112). To really understand how to support beginning teachers' implementation of active learning, it was important for me to understand their perceived realities.

I endeavored to participate in the planning and instruction with Tiffany, but the extent of our collaborative planning was limited due to Tiffany being unavailable to meet. Often, some planning occurred via e-mail, and I primarily assisted with instruction in the classroom.

It is also important to note that Tiffany and I had a previously developed relationship. Tiffany was a former student in two of my teacher education courses. Admittedly, this relationship presented limitations to the study because I was moving from a position of power as instructor over Tiffany to a position of colleague and assistant. This previous relationship may have impacted the results of the study, but I selected this teacher primarily on the basis of her stated beliefs in favor of active learning.

Data Collection

A variety of data were collected during the study, including interviews, videos, a student questionnaire, and researcher log entries. Each source of data contributed to my understanding of the beginning teacher's implementation of active learning instructional strategies.

I conducted two semi-structured interviews with Tiffany, one during the summer before the school year began and one in March. Both interviews lasted about 45 minutes. The interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim. The interview protocol consisted of a series of open-ended questions about active learning as an instructional approach. I asked the teacher about her beliefs related to active learning, the challenges with implementing active learning, and the supports she finds helpful.

Every lesson the teacher and I co-taught was video recorded. The camera was set in a corner of the room and remained stationary, and the videos were only viewed by me during the study.

At the end of the first semester, I asked the students to complete a written, anonymous questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of open-ended questions about their preferences regarding various active learning strategies. For example, one question asked, "Do you like small group discussions and do you believe they help you learn? Why or why not?"

I maintained a research log throughout the study. The log contained both descriptive field notes of observed events as well as reflections and insights. The log served several purposes: to record observations not otherwise contained in the data, to record questions for further exploration, and to record my personal experience in co-teaching using active learning instructional methodologies.

Trustworthiness

Using a case study approach with the researcher in the role of participant observer provided me a richness of understanding and the ability to explore implementation of active learning through the perceived reality of a beginning teacher. However, the choice of this methodology increases the need for me to establish credibility and trustworthiness of the data. I utilized multiple methods suggested by Baxter and Jack ( Baxter, P. , & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. 2008 The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-599. ) and Harding () to promote data credibility and trustworthiness.

Using a case study approach allowed me to explore active learning from multiple perspectives (the teacher, colleagues, administrators, and students).

Intense exposure within the context over a prolonged period of time enhanced the credibility of the data.

I conducted member checks at three points. After each interview, I sent the teacher the transcript, and asked if it represented her views and if she would like to add to or take away anything. Additionally, I asked the teacher to read this written report and determine if it accurately represented her experiences as a beginning teacher implementing active learning instructional methods.

I used triangulation of multiple sources of data (interviews, observations, researcher log), and I actively looked for data that might not fit the patterns or could provide alternative explanations.

Data Analysis

I initially coded the data according to the three research questions: challenges, supports, and student responses. This holistic method of immersion was a first approach to understanding the overall contents and possible categories that might develop. During this process, I also wrote theoretical memos that recorded impressions and observations about patterns in the data.

I then analyzed the data using the constant comparative method (Charmaz, ; Glaser & Strauss, Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. (1967). 1967 The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. ), a systematic approach that employs various levels of coding to theorize a phenomenon being studied. I conducted open coding with both descriptive codes and emic codes, or keywords of the participants themselves, such as "learn without realizing it." Then, I proceeded through a process of axial coding, which involved exploring the open codes within the sections that were initially coded for each research question. This resulted in categories related to each research question (Grbich, ).

Results

Challenges

To address the first research question, it was important to explore the challenges that Tiffany faced as she attempted to implement active learning. Like many first-year teachers, Tiffany felt overwhelmed by her new responsibilities and struggled in a variety of areas. I attempted to focus on the challenges that were directly related to her implementation of active learning instruction.

Logistics

Another challenge that Tiffany faced was planning the logistics of the activities. Tiffany was not a naturally organized person and would often not think through the logistics of implementing an activity with 30 students. Tiffany reported, "[I get] so caught up in planning the activity that I don't take time to think through the logistics." As the year progressed, Tiffany began to realize, "The thing with active learning, you can put it together but you really have to work it out before they do it." For example, one day she planned a carousel activity involving chart paper placed around the room. She later realized that as the day progressed, the requirement that teachers step into the hallway during class changes would prevent her from changing the chart paper between classes. She had not thought through a solution to this ahead of time, and the result was unnecessary off-task time that she could have avoided.

Tiffany also struggled with building individual accountability into group activities. She felt that it was likely that some students were "flying under the radar and getting away with not thinking." She observed that when she was working with one group of students, the other groups were sometimes off-task. She also often neglected to get individual formative assessment data on days that she planned small group activities. During one class observation, Tiffany had the students in groups of six, but she gave each group one dry-erase board to write answers. This resulted in only one or two students in each group being on-task during the activity.

Lack of planning time

The primary reason for not thinking through logistics was a lack of adequate planning time. Tiffany rarely had any time for planning built into the work day. Her planning periods were regularly filled with RTI meetings, 504 plan meetings, IEP meetings, team meetings, mandatory professional development sessions, parent conferences, and administrative meetings. The school system had a county-wide initiative to incorporate writing across the curriculum, and teachers regularly met with instructional coaches during their planning periods to analyze student writing samples. Tiffany attempted to compensate for this by doing her grading and planning on evenings and weekends, but she found it difficult as a mother of two daughters. She was simply overwhelmed.

Supports

Tiffany had firm beliefs about the importance of active learning for her students. As a beginning teacher, she needed support as she endeavored to enact her beliefs in the classroom. I attempted to focus on these supports so I could answer the second research question. Five methods of support enabled Tiffany to bypass the obstacles: seeing it with her own eyes, supportive mentors, management strategies, reflection, and resources.

Seeing it with her own eyes

Tiffany often referred to the importance of seeing the impact of active learning on the students. She frequently made comments like, "If I can keep them engaged and I can keep them active then the behavior issues are going to come down and they are going to learn because they want to be in the room," and, "I saw how into it those kids were." I found it significant that Tiffany experienced the impact of active learning on the level of engagement and learning in her students.

It was also important for Tiffany to see active learning strategies modeled. She often wanted more than just a description; she wanted to see it in action. She made comments that every time she saw me implement a strategy, she felt confident doing the same strategy with her other classes. I was the only person Tiffany knew in the school who modeled active learning instructional strategies. She suggested, "I feel sure, I am one of those people when I find out that somebody's doing it I'll probably be in their room all the time."

Reflection

Tiffany had a natural tendency to reflect on her practice and to act upon her reflections, and this process enabled her to implement active learning effectively. Tiffany engaged in what Schon ( Schon, D. (1987). Schon, D. (1987). 1987 1987 Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a design for teaching and learning in the profession. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.[Google Scholar] , p. 26). Tiffany was comfortable reflecting on and acknowledging the logistical problems in front of her students. She summarized her beliefs about reflection in action in the following statement. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a design for teaching and learning in the profession. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.[Google Scholar] ) called reflection in action and reflection on action. Reflection in action occurs when the teacher consciously looks at a problem in the midst of the situation and considers possibilities in light of the practice in place. This occurs during a time in "which we can still make a difference to the situation at hand-our thinking serves to reshape what we are doing while we are doing it" (Schon,

To me, try it and if it doesn't work, admit it to them. Because one of the things that we're supposed to do is to teach the kids if something doesn't work, that's not a reason to stop. It's a reason to say what can I change, how do I make it better, how can I be successful?

She decided that her ability to reflect was beneficial to her, and when she saw something was not working, she "tweaked it along the way." The "tweaking" involved making organizational and logistical changes to activities so they flowed more smoothly in later class periods.

In addition to reflection in action, Schon ( Schon, D. (1987). 1987 Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a design for teaching and learning in the profession. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.[Google Scholar] ) suggested that teachers should also engage in reflection on action. Reflection on action is a reflective conversation with the materials and the situation that allows the teacher to frame and reframe problems in light of information she gains from the setting in which she works. While Tiffany often regretted not thinking through the logistics of an activity before she implemented it, she readily fixed the problems before the next class. She stated, "So, when something didn't work, by the next period it worked. Because I figured out what worked or what didn't work; to make some little changes along the way."

Resources

Tiffany believed that a key to her successful implementation of an active learning instructional approach was having enough resources for ideas. While she did not have the time that she wished to explore resources that might be out there, she highly valued resources that others who also believed in active learning shared with her. For example, she described a meeting with the teacher in the other school who was mentoring her in using active learning.

What I like, when I met with my friend this weekend she had three books and I ordered them all on Amazon right there when she showed me. Because she flipped and she goes, okay I have tried all of these and she starred all the ones that worked and I quickly just looked at those and I was like, I can make that work, I can do that. So, I made a little note, so that when that book comes in I know these have been used, they were successful, try these first.

Student Response

To examine the third research question, I explored students' perceptions of active learning instructional practices. I analyzed student questionnaires (self-report), teacher interviews (self-report), and the researcher log to answer this question. Overall, the students responded positively to Tiffany's active learning instructional approach. They were clear that they preferred activities to worksheets. In particular, Tiffany believed she saw increased levels of engagement and fewer behavior problems when she used active learning strategies versus traditional methods.

Increased engagement

Tiffany often commented about the higher level of engagement from the students when she used active learning strategies. "They love it, they just love it. They love being active, they're learning and they don't even realize they're learning," she said. The more compelling comments came from the students themselves. The students definitely voiced that activities were more fun, but they also noted that they perceived their focus and learning increased when they were given opportunities to participate in active learning. The following comments are representative of feedback I received from students.

Student 1: I love to write but not seven pages. It is not fun nor is it keeping me hooked. I would usually drool on the paper, not write on it.

Student 5: I definitely hate worksheets where you have to answer so many questions so I would like it if we can stop doing those kinds of things.

Student 7: I don't like activities where you use a workbook to find answers because it's not about learning the material. To the student, it's all about finding the answer to your question. You stop focusing on the words on the page. Therefore you don't know what it's trying to tell you. You only look for your answer and write it down. Then you move on.

Student 9: I want my teachers to do fun activities because I don't want to do boring activities all period.

Improved behavior

All middle grades teachers know the challenge of managing student behavior so they can focus on learning. Tiffany believed that her students' behavior actually improved when she had them doing activities.

So, if I can keep them active and I can keep them engaged, then there are less behavior problems because they are going to be more involved in the learning itself. If they are not active, then the ones who just need to get up and move and that's why they can't stop kicking the person in front of them, so they want to go and get water. I have a couple of students in every class that ask to go at the beginning of class and at the end of class. But on the days that we're doing active learning, they don't ask to leave the classroom.

The students acknowledged that they sometimes got off-task while working in groups. One admitted, "Sometimes people talk too much about other stuff." Their comments supported Tiffany's assertion that behavior and, therefore, learning improves when doing active learning. The following comments represent the feedback I received from students related to behavior.

Student 13: I don't like just learning from a PowerPoint because it's boring and some kids fall asleep.

Student 16: I like small groups because you can learn what other people think, and also you learn something from that person.

Student 24: I like group work because you don't have to stay quiet while you're working and you can also ask if someone got a different answer.

Discussion

Tiffany was motivated and committed to implementing active learning in her classroom, and found ways around the challenges she experienced. She faced obstacles that made it difficult to implement active learning: negative colleagues, colleagues with different perspectives, logistics, and lack of planning time. Because Tiffany was committed to having her students engaged in active learning, she found ways to bypass those obstacles: seeing it with her own eyes, supportive mentors, management strategies, reflection, and resources. Figure 2 depicts how Tiffany bypassed obstacles to get her students engaged in active learning.

28 March 2017

Tiffany, like many novice teachers, experienced disconnect between what she learned in her teacher education program and what she experienced in her new school setting. It is common for administrators to encourage new teachers to rely on more experienced colleagues to assist them in the transition from student teacher to teacher. The influence of colleagues in the teacher socialization process can be helpful or disadvantageous. If the veteran colleagues are supportive of the active learning approaches a beginning teacher is attempting to implement, then having their support can be very productive. If the novice teacher cannot find colleagues with like-minded philosophies, then they may not be as successful in implementing active learning. Valencia, Place, Martin, and Grossman () examined four beginning teachers and found (among other factors) that the influence of colleagues impacted the beginning teachers' ability to adapt curriculum materials to meet the needs of their students.

The culture of traditional instruction in a middle school is a powerful force. Experienced teachers, administrators, parents, and students have preconceived notions of how content should be taught, and these people have a significant influence over the novice teacher (Brown & Borko, ). If the novice teacher enters a school that supports different styles of teaching, the findings on teacher socialization are positive. Colleagues and administrators who do not support active learning approaches to teaching can be troublesome for a novice teacher in a traditional instructional culture because of the profound influences they exert on the new teacher. Sirotnik () suggested, "What we have seen and what we continue to see in the American classroom-the process of teaching and learning-appears to be one of the most consistent and persistent phenomena known in the social and behavioral sciences" (pp. 16-17).

Duffy () characterized a teacher's vision as "a personal stance on teaching that rises from deep within the inner teacher and fuels independent thinking" (p. 334). We know from research that teachers who possess a clear vision are more likely to enact what they believe is best for their students (Duffy & Hoffman, ; Vaughn & Faircloth, ). Teachers who have vision reflect on their practice and evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction based on their students' growth (Shulman & Shulman, ). A teacher (like Tiffany) who enacts active learning must first begin with a picture in her mind of a classroom with students engaged in active learning. That vision must rise out of a deeply held personal belief that active learning is what works for young adolescents. A clear belief in the importance of active learning is necessary for a teacher to have the fortitude to enact her vision in spite of constraints such as negative colleagues and a lack of planning time. Tiffany possessed a vision of active learning and never wavered in her belief that it was important for her students.

Tiffany envisioned a classroom in which students were regularly engaged in active learning, but she also must believe that she was capable of bypassing the challenges that she faced in order to enact that vision. Scholars refer to that belief system as teacher self-efficacy. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy () defined teacher efficacy as a teacher's "judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning" (p. 783). Teacher efficacy refers to the extent to which a teacher feels she has the power to implement the vision she has in her mind. While Tiffany's vision of active learning was strong, her self-efficacy was not quite as strong, and she needed support. She relied on the language arts teacher she knew from another middle school, the supportive administrators, and me to encourage her in her vision and to keep her from becoming "like a chameleon" and thinking like the teachers around her. If beginning teachers enter a school culture that is entrenched with traditional, teacher-directed teaching, then support systems must be put into place to help those teachers maintain their beliefs that active learning is important for young adolescents. Just like Tiffany found it difficult to "go against the grain" of the colleagues around her, other beginning teachers are likely to face the same challenges to their beliefs.

Teacher agency is the notion that a teacher's belief (in this case, a belief in active learning) is translated into action. Teacher agency is enacted when educators teach according to their beliefs and vision even in the midst of restrictive policies and other challenges (Vaughn & Faircloth, ). Teacher agency is evident when teachers initiate intentional action in order to enact a specific purpose in a thoughtful manner and with autonomy (Bandura, ; Epstein, ). Teachers with agency make decisions that are consistent with their convictions and their personal beliefs about what is best for their students (Duffy, ). Scholars have identified other characteristics of these teachers. They have a sense of perceived control (Zimmerman, ) and personal empowerment (Danielewicz, ), they are persistent (Bandura, ; Edwards, ), they have initiative (Arendt, ; Bandura, ), and they are reflective (Dewey, ; Schon, ; Zeichner & Liston, ). These teachers are able to implement their vision in the face of challenges and are able to negotiate obstacles in order to achieve their goals (Vaughn, ).

Conclusion

Although AMLE recommends that educators engage young adolescent students in "active, purposeful learning" (NMSA, National Middle School Association (NMSA). (2010). Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. 2010 2000 Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44. ), efforts to change the passive learning culture in classrooms must begin with an understanding of the challenges and opportunities teachers face as they implement active learning strategies. Tiffany's case shows us how one novice teacher found supports that helped her overcome the challenges she faced while attempting to implement active learning instructional methods. Further research is needed to explore methods for supporting teachers, especially novice teachers, and increasing teacher efficacy as they attempt to implement active learning methods in middle grades classrooms. This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. , p. 14), many middle grades students still spend the majority of their time in school engaged in passive approaches to learning (McEwin & Greene, ; Musoleno & White, ; Wood, ). Because teacher quality is the crucial factor in the classroom (Cochran-Smith, ; Darling-Hammond,

References

Anderson, L. W. , & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. New York, NY: Longman.

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Association for Middle Level Education. (2012). This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools. Westerville, OH: Author.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Baxter, P. , & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-599.

Bransford, J. , Brown, A. , & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2003). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brighton, K. (2007). Coming of age: The education and development of young adolescents. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Brown, C. , & Borko, H. (1992). Becoming a mathematics teacher. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 209-239). London: Macmillan Publishing.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The unforgiving complexity of teaching: Avoiding simplicity in the age of accountability. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 3-5.

Columbia County Board of Education. (2016). Georgia milestones assessments. Retrieved from http://www.ccboe.net/files/_KUJJ7_/0d40c1ee4d3f79aa3745a49013852ec4/[state]_Milestones_14-15_Combined_for_Website.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44.

Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54, 77-80.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery.

Dotterer, A. M. & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1649-1660.

Downer, J. T. , Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. , & Pianta, R. C. (2007). How do classroom conditions and children's risk for school problems contribute to children's behavioral engagement in learning? School Psychology Review, 36(3), 413-432.

Duffy, G. (2002). Visioning and the development of outstanding teachers. Reading Research and Instruction, 41(4), 331-334.

Duffy, G. , & Hoffman, J. (1999). In pursuit of an illusion: The flawed search for a perfect method. Reading Teacher, 53, 10-17.

Edwards, S. (2014). The middle school philosophy: Do we practice what we preach or do we preach something different? Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 19(1), 13-19.

Edwards, S. (2015a). Active learning in the middle school classroom. Middle School Journal, 46(5), 26-32.

Edwards, S. (2015b). Active learning in the middle grades classroom: Overcoming the barriers to implementation. Middle Grades Research Journal, 10(1), 65-81.

Georgia Department of Education. (2016). Free and reduced price meal eligibility. Retrieved from https://app3.doe.k12.[state].us/ows-bin/owa/fte_pack_frl001_public.entry_form

Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Harbour, K. E. , Evanovich, L. L. , Sweigart, C. A. , & Hughes, L. E. (2015). A brief review of effective teaching practices that maximize student engagement. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59(1), 5-13.

McEwin, C. , & Greene, M. (2010). Results and recommendations from the 2009 national surveys of randomly selected and highly successful middle level schools. Middle School Journal, 42(1), 49-63.

Musoleno, R. , & White, G. (2010). Influences of high-stakes testing on middle school mission and practice. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 34(3), 1-10.

National Middle School Association (NMSA). (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.

Nesin, G. (2012). Active learning. In Association for Middle Level Education (Ed.), This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools (pp. 17-27). Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education.

Randler, C. , & Hulde, M. (2007). Hands-on versus teacher-centered experiments in soil ecology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(3), 329-338.

Shulman, L. , & Shulman, J. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 257-271.

Sirotnik, K. (1983). What you see is what you get: Consistency, persistency, and mediocrity in classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 16-31.

Tschannen-Moran, M. , & Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.

Valencia, S. W. , Place, N. A. , Martin, S. D. , & Grossman, P. L. (2006). Curriculum materials for elementary reading: Shackles and scaffolds for four beginning teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 93-120.

Valentine, J. , & Collins, J. (April 2011). Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Student engagement and achievement on high-stakes tests: A HLM analysis across 68 middle schools.

Vaughn, M. (2013). Examining teacher agency: Why did Les leave the building? The New Educator, 9(2), 119-134.

Vaughn, M. , & Faircloth, B. (2011). Understanding teacher visioning and agency during literacy instruction. In P. Dunston & L. Gambrell (Eds.), 60th yearbook of the literacy research association (pp. 156-164). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association.

Wang, M. , & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents' perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 633-662.

Wood, G. (2004). A view from the field: NCLB's effects on classrooms and schools. In D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the no child left behind act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 33-50). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Yair, G. (2000). Not just about time: Instructional practices and productive time in school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(4), 485-512.

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods, 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Zeichner, K. , & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zimmerman, M. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581-599.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Like a Chameleon: A Beginning Teacher's Journey to Implement Active Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract Abstract The purpose of this study was to follow the learning trajectory of a beginning teacher attempting to implement active learning instructional methods in a middle grades classroom. The study utilized a qualitative case study methodological approach with the researcher in the role of participant observer.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Classroom Evolved: Creating an Active Learning Environment

# data[].attributes.subject
The Classroom Evolved: Creating an Active Learning Environment

# data[].attributes.body
Active learning environments have evolved into spaces filled with 21st century technology. This study discusses a private high school in Florida who has ideas from major universities that creates hands-on interactive learning environments. Classrooms based on Technology-Enhanced Active Learning (TEAL) designed around technology with an instructor station in the center of the room surrounded by whiteboards and video projectors. These new classrooms are developed away from the typical student desk type classrooms, but with wheeled desks so students have the ability to move around and work actively. IPad/laptop carts for individual or group work and areas designated for brainstorming and collaborating.

**Popular sources may not involve a study and may not include findings.

Things to note:
The state of the art classrooms are aiding teachers to change the way they teach into a more active learning process enabling students to take ownership of their learning. Students begin their class with a short assignment or introductory lesson and break into small groups to work collaboratively on skills. Students then create presentations and reflect on their learning. Teachers also have the opportunity for continuing professional development for their own guidance in their facilitator role.

Reference:
McCrea, B. (2012). The classroom evolved: creating an active learning environment. The Journal
https://thejournal.com/articles/2012/01/25/the-classroom-evolved-creating-an-active-learning-environment.aspx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
21st Century Classrooms | Feature

The Classroom Evolved: Creating an Active Learning Environment

In the first of a new series of articles focused on classroom design, we take a look at a private high school in Florida that's borrowed ideas from two major universities to create classrooms that support interactive, hands-on learning.

Intent on designing classrooms that would support their school's new active learning initiative, the IT and administrative teams at Bishop Moore Catholic High School in Orlando, FL, tapped into two institutions of higher education for help. Years earlier, North Carolina State University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology were involved in a classroom design project whose concepts melded well with the private high school's active learning plan.

"We did a lot of research and found out that these two universities had designed an ideal active learning space," said Pat LaMorte, director of technology integration for the 1,148-student school. "We modeled our first active learning lab around the concepts developed by MIT and NCSU and then built out from there."

Key decision makers from Bishop Moore also met with architects and designers who had experience in the higher education space. "We wanted to know which models were working at schools around the country," said LaMorte. "After much research and consultation we felt that TEAL was the way to go."

Wheeled for easy mobility--and meant to accommodate a wide range of applications and subjects--Bishop Moore's lab tables are positioned in front of dedicated, wall-mounted, 52-inch monitors with touchscreen capabilities.

Technology-Enhanced Active Learning
The design for all five of Bishop Moore's active learning classrooms is based on TEAL (Technology-Enhanced Active Learning). According to MIT's Web site the TEAL project was based on the need for a new mix of pedagogy, technology, and classroom design for freshman physics classes. MIT's 3,000-square-foot TEAL classrooms featured an instructor's workstation in the center of the room surrounded by 13 round tables (each seating nine students), 13 whiteboards, and eight video projectors.

Following a similar design philosophy, Bishop Moore built one 1,200-square-foot main lab and four other classrooms that are about 500 square feet in area. The main lab features six tables that accommodate four to five students each. Wheeled for easy mobility--and meant to accommodate a wide range of applications and subjects--the tables are positioned in front of dedicated, wall-mounted, 52-inch monitors with touchscreen capabilities.

LaMorte said the labs were designed with the college learning environment in mind. "Collaboration is the foundation of university learning, and we want to make sure our students are ready for it," said LaMorte. "We knew we had to go beyond the typical 'rows' of desks found in the K-12 space and create a shared, active learning environment."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Classroom Evolved: Creating an Active Learning Environment -- THE Journal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
21st Century Classrooms | Feature In the first of a new series of articles focused on classroom design, we take a look at a private high school in Florida that's borrowed ideas from two major universities to create classrooms that support interactive, hands-on learning.

# data[].attributes.body
This study looks at the effectiveness of active learning. The crucial developmental ages of 10yo to 15yo in middle schools tend to be a great time to allow students to work collaboratively because they are "peer oriented years". Students in this age group are usually active and energetic so the physical movements in the classroom is important. The active learning environment allows students to become more engaged in this age group. Some examples of Intellectually Active learning opportunities are concept maps, Inquiry activities, problem-solving activities, presentations or papers that require research and multimedia presentations. Socially active opportunities consist of whole group, small group discussions and small group projects. Physically active opportunities for the classroom include lab experiments, hands on projects, games, building models and manipulatives. This study was on nine middle school grade teachers, class sizes around 25 to 30 students, who have active learning approaches in their classrooms. Data included classroom observations, interviews with teachers and samples of lesson plans. The teachers use a variety of strategies to reach the students including videos, drawing pictures, manipulatives, computer software, games, demonstrations and worksheets.

**Popular sources may not involve a study and may not include findings.

Things to note:

Young adolescents learn through a variety of ways (Edwards, 2015). Adolescents need to be engaged in learning intellectually, actively, socially and physically (2015). By incorporating different types of activities into the classroom teachers can meet different needs of students while teaching the important content and teaching them how to view the world around them, including to think critically. By using different types of teaching in the classroom it makes the lessons more engaging, exciting and students feel like learning is fun.

References:
Edwards, S. (2015). Active learning in the middle grades. Middle School Journal
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1059827.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Mobile Learning Centers for the 21st Century Classrooms

# data[].attributes.subject
Mobile Learning Centers for the 21st Century Classrooms

# data[].attributes.body
This study looks at the idea of using technology in the classroom. The use of technology is not an addition to the classroom today it is a must (Wylie 2017). Students today are more engaged with the use of technology and they don't just want technology they need it (2017). Study showed from the Department of Education of PBS kids educational gaming app students aged 3 to 7 years old who used the app everyday for two weeks improved their vocabulary as much as 31%. These type studies help to show the potential that mobile learning devices can provide students. Students with learning differences benefit greatly as the programs or apps can be individualized for the student (2017). Ipads, Kindle's, and even cell phones are being embraced by some technology thinking educators so that teaching can be differentiated and engaging (2017).

**Popular sources may not involve a study and may not include findings.

Reference:
Wylie, J. (2017). Mobile learning centers for the 21st century classrooms. Scholastic Teachers. http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3754742

# data[].attributes.headline
The Effect of Computer Games on Speed, Attention and Consistency of Learning Mathematics among Students

# data[].attributes.subject
The Effect of Computer Games on Speed, Attention and Consistency of Learning Mathematics among Students

# data[].attributes.body
This study is about the effects on computer games on increasing speed, attention and consistency of mathematics. In 2012-2013 all first year male students in Urmia City schools completed a pretest and post- test in a quasi-experimental group design. Two classes were control group and two classes were experimental group who played a game for ten 45 minute sessions. The control group were in traditional math classes and were both post tested. After the post test intervention took place twice a week for 5 weeks and after another three weeks the kids were tested again for learning consistency.

Findings:
Based on study use of computer games increases speed and attention of math skills because games are enjoyable, interesting, exciting, simulating. Computer games can be effective in increasing the level of motivation and stimulation by exciting students cognitively.

Resource:
Mahmoudi, H., Koushafar, M., Saribagloo, J. A., & Pashavi, G. (2015). The effect of computer games on speed, attention and consistency of learning mathematics among students. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 176(International Educational Technology Conference, IETC 2014, 3-5 September 2014, Chicago, IL, USA), 419-424. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.491
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.una.edu/science/article/pii/S1877042815005285?via%3Dihub

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The resource that you are attempting to access is only available to currently enrolled UNA students and UNA faculty/staff. By logging in you agree to the terms and conditions below.