craven_sandra_e.pdf

7/27/2019 Craven_Sandra_E.pdf

1/115

4MAT: APPLYING A LEARNING STYLE SYSTEM TO CREATEINTERESTING AND INNOVATIVE PRESENTATIONS

SANDRA E. CRAVEN

B .Ed., UniversityofLethbridge, 1980

A One-Credit ProjectSubmitted to the Faculty of Educationof the University of Lethbridgeto Fulfill theRequirements for the Degree

MASTER OF EDUCATION

LETHBRIDGE, ALBERTASeptember 2000


2/115

Dedication

For Joan,who was my Mother

m


3/115

AbstractUnlike a large percentage of the population, I have always found it very com fortable andnatural to be in front of an audience. Therefore, I am constantly surprised at the negativeand often fearful reactions of man y when they are required so to do. Effective oralcomm unication and teamwork skills are essential and invaluable tools in both theeducation system and the workplace. This is evidenced by the fact that Departmen t ofLearning has mandated Speaking and Representation as part of Alb erta's L anguage ArtsCurriculum. Furthermore, the Conference Board of C anada's Emp loyability Skills Profilelists teamwork as one of the three critical skills required for success in the Canadianworkplace. (Appendix 1)1firmly believe that the 4MA T System provides a vehicle bywhich these skills can be acquired, therefore it has been incorporated into m y Langu ageArts/Social Studies Program both at the planning stage and at the student level.Implem entation of Dr. Bernice McCarthy 's 4MAT System at the student level,specifically as it relates to ma king oral presentations, is the focus of this project. B ecau sestudents at the Junior High level are extremely self-conscious, therefore reluctant to besingled out, students are introduced to oral presentations using the 4M AT System in aless threatening situation, that of cooperative learning. The purpose of this project is threefold: 1) to improve student communication and presentation skills using the 4MA T

System.2) to teach students to honor their own learning styles while becoming more adept

in the other three quadrants of the 4MAT System.3) to improve teamw ork skills in a cooperative learning environment.

IV


4/115

Acknowledgements

To all, whose thoughts,words, and actions,

provided th e incentive to complete one of my life's most wo rthwhile experiences,my sincerest thanks.


5/115

Table of Co ntentsPa rti . Introduction 1Part II. Major Con cepts 9

Learning Styles 9The 4MA T System: The Three Elements 13Collaborative Learning 21Research Methodology 27Summ ary of Major Concepts 32

Part III. Case Study 35Part IV. From Theory to Practice 38Part V. Interpretation of Instruments 44

Student Responses 46Questionnaire#1 46Questionnaire #2 47Evaluation Tools 55On task Analysis 55Peer Evaluation 55Presentation Evaluation 56Student Journal Evaluations 56Summ ary of Instrument Interpretation 58

VI


6/115

Part VI. Evaluation of Teaching Methods 60Part VII. Final Thoughts 68Part VIII . References 70Part IX. Appendices 73

Ap pendix A: Em ployability Skills Profile 73Appen dix B : Three Steps to Setting up Effective Groups 77Appen dix C : Questionnaire#1:Your Opinion of Oral Reports 78Appen dix D: Evaluation Marking Guide: Overall Presentation 79Appen dix E: Evaluation Marking Guide: Application of 4MA T System 80AppendixF: Peer Evaluation Marking Guide 81Appen dix G: Presentation Project Evaluation Questionnaire 82Appendix H: Four Major Learning Types 85Appen dix I: Piag et's Ladder 86Appendix J: Questionnaire#1:Your Opinion of Oral Reports 87Appendix K: Questionnaire#2 :PresentationProject Evalua tion 89Appen dix L: Student Journal Entries: A, B , C, D

LI Entry Novem ber 9 & 10: Teaching Punctuation Using 4M AT 102L2 Entry Novem ber 16: Student Reaction: 103

1) the 4MAT System initially2) 'overkill' of information

L3 Entry November 18:Student Reaction to 4M AT after use 104L4 Entry December 16: evidence of growth 105

App endix M : Activity for Implementation Outline 108

Vll


7/115

Listof FiguresFigure 1. Com parison of Ko lb's Model (McCarthy, 1981, 1987, p. 34) 14Figure 2. The Complete 4MAT System Model(McC arthy,1981, 1987,p.122) 20Figure 3. Com parison of Old and New Paradigms of Teaching 24Figure 4. Predispositions of Quantitative and Qualitative Mo des of Inquiry 29Figure 5. Lesson Plan Outline 38

Vlll


8/115

Part I. IntroductionAnd on Centre Stage

"Sandra E leanor Brow n, what with those beautiful blue eyes, your long blonde hair, andthose dim ples," said M rs. Scanlon, in her very British, very 'librarian ish' ton e, "you w illma ke the perfect Alice in Wonderland. Have your m other make a sign with the title on it andbe prepared to go on stage at 7:00 PM with the 'other book s' for this mon th's awardpresentation."

And so it was decreed. At 6:45 PM the following Saturday evening, there I stood in thewings of the Med icine Hat Public Library stage waiting to be summoned b y M adameLibrarian. Precisely at 7:00 PM the presentation began . Mrs. Scanlon talked about theimportance of books; some of the 'older' kidsoften and eleven put on a skit; the 'really old'kids of twelve and thirteen read selections from their favorite novels; and then it was time forthe grand finale, the March of the Books.

We little kids of six and seven, stood there, expectantly, nervously, waiting as our titleswere read ou t. "And finally," said a far off voice, "W e have Lewis C aroll's classic novel,Alice in Wo nderland." The audience looked expectantly, M rs. Scanlon looked expectantlyand all the other 'titles' w ho had marched so sm artly and so imm ediately on to the stage,turned and looked for 'Al ice '. But 'A lice' did not, could not move, rooted as she was to thefloor by some unknown force. Again Mrs. Scanlon heralded 'Alice's' entrance and again'Alice failed to materialize. Just as our Honoured L ady opened her rather pursed lips, 'A lice 'stepped sideways onto that well-worn, heavily varnished, wooden stage, clutching a 'm um -made' sign from aKellogg'sCornflakes box, w ith the book title carelessly printed boldly inlarge black pencil.


9/115

A stomp ofatiny foot, a nod of her seven year old head, and with eyes incredibly w idewith fear, 'A lice ' announced in a staccato, but very determined voice which could b edescribed as being somewhere between uncertainty and authority in tone, "I - YA M - ALIC E-IN- WOND ERLAND "

The au dience laughed and applauded. Mrs. Scanlon nodded approvingly. And the o ther'titles' looked up and down and around. Some were smiling, some were confused, som e werebored, but all were wanting to get to the free lunch of cookies, cakes and freshie.

How ever, for Sandra Eleanor Brown, she had glimpsed into a new world, the world ofperformance. For the next forty years, performing, whether it be on stage or in front of m yown students, became very much a part of my life. Unfortunately, I had equated performanceas a 'fun ' activity not worthy of any scholarly pursuit. It was not until a few years ago when Ibegan to re-evaluate m y educational philosophy, did I begin to see the power of performanceas both a teaching and a learning tool.Serendipity

Serendipity: the faculty of making fortunate and unexpected discoveries by accident.(Morris, 1982)

In the summer of1969,1was again enrolled in a class offered by D r. Eugene Falkenberg ,Innovations in E ducation. Unlike other courses taught in this era, which encouraged researchand regurgitation, Dr. Falkenberg now expected students to research then present and defendtheir findings. In effect we, the students, were to assume the role of expert.We w ereexpected to present, to discuss and to debate not only our presentations but also those of ou rfellow classmates. Furthermore, and most surprisingly, we found that our opinions w erevalued and considered w orthy of discussion. For the first time in my ac ademic career I felt I


10/115

was really learning. I truly felt I had "com e hom e." Unfortunately, few of the followingcourses in my und ergraduate degree kept me so engaged. Yes, I did learn as I have alwayshad an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, however, learning was not in the natural, easymanner of that summer.

In July of 1996, for the third time in as many decades, Dr. Eugene Falkenberg and I oncemo re crossed paths when I enrolled in another course he was offering, Education 5 702,Leadership in Educational Organizations. And Dr. Falkenberg, although quite unkno wing,was once again to becom e my m use; for it was during this course, that I was introduced to avery rudimen tary form of Dr. Bernice McC arthy's cycle of learning know n as the4MATSystem (19 81,1987). W ithout sounding too dramatic, I can quite honestly say that Dr.M cCa rthy 's findings, with regards to learning styles and the 4MA T System, were in effect anepiphany as they defined and explained m y very being with regards to behavior and learningstyle.

Two other wom en and I were to give a presentation dealing with women inadministration as on e of the course requirements in D r.Falkenberg'sclass. As the threemem bers discussed, debated, and discarded idea after idea, it becam e evident that althoug hwe had ample research material and many excellent ideas, we had not developed a vehiclethat would effectively comm unicate our topic. Frustration was mo unting when finally, onemem ber suggested w e try a method called the 4MAT W heel, for making effectivepresentation, w hich she had recen tly used with her gifted class. She hastily drew a circle,dividing it into quadrants. Each quadrant, she explained had its own purpose. Qu adrant O newas the hook to capture the audien ce's attention; Quadrant Two provided the con text orinformation; Quadrant Three engaged students in some meaningful w ay so they could ap ply


11/115

the information taught; Quadrant Four gave the students a chance to adapt and expand on theinformation taught. The efficiency of this method/wheel was evident, as in approxim atelytwenty m inutes, we had not only created a rough outline for the presentation but, eachmem ber had definite tasks to complete for the next meeting. Furthermore, I noticed that aswe w orked through th e quadrants, not only did input becom e more dem ocratic, but eachmem ber seem ed to shine in certain quadrants more than the other mem bers. Two m ore briefthirty minute sessions followed in which rough edges were smoothed out before thepresentation d ate. To say that presentation w as successful is an understatement, as during th enext three week s at summ er school, students not only from the Leadership class, but fromother M aster's classes approached m e to discuss it. For the remainder of sum mer school, the4M AT m ethod/wheel w as applied to all my presentations and, as with the leadershippresentation, the same results were evidenced: the group was more organized and focused,presenters experienced personal satisfaction in that their opinions and contributions werevalued, and learning had o ccurred for both presenters and audience, often through novelactivities. I had to find out m ore about this 4MAT, as I could see its potential in my ownclassroom.

The source for that hastily drawn graphic organizer was an article, Using 4MAT ToImprove Student Presentations,by Patricia Weber and Frank Weber published in EducationalLeadership, O ctober 1990. The W ebers claimed, "student presentations wen t fromho-humtoappealing when their teacher showed them how to use a 4MAT w heel to plan their oralrepo rts" (Educational L eadership, p. 41). The phrase, "went from ho-hum to app ealing,'definitely piqued m y interest, as every teacher, including this author, has at one tim e oranother debated the effectiveness of oral presentations, since the final product is often:


12/115

Predictable No t indicative of the effort expended by students and teacher Discouraging for the student whose work was greeted with indifference and polite

applause Discouraging for the teacher who questions, "W hy didn't I do it myself in a mo re

informative, time-efficient, and interesting way?"W ith these thoughts in mind, the We bers' statement only reinforced the belief that I hadindeed found the solution to the dreaded oral report.

As I gained m ore insight into the 4MAT Method, I began to look on my natural ability toperform in a new light; it was more than just a "parlor trick." And my penchant for asking,"W hy? ," for being inquisitive, was not a negative, not the trait ofarude, outspoken"impud ent g irl" as m y Grade O ne teacher had labeled me. These attributes were the very coreof my being, of my learning style. I was the embodiment ofaQuadrant One Learner. Howman y other students had been negatively labeled because their learning style did not fit thetradition format of learning? How many students had their "joy for creativity and expression "silenced?

I saw the po tential of 4MA T, not merely as a tool for students, teachers, andadministrators, but as a lifestyle because it advocates understanding of individual differences,enabling the individual to function more effectively in a variety of situations, be it the school,the workplace or the home. I may no t be able to affect change globally, howev er, I could"awaken the joy," of which Einstein spoke.

And so it was that over the next two years I used a simplified version of the We bers '4MATW heel. Although student evaluations indicated the students themselves felt the


13/115

method was extremely useful, I always felt something was lacking in their overallpresentations. After rereading Bernice McCarthy's(1990)article, Using the4MATSystem toBring Learning Styles to Schools,wh ich defines 4M AT as, "...an eight step cycle ofinstruction that capitalizes on individual learning styles and brain dom inance p rocessingpreferences." (Educational L eadership, p. 31), I found m y answer. In my efforts to make thismethod easier for students to understand, I had not dealt with the second, but equallyimportant part of the cycle, brain dom inance. I assumed that students were not competentenough to deal with this second matter related to brain dominance processing. I w asdetermined to correct this rather arrogant oversight by introducing the topic in a m annerwhich would be understood.

W ith my penchant for 'the drama tic,' a belief that effective oral communication andteamw ork skills are essential and invaluable tools in both the education system and theworkplace, and a strong comm itment to individualizing learning, it is not surprising thatthese elem ents would b e the impetus for this project. Furthermore, one vehicle for thesuccessful implem entation of these aforementioned elements is Dr. Bernice M cCa rthy's4M AT System. Not on ly do students learn to make effective and interesting oralpresentations as they move through the eight step cycle, they are taught to honour their ownlearning styles while becoming m ore adept in the other three quadrants of the4MATSystem.

Standing in front of an audience is intimidating at any age, but none m ore so than at theJunior High level. Students must not only cope with greater academic and social expectationsthan in primary and elementary grades, but with hormonal changes brought on by p uberty. Itis a time of change, a time of uncertainty. B ecause of the uncertainty, this age group seekssolace in num bers. The impo rtance of peers and the need to belong, although im portant in all


14/115

age groups, is far greater at this level. Hence, the peer group functions as a surrogate familyoffering support, safety, and dictating codes ofconduct.In short, 'the group' becomes one ofthe most influential aspects of the young adolescents' life. Recognizing this socializing drive,if you will, of the adolescent, this educator has over the years successfully incorporated themo re positive elements of group dynam ics into num erous collaborative learning settings.

The collaborative learning process, places equal emphasis on the development of bothacadem ic skills and social skills. In this learning environment, acad emic opp ortunities areprovided wherein students share expertise, practice critical thinking skills, and act as bothlearner and teacher. Social skills are taught and nurtured as students assume the various rolesassociated with co operative learning activities. Therefore, the pairing of the 4M AT Systemwith coop erative learning provided a less threatening environment, especially w hen oralpresentations were given. Furthermore, the objectives of both concepts were co mplem entaryas will be illustrated in Part II. Major Concepts.

In conclusion, the purpose of this project is:1) to improve student comm unication and presentation skills using the

4MAT System.2) to introduce and develop student awareness of learning styles.3) to teach students to honour their own learning styles while becom ing

mo re adept in the other three learning style quadrants of the 4 MA TSystem.

4) to improve teamwork skills in a cooperative learning environment.A Languag e Arts literature study unit of the novel, Julia, by C ora Taylor, provided th e

starting point for this project. Six collaborative learning groups of four or five students were


15/115

established. Students then researched various topics associated with the nov el's them e of theparanorm al or the unexplained. O nce information had been collected, students planned oralpresentations using the 4MAT System.

The ensuing pages will review literature about learning styles, the 4MA T System,cooperative learning, and research methodology. The specifics of this case study w ill bedetailed w ith regards to participants, methods of student evaluation, ex pectations, and d ailyprocedure. Furthermore, teaching methods em ployed will be critiqued and their impact onstudents will be discussed. Student response to the project as whole will be investigated inthe section dealing w ith the interpretation of instruments. The final section w ill concludewith this auth or's personal observations.

Implem entation of the 4MAT System w ill, this author feels, go a long way to m eeting theobjective of the Mission Statement for Medicine Hat School District #76 which states,

"As a partner in education, MH SD #76 is comm itted to offer anappropriate education with in a caring and innovation environmentenabling its students to pursue their goals and dream s."


16/115

PartII.Major Concepts"The pupil who is never required to do what he cannotdo,never doeswhat he cando" John Stuart Mill (Zenkel,1994).

Learning StylesDifferentiating instruction, constructivism, progressive education, language experience,

whole language, child-centred education, mastery learning, phonics or sight based learning,all have been touted as "the"method for teaching at one time or another. Furthermore, theimpact of individuals such as Howard Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences(1983), Maria Montessori's method for young children (1964), and A. S. Neill's SummerhillSchool experience for adolescents (1960), varied though they maybe, all have one element incommon - all methods and individuals seek to provide an effective education for the learner.Horace M ann said of education, "Education, beyond all other devices of human origin, is thegreat equalizer of the conditions of men-the balance-wheel of the social m ac hine ry .... Itdoes better than to disarm the poor of their hostility towards the rich; it prevents being poor"(Zenkel, 1994).

Dr. Bernice McCarthy's 4MAT System, is one educational tool, which attempts to reachthis educational goal by applying the behaviorialist concepts of learning styles to theclassroom.

Learning style refers to the pattern of behavior an individual uses for new learning. Theimportance in understanding learning styles is to develop one 's strengths to the fullest, whileaddressing deficiencies, thereby creatingamore balanced or whole individual. In her book,LearningStyles:Quiet Revolution in American Secondary Schools, Rita Dunn, describeslearning style as,


17/115

10

" . . . a biologically and developmentally imposed set of characteristicsthat make the same teaching method wonderful for some and terriblefor others.... Learning style also considers motivation, on-task persistence,or the need for multiple assignments simultaneously, the kind and amount ofstructure required, and conformity versus nonconformity levels."(Dunn, 1988. p. 3)

To be effective, educators must address what Dunn refers to as those "imposed set ofcharacteristics," (Dunn, 1988.p. 3) thereby making education wonderful for all.Charles C. Schroeder (1993) suggests that a new and very different type of student existstoday, a student who does not succeed in the traditional, content laden, passive learningsystem. Although Schroeder focuses on post secondary education, his findings are applicableto all levels.

"Learning is not a spectator sport. If we can expand the repertoireof learning activities open to us, perhaps we can greatly increaseboth our own satisfaction and our students' l ea rn in g. ...what I am suggesting is that an overall understanding of ho wstudents learn and where they are in the process can help us m eetthe needs of the new students who sit in our classrooms. En gagingin such a process will clearly indicate that there are man y paths toexcellence; and perhaps the greatest contributions w e can make to student learningis recognizing and affirming the paths that different from our own."(Schroeder, 1993)

Schro eder's observations are supported by the findings of educator Sandra R ief (1993)with regards to student retention of material:

10% of what they read20% of what they hear30% of what they see50 % of what they see and hear70% of what they say90% of what they say and do


18/115

11

Consequently, kn owledge of learning style and its application through a m ultisensoryapproach appears to create mo re effective learners. Further to this, Richard M . Felder(1996)states,

"an objective of education should thus be to help students buildtheir skills in both their preferred and less preferred modes of learning.Learning style models that categorize these modes provide goodframew orks for designing instruction w ith the desired breadth.The goal is to make sure that the learning needs of students in eachmodel category are met at least part of the time. This is referred toas 'teaching around the cycle'."

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI)(Tieger, 1995),theKolbLearning StyleModel, (1984) and Dr. Bernice McCarthy's 4MAT System (1987) are three of the manyinstruments available for typing personalityand/orlearning style. Both MBTI and Kolb'smod el will be discussed m ore fully as the former is one of the more comm only know n andfrequently utilized indicators, while Kolb 's model provided a stepping stone for M cCa rthy's4M AT System. As this project deals with McCarth y's 4M AT System, this indicator willreceive greater focus.

The M yers-Briggs T ype Indicator (MB TI), (Tieger, 1995), had its origins in the work ofSwiss psychologist Carl Jung, whose research indicated that behavior could be predicted ifone understood an individua l's preferred m ental functions and attitudes. In 1921,his theoryof personality types was published in the book, Psychological Types. Katherine B riggs anddaughter, Isabel My ers built upon Ju ng's w ork of personality types. Whereas Jung suggestedthree preferenc e scales and eight persona lity types, Briggs and Myers offered fourpersonality preference scales and sixteen distinct personalitytypes.(Tieger,1995)

A summ ary of the four personality types follows: extrav erts, (E) hand s on, peop le oriented; or introverts (I) reflective of self and ideas


19/115

12

sensors , (S) practica l, detail oriented; or intuitors, (N) imag inative, concept- oriented ,focus on mean ing and p ossiblities

thinke rs, (T) skeptical, rational, logical; feelers, (F) appreciative, conside rate, hum anistic judg ers, (J) set and follow ag endas, seek closure; perceiv ers, (P) adap table, resist closure

to obtain more information (Felder,1996)A combination of the four types would indicate an individual's learning/personalitytype;

for example, this author is an ENTP or extrovert, intuitor, thinker, perceiver.TheKolbL earning Style Model, authored by David A . Kolb, a leader in the field of

experiential learning, identified two separate learning activities: perception and processing.Perception involves taking in information by concrete experience or abstractconceptualization. Processing involves internalization of information throug h activeexperimentation or reflective observation. These activities are divided into opposites andwhen placed on an intersecting continuum, form four quadrants of learning behavior. (Kolb,1984)

Felder's summ ary of Ko lb's four learning types combination follows: Type1(concrete, reflective): ask "W hy?"; course m aterial must be relevant to their

experiences, their life and future. Teacher is a motivator. Type 2 (abstract, reflective): ask "What?"; course material must be presented in an

organized, rational mann er. Teacher is an expert.

Type 3 (abstract, active): asks "H ow ?"; course material should be well defined and allowfor hands-on, trial and error in a non-threatening atm osphere. Teacher is a coach.

Typ e 4 (conc rete, active): asks "W hat if?"; course material allows for self-directedsolving of real life problem s. Teacher stays out of the way. (Felder,1996)


20/115

13

Although Kolb viewed these learning styles as a continuum which the individual m ovedthrough over time, he determined that one preferred style became evident. (1984)

The 4MAT System: The Three ElementsThe 4M AT System, designed by D r. Bernice M cCarthy is defined as, "... an eight step

cycle of instruction that capitalizes on individual learning styles and brain dominanceprocessing preferences" (McCarthy, 1994, p. 31). Furthermore, Dr. McCarthy has based hersystem on research from the fields of education, psychology, and neurology, incorporatingthe theories of David Kolb, Carl Jung, Jean Piaget, and John Dew ey. The 4MA T Systemconsists of three elements therefore, those being 1) learning styles 2) brain mode and 3)mo dalities all structured with in cyclic framework.The First Element: L earning Styles

The theoretical foundation of the 4MA T System is built on how individuals perceive andprocess reality. According to M cCarthy (1990), some perceive reality mainly bysensing/feeling or intuition, w hile others rely on thinking through a situation or rationale. N oone way, be itsensing/feelingor thinking, is totally exclusive of the other, nor is one superiorto the other. On the contrary, one should complement the other, working in tandem. Thesecond com ponent in learning, is processing which involves the functions of watching anddoing. Som e individuals are watchers first, others doers who dive right in. How ever, both areequal and com plementary in that doers need to reflect on their actions and watchers need toact on their reflections. W hen the elements that make up perception and processing areviewed on a continuum , on e's place on the continuum determines their learning style.


21/115

14

"Ko lb found that it is the combination of how w e perceive and process that forms theuniquen ess of our own learning style, our mo st comfortable w ay to learn" (McCarthy, 1994,p.25 ). It must be acknow ledged that other factors such as age, environm ent, and lifeexperiences, to nam e a few, also affect learning style.

Dr. McCa rthy's 4MA T model is formed wh en the continuums of perceiving andprocessing are juxtapo sed, thu s creating four quadrants or four major learning styles.Furtherm ore, whe n Dr. Mc Carthy overlaid her four strands with those of other researchers,similar conceptualizations of perceiving and processing are apparent.

His evident that researchersfrom diverse fieldsar eidentifying srmiarstrands. Run ning throughthe different descriptionsofperceiving andprocessing are man yof thesameconceptualinsights. One way to see howsimiarthey are isto summarizetheirfindingsby overlaying hemon the modeldeveloped by Kolb.I want to makeitvery deartothe reader a t this point thattheseconnectionsare myo w n .As I studied the workofthese researchers, the similarity of theirresultsstruck mean dcofroborated my i rtsightsandfindings about studentdifferences, tnsomeinstances, asis the case withany overlay, thecorrespondences are approximate rather thanexact

ConcreteExperience

ConcreteExperience

ActiveIrrttitive(marketing)

PracticalBngmearing)

Imaginativecounsel ng) Heteeth*ObservationTheoretical[research anddesign)

Enthusiasticproblem-solversA t t n * ^ ^ ^ _ExperimentationPreciseandsteady

AbstractConcept unlteattan

Peopie-onentedand sympathetic^ _ B - 1 B ReflectiveObMrvtrJenAnalytic andSrm-minded

ConceptuaBotlonJUNG StMONANOBYRAM

ConcreteExperience ConnateExperience

ActiveExperhritntittM

frrtuKondirected

B o *dBBCtfid

.Interesting

Intellectd reeled PracticalProductive

AbstractConceptuafzation

HeJpJWSensitive

OrganizedDelated

ReflectiveObservation

AbstractConceptuaBation

Figure 1: Comp arison of Ko lb's Model (McCarthy, 19 81,1 987 . p. 34)


22/115

15

The Four Major Learning TypesType I. Imaginative Learners (Quadrant One) Perce ive information concretely, process reflectively Learning mu st have meaning to their lives, therefore school often seemed disconnected

from the real world They need discussion, are idea people Favorite question: Why?Type II. Analytic Learner (Quadrant Two) Perceive information by thinking/abstractly,process bywatching/reflecting W ant intellectual com petence through facts. The traditional school structure favors

Twoness. Favorite question: Wh at?Type III. Comm on S ense Learners (Quadrant Three) Perceive information abstractly, process by doing Prefer to learn by trying things out, skills oriented, can't stand boring, inactive exercises Pragm atic, often have tough time in school Favorite question: How does it work?Type IV. Dynamic Learner (Quadrant Four) Perceive information by concretely/sensing feeling, process by doing Learn by trial and error, action oriented, adaptable, flexible, risk-takers Favorite question: What can this become?(McCarthy, 1994,p. 9) (see Appendix H for m ore detail)


23/115

16

Piaget's L adderThe nineteenth century philosopher, Jean Piag et's belief that human intelligence is

developmental in nature, wherein growth is viewed as age related stages, going fromconcrete to abstract reasoning, forms an important part of 4M AT 's theoretical foundation.Piaget felt the progress through these levels or ladder, was 1) from concrete to abstractreasoning 2) a series ofagerelated stages and 3) ongoing wherein interaction b etween theenvironment neverceased,(see Appendix I for details of Piaget's Ladder)

Dr. M cCarthy felt that Piaget's ladder concept, although important, was only a part of the

learning experience, suggesting that development is four dim ensional and cyclical in naturewherein the individual develops: 1) values and meanings 2) conceptual connections 3)problem solving skills 4) new creation. Individuals develop in all four quadrants, however,are stronger in som e quadrants than others as indicated by the chart, The Four LearningTypes. Therefore, "each learning style has a favorite w ay of going up Piage t's ladder. But alllearners need to experience the entire cycle. So we must stop focusing on the ladder. W emust attend to the cycle" (McCarthy, 1994, p. 58).

Although learning is continuous, educators have focused on Piage t's ladder of age-relatedstages and the neglected the process/cycle. In doing so, traditional education h as accordedmo re importance to the abstract, cerebral and analytical or Quadrant Two , at the expense o fthe concrete and active or Quadrants Three and Four. Consequently, Type Tw o: AnalyticLearners are highly valued and reward, whereas Type Three: comm on Sense Learners areundervalued since many educators view concrete/active learning as a dumbing-down oflearning.


24/115

17

Each of the four types of learners has its own weaknesses and strengths. It is theresponsibility of educators to honor the individual's preferred learning style while at thesame time develop, refine, and strengthen not only the preferred style, but the other three aswell.The Second Element: Right-mode and Left-mode Brain Functioning

Anatomically, the brain is divided into left and right hemispheres with each sideperforming different functions. The left hemisphere is the realm of the analytical, systematicand rational, while the right hemisphere is intuitive, random, and creative. The left is viewed

as the mind or the head, the right, the heart. Joseph Bo gen's ConceptofHem isphericity,( cited McCarthy, 1981,1987, p. 75) suggests that individuals have a preferred brainmod ality. Howev er, to say that one hemisphere is superior does a disservice to the other.Unfortunately, education has done just that by revering the 'he ad' while downp laying theimportance of the 'hea rt'; whereas, the purpose of education should be mo ving tow ardswholeness.

"The dichotomy between the two modes of knowing has goneon long enough. It is a false dichotomy. It is time to teach bothanalysis and synthesis. It is time to teach to the whole brain,intellectual and intuitive, mind and heart, content centered andstudent centered." (McCarthy, 1994, p. 75)Learning Style and Hemispheric Dominance

W hen hem ispheric dom inance was tested in each of the four learning styles, QuadrantsTwo and Three revealed a tendency to left m ode bias, whereas Qu adrants One and Four wereright-mod e biased. It is to the bottom of the 4MA T cycle in Quadrants Two and Three thatschools prim arily function thereby reinforcing the notion of students as passive receptacles.The back and forth m ovem ent between Two and Three are what McCarthy refers to as the


25/115

18

pendulum style of teaching. B y its very nature, it engages only two-eighths ortwenty-fivepercent of the learners.

Because findings from the McC arthy Hemispheric M ode Indicator revealed that right, leftand wholebrained learners are present in each of the four quadrants, the 4M AT m odel addedalternating right-mode and left-mode brain function to each quadrant in effect creating awheel with eight equal wedges.Wholeness and Balance

Ko lb's research shows a correspondence between learning style and type of career chosen.He also noted a correlation betwe en a stude nt's own learning style and that of the teacherwho had th e most impact on the student. This raises the question, is it the teac her'scharismatic nature which in effect overpowers the studen t's preferred learning style therebysublimating said stud ent's ow n learning style? That being the case,Dr. McC arthy argu es for the necessity of teaching all four mo des of learning.

Althoug h the 4M AT System seeks to determine learning style and brain mode preference,it should not be used as an instrument for labeling or pigeon-holing students. Quite thereverse, its sole purpose is for wholeness and balance in learning and by doing so, educatorsare creating individuals who are better equipped to deal with personal and global issues.The Complete 4MA T System Model

As the diagram on the following p age illustrates, the left m odes of quadrants Tw o andThree are what happens in schools. McCarthy has labeled this sector Problem Solving. It ishere that students are taught the analytical or problem solving techniques. The right mode s ofquadrants O ne and Four are what she terms Problem Finding, or the sector where ideas areconceived and/or improved up on. The insight of Problem Finding needs the analytical


26/115

19

rational aspect of Problem Solving to be fruitful. Hence the importance of com pleting thecycle by shifting from the problem finding to problem solving then back to problem finding.

"The 'shift' comes from taking experience and reflecting on it, analyzing it,developing it into and integration with acknowledged kn owledge. Th e 'shift'also comes when one takes defined concepts (based on experiences andreflections) and tries them out, personally getting involved and thenanalyzing this person involvement. Schools must structure learning to bringabout these 'shifts,' these integrations." (McCarthy, 1994. p. 125)

Progression through the 4M AT System brings with it a change in roles as teachers give uptotal control and students become active participants. Furthermore, both student and teacherassume dual roles as learners and teachers.


27/115

20

The Complete4Mat System Model

ActiveExperimentation

ConcreteExperience

AbstractConceptualization

ReflectiveObservation

Figure2:The Complete 4MAT System Model (McCarthy, 1981,19 87,p.122).

The Third Element: M odalitiesThe third and final element in the 4MAT System is modalities, that being the sensory

channels by which we receive information. The three modalities are visual, auditory, andkinesthetic. Individuals not only exhibit preferences for learning style, brain mode, butmodality also.Visual learners need to see and imagine; auditory learners need to hear andverbalize; kinesthetic learners need to do and manipulate. By addressing the three elements,


28/115

21

learning style, brain mode, and m odality, teachers will go a long way to m eet the individualneeds of students.

"Learning is both reflective and active, verbal and nonverbal, concreteand abstract, head and heart. The teacher must use many instructionalmethod s that are personally meaningful to each student. The mo re studentscan travel the cycle, the better they can move to higher-order think ing."(McCarthy, 1997,p.51)

Collaborative Learning: W hat is It?"Thorou ghly to teach another is the best way to learn for yo ur sel f

Tryon Edwards (Zenk el, 1994).What is collaborative learning? ' Collaborativelearning' is an umb rella term for a

variety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual effort by students orstudents and teachers toge ther" (Good sell, 1992, p. 10). Innocent as this statementappears, collaborative learning flies in the face of many past and currently heldeducational beliefs as the following tenets or cornerstones of this philosophy illustrate. Learning is an active, constructive process wherein students becom e critical thinkers and

problem solvers. Learning depends on rich content wherein students have access to information the reby

affording the opportunity to become active learners. Learn ers are diverse thereb y allowing for exposure to differing perspective s. Learning is social thereby giving students a forum to discuss, debate, to ma ke public not

only their point of view , but those of others. Learn ing has affective andsubjectivedimensions wherein students see themselves as

both receptors, transmitters, and creators of knowledge.


29/115

22

"By its very nature, collaborative learning is socially and intellectuallyinvolving. It invites students to build closer connections to other students,to their faculty, to their courses and to their learning" (Goodsell, 1992,p . 11).Collaborative L earning: To be or not to be?

"Eve ry noble acquisition is attended w ith its risks: he who fears to encounter the one m ustnot expect to obtain the other." Metastasio (B olander, 1987, p. 213)Not to Be

Introducing collaborative learning into one 's classroom can be unsettling as it shakes thevery foundation of our educational system, the most obvious being the new roles of teacher

and student. Critics of collaborative learning would argue that the role of the teacher is to be"centre stage", the comm and centre from which all knowledge, activities, rewards andpenalties em anate. This power is so designated b y virtue of extensive education and aneducational belief still widely held that students are not competent or know ledgeable enoughto contribute to the educational process, except under teacher prescribed circumstances.

Another comm only heard criticism of collaborative learning addresses the issue ofefficiency (Goodsell, 1992). Again, this harkens back to the role of the traditional teacherwho , it is argued, because of training could have delivered the lesson more effectively and inless time than the collaborative learning approach. Furthermore, there are those, educatorsand non-edu cators alike, who believe that collaborative learning is the lazy teacher 's choiceas it becomes a coffee break or marking time when the 'go od ' teacher would be in front ofthe class teaching (Goodsell, 1992).

If the role of the teacher is to be centre stage, then it follows that the role of the student isto be 'in the win gs' or subordinate. This traditional philosophy assumes thestudent/teacherrelationship is that of a child, dependent on a benevolent authority. The stude nt's roletherefore is to be passive, receptive, and submissive (Locke, 1889).

Apart from the change in roles of teacher and student, other concerns have been raisedwith regard s to the effectiveness of the collaborative approach. For instance, this ap proachappears to encourage cheating as it allows the weaker and the lazier students to hitchhike on


30/115

23

the labors of the workers. In the short term this hitchhiking results in an unfair evaluation, butin the long term, this approach could prove disastrous as students ma y be unable to functionin post secondary education or the workplace.

Furtherm ore, man y individuals hold to the philosophy that education is to prepare studentsfor the com petitive 'dog eat do g' w orld of the workplace. That being the case, it follows, b yallowing students to operate in the cooperative, non-competitive environment ofcollaborative learning, not o nly teachers, but the educational system as a w hole, are d oingstudents a disservice.

Lastly, opponents to collaborative learning question whether this approach cansuccessfully cover the curriculum and ensure student academic success.ToB e

Instituting collaborative learning is not without its problems. Change b y its very n aturecreates dilemm as, but it can also produce benefits. B ecause of this approach, a change ineducational philosophy occurs fromtransmissionalto transactional and in som e varieties totransformational. N o longer is the teacher the centre of learning, the om nipotent oracle,dispensing know ledge to passive receptacles. Students and teachers are now partners, part ofthe same team. No longer the 'tabula rasa' (Locke, 1889) of traditional education, studentsbecom e active share holders in their own educational experience. The classroom evolves intoa com mun ity wherein academ ic and interpersonal skills are learnt and reinforced due to thegive and take,non-competitivecooperative environment of the collaborative approach.Berkeley (cited in Goldenberg, 1992. p.177)

"The m yths about interpersonal com petition - that it is motivating,enjoyable, character-building, and necessary for success in a competitiveworkplace and world-have been debunked increasingly in the pasttwenty years, both in theoretical terms. Astin, 1987; Brickner, 1989; Nich ols,1989; Palmer, 1983(cited in Goodsell, 1992, p. 20) and throughout extensiveresearch. Johnson & Johnson, 1989a: Kohn,1986(cited in G oodsell, 1992, p. 20)Most troubling ofall,more than 5 0% of the students who begin college leave,often never to return. M uch of this student leaving has to do w ith feelings ofisolation and a lack of involvement with the college environment.Tinto, 1987(citedin Goodsell, 1992,p.20)

The above quo te clearly demonstrates a place for collaborative learning in our educationalsystem. Ho wever, as with any new project it takes planning, energy, and an open mind tosuccessfully implement collaborative learning into the classroom.


31/115

24

Johnson and Smith's (1991) table provides a concise comparison of old and newparadigms of teaching.

F I G U R E11.1Comparison of Old and New Paradigms of TeachingKnowledgeStudents

II Faculty PurposeRelationships

Context

Assumption AboutTeachingWays of KnowingEpistemoiogyMode of LearningC imate

Old ParadigmTransferred from Faculty toStudentsPassive Vessels to be Riled byFaculty s KnowledgeClassify end Sort Studentsimpersonal R elationshipAmongStudents and Between Facultyan d SludentsCompetitive/Iindividualistic

Any Expert Can TeachLogico-ScientificReductionistMemorizationConformity/Cultural Uniformity

New ParadigmJointly Constructed by Studentsand F acultyActive Constructor, Discoverer,Transformer of KnowledgeDevelop StudentsCom petencies and Talents |Personal Transaction Among iStudents and Between Facultyand StudentsCooperative Learning inClassroom and CooperativeTeams Among Faculty andAdministratorsTeaching Is Complex andRequires Considerable TrainingNarrative sConstructivistRelatingDiversity and Personal Esteem/ Cultural Diversity and jCommonality |

Source:D.W.Johnson, and K. Smith. (199 t). ActiveLearning. Edina, Minn.: Interaction B ookCompany.

Figure 3: Comparison of Old and New Paradigms of Teaching.Cooperative Learning, a Branch of the Collaborative Learning

As mentioned previously, numerous approaches to collaborative learning are practiced ofwhich cooperative learning is the most structured. Johnson, Johnson and Holubec,1990(cited in Goodsell,p .12),defined cooperative learning as, " the instructional use of smallgroups so that students work together to maximize their own and each others learning."Ho wev er, in order to be successful, several key elements must be present in a cooperativelearning situation:


32/115

25

Positive interdependence Prom otive interaction (face to face, supportive) Individua l accou ntability and personal responsib ility Individual performance assessment Interperso nal skills and academ ic learning of equal impo rtance Interpersona l skills need to be taught and reinforced Debriefing time allows students to reflect on both their academ ic and social perform ance

Further to their definition of w hat cooperative learning is, Johnson, Johnson and Holubecreiterate in their book, T he New Circles of Learning, what cooperative learning is not. Coo peration is not having students sit side-by-side at the same tableto talk with each other as they do their individual assignments. Coo peration is not assigning a group report that one student doesand the others put their names on. Cooperation is not having students do a task individually with instructions thatthose who finish first are to help the slower students.(Johnson, 1994, p. 35)

Creating Positive Cooperative Learning OutcomesGood intentions are not enough to ensure success in cooperative learning activities. In

order to help facilitate a successful outcome, these elements should be present: Expectations, both academic and social, should be not only be well planned but clearly

communicated. Rea listic expec tations should be established for group work and for student and teacher

roles. Th e classroom shou ld be set up with sufficient resources to successfully com plete

activities.


33/115

26

The teacher should drop in and out of groups. The project should be relevant. A wide variety of activities should be employed. Imm ediate feedback should be given to reinforce positive group performance.

W hat follows is a summ ary by Goodsell, Maher, Tinto, Smith, and Mac G regor, of thepitfalls of coop erative learning with regards to forming g roups, project ev aluation, groupfeedback and unit planning.What Not to Do

When forming groups,do not allow students to form their own groups or deliberately create hom ogeneous groups. establish groups that are either too small (3 or fewer mem bers) or too large ( 8 or moremembers.) dissolve and reform the groups on afrequentbasis, such as after each activity orsimulation.W hen formulating grading policies,do not minim ize the extent to which group performances affects stu dents' grades. limit group wor k's influence to less than 20% of the total grade(orbase a very largeportion of the grade [60% or more] on a single assignment - this one didn 't show up very

often b ut w hen it did the negative consequences were severe). leave out any form of peer evaluation in the grading system.When providing feedback on group work,do not structure the group assignments so that students can easily figure out a way to workindependently and still get the job done. have the group work turned in as late as possible in the term.When planning group activities and assignments,do not assign two or mo re class presentations. assign four or more cases or other written reports avoid group exams and do not give mo re than four use the absolute minim um of class time for group work (1992, p. 65 Table 3)


34/115

27

Research MethodologyObservation: "Every m an who observes vigilantly and resolves steadfastly grows

unconsciously into gen ius." Edward G. Bulwer-Lytton (B olander, 1987,p .176)Science: "Science is simply common sense at its be st- tha t is, rigidly accurate in

observation, and m erciless to fallacy in logic." Thomas H uxley (Bolander, 1987, p. 216)Qualitative or Q uantitative Research

The choice of research methodology is of paramount importance. Without the properinstrument, effective results cannot occur. This raises two questions, 1) Which meth od wouldbest serve my needs, qu alitative or quantitative? 2) W hich method is the best? Therein liesthe 'great debate.'The Great D ebate: Qu alitative Vs. Q uantitative

The two postulates central to the positivist persuasion are, first, thata radical break exists between empirical observation and nonem piricalstatements, and second, that because of this break, more generalintellectual issues - which are called "ph ilosophical" or " metap hysical"- have not fundamental significance for the practice of an empiricallyoriented discipline. Berkeley (cited in Goldenberg, 1992. p.177)Qualitative m ethodology allows the researcher to "get close to the d ata,"thereby d eveloping the analytical, conceptual, and categorical compo nentsof explanation from the dataitself- rather than from the reconceived, rigidlystructured and highly quantified techniques that pigeon hole the empiricalsocial world into the operational definitions that the researcher hasconstructed. Filstead (cited in Goldenberg, 1992. p.177)

The aforementioned quotes typify the 'great debate' about which research method,quantitative or qualitative is superior.

Bog dan and Taylor, in their book, Introduction to Q ualitative Research Method s, definedqualitative methodolog ies as research procedures which produce descriptive data: peo ple 's


35/115

28

own written or spoken words and observable behavior (1975 , p. 4). For these authors thephenom enological perspective is central to qualitative methodology. They state further thattwo major theoretical perspectives dominate the social sciences, positivist andphenomenological.

The po sitivists which stems from the late19thand early 20th century theorists, AugusteComteandEmileDurheim, w as concerned with facts or causes. The phenom enologicalperspective of M ax Weber, concerned itself with understanding hum an behavior from theactors' point of view. Phenomenologists study how the world is experienced. The important

reality then is what individuals imagine it to be."The 'forces' that move hum an beings, as human beings rather thansimply as humanbodies...are'meaningful stuff' They are internalideas, feelings and motives.

Douglas (cited in Bodgan & Taylor, 1975. p. 2)Goldenberg suggests the key feature of the interpretive approach is the goal of insider

understanding whereas the positivists adopt an external view; therefore, it follows that theapproach or m ethods used to attain data and reach conclusions must be different.This positivist approach tries to find facts and causes through questionnaires and inventorieswhich p roduce quantitative data, allowing for statistically proven data between operationallydefined variables. Great care is taken to avoid contamination of data by personalinvolvemen t. Th e positivist approach is, in their minds at least, clean, detached, andobjective.

The phenom enological approach on the other hand tries to find understanding throu ghparticipant observation, open-minded interview, personal interview and personal docum ents.The descriptive data collected permits the researcher to see the world through the ac tor's ey e.


36/115

29

A qu ote from Bog dan and Taylor with regards to a study about a juvenile delinquentsuccinctly sums up the phenom enologistbelief:

By putting ourselves in Stanley 's [the author's] skin we can feel andbecom e aw are of the deep biases about such people that ordinarilypermeate our thinking and shape the kinds of problems we investigate.By truly entering into S tanley's life, we can begin to see what we takefor granted (and ought not to) in designing our research...Becker (cited 1975. p. 7)

Figure 4: Predispositions of Quantitative and Qualitative Modes of Inquiry, clearlyillustrates the differences in assumptions, purpose and approach between the two m ethods ofinquiry. (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992. p. 7)Quantitative Mode Assumptions Qualitative M ode-Social facts have an objective reality- Primacy of method- Variables can be identified andrelationships measured-Et icPurpose- Generalizability- Prediction- Causal explanationApproach- Begins with hypotheses and theories- Manipulation and control- Uses formal instruments- Experimentation- Deductive- Component analysis- Seeks consensus, the norm- Reduces d ata to numerical indices- Abstract language in write-upResearcher Role- Detachment and impartiality-Objectiveportrayal

- Reality is socially constructed- Primacy of subject matter- Variables are complex, interwoven anddifficult to measure-Emic- Contextualization- Interpretation- Understanding acto rs' perspectives- Ends with hypotheses & grounded theory- Emergence and portrayal- Researcher as instrument- Naturalistic- Inductive- Searches for patterns- Seeks pluralism, complexity- Makes minor use of numerical indices- Descriptive w rite-up- Personal involvement and partiality- Empathic understanding

Figure 4: Table 1.1 Predispositions of Quantitative and Qualitative Modes of Inq uiry(Glesne & Peshkin, 1992, p. 7)


37/115

30

Having dwelled on the difference of approaches for each methodology, Glesne andPeshkin(1992)point out that bo th qualitative and quantitative researchers use similarelements in their work: State purpose Pose problem s or raise questions Define a research population Develop a time frame Collect and analy ze data Present outcomes which rely explicitly or implicitly on theoretical framework Are concerned with rigor or exactness

The difference is how the researchers put these elements together that creates distinctivedifferences in the process and the final project. Consequently, the research method onechooses speaks to their values and perspective on the nature of reality.Although qualitative research m ay not produce that which quantitative researchers refer to as'hard d ata,' assessments of validity can be made according to several criteria. Becker andDeutscher suggest the following hierarchy of credibility:

1. Volunteer statements are preferred to elicited ones2. Criterion of redundancy based on time in the field. If the researcher has spent

sufficient time in the field, a data saturation point w ill be reached at which nonew data is being added.

3. Criterion of triangulation wherein a claim had been verified repe atedly and invarious ways.

Further to this, Dou glas (cited in Goldenberg, 1992, p. 196) suggests the concept ofinteraction effectiveness wherein a new comer could study and use the information and thenpass as authentic.Schatmanand Strauss, (cited Goldenber, 1992,p .196),put forth themem ber validations test. If all mem bers agree to its authenticity the findings are viewed asvalid. Also in the absence of negative feedback from mem bers confirms credibility.


38/115

31

The key premise of interpretive social science is that the social scientist must seek accessto the 'univ erse of disco urse' of the actors. (Goldenberg, 1992,p.197) This being the case,the researchers mu st go into the study with a tabula rasa. They must assume that they no t theactors are w ithout expertise. The positions are therefore reversed, with the actors assumingthe dom inant position and the scientist the subordinate. Perhaps most crucial to the role of theresearcher involves the issue of neutrality in that one's ow n beliefs must be suspended. Thefollowing quotes by B ogdan and Taylor (1979), "Sound a warning for, the researcher seeksnot truth and m orality but understanding" (p. 9).

" . . . And w hile you do not have to agree with your subjects' views of the world, you mustknow , accept and present them for what they are" (p.11).


39/115

32

Summ ary of Major ConceptsLearning Styles Summary Learning style refers to the pattern of behavior an individual uses for new learning. Learning style preferences are not set in stone, and change with age and experience. Indicators such as the My ers- Briggs Type Indicator and Kolb Learning Style Model

determine learning style preference. Dr. Bernice McC arthy's 4MAT System, " . . . an eight step cycle of instruction that

capitalizes on individual learning styles and brain dom inance processing preference s"(McCarthy, 1994, p. 31),incorporated David K olb's m odel of experiential learning.

Know ledge of learning styles is to create a wholeness or balanced individual and not as alabeling device.

Collaborative Learning Summary ' Collaborativelearning ' is an umbrella term for a variety of educational approaches

involving joint intellectual effort by students or students and teachers together"(Goodsell, 1992, p. 10).

Cooperative learning, a branch of collaborative learning, is "the instructional use of smallgroups so that students work together to maximize their own and each others lea rning "(cited in Good sell, p. 12).

Collaborative learning challenges the tradition roles of teacher and students. Students becom e mo re active, responsible shareholders in the educational process Collaborative learning is much more than 'group work, therefore, in order to facilitate a

successful cooperative learning outcome, expectations and procedures must be taught.


40/115

33

Research Methodology Summary Qualitative (non-empirical) and quantitative (empirical) research methods are both valid

research m ethods. How the researchers put the elements of modes of inquiry together thatcreates the distinctive differences in the process and the final project.

Most crucial to the role of the researcher involves the issue of neutrality in that one 's ownbeliefs mu st be suspended.

The purpo se of Part II was to introduce and clarify the aforementioned majorconcepts of this project. Without examining these foundational concepts, the premise for saidproject could not be fully appreciated.

My criteria in choosing a project was three fold in that the topic must be meaningful,beneficial, and practical for both teacherMidstudents. The topic, learning styles pointed thedirection, however, it was too broad and too academic in scope. The 4M AT System thereforeprovided a tool for this teacher to apply learning style concepts while being practical,meaningful and beneficial to both parties. However, to more fully meet the three fold criteriafor students, the student had to become the teacher, and oral presentation provided the perfectteaching vehicle.

In man y instances, oral presentations become an exercise in oral reading and benefitsare limited to the presenter, as the audience/class is inactive and frequently bored.Application of the 4MA T System to oral presentations forces the students/audience toparticipate, to interact, and to eng age in learning as the student presenter works throug h thefour quadrants. C onsequently, the very structure of4MATenables the students, both thepresenter and the audience, to experience success in their preferred learning mode.


41/115

34

Althoug h the concept of research methodology w as not directly related to this particularproject, its inclusion was intended to clarify the distinction between quantitative andqualitative research, validate both m ethods and relate the role of the researcher.


42/115

Part III. Case StudyParticipants

Participants were members from one of my Grade Eight Language Arts classes, consistingof twenty- eight studen ts, twelve females and sixteen males, age12to 13 years, and ofaverage to above average ability. The profile is that of what I consider to be a 'typi cal' JuniorHigh class. This project stemmed from a Language Arts Unit, The Unusual and theUnexplained,which I built around the novel, Julie, by Cora Taylor wh ich deals with a yo unggir l's com ing to terms with her psychic powers. Upon com pletion of the novel, students, in acollaborative learning situation, were to research a topic of choice based on said unit.Groupings

Six heterogeneousgroupswith four or five members w ere established based on the article,Three S teps to Setting Up Effective Groups. (Educational Forum , 1991)(Appendix B) Groupmembership was determined using the modified "select your own group' concept whereineach student was asked to choose one classmate with whom they would want to work. Usingthe students' choice in combination with my choice, which was based on the high-lowability, groups were thus set.Procedure

Prior to reading the no vel, students completed a brief questionnaire, Your O pinion of O ralReports (Appen dix C ) which provided the teacher with insight into their feelings ne gativeand/or positive abo ut oral presentations. To prepare students for their final presentations theyreceived instructions in the following concepts: cooperative learning, personality type,4M AT and learning style.

35


43/115

36

Daily RoutineTo ensure that expectations were clear, the following daily routine was established:

Students and teacher met as a whole at the beginning of each class to set the daily agenda. Students began and ended the class in promotive group formation in which all mem bers

face each other. The teacher completed two on-task analysis each class. This involved observing and

recording eachstudent'sw ork habits twice each fifty minute period. Initially the teacher called the students together halfway through the class to discuss

problems and/or share ideas. This time was coined by a student as 'Beefs & B ouq uets '. Journa l writing (reflective time) occurred for the last ten min utes of the period. As students neared the end of data collection, the 4MA T System was reviewed. The teacher "dropped-in" to each groups at least twice daily.Evaluation

Graded ev aluation w as based on:1) Twice daily on-task analysis by the teacher.2) Journal evaluation by teacher3) Evaluation of final presentation by the teacher (Appendix D)4) Evaluation of student application of the 4MA T (App endix E)5)Peer evaluationoftheir grou p's participation (AppendixF)

A non-graded unit evaluation was completed by the students to determine theeffectiveness of the unit, especially the 4MAT Method. (Appendix G)Student Expectations Improved comm unication and social skills


44/115

37

Greater awareness of learning styles on the partof students Greater indepen dent work skills Presen tations that are both informative and entertaining Carry over of presentation skills to other situations both in and out of my classroom Greater self-confidence Imp roved organization al and research skillsTeacher Expectations Greater awareness of student needs Implem entation of the 4MA T System in my teaching Teaching students to make effective and interesting presentations using the 4MA T

System


45/115

Part IV. From Theory to Practice"The best laid schemes of mice and menGang afta-gley;And leav e us naught but grief and pain

For promised joy.Robert Burns, To a Mouse (Thatcher, 1980,cited Zimm erman,p.118)Part IV. From Theo ry to Practice, chronicles student involvement as this educator

attempted to successfully implem ent the theories of cooperative learning and the 4M ATSystem. A rev iew of the effectiveness of said plans and solutions to problems encounteredduring their im plementation will be detailed in Part VI. An outline of the unit lesson p lansfollows:Lesson PlansPart I. Novel StudyJulie by Cora TaylorPart II. Oral Presentation Using 4MAT/Cooperative Learning ApproachLesson 1:Cooperative learning- Pitfalls of g roup activity, Freestanding balloon structure group activity- Basic elements of cooperative learning- Roles, negative & positiveLesson 2: Research topic introduced- video Ch ariots of the Gods, the Mysteries ContinueLesson 3: Effective groups- student & teacher ma de groups determined- building team spirit (Cooperative learning)- class man agem ent- cooperative learning and conflict resolutionLesson 4: Review research skillsLesson 5: Personality types (Cooperative learning)- The Personality Compass at a Glance- Easy W ays to Identify Person ality Types- Knowing Your Weakness Helps Identify Your StrengthsLesson 6: 4MAT System introduced- demonstrating a 4MAT lesson by teaching punctuation-discussion of the four quadran ts in the wheel related to the punctuation lessonLesson 7: Assessing your own learning style- article A Tale of Four Learners & left and right brain functionsLesson 8: Students apply the 4MAT to organize their research (Cooperative learning)-M egan's story & how 4MA T can make presentations interesting and fun- PIE Principle: participation, interaction, engaging & project ideas

38


46/115

39

Lesson 9: 4MAT PRESENTATIONS (Cooperative learning)Lesson 10:Viewing of the taped presentations & W rap-up pa rtyFigure 5: Lesson PlansStudent Involvement

As Figu re 5 illustrates, Part I was a literature study of the novel, Julie by C ora Taylor. PartII focused on teaching students to make effective oral presentations using the 4M AT Systemin a cooperative learning setting. Lesson1 introduced the concept of cooperative learningwith a hands on group activity. Students were placed in three groups of eight or nine, andasked to build a free standing structure using only their nine balloons and m asking tape in atwenty m inute time frame. A fter giving the initial instructions, I stood back and observed.This was w ithout a doub t the mo st difficult time for me during the entire project, for asteachers we are use to being in control and diffusing situations. Furthermore, barring physicalinjury, I was determined to be the non-judgmental observer, a neutral collector of data asdescribed by B ogdan and Taylor (1979).

Students voted on the best structure, after which a spirited discussion followed whereinstudents listed the positive and negative aspects of cooperative learning on th e board.Discussion about the free-standing structure activity revealed that for many, w hat had begunas an enjoyable activity soon turned sour with the negatives outweighing the positives.Negatives included: Some students fooled around while a few did all the work. Some hogged all the materials Some wou ldn 't listen to the group and did what they wanted to do. Groups were too large. The teacher just stood there not doing anything and wo uldn 't help.


47/115

40

The teacher did n't discipline those misbehaving and things were getting out of hand.The positive comments w ere: It wa s a fun activity. I liked work ing with m y friend. Because there were mo re people, we were able to come up with more ideas.Then students offered the following solutions to the pitfalls encountered. Smaller groups M ore rules M ore teacher involvement W orking with a friend

Students returned to their free-form structure groups and discussed their experiences withthe group . At this point I stressed that the positives and negatives w ere to be discussed in anappropriate manner wh ich I clearly outlined. During this time, I dropped into the group s,listening, questioning, and comm enting. Some students were quite blunt about the negativebehavior of certain group m embers, letting them know in no uncertain terms how they felt.The reaction of those who had m isbehaved and were confronted was that ofdisbelief,in thatit was their peers, and not the teacher who w as chastising them. And for those do ing theconfronting, there was definite evidence of empowerment as shown in body langua ge andverbal com men ts. W hat surprised me was that many female students heretofore q uitereticent, were the ones doing the confronting. M y reaction was, "Wh y have n't I given them(students) more say before?"

Nex t, a formal lecture time introduced the basic elements of cooperative learning.


48/115

41

In Lesson 2 , students watched a video, Chariots of the Gods, the Mysteries C ontinue,which no t only stimulated interest in unexplained and unusual phenomeno n, but also offerednew ideas for research. As a w hole, the class then discussed and listed on the board possibleresearch topics. To begin Lesson3:Developing effective groups, students shared their pastexperiences and m ade suggestions as to how they felt groups should be selected. Afterreading the transparency, Three Steps to Setting up Effective Groups, (see Appendix B fordetails) students agreed that the 'modified select your own g roup ', was the best method as itallowed students input into group formation. To ensure confidentiality and to eliminate hardfeelings that might arise if someone's close friend chose another, students listed their firstand second choice for a group m ember on a piece of paper to which the teacher alone wasprivy. The n ext day students m et with their group. Their first assignment w as to agree o n atopic, then design a g roup logo. This logo would serve as a rallying point for the groupduring this project and hopefully foster team spirit. A formal lesson followed whichexamined class management, cooperative learning theory, and conflict resolution.

Lesson 4 briefly reviewed the various methods of gathering and organizing data andintroduced the daily procedure format, after which students began researching for the nextthree - fifty minu te periods (see Part III. Case Studyp .35 for details). These three periodsgave students an opportunity to work in a cooperative learning environment. The nex t lessonafforded a break from researching and introduced the idea of wholeness or balance ofcharacter for the individual. To begin, students were asked to discuss the various w ays themem bers of their group researched information. N ext students shared these observationsabout them selves and their group w ith the entire class. From this discussion, students began


49/115

42

to understand th e connection between the way an individual works, interacts and reacts, andpersonality.

This lesson provided the lead-in to personality types and learning styles of Lesson 5;however, to avoid the rather cerebral area of the psychology of personality types, a light-hearted approach was favored using excerpts from Turner and Greco 's book, The Person alityCom pass at a Glance (1998). In a cooperative learning setting, students attempted to identifytheir personality types using Turner and G reco's compass, after which results were sharedwith the class as a whole. Students agreed that: 1) awareness of different personality types

can lead to better cooperation, comm unication, and understanding w ith others. 2) byacknowledging the strengths and weakness in ones own personality, the individual can w orktowards wh oleness or balance of character.

In Lessons 6 to 8, the 4MAT System w as modeled, taught, and discussed in depth as tohow student data would be organized according to the four quadrants of 4MAT . A bank o fproject ideas was posted listing numerous activities that would encourage variety in thepresentations. After discussing these ideas with the class, students returned to their groupsand adapted their research material to the various project ideas. As the deadline forpresentations neared, students were given in-class rehearsal time to see what worked, whatneeded attention, and wh at should be dropped. Students also made displays and gatheredcostumes and p rops. Furtherm ore, this time enabled students to see if they had met therequirements of the 4MAT System.

As students felt m ore rehearsal time w as required the actual presentation d ates were setback a few days. Students were also given the opportunity to choose their own presen tationdate rather than ha ving it arbitrarily assigned. Presentations, which averaged sixty to seventy


50/115

43

minu tes in length w ere video taped and continued over the next week and ahalf.Prior toeach presentation, students received an evaluation guide (see Append ix D) . Following a briefexplanation of the g uide, students then proceeded to give an evaluation for each presentation.The objective of this exercise was to involve students in the evaluation process theseindividual student evaluations were not intended for use as a formal mark. After allpresentations were mad e, students shared their opinions of the presentations, the use of the4M AT System and their own experiences. Prior to this, students were reminded that the valuein sharing was to learn and applaud the efforts of others, and not a time for mean spiritedcom ments. S tudents were given private adjudications which not only detailed the p ositiveaspects but gave suggestions for improvement. Over the course of the next w eek,interspersed w ith other non-presentation related Language Arts activities, students watchedthe videos of their w ork. Lastly, students participated in a wrap-up p arty celebrating theirachievements.


51/115

Part V. Interpretation of InstrumentsQuantitative/positivist orqualitative/phenomenological,that is therub.The research

method one chooses speaks to their values and perspective on the nature of reality. Becauseof my gregarious nature and genuine fascination with people, I lean towards aphenomenological approach. Also, my topic readily lent itself to the need for 'thickdescription'. According to Goldenberg (1992), "Thick description is that which presents adetailed and highly contextualized description of what the actors themselves experience....(Geertz,1973,p.42, citedp.195). Furthermore, this approach would allow me to explorethose concepts whose essence, joy and frustration is otherwise lost in quantitative research.

My f irst choice for data collection was the personal interview, however, the logisticsshowed this to be impractical. Specific, direct questions, fact based questionnaires would beefficient and provide hard data; however, this approach would be too impersonal for mypurpose. Consequently, I compromised using elements of both quantitative and qualitativemodes of inquiry. Because of the unique environment provided by the classroom, muchthick, rich data w as gathered from group discussions, one on one conversations, observation,and student and teacher journals. Two questionnaires were also administered. These weredeliberately open ended to allow for unstructured responses. Although this type of instrumentcan produce long, rambling responses, I felt it would come closest to a personal interview.Further data was obtained from evaluation tools such as the on task analysis, peer evaluation,and a graded presentation mark. To determine the success of the project, the aforementionedsources were reviewed using the criteria described in Becker and Deutscher's hierarchy ofcredibility:1. volunteer statements preferred

44


52/115

45

2. criterion of redundancy3. criterion of triangulation (Goldenberg, 1992)

In order for real learning to occur, an atmosphere of trust and respect must be present. T heclassroom must be a safe haven wh erein opinions may be freely expressed. Du ring the cou rseof this project, I felt this atmosphere was present for the most part. Furthermore, theresponses g iven on both questionnaires, during discussions, and in the journals attest to thisdeclaration as at no time did I sense that students felt they were being coerced into saying th e'righ t' thing. This fact is evidence with their frank opinion ofthejournal. (See Appendix L2

Question#11)T his being the case, Becker and Deutsche r's first criterion was successfullymet w ith regards to volunteer statements.

Redun dancy refers to the point at which information saturation occurs. Consequently, nofresh information is forth coming, merely a restating of the same data. The criterion ofredundancy was m ore than met as the analysis of Questionnaire #2 and the journalsillustrated. In point of fact, too much information was collected, making the task oforganization quite overwhelm ing at times. The up-side of this embarrassment of riches, wasthat it afford triangulation or the repeated verification of data. The next section, Summary ofStudent Responses, w ill provide a summary of data collected, beginning w ith Q uestionnaire#1.


53/115

46

Student ResponsesQuestionnaire#1:Y our Opinion of Oral Reports (see Appendix J for a complete listing ofresponses)

At the onset of this unit, Questionnaire#1:Your Opinion of Oral Reports, wasadministered to determine the students' past experiences with oral presentations. Datarevealed that 56% of the twenty-five students had negative experiences. Em barrassment,nervousness, and reading in front of the class were the three common them es cited for thesenegative experiences. Of the 40% , who had positive experiences, fun sharing of kn owledg e

and the resulting benefits w ere listed as reasons.


54/115

47

Student ResponsesQuestionnaire#2: Presentation Project Evaluation(see Append ix K for a complete listing of student responses)

Questionnaire #2 contains fourteen questions, however they will not be analyzed inchronological order, but grouped to show redundancy and triangulation.

Questions 4, 9, and 13 address the effectiveness of the 4MAT System.** N indicates the number of participants for that question. **

Question#4 :Did using the 4MA T MET HOD help you mak e a better presentation?

Explain.N = 2 8, Yes = 26, (93%) No = 2

Yes = 26 (93%)Twenty-six of the twenty-eight students felt that the 4MAT M ETHO D helped them ma kebetter presentations.Com mon Themes (number indicates times mentioned) Helped organization - 20 Helps presentations - 10 Helps creativity/easier - 8 Helps learning - 4 Aud ience involvement - 2

Group involvement - 2Of the two NO , respondents, a common them e was not noted, in fact one comm ent, "W e

never looked at the 4MA T wheel because it didn't give us any good ideas", is contradictedby those answering in the affirmative.


55/115

48

Question #9:Did this way of learning help you to understand the material better?Explain.

N= 26 Yes =21 (81%) No= 4(15%)Unclear =1(4%)Yes=21(81%)Common Themes Provided understanding Provided framewo rk AwarenessNo= 4 (15%)

Reasons varied, no commonalityQuestion#13:Please rate this project by circling one of the following:

Great VeryGood Fair PoorN = 28 4(14% ) 19(68%) 5(18%) 0

Results show that twenty-three or 82 % of the students rated the project ve ry good to great.W hile analyzing the results, two weaknesses were discovered. The first, the descriptor"G ood " had been omitted. The questionnaires were redistributed, students added "Go od",then reevaluated the unit. How ever, students said this addition wo uld not change their cho ice.The second w eakness was du e to the am biguity of the word, "project". W hile students werecompleting the qu estionnaire, someone asked whether it meant their own presentation or theproject as a wh ole. Once that w as cleared u p, three students said they had rated their ow npresentation as "Fair", but thought that the project w as "Very G ood". O ne student rated hispresentation as "Poor", but the project as "Fair".


56/115

49

Interpretation of Questions #4, 9,13as to the effectiveness of the 4MA T System#4 = helps mak e a better presentation = 93 %#9 = provides a better way of learning = 81%#13= effectiveness of the project as a whole = 82%

Questions #5 , 6, 7, and 8 were structured to assess student awareness and un derstandingof learning styles.

#5.W hat quadrant did you find the easiest to do? Explain why.N = 27

Quadrant One = 8(30%) studentsQuadrant Two = 7 (26%)Quadrant Three = 5(19%)Quadrant Four = 7 (26%)

The numbers indicate a fairly even distribution of students amongst the fourquadrants. Analysis of student response reveals however that students were confused as towhat the q uestion actually m eant. For instance, a student may have found this the easiestquadrant for a variety of reasons other than learning style.

#6.What quadrant did you find the most difficult? Explainwhy.N = 27Quadrant One = 3(11%) cited application difficulties/problem "finding" difficultiesQuadrant Tw o = 10 (37% ) cited researching and making presentation difficultiesQuadrant Three = 7 (26%) cited application difficulties, problem finding difficultiesQuadrant Four = 7 (26%) cited application difficulties

Only 37 % felt this was the most difficult compared to the com bined total of the otherthree qua drants. Therefore, results from question #6 may be interpreted as supporting the


57/115

50

contention that schools traditionally teach in Quadrant T wo. Ho wever, as with question #5 ,confusion as to what exactly is being asked, is apparent.

#7 .Did the4MATMethod m ake you aw are of your learning style?N = 27 YES = 23 (82%) NO = 4(18%)

Key to this question are the words 'aw are ' and 'yo ur'. This question was structured to beclosed, in that it does not infer or suggest understanding of learning style, focussing only onawareness. To that end, 8 2% stated an awareness of learning style but not necessarily theirown. Again ambiguity of wording affects the interpretation.

#8.Did the fact the teacher discussed learning styles help you w hen working on thisproject? Explain.N = 27 YES = 20 (74% ) NO = 7 (26%)

Although 74% of students felt that teacher discussion helped them , student responsesindicated that eleven (55%) confused the 4MA T system process with learning style. Of theremaining nine (45% ), they showed an awareness of one's own learning style and that ofother's.

Of those responding N O , three (43%) revealed the same confusion, but four (57% ),showed awareness of learning styles although they did not see the necessity of teaching tothat concept as is evidenced by one student's comm ent. " . . . we could have done this projectwithout discussing learning styles."

Interpretation of questions #5 , 6, 7, and 8#5 - referring to which w as the easiest quadrant: inconclusive results due to ambiguity of thequestion


58/115

51

#6 - referring to w hich wa s the most difficult quadrant: no conclusive findings due toambiguity of the wording#7 - referring to awareness of learning style: 82% felt the 4MA T mad e them aware oflearning styles in g eneral, not necessarily their own; q uestionable wording#8 - referring to the need for teaching learning styles: confusion noted with the process of the4MAT cycle and learning styles.

Students did becom e aw are of the concept of learning style and som e actually realizedwhat was their preferred learning quadrant. Furthermore, it is important to note thatawareness of learning style, not labeling, was one of the go als of the project. Furtherm ore, inpast years students have been taught to make successful presentations based on the 4M ATSystem w ithout being instructed on learning styles.

Questions #1 and 3 addressed evidence of learning and indirectly support theeffectiveness of the 4M AT System.

#1. IfIcould do m y presentation again I would:N = 28

Two m ain them es were no ted: 1) issues of content, preparation and organization 2) issuesrelated to less reading, more and better activities.

#3.1enjoyed this presentation be cause:Two m ain themes emerged. Students enjoyed presentations in which they w ere involved,

participated and were engaged. Second, students enjoyed those presentations in which theyhad an interest.


59/115

52

Interpretation of questions#1and #3By citing specific elements which are required for a successful presentations, elements

such as those of the P.I.E. Principle, responses from #1and #3 show that learning hadoccurred and attested to the efficiency of the 4MAT System.

Questions#10and11addressed the concept of cooperative learning.#10. Did the review of cooperative learning help you to work better in a group? Explain.

N = 27 Yes = 18 (67%) No = 9 (33%)Yes:Eighteen or 6 7% stated the review helped them to act properly thereby making the

group function more efficiently.No:Nine or33% felt the review w as unnecessary, as they already knew how to act in agroup.

#1la. Assum ing different roles is an important part of cooperative learning. W hat role didyou find yourself playing quite often? Explain. (Due to an editing error, two#11appeared.Therefore, for clarity, this question will be11a.)

The intent of this question w as to provide triangulation for #10. H owever, hindsight h asshown this to be p oorly wo rded therefore it contributed nothing to advance the purpose ofthis project with regards to cooperative learning or the 4MAT System.Interpretation of #10and11a

Response to question#10s

craven_sandra_e.pdf

Documents