This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 02 December 2014, At: 12:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales RegisteredNumber: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Teaching inSocial WorkPublication details, includinginstructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20

Helping Students Learnfrom Each OtherRuth R. Middleman EdD a & GaleGoldberg Wood EdD aa Professor, Raymond A. Kent School ofSocial Work, University of Louisville,Louisville, KYPublished online: 18 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Ruth R. Middleman EdD & Gale Goldberg Wood EdD(1992) Helping Students Learn from Each Other, Journal of Teaching inSocial Work, 5:2, 31-40, DOI: 10.1300/J067v05n02_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J067v05n02_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as

to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and shouldbe independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, andother liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out ofthe use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

12:

51 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Helping Students Learn from Each Other Ruth R. Middleman

Gale Goldberg Wood

SUMMARY. This articlc (1) clabori~tes the need for student-student Icarninp, (2) provides a thcorelical framework for understanding the dynarn~cs of risk and risk reduction essential to student learning in and from the class-as-cornmunit , and (3) describes four professor- structurcd cxpcricnccs that teac { ers can usc to build collaborative learning into their social work courses.

After many years of formal education in which students were socialized to take rather than give, and to take from the teacher, not from other students (taking from othcr students was called chcat- ing!), many are initially reluctant to consider themselves and their peers as legitimate sources of learning. As one first year graduate student put it:

When our class was divided into work groups, my first thought was, "Oh, no! I'm not coming to school to learn from other students. They probably don't know a whole lot more than I do. Why is she doing this to us?"

But through the use of professor-structured vehicles that evoke, trigger, stimulate, reinforce, and provide opportunity for student- student learning, in an atmosphere of genuine respect, students come to appreciate each other's capacity to contribute to their edu- cation. In fact, the same student cited above later wrote, in response to her own question, "Why is she doing this to us?"

Ruth R. Middlcman, EdD is Professor and Gale Goldberg Wood, EdD is Pro- fcssor at Raymond A. Kent School of Social Work, Universi~y of Louisville, Louisville, KY.

Q 1991 by The Hawor~h Prcss, Inc. All rights resewed. 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

12:

51 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

32 Tenchit~g Secrets: The Technology in Social Work Education

1 have learned the answer and I learned it in the best way possible - by experiencing it. Our group changed before my eyes from six very different people with nothing much in com- mon to a cohesive unit working to make us all better at what we do. When I work in the group, I feel support from each member. And I find myself working harder, for in addition to my own standards, 1 now want to meet and keep up our group's standards. Surprisingly, I do not feel this as a pressure to succeed. Instead, I feel it as an obligation to the group, which I have willingly taken on: to do my best.

I still do not know most of the group members outside of this class. I do not know much about their families or their personal lives. None of the areas around which relationships usually form are. involved here. We are simply an in-class work group. I don't know why it works. I can simply tell you that it does.

Not only do students come to appreciate each other's contribu- tions to their education. Through the use of work groups and other professor-structured vehicles for student-student learning, they de- velop that powerful sense of "I can" known as self-confidence, and an abiding confidence in each other which translates into pride in thcir profession.

In the words of one second-year graduate student:

Every term I look forward to the class sessions in which we have a "Professional Exchange."* During these "Ex- changes,'' my reasons for being a social worker are reaffirmed. 1 walked out of class this week feeling strong, confident, ful- filled and satisfied with the profession.

Cremin (1976) distinguishes education from maturation, learn- ing, and development. Maturation involves changes in the individ- ual that are relatively independent of external conditions or experi- ence. Learning pertains to changes in perception and behavior resulting from experience. Development implies changes resulting

'The Professinnal Exchange is described laler.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

12:

51 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Rurh R. Middlentan nnii Cole Goldberg Wood 33

from the interaction of maturation and learning, whereas education requires delibcrate efforts to acquire knowledge, attitudes, values, skills, and sensibilities. These distinctions suggest that education in the service of learning involves active pursuit of changes in the self.

If we think of education as a process that requires delibcrate and active effort by the learner, then accent must be placcd on the provi- sion of opportunitics for students to share the "air-time" with the teacher. For in the final analysis, it is the students who educate themselves. This perspective contrasts with the idea that education is given or transmitted by the professor to students who should take in what is presented and assimilate it. In such a process of self- education, stutlcnts need to develop an appreciation for what they can learn from cach other, not just from the professor, and for what they can teach cach othcr as wcll. Since peer learning will charac- terize most of their expcricnce after graduation, it is important that such a sclf-hclplsclf-other stance bcgin in the social work program itsclf.

This formula~ion may not sit well with the profcssor whose subtle ,

motto is "I know more than you know"-a message that evokes a parental imi~ge. Nor would it plcasc thc professor whose motto is " I m e m y itlcas and you'rc brilliant"- a seductive stance that con- jures up an image of gurus and disciples, and encourages students not to think for themselves. It is also inconsistent with the posture of those professors who believe "You can't know unless you've suffered9'-a combat mentality that produces such initiation rituals as the surprise quiz or the disserlation defense. The notion of the student as active seeker of self-change is consistent with a genera- tive attitude that says, "I want to help you see and go beyond me." While there are times when any profcssor may fall into each of these mindsets, it is this generative stance that is most conducive to helping students become autonomous professionals and i t is from such a stance that students come to know and value that learning derives from many sources.

The central element of a generative stance involves the creation of a safe learning environment-one where students become free to think and express their conceptions and ideas out loud. Such a con- text is not easy to cultivate. Students approach professional educa- tion, indeed all higher education, with a desire to say the "right"

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

12:

51 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

34 7enchittg Secrets: The Technolo~y in Social Work Education

thing and not appear dumb or foolish. It is a situation fraught with anxiety. Jones (1968) identifies three key elements that produce such anxiety: images, helplessness, and aloneness. Images, or per- sonal meanings and ways of understanding, are aroused by the new content. Helplessness derives from ignorance of the terrain - the pitfalls, potholes, and other obstructions to finding one's way around in the presence of strangers who may appear smarter, more articulate, more expericnced, older, younger, and/or racially or eth- nically different from one's self. Aloneness is a byproduct of learncd competitiveness characteristic of most formal education. All too often, students resort to boarding up those images, the new thoughts that give rise to feelings of helplessness and aloneness, in order to avoid the terrible anxiety. The generative teacher creates safety for studcnts to entertain their ncw images, reducing their anx- iety by reducing the helplessness and aloneness instead of the new thoughts.

The following framework organizes some ideas for approaching this difficult task. As shown in Figure 1, helplessness can be re- duced by encouraging students to cultivate three kinds of perspec- tives: outsight, insight, and hindsight. Outsight involves awareness of one's response to others' world-making (Goodman, 1984; Bruncr, 1986; Schon, 1987); more specifically, connecting what the other says to one's own experience. The very sense of self arises out of interaction with others (Mead, 1934; Berger and Luckmann, 1967; Falck, 1988). Outsight requires deliberate attention to the process. Insight refers to awareness of one's response to others' world-making. Hindsight encompasses analogues stored in memory (Lewis, 1982), one's condensed images of past experience reawak- ened by current events, in a process of connecting the new to the known (Middleman and Goldberg Wood, 1990). When students can actively draw upon their awareness of others' thoughts as these affect their own, and mesh this awareness with the richncss of their unique, past experience, the sense of helplessness begins to fade.

Aloneness is reduced by discussion-in-community. Community involves not just the presence of other people with whom one can talk. I t entails a conscious sense of connectedness to the others, a stake in each person's contribution to the experience. It involves a sense of membership (Falck, 1988), awareness that one's own des- tiny is bound up with the learning community as a whole.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

12:

51 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

FIGURE 1. Learning in a Safe Environment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

12:

51 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

.f 6 Tencl~itg Secrets: The Technology in Socinl Work Erlucnrion

When helplessness and aloneness arc combined with images, i.c., new thoughts, the outcome is anxiety. On the other hand, when the interaction of outsight, insight, and hindsight is combined with discussion-in-community, the outcome is foresight. Foresight is the opposite of anxiety. Foresight is the product of mastery of one's professional world and one's place within it. Foresight her- alds the emergent ability to use one's self deliberately to help oth- ers.

Safety for thinking via learning in and from community means learning collaboratively, without fear of risking personal under- standings that leap into one's mind as one thinks with others. This demands an active teacher who welcomes such a mix of ideas, a teacher not afraid of losing control of the process, nor bent on re- maining outside of it.

Such a teacher, the generative teacher, is one whose key word is suppose. This teacher is one who encourages students to risk their suppositions knowing that others may build on them, contradict them, but always take them seriously and thoughtfully. This teacher eschews "right" and "wrong" in favor of "why not" and "what if," and creates a place where memorizing takes a back seat to imagining. This teacher invents structures that offer opportunities for studcnts to learn from and teach each other, who engages in the hard work of planning with attention to detail in advance of class sessions-the stuff of creative teaching. Four examples of such structured inventions for student-student learning are (1) the Profes- sional Exchange, (2) Multiversity, (3) Learning Thru Discussion, and (4) the Interactive Exam.

THE PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE

Students are required to produce a short essay each week perri- nent to that week's course content. These essays are to involve their own thoughts, issues, speculations, and applications. I t is a way of reflecting upon, engaging, and conceptualizing the material of class cxpcricnce and/or assigned readings.

The teacher collects the essays twice during the tcrm and rc- sponds to each essay with written comments, setting up a n individ- ual dialogue with each student. (In future essays students may en- gage these comments, further developing this dialogue and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

12:

51 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ruth R. Middlen~nn and Gale Goldbetg Wood 3 7

individual exchange with the teacher). The teacher also selects one essay from each student to be read aloud and discussed by the class. The teacher chooses those that reflect what many seem to be saying, those that present a different perspective on issues, those that high- light essential course content, those that challenge course content, those that may provoke self-examination in others, and those that affirm the struggle to become good social workers. At the following class session, the teacher returns the papers and waits while the students read the written comments. Then the Professional Ex- change begins. Stimulated by the thoughts each essay generates, students think together about salient practice issues.

Each student develops a 45 minute "course" to be taught, apply- ing relevant aspects of course content to a particular area of service and/or a particular population in need. Two class sessions are set aside for the students to teach their "courses." Contingent upon number of students in the class, two, three, or four students will teach their courses at the same time in separate corners of the room. The teacher makes out the course schedule, and students enroll for one of the courses offered in each time slot.

Students are encouraged to present their content and engage their "class" in creative ways, e.g., using visual aids, handouts, and so forth, The students who attend each class assign the "teachcr" a numerical grade and provide written feedback guided by professor suggested criteria. The professor collects these evaluations, aver- ages the grades, then gives the feedback to the "teacher." The average of the grades assigned by the students who attended a given course becomes part of that "teacher's" final grade.

LEARNING THRU DISCUSSION

Use of an adaptation of Leoming T h Discussion (Hill, 1969) helps students process assigned readings with each other. Involved here is a disciplined way of considering topics that can be general- ized to all discussion. A critical aspect of the technique is the post- ponement of one's opinion (agree, disagree) or reaction (like, dis-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

12:

51 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

38 Teacl~ing Secrefs: The Tecl~nology in Social Work Educorion

like) until the ideas presented by the authors have been understood. A general format which the students are given to use is as follows:

1. General statement of the author's message 2. Clarification of terms and concepts 3. Identification of major themes 4. Discussion of these themes, integrating them with other

knowledge and connecting all of this with course content. 5. Evaluation of and reaction to the ideas

For students, the most difficult part of this approach is learning to separate the authors' ideas from their reactions to it. Struggling to do so, however, differentiates such discussions from mere "rap" sessions, and can frequently be carried over to discussion of student papers during the Professional Exchange. In fact, such a systematic approach to reading and thinking helps students to study material in any course.

THE INTERACTNE EXAM

Students are told to study class material and readings, and to prepare ten "exam" questions to which they know the answers. This is to be done individually, and brought to class on the day of the exam.

When students arrive for the exam, they are told to go into their work groups and test each other's knowlcdge by asking their ques- tions, round robin fashion, to the person on thcir right. If the person on their right does not know the answer, the question is opened for responses from other group members. Sometimes one person's be- ginning answcr jogs the memory and thinking of other members who can also add their ideas to it. In this way, discussion is gener- ated and everyone gets an idea of what she or he knows and does not know, is clear about or is fuzzy about.

After 45 minutes, the professor writes central course concepts on the board, with a double column under each: "Know" and "Don't know." Students, based on thcir self assessment from responding to questions in the work group, list their names under each concept, in either the "know" column or the "don't know" column.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

12:

51 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ruth H. Midrllen~nn nttd Gale Goldbetg Wood 3 9

The next part of the exam process involves students whose names are in any "don't know" columns looking at who is in the "know" columns, seeking them out, and having thcm explain the material. As soon as cach seeker gets an adcquate explanation and does un- derstand the concept that was fuzzy, she or he crascs one's name from thc "don't know" column under that concept and adds i t lo the "know" column. This grouping and regrouping to teach and learn from each other continues until all names are in the "know" column under each conccpt.

Students then return to their work groups where cach student grades herlhimself. All group members must approve of each mem- ber's grade before this is submitted to the professor.

At the end of an exam of this type, students leave class knowing more than they did when they arrived for the exam. Moreover, the professor gets excellent feedback regarding which concepts were taught clearly and which may not have been -just by looking at the number of student names in the "don't know" columns under each concept!

CONCLUSION

The emphasis on student-student learning described above has only one drawback: the process is time-consuming. There arc more efficient ways to "cover" content. But the generative tcachcr val- ues discovering through involving students in a learning process that accents their interaction with each other and helps thcm un- cover their power to know on their own and own their knowing. Using outsight, insight and hindsight, enhanced by discussion-in- community, new images can be entertained and accommodatccl, lcading lo the essence of autonomous professional practice: fore- sight.

REFERENCES

Bcrgcr, P. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Cmtrucrion of Renli/y. Garden City, New York: Anchor.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actttnl Mbtrls, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

12:

51 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

40 Teaching Secrets: The Technology in Social Work Education

Cremin, L. (1976). Public Education. New York: Basic Books. Falck, H. (1988). Social Work: The Men~bership Perspective. New York:

Springer. Goodman, N. (1984). Of Mind and Other Matters. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard

University Press. Hill, W. (1969). Lenmitg Thrw Discussion. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jones, R. (1968). Fantasy and Feeling in Education. New York: New York Uni-

versity Press. Lewis, H. (1982). The InteNectual Base of Social Work Practice. New York: The

Haworth Press, Inc. Mead, G. (1934). Mind, Selfand Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Middleman, R. and Goldberg Wood, G. (1990). Skills for Direct Practice in

Social Work. New York: Columbia University Press. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

12:

51 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014