exploratory essay

From three recent articles I have read, peer work has been shown to be more effective than individual work in terms of learning. I will explore the ways in which these authors of the articles support their idea that group work is necessary for successful learning. These authors are all making the argument that peer interaction and group discussion within the classroom will positively affect the student’s learning, which will subsequently positively impact their future in the workforce.

Throughout Montessori’s article, he is explaining better ways in which children can learn. He proposes the idea of teaching children in their “sensitive periods,” in which they retain the most information. He also suggested that students learn most by using their senses, which will develop their “cognitive powers through direct experience” (Montessori). One of these methods that struck my attention was the idea that older students should teach younger students. Montessori believes that the act of teaching the younger children can help reiterate what the older students have learned. This can also help the younger students because they will most likely understand a concept that comes from a student not much older than they are. Montessori argues, “this arrangement also mirrors the real world, where individuals work and socialize with people of all ages and dispositions” (Montessori). He is suggesting that when older students teach younger students, it benefits everyone. All of the children are preparing for a future where they will be required to interact with different people. I am left wondering, what will happen when using this concept in a school where behavioral issues are present? I am also curious as to who will benefit more from the concept. Will the younger children learn more because they get to learn the concept from their teacher and then other children? Will the older kids benefit more because they get to relearn what they have just been taught by teaching others? Are the children that are learning from older students learning to their full potential considering the older students are not trained to teach?

A liberal education is argued to be essential in dealing with “complexity, diversity, and change” (21^st Century Liberal Education). A liberal education combines many skills that can be applied to everyday life and is taught through physical experiences, opposed to solely visual and audible teaching. This type of education enhances interaction with others because the students learn to work together to solve problems. It is also said to be essential if a child wants to grow and keep up other cultures and their changes. The author in this piece argues that a liberal education aids in the development of “social and practical skills” (21^st Century Liberal Education).  The main point of this assert is to encourage the idea that a liberal education builds communication skills with others and teaches students how to deal with “real world” settings. This article relates to the Montessori article because both authors feel that students will succeed in every aspect of life when they have been taught the ability to socialize and debate with others in a helpful, encouraging environment. I am left wondering how learning about other cultures will affect students who plan to work in areas that don’t require integration with other places. I would like to know more about the concept of learning through physical experiences. Why isn’t visual learning enough to make for successful learning? Will students who prefer auditory learners benefit from the physical experience of learning in? Why is a relationship with peers important? Is ones knowledge not enough for success?

Relating to Montessori’s idea of ‘students teaching students’ and the idea of Liberal Education, Jean Anyon proposed the idea that if students were taught to work together at a young age and solve problems by helping each other, they will be more successful in their future endeavors. This is proven through the study she observed that showed in schools of high-income families, the “Executive Elite Schools”, children are better prepared for the work force by many concepts that aren’t taught in most schools. These concepts she observed included interactive ways of teaching math, opposed to the traditional method where the teacher solves the entire problem and explains it afterward. In this school, Anyon observed that the teachers would allow the students to explain themselves and argued their methods or ideas. The school focused on peer interaction to produce more growing and learning. From the matured way Anyon spoke about the children, it was clear that she was convinced this method of teaching would produce students who are advanced in many subjects. An example of this kind of behavior is shown in the sentence “By Thanksgiving, the children did not often speak in terms of right and wrong math problems but of whether they agreed with the answer that had been given” (Anyon). The idea that students will flourish in an environment that allows group interaction and discussion relates to the other two articles that also argue that peer collaboration makes for progressive outcomes. I am left wondering, why aren’t teachers inclined to think that the students are cheating when they have group discussions? Would this type of teaching/learning work in a ‘lower-class’ school system? Why does group discussion and problem solving with multiple people give children confidence for their future? Why does this form of teaching make children more independent.

Works Cited

Anyon, Jean. “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work”- Executive Elite

School. Journal of Education, Vol. 162, no. 1, Fall 1980. 1 January 2012.

Montessori, Dr. “Montessori Education-American Montessori Society”. 2 February 2013.

“What is a 21^st Century Liberal Education?” AAC&U. 2012. 2 February 2012.