PBL Home          Resources          Standards          Inspiration          About the Author
Literature Review                History/Rationale              

Action Research Project & Literature Review

Does Student Generated Curriculum Lead to More Student Involvement in Class?


Scott Dardenelle, Touro University California School of Education


Abstract

With the various teaching strategies in practice, one that is seldom used is listening to the opinion of students to find which method of learning they prefer.  There are various teaching styles that will resonate with each individual student, and while there is likely no “end all-be all” method of teaching that will best suit every student, each student has an idea of which style suites him or her best.  In this study, 51 high school juniors were given a survey asking them to rate various teaching styles they have encountered in the 12 years they have attended school.  They were then given the opportunity to verbally clarify and expand upon their answers in a class discussion.  Analysis of the data collected showed a majority of students favored lessons that included group projects and that utilized technology.  Students recommended that lectures, when used, should be teacher generated and reflect the personality of the teacher, while any movies that are shown in class should not be historical documentaries, but actual cinema.  We discussed the effective use of textbooks and various types of technology that would be beneficial to a class. 


Rational for Study

“Dear God help me.  I’m so bored in this class,” is what I read as I peered over my student’s shoulder as she was texting in class.  Back when I was in school, passing notes to another student in class and getting caught usually meant taking the risk of the teacher finding the note and reading it aloud to the class, to humiliate you into getting back to work and to cease swapping notes with others.  With today’s technologically savvy student, the note has been replaced by the text message, and while usually I’ll find a student just texting something random and harmless to their friend, this text hurt a little and was a wakeup call for me.  I always prided myself on being the teacher who was interesting, enjoyable, a little humorous, full of energy, or sometimes just downright cool; similar to that favorite uncle some of us had who was given the same respect as Mom and Dad, but you were able to have fun with like a big brother.  I could speak their language when I’d randomly spit out “O.M.G.” when talking about things like the attack on Pearl Harbor and answer their questions about life instead of just answering economics questions.  As tuned in to my students as I thought I was, it wasn't until this text that I realized I might not be as in tune with my students as I thought. 


Review of Literature

I once overheard another student say to his group partner, “Why don’t teachers ask our opinions on how we want to learn?”  That got me thinking.  If I were to ask my students how they wanted to learn something, what would they say?  If I asked my students how they wanted to be assessed, how would it be?  If students had a choice between using a textbook or another medium of information gathering, what would that medium be?  How would they use this information once they obtained it?  Most importantly, does student generated curriculum lead to more student involvement in class?

What is a “student-generated lesson” anyway?  It might be easy to define what it isn’t.  It’s not a teacher guided, directed, and evaluated unit or project, nor sets of worksheets with corresponding lesson plans, and generic multiple choice tests that don’t take the needs and make up of your class into consideration (McWhorter, 1996).  With that in mind, it wouldn’t be work where students read from the textbook and answer questions at the end of the section.  Nor would it be a PowerPoint or Prezi presentation that was created and delivered by the teacher with students sitting there being fed information like baby birds with their mouths wide open.

Student-generated curriculum, or “negotiating curriculum,” is a method where students share authority in the classroom (Kordalewski, 1999).  It would be an empowering process where the teacher plays the role as a guide, instead of an instructor.  Allowing students to choose how to learn state-mandated material would, ideally, engage students right from the start of a lesson.  The student-generated lesson could meet the needs of English learners as well as students with special needs while maintaining the integrity of the class (Kaemmerling, 2011).  Teachers have used many things to generate the spark for their subject, such as anticipatory sets and bell work, only to find the spark fizzling out once the lesson is underway.  Because these lessons are teacher centered and not student generated, the students seem to only be as interested in the subject as it relates to them.  Various methods of instruction have been studied with regard to student achievement and student interest.  Of the more popular methods is cooperative learning.  Cooperative learning combined with student technology can lead to active student participation where students take responsibility for their education (Ahn, 2011).

According to Roger and David Johnson, there are three ways students can interact with each other while in school.  They can work independently, competitively, or cooperatively.  Students working independently are a common sight in many classrooms.  Desks are set in various styles of rows and columns in the classroom and the teacher gives an assignment that the student completes on his or her own after listening to a lecture.  “Stop talking please,” and “Do your own work,” are common utterances teachers blurt out more times in a day than can be counted.  It’s one of the things teachers always seem to be fighting, the distracted student.

Another type of interaction is the competitiveness students have with each other.  Students feel that school is a competitive place where you try to outdo others around you (Johnson, Johnson 1988).  Teachers only perpetuate this competitiveness by discretely posting grades on the wall so each student can see the class grades, or announcing who received an A on a test to the class.  Students will often times take this a step further and ask a friend what he or she got on a test, only to have excitement if the friend scored lower, or be disappointed if they scored lower.  One wins, the other loses, and like life, not everyone is able to keep up with the winners. (Ahn, 2011)

Cooperative learning, however, comes natural to students.  When a basketball player is at the free throw line, he or she will shoot and no matter if the basket is made, teammates will go up to the shooter, and give a high-five.  Others on the team didn't sulk and try to outdo their teammate.  When playing little league, kids cheer on their teammates by shouting, “Hit a home run ”  If a strikeout occurred instead, the team would give an empathetic pat on the back, and quickly support the next batter.  In both cases, success or failure was a team accomplishment.  That is the basis of cooperative learning; students win and lose as a team.  Students have to rely on others for success and everyone needs to contribute in order to prevail.  If one fails, they console and encourage the next person. (Slavin, 1991)  As opposed to an individualistic or competitive style of learning, in a cooperative learning environment, students will “sink or swim” together. (Johnson, Johnson, 1988)  According to David and Roger Johnson, research suggests four key things with regards to cooperative learning:
  1. Students will achieve more in a cooperative learning environment versus an individualistic or competitive environment.
  2. Students are more positive about their school, teachers, and subject when working cooperatively.
  3. Students are more positive about their peers when working cooperatively and are more accepting of each other’s differences.
  4. Students are more tolerant of others, have better social skills, and feel more comfortable about working in-group settings. (Johnson, Johnson 1988)


Studies show that cooperative learning, or collaborative learning, is effective in both student achievement as well as well as creating student involvement, but how do the students feel about this method?  Would students prefer this teaching style over other methods they have been accustomed to?  The best way to find out the answer to these questions is to ask the students themselves.


Research Collection and Analysis

Students (n=51) in two eleventh-grade U.S. history courses were given a survey consisting of 4 multiple choice questions, which they would rate on a scale of 1-10 for their preference and one free response question.  Immediately following the survey, students were then lead in a classroom discussion where they were able to expand on their answers in the survey and freely give their opinion on the various teaching styles they have been exposed to in the 12 years they have been in school. 

In both the survey and the classroom discussion, emphasis was placed not just on that particular class, but on all classes.  It was made clear to the students that this was not an evaluation of the researcher or the teaching style of the researcher, but on all teachers.  The surveys were anonymous and special attention was taken in gathering the questionnaires in a way that assured the privacy of the student’s answers. 

During the class discussion, following the collection of the surveys, students were invited to freely give their opinion or expand upon the answers they gave in the survey.  As questions were asked, students were made to feel comfortable giving honest answers by the researcher not defending his teaching methods, nor by judging the response of the students.  Due to this open forum, students who typically did not participate in class for lack of interest in the lesson or due to being an introvert spoke up and gave opinions.  This style of discussion allowed for students of all achievement levels to respond and the discussion was not dominated by a particular group of students.

The survey data was analyzed in terms of positive, negative, or neutral responses.  A rating of 1-3 was considered a negative response, while a 4-7 was considered neutral, and 8-10 was rated as a positive response.  During the free response question, some students gave one response, while most gave multiple answers.


Findings

From analyzing the surveys, a few things became clear.  First, there was not one way to teach that would make all students happy.  Some students felt that reading from a textbook was the way to go, while others hated that.  Second, the majority of students felt that working in groups or using technology in the classroom was their preferred method of learning.

When asked which type of instruction the students found the most interesting, 51% gave a positive response to group work, while 57% gave a negative response to answering questions from a textbook reading (Table 1). 

During the class discussion, group work was brought up, and again, most students were in favor of it, but there were a few students who were vehemently opposed to it.  When asked why, one student responded with, “I feel like I’m doing all of the work while the other students goof off and take credit for what I’m doing.”  Not surprisingly, the students who agreed with that statement were some of the top students in my classes.  Not all top students agreed with this, as many also felt that group projects were the way to go.  One student, who is known to be a bit of an introvert, privately mentioned after class that she liked group work because it forces people to be more social with others she normally wouldn’t talk to.  She said she likes it when the teacher picks the groups instead of lettings students have the freedom to pick groups because she is able to meet new people.

Table 1.  Results from survey N=51

 Question: On a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) rate the different types of instruction you find most interesting:

Type of instruction

Reading from a textbook
Answering questions from a book
Group projects
Watching a video
Solo projects

Positive reaction

5/11%
4/9%
26/51%
16/31%
15/29%

Negative reaction

27/57%
27/57%
10/20%
5/10%
15/29%

Neutral reaction

19/375
20/39%
15/29%
30/59%
21/41%
The question of which types of technology resonated best with the students was asked next (Table 2).  Smart boards and personal computers ranked highly positive, while there was no type of technology that was viewed negatively by more than 2/3 of the students.  Given that this particular school is not yet technologically as advanced as some other schools in the district, one might be able to attribute these results to the fact that students are just longing to use any technology in class.  Very few students bring personal computers to school so there is an idea that students just want to use what they don’t yet have.  However, in some classrooms at this school, teachers have received grants and will integrate things like laptops and smart boards into their lesson, so the students are answering based on what they have used, not what they wish they had to use.   Podcasts received such a low response (31% negative) but after the discussion it became clear that many students didn’t know what a Podcast was and most, if not any, have used it in a classroom setting.

Table 2. Results from Student Surveys N=51

Question: On a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) rate the different types of technology you would like to use in class:

Type of technology

Smart Board
Personal Computers
YouTube
Podcasts
Websites
Videos

Positive reaction

28/55%
25/49%
24/47%
12/24%
20/39%
16/31%

Negative reaction

4/8%
7/14%
8/16%
16/31%
6/12%
6/12%

Neutral reaction

19/37%
19/37%
19/37%
23/45%
25/49%
29/57%
When it comes to learning new information, not surprisingly, students spoke out against lectures and reading from a textbook (41% and 45% negative response respectively).  As pointed out in Table 3, group projects was the preferred method of learning new things (45% in favor) yet only 24% of those surveyed were in favor of presenting to the class their results from a project.  Clearly, the fear of public speaking and being judged by their peers is a condition that sets in early in life; one that should be broken down in the future.

Table 3. Results from Student Surveys N=51

Question: On a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) rate the different ways you would like to learn new information:

Type of information

Textbooks
Websites
Videos
YouTube
Class Presentations
Class Projects
Teacher Lecture 

Positive reaction

10/20%
9/18%
14/27%
15/29%
12/24%
23/45%
11/22%

Negative reaction

23/45%
10/20%
8/16%
13/25%
16/31%
12/24%
21/41%

Neutral reaction

18/35%
32/63%
29/57%
23/45%
23/45%
16/31%
20/39%
Students were also given a free response question to answer, which was: If you were to choose what we did in class to learn the material, what would you choose?  Trying not to limit students to certain choices it was interesting what they gave as answers (table 4).   Most students chose either group projects (30%) or projects where technology was used (23%) solely.  However, being a free response question and not limiting their choices, the majority of students gave multiple answers.  In fact, 81% of students gave a response that included group projects, technology, or both.  Some chose group projects and textbooks, while others chose technology and lectures, or group projects and technology.  From this it’s safe to assume that students are looking for a variety of lesson plans with group projects and technology as the base.

Table 4. Results from Student Surveys N=51

Question: If you were to choose what we did in class to learn the material, what would you choose?

Type of instruction given as answer

Group Projects
Lessons where technology was used (i.e. Podcasts, Smart Boards, Websites)
Textbook Reading
Teacher Lecture
Videos/YouTube
Technology and Textbooks
Group Projects with or without Technology

Students who gave that answer

16/30%
12/23%
1/2%
5/9%
2/4%
5/9%
43/81%

Implications

Had there not been a discussion with students following the surveys, there would not have had as great of an understanding of their answers.  For example, when students said they liked watching movies, there was a caveat to that.  They clearly expressed disdain for the boring, black and white, narrative documentaries that history teachers are known to show.  They mentioned that movies would be rated higher if they were actual movies, such as The Help, Saving Private Ryan, or Pearl Harbor.  They were looking for entertainment, drama, humor, not just facts.

This response was similar when the discussion turned to PowerPoints.  Almost universally, a PowerPoint that was created by the teacher was preferred to a PowerPoint that was created by the book publisher.  Students’ reasoning was that the teacher-created PowerPoints were frequently more interesting and would occasionally relate it to something students were familiar with, such as a recent television show. Teacher PowerPoints might contain humor where the PowerPoint from the textbook publisher was strictly dull history.  Again, students were looking for more than just the facts.

One of the reading strategies the class used was a pre-reading exercise where each student would look at the textbook and come up with their own reading comprehension questions based on the section headlines, pictures, or maps.  After coming up with questions that required more than a one-word answer, they would read the textbook and answer their own questions. 

When asked, “Who felt that coming up with questions and finding the answers through the textbook was helpful?” a few students raised their hands.  When asked who didn’t like doing that, the majority of students raised their hands.  That was followed up with, “Did you not like doing it because it was a lot of extra work or did you not feel like you were getting anything out of it?”  One student replied with, “Well, I liked it but I felt like there were just too many questions.”  It was then asked, “Who felt that it was helpful but it was too long?”  Most of the class raised their hands at this point. 

Without this clarification, one could assume that just from the surveys the majority of students did not like reading from a textbook (see tables 1,3,4).  This wasn’t strictly the case, though.  When students had an idea of what the topic was about, and already knew what to look for in their studies, they felt like they learned more.  This approach can easily be utilized with collaborative learning and with the usage of technology, as students would prefer to use.
 

Conclusion

Students might not know why working in groups and using technology works for them, but they do know that it’s something that they enjoy doing.  Like anything else, if students enjoy something, their attention will be given to it.  Student involvement is critical for cooperative learning, as they don’t want to disappoint their peers, but also feel that if they fail, they will have support from their group.  Fear of failure and the mounting stress that accompanies individual class work can be paralyzing to students, but when taken away and placed into a cooperative learning environment, they know they aren’t alone.  Students prefer these methods without looking at the research simply because it feels better.  Maybe, setting up a classroom where students can succeed needs to be reevaluated by those who cling to the competitive classroom or the “Do it yourself and keep quiet” mentality.

References

Ahn, R., Class, M. 2011. Student-Centered Pedagogy: Co-Construction of Knowledge through Student-Generated Midterm Exams. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 23(2) 269-281

Johnson, D. Johnson, R., Winter 1988. Cooperative Learning: Two heads learn better than one,  Transforming Education (IC#18) 34

Kaemmerling, K. May 19, 2011. Student Generated Learning- Let Students Lead the Way.  Retrieved from http://hippocampushistory.blogspot.com/2011/05/let-students-lead-way.html

Kordalewski, J., November, 1999. Incorporating Student Voice into Practice. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED440049.pdf

McWhorter, P., Summer 1996. Student-Generated Curriculum: Lessons from Our Students. National Reading Research Center Instructional Resource No. 30

Slavin, R., 1991. Student Team Learning: A practical guide to Cooperative Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED339518.pdf