Universal Design for Learning in Early Years

IAL2001: Universal Design for Learning in Early Years.

Course: B.A. (HONS) ECEC

Lecturers: Dr Elena Tanti Burlo & Dr Barbara Baschiera

Authours : Chiara Cassar [416497 (M)] & Louana Zammit [310998 (M)]

Title of Assignment

"Teachers who can successfully use cooperative learning techniques have the potential to make students responsible for their own learning as well as allowing them to help others to master a particular topic” (Griffith, 1990, p.41).

Define the concept of cooperative learning.

Reflecting on your teaching practice experience, to what extent have you used cooperative learning in the classroom and indicate how you could improve on your experience.

Outline specific examples keeping in mind the UDL principles. State the rationale behind your practice and support you work with the relevant literature.

(Throughout this assignment the educator will be referred to as she/her and a pseudonym will be used for the child with autism. Examples will be drawn from both of our teaching practice experiences).

 Introduction

Cooperative learning may be defined both as “the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning” (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1993, p. 9) and as “principles and techniques for helping students work together more effectively” (Jacobs, Power & Inn, 2002, p. 1).

Positive interdependence, individual-group accountability, group processing, social skills and face-to-face interaction are essential aspects of cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Their implementation is necessary to support inclusive education. This is because cooperative learning provides a context in which all learners can interact positively thereby enabling the teaching of a “diversity of learners – children with varying cognitive abilities; developmental and learning disabilities; sensory impairments; and different cultural, racial, linguistic and socioeconomic backgrounds” (Putnam, 1998, p. XV).

This also follows UDL principles which aim “to create learning contexts that optimize opportunities for all learners” (Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014, p. 89).

In this assignment, different scenarios will be described and analysed through critical reflection to identify areas for improvement through the use of cooperative learning. The school context which will serve as a basis for this assignment is a K1 classroom made up of eight children one of whom, Jake, had autism but was not assigned his own LSA.

Scenario 1 : Realising that cooperative skills need to be taught.

Reflection helped us understand that we had been expecting the children to use cooperative skills in collaborative activities without a prior introduction.

Background reading about cooperative learning showed us that we could have made use of circle time to introduce the children to one cooperative skill at a time.This would have supported their understanding of what was expected of them and decreased the risk of them feeling overwhelmed.

An effective way of introducing the children to age and developmentally appropriate cooperative skills such as: sharing, turn-taking and helping one another could have entailed following a sequence of six steps (Spenciner & Putnam, 1998).

The first step would have involved explaining the significance of the skill by encouraging the children to express why they believed the skill was relevant to them and to the classroom. Visualisation of these reasons could have been supported by the use of drawings.

The next step would have been to demonstrate the skill by posing a number of open-ended questions linked to this specific social skill. The first two steps would have been carried out during circle time.

The children would then have been prompted to implement this skill throughout the upcoming activities. The fourth step would have entailed our observation of the children’s interactions during collaborative activities.

Each activity would have ended with a discussion about the children’s application of this skill, as well as the provision of our feedback and support.

The children would have been asked to describe what they thought they did well and what they needed to improve on. This would have promoted the UDL principle of providing multiple means of engagement and provided opportunities for self-assessment and development of personal coping skills (Meyer et al., 2014).

The sixth step would have been our reflection and evaluation of each activity. It is important that these six steps are applied in a context when teaching these crucial collaborative skills to young children.

Storytelling, puppet shows and role play are effective activities that could be used to introduce such skills (Spenciner & Putnam, 1998). Utilising a wide spectrum of opportunities to convey the same cooperative skill draws upon the UDL principle of providing multiple means of representation (Meyer et al., 2014). These steps can be used to introduce the children to collaborative skills however, mastering one particular skill may take several weeks.

In our teaching practice we took it for granted that the children would already be familiar with these cooperative skills and thus we failed to introduce these skills prior to activities involving pair and group work.

A clear example of this was during collaborative construction work that involved the use of paint and rollers. The children carried this out in small groups and thus had to share the resources between them.

The limited resources created the need for sharing and thereby presented “a desirable difficulty” (Bjork, 1994) and a meaningful learning challenge. Our expectation was that the children would automatically be able to share these resources. This did not happen, as we had to consistently intervene to ensure that sharing took place.

This was a first-hand experience of the crucial need to provide the children with a sound introduction to sharing, an essential cooperative skill. In the absence of adequate introduction and reinforcement of these skills, children might be at a loss both through lack of knowledge and also inability to put these into practice.

This approach to the acquisition of cooperative skills is beneficial for all children, especially those who struggle to socialise with others. The children’s learning can be consolidated through participation in activities which offer a genuine opportunity to practice these skills. Cooperative learning activities enable children with and without disabilities to develop lifelong skills, however, these do not develop automatically but as a result of the educator’s planning, designing and implementation of cooperative learning (Spenciner & Putnam, 1998).

Scenario 2 : Avoiding frustration through peer learning.

During some creative activities, Jake used to struggle to perform certain tasks such as applying PVA glue to pieces of felt with a paintbrush.

The degree of challenge posed by this was clearly evident during the creation of a colourful collage in small groups. At one point, Jake became frustrated at the futility of his efforts so he stopped and walked away. He was oblivious to the fact that his peers might have resented having to do his share due to this reaction.

On observing this, I intervened by encouraging him to re-join the group and have another try. This happened numerous times during the activity and had mixed results. Jake would at times comply and continue his gluing, whilst at others he would refuse outright and hide under the table.

Cooperative learning, with the intrinsic principles of positive interdependence and individual accountability, could have been utilised by starting with a discussion emphasising each individual’s valued contribution. During this, the children would have been encouraged to reflect about how they could support each other’s productivity and positive contribution to the achievement of the shared goal.

This supports the UDL principle of providing multiple means of representation which promotes the supply of background knowledge as a way of increasing the chances for understanding (Meyers et al., 2014).

During the activity, I would have encouraged the children in Jake’s group to respond to his struggles themselves. They could have done this by either modelling or helping in some aspect of the task.

Vygotsky (1978), was an advocate of peer learning as in his theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) he stated that children can take on the role of the more knowledgeable other (MKO) by providing the assistance necessary for the, as yet, less capable peers to find a solution to their current problems.

This “boost” would enable the accomplishment of a particular task and sustain development (Stacey, 2009).

The role of the MKO is usually adopted by adults (Paul & Sutherland, 2005), thereby dismissing the chance to capitalize on one of the greatest untapped educational resources available i.e. the children themselves (Salvin, 1987). This approach ensures that group members are positively connected with each other, perceiving the group’s goal to be achievable only if all members attain their individual goals (Lepičnik Vodopivec, 2011).

My verbal acknowledgement of the children’s efforts in this area could have reinforced the children’s understanding of the concept of collaborative interactions in the pursuit of a common goal. Such positive interactions are mutually beneficial for all children involved (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1994/1995; Staub & Peck, 1994/1995).

The former, give rise to the development of warm, caring friendships between learners of different abilities. These interactions provide opportunities for personal growth in the area of social cognition leading to increased sensitivity towards the needs of peers with disabilities. They nurture the development of personal values allowing children with no disabilities to become committed towards moral and ethical principles.

Fear of human differences and the potential development of prejudice is also reduced through these interactions. These also help children with no disabilities feel comfortable and confident in the presence of peers who have disabilities. Finally, such positive interactions provide all children with a greater sense of belonging and nurtures their self-esteem.

This scenario encompasses the UDL principle of providing multiple means of engagement.

This situation would have provided the children with a tangible opportunity to develop personal coping skills and strategies as well as cooperative skills. They would have been encouraged to view the struggles of the less capable other not as a threat or a distraction but as an opportunity to offer help and support.

When identifying the children who could work together in groups it is important to aim for heterogeneity. This would ensure that there is a rich diversity of learners with respect to social and behavioural skills, cognitive ability, socio-economic status and cultural backgrounds amongst others (Putnam, 1998).

It would have implied that collaborative work would have gone beyond simply grouping Jake with the same two children who seemed most inclined to help him. Doing this over a whole academic year, would have deprived all three children from the opportunity of developing cooperative relationships with the rest of their peers.

Scenario 3 : The negative impacts of pull-out practices.

During my teaching practice, I used to allocate time for free play. This encourages children to interact with their peers, a crucial contribution to their socialemotional learning (Elias & Arnold, 2006; Zins, 2004).

The kindergarten assistant (KGA) would use free play time as an opportunity to take Jake to an area of the classroom with a small table and two chairs. The KGA would bring the resources (e.g. flashcards, worksheets, paint, etc.) needed for the one-to-one activities. She would then carry out teacher-directed activities based on the strategies and resources suggested in Jake's Individualised Education Program (IEP).

These activities focused on Jake’s developmental areas, specifically those that required further support. In doing so, she would disregard his strengths and focus only on his "limitations". Isolating Jake from his peers by taking him to a specifically designed area is known as pull-out practice. Such practices could cause social stigmatisation and consequently negatively impact Jake’s perception of himself (i.e. his self-image, selfesteem and self- confidence).

Moreover, this could also have put him at an academic disadvantage since he was only taught the basic skills mentioned in his IEP (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).

These pull-out activities were excluding Jake from the rest of the class since he was being restricted to one area of the classroom and isolated him from his peers.

These practices could have promoted Jake's marginalisation and thus most likely made him feel different from his peers. This could have once again negatively impacted his perceptions of himself. The KGA's decision to prevent Jake from playing with his classmates so as to carry out solitary academic activities can be compared to placing children with disabilities in a special education setting.

Doing so, leaves little, if any positive effects on these children's development (Lipsky & Gartner, 1989; Meyer & Putnam, 1988).

On numerous occasions, Jake's classmates would observe, ask questions about the pull-out activities and try to join in. However, the KGA would refuse and say that these were only suitable for Jake. The children's displayed interest proves that these activities could have been planned with the whole class in mind, thereby eliminating the need to separate Jake from his peers. Including the other children would have provided an opportunity for cooperative learning and the inherent benefits that come when this is planned and implemented properly (Putnam, 1998).

Curriculum based learning needs to take into account learner variability. This is aligned with the goal of UDL which is to ensure that “everybody has the opportunity to develop into an expert learner” (Meyer et al., 2014, p. 89). Thus, the KGA could have designed activities that were appropriate for all the children instead of creating adapted activities solely for Jake. It is also essential to create a support system which promotes the strengths of all children and meets their identified needs (Denno, Phillips, Harte & Moomaw, 2004). This would eliminate the need to exclude Jake and in turn would encourage interaction and collaborative between all the children.

The goals set by the KGA need to challenge and actively involve all learners thus adhering to UDL principles (Meyer et al., 2014). As a result of the KGA's misinformed practice with regards to inclusion, Jake was not given the opportunity to engage in free play. This consequently prevented him from reaping its benefits as well as enhancing his social development by building upon and forming new friendships with his peers.

The negative impacts of these pullout activities on Jake's social interactions were evident during outdoor break time. This is because his peers drew upon their previously established friendships and easily extended these during outdoor play. Thus, this implied that the other children would unintentionally exclude Jake from playing with them as they were used to him being alone. Segregation in whatever form is not an option, implying that children with disabilities have the right to be educated with their peers (Tanti Burlò, 2010).

To further encourage the possibility of children with disabilities being seen in a positive light by their more developmentally advanced peers, it is important that the former’s strengths are identified and utilised in the classroom.

This is because all learners, including those who are gifted, are less likely to be left out when their peers become aware of their strengths (Johnson & Johnson, 1989).

I identified Jake’s strength when I overheard him fluently read both words and sentences. It was evident that he was more accomplished than his peers in this area.

“By considering the strengths and needs of each child, specific learning opportunities can be embedded into the typical routines and activities of the classroom” (Brodzeller, Ottley, Jung & Coogle, 2017, p. 279).

Thus, I could have created opportunities to shine a light on Jake’s strengths and ensure that these were made visible to his classmates. This could have been done by asking him to narrate a story during a puppet show or read a section of a book to the rest of the class. Such activities would have helped promote positive outcomes such as acceptance, support, caring and friendships between him and his peers.

This is how cooperative learning ensures that learners with special needs do not remain isolated despite being placed in a general education classroom (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1993).

Conclusion

 Cooperative learning is very important when educating a diverse community of learners with different developmental and cognitive abilities. It promotes higher academic outcomes, teaches social skills and most importantly imparts a sense of mutual respect amongst learners (Putnam, 1998).

For cooperative learning to be effective, it needs to be applied at all "levels of the education ecosystem, including cooperative groups of learners, cooperation and teaming among teachers, and cooperation with families and the broader community" (Putnam, 1998, p.14).

References

Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1994/1995). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 33-35.

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe, & A. Shimamura, Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge : MIT Press.

Brodzeller, K. L., Ottley, J. R., Jung, J., & Coogle, C.G. (2017). Interventions and adaptations for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in inclusive early childhood settings. Early Childhood Education Journal , 277-286.

Denno, D., Phillips, L. R., Harte, H. A., & Moomaw, S. (2004). Creating a supportive classroom environment. In S. H. Bell, V. Carr, D. Denno, L. J. Johnson, & L. R. Phillips, Challenging behaviours in early childhood settings: Creating a place for all children (pp. 49-65). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Elias, M. J., & Arnold, H. (2006). The Educator's Guide to Emotional Intelligence and Academic Achievement: Social-Emotional Learning in the Classroom. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A., & Inn, L. W. (2002). The Teacher's Sourcebook for Cooperative Learning: Practical Techniques, Basic Principles, and Frequently Asked Questions. California: Corwin.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.

Lepičnik Vodopivec, J. (2011). Cooperative learning and support strategies in the kindergarten. Metodički obzori , 81-91.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1989). Beyond separate education: Quality education for all. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. Wakefield: CAST Professional Publishing.

Meyer, L. H., & Putnam, W. J. (1988). Social integration. In V. B. Van Hasselt, P. S. Strain, & M. Hersen, Handbook of development and physical disabilities (pp. 107-133). Elmsford: Pergamon.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform. Washington: United States Department of Education.

Paul, R., & Sutherland, D. (2005). Enhancing early language in children with autism spectrum disorders. In F. R. Volkmar, P. Rhea, A. Klin, & D. Cohen, Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (pp. 946-976). New York: Wiley.

Putnam, J. W. (1998). Cooperative Learning and Strategies for Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity in the Classroom. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Putnam, J. W. (1998). The Movement Toward Teaching and Learning in Inclusive Classrooms. In C. L. Inclusion, JoAnne W Putnam (pp. 1-16). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Salvin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Educational Leadership, 7-13.

Spenciner, L. J., & Putnam, J. W. (1998). Supporting young children's development through cooperative activities. In J. W. Putnam, Cooperative Learning and Strategies for Inclusion (pp. 87-103). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Stacey, S. (2009). Emergent Curriculum in Early Childhood Settings: From Theory to Practice. United States: Redleaf Press.

Staub, D., & Peck, C. A. (1994/1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 36-40.

Tanti Burlò, E. (2010). Inclusive education: a qualitative leap. Life Span and Disability , 203-221.

 Vygostky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Zins, J. E. (2004). Building Academic Success on Social and Emotional Learning: What Does the Research Say? New York: Teachers College Press.