As I learn
about new strategies for creating authentic discussion that engages my whole
class and not just the overzealous few that enjoy speaking out, I am seeking
ways to integrate what I have learned into my own classroom. However, the
balance between what I want my students to know and what they must discover on their
own can be a gray sea that must be navigated with care.
In the
article, “Rethinking Whole Class Discussion,” posted on Edutopia, Todd Finely explains
that one of the distinguishing qualities of the authentic discussion structure is
that it must be student lead. However teaching students a routine of learning
is so different than what I grew up with as a student during the 1980’s and
early 90’s, and as a new teacher, I feel a strong pull to rely heavily on
teacher directed or scripted lessons that offer me a physical structure and
ensure that I have imparted the appropriate information for each lesson. I am
equally drawn to give inappropriate attention to those students who are more
willing to speak up because there is less potential for rejection that may
require modification.
Mr. Finley
says that many teachers mistakenly fall into a routine of “initiation-response-evaluation,
'I-R-E,' or recitation” in place of what they really intend to happen,
authentic learning. As a teacher, I feel excited about what I am sharing with
my students. Discussion that is based on a reciprocated learning process is a
rich, pleasurable experience for me as a student! It is natural that I hope to
create this for my students, but it is possible that in my attempt to make sure
they hear all of the important things that I feel are so meaningful, I am
robbing my students of their own meaningful experiences in favor of pushing
ideas that are more important to me as an individual. This is both unfair and
counterproductive.
Putting on
the hat of a facilitator takes both skill from practiced routines and the ability
to step back and relinquish some of the control in favor of discover learning. I
know from my more recent learning experiences as a student and the few
monumental moments of success that I have relished as a teacher that the good
stuff occurs when a teacher can create purposeful opportunities for these
routines within the overall structure of directed learning. Too little and
students will not know what to do, e.g., forgetting to provide directions for
specific procedures and implement them consistently. Too much, and students lose
motivation, become bored, and even feel frustrated.
Mr. Finley asserts
that, “quality discussion, according to the University of Washington's Center
for Instructional Development and Research, involves purposeful questions
prepared in advance, assessment, and starting points for further conversations.”
Some suggested strategies listed on the site are:
•Distribute
opportunities to talk
•Allow
discussants to physically see each other
•Ask
questions that "may or may not have a known or even a single correct
answer"
•Foster
learners talking to peers
•Encourage
students to justify their responses
•Vary the
types of questions
This all
sounds very familiar to me because in many ways, it is the kind of discussion
modeled for me in my general methods classroom. However, Finley goes on to say
that although these ideas ailing with strategies that utilize Bloom’s Taxonomy
for question development, the taxonomy has been misused. He explains that, “Over-reliance
on question hierarchies can result in conversations that are irrelevant to the
content and context of the learning environment, and invite answers that nobody
cares about.”
I have
experienced this in my own classroom. Although I might have spent hours or days
digging through a text to compose open ended, higher level questions to
activate my students’ critical thinking, I often feel that my lessons have hit
a flat note. While some of this is certainly due to my need for continued
growth and practice with establishing routines and providing the appropriate
directions for each task, some of this could be due to the questions
themselves. Is it possible that we plan too hard to make a teaching objective
feel like an authentic learning experience that we ruin the joy of it for our
students?
Finey
suggests a focus on “modeling inquiry, emphasizing divergent over convergent
questions, organizing students’ approach to question-asking and –answering,
listening and providing authentic follow-up questions.” He offers a long list
of suggested initial and follow-up prompts that use student focused language to
ask students to perform an action of the mind rather than just come up with an
answer. He also includes several discussion activities that can be useful in
this facilitation.
I recently
used Socratic Seminar for a discussion. I have also tried Fishbowl discussions
and think-pair-share structures as well. What kinds of discussion strategies do
you implement into your classroom and do you recognize a trend in how students
are responding?
References:
