I often wonder when reading research articles such as these about what these classes actually look like. Do the authors just do a great job writing that makes these classes look like supremely productive, democratic, organized, and efficient places to learn, or are they just such effective teachers that the students respond so well? They just don’t seem to look like what my class looks like/sounds like.
I have a few points from the articles:
1) I love the idea of putting Camila in “the hot seat.” Again, we could argue that the learning was happening because of the social context, while another would say it was entirely cognitive. No matter how it happens, putting her in a position to have to explain/defend her thoughts puts a lot more pressure on her to form a strong understanding, and I think that this kind of pressure can be an effective means of motivation. However, the amount of skill needed by the teacher to coordinate and conduct these “science talk” lessons is great, and I think carries a steep learning curve for the teacher as well as the students.
2) In the Chin/Osbourne article, I found myself again questioning if this “acting like scientists” approach is as valuable as they are trying to proclaim. First, the 12-14 students are more insightful than any group I’ve ever been associated with. While this is a very positive aspect for the classes in the article, students with enough science knowledge and awareness are not difficult to teach, no matter the arrangement of the class. However, I love the structured norms of question webs and explicit instruction of how to carry on these scientific arguments. On the other hand, one of the arguments we’ve had before is whether participation in traditional instruction is just another social norm that is learned, so too, I would argue that these “science talks” are a learned social engagement that bears little resemblance to the collaborations I’ve been a part of in my days of being a “real” scientist.
3) Varelas made me realize that having different styles of teachers is essential. If I would have had myself for a teacher, I’d have loved it….obviously, I teach the way I think works best. On the other hand, I know some students to not like my intensity, sarcasm, and desire to compete. In the classes I’ve had where I had to role play or dance around the room re-creating mitosis, I despise going to class! These different styles allow for a variety, and as long as the teacher motivates, engages, and has the students take ownership of the class…all styles have to potential to be effective.
Tags: Team MACK
I have a lot of questions about what the classes really look like too — in the Radinsky piece, they wrote an entire paper on one day of class. While from their description it sounds great, I do wonder how much it was the norm and how much they declined to mention parts that didn’t seem as good.
With Varelas, I had to keep reminding myself that he was looking at elementary school kids. I really don’t know if there would be a way to take that sort of method and modify it for a middle school or high school level.
You had the same thoughts I had reading the articles in regards to the classrooms. I kept wondering if this was made up or enhanced to sound better, because I have yet to observe a classroom where the discussion and steps from initial understanding to final understanding happened in such a logically progressing way. But, I guess it could be out there.
Having students explain or defend their thinking is in my mind an excellent way to garner their understanding of subject material, as well as perhaps challenge them to put some facts behind what they believe to be true. Additionally, having the rest of the classroom pitch in to keep an initial concept moving forward by adding to it and chipping away at the unclear portions is an even better way to get everyone involved in constructing meaning. I just hope I can foster this kind of discourse in my classroom.