Harlowe Et Al. study the small chunks of conceptions that
pre-service teachers have about teaching and how those conceptions shape the
way they might teach using modeling. The
strongest connection for me was that many of the concerns that teachers voiced
are questions I have been asking myself as we learn more about model based instruction. For example, the teachers in the study are
unsure about how to balance the “right answer” with the messiness of the
modeling method. How important is it to
make sure that kids know the scientific reality compared to the importance of
understanding the scientific method? Can
guiding be done successfully with large classes? These are issues that I wonder about as we
learn how to teach with modeling.
It would have been very interesting to follow the
teachers in the study through their first year of teaching to see how the
course actually affected them instead of just seeing how it affected the way
they analyze videos. Because they study
does not include real teaching, it generates many more questions than answers
for me.
The 4th resource from the article is something
that we have discussed often in class.
Children are creative thinkers, and science is actually a creative pursuit. There are elements of scientific work that
are very process oriented and rote, but cutting edge research involves a lot of
creative problem solving. This was an
interesting part of the article because the pre-teachers had mixed feelings
about the benefits of kids doing creative thinking. Some of the teachers thought it was dangerous
for students to be too creative about science because they might end up
believing something totally wrong. I
think that scientific modeling stresses the right combination of creativity and
logic. Students must use creativity to
come up with models, but then the teacher helps them check their model against
logic and observable facts.
Most students enjoy using creativity. When an activity uses creativity it is
automatically better for most students than one that does not. This is another reason that the 4th
resource should be counted as a benefit of model based learning is that kids
will enjoy model based learning more than standard non-creative science because
it makes them think creatively which they generally enjoy.
The Harlowe article connects to our own NetLogo modeling in
that it mentions how teachers are more likely to teach a certain way if they
have experienced that type of teaching.
It is hard to teach with a certain technique if you’ve never seen it
done. In the case of this study, the
teachers watched videos of model-style teaching. In our case, we are actually experiencing
modeling-based instruction by modeling ourselves.
The connection to my future classes is that the article
provides an interesting way to think about how our knowledge and ideas about
kids impact our teaching decisions. The
undergrads have certain things they think about how teaching and learning
happens, and they evaluate potential teaching strategies based on those
assumptions. This is true for me too,
yet I hadn’t spent much time thinking about what I actually think about teaching
and learning until this Master’s program.
Questions:
·
For which concepts
should the efficiency of just telling kids the answer outweigh the benefits of
guiding them to an answer?
·
When we are using the
guiding method but on a whole class, how do we make sure that everyone is being
guided successfully and not just nodding along?
·
Does creativity
practiced in one discipline transfer well to other subjects?
Steve, to address your question about making sure that each student is guided successfully, I would imagine that this is the role of assessment. Asking students to individually examine a topic, perhaps through writing, a discussion, or an activity, would give the teacher an opportunity to see how each student is progressing individually. Whether they are formal or informal, some type of formative assessment, if applied appropriately, would be able to provide the teacher with information about each student.
ReplyDeleteI think that telling students the answer outweighs the benefits of guiding them the answer in relieving frustration for the student. When students become overwhelmed with a new concept, they may shut down when thinking about the problem. It may be up to the teacher to consider a new or different subject or topic for the student or perhaps the class. Guiding students to the solution so they may understand the path is always preferred. However, at certain moments, and not usually, is just telling the student without a given explanation as to how an answer was found. As for checking for understanding, that may be achieved with informal assessments. Students may be assigned exit cards for a lesson or perhaps small group work within a lesson where a teacher may have time to reinforce a strategy with a group of students. Teachers may ask questions during a lesson that check for understanding among the lesson. Depending on students' responses, the teacher can gain insight as to where a student may be. Teachers can then use the ideas of the students to either further or repeat instruction.
ReplyDeleteI don't think telling really ever outweighs guiding. In cases of frustration like David describes, I think the teacher's guidance can just become increasingly explicit. Telling students the 'right answer' when they are working through a problem only stands to shut down their creative process, plus, as they haven't arrived to it on their own, it still may not make sense to the student. To your second question Steve, I dont think the response to guiding would ever really just be nodding along - guiding is necessarily interactive and doesn't occur in lecture style. Group discussions can be guided but I think the real benefit of guiding is the one-on-one conversations you have with students as you walk around the room during a modeling exercise.
ReplyDelete