Story of Question and beliefs from Fall
What is the proper balance between allowing students to arrive at their own conclusions using prior knowledge and inquiry and informing students of information they would not otherwise have? That is, when is it appropriate to directly give new information, and when is it appropriate to allow students to discover or construct it on their own?
I have found myself more than once with a child playing the “can you guess what it is in my mind?” game. The game generally consists of various forms of “have you ever heard of [concept or thing]?” or “can anyone tell me what [concept or thing] means/ is?” asked to children, staring back at me with blank faces. Sometimes they hazard a guess, and sometimes they just stare. “Well, it’s sort of like [other concept or thing]; have you heard of that?” I have found myself continuing, and the game devolves into an elaborate guessing game. When I have encountered children that do not possess the relevant prior knowledge to begin exploring a topic, I have fallen into a trap of playing “guess what I am thinking.” Children who have never had close contact with pets or farm animals might simply not know what goes into caring for them. Children who have never climbed mountains might not know what the air feels like up there. Children who have never been to a town with a traffic light might not know why cities have elaborate traffic laws. Sure, any of these children might have seen a TV show or read a book that gives them this knowledge, but they still might not have. It is not that these children do not have the faculties to understand the concepts and related topics, but rather it is that they have not yet been exposed to the prior knowledge to get there. Bringing in what children do know seems a good solution, but finding out where the lines of background knowledge lay takes time and effort. Further, allowing children to experience as much as possible seems an even better solution, but how much can children reasonably experience in a classroom environment? Classes might reasonably have a pet or go on field trips, but it is worth noting the resources and effort required in these ventures. I might argue that the time and effort spent on assessing children’s prior knowledge and exposing them first hand to as many concepts as possible is well worth it, but I do wonder about where that line is.
In a realistic world can I hope to have a classroom where children always bring in their prior knowledge, always explore new horizons with me, and always subsequently construct all of their own beliefs? Where is the line between being efficient and being a constructivist? Few teachers, even the staunchest of constructivists, would argue for allowing children to discover absolutely everything on their own. For example, can a pure and effective constructivist and inquiry-based teacher lead a child to discover how to subtract on their own? Where is the value in directly instructing children on the standard subtraction algorithm? What can I reasonably expect to be able to do in my own classroom?I believe adamantly that all children bring in relevant knowledge to every classroom. I believe that children can learn to inquire in ways that deepen their understanding of the world around them and equip them with skills that will serve them for the rest of their lives. I believe that all children deserve the chance to explore for themselves and discover on their own. I wish that resources were allocated more equitably, but alongside fighting for resource redistribution, I want to know how to maximize my impact in the classroom I can realistically expect to have. I want to know how to maximize my efficiency when it comes to exposing children to new knowledge and skills. When is it better to tell children about what animals need to survive, and when is it better to take the time to lead them through a question based lesson? If it is always better to ask questions rather than tell, how can I ask better questions? How can I avoid playing the “guess what I have in my mind” game? Whatever I believe about inquiry and direct instruction, I do not believe in the effectiveness of that game
From Term 3, Seminar.
I have found myself more than once with a child playing the “can you guess what it is in my mind?” game. The game generally consists of various forms of “have you ever heard of [concept or thing]?” or “can anyone tell me what [concept or thing] means/ is?” asked to children, staring back at me with blank faces. Sometimes they hazard a guess, and sometimes they just stare. “Well, it’s sort of like [other concept or thing]; have you heard of that?” I have found myself continuing, and the game devolves into an elaborate guessing game. When I have encountered children that do not possess the relevant prior knowledge to begin exploring a topic, I have fallen into a trap of playing “guess what I am thinking.” Children who have never had close contact with pets or farm animals might simply not know what goes into caring for them. Children who have never climbed mountains might not know what the air feels like up there. Children who have never been to a town with a traffic light might not know why cities have elaborate traffic laws. Sure, any of these children might have seen a TV show or read a book that gives them this knowledge, but they still might not have. It is not that these children do not have the faculties to understand the concepts and related topics, but rather it is that they have not yet been exposed to the prior knowledge to get there. Bringing in what children do know seems a good solution, but finding out where the lines of background knowledge lay takes time and effort. Further, allowing children to experience as much as possible seems an even better solution, but how much can children reasonably experience in a classroom environment? Classes might reasonably have a pet or go on field trips, but it is worth noting the resources and effort required in these ventures. I might argue that the time and effort spent on assessing children’s prior knowledge and exposing them first hand to as many concepts as possible is well worth it, but I do wonder about where that line is.
In a realistic world can I hope to have a classroom where children always bring in their prior knowledge, always explore new horizons with me, and always subsequently construct all of their own beliefs? Where is the line between being efficient and being a constructivist? Few teachers, even the staunchest of constructivists, would argue for allowing children to discover absolutely everything on their own. For example, can a pure and effective constructivist and inquiry-based teacher lead a child to discover how to subtract on their own? Where is the value in directly instructing children on the standard subtraction algorithm? What can I reasonably expect to be able to do in my own classroom?I believe adamantly that all children bring in relevant knowledge to every classroom. I believe that children can learn to inquire in ways that deepen their understanding of the world around them and equip them with skills that will serve them for the rest of their lives. I believe that all children deserve the chance to explore for themselves and discover on their own. I wish that resources were allocated more equitably, but alongside fighting for resource redistribution, I want to know how to maximize my impact in the classroom I can realistically expect to have. I want to know how to maximize my efficiency when it comes to exposing children to new knowledge and skills. When is it better to tell children about what animals need to survive, and when is it better to take the time to lead them through a question based lesson? If it is always better to ask questions rather than tell, how can I ask better questions? How can I avoid playing the “guess what I have in my mind” game? Whatever I believe about inquiry and direct instruction, I do not believe in the effectiveness of that game
From Term 3, Seminar.