Class Discussion
Nearly all of the class discussion I have seen has taken place in the context of reading a novel together as a class: typically, the teacher would be reading aloud (or the students reading parts, if they were doing Shakespeare) and then would pause every now and then to ask students questions about what they had just read. I saw this done in varying levels of depth and to varying degrees of success. Sometimes, the teacher would only ask leading questions and other types of questions that Christenbury and Lindblom would tell us to avoid (Making the Journey, 344-346), which the teacher would then wind up answering after asking it without giving students much chance to figure it out for themselves; this often resulted in students being less engaged and, I suspect, having lower comprehension of the text. (I've found that this tends to happen more often with Shakespeare, as teachers don't seem to trust that their students can figure it out.) In other classes, the teachers asked open-ended questions that sparked in-depth discussions and analysis of things like characters, plot, themes, and symbolism; these discussions often had many eager participants, and students seemed to have a good grasp on what they were talking about.
A pair of inclusion teachers I visited several times had several of these more engaging discussions in their classes while they read together. I noticed that the teachers did a particularly good job of getting students to 1. elaborate on their answers (any time someone gave an opinion or a response, they almost always prompted that person to explain further, rephrase, and/or add detail) and 2. support their answers with evidence from the text (responses which could not be supported were not accepted). The students in these classes had a lot of opinions to share, and occasionally questions as well--and I was glad to see that the teachers almost never answered those questions outright. Their usual response was, "Well, what do you think?" They would open the question to the rest of the class, and try to get the students to produce the answer rather than explaining it themselves: an important component in the art of questioning is knowing when to step back and let students be the experts (which we should try to do as often as possible).
Jim Burke emphasizes in What's the Big Idea? that students should learn how to ask questions themselves in order to develop their own critical thinking skills; this explains why discussions should not always be so teacher-led, and is something I wish I had seen a little more of. However, one class period did feature students doing independent reading of the chapter, and when they came together for discussion after, the teachers asked them what they noticed, what questions they had, and what they wanted to discuss; students brought up their own topic and ran with it, and it shaped the discussion for the rest of the period. Because they had picked their own topic, they were actively interested in the discussion and were chiming in all over the room, arguing passionately for their point of view; they continued talking about it even as the bell rang and they were exiting the room.
Some of the best class discussions I've ever participated in are the ones where the teacher is merely a facilitator, stepping back and not chiming in for extended periods of time as students go back and forth in self-imposed debate. This is the kind of class discussion I hope to promote in my own classroom, though I worry about being unable to keep my opinion or analysis to myself. I believe the trick is knowing when to sprinkle in just the right questions, just often enough to stimulate discussion without overtaking what students have to offer.
A pair of inclusion teachers I visited several times had several of these more engaging discussions in their classes while they read together. I noticed that the teachers did a particularly good job of getting students to 1. elaborate on their answers (any time someone gave an opinion or a response, they almost always prompted that person to explain further, rephrase, and/or add detail) and 2. support their answers with evidence from the text (responses which could not be supported were not accepted). The students in these classes had a lot of opinions to share, and occasionally questions as well--and I was glad to see that the teachers almost never answered those questions outright. Their usual response was, "Well, what do you think?" They would open the question to the rest of the class, and try to get the students to produce the answer rather than explaining it themselves: an important component in the art of questioning is knowing when to step back and let students be the experts (which we should try to do as often as possible).
Jim Burke emphasizes in What's the Big Idea? that students should learn how to ask questions themselves in order to develop their own critical thinking skills; this explains why discussions should not always be so teacher-led, and is something I wish I had seen a little more of. However, one class period did feature students doing independent reading of the chapter, and when they came together for discussion after, the teachers asked them what they noticed, what questions they had, and what they wanted to discuss; students brought up their own topic and ran with it, and it shaped the discussion for the rest of the period. Because they had picked their own topic, they were actively interested in the discussion and were chiming in all over the room, arguing passionately for their point of view; they continued talking about it even as the bell rang and they were exiting the room.
Some of the best class discussions I've ever participated in are the ones where the teacher is merely a facilitator, stepping back and not chiming in for extended periods of time as students go back and forth in self-imposed debate. This is the kind of class discussion I hope to promote in my own classroom, though I worry about being unable to keep my opinion or analysis to myself. I believe the trick is knowing when to sprinkle in just the right questions, just often enough to stimulate discussion without overtaking what students have to offer.
Hi Emily, I really like the idea of, after a period of independent reading, prompting students to generate their own discussion based on what they have read. Similarly to the situation you observed, I observed a class in which the teacher allowed the students to choose the topic of discussion, which resulted in the students' increased interest and engagement in the discussion. Although you unfortunately had to witness discussions based primarily on recall questions, such as the Shakespeare discussions you mention, it seems like a good thing that you were able to contrast the ineffectiveness of this type of discussion with the effectiveness of the enriching discussions that you saw in other classes, such as in the inclusion class with the co-teachers. I definitely think that student-led discussions are the best type of discussions, as backed up by Christenbury and Lindblom's statement in Chapter 9 of Making the Journey that, "Control...is often the death of questioning. When the asking and answering of questions becomes an inquisition...it is virtually impossible to move into real, productive conversation" (Christenbury & Lindblom 347). Although some control is necessary in a classroom, too much control seems to stifle critical thinking and innovative ideas. Therefore, I think the way that your cooperating teacher conducted the post-independent reading discussion was great because the teacher ensured that the discussion remained on-task but the students were able to exert some control and freedom.
ReplyDeleteHi Emily,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you had a lot of really solid observation experiences, which is great! It is encouraging to see teachers actually using the methods that we are reading about, especially since up until this point, my own observations made me think otherwise. This is not to say that the teachers I was watching were bad or incapable; despite their methods seeming a bit more old school, I think they were teaching effectively because for the most part the class seemed actively engaged in discussions. I suppose that is the well from which I will draw my question; in the case of my own experiences, I saw some really old school teachers who used virtually no technology, and others who used it with limits, but both seemed to be keeping the students moving and participating, even if some of that participation seemed a bit more forced than voluntary. With both methods seeming to work, but the old school method seeming much easier on the teacher, do you think the shift in technology and subsequent shift in focus from teacher-led to student-led discussions is worth it, with how much that has to be changed to achieve it? Many of our readings have given substantial reason why their way works best, but are their exceptions to this? Or is it something we, as next generation teachers, should actively be working towards?