The Way We Were

In my Teaching Science class, we've been considering the value of an inquiry-based classroom, one in which questions aren't simply asked and answered, and we're finished, thanks very much, have a good day. 

A teacher has to find out what a student already knows (assessing prior knowledge) and build on that, and the way to do this is to ask questions and not immediately supply the answers. 

A lecture or a classroom talk is not the same as a textbook, but today I found a science text that demonstrates how not to do this. 

This is a page from a 1961 text, book three in the ABC Science series. What if a teacher asked the questions on this page and then answered them as the book does? A student has no time for conjecture. 

"How do plants get the oxygen they need?" Silence. Imagine the answers. "By eating dirt." "The air." "It breathes." 

A teacher could hear the misconceptions and steer the conversation. "Eating dirt is an interesting idea. Can you tell me more about that?"

Eventually the discussion covers processes the plant uses to survive, but meanwhile the student has learned to think, to guess, to feel it's acceptable not to know, and to collaborate. And eventually, s/he knows how a plant gets oxygen. 

A science textbook probably shouldn't contain only questions for conjecture. I'm not saying this book is a failure. 

But teachers shouldn't teach like a book. What teachers need is to have less information freely dispensed, and more questions that leave everybody in the room a bit hungrier to find answers for themselves. 

Talk and Argue

Talk and argument – common words in everyday events, but with uncommon meanings in the science classroom.

“Talk” is often something teachers don’t want. “Stop talking.” “Don’t talk.” The implication is that the student simply needs to listen and absorb what the teacher says.

“Argument” happens in an arena, a combative venue. There’s a winner and a loser. The argument is designed for one to prevail over the other.

But in an inquiry-based classroom, talk and argument are desirable parts of the process. “Talk” means to explore assumptions and new information for accuracy and understanding. It's exploration…searching for something not known.

“Argument” (or argumentation) means to lay out contexts, information new and old, and welcomes participation by all. Newbies are welcome; science advances nowhere if only the long-credentialed are heard.

Most traditional classrooms use what’s been called the I.R.E. approach – the teacher Initiates, the student Responds, and the teacher Evaluates.

“What is water made of?”

“Hydrogen and oxygen.”

“Yes.”

This approach might seem to work when dealing with known facts and tables. But it limits the student to what the teacher knows and approves of. Instead of a horizon, there’s a wall.

In an inquiry-based classroom, using scientific talk and argument means the teacher guides the discussion, not approves or disapproves of the information spoken.

“Let me see if I understand. You said….”

“Does anyone agree or disagree?

“Can you tell me more?”

There’s always room for correction; after all, no matter how earnest the discussion, a water molecule doesn’t contain nitrogen. But instead of announcing that fact, the teacher can steer the exploration so the students find out for themselves.

Often, I think, teachers use the I.R.E. approach because it’s efficient.

“Yes.” “No.” “Usually.” “No.” “Yes.”

But if the ultimate luxury is time, then teachers owe it to their students to be inefficient, lavishing time on them, so they discover for themselves.

Teachers need to wait.

And wait.

Hear the wheels turn.

And wait a bit more.

Humans don’t learn to walk in a day, or to build a car in a week. It takes time to reflect, explore, accept and reject, and move on.

So, as I purpose and prepare to teach, I need to steer away from the efficient and what I've always thought of as desirable. Slow down, David, and bring on the talk and arguments.