In chapter 5 of Developing
Readers, Buehl presents us to a type of learning that situates the student
in a manner that most would not be accustomed to. That being of inquiry based
learning. Seeing that this class focuses on literacy and skills to improve
literacy within our students, Beuhl focuses on inquiry mind sets in students
for when they are presented with disciplinary/literacy text. Throughout the chapter
the point that is being presented is that students, through the help and mentoring
of teachers, must be able to learn to question what they are reading while
reading. In other words, students must be reading for inquiry not reading for
answers, which is what most students commonly do. As Beuhl refers to, and as Wilhelm states, “students
must be the ones asking the majority of questions and doing the bulk of the
classroom talk. They must shake off the passive role of receiving information
and become apprentices who actually do the work of the disciplines they are studying.”
Not only does this sum up what I believe is they main idea of this chapter, it
is also a good way to transition to the bulk of the remaining chapter; which
are examples and key aspects of disciplinary taxonomies based on, and parallel
to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Through the use of these disciplinary taxonomies that
students will be taught to use for self-question, students go through the six stages;
creating, evaluating, analyzing, understanding, and remembering. The goal, and
what we as future/current teachers must take from this reading, is that
students must be the ones who seek out knowledge, through our guidance, in order
for true knowledge to be built.
With all that being said, I do have a concerns that arose in
my mind as I read the text. The concern is that of the subject I plan to teach
and that is the subject of mathematics. While Beuhl does touch on mathematics with
his explanation of types of questions to ask one self, as a student, and then
provides a simple taxonomy for it, I still have one major concern. This concern
is as follows; as Beuhl states that we must create an inquiry based mindset in
our discipline, when it comes to math, to what degree should this be met? In other
words, while we teach children how to solve problems, they might ask why this
is important or how this applies in real life, are we also expecting them to
ask why this mathematical material is correct? What I mean by this is that until
recently in college courses, I never asked myself why this is correct or why
this happens, and it wasn’t until a college course where I was presented the
answer to these questions. I learned a simple question such as “1x0=0” becomes
a complex proof and something I had difficult figuring out. So to what extent
are we expecting children to question and to what extent do we answer?
Hello Jose,
ReplyDeleteI really like to read this post about reading for inquiry, and I agree with your points that students should read for inquiry not for the answers. Questioning while reading can be considered as a mind activity to stimulate the brain functioning, which can be helpful for the development of students' critical thinking and understanding. It is common to see that students as passive learners to receive what teachers say in class instead of thinking why it works or any integer concerns. The same situation as yours, which I think it is also common in the majority of math classes, the recent college courses make me wonder the meaning of learning logical proofs since such knowledge is hard or even impossible to be applied to the daily life. Your questions are the examples of questioning the author and thinking aloud. In the common math classroom, students just take notes of what teacher write down on the board instead of thinking why the material is correct, so, gradually, students cannot be active learners to analyze and apply the knowledge. The periodic tests are not enough to model and evaluate students' mastery, and not enough to help students self-questioning. "Students need to realize when to emphasize why thinking and when to emphasize how thinking" (Buehl, page 204).
Hi Jose
ReplyDeleteI like your post because it exemplifies what we as teachers should encourage in the classroom: student involvement and inquiry. Rather than just giving students all this information and expecting them to retain it like sponges we should be expecting them to question the material to develop a better understanding of it. And in terms of the it applying to math I do think students should understand why certain methods work and how they got to their answer. I had to do this kind of math in high school and I admit I didn't like it, but it forced students to actually go through the work step by step and explain why their work is correct and why they did one method over another. It can be tedious at times, but overall it does make students question methods and think about what they're doing rather than flying through the work and not understanding why they did what they did.
Jose,
ReplyDeleteYour blog pinpoints a lot of what Buehl explained throughout Chapter 5. Yes, I do think that it’s important that students are taught to question the readings put in front of them. I believe that would help in the long run. As Buehl explains “students tend to regard the reading of disciplinary texts as doing reading” and “disciplinary insiders approach the texts of their discipline with a using reading mentality”. You also bring up an excellent question and how would we apply this to Mathematics. I think that we should be able to teach students the real-world applications. It can then leave students wondering what else can be applied from math to real life. But to your other question, I am not sure to what extend they might question something but in any case, my best bet would be to prepare beforehand in any lesson. Therefore, we can answer anything they question with certainty.
Jose,
ReplyDeleteYou leave us with an excellent question-- I'm not sure if Beuhl's chapter does a great job of answering it and quite frankly it seems to leave us at the essence of what teaching and learning is. The middle ground that we are looking for is difficult to reach-- Wilhelm (2007) tells us that students can't be passive when it comes to their reading and studies, but motivation is an issue that can determine how successful we will be in even initiating the kind of learner identity that we would like to sow in our students. However, I think that the teacher should always serve as a guide in helping students to navigate the landscape of the discipline-- Beuhl emphasizes that students should model the kind of thinking students should develop through the sorts of questions they pose in order to steer students in the right direction of inquiry.
I must mention that I feel very similarly in realizing how many of us don't actually confront a more independent inquiry into our disciplines until we reach the post-secondary level. Reflecting upon everything we have learned and discussed in this course thus far insists that we must instill these deeper disciplinary and literary explorations earlier and earlier in children's education, otherwise we will be setting them back and depriving of the opportunity to hone those literacy skills and become the best learners that they can be.
Jose,
ReplyDeleteI think its interesting that students' role in reading is referred to as a "passive role of receiving information." This reminds me of what Paulo Freire refers to as the "banking model" of education where students just sit, presumed empty headed, and the teacher just states facts, thus putting coins (facts) into the empty piggy banks (students). I have never thought about how we do this in terms of reading and your post brought that to my attention. It is important to acknowledge that student's are not without original thoughts. They do not need to be taught how to think, but rather encouraged to. Buehl's model of inquiry based reading is a great way to assure that teaching reading's doesn't reflect the banking model.
I really enjoyed reading your blog post. I think inquiry-based reading is really a great way to teach science. I think it is one of the most effective way to read science texts. Students would be more engaged with inquiry-based science learning because it encourages them to read a science text and then ask a question about it that they could find an answer for it through an experiment that they would design by themselves. It also encourages them to think like scientists. However, the question you raised at the end of your post is really a good question for every teacher. I could have students do a lot of inquiry-based readings and experiments in my classroom, but there are some subjects that are really hard to teach through inquiry such as stoichiometry. I don’t think that students can construct their knowledge about such subject on their own. It would be more efficient to lecture it and let them master it through guided practice.
ReplyDeleteHello Jose,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post because within it you demonstrated the inquiry that i think Buehl wants from all readers. This being said i also really enjoyed your thought process throughout the post as a whole. Looking at this and the reading itself i can see what you mean by what extent do we want students to inquire. In a history class it is easier to try and get students to question the text, especially looking at the kind of social setting we live in today. Which is why i feel it is important that when we do provide text that we connect it to not only the lesson but to our students as well. However, pertaining to your question, sometimes it is overwhelming in history, as well, to get students to question text more because there is so much that you want them to get from it. I feel this is where we want to limit ourselves in how we guide the students. We must provide the students with a scope of information that, hopefully, they themselves want to dive into on their own. In the end it is all a balancing act where we must limit ourselves as teachers and allow the students to take the reigns once we are done lecturing on how they should learn.
Jose,
ReplyDeleteYour post this week did a good job of covering the ideas of Buehl’s chapter 5. This inquiry based learning that Buehl introduces the idea of, is a good way to make students question what they are reading while reading. I think that is an important strategy since it helps the student better understand what is really going on in the text. As teachers, it is our job to help mentor the students to think this way. Your post really hits that idea right on the head. I like how you mentioned the six stages because it really shapes the idea of self-questioning and helps make the argument of its importance stronger.
Hey Jose,
ReplyDeleteI think your post articulates the point that Buehl is arguing in this chapter. There is an explicit difference between the type of learning that many students are used to, and what Buehl defines as "inquiry learning". The emphasis of asking questions is such an important facet when expecting a growth of knowledge.
As instructors we should motivate our students to always ask questions and encourage "thinking out loud." I think there is a stigma behind not having a perfect and polished answer. Students should feel comfortable to share their opinions, perspectives, questions, and apprehensions. In the long run, this out-loud thought process will help not only the individual student, but all students in the class so that they can come to their own conclusions.
Jose,
ReplyDeleteI am struck with the same question all the time while reading the content for several Math ED classes. Mathematics is hard, really hard. Its not just the answer, it’s the method to the answer; the process to which we go through. Incorporating this sort of deeper mathematics into high school seems like a drastic change in the way students learn. Questioning the roots of mathematics in an axiomatic approach takes a lot of knowledge. To what point are we expecting students to question? This is where I feel the standards set by common core are hazy at best.