As a Teaching of Math major, I’m constantly trying to
consider the best approach to take in the classroom. When you ask someone to think back to a math
class that they’ve been in, they’ll oftentimes recall engaging with what Buehl
calls “leading questions”. The issue
with these sorts of questions lies in that “[they] imply an expected answer, and
it is pretty clear to students that there are right and wrong responses to
these questions” (Buehl 170). And so,
students respond by treating the activity of reading as a mere search for
answers that will satisfy any anticipated questioning.
While this sort of a dynamic is off-putting, the
solution lies in asking “essential questions” as an alternative. Essential questions, moreover, are questions
that “spark genuine inquiry into the topics of our disciplines and require
deeper examination that involves weighing alternatives, evaluating evidence,
and considering the case for multiple possible resolutions” (Buehl 169). In short, asking essential questions invites
discussion of ideas and concepts – students are able to engage with content in
order to work toward a sense of understanding, as opposed to just hearing a
lecture about it.
I find it interesting, though, that research has
backed the benefits of asking essential questions over leading questions in the classroom for
more than 30 years because I, like many others, only worked with mathematics
content in classrooms that were focused on leading questions. As a result, I didn’t really have the
opportunity to engage with any mathematics texts in a way that sparked any
genuine interest until I began my undergraduate studies.
However, I was surprised and glad to observe
classroom environments that focused on essential questions and the sort of
engagement with texts that comes along with them this semester.
Not only did the students in these classrooms seem to be well-engaged,
but their level of interest was greater than any that I can remember from my
own high school experience. And so, with
all of this in mind, do you plan to incorporate this sort of questioning into
your own classroom? If so, how? Another thing to consider is that many critics deem allowing
students to discuss and arrive at key conclusions themselves, instead of being lectured, not to be very
time-effective. How would you combat
this?
Raymond,
ReplyDeleteFrom reading Beuhl's chapter this week I definitely get the sense that allowing students to develop deeper inquiry in the disciplines we are teaching will help them to form stronger interests and bonds with the information, but then again I can't help but find myself asking the same questions you pose at the end of your post-- how time-effective is this kind of method considered? I am not at all arguing that we should skimp out on the pursuit of a deeper understanding or not foster engagement and conversation with and about the literature, but teachers are always reiterating the lack of time dedicated to real learning, that there are certain expectations that must be met and tests that dictate what students must learn and what level they should be at in order to make their way through to the next grade and reach scores required for high school and college. Not to mention the overwhelming amounts of work students often receive from all of the courses they are taking at once which can hinder students' motivation to engage in a deeper way with every subject. Ultimately I think that as teachers we must instill the characteristics of the sorts of inquisitive minds we would like to help create in the culture of our classrooms and in our teaching styles-- it is easy to get overwhelmed but if we set standards and expectations for our students with the proper modeling and guidance then we can help set students in habits that they will carry with them throughout their lives.
I agree!
DeleteIt's unfortunate that so many things serve to hinder motivation to truly engage with content, but I especially like the idea of cultivating the sort of classroom environment that helps students to develop a lifelong sense of curiosity.
Ray, being a Teaching in Math major, did you relate or disagree with Buehl when he stated that being a careful, laborious reader would be easy for a math major but not a history major. I understood his point but still wonder how much teachers and students may approach a learning strategy in a given discipline if they initially have a negative mindset of its potential effectiveness in that discipline. As you similarly stated, most people may rate math and science the two most rote memory, right or wrong answer type disciplines. As future educators, I believe that through commitment toward our disciplines and methods of delivery, learning through trial and error and the ability to adjust and adapt additional methods, we will embrace so many methods that somehow becomes second nature to us, that the strategies that we have committed to becomes second nature tools for our students as well. Ideally we will have a team of teachers that compliment each other so well that the tools that one teacher enforce is reinforced later and those that are not enforced by one will be enforced by another teacher. We may not be able to give the student all the tools they need in the little time we have them but as a team we should be able to best prepare them.
ReplyDelete