My reflection on Jerrid Kruse's "Science is Messy" lesson analyzes Kruse's beliefs about how people learn as well as how teachers develop competency. It is apparent within the first minute of the video that Kruse has created a structure in his classroom. Evidence indicating this structure is that students are in class, seated, and prepared to begin on time. Hand-raising is also a part of the structure as Kruse points to the students before they begin speaking. One of the ideas that GNA discussed this morning was that creating a structure and establishing social norms builds students' trust and fosters freedom of thought. Structure makes the students feel safe and enables them to feel comfortable taking risks. As we've read and discussed in class, people learn when they feel comfortable asking questions and are engaged in classroom discussions.
Kruse begins the class with the an open-ended, big idea question, "How does science work?" He then asks students to brainstorm. Students immediately have a few ideas, which Kruse scribes on the board. When the class falls silent, he doesn't always follow up with a prompt. In some cases, he lets the group ruminate in the silence, think about their response, and waits briefly for someone to add something. This brainstorming exercise demonstrates that learning is focused on soliciting the students' ideas (student-centered learning) with a few prompts from the teacher.
I also found that Kruse was flexible in his approach and the direction that the class took. When the class brought up different ideas, he didn't shut them down; instead, he asked them to expand upon it or clarify by asking additional questions. Even though the discussion was fluid, Kruse highlighted key points and guided the conversation.
Given Kruse's beliefs on how people learn as demonstrated in his video, I would argue that Kruse develops competency in this lesson. He expects his students to participate in the discussion, and with that begin to trust their thoughts and contributions. Kruse also challenges the students to think independently and know that there isn't always a "right" answer. For example, through the conversation between the teacher and class, they uncover that there are many different pathways when looking into how science works. This discovery questions the scientific method. Kruse's students are engaged, feel comfortable contributing, and question their previous ideas of science education.
Kruse's lessons as well as the other cases studied we have examined today have led me to the following "if, then...because" statement. If teachers believe that students learn in a student-centered environment that encourages risk-taking and dialogue, then successful learning can occur because the students trust the teacher, their classmates and the journey that they are all taking together.
You've highlighted several important ideas! First of all, the structure. I tried to "destructure" my class once at the beginning of the year and it bombed. The kids didn't know what to do with the freedom. Since then, I started my year off highly structure, and slowly remove the structure. By the end of the school year, I don't expect students to raise their hands, but I do expect them to respect each other's right to speak. This take time and effort though.
ReplyDeleteThe "ruminate in silence" is also key. If I did not use wait time, students would simply start to look to me for answers/guidance rather than looking to themselves or their peers.
Lastly, not dismissing "wrong" ideas is key as people learn by accommodating or assimilating new information. If we simply tell students they are wrong, they have no way to modify their schemas. Schema modification takes time, and is not as easy as simply delivering the "right" answers.
Very insightful analysis.
Thanks for the feedback, Jerrid. It's funny that you mentioned wait time as we just discussed that tool in one of our classes today. Applying theory and techniques to the classroom is all starting to come together!
ReplyDeleteOn an unrelated note, I wanted to let you know that I really enjoyed your article entitled, "Learning Theories: Pillars of Teacher Decision-Making." I thought you did a great job introducing a few of the "big hitter" learning theorists. I also really enjoyed the section of the article where you put learning theory into the action. This demonstrated for me not only how powerful and relevant learning theories are, but also how seemingly distinct theories complement each other and enhance learning.