Chapter 4

Join Teachers.Net

Chatboards

Recent Groups

Prof Readings

MEMBERS

2 Members

+ Join Group

Pinned Posts

ALLAll Teachers

Teachers.Net LIVE CHAT Support group - Tues eve!

Featured Jobs

Full-timeMontessori Teacher

Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada

TemporaryTeachers, rural schools

Peace River North School District

Full-timeHead Teacher: 2nd/3rd Grades – Mills College Children’s School

Mills College

Teaching Jobs on Teachers.Net

Featured Job special only $39!

https://teachers.net/jobs

Become a Teachers.Net sponsor!

Professional Readings Chatboard

Chapter 4

by judy5ca

Dec 28, 2010

dc wrote: I just finished reading Ch. 4 yesterday, Judy, and I know j.e. is done and whooshed past us, so as soon as you're done reading it, let us know and we'll discuss it! I wrote some notes down.....and thought a LOT about Jan's helpful emails about transfer as I was reading chapter 4!

Yes, I love the premise of this chapter, but didn't find any new thinking. Jan has taught us well, hasn't she?

I did think Willingham had excellent examples to explain what is the foundation of good teaching. And I like his definition of transfer, successfully applying old knowledge to a new problem.

I do wonder if Jan would have a problem with the way he throws around transfer and application.

What do you think?

Judy

Comment

(25)

report post

view previous comments

Jan "Wow them and the science will follow."

AARRGGHHH! Teaching must be intentional....nothing 'comes' by wowing the kids

Jan 17, 2011

report post

judy5ca Thanks for this post, Jan, it makes a TON of sense to me--both arguments. I got myself in trouble trying to explain something similar on an earlier thread because I just couldn't come up with the right words to describe my thinking. It's not that I'm trying to trick kids, but I am trying to lead them to discovery...I have to have the standard (brok...See MoreThanks for this post, Jan, it makes a TON of sense to me--both arguments. I got myself in trouble trying to explain something similar on an earlier thread because I just couldn't come up with the right words to describe my thinking. It's not that I'm trying to trick kids, but I am trying to lead them to discovery...I have to have the standard (broken down by me) as my endpoint. I lovelovelove the way you use "structured." Yes, thank you.

I did a lesson at the beginning of the year to open social studies (I know, I know, you're all sick of hearing me talk about social studies). I collected a whole bunch of 'stuff' that had a purpose that I hoped most kids didn't know. The inquiry was to examine the items (eg, a telegraph key, an egg separator, a paint can opener) to determine how they were used. The endpoint was the word ARTIFACT: to come up with a class definition, compare it to the textbook definition, to consider how historians use artifacts to tell them more about the people/culture who used them (and eventually to smile smugly when we see artifacts in our textbook). I knew where we were going because I'd picked the items, but I had no way of knowing what the kids would guess/glean. Do you think I'm on the right track with this lesson?

Judy

On 1/17/11, Jan wrote: > Rosenshine wrote me a whole email on the idea that low achieving kids > should not be taught by inquiry because they will pick up the wrong > idea and that causes real problems. He said kids must be taught > directly first to make absolutely sure that they have the concepts > clearly and that there are no misconceptions. He said inquiry kinds of > things can be done with them as follow up, but not as original > instruction. This makes perfect sense to me and I believe it > > However, Bruce does NOT believe this and I saw with my very own eyes > how well low achieving students did with inductive thinking. In fact, > in my daughter's class at the time...and she had the RSP kids for the > 5th grade...the RSP kids did better with inductive than the GATE kids! > Why? because everything had always come so easy to the GATE kids and > they could not cope with the 'no right answer' idea. They were > frustrated and upset. And, they'd never had to use alternative > strategies because they got it the first time. The RSP kids, on the > other hand, had learned alternate strategies and had been taught to try > first one and then another. They were the stars in inductive learning. > This also makes sense to me and I believe it. I SAW it. > > Bruce also thinks inductive learning (inquiry) is better for the low > achievers because they need to have the opportunity to manipulate data, > to experiment with it, to spend time processing it and inductive > provides that for them. I also believe this. > > So, I don't know. I have resolved this in my own mind by selecting the > model of teaching that I think best matches the content...and then try > to be aware of the kids who might have trouble with either kind of > model. I do absolutely think though that in inductive, the set of data > the kids work with must be very carefully selected. It is not just > throw out a bunch of stuff and have them classify. Bruce took enormous > amounts of time gathering data examples that were absolute matches to > the concept he was teaching...data that had all the same critical > attributes so the match was clear. Then getting more complex examples > and arranging them systematically in the lesson. So, his inductive was > actually very structured and I think this eliminated pretty much the > concern of Barak's that low achieving kids might come up with > misconceptions. > > > On 1/16/11, KimK1ca wrote: >> We had a marvelous science teacher come to our school for >> professional development last summer. He floated two soda cans in a >> tank of water. One was Diet Coke and one was regular Coke. Then he >> said something like, "wow." >> >> Now, here we are... a group of teachers interested in asking the >> right questions. We are interested in that "hook," that "aha!" that >> will get kids to lean in their seats and begin... inquiry. We also >> know a bit about science and can do a bit of thinking. Can our >> students? Do they have that background knowledge? >> >> He never responded to our "inquiries" with a right or wrong answer. >> My directors apparently thought this was fabulous. Something wasn't >> right but I could only suppose (quietly, lest I not be a "team >> player") that we, as teachers, must guide those student-generated >> questions carefully. >> >> I've also seen Steve Spangler at a science workshop. I love his >> stuff, his attitude, his excitement. But.. one thing he said >> bothers me. "Wow them and the science will follow." Will it? >> >> I know from experience that Discovery Learning is powerful. But, >> like Whole Language, it isn't suitable for the education of all >> children. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> :-)K

Jan 17, 2011

report post

Jan In my opinion, you are RIGHT ON! Two things are there that did this: (1) you had the objective clearly in mind. You knew what you wanted them to learn and you knew that discovery was the best way to learn this. (2) then you structured the data you gave them (this is key...I mentioned this in regard to Bruce Joyce). Inquiry is not just throwing out ...See MoreIn my opinion, you are RIGHT ON! Two things are there that did this: (1) you had the objective clearly in mind. You knew what you wanted them to learn and you knew that discovery was the best way to learn this. (2) then you structured the data you gave them (this is key...I mentioned this in regard to Bruce Joyce). Inquiry is not just throwing out a bunch of stuff and asking the kids to discover something. Inquiry is carefully planning a lesson that has an objective and structuring that lesson, regardless of the model, to assure the kids are successful.

The problem with inquiry is time. Time for the kid's lesson itself (discovering is SLOW) and for the teacher to gather the data. Every piece has to be a clear and unambiguous example of what you want the kids to discover. If it isn't, they cannot discover the critical attributes...those attributes that all your data share. And, if they can't find the common attributes, they aren't going to learn what you want to teach. If you're teaching directly, you are still very careful about your examples, but if one isn't quite as solid as you'd like...or a flaw in it emerges when the kids see something you didn't.....you can explain it to them as an exception or whatever. But, when they're discovering the common attributes a bad example will throw them off forever. It can mean the difference between success and failure. In inquiry learning, the plan and data you collect for them to inquire into, has to be perfect because you can't say anything to explain it. The data has to stand on its own.

Not an easy task. While we all love inductive teaching here and see the incredible value of it...kids learn things deeper and remember them longer....there just isn't enough time to have them discover very often. So you save it for those concepts that are very important and that kids need to learn at that very deep level. They don't need to discover math facts or plurals....we can teach them much faster ourselves and these are not things we need to process at high levels on the taxonomy. They don't need to analyze of synthesize plurals...they just need to apply them. But for many social studies concepts and for writing,which is what we did here, nothing does it like inductive. Maybe someday we will actually have time to teach something well so kids will remember it forever, rather than teaching it in 15 minutes so they can pass the test.

On 1/17/11, judy5ca wrote: > Thanks for this post, Jan, it makes a TON of sense to me--both arguments. > I got myself in trouble trying to explain something similar on an earlier > thread because I just couldn't come up with the right words to describe my > thinking. It's not that I'm trying to trick kids, but I am trying to lead > them to discovery...I have to have the standard (broken down by me) as my > endpoint. I lovelovelove the way you use "structured." Yes, thank you. > > I did a lesson at the beginning of the year to open social studies (I know, > I know, you're all sick of hearing me talk about social studies). I > collected a whole bunch of 'stuff' that had a purpose that I hoped most > kids didn't know. The inquiry was to examine the items (eg, a telegraph > key, an egg separator, a paint can opener) to determine how they were used. > The endpoint was the word ARTIFACT: to come up with a class definition, > compare it to the textbook definition, to consider how historians use > artifacts to tell them more about the people/culture who used them (and > eventually to smile smugly when we see artifacts in our textbook). I knew > where we were going because I'd picked the items, but I had no way of > knowing what the kids would guess/glean. Do you think I'm on the right > track with this lesson? > > Judy > > > > > > > > On 1/17/11, Jan wrote: >> Rosenshine wrote me a whole email on the idea that low achieving kids >> should not be taught by inquiry because they will pick up the wrong >> idea and that causes real problems. He said kids must be taught >> directly first to make absolutely sure that they have the concepts >> clearly and that there are no misconceptions. He said inquiry kinds of >> things can be done with them as follow up, but not as original >> instruction. This makes perfect sense to me and I believe it >> >> However, Bruce does NOT believe this and I saw with my very own eyes >> how well low achieving students did with inductive thinking. In fact, >> in my daughter's class at the time...and she had the RSP kids for the >> 5th grade...the RSP kids did better with inductive than the GATE kids! >> Why? because everything had always come so easy to the GATE kids and >> they could not cope with the 'no right answer' idea. They were >> frustrated and upset. And, they'd never had to use alternative >> strategies because they got it the first time. The RSP kids, on the >> other hand, had learned alternate strategies and had been taught to try >> first one and then another. They were the stars in inductive learning. >> This also makes sense to me and I believe it. I SAW it. >> >> Bruce also thinks inductive learning (inquiry) is better for the low >> achievers because they need to have the opportunity to manipulate data, >> to experiment with it, to spend time processing it and inductive >> provides that for them. I also believe this. >> >> So, I don't know. I have resolved this in my own mind by selecting the >> model of teaching that I think best matches the content...and then try >> to be aware of the kids who might have trouble with either kind of >> model. I do absolutely think though that in inductive, the set of data >> the kids work with must be very carefully selected. It is not just >> throw out a bunch of stuff and have them classify. Bruce took enormous >> amounts of time gathering data examples that were absolute matches to >> the concept he was teaching...data that had all the same critical >> attributes so the match was clear. Then getting more complex examples >> and arranging them systematically in the lesson. So, his inductive was >> actually very structured and I think this eliminated pretty much the >> concern of Barak's that low achieving kids might come up with >> misconceptions. >> >> >> On 1/16/11, KimK1ca wrote: >>> We had a marvelous science teacher come to our school for >>> professional development last summer. He floated two soda cans in a >>> tank of water. One was Diet Coke and one was regular Coke. Then he >>> said something like, "wow." >>> >>> Now, here we are... a group of teachers interested in asking the >>> right questions. We are interested in that "hook," that "aha!" that >>> will get kids to lean in their seats and begin... inquiry. We also >>> know a bit about science and can do a bit of thinking. Can our >>> students? Do they have that background knowledge? >>> >>> He never responded to our "inquiries" with a right or wrong answer. >>> My directors apparently thought this was fabulous. Something wasn't >>> right but I could only suppose (quietly, lest I not be a "team >>> player") that we, as teachers, must guide those student-generated >>> questions carefully. >>> >>> I've also seen Steve Spangler at a science workshop. I love his >>> stuff, his attitude, his excitement. But.. one thing he said >>> bothers me. "Wow them and the science will follow." Will it? >>> >>> I know from experience that Discovery Learning is powerful. But, >>> like Whole Language, it isn't suitable for the education of all >>> children. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> :-)K

Jan 17, 2011

report post

judy5ca But...it's not just the time it takes to allow the kids' discovery and (just as important) discussion, but it's also the planning time, isn't it? I mean, I love lessons like this, but gosh, they take me forever to plan. With every lesson I try to think through where I want to go and what could lead us astray (I'm really big into steps). It seems li...See MoreBut...it's not just the time it takes to allow the kids' discovery and (just as important) discussion, but it's also the planning time, isn't it? I mean, I love lessons like this, but gosh, they take me forever to plan. With every lesson I try to think through where I want to go and what could lead us astray (I'm really big into steps). It seems like there are a million more possible forks in the road with an inquiry lesson, so it takes me forever to plan. If someone were to hand me an excellent prepared inquiry lesson that went with my standards, I'd jump on the bandwagon. But don't you think it's really time-consuming to come up with these lessons? Judy

On 1/17/11, Jan wrote: > In my opinion, you are RIGHT ON! Two things are there > that did this: (1) > you had the objective clearly in mind. You knew what > you wanted them to learn and you knew that discovery > was the best way to learn this. (2) then you structured > the data you gave them (this is key...I mentioned this > in regard to Bruce Joyce). Inquiry is not just throwing > out a bunch of stuff and asking the kids to discover > something. Inquiry is carefully planning a lesson that > has an objective and structuring that lesson, > regardless of the model, to assure the kids are > successful. > > The problem with inquiry is time. Time for the kid's > lesson itself (discovering is SLOW) and for the teacher > to gather the data. Every piece has to be a clear and > unambiguous example of what you want the kids to > discover. If it isn't, they cannot discover the > critical attributes...those attributes that all your > data share. And, if they can't find the common > attributes, they aren't going to learn what you want to > teach. If you're teaching directly, you are still very > careful about your examples, but if one isn't quite as > solid as you'd like...or a flaw in it emerges when the > kids see something you didn't.....you can explain it to > them as an exception or whatever. But, when they're > discovering the common attributes a bad example will > throw them off forever. It can mean the difference > between success and failure. In inquiry learning, the > plan and data you collect for them to inquire into, has > to be perfect because you can't say anything to explain > it. The data has to stand on its own. > > Not an easy task. While we all love inductive teaching > here and see the incredible value of it...kids learn > things deeper and remember them longer....there just > isn't enough time to have them discover very often. So > you save it for those concepts that are very important > and that kids need to learn at that very deep level. > They don't need to discover math facts or plurals....we > can teach them much faster ourselves and these are not > things we need to process at high levels on the > taxonomy. They don't need to analyze of synthesize > plurals...they just need to apply them. But for many > social studies concepts and for writing,which is what > we did here, nothing does it like inductive. Maybe > someday we will actually have time to teach something > well so kids will remember it forever, rather than > teaching it in 15 minutes so they can pass the test. > > > On 1/17/11, judy5ca wrote: >> Thanks for this post, Jan, it makes a TON of sense to >> me--both arguments. I got myself in trouble trying to >> explain something similar on an earlier thread >> because I just couldn't come up with the right words >> to describe my thinking. It's not that I'm trying to >> trick kids, but I am trying to lead them to >> discovery...I have to have the standard (broken down >> by me) as my endpoint. I lovelovelove the way you use >> "structured." Yes, thank you. >> >> I did a lesson at the beginning of the year to open >> social studies (I know, I know, you're all sick of >> hearing me talk about social studies). I collected a >> whole bunch of 'stuff' that had a purpose that I >> hoped most kids didn't know. The inquiry was to >> examine the items (eg, a telegraph key, an egg >> separator, a paint can opener) to determine how they >> were used. The endpoint was the word ARTIFACT: to >> come up with a class definition, compare it to the >> textbook definition, to consider how historians use >> artifacts to tell them more about the people/culture >> who used them (and eventually to smile smugly when we >> see artifacts in our textbook). I knew where we were >> going because I'd picked the items, but I had no way >> of knowing what the kids would guess/glean. Do you >> think I'm on the right track with this lesson? >> >> Judy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 1/17/11, Jan wrote: >>> Rosenshine wrote me a whole email on the idea that >>> low achieving kids should not be taught by inquiry >>> because they will pick up the wrong idea and that >>> causes real problems. He said kids must be taught >>> directly first to make absolutely sure that they >>> have the concepts clearly and that there are no >>> misconceptions. He said inquiry kinds of things can >>> be done with them as follow up, but not as original >>> instruction. This makes perfect sense to me and I >>> believe it >>> >>> However, Bruce does NOT believe this and I saw with >>> my very own eyes how well low achieving students >>> did with inductive thinking. In fact, in my >>> daughter's class at the time...and she had the RSP >>> kids for the 5th grade...the RSP kids did better >>> with inductive than the GATE kids! Why? because >>> everything had always come so easy to the GATE kids >>> and they could not cope with the 'no right answer' >>> idea. They were frustrated and upset. And, they'd >>> never had to use alternative strategies because >>> they got it the first time. The RSP kids, on the >>> other hand, had learned alternate strategies and >>> had been taught to try first one and then another. >>> They were the stars in inductive learning. This >>> also makes sense to me and I believe it. I SAW it. >>> >>> Bruce also thinks inductive learning (inquiry) is >>> better for the low achievers because they need to >>> have the opportunity to manipulate data, to >>> experiment with it, to spend time processing it and >>> inductive provides that for them. I also believe >>> this. >>> >>> So, I don't know. I have resolved this in my own >>> mind by selecting the model of teaching that I >>> think best matches the content...and then try to be >>> aware of the kids who might have trouble with >>> either kind of model. I do absolutely think though >>> that in inductive, the set of data the kids work >>> with must be very carefully selected. It is not >>> just throw out a bunch of stuff and have them >>> classify. Bruce took enormous amounts of time >>> gathering data examples that were absolute matches >>> to the concept he was teaching...data that had all >>> the same critical attributes so the match was >>> clear. Then getting more complex examples and >>> arranging them systematically in the lesson. So, >>> his inductive was actually very structured and I >>> think this eliminated pretty much the concern of >>> Barak's that low achieving kids might come up with >>> misconceptions. >>> >>> >>> On 1/16/11, KimK1ca wrote: >>>> We had a marvelous science teacher come to our >>>> school for professional development last summer. >>>> He floated two soda cans in a tank of water. One >>>> was Diet Coke and one was regular Coke. Then he >>>> said something like, "wow." >>>> >>>> Now, here we are... a group of teachers >>>> interested in asking the right questions. We are >>>> interested in that "hook," that >>>> "aha!" that will get kids to lean in >>>> their seats and begin... inquiry. We also know a >>>> bit about science and can do a bit of thinking. >>>> Can our students? Do they have that background >>>> knowledge? >>>> >>>> He never responded to our "inquiries" >>>> with a right or wrong answer. My directors >>>> apparently thought this was fabulous. Something >>>> wasn't right but I could only suppose (quietly, >>>> lest I not be a "team player") that we, >>>> as teachers, must guide those student-generated >>>> questions carefully. >>>> >>>> I've also seen Steve Spangler at a science >>>> workshop. I love his stuff, his attitude, his >>>> excitement. But.. one thing he said bothers me. >>>> "Wow them and the science will follow." >>>> Will it? >>>> >>>> I know from experience that Discovery Learning is >>>> powerful. But, like Whole Language, it isn't >>>> suitable for the education of all children. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> :-)K

Jan 17, 2011

report post

Jan Oh, good grief, yes! I thought I mentioned the time we took but maybe not. For us it was creating the reading data sets....you know 50 first lines from picture books that clearly represented the 5 kinds of openers we hoped they'd find and categorize. They were brutal! My daughter had one out the other day when I was in her classroom that I had made...See MoreOh, good grief, yes! I thought I mentioned the time we took but maybe not. For us it was creating the reading data sets....you know 50 first lines from picture books that clearly represented the 5 kinds of openers we hoped they'd find and categorize. They were brutal! My daughter had one out the other day when I was in her classroom that I had made for the teachers....I remember spending days on it. I did one where I taught the theme of "The Tenth Good Thing about Barney," from a data set. I had worked with Bev Showers a few times and she could teach theme magnificently inductively. I tried it...the data set took about 2 weeks to make, and the lesson took about 7 hours....no kidding.I did it over a week's time as a model lesson in 3 or 4 classrooms. It was so much fun...and the teachers and I discussed it for months! The kids loved it and every single one understood theme. I can't exactly remember how I did it, but the statements in the data set represented 3 different parts of the story that would lead them to the theme. It took them about 3 hours to categorize because we gave them no hint at all about what to look for...it was just,"categorize these statements in groups. Classify them by putting those with the same critical attributes together. They were good at that by this time but it was still hard. When they got the three groups listed with the critical attributes, they had to write a sentence about each group. then they put the sentences together into a summary paragraph which was the theme. It was so exciting. I remember one kid saying when he finished his summary...he was a 4th grader and very smart..."OMG, so THIS is how the authors write that little thing on the back of the book that you can read to know what the book is about!" He was racing over to the library shelves to find a book that had the summary so he could show us.From that moment on, the teacher said they could identify theme in an instant. But after 7 days, they should be able to! But, what an important learning...I'm sure they're still out there identifying theme in their books. It was a magnificent lesson to write and give, so complex. Not practical unfortunately under the ordinary time constraints of a school day.

My former intern and I did a lesson in synectics(a model of teaching using oxymorons that took 2 hours a day for 9 days. Actually, she did it...she just wanted me to watch. It was wonderful and the kids loved it....they could write all different kinds of analogies,etc...but it was LONG.Ifinally told her to finish it up that day because I was not returning. this model is so complex I can't even describe it....it is to get kids thinking way out of the box. Great fun!

On 1/17/11, judy5ca wrote: > But...it's not just the time it takes to allow the kids' > discovery and (just as important) discussion, but it's also > the planning time, isn't it? I mean, I love lessons like > this, but gosh, they take me forever to plan. With every > lesson I try to think through where I want to go and what > could lead us astray (I'm really big into steps). It seems > like there are a million more possible forks in the road > with an inquiry lesson, so it takes me forever to plan. If > someone were to hand me an excellent prepared inquiry lesson > that went with my standards, I'd jump on the bandwagon. But > don't you think it's really time-consuming to come up with > these lessons? > Judy > > > > On 1/17/11, Jan wrote: >> In my opinion, you are RIGHT ON! Two things are there >> that did this: (1) >> you had the objective clearly in mind. You knew what >> you wanted them to learn and you knew that discovery >> was the best way to learn this. (2) then you structured >> the data you gave them (this is key...I mentioned this >> in regard to Bruce Joyce). Inquiry is not just throwing >> out a bunch of stuff and asking the kids to discover >> something. Inquiry is carefully planning a lesson that >> has an objective and structuring that lesson, >> regardless of the model, to assure the kids are >> successful. >> >> The problem with inquiry is time. Time for the kid's >> lesson itself (discovering is SLOW) and for the teacher >> to gather the data. Every piece has to be a clear and >> unambiguous example of what you want the kids to >> discover. If it isn't, they cannot discover the >> critical attributes...those attributes that all your >> data share. And, if they can't find the common >> attributes, they aren't going to learn what you want to >> teach. If you're teaching directly, you are still very >> careful about your examples, but if one isn't quite as >> solid as you'd like...or a flaw in it emerges when the >> kids see something you didn't.....you can explain it to >> them as an exception or whatever. But, when they're >> discovering the common attributes a bad example will >> throw them off forever. It can mean the difference >> between success and failure. In inquiry learning, the >> plan and data you collect for them to inquire into, has >> to be perfect because you can't say anything to explain >> it. The data has to stand on its own. >> >> Not an easy task. While we all love inductive teaching >> here and see the incredible value of it...kids learn >> things deeper and remember them longer....there just >> isn't enough time to have them discover very often. So >> you save it for those concepts that are very important >> and that kids need to learn at that very deep level. >> They don't need to discover math facts or plurals....we >> can teach them much faster ourselves and these are not >> things we need to process at high levels on the >> taxonomy. They don't need to analyze of synthesize >> plurals...they just need to apply them. But for many >> social studies concepts and for writing,which is what >> we did here, nothing does it like inductive. Maybe >> someday we will actually have time to teach something >> well so kids will remember it forever, rather than >> teaching it in 15 minutes so they can pass the test. >> >> >> On 1/17/11, judy5ca wrote: >>> Thanks for this post, Jan, it makes a TON of sense to >>> me--both arguments. I got myself in trouble trying to >>> explain something similar on an earlier thread >>> because I just couldn't come up with the right words >>> to describe my thinking. It's not that I'm trying to >>> trick kids, but I am trying to lead them to >>> discovery...I have to have the standard (broken down >>> by me) as my endpoint. I lovelovelove the way you use >>> "structured." Yes, thank you. >>> >>> I did a lesson at the beginning of the year to open >>> social studies (I know, I know, you're all sick of >>> hearing me talk about social studies). I collected a >>> whole bunch of 'stuff' that had a purpose that I >>> hoped most kids didn't know. The inquiry was to >>> examine the items (eg, a telegraph key, an egg >>> separator, a paint can opener) to determine how they >>> were used. The endpoint was the word ARTIFACT: to >>> come up with a class definition, compare it to the >>> textbook definition, to consider how historians use >>> artifacts to tell them more about the people/culture >>> who used them (and eventually to smile smugly when we >>> see artifacts in our textbook). I knew where we were >>> going because I'd picked the items, but I had no way >>> of knowing what the kids would guess/glean. Do you >>> think I'm on the right track with this lesson? >>> >>> Judy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/17/11, Jan wrote: >>>> Rosenshine wrote me a whole email on the idea that >>>> low achieving kids should not be taught by inquiry >>>> because they will pick up the wrong idea and that >>>> causes real problems. He said kids must be taught >>>> directly first to make absolutely sure that they >>>> have the concepts clearly and that there are no >>>> misconceptions. He said inquiry kinds of things can >>>> be done with them as follow up, but not as original >>>> instruction. This makes perfect sense to me and I >>>> believe it >>>> >>>> However, Bruce does NOT believe this and I saw with >>>> my very own eyes how well low achieving students >>>> did with inductive thinking. In fact, in my >>>> daughter's class at the time...and she had the RSP >>>> kids for the 5th grade...the RSP kids did better >>>> with inductive than the GATE kids! Why? because >>>> everything had always come so easy to the GATE kids >>>> and they could not cope with the 'no right answer' >>>> idea. They were frustrated and upset. And, they'd >>>> never had to use alternative strategies because >>>> they got it the first time. The RSP kids, on the >>>> other hand, had learned alternate strategies and >>>> had been taught to try first one and then another. >>>> They were the stars in inductive learning. This >>>> also makes sense to me and I believe it. I SAW it. >>>> >>>> Bruce also thinks inductive learning (inquiry) is >>>> better for the low achievers because they need to >>>> have the opportunity to manipulate data, to >>>> experiment with it, to spend time processing it and >>>> inductive provides that for them. I also believe >>>> this. >>>> >>>> So, I don't know. I have resolved this in my own >>>> mind by selecting the model of teaching that I >>>> think best matches the content...and then try to be >>>> aware of the kids who might have trouble with >>>> either kind of model. I do absolutely think though >>>> that in inductive, the set of data the kids work >>>> with must be very carefully selected. It is not >>>> just throw out a bunch of stuff and have them >>>> classify. Bruce took enormous amounts of time >>>> gathering data examples that were absolute matches >>>> to the concept he was teaching...data that had all >>>> the same critical attributes so the match was >>>> clear. Then getting more complex examples and >>>> arranging them systematically in the lesson. So, >>>> his inductive was actually very structured and I >>>> think this eliminated pretty much the concern of >>>> Barak's that low achieving kids might come up with >>>> misconceptions. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/16/11, KimK1ca wrote: >>>>> We had a marvelous science teacher come to our >>>>> school for professional development last summer. >>>>> He floated two soda cans in a tank of water. One >>>>> was Diet Coke and one was regular Coke. Then he >>>>> said something like, "wow." >>>>> >>>>> Now, here we are... a group of teachers >>>>> interested in asking the right questions. We are >>>>> interested in that "hook," that >>>>> "aha!" that will get kids to lean in >>>>> their seats and begin... inquiry. We also know a >>>>> bit about science and can do a bit of thinking. >>>>> Can our students? Do they have that background >>>>> knowledge? >>>>> >>>>> He never responded to our "inquiries" >>>>> with a right or wrong answer. My directors >>>>> apparently thought this was fabulous. Something >>>>> wasn't right but I could only suppose (quietly, >>>>> lest I not be a "team player") that we, >>>>> as teachers, must guide those student-generated >>>>> questions carefully. >>>>> >>>>> I've also seen Steve Spangler at a science >>>>> workshop. I love his stuff, his attitude, his >>>>> excitement. But.. one thing he said bothers me. >>>>> "Wow them and the science will follow." >>>>> Will it? >>>>> >>>>> I know from experience that Discovery Learning is >>>>> powerful. But, like Whole Language, it isn't >>>>> suitable for the education of all children. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> :-)K

Jan 17, 2011

report post