As a quick review, the four ways to
teach a concept are: demonstration (modeling), guided practice, explicitly
telling and showing, and inquiry. As teachers, we may experience demonstration
when a coach or consultant models lessons, and we might learn through guided
practice as we try a new strategy and receive immediate feedback from the coach.
Very occasionally we may engage in inquiry groups. More often, however,
professional learning entails “explicit telling and showing” or the “sit and
get” model. Each of these methods have very different structures and require
different types of thinking from participants. It’s worth thinking about the
type of learning and thinking required of each method.
My guess is that most teachers
experience “explicit telling and showing” as their main form of professional
development. Or maybe it’s more just “telling and showing” without much
explicit-ness. These are the after-school faculty meetings when a coach,
consultant or administrator shares the latest, greatest method for close
reading or word study instruction or whatever new approach has come down the
pike. If we’re lucky, we are somewhat active participants and get to try the
strategy with a partner, but more often we sit and listen to a PowerPoint being
read slide by slide. It brings to mind the viral quote I saw not long ago:
Research shows that simply being told something does not transfer to classroom instruction.
And yet, many schools and districts continue this method as the primary form of
staff development…
I have found it to be much more effective to
provide professional learning in a coaching lab approach, in which I meet with teachers during the school day so that we can
work with actual students and try out the methods we’re learning about. We
usually begin with theory and discussion about the topic, then move on to a
demonstration lesson with students and finally guided practice as the teachers
partner up to practice with small groups of students. The feedback I get from
teachers afterwards is usually very positive – people enjoy seeing the teaching
strategy in action, and after initial trepidation, they really like seeing each
other teach – a luxury that is oddly absent in our profession. My sense from
talking with teachers is that they’re much likelier to bring the teaching
method back to their own classrooms after having tried it with colleagues in
the lab.
Another method I’ve found to be very successful
is Lesson Study This approach uses inquiry, the fourth method for teaching a concept. Lesson
study involves teachers creating lessons to address a common problem of
practice, then taking turns teaching the lesson while their colleagues watch
the effects on the students. It may be the most nontraditional method of
professional development most teachers experience, and it can be very difficult
to facilitate, but it often results in deep reflection and feelings of
empowerment for the participants.
One final thought about these four methods as
they pertain to thinking: over-use of “explicitly retelling and showing” tends
to lead to a procedural approach to teaching, a sort of “here’s what you need
to know to be able to be successful, just follow these steps or guidelines.” Procedural
learning leads to procedural teaching.
In contrast, modeling a teaching strategy, then
providing teachers time to engage in guided practice is less about
discrete procedures and more about deep processes. These approaches, along with
inquiry learning, honor the difficulty of the teaching profession, and invite
teachers to engage in and explore the complex choices we must make in the act
of teaching. Teaching cognitive processes IS rocket science, and cannot be
accomplished by following a series of procedural steps.
There will be times when a concept is simple
enough to call for the procedural thinking that comes from “explicitly telling
and showing,” but I argue that both teachers and students deserve to experience
the process learning that comes with modeling, guided practice, and inquiry
learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment