Thinking back on all the classes that I have taken here at MSU, I have to say that it is really the types of classes that have different discussion techniques. For example, in my science and math classes it is all just recitation type discussions. In my experience, it has been the IAH and writing classes that have really promoted response-centered discussion techniques. To me, it makes sense because in science there is a lot more ROTE learning occurring and repetition helps you to remember things. In IAH classes, there is always a lot about what did you read, what did you think of it, and what types of connections did you make. In the sciences, they don’t care whether you connected with the material; they just want to make sure that they gave it to you.
This is not how I would like my own class to be. I know that when I connect to material, it comes more naturally to me and remembering it isn’t such a chore. I think that if you can actively engage students without just meaningless repetition, then they will be more apt to participate and learn. I worked in a preschool that believed in learn through play, and it really does work. When you engage the students and their mind, learning occurs. I believe that response-centered talk is one of these activities that engage the students and their minds. The teachers roll is to scaffold by answering questions that may arise during discussion, to keep the discussion on track, and to ensure that students all feel welcome in the discussion. It is the teacher’s duty to set the tone of the discussion and make sure the goal of the discussion is attainable and reached.
I believe McGee and Gibbons would have agreed with the last statement I jsut made. The teacher’s roll is not to be leading the discussion constantly, but to make sure that the students are prepared for the discussion and have a clear goal. They believe that meaningful learning through discussion just doesn’t occur by itself in a large group setting, it does need direction, but it doesn’t need to be taken control of. It is similar to what occurs in our own TE401 classroom. When we talk as a group, it helps us sort out our own thoughts and logic. The teacher is there to help steer us back on track and give support when thoughts are not expressed clearly or miscues go unnoticed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I worte this at 12:28AM, so I don't know why it is saying that it is almost ten at night. Just wanted to make sure that you knew it was turned in on time.
Caitlin,
I agree with you that science and math classes are often recitation discussions. I like how you connected this with rote learning. But, I think science does not have to be rote learning. Just like literacy, science is in our everyday life and it’s sad to see how many children hate it, along with math. Do you think the recitation discussion style and students dislike for science and math have any connection? I’m glad you have already recognized this and decided you do not want your classroom setting to be like this. You summarized this perfectly by saying, “I think that if you can actively engage students without just meaningless repetition, then they will be more apt to participate and learn.” That is one of our main goals as a teacher, so its nice to see that your are already developing this method. I think both the McGee and Gibbons article have gave us all a great resource on other types of discussion that will allow us to engage the child and push them further than simply rote learning through recitation discussion.
-Jessica
Post a Comment