Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I work as a Teacher and one of my greatest frustrations both with kids and adults (I teach both) is so few will speak up in class. So many students just want to sit there and listen while they keep a close eye on the clock. They believe (falsely) that 95% of classroom success is just showing up and passing the tests.
Sometimes I get frustrated and will call on people. They will not know the answer or give a short two word response. I ask them what if the same question was asked in a job interview?
I try to encourage students by having question and answer, role playing, games, case studies, contests and group activites. Most perfer to just sit there and put in their time.
I try everything to get people to participate and have on occasion even bribed them. Most students just sit there. Any advice?
Sure. Make meaningful class participation worth something. Don't bother with role-playing, games, and group activities -- I believe many students rightfully perceive them as wasted time, "easy" activities, or just plain condescending after the middle school years.
I count meaningful class participation for at least 20% of the grade and I keep track of who speaks. I usually have a discussion continue over two or three days, and people must participate meaningfully at least one time for the credit. If they don't, then they don't get the credit. Each nine weeks, they get ONE "Charles Wallace is a human being" benefit-of-the-doubt freebie. (i.e., if someone says, "Mr. Wallace, I swear I participated last Tuesday and you marked me as having a zero," I'll give them the benefit of the doubt one time because I'm a human being and could be wrong. Otherwise, the zero is a zero.)
How you define "meaningful" will be up to you, but some logical criteria include the following:
* Demonstration in your comment that you have read and understood the material under discussion
* Demonstration in your comment that you have thought about and asked questions about the material under discussion
* The comments should be developed and NOT be unacceptably brief
* The comment should NOT include a rhetorical question or any question to which you don't care about the answer
* The comment should further the discussion and add new material, not merely be a restatement of others' words or ideas
There's a good reason why Sir Isaac Newton said of his contributions to physics, math, etc., "If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." - giants - not peers. He learned from the well-informed experts who came before him, not from the other people of his time grappling with the same concepts.
.
Although I usually agree with you IC, I find myself on the opposite side of the fence on this one. I don't believe that discussion works equally well in all subjects, and it's very likely that physics is one of those subjects -- although I do recall that Newton was such a horrid and boring lecturer that students deserted his classes in droves, leaving him (from time to time) lecturing to empty walls.
However, where there is a possibility of multiple valid interpretations, such as in the discussion of philosophy, literature, or the arts, classroom discussions are richly profitable because they permit other students the invaluable skill of having an independent opinion and defending it with evidence based in the text at hand, and they allow for the possibility of more than one well-defended opinion to exist. In some classes indeed, you can and should be the "sage on the stage," even in philosophy, language, and the arts, especially when you're lecturing about issues over which there is no doubt (e.g., that a sonnet has fourteen lines and is written in iambic pentameter with a specific rhyme scheme), but the time comes when the teacher should teach students to think for themselves, know what they think, know why they think so, and be able to defend it against others who may not agree.
Although I usually agree with you IC, I find myself on the opposite side of the fence on this one. I don't believe that discussion works equally well in all subjects, and it's very likely that physics is one of those subjects -- although I do recall that Newton was such a horrid and boring lecturer that students deserted his classes in droves, leaving him (from time to time) lecturing to empty walls.
I didn't intend learning from experts (giants) to mean lecture only.
Quote:
However, where there is a possibility of multiple valid interpretations, such as in the discussion of philosophy, literature, or the arts, classroom discussions are richly profitable because they permit other students the invaluable skill of having an independent opinion and defending it with evidence based in the text at hand, and they allow for the possibility of more than one well-defended opinion to exist. In some classes indeed, you can and should be the "sage on the stage," even in philosophy, language, and the arts, especially when you're lecturing about issues over which there is no doubt (e.g., that a sonnet has fourteen lines and is written in iambic pentameter with a specific rhyme scheme), but the time comes when the teacher should teach students to think for themselves, know what they think, know why they think so, and be able to defend it against others who may not agree.
Isn't that what papers are for? Why does so much class time have to be taken up by a room full of novices asserting their own newbie interpretations/positions on topics/concepts/interpretations that are subjective?
Wouldn't it be far more useful to examine the works/ideas/opinions of the various 'giants' in a particular subject area in class, and then have students write papers comparing/contrasting them, defining and defending their own positions after having evaluated the positions/opinions of the reputed experts (giants)?
Individualizing in this manner is far more effective at nurturing the ability to determine what qualifies as high quality input/information, evaluate same, process ideas, and form one's own conclusions - in other words, to think for one's self.
In theory, class discussions would benefit students. In reality, in my years of experience observing such, only a very small percentage are truly beneficial.
Of course, world language classes (we don't say 'foreign language' these days ) do require speaking in class.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 07-12-2008 at 04:14 PM..
I think required class participation is good. I mean I've given public presentations, held introductions at conventions, and talked in front of a large group of people about subject matter that quite honestly I wasn't the most learned on. Every time I did it I got the tingling in my finger tips that told me I was nervous. It happens to even the most skilled public speaker.
The problem, IMO, is the lack of such required activity in the junior and senior high school levels. It really needs to be introduced at a young age, along with its importance later. It's one of the few skills that you will absolutely need after you graduate: From job interviews to company meetings, it's critical.
I totally support making it part of the grade - a significant part. It shouldn't just be about lecturing and Powerpoint slides.
Isn't that what papers are for? Why does so much class time have to be taken up by a room full of novices asserting their own newbie interpretations/positions on topics/concepts/interpretations that are subjective?
***Because that's the way students learn to think for themselves, quite honestly. As I said earlier, I don't think the discussion method works equally well at all times for all subjects, but for subjects where there can be legitimate, valid differences of opinion, the practice of having students a) assess the evidence, b) derive a hypothesis based on the evidence, and c) defend the hypothesis is invaluable as a teaching tool.
Speaking out of pure selfishness, students can and do suggest valuable new ways of considering a text or bring up relevant, meaningful interpretations -- interpretations that tend to get squished when the teacher is the only one in the room who's allowed to have the right answer.
From another selfish standpoint, it makes teaching texts the students dislike infinitely easier also. Since the teacher permits a diversity of opinion (as long as the opinion is thoroughly grounded in the text or in relevant information surrounding the text, e.g., historical data), the teacher no longer has to be the defender of the text or the apologist for it. If a student thinks the plot and characterization of Romeo and Juliet is puerile, rather than turning on the student with horrified umbrage at the sacrilege involved, the teacher can say, "Okay, Emily, why do you think so?" and as long as "Emily" backs up her opinion with valid evidence from the text (or from relevant data), the opinion can be aired and discussed, and it can lead to larger considerations of value such as "By what criteria do we decide that a text is 'good'?" Other opinions -- say, Mortimer Adler's, for example -- can be consulted on what makes a text "good," and ultimately, students can write defending their positions regarding Romeo and Juliet, all of which will need deep knowledge of the text extending far beyond plot and characterization and climax. That's just one example, of course.
During discussion, I do insist on a few things: that the students constantly back up WHY they think what they think and specifically back it up with evidence from the text, evidence that they are pressed to explain. Without that give-and-take in discussion, their papers tend to stick to shallow, surface-level explanations. It's only later in the semester when they've gotten very acclimated to "Why, why, why?" in my class that their papers reflect the skills they've learned in discussion.
As I write this, I begin to think we're talking at cross purposes. You tell me.
Perhaps you're imagining that by "class discussion" I mean, "Okay, kids, you talk about XYZ text among yourselves, now."
ONLY as a preliminary warmup to discussion does that technique have much value, IMHO, precisely for the blind-leading-the-blind reasons you suggest. I've used that technique, but only as a way of getting students started off as a sponge activity in the first ten minutes, rather like warming up the intellectual engines prior to the real discussion, which takes place with me as the moderator asking follow-up questions and pitting one person's point of view against another, e.g., "So, Mr. Jimenez, in saying that Hamlet hesitates to kill his uncle because he doubts the Ghost's identity, you're disagreeing with Mr. Smith here. Mr. Smith, what do you say to Mr. Jimenez' assertion?"
Is that the case? Did you imagine that I meant for the students to discuss it ONLY amongst themselves?
Quote:
Wouldn't it be far more useful to examine the works/ideas/opinions of the various 'giants' in a particular subject area in class, and then have students write papers comparing/contrasting them, defining and defending their own positions after having evaluated the positions/opinions of the reputed experts (giants)?
The danger I see in that approach is that you're transferring allegiance from agreeing with the teacher to agreeing with other experts, but in that case, you still haven't taught them to think for themselves. It's unfortunately too tempting for many students to give up and passively parrot what the teacher says is the "right answer" or what the expert(s) say is the "right answer." In many disciplines -- math, for instance -- there really may be only one right answer, but in many others -- literature, for example, or quantum physics -- there may be more than one possibility out there. Anyone can spit out agreement with an expert; it's harder to teach independence of thought. Next year, for my students' research papers, I'm thinking of having them ONLY use critics they happen to disagree with precisely to get them out of the habit of assuming they can't come up with a decent stance or opinion based on fact by themselves.
Anyway, I hope this explanation helps clarify my position a bit.
Speaking out of pure selfishness, students can and do suggest valuable new ways of considering a text or bring up relevant, meaningful interpretations -- interpretations that tend to get squished when the teacher is the only one in the room who's allowed to have the right answer.
Why would anyone have to rely on only the teacher and the text as the only source for answers? Supplemental materials which include the thoughts/ideas/positions of a variety of 'giants' should be included in the curriculum.
Quote:
From another selfish standpoint, it makes teaching texts the students dislike infinitely easier also. Since the teacher permits a diversity of opinion (as long as the opinion is thoroughly grounded in the text or in relevant information surrounding the text, e.g., historical data), the teacher no longer has to be the defender of the text or the apologist for it. If a student thinks the plot and characterization of Romeo and Juliet is puerile, rather than turning on the student with horrified umbrage at the sacrilege involved, the teacher can say, "Okay, Emily, why do you think so?" and as long as "Emily" backs up her opinion with valid evidence from the text (or from relevant data), the opinion can be aired and discussed, and it can lead to larger considerations of value such as "By what criteria do we decide that a text is 'good'?" Other opinions -- say, Mortimer Adler's, for example -- can be consulted on what makes a text "good," and ultimately, students can write defending their positions regarding Romeo and Juliet, all of which will need deep knowledge of the text extending far beyond plot and characterization and climax. That's just one example, of course.
The danger with this approach in a class discussion model, other than the limitations of a room full of novices, is that it treads dangerously close to consensus building and groupthink, which is antithetical to thinking for one's self.
Quote:
During discussion, I do insist on a few things: that the students constantly back up WHY they think what they think and specifically back it up with evidence from the text, evidence that they are pressed to explain. Without that give-and-take in discussion, their papers tend to stick to shallow, surface-level explanations. It's only later in the semester when they've gotten very acclimated to "Why, why, why?" in my class that their papers reflect the skills they've learned in discussion.
By assigning drafts and then revisions, students can be guided to this point, as well.
Quote:
As I write this, I begin to think we're talking at cross purposes. You tell me.
Perhaps you're imagining that by "class discussion" I mean, "Okay, kids, you talk about XYZ text among yourselves, now."
ONLY as a preliminary warmup to discussion does that technique have much value, IMHO, precisely for the blind-leading-the-blind reasons you suggest. I've used that technique, but only as a way of getting students started off as a sponge activity in the first ten minutes, rather like warming up the intellectual engines prior to the real discussion, which takes place with me as the moderator asking follow-up questions and pitting one person's point of view against another, e.g., "So, Mr. Jimenez, in saying that Hamlet hesitates to kill his uncle because he doubts the Ghost's identity, you're disagreeing with Mr. Smith here. Mr. Smith, what do you say to Mr. Jimenez' assertion?"
Is that the case? Did you imagine that I meant for the students to discuss it ONLY amongst themselves?
No, I did not imagine that students only discuss among themselves - but that happens, as well, and is even less beneficial. The class discussion you've described above relies heavily on the underdeveloped interpretations of novices. As such, it slows and dumbs down the learning process quite a bit.
Quote:
The danger I see in that approach (assigning papers, as previously described) is that you're transferring allegiance from agreeing with the teacher to agreeing with other experts, but in that case, you still haven't taught them to think for themselves. It's unfortunately too tempting for many students to give up and passively parrot what the teacher says is the "right answer" or what the expert(s) say is the "right answer."
How can students passively agree with a 'right answer' when very frequently, especially in the humanities, the experts (giants) don't agree. The students must compare and contrast, evaluate information, process ideas, and finally define and defend their own positions/interpretations.
It would be far better for students to ponder differing Shakespearean Scholars' opinions/interpretations than to have to rely on Billy and Susie Classmate's adolescent input to forge their own opinions.
Quote:
many disciplines -- math, for instance -- there really may be only one right answer, but in many others -- literature, for example, or quantum physics -- there may be more than one possibility out there.
This is precisely why differing expert opinions should be examined.
Quote:
Next year, for my students' research papers, I'm thinking of having them ONLY use critics they happen to disagree with precisely to get them out of the habit of assuming they can't come up with a decent stance or opinion based on fact by themselves.
The key is to have them compare and contrast differing critics, and explain why they disagree with some and agree with others. Students may even take it to the next level and synthesize a stance that is a hybrid of several critics' stances, and be able to explain precisely why they've adopted their hybrid stance.
Quote:
Anyway, I hope this explanation helps clarify my position a bit.
I understand your position. I would like to see students consider a higher level of input than Billy and Susie Classmate's when they forge their own opinions.
Why would anyone have to rely on only the teacher and the text as the only source for answers? Supplemental materials which include the thoughts/ideas/positions of a variety of 'giants' should be included in the curriculum.
I don't think this idea is at all incompatible with discussion -- in fact, I think it's a good idea to invite others to the "conversation."
Quote:
The danger with this approach in a class discussion model, other than the limitations of a room full of novices, is that it treads dangerously close to consensus building and groupthink, which is antithetical to thinking for one's self.
It can, and I had a problem with that in AP last year when I was having my students discuss in small groups what they believed were the right answers on the multiple-choice practice tests before we would discuss them as a whole class. On the other side is the problem of groupthink in which one agrees mindlessly with the experts because they're experts -- which is also antithetical to thinking for oneself. I do think there's a happy (or slightly cheery) medium out there, though.
Quote:
By assigning drafts and then revisions, students can be guided to this point, as well.
It happens there also, but the limitation with doing multiple drafts and revisions is my class load -- not a unique problem, of course. In class, it's much faster to teach through discussion that one must probe below the surface and keep asking "Why?"
Quote:
No, I did not imagine that students only discuss among themselves - but that happens, as well, and is even less beneficial. The class discussion you've described above relies heavily on the underdeveloped interpretations of novices. As such, it slows and dumbs down the learning process quite a bit.
With all due respect, I disagree with your contention that it "dumbs down." Any dummy -- well, okay, most dummies -- can memorize the opinions of teachers or experts and spit them back on an essay or test in barely-digested thought-chunks. God knows, I did plenty of dumb memorization myself and wrote papers in high school and college partaking of this same brain bulimia, but it takes much more to say "*I* think this because of this evidence which I explain in detail." However, I absolutely concede that discussion slows the process, to be sure. No method is perfect or without flaw.
Quote:
How can students passively agree with a 'right answer' when very frequently, especially in the humanities, the experts (giants) don't agree. The students must compare and contrast, evaluate information, process ideas, and finally define and defend their own positions/interpretations.
I think that what happens most of the time is that teachers don't present differing interpretations or views -- they have the "one right answer" approach, usually theirs, and students parrot it back. Along the way, they learn not to think for themselves, but only to repeat what the teacher wants to hear. Any differing idea or interesting "what-if" that could lead to further investigation is summarily rejected.
Quote:
It would be far better for students to ponder differing Shakespearean Scholars' opinions/interpretations than to have to rely on Billy and Susie Classmate's adolescent input to forge their own opinions.
Any dummy -- well, okay, most dummies -- can memorize the opinions of teachers or experts and spit them back on an essay or test in barely-digested thought-chunks.
You keep saying this, but nothing I have suggested advocates spitting back parroted, mindless essays/papers.
Quote:
God knows, I did plenty of dumb memorization myself and wrote papers in high school and college partaking of this same brain bulimia, but it takes much more to say "*I* think this because of this evidence which I explain in detail."
The *I* think _____ because..., etc., is required and is the crucial part of the assignment. I'm not sure why you think that wouldn't be included.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. - You prefer class discussions; I would rather see students pondering a higher level of input than Billy and Susie Classmate's opinions when they are learning to think for themselves and forge their own opinions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) do require speaking in class.
- You prefer class discussions; I would rather see students pondering a higher level of input than Billy and Susie Classmate's opinions when they are learning to think for themselves and forge their own opinions.
