It seems like the lessons we have had in my courses are swinging more to a pragmatic style of teaching, where the learning is more student-focused and teacher-facilitated compared to the traditional lecture format that has been so common, where the teacher is the expert imparting information, and the students are the simple receptors and regurgitators of what they have been taught. On one hand, it seems like a lot more work for teachers, since they have to curate and manage lessons that can have many variables, including differentiation of delivery as well as differentiation of tools. I once had a friend who told me it would be easier to teach high school, since the teachers only have to plan a few lessons, since they repeat them for different groups throughout the day. From another point of view, it may ease the load teachers have when planning lessons, since the students are so involved with pulling meaning from their lessons. In the traditional format, it is hard for teachers to fit in the time to observe students as they work when they are the ones telling students what they need to know.
The video, Engaging in Argument from Evidence, that had a presentation about how science and social studies use argumentation as a way of discovery and refinement was very intriguing. Since critical thinking are evident in these genres, using an inquiry model can help students begin to use argumentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RJeVY0-WrA
I am working in kindergarten, and a lesson we did that I thought was. It could be expanded to include argumentation, which would be our opinion writing unit. I'm not sure that argumentation is a standard at this grade level. It would be interesting to see the children begin to learn how to listen to differing opinions without getting upset. Articulating a reason for their opinions was part of the lesson, but the next step could include talking about why their selection was better than the other one.
The closest we have come to debate is usually during math lessons. One day, the kids went back and forth about how many links were needed to add to a chain to have a total of eight links. On top of the chain, there were only 3 red linksconnected. Children gave a few different answers, then had to explain what they were thinking before the correct amount was given. For each answer, Ms. V adjusted the chain to show what each student suggested be done so they could see how their answers played out. This has been a very non-confrontational way that the kids have gotten to experience working out differences of opinion to figure out a task.
| Think Aloud while encoding the word squid. |
Comments
Post a Comment