I've addressed in the past a particular dichotomy: teaching (the responsibility of the teacher) and learning (the responsibility of the student.) I want to address here another dichotomy: What is happening in the student's brain versus what is happening in the student's mind.
Thanks to the work of modern neuroscience, what is happening in a human brain is better understood now more than ever. But of course, what we once could easily understand or picture (say, literally, "pouring information or knowledge into a brain") is now replaced with an accumulation of small, neurochemical details gleaned from many studies and investigations. These small details can be stitched together into a coherent picture, and this is work that is current, ongoing, and available.
What is happening in a student's mind is harder to pin down. But what is a mind? How does it work versus how a brain works? Is there really such a thing as a mind? Is learning a product of the mind or of the brain?
These are all good questions, for which I certainly don't have answers. What I can say is that you cannot somehow examine a student's brain to determine what the student thinks. Even the student doesn't necessarily know what he thinks. Plenty of times I think I know something only to discover I really don't. And other times I have come to realize, to my surprise, that I somehow do know something.
Perhaps, more to the point, we could simply ask a student, "What are you thinking right now?" I frequently find myself on the verge of telling a student some piece of information - I am the teacher, the subject expert, after all! But instead I catch myself and try to ask a question instead, especially if it's more important that I have a better idea of what the student is thinking. And why would I want to know what a student is thinking? Because it would, I hope, help me understand what she has learned. Her answer could lead to more questions from me, as I attempt to fully understand what she knows.
Have you ever been subject to an oral exam, i.e. viva voce? When I was an undergrad, I participated in an observational astronomy program with a small number of fellow students. The program was off-campus since it required being near an observatory. At the end of the semester, the professor decided that an oral exam would be an appropriate final exam for each of us in our small group.
The way an exam viva voce works is that a question is asked, and your answer determines what the next question will be. The professor pokes and probes in this way to find out what you know and, more importantly, what you don't know. When it appears that what you know or can figure out has been exhausted, the professor moves on to another question. From the student's point of view, each series of questions ends in failure. It's exhausting, and when you're done you feel like you've failed every question. Of course none of us failed, we all just reached the limits of what we knew and understood. The professor, being the expert, had a much more realistic idea of what we knew, what we should have known, and where we could go next.
What has a student learned? And learned as opposed to what a student has memorized, or looked up (or asked AI). Do the examinations we give students really probe their thinking and give us an idea of what students know?
In the school where I taught this past year, it seemed that all the students had already figured out AI. One student, who I suspected had used AI surreptitiously during a quiz, was upset that I was calling him on it. "But you want us to give you the right answers, right?"
Who's Responsible for What?
In the classroom, a teacher teaches, and a student learns. But who is responsible for what? I'll give you the short answer: the teacher is responsible for teaching, the student is responsible for learning. This sounds pretty straightforward, but consider the implications.
The teacher teaches. This is an act of performance (see here), and the teacher is definitely responsible for the nature and content of his or her instruction. The classroom environment will reflect what the teacher does, what materials the teacher uses, what rules are set, but the teacher cannot control what students learn.
The student is responsible for learning. Whether and what the student learns is up to the student. If a student doesn't want to learn, he won't. If the student learns incorrectly, that's her doing. It might not be her fault however. Students learn different things at different rates, often in spite of themselves. Their brains are not yet mature, especially those frontal lobes. Yet the teacher's responsibility is to be aware of who is learning what, and to make appropriate adjustments. But for good or for ill, learning is up to the student.
An important implication of this fact is this: you cannot judge teaching by testing what it is students have learned. Every teacher knows this. Every teacher contents him or herself with the understanding that most students do the best they can most of the time. Every teacher adjusts what they are doing to what the students seem able to do. What would be the point of doing otherwise?
Since you can't honestly judge teaching by testing the students, you also cannot compare teachers against each other, even if they presumably teach the same class or material. Teachers will always adjust to the students they have, which will create differences from class to class, from course to course, in spite of attempts to standardize the curriculum or the grading policies.
But the difficulty for administrators, who need to understand what is happening in classrooms, is the time it takes to actually visit classes, watch what is going on, sit down and talk with teachers, and so on. In my current school, I get visited by administrators (whether they have ever taught or not) two, maybe three times in a year, for about 15 or 20 minutes per visit.
I can only imagine that the desire to standardize what happens in classrooms must stem from the sheer impossibility of their responsibility, which is to monitor everything happening in the building.
The teacher teaches. This is an act of performance (see here), and the teacher is definitely responsible for the nature and content of his or her instruction. The classroom environment will reflect what the teacher does, what materials the teacher uses, what rules are set, but the teacher cannot control what students learn.
The student is responsible for learning. Whether and what the student learns is up to the student. If a student doesn't want to learn, he won't. If the student learns incorrectly, that's her doing. It might not be her fault however. Students learn different things at different rates, often in spite of themselves. Their brains are not yet mature, especially those frontal lobes. Yet the teacher's responsibility is to be aware of who is learning what, and to make appropriate adjustments. But for good or for ill, learning is up to the student.
An important implication of this fact is this: you cannot judge teaching by testing what it is students have learned. Every teacher knows this. Every teacher contents him or herself with the understanding that most students do the best they can most of the time. Every teacher adjusts what they are doing to what the students seem able to do. What would be the point of doing otherwise?
Since you can't honestly judge teaching by testing the students, you also cannot compare teachers against each other, even if they presumably teach the same class or material. Teachers will always adjust to the students they have, which will create differences from class to class, from course to course, in spite of attempts to standardize the curriculum or the grading policies.
But the difficulty for administrators, who need to understand what is happening in classrooms, is the time it takes to actually visit classes, watch what is going on, sit down and talk with teachers, and so on. In my current school, I get visited by administrators (whether they have ever taught or not) two, maybe three times in a year, for about 15 or 20 minutes per visit.
I can only imagine that the desire to standardize what happens in classrooms must stem from the sheer impossibility of their responsibility, which is to monitor everything happening in the building.
Why Stagecraft?
Teaching in a classroom is a kind of performance. All teachers know this, but some are uncomfortable with the word "performance." For me to invoke stagecraft as a pillar of my framework thus requires some explaining.
The anxiety around the word "performance" stems from a misunderstanding; performance means entertainment, and entertaining is the opposite of boring. Students hate boredom and like entertainment, so if you're not entertaining enough as a teacher, the students will hate you. But if you are nothing but entertaining, you are not doing your job. So . . . you can't win.
First, performance does not mean entertainment. Nor does it mean "sage on the stage." Performance means taking physical charge of a roomful of people in a way that is planned, practiced, aware, and proactive. This is sometimes referred to as "running the room." To perform well is to do it gracefully, with poise and presence, humor and seriousness, using both training and improvisation. The performer is acutely aware of the audience, and knows how to read and work with the audience's emotional energy.
Second, all teachers perform in the classroom - it's just a matter of whether the performance is deliberate or haphazard, the teacher conscious or unconscious. Wouldn't you prefer to understand and develop the physical and emotional impact you have on your class, and put that impact to work in your teaching?
The anxiety around the word "performance" stems from a misunderstanding; performance means entertainment, and entertaining is the opposite of boring. Students hate boredom and like entertainment, so if you're not entertaining enough as a teacher, the students will hate you. But if you are nothing but entertaining, you are not doing your job. So . . . you can't win.
First, performance does not mean entertainment. Nor does it mean "sage on the stage." Performance means taking physical charge of a roomful of people in a way that is planned, practiced, aware, and proactive. This is sometimes referred to as "running the room." To perform well is to do it gracefully, with poise and presence, humor and seriousness, using both training and improvisation. The performer is acutely aware of the audience, and knows how to read and work with the audience's emotional energy.
Second, all teachers perform in the classroom - it's just a matter of whether the performance is deliberate or haphazard, the teacher conscious or unconscious. Wouldn't you prefer to understand and develop the physical and emotional impact you have on your class, and put that impact to work in your teaching?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)