In this Kappan interview with Kathleen Vail, Peter Liljedahl (Simon Fraser University, Canada) discusses the details of Building Thinking Classrooms. Some key points:
- The difficulty of getting kids thinking – Twenty years ago, at the beginning of Liljedahl’s research, a middle-school math teacher asked him for help teaching complex problem-solving (she was getting students ready for impending changes in Canada’s curriculum expectations). Working together for a week, says Liljedahl, “it was disaster after disaster after disaster.” Why? Because even though students seemed to be working hard and the teacher was running the class well, the standard I do, we do, you do lesson structure resulted in most students mimicking the teacher, stalling, faking, or spinning their wheels. Very few of them were actually thinking, so it was difficult for them to solve challenging problems.
- Problems with standard math lessons – Observing math classes around the world, Liljedahl noticed that almost everywhere, lessons began with a teacher explanation, then students tried a problem, the teacher clarified, then there was independent work and an assessment. Another universal feature, even in classes trying various innovations: the teacher was standing and writing on a vertical surface, students were sitting down and writing on horizontal surfaces. Everywhere he went, Liljedahl noticed that only about 20 percent of students were thinking (about 20 percent of the time) and there was generally a low level of intellectual engagement.
- Restructuring classroom norms – He realized that to change this dynamic – which has been a feature of math classes for almost two centuries – the usual lesson pattern had to be shaken up. He proposed a radically different structure within the four walls of classrooms and the standard bell schedule:
- Giving students an engaging thinking task they couldn’t solve by mimicking or faking;
- Getting students started with only a brief launching introduction from the teacher;
- Having students work in randomly selected groups of three (two in the primary grades);
- Having groups work standing up, using one marker to write on erasable whiteboards;
- The teacher circulating and giving hints, support, and additional challenges as needed.
- Why visibly randomized groups – Trying out various strategies, Liljedahl and his colleagues found that even if students were told the groups were chosen at random, they assumed the teacher had formed each group with a “smart” student who was expected to do the real work. In this case, or when students were allowed to choose their own groupmates, most were unlikely to offer an idea because they thought their role was to follow. But when students saw that groups were truly random (using playing cards or another visibly random process), the researchers found that within three weeks, 100 percent of students were likely or highly likely to offer an idea. Truly random grouping told students that the teacher thought they were capable of making a real contribution and they did.
- Why erasable surfaces – With whiteboards (or glass surfaces), students were more likely to get started with ideas knowing they could erase mistakes. With flip chart paper, on the other hand, students thought, “We don’t know what the answer is yet, so we can’t put anything down.” Without knowing that their work was perfect, many students didn’t write anything, and there was a negative feedback loop on problem-solving and creativity.
- Why vertical surfaces – Liljedahl and his colleagues tried a number of configurations and found that having students work standing up was by far the most effective. When students were sitting down facing each other, even if they were using small erasable whiteboards, the work was oriented toward the student who was writing, making that person the leader. With a vertical surface, everyone in the group was facing the work, creating a more collaborative dynamic. Each group’s work was also visible to students around the classroom, enhancing “knowledge mobility” – students could see common errors and good ideas spread from group to group. And the teacher was more aware of what was going on and could push in with just-in-time interventions, versus waiting till the quiz on Friday to see who understood.
- Students feeling visible – “It turns out that when students are sitting,” says Liljedahl, “they feel anonymous. The further they sit from the teacher, the more anonymous they feel. When students feel anonymous, they are more likely to disengage. And the more anonymous they feel, the more likely they are to disengage. Standing up took away that anonymity, and not in a way that made students feel exposed. I’m not anonymous, and I’m not invisible. If I’m not invisible, I’m less likely to disengage. This was a huge shift.”
- The teacher’s role – The first order of business is choosing tasks wisely, then launching the lesson in a way that reminds students of key skills but leaves the real work to each group, then cruising around the room intervening strategically. “This group needs a hint,” says Liljedahl. “This group needs to talk to another group. This group needs a little bit of direct instruction on this, and this group needs an extension.” Then in the last one-third of the lesson, the class sits down to consolidate learning, students take notes “for my future forgetful self,” and everyone does a quick formative assessment that tells the teacher the level of mastery.
- Curriculum coverage and innovation – “We cover tremendous amounts of content,” says Liljedahl. “Because the kids are thinking, so much learning can happen. When they’re not thinking, everything is difficult. It takes a long time and they don’t retain it… Imagine how hard teaching and learning is in a space like that, versus where 93% of students are thinking for 100% of the time. Just think about how much more learning can happen in those spaces.” He also believes that other pedagogical innovations are much more likely to get traction in Thinking Classrooms because the radical changes in classroom structure get students collaborating, engaging with the content, and thinking.
Please Note: This summary is reprinted with permission from issue #1066 of The Marshall Memo, an excellent resource for educators.
No comments:
Post a Comment