Picture someone teaching. When we use
the verb "to teach", we're usually referring to someone standing up and
explaining something. Is that what you pictured? Maybe we should reconsider
this image--how did talking become synonymous with teaching?
Well, lest you think me some sort of nut, let me assure you that I do stand up and explain things. But I have had colleagues on more than one occasion cock their heads to the side and stare at me with disbelief when I've mentioned my philosophy about these matters. Please keep your head upright and your jaw off the floor as I re-state my point: I think talking is overrated. I believe that explaining things out loud needs to earn its place into any lesson plan. It took me a few years to arrive at this conclusion; here's the story...
In my first year of teaching I stood up and, as a default method, explained things. If there was a new topic, it had to be explained, right? I soon noticed a pattern: I would explain the topic, show examples on the board, choose a practice assignment, work an example, then put the students to work. Then I'd walk around the room wondering where two-thirds of the students were when I was doing all that work. Fifteen minutes of class time down the tubes.
As a new teacher, I assumed it was my fault. I needed to improve my explanations. This was true, but it was not the root of the problem. I did improve my explanations over the next couple of years, until I finally considered myself a good explainer. But I did not observe an improvement in student performance. I decided to go a different route, because I couldn't imagine that an alternate approach could be any less effective than my explanations.
Let's look at all of the disadvantages of standing up and talking.
1. At how many different speeds can you
talk at once? Each student has his own optimal speed of listening. Too
slow, and he's bored; too fast, and he can't keep up.
2. Slow listeners don't advertise their
slowness. How realistic is it to believe that if you are going too fast
for someone, or if someone loses concentration and misses a pivotal fact,
that anyone will stop you and ask you to repeat it?
3. Your explanation is based on your
way of thinking. Your students may have a different approach that works
for them.
4. You know they understand, because they're
answering your questions. But wait--how many students are
answering your questions?
5. Your explanations are based on logical
thought. I have learned to assume that the majority of students resist
logical thought with every fiber of their being. If the majority seems
to be following what you're saying, they're faking it.
6. How effective is your explanation for
students who are not there to hear it?
Okay, so what is this radical alternative to talking? It's simple, and it's hardly radical: have students read a clearly written explanation. Why do people give me "that look" when I say that I believe students should be able to read and follow an explanation? Is it radical to expect students to read? Is it radical to expect a teacher to be able to write an explanation clearly?
Note, point-by-point, how reading improves upon the disadvantages of talking:
1. Students get to choose their own reading
speed.
2. If a student misses something, she
can re-read the passage.
3. I'll get to number three later.
4. You'll know exactly how many people
understand the reading, because you'll be able to walk around and observe
the way that the exercises are being completed.
5. Since effective reading requires students
to be active rather than passive, students have the choice of being logical
or doing the exercises wrong. You'll be able to tell which choice each
student has made.
6. When a student returns from an absence,
all you have to do is say "here's what we learned yesterday", and hand him your written
explanation and exercises.
The down side of requiring students to read and think for themselves is that they have rarely been required to do it, and they're not very good at it. There exists in American schools a vicious cycle in which teachers tend to spoon-feed information to their students because students demonstrate unwillingness and inability to serve themselves. Since self-sufficiency is rarely a product of spoon feeding, students never develop the attitudes or skills necessary to become independent learners. Determined to keep class moving along, teachers reward this learned helplessness by reading instructions to the class.
People tend to become self-sufficient when there's no other alternative. Teachers have a tendency to be the alternative for students all-too-happy to remain in a passive mode throughout the school day. Teachers who do not hold students responsible to read instructions for themselves have caused the cycle, and perpetuate it daily in classrooms throughout the country. Your efforts in holding students responsible for instructions that you ask them to read will be noticeably undermined by your colleagues until a critical mass of teachers agree to help break the cycle.
Okay, back to the radical suggestion: Let's say you decide to hold students responsible to read and follow clearly written instructions. Let's say two-thirds of the students skim the reading and quickly begin doing the exercises incorrectly. At least you didn't waste fifteen minutes of class time to find out which students weren't paying attention! You are at the student's desk shortly after the pencil hits the paper, and can immediately say "read it again" if the exercise is not being done correctly. If you spend fifteen minutes saying "read it again" (of course, you'll also be looking for ways to help students help themselves) before students start doing it right, you still haven't lost any class time beyond what it would have taken you to give an oral explanation. So what have you gained?
1. Students have the opportunity to experience
the inherent pleasure of logical thought, possibly for the first time all
day.
2. Students get reading practice, which,
as they say, makes perfect.
3. Students move a little closer to understanding
that they are responsible for their own learning.
4. Students become a little more confident
in their ability to learn independently.
5. You are given an opportunity to work
one-on-one with students.
After fifteen minutes or so, especially the first few times you attempt this approach, there will still be students who have not succeeded. This is where number three (see above) comes in. At this point, allow the students who understand the material to explain it to the ones who don't. You get to watch students re-interpret what you said into their own ways of thinking as they explain it to each other. After this stage, some students ask themselves "if Emily could get this, by reading, why couldn't I"?
When you find yourself pulling your hair
out because students demonstrate such an unwillingness or inability to
read, consider the following:
1. If they can't read instructions clearly
written in English, is there anything more important that you could be
teaching them? (Especially since talking is probably even more futile.)
2. With practice, they will improve at
working independently, and this will get easier.
3. In the time you would have been boring
the group, you're learning the strength, weaknesses and thinking styles
of individuals.
Don't make dependency part of the curriculum!
Sometimes, if you want to teach effectively, you need to keep your mouth
closed and let the students do the work!