I have recently been trying out strategies in my classroom that I have been learning from my readings from my various classes at USD. One particular strategy that resonated with me can be found in Weinstein’s research of Middle and Secondary Classroom management (1996)—Recitation and Discussion.
According to Weinstein, most teachers confuse what they believe to be classroom discussions with what she refers to as recitations. A typical recitation is conducted as follows: the teacher initiates the interaction by asking a question, a student responds, and the teacher then evaluates the response or follows up in some way. This pattern is called I-R-E or I-R-F: Initiate, Response, Evaluate/Follow up.
While this pattern can be effective at the beginning of the school year when the teacher is trying to gauge the student dynamic before strategically re-arranging the seating chart, critics of this pattern argue that I-R-E calls for the teacher to play an overly active/dominant role in the discussion while the students play a very passive one. Furthermore, they argue that there is lack of interaction among students and an emphasis on lower-level thinking—factual information and declarative knowledge.
On the other hand, teacher-led discussions are typically initiated with a question and then allow a number of students to respond to each other. The discussion is generally slower paced, stimulates thinking, problem solving, and causes students to consider implications.
Recitations and teacher-led discussions, however, have similar downsides. Some of these weaknesses include unequal participation (there are many more silent students than there are students who participate), and there is difficulty in monitoring understanding (a few responses cannot represent collective understanding of the class).
According to Weinstein, the approach that best allows for higher-level thinking is found in student-led discussion in which the teacher acts as a facilitator rather than a questioner. In other words, the teacher steps aside as the traditional “sage on the stage” and transitions into the “guide on the side”. The teacher has an end-goal in mind, and his/her role is primarily to limit group size, ensure that students not begin to monopolize discussion, ensure that the discussion stays within the scope of the end-goal, and to encourage students to provide supporting evidence for opinions.
Recently, I have been applying the student-led approach in my Chinese class, and I have been extremely impressed with the outcome. I present the learning objective and reading assignment to my students, and then I let them decide how they will manage the discussion. They quickly organize the order in which they will read aloud, and then they begin reading. During a typical day, when a student does not recognize a Chinese character, s(he) looks up to me for guidance, however during my student-led discussions, my students take more time to think about the character through context, and if they cannot figure it out, their peers will step in and help them out. During homework corrections, my students discuss their responses with each other and compare answers. When their written responses vary, they negotiate meaning and discuss until they come up with an agreement.
At first the student-led approach was challenging as I was tempted to step in and interfere with the discussions. As I resisted this temptation, however, I discovered that I was able to assess the extent of their knowledge and skills much more accurately. I had the end-goal in mind, and I would only step in when the students were outside the scope of the objective. At the end of their discussions, I posed a few questions about the text at hand, and I let the students discuss their responses in Chinese. Again, I only listened. I was so impressed with their responses!
To be fair, I have the advantage of leading a fairly small group of students during the Chinese student-led discussions. During my Spanish class, however, while I have managed to transition from I-R-E to teacher-led discussion, I find that the student-led approach is much more challenging to implement effectively with 36 students. I am still in the process of training my students how to shift from the I-R-E culture to the student-led approach.
According to Weinstein, most teachers confuse what they believe to be classroom discussions with what she refers to as recitations. A typical recitation is conducted as follows: the teacher initiates the interaction by asking a question, a student responds, and the teacher then evaluates the response or follows up in some way. This pattern is called I-R-E or I-R-F: Initiate, Response, Evaluate/Follow up.
While this pattern can be effective at the beginning of the school year when the teacher is trying to gauge the student dynamic before strategically re-arranging the seating chart, critics of this pattern argue that I-R-E calls for the teacher to play an overly active/dominant role in the discussion while the students play a very passive one. Furthermore, they argue that there is lack of interaction among students and an emphasis on lower-level thinking—factual information and declarative knowledge.
On the other hand, teacher-led discussions are typically initiated with a question and then allow a number of students to respond to each other. The discussion is generally slower paced, stimulates thinking, problem solving, and causes students to consider implications.
Recitations and teacher-led discussions, however, have similar downsides. Some of these weaknesses include unequal participation (there are many more silent students than there are students who participate), and there is difficulty in monitoring understanding (a few responses cannot represent collective understanding of the class).
According to Weinstein, the approach that best allows for higher-level thinking is found in student-led discussion in which the teacher acts as a facilitator rather than a questioner. In other words, the teacher steps aside as the traditional “sage on the stage” and transitions into the “guide on the side”. The teacher has an end-goal in mind, and his/her role is primarily to limit group size, ensure that students not begin to monopolize discussion, ensure that the discussion stays within the scope of the end-goal, and to encourage students to provide supporting evidence for opinions.
Recently, I have been applying the student-led approach in my Chinese class, and I have been extremely impressed with the outcome. I present the learning objective and reading assignment to my students, and then I let them decide how they will manage the discussion. They quickly organize the order in which they will read aloud, and then they begin reading. During a typical day, when a student does not recognize a Chinese character, s(he) looks up to me for guidance, however during my student-led discussions, my students take more time to think about the character through context, and if they cannot figure it out, their peers will step in and help them out. During homework corrections, my students discuss their responses with each other and compare answers. When their written responses vary, they negotiate meaning and discuss until they come up with an agreement.
At first the student-led approach was challenging as I was tempted to step in and interfere with the discussions. As I resisted this temptation, however, I discovered that I was able to assess the extent of their knowledge and skills much more accurately. I had the end-goal in mind, and I would only step in when the students were outside the scope of the objective. At the end of their discussions, I posed a few questions about the text at hand, and I let the students discuss their responses in Chinese. Again, I only listened. I was so impressed with their responses!
To be fair, I have the advantage of leading a fairly small group of students during the Chinese student-led discussions. During my Spanish class, however, while I have managed to transition from I-R-E to teacher-led discussion, I find that the student-led approach is much more challenging to implement effectively with 36 students. I am still in the process of training my students how to shift from the I-R-E culture to the student-led approach.