I would, however, like to see this same activity done with older children. I think that many of the issues Gallas is trying to get at would be more prominent with older children. I think 7th and 8th graders have the same kinds of questions, and i think it is more productive for 12 and 13 year-olds to discuss science than 7 year-olds. When we talk about literacy in the science classroom, for example, I agree with Gallas that as a society, we should aim for all students to be proficient enough in the subject to hold their own in a basic scientific discussion. For example, if a student is in a physics course, I would expect them to be able to explain to me why some objects fall faster through the air than others, despite everything being affected by the same amount of gravity. I would expect to hear words like 'air resistance,' and for the child to understand what it means conceptually. I just think first grade is too young for this! And I'm really having trouble getting past that. I hope to talk about this issue further in class.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Are you smarter than a first grader?
As I read Gallas's book, I really just can't ignore the fact that these are first graders. Maybe I'm biased since I teach grades 7-12, but I really can't see the long-term merit of this "study." While I agree that verbalizing one's understanding of issues, particularly the math and sciences, can be very helpful for students of any age, I find that at this particular age, when the teacher can't structure the conversation, much of the dialogue is meaningless. I find it amazing that one of the students actually knew, somewhat, why leaves turned change color. Although, Eureka moments like that happen, I saw one last week in my 8th grade math class, I feel as though Gallas somewhat wants to depend on those kinds of occurrences, and they're just not that common, particularly with 1st graders!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found your post very interesting, Beth, as I felt almost the reverse. I can picture interactive discussions where kids are questioning and wondering and unafraid to make mistakes or be wrong when they are seven. It would be a useful tool in getting everyone involved and thinking, even if they don't learn specific science answers. They are at least learning how to think, to question, to argue, to speak with each other respectfully and logically. However, my experience with 13-16 year olds says they would have a very different agenda. Discussions (times when the students talk) are times to distract the teacher and get off topic. Or to impress your peers. And because impressing your peers is important (in a way that it is not for most 7 year olds), no one wants to go out on a limb and be wrong. We're not willing to guess an answer, because what if eveyone else laughs?
ReplyDeleteI too would like to see Gallas's classroom discussion modelled in a middle school or high school math class. What would they discuss? What questions would be on the student's minds? Would they learn to be good group talkers, or would they try and fight the authority every step of the way? I would be very curious to see how this co-construction through talk could be translated to other classrooms.