A Place of Uncomfortableness

As teachers we have a natural inclination to help students understand what we understand to be true. Ultimately, our teaching methods can often be described quite simply in one of three ways:

1. GIVE them the right answer
2. GUIDE them with some clues
3. LEAVE them to struggle on their own

The challenge that we have probably all struggled with is knowing which strategy or combination of strategies is best in teaching a concept or skill. Often times we help students by “scaffolding” concepts which can be seen as a delicate balancing act between the three methods; elements that are beyond the students’ capacity or ability are “controlled” to permit them to focus and learn new concepts and skills (Wood et al., 1976, p.90). The main problem that has been eating at my soul is that our controlling nature does not give enough time for students to struggle, to sit in a place of uncomfortableness and discover the truth.

From the video “A Private Universe”, it was evident that Heather accepted some of the information on the seasons and the phases of the moon as communicated by the teacher. Unfortunately, a few of her misconceptions still lingered in modified and incorrect forms. As described by Driver et al. (1985), “students may ignore counter-evidence or interpret it in terms of their prior ideas” (p. 3). During the follow-up session with Heather two weeks later, the evaluator employed two different strategies to address Heather’s misconceptions. In the first case, Heather was given time to struggle with the phases of the moon and eventually came to understand the explanation supported by current scientific evidence. In the second case, Heather was given direct instruction with a diagram describing direct and indirect light, but continued to assimilate her previous misconceptions into her thinking. This one case certainly does not prove the pedagogical superiority of allowing students to struggle over direct instruction, but it forces us to question our teaching methods and the value of student agency. As indicated by Shapiro (1988), it is important to encourage learners to reflect on their own learning processes, so that they might take an even more active role and responsibilities for their own learning (p. 114).

A related article by Shepardson et al. (2009) emphasized how seventh grade students held rudimentary concepts about global warming and climate change and lacked a rich conceptualization of the issue (p. 563). What would be the best way forward then? One important lesson that can be learned from Heather’s video is that understanding pre-conceptualizations, no matter how deep, can help in developing an effective teaching strategy. You probably have a couple technologies in mind that could help in the understanding of student thinking – here are some that have had impact in my school:

1. Mind mapping apps like Mindomo help students develop concept maps
2. Screen sharing apps like Screencastify help students explain their ideas with illustrations and audio recordings
3. Conversation apps like Flipgrid to leverages the power of video and group learning
4. Journaling apps like Microsoft OneNote helps students record and develop ideas over time

As a final thought, I wonder if we as educators spend enough time sitting in a place of uncomfortableness. Do we blindly accept scientific concepts and theories or do we challenge ourselves and spend the time struggling within them?

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas and the learning of science. Children’s ideas in science, 1-9.

Shapiro, B. L. (1988). What children bring to light: Towards understanding what the primary school science learner is trying to do. Developments and dilemmas in science education, 96-120.

Shepardson, D. P., Niyogi, D., Choi, S., & Charusombat, U. (2009). Seventh grade students’ conceptions of global warming and climate change. Environmental Education Research, 15(5), 549-570.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.