Exploring Different Types of Knowledge

Teacher: I’d like to get some volunteers to respond to today’s preamble: What do you know about organic chemistry or think about it, what are some organic molecules that you know, what do you want to learn about organic chemistry?

Alma: Organic reminds me of like organic stores, they have foods and drinks that are basically just pure, natural.

Teacher: So you’re wondering if the name “organic,” you might get a meaning from that. Okay, Kyle.

Kyle: I know some different organic molecules that’s in us and some plants, like sucrose, glucose. Um, should water be in it?

—Exchange in Will Brown’s honors chemistry class

As part of his introduction of a new chemistry unit, Will Brown invites his students to consider a set of “preamble” questions, first in writing and then with the class, about what they might encounter in their upcoming study of organic chemistry. He is not concerned that they may have misconceptions. He is interested in students’ surfacing any current schema and making preliminary or tentative connections to new information. He knows they will have many opportunities to add to and revise their schema for “organic” as it relates to chemistry, water, and even health food.

Will has an inherent trust of the inquiry process—perhaps because he is a science teacher. He understands that for students to build or revise schema, they must first surface any partial understandings or misconceptions they may have. Once these are on the table, Will’s responsibility is to provide sufficient opportunities for students to evaluate and add to or revise them.

Surfacing Schema

Surfacing students’ schema sometimes means tolerating their misconceptions. For teachers who are making a transition to more student-centered, inquiry-based learning, this part of the learning process can be unsettling. When students are developing any area of autonomy and competence, they will make mistakes. In Reading Apprenticeship classrooms, because so much knowledge building is collaborative, in addition to the incorrect “knowledge” that students sometimes have, there will be times when they communicate those errors or misconceptions to others during discussions or group work.

Knowing when, whether, and how to intervene in students’ misunderstandings is a skill that teachers develop as a crucial part of encouraging and guiding students toward deeper comprehension of challenging texts. Some knowledge errors don’t matter; some are addressed by other students. Many misconceptions get worked out naturally as engaged learning proceeds; others are significant detours or dead ends that need to be handled.

What we want to emphasize is that in Reading Apprenticeship classrooms, where teachers are negotiating long-term student success, the need to ensure that students have immediate, correct information almost never trumps building or maintaining student engagement. Given a choice of whether to simply ignore a misstatement or misconception, to set up a next learning task that explicitly counters it so students develop their own ways of refuting the error, or to step in with correct information and perhaps derail student engagement, teachers learn to make very deliberate calculations.

In Classroom Close-Up 8.2, Will describes a model he tries to follow when addressing student error. The related Box 8.3 maps this approach in a flow chart. Will’s approach, which he also uses when students expect him to give them the answer to a question, means that students come to recognize that the teacher is not the center of the classroom—they are. Rita Jensen labels this understanding a “huge turning point” for her middle school classes:

Lots of times students have been “taught” that, if they wait, the teacher will provide whatever answer is required. If they don’t answer, she will do it for them. It’s a huge turning point when students see that the teacher won’t give them the answer. Instead of keeping them dependent, you are teaching them agency.

It’s bigger than just not providing the answer. It is about creating a culture of curiosity and collaboration in the class. It can begin with reciprocal modeling, when the teacher says to the class, “I am wondering about this. What do you think?” Or when someone ventures an idea, it can get thrown back to the class or to partners or small groups. “Who has another idea?”

When students are on the wrong path, the hard part is redirecting them to other thinking without shutting them down. But if they are in the habit of asking and being asked, “Where is your evidence for that?” or “What makes you say that?” their ideas are not rejected, but neither are they accepted without sufficient evidence. Students feel the difference.

Will Brown’s high school chemistry students have learned that he will rarely step in and resolve a question, error, or confusion. Will has an internal-ized “fl ow chart” that he uses in responding to stu-dents, and it is based on split-second assessments of whether the confusion is an opportunity to support student inquiry. (See also Box 8.3.)

“When I notice a student’s error or misconception, my first move is to make sure that the problem is not one of communication. Sometimes what appears to be a misconception is only a miscommunication and can be cleared up with a clarifying question to the student.

“If I really am dealing with an error or misconception, I evaluate how important it is. When the error is insignificant or simply distracting, I may put it to rest with a brief response.

“But when the error or misconception has the potential to interfere with learning goals, I have to ask: What is the urgency of addressing it? Can learning progress if I ignore it?

“If learning goals and learning progress are being derailed, I have three choices: initiate an inquiry, make a mental note to initiate an inquiry later, or clear up the confusion myself.

“My preference is to get students working on clearing up the error or misconception. I make this choice when I know that with some probing on my part, the student or other students in the class have the necessary schema to work it out.

“On the other hand, if I know that the lesson or upcoming lessons address the error or misconception, I’ll let students know to be on the lookout for more information, and we will return to the confusion or question once they have sufficient schema to address it.

“If there is no other option, I will provide the relevant conceptual framework and the ‘correct’ answer. I only do this if there are no other resources I can offer students as a basis for building the knowledge needed, or if I know there is no upcoming opportunity to address the misconception ‘properly,’ through inquiry. My default position is to keep students engaged and in control of their learning.”

One brief example demonstrates Will’s resolve to turn misconceptions over to students. Groups have been asked to come up with a definition for “substance” based on a recent lab:

Jerome: We wrote, “A particular type of constitution.”

Teacher: What does that mean? What does “particular” mean?

Class: A certain one. Specific.

Teacher: If it’s particular, it’s one, right? And what’s “constitution”?

Jerome: Isn’t that like a democracy or something like that?

Teacher: Yeah, we’ve got the Constitution and democracy. Do you think that’s what they’re talking about?

Jerome: No.

Teacher: So maybe that word has different meanings whether you’re talking about science or government. Does anyone else have another definition they’d like to share? Let’s work from that direction.

Internalized flow charts like this one articulated by Will Brown can help teachers handle student error and keep students in control of their own learning (see also Classroom Close-Up 8.2).

From Reading for Understanding, pp 234-239