After Lisa and Margaret seemed to be done talking about the elevator situation, Joe turned around and said something the effects of: "So, I feel like there have been a lot of conversations about things that are being discovered, and I would like a review from the instructor on the subject." He then said: "I think that would bring some closure, and a direct explanation, and then move on. And that wouldn't disrupt too much the open-ended nature about things," to which Lisa agreed. (Disclaimer: I'm quoting from the field notes and paraphrasing; once the videos are available, I will post a clip).
They both agreed that they should talk to Hunter about it, and Joe raised the issue for the whole group. Joe explained that he appreciated what Hunter was doing, but he felt like a few bullet points on what, of all they came up with, is relevant and accurate, and what is not. Hunter said that he would be more than glad to do so, but he was convinced he had done it yesterday, towards the end of the conversation about Lisa and Margaret's elevator. And then Michelle said: "but we might be in a different place today. So even if you say exactly the same thing, we might be in a position to hear it."
I see two things happening in these exchanges:
1) Despite Joe and Lisa (and others) being very comfortable with posing new questions, trying to figure things out within a group or by themselves, and being comfortable with the open-ended-ness of the workshop, they still need a science 'authority' to confirm or dispel their ideas. But it seems to go even further than that, since what they seem to want is for the 'authority' to establish a minimum for the amount of knowledge, by summarizing the most relevant concepts and ideas of that topic. And to make things even more interesting, they are perfectly fine with questions left unanswered, as long as the 'authority' admits to it, i.e., "yes, these questions were unanswered on purpose." So, it seems to me like, as the teachers want their constructed knowledge to be validated, they also need to know that there is a meta-structure they may not be aware of, represented by the instructor confirming the intentionality of leaving questions unanswered. And I think these are two perfectly reasonable expectations. Firstly, as human beings (let alone learners) most of us constantly seek validation in what we do, especially when exploring uncharted territory. And, secondly, most of us have a need to feel like there is a 'master plan', an invisible structure that gives meaning to what we do, and are not left to the whims of an inattentive instructor who is not aware that students still have questions.
2) All this brings to the second phenomenon (if we can call it that) I observed. When presented with the request, Hunter says: but I did that yesterday! (which he did, when talking about the difference between having an elevator with cab and counterweight, or just the cables). What's curious about this is that the teachers didn't feel like they were being given a summary, but they saw it more as Hunter taking part of the conversation and trying to figure out what was happening. So, it seems to me like the difference between giving an explanation during a conversation and a summary, is Hunter's role in the learning community. If he becomes just another participant, then he loses some of his cred as a 'physics authority', and things that are he says 'casually' are taken 'casually'. However, if he would have stood in front of the classroom and prefaced his comments with "this is a summary," then the teachers would have thought "these are important things to remember, this is what the canon tells us about elevators."
Adding another layer of complication, we can also talk about this whole issue of: when is it a "good time" for learners to hear a summary, or definitive statement, about a certain topic? It could very well be that the teachers needed a day (figuratively, and perhaps literally) to digest all the new information they had generated and heard, reorganize their knowledge (or retrace connections between resources), and then be ready to recognize what is a summative statement.
At first I thought of both these points as issues of self-empowerment as learners, but now I'm thinking that maybe this is part of being a human learner. Of course there is a continuum for each of these points, i.e., relying on the authority and needing a summary may happen with a range of 'intensities.' And, hopefully, any expert can finally feel like neither of them are necessary. But, quite frankly, I do not feel like I am an 'expert' of anything, so I do sometimes feel like they did yesterday.
No comments:
Post a Comment