What caught my attention most in the work of Paulo Freire is “respect for what students know”—that is, taking advantage of students’ prior knowledge to learn more than is possible when a supposedly all-knowing professor dictates. I really love this perspective, given my disillusionment with academia and the ivory tower and my pro-blue collar/trade school/indigenous knowledge mindset (Did I mention I want to teach community college? Or just be one of those food critics that gets paid to eat a bunch of food? That’s a thing, right?). Although I have not yet been responsible for teaching a semester-long course, I have led several lectures and labs. I always make an effort to access this existing student knowledge by asking questions in a conversational manner during the lecture (e.g. “Have you ever noticed that…”). Similarly, I like to know where the students are from to tie in examples of natural features near their corresponding homes (e.g. “Who here is from the Piedmont? You’ve probably seen how…”). Note: following the microaggression theme from my last blog post, I ask this of pretty much everyone because I find it interesting; most of the time I actually hope you will be from somewhere different, because the hydrology might be distinct there. I copied this technique from some of my favorite professors because it made the subject matter more approachable and familiar to the students. I always felt a sense of ownership or authority on a given topic that related to me in some way, as if I already knew more than I thought I did. This tactic can be successful in all fields, but I find it especially easy to incorporate in hydrology. Water is all around us, unless maybe you are from a desert (which I would find out by asking where you are from), so we can tap into those subconscious observations to discover that most of us probably know a good deal about hydrology.
Respect for students’ prior knowledge is also critical from a multi/interdisciplinary standpoint. For example, a hydrology or geomorphology course would be essential for a wildlife biologist studying salamanders, but I would also be curious about the hydrological processes these students observe in their line of work (perhaps salamanders congregating near zones of cooler water upwelling in the summer, and where those areas might be?). Or, I would be interested to learn more about water rights from a political science or pre-law student. However, in order to capitalize on what students know, we must first know something about the students. As I mentioned, asking where students are from is one good question, but inquiring about fields of study and extracurricular interests also provides opportunities to connect with the course content and make the material relevant to each individual.
Maybe this is understood or assumed in the work of Freire, but I would add the modification to his model of informed problem-posing rather than simply problem-posing. I am still scarred from a few discussion-based graduate seminars that I guess attempted to get at this problem-posing format. For these seminars, we would read a few peer-reviewed articles, which were always really complicated and archaic and often written by renowned researchers. The professors wanted the students to entirely take charge of the discussion and talk about what was wrong with the paper, what we would do differently, etc. These are great questions and, theoretically, a fine set-up for a graduate-level class. Small problem: despite careful reading, we often did not understand the papers well enough to have this sort of discussion (like, “I think they do something with a sediment sample at some point”). I should clarify, I do believe that being able to work through complex articles that may not be in our area of expertise is an essential skill for graduate students to develop. However, the end result that I witnessed in these purely student-led classes was random babbling and tangents, and I did not feel like I came away with any more knowledge. Incidentally, I have taken really great graduate seminars that also involved reading and discussing articles. The professors in these classes still encouraged student-based discussion but created some structure by providing necessary background on the subject or interjecting with their own questions. At least in my experience, this model was more successful. While I like the problem-posing technique that draws on pre-existing student knowledge, professors should not completely step back, but rather teach concepts and suggest tools that can help solve these problems. I think that students do not normally use their prior knowledge in the classroom because they develop tunnel vision (“I always have to use this equation to get this answer”) and do not necessarily know they are allowed to do anything else. I feel that small prompts and reminders that students should use all of their intellectual resources to tackle a problem, as opposed to just the ones presented in class, can go a long way.
And in honor of my last blog post…
March 21, 2016 @ 2:26 am
Thank you for the post. I totally agree with you that students’ prior knowledge should be respected and may be also taken as a scaffold that you can utilize. Prior knowledge can be also important in directing the course content. You may emphasize new topics to the students and just pass by topics they already know. You can measure and quantify students’ prior knowledge by giving a pre-test during the first week of class.
March 21, 2016 @ 7:00 pm
Thanks for bringing up the point about course content; I definitely agree! It is important to be flexible and able to adapt your course to the needs but also the strengths of your students. If everyone already understands what a concept is, a brief review might still be good, but spending several class periods on the topic is a waste of everyone’s time and could be better spent doing something else. And a questionnaire or pre-test as you mention during the first week of class is a good way to do that.
March 22, 2016 @ 3:20 pm
Great post! I’m sorry I missed the controversy of your last post. I love a good bit of drama in the classroom.
The point you make on recognizing students prior knowledge is spot on. Prior knowledge and context are essential to Freire’s philosophy. The recognition of this prior knowledge is where the relationship between student and teacher becomes fluid. Suddenly, students have the ability to become teachers and teachers have the ability to become students. The relationship is not a subversive one but rather a partnership where learning occurs on multiple levels.
I can sympathize with your graduate seminar experience. I have experienced a few myself where the role of the student is completely subversive and the expectation was to consume forced experiences and digest a prescribed aesthetic and like it! As an artist, nothing disconnects me from the artistic experience more than an authoritative figure telling me “why” the work is so important and “why” I should like it. Sounds like you had a similar experience in a few of your graduate seminars as well.
March 26, 2016 @ 2:57 am
Haha you didn’t miss out on too much controversy; I had referenced a list of microaggressions, saying that while some of these are clearly things we should avoid, others are pretty normal conversation topics. One of the no-no’s was asking someone where they are from, as this question can make that person feel like they do not belong. I thought that was silly, because someone’s home/origin is an essential component of their identity and, thus, asking about it is an exceptionally normal activity.
March 28, 2016 @ 4:18 pm
This is similar to a mindset we use heavily in our research group called phenomenology. In short it is the use of previous experiences to engage to the world around us through systematic exploration. As I think of it, this could work well with more humanistic educational styles, but still would serve the general classroom well.
March 30, 2016 @ 7:21 pm
What do you mean by systematic exploration? I am trying to differentiate phenomenology from having a memory and/or past experiences shaping your behavior in the present and future…
March 29, 2016 @ 3:03 pm
I like his statement “respect for what students know”. It is actually awesome. I remembered when I visit my master’s advisor at the first time, I wanted to show my background to him, so I talked to him about a specific knowledge and he had listened to me like a student. Later, I found that he was an expert in that area but he respected me and allowed me to think that I was teaching him. It was actually a great encouragement for me and helped me to have self-confidence.
March 30, 2016 @ 7:12 pm
That’s a great example of respecting a student’s knowledge. Your anecdote also makes me think of the importance of patience and listening, which are essential in order to respect the prior knowledge of a student.
March 31, 2016 @ 5:16 pm
Sounds like a really cool professor!
March 30, 2016 @ 5:01 pm
Great post! I can definitely empathize with your graduate seminar experience as well. I think the “sweet spot” of good learning is not 100% professor driven but also not 100% student driven. I really think there is a fine balance that has to happen for the students to get as much as they can. And you stated it perfectly . . . a structured discussion seems to be close to the answer. It’s like teaching someone to swim. If you throw them in with no guidance (i.e. completely student led discussion with no guidance), they will probably flail and sink. If you let them ride on your back while you swim (i.e. a professor lecturing at students with no discussion), that’s probably none too helpful either. But if you show them the strokes and give a little support (i.e. provide some initial questions, discussion points, etc.), they will eventually take over on their own.
March 30, 2016 @ 7:00 pm
Great analogy, Sheryl, and I totally agree. I was always felt like the professors were being lazy in the entirely student-led classes…student-led discussions were a convenient out for the professors to not prepare anything for class. These classes also made me confused as to why we were in class with someone who gets paid a lot of money to teach–there was no teaching going on, and we could have had the same experience at a coffee-shop, tuition-free.
March 31, 2016 @ 5:14 pm
I love the examples you gave of what has worked well for seminar-style classes. Very helpful. (The conversational manner, “have you ever noticed that…”, “you’ve probably seen how….” I really appreciate when a professor gives background before we launch into a conversation. I think this helps me to move out of my comfort zone and the things I already understand. The best seminar class I have been in had questions about the papers that were assigned to us in advanced. So we were responsible for answering/leading the conversation on the questions we had been given, and we were given time to do research on the topic before class. This helped us get deep into topics that we would have skimmed over otherwise.
The professors in these classes still encouraged student-based discussion but created some structure by providing necessary background on the subject or interjecting with their own questions.