A powerful pedagogy for Liberal Studies

Professor Laurance SplitterHK Institute of Education

June 2010splitter@ied.edu.hk

To articulate their views clearly and listen carefully to what others are saying

To ask and address deep questions that probe to the heart of an issue or topic

To identify and examine assumptions that might otherwise be taken for granted

To be reflective, persistent and patient, so that they can “take a step back” and think about their thinking carefully (this is a kind of scaffolding)

To construct chains of reasoning and distinguish better reasoning from worse

To form judgments and make decisions that reflect what they sincerely think and believe

To think creatively and critically, and to make good use of their imaginations (for example, using “What if…?” questions)

To reconsider points of view that they hold, if given good reasons for doing so

To remain open-minded and receptive to new ideas and perspectives

To evaluate progress that does not depend on coming up with “the answer”

To probe the meanings of key concepts and values that are important to them, with a view to building a more complete understanding of the issues comprising Liberal Studies.

In this presentation, I am proposing that classrooms which function as inquiring communities are well-suited to address these needs. Such an environment is built up through dialogue, under the guidance of the teacher.

Speech communicates thought <> Thought is the internalization of speech Dialogue or speech is now grudgingly admitted

as a legitimate literacy competence worthy of attention.

The former conception of dialogue or speech is common accepted, but this only tells half of the story!

Vygotsky and others balance this by claiming the latter conception (on both conceptual and empirical grounds). Good conversation both communicates and generates thinking.

Dialogue is “inquiring out loud”, just as inquiry is “internalized” dialogue Students bring to the inquiry their prior views

and understandings They take from the inquiry a shared

understanding which is more meaningful and valuable than that which they could have gained by working alone

Dialogue builds on puzzlement and lack of certainty, and requires an attitude of intellectual humility (“This is what I think, but I might be wrong”)

D1: The nature of the classroom environment (the kind of place it is), characterized by:

Being a safe place that thereby allows risk-taking

Personal and inter-personal growth: seeing oneself as “one among others”

Relationships of care, trust, empathy…

D2: Classroom dynamics (who does what to whom), characterized by: *Reflective (meta-cognitive) thinking (aware

of ourselves and one another as thinkers)

**Questions which “dig deep” and probe student thinking

Dispositions of open-mindedness, intellectual courage and humility,… (“I feel certain but I might be wrong!”)

Structured by a logic that invites us to “follow the inquiry where it leads”)

D3: Classroom content (the “what” of teaching and learning), characterized by:

Problems and questions that warrant our attention

Related to what is known or understood but inviting us to explore new areas of knowledge and understanding

A determination to find resolutions, solutions, answers

***Use of concepts as “vehicles of thinking” “meaning makers”

We rarely use any of these skills in isolation from others in the list

They are part of an enriched understanding of literacy

Teachers need to assist students in “scaffolding” their thinking (through careful reflection and “thinking about their thinking”)

Key terms can become part of the vocabulary of thinking which students use (e.g. reason, criteria, consistent, hypothesis, analogy, assumption, inference,...)

How do we make or find meaning?

Connecting is the key:

In Liberal Studies, such connections can take many forms, but should include abstract or conceptual connections: (e.g. Does my identity depend on my citizenship? Do I have the power to change things? What kind of world do we want to live in? Should our actions be evaluated by their consequences, or by our intentions and motives?)

Concepts as vehicles for meaning-making: The 3Cs

Common Familiar; surface agreement on meaning

Contestable At a deeper level, meanings are not clear

Central Important: these concepts matter to us

Are the concepts and issues involved “objective”, OR “subjective” /“relative”?

“Imparting values to students often fails to achieve its purpose. A more desirable method is to help students to tease out the values behind particular perspectives and enable them to make their own choices based on a clarification and reflection of their own values.” (p.86)

“The teacher should guide the students to make reasoned judgments and take action for the betterment of society, or to connect the [multiple] perspectives to make balanced decisions…” (p.89)

But what are reasoned judgements?

Students need to feel connected to their inquiries, hence it is a good idea to invite them to share their opinions and viewpoints earlier rather than later, provided they understand that:

Our personal opinions serve as starting points for further inquiry. They are not the end of inquiry.

So what does constitute the end point of our inquiry? This is one of several questions for further exploration.

If we are to transform Liberal Studies classes into communities of inquiry, then we need to deal with some important questions: How do we encourage and guide students to go

beyond merely expressing their own views? Are answers important? How do we determine if

any progress* has been made? [think of the 3 dimensions of inquiry here]

How do we get “back on track” after a good (high-level thinking) dialogue?

* We need to expand our ideas about what constitutes progress….. There may be no end point to inquiry.