Elicitation

 

I would like to discuss interaction for a bit, particularly the interaction we attempt to bring forth from our students. I spent a lot of time working on this concept years ago, and I wanted to dig down and explore the theoretical aspects of teachers-student interaction. If you have been reading the other things on this blog, then it will not surprise you when I say interaction helps build classroom culture and it is schema based. It can also involve multiple modalities (learning styles, and/or senses). I want to introduce a new element in to our discussion though, that of "risk."  Risk inhibits interaction and the development of culture in the classroom, and is often very schema-based. I developed this theory watching teachers attempting to elicit responses of all types from students of all ages. This is what I have found:

Teachers often throw out questions to blank responses. There are really three different ways teachers can pose questions - they can just ask a hypothetical question like what would it feel like to be a cow?  This is postulation.  They can have the students watch a video or an event then ask the students to interpret what they saw. This is demonstration or modeling. Finally, they can ask the students to do something then ask them did or thought. This is involvement. All three include different types and levels of modalities, concrete-abstract thought, schema attachment, and risk.  Let me give you a few examples referencing the chart above.

Example 1

In a creative writing class, the teacher asks her students what it would be like if they were cows.  To answer this question designed to elicit creative thought, they would have to first contemplate the scenario postulated by the teacher.  It is a very abstract question, and it was given aurally.  To answer, they would have to speculate (who knows what it is like to be a cow anyway?) They have no schema attachment to this question (i.e., they have never been cows nor talked to one), therefore the risk involved in answering is very high, even if the teacher tries to assure them (other students can ridicule them even if the teacher is kind).

Example 2

A teacher has her students watch a video about a protest in Syria. The students watch the program carefully and see many dramatic events.  The teacher then asks them questions about what the protesters were thinking. To answer, they will process the visual and aural information which is more concrete than the first example (i.e., more real because they saw it, but these kind of images can also be false as in movies) as they observe it, then they will have to make a projection to answer the questions. They now have knowledge of the situation, and may have some similar experiences, but they are still having to project, which carries a degree of risk.

Example 3

Students have a mock election in their classroom. The teacher then asks them questions about their experience. They were involved in a very concrete experiences that touched on most modalities. They participated then could simply reflect on the experience. They have created new schema in this instance, and to answer the questions, they simply have to look back and be honest. Reflection carries very little risk if the students are allowed to answer how they felt, what they thought.

 

Hopefully, you see how these dynamics are different. When we create culture, we begin at the bottom in experiences, watching closely how we all interpret them. As we discuss the experiences, we begin to develop common understandings. We feel so much better about questions that involve direct experience with people we have learned to trust.

The most important lesson for me has been to start with as many direct experiences as possible with my students then begin to move up from there in my questioning. I learned that my students brought so little common schema to the classroom, that we must create it, and learn to interpret it together. We will discuss this type of theory more in January, and I will follow this post with another on more practical issues of interaction.

 

A Final Word on the Model

I have always used interactive, experiential lessons when I could in the classroom, but I went about it all wrong. I used to look at my curriculum and search for lessons that were easy to make into experiences, but they might not have been important, or lessons I would build from. Now I look at my curriculum, try to see it having four or five major themes, then work hard to make an experiential lesson at the beginning of each making a solid foundation to build from. From there, I could work my way up the elicitation model, asking progressively more abstract and risky questions. What do you think?