Reflection on Steven C. Reinhart’s
Never Say Anything a Kid Can Say
Jody MacLean
October 29, 2008
Education 521C.10
Sharon McCready
In his article Never Say Anything a Kid Can Say, Steven C. Reinhart
describes the gradual transformation of his classroom from teacher-centred to
student-centred. In his case, the shift was motivated by poor student
performance in spite of carefully planned and well-explained lessons. He began
by committing to change a manageable amount of his teaching each year, and
through this process came to realize that when he asked his students to do the
explaining and demonstrating, they gained much more from the class.
Instead of jumping in to explain and thereby taking the responsibility for
thinking away from the students, Reinhart advocates for the use of careful
questioning to push students to draw conclusions for themselves, where
possible. Of course, this careful questioning doesn’t just miraculously occur. A
teacher must plan her questions for each lesson and design them in such a way
that they elicit many responses, at least some of which get at the key idea that
the teacher is trying to uncover.
Dialogue in the classroom is something that, because of my immersion
background, I’ve often needed to consider. In immersion, language development
is the primary goal. Students must be given opportunity to speak (as well as read,
write and listen) to become fluent in the language. But students with limited
linguistic abilities require even more support than “normal” adolescents to speak
in class. “Getting middle school students to explain their thinking and become
actively involved in classroom discussion can be a challenge,” Reinhart states
(478). He then lists a number of suggestions for helping students to develop the
confidence to effectively share ideas in class, most of which would already be
familiar to teachers: allowing sufficient wait time, being non-judgemental (this
brings to mind the Van de Walle neutral face), and not using questions to
embarrass a student who is off task.
Of these, I found the suggestions for structuring dialogue such as using
the think-pair-share strategy particularly helpful. I had occasion to see a similar
technique in action with a group of teachers last week at an inservice that Sandra
MacDonald was facilitating. She asked groups to do a small task, a word
problem, but she went on to specify that each group would have to explain how
they solved the problem. Not only that, but each member of the group must
speak. This necessitated some planning and negotiation amongst group
members to ensure that everyone in the group knew how to solve the problem,
and that no one person said all there was to say. It forced all members of the
group to take ownership for the problem and share the discussion time, and
because we had time to collaboratively plan what to say, no one was
embarrassed or caught off guard without an answer. Every person in the room
spoke, and because the task had several possible approaches, all groups
listened carefully to the answers generated by others. The structured nature of
the activity went a long way toward ensuring the success of the follow-up
discussion that was the true purpose of the task.
Students need to be taught this kind of structure. Asking students to speak
in class without some guidance as to how to participate as a member of a large
group can be disappointing, at best. At worst, it can be chaotic, with some
students monopolizing the airtime while others completely shut down and turn
their attention elsewhere. I’ve found that when I’ve neglected to do sufficient
preparation for the interaction component of the lesson, I’ve been less
successful.
The crux of Reinhart’s evolving philosophy of teaching is that he has to
step back and allow students to think for themselves. He points out that “when I
was in front of the class demonstrating and explaining, I was learning a great
deal, but many of my students were not.” (478) By providing students with
opportunity to discuss what they are thinking as they learn, they gain not only
important mathematical knowledge, but also confidence in their ability to think a
problem through to a solution. The key to this more hands off method actually
necessitates more preparation on the teacher’s part, as good questions take time
to prepare and good discussions need structure to succeed. With these elements
in place, however, all learners can become more engaged in the classroom by
participating, rather than mutely reading, writing and regurgitating the teacher’s
ideas.