Question Mark Phoenix: royblumenthal via Flickr
I think as I age I realize that answers are far less important than the questions. Hey, we all learned years ago that the answer is 42, it was the question that remained elusive. So how do we learn to ask good questions? There are all kinds of pyramids and charts showing various levels of thinking and multitudes of fancy named hierarchies of thought processes. Sure, those all play a role, and are worthy to examine; thinking about how we think is totally up my alley. However the highest levels of thinking are completely pointless if the people in the room don’t feel they have permission to ask the questions out loud.
So what do we do?
This is by no means a polished list, simply my thoughts in the moment after struggling with this concept for a few days. Here goes:
- Everyone needs to feel that they are a stake-holder in the discussion. Why ask questions if nothing you say matters?
- A safe environment, devoid of ridicule, is clearly needed. More vital however is a feeling that you won’t be permanently judged on your ideas as you work through thoughts together. This allows greater participation and exploration. I suppose the word is trust…
- Questions need to be accepted as standard faire and not automatically viewed as a challenge or full dissent. This is particularly of issue in a teacher/student type power balance.
- An ability to disregard the minutiae and focus on areas that have the most impact.
- Time– discussion takes time. Dictating is far more efficient, but ultimately less evolved. If all you do is give answers there is never room left for new questions.
- Attribute value to debate– actively encourage it and the ideas it produces.
We have a lot of married couples at my school (the result of a school so loved that most teachers become “lifers”). It is not uncommon for one member of a couple to express an opinion and the other to counter vehemently in opposition. I adore this, and am amused when others are taken by surprise. I love seeing examples of people who can respect, enjoy and even love one another while simultaneously disagreeing and expressing that disagreement loudly and passionately (in public even!).
I want my classrooms to be a place where ideas matter enough that people get heated about them. Where classmates can strongly disagree on one issue, strongly agree on another and remain friends through it all. I want to be comfortable being challenged by my students, and my colleagues, and know that it doesn’t wound or scar our relationships. I’d bust out some kind of sports metaphor here about opposing teams sharing a pint after a brutal game, but I’ve never played competitive sports, and in my world of ‘academia’ (eye roll) people seem to have a much harder time leaving ‘things on the field’. (woops– I did it anyway)
Here is one of my favourite RSA Animates: Steven Johnson’s “Where Good Ideas Come From”
The concept of hunches colliding until they become something larger than the sum of their parts appeals to me. Now it’s just a matter of creating the spaces for it to happen.
Very thought-provoking post. I have three thoughts.
1.) We work in an incredibly personal profession. People feel like they put themselves into ideas, arguments, assignments, etc. And because of that I think we have less of a culture of idea collision because we take it personally. But also, because we are generally nice people, we know people take it personally and so, we don’t engage.
2.) Being someone who doesn’t take disagreement personally, I’m often seen as a “shit disturber” because I am willing to collide ideas. At which point, colleagues specifically avoid “getting into it” with me. This, unfortunately, doesn’t mean colleagues just go along with it, but instead displeasure/controversy/disagreement isn’t voiced in public. Instead, the profession is built around isolation and echo chambers. I’m finding this more and more true, even with the so-called “education revolution”. If we keep listening only to teachers who are ready to change, are we missing an important perspective?
3.) I think my final thought is that we work in an incredibly political profession and so disagreement, wrongly in my opinion, is often seen through a political lens. Often colleagues choose to speak in hushed tones, rather than public, because they don’t want it “held against them” or “leave an impression”.
I think it is great to introduce the ethic of disagreement / open-honest conversation into your classroom. I know it is hard.
Thanks for the post.
Thanks Scott. I find all of your observations to resonate with my experiences as well. I get emotionally invested in debate but rarely take it as a personal attack. I see how others sometimes find it easier to just not engage. Not a route I am comfortable taking. Maybe it’s one I should explore more often.