Notes on Teaching with Your Mouth Shut, Finkel

I appreciate the lesson that Finkel is imparting: that students learn more from their own struggles and experiences with a subject than from the teacher telling them what they should learn. However, the examples provided and the type of classroom that he supposes were not applicable. First, the examples are all from literature and suggest a level of thinking that just is not common in most classrooms. Inquiry is great if you've got enough inquiring minds. But there are so many steps before inquiry for most students (and people in general). Someone has to teach those previous steps. How do you teach with your mouth shut to students that have very little interest in talking, and when they do talk would prefer to simply repeat what was in the book or something someone else said? This is in no way a criticism or dismissal of the students.  I think the assumption that most students look like the students in Finkel's book is inaccurate at best but it seems to pervade books about teaching.  What about the other students? What about the reality that community college students are usually very busy with other stuff?  They can't have study groups and aren't really interested in that. They usually don't know what they would do in one if they had one. So, either these students have to be taught that interest (if it is teachable), or we have to develop other strategies that allow and encourage these students to move themselves forward (learn more) that start where they are and not where we wish they were.

One issue he did raise that seemed relevant to my classroom was the idea of whether and when the teacher should contribute in a class discussion. I have my students do conversations, where, in a group they "run" the classroom for a 15-20 minute period, engaging the students on a topic related to our main theme. I always wrestle with whether I should consider myself another student and raise my hand with commentary and/or questions or whether I should be an observer.  I can see advantages and disadvantages to both: as participant, I can add ideas, I can stimulate discussion if things seem to be going nowhere, I can extend a topic or correct an error, I can level the playing field briefly (although that is really a mirage, I think). Disadvantages are that students then seem to be teaching to me, I can't pay as good attention as I'd like to the participants if I'm thinking about what to say; students defer to my questions and thoughts and do not run with their own. I always come down on the side of observing, but I do wonder what the class is losing by that decision.