Evidences of Intellectual Development in the Classroom
Jillian N. Lederhouse, PhD, is an associate professor of education at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. In addition to serving as the coordinator for elementary and middle-grade education, she teaches courses in special education, theories and methods of elementary and middle-grade education, elementary and middle-grade mathematics education, and senior seminar.
How do I know they know? This is the question that runs through an effective teacher’s mind, whether it refers to lesson objectives, unit goals, or even a yearlong interaction with curriculum. What evidence do we see from our students that tells us whether they have achieved not only a deep understanding of the subject matter but also the skills for further independent study of the topic? What forms should this evidence take? What criteria should be met? All these inquiries bring us back to our first question, How do I know they know?
True understanding is not measured by what we know but rather by what we do with what we know. Jesus’ own assessment criteria would not be satisfied by a mere repetition of facts. In John 14:15 He teaches, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” Again in John 14:23 He states, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching.” When Jesus restores Peter to fellowship, He asks Peter, “Do you truly love me?”… “Feed my lambs.”... “Do you truly love me?”... “Take care of my sheep.”… “Do you love me?”... “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15–17).
In each of these instances, Jesus requires an application of knowledge—a performance—as the indicator of love and loyalty. Similarly, Nicholas Wolterstorff (1980) reminds us that the goal of Christian education is not mere knowledge but rather responsible action that makes use of that knowledge. To assess whether our students have achieved a deep intellectual understanding of material, we must look beyond tests that merely require students to repeat information they have read or heard. We need to observe them selecting and applying this knowledge while solving multifaceted and challenging problems.
What Does Intellectual Development Look Like in Classroom Instruction?
Determining whether our students have acquired depth of understanding is possible only if we have first made it a priority of instruction. Here is an example from a primary classroom:
To begin a literacy unit on the genre of nonfiction, a second-grade teacher, Lori, assembles her class on the floor in front of the whiteboard. On the board is an empty chart of two columns with the headings “Know” and “New.” Before they read, Lori asks her students what they already know about gravity, serving as recorder for all their ideas by writing their responses in the “Know” column of the chart.
After she has listed all their ideas, she affirms the class for their present understandings, but then she asks them to listen as she reads an illustrated book on gravity in order to identify anything that might be new to them about the concept. When they have finished reading, Lori asks them if they learned anything about the property of gravity that they didn’t know before and then similarly lists their numerous responses.
After reviewing the concepts listed in the second column, she asks, “What do you think would happen if we made another chart on gravity tomorrow?”
“All the stuff in the ‘New’ column would get put in the ‘Know’ column,” one student answers. “Why do you think that would happen?” she asks.
“Because reading changes the way you think about something,” another student responds.
What elements of teaching for understanding do we find in this brief vignette? First, the teacher realizes that students come to the task already having some level of understanding about the concept. She taps into that prior knowledge by asking the class questions about the concept. She gives merit to their present understandings by writing them down and affirming the students. This step is also critical for identifying any misconceptions her students may have about the topic.
Next, she asks them to listen with the purpose of comparing their prior knowledge with the information being presented in order to identify any novel aspects of the concept. The key information is neither outlined nor emphasized; students have to engage auditorily with the text for comparison and contrast. She then asks for the results of this engagement and records their discoveries. By asking if repeating the activity at another point in time would yield the same results, she taps into their ability to extrapolate, or make predictions, and she is helping to highlight the concept that reading is transformative. Throughout this inquiry-based lesson, she provides no information through direct instruction. Instead, she sets up the conditions through guiding questions whereby her young students teach themselves. Through the students’ use of higher-order thinking, the lesson leads up to the key understanding that reading nonfiction text provides us with useful and powerful information.
Why Is This Type of Teaching Important?
The goal of an education certainly goes beyond the acquisition of information. If factual knowledge were education’s only outcome, whether in mathematics, literacy, or even character, a library or the Internet would be sufficient conduits for learning. Rather, education is made up of two types of learning. Philip Jackson (1986) describes these types as the mimetic and the transformative. The first is the content and procedural knowledge that is a part of every discipline. In this model, the learner acquires information but remains unchanged by it. Examples of this type of learning would be memorization of grammar rules, multiplication facts, or the number of slaves who traveled the Underground Railroad. But the second model, the transformative, refers to knowledge that changes the learner, knowledge that becomes a part of the learner. An example of this type of learning would include reading a biography of Harriet Tubman in order to understand the concepts of injustice and courage more deeply. Grasping the big ideas in history, the arts, literature, or science changes the way we view the world and, in so doing, changes us.
In theory, every teacher endeavors to teach important concepts and deep understandings; in practice, very few do. Howard Gardner (1999, 162) cites the common finding of hundreds of studies: “Most students in most schools—indeed, many of the best students in the best schools—cannot exhibit appreciable understandings of important ideas.” Even after extensive study, most learners in the sciences revert to formalism—memorizing numerous procedures but being unable to determine which procedure is appropriate for specific conditions unless given appropriate cues. Most students in the humanities revert to oversimplification and stereotyping. Too much focus remains on the mimetic rather than the transformative, both in instruction and in assessment.
If we want our students to develop intellectually, then we must help them develop their ability to think critically. According to Richard Paul and Linda Elder (2006), critical thinkers raise vital questions and problems. They gather and assess relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively. They also come to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards. They think open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing their own assumptions. Finally, they communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.
Although these foundational aspects of critical thinking apply broadly across all disciplines, students need instruction in the unique aspects of thinking grounded within each field. Scientists think about current events differently than historians. Mathematicians view the world differently than poets. At both the elementary and the secondary levels, it is vital to introduce and equip learners in all these roles. Doing so can be achieved only by leading students to understand the foundational structures of these subjects. For example, third graders need to move beyond memorizing multiplication facts and, through experimentation, come to see how the process relates to addition and division.
Not only do students need to see intradisciplinary connections, but they must also be able to see the links between subject-matter fields. These interdisciplinary relationships would include the impact of historical events on the arts and the reciprocal influence of the arts on historical events. Another might involve the relationship between a country’s geological features and its economy. Exploring these connections enables students to gain a larger perspective of how the world works.
How Do We Develop This Frame of Teaching?
Have you ever taken a test on material that you studied well, yet did not achieve a score that reflected your effort? Conversely, have you ever aced an exam on material you hardly understood? These two phenomena occur far more often than educators care to admit and are more likely to happen when learners (and perhaps teachers) fail to grasp the key understandings of a topic. Comprehending the essentials of a topic or a discipline does not happen without intentionality.
Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2005), in their work Understanding by Design, encourage educators to develop instruction that leads to deep understandings by utilizing a backward design. Briefly, this plan involves three stages. Stage one involves stating the desired results. Teachers identify the key understandings that all students should know by the end of the unit. In this stage, educators not only identify important ideas to be learned but also anticipate any misconceptions their students may hold about the topic.
In stage two, teachers determine what types of assessment evidence would reveal the nature and level of these understandings. These include explanations, interpretations, applications, perspective-taking, acquisition of empathy, and self-knowledge. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) ask educators two fundamental questions when designing specific instruments: Could a student do well on this activity and not understand the big ideas? Could a student have a firm grasp of the big ideas and still do poorly on this activity?
Finally in stage three, teachers design learning experiences that would lead students to demonstrate that they have achieved the desired results. These activities would enable students to explore a topic, see why it is important, experiment in order to rethink and revise their current degrees of understanding, and develop the skills to comprehend the topic on a more sophisticated level. Throughout the unit, students should be able to reflect on their own learning in a variety of ways.
In What Domains Does This Type of Instruction Apply?
This type of learning, sketched briefly here, applies not only across all core academic subjects but in the areas of social and personal development as well. The goal for all Christian education should be to develop whole and effective Christians for the purpose of serving God and His creation. We cannot anticipate the complex ethical issues the next generation of Christians will face in all disciplines. To serve well in this challenging future, our graduates must be able to think intelligently and then act with biblical wisdom and compassion. Therefore, not only must we educate students in ways that engage critical thinking, but we must also assess them in ways that allow them to demonstrate their abilities to meet life’s challenges. Only then will we truly know that they know.
All Scripture quotations come from the New International Version.
References
Gardner, Howard. 1999. Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Jackson, Philip W. 1986. The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. 2006. The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Wiggins, Grant, and Jay McTighe. 2005. Understanding by design. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1980. Educating for responsible action. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.
How Do I Know They Know? 10.1