Political Crossfire Forums

I implemented whole brain teaching a few weeks ago with great success. This will be my first semester where I utilize it from the start.

Here's an example from middle school: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XroJtR9gQc8

I manipulate my techniques to cater to high schoolers. Keep in mind I don't do this all of the time. I also do demonstrations (hey, it's physics and chemistry! Blow crap up!), have the kids experiment with different 'toys/chemicals,' and also get them to play classroom games. But when I need to lecture, this method works wonderfully.

Some things I changed:
- For chemistry, I made 8 rules with 2 dire penalties (all points are lost). Not a single students forgets about the 8 and 2 rules in chemistry, incidentally.
- I have the students check each other's work and notes more than 'teach' each other.
- I pause and instruct them on when to write.
- I have used 'clickers' to get immediate feedback.

A lot of people, when first introduced to this type of teaching style, think it's highly inappropriate for any kid above the age of 10, but it really does retain attention. Positive reinforcement through peer pressure is huge. The class doesn't want to lose out on its opportunity to get bonus points or brownies on Friday, so if any friends are texting, they nip it in the butt as soon as I start giving myself points. One of my dire rules is that when the class transitions from one room to another, nobody can talk above a whisper. Every parent, teacher, and admin is amazed at how quiet my classes are as they walk.

Keep in mind I'm seen as the crazy, young teacher who likes to trick kids. On the first day of class I demonstrate bad lab techniques by pretending to hold a flask of acid and spill it on myself after sneezing. The kids freak out until I tell them it's water with some food coloring in it. I also like to jump on chairs randomly when I lecture... but that's another point entirely. I guess I'm basically saying this technique doesn't work for everyone. Other teachers can retain attention just by telling fascinating stories. They are much better educators.

I plan to retain and upgrade this technique if test scores and other indicators (behavior, teamwork, questions) improve. If it doesn't change, I'll still retain it because it's just fun and builds positive relationships. If indicators drop, I'll ditch it.

So this semester is a trial period. I didn't really carry through with the idea entirely last semester so I can't comment on its effectiveness.

Very cool if it works for you, but I generally am uneasy about teaching techniques that compensate for larger issues... such as student interest in the subject, and participation... education should be pulling the ability out of the kid, not trying to outsmart their adolescent tendencies...

Yeah, the largest drawback is college preparedness. I'm torn on this subject because I know that these students who take chemistry in college are going to be pushed into giant lecture halls and then shuffled into labs where they are given a bunch of equations (no derivations), then told to do x, y, z. Most young adults are simply not ready to handle college science. It requires an amazing amount of commitment, especially when you start to take classes like organic chemistry, quantum mechanics, etc. Saz liked to joke that college is a breeze, but STEM courses can be brutal. Liberal arts classes can be, too, but there's more room for fluff. I always saw art and science majors leaving campus at 10 PM to drink away their sorrows at the local bars.

But from my observations so far, my students can learn so much more from this style.

So it's a battle between getting ready for the real academic world vs getting them to learn the most material/enjoying the class.

I tend to lean towards the latter because I believe it reaches out to the 70% who would otherwise be lost in chemistry. The 30% who would otherwise enjoy it (or at least excel/be capable) will learn either way.

If you're still exploring techniques... I'd look into Waldorf methods... those are actually built to invest the kid in the subject... instead of merely trying to use their kinetic energy to do a better job of memorizing the material... always been my favorite type of teaching

Thanks, I'll look into it. I like to implement the best of all worlds.

I'm always trying to incorporate other subjects into my discipline as well. For extra credit, my kids can read Dune and talk about how the plot relied on chemistry/geology. For one lab, my kids have to determine if a person was over the legal limit by examining a urine sample. For a lesson on momentum, I had my class go outside and play soccer. To help learn the periodic table, I had my kids try to make a 'better' periodic table and paint it as a giant mural. Etc.

It sounds like a decent method to impress the fundamental memorization portion of a subject like chemistry, or electronics. I bet it would be very useful in any fast paced technical training. You should develop the idea and perhaps consider focusing the method toward training for semi-skilled technical jobs.

Yeah, it works wonderfully with conceptual topics and vocabulary. I'm still trying to figure out the best approach for mathematics and logic. My kids struggle with generating the correct chemical bonds. But keep in mind I teach even my regulars beyond what's normal. I touch on some organic stuff and get them to work out basic carbon rings. I just grade much easier at that point.

I was thinking something along the lines of some type of corporate training. Like training to pass a real estate exam, for example.

We could make a lot of money.