So this is how it happened. A lesson which normally takes about 45 minutes needed to be shaved down to 30 minutes due to a last minute rally schedule. No problem, right? The original lesson consisted of scaffolding 4 watercolor techniques for 30 students so that they could deduce which technique they would apply to their wacky watercolor zentangle. Here is the video I had originally planned on showing them. However, following this plan would take the average student about 20 minutes. That was not gonna work!
So, first I decided to ditch the video and lead them through a real time directed practice. I also decided to only provide one tabletop practice page and have the students divide up the 4 techniques among their table group. What this meant is that 2-3 students decided which technique they would try. When This happened my mind was blown.
Not only did ditching the video and "jigsawing" the scaffolding techniques save time, but the learning shifted from teacher-to-student to student-to-student. Suddenly, the students became the experts on their assigned technique and began teaching their group members how to do each one. Not only was that awesome, but their "technique expertise" resulted in more problem-solving dialogue throughout the project. Far fewer students asked me for help! Instead, they turned to their peers to clarify directions!
Scaffolding techniques is necessary, but is it necessary for everyone to directly experience every technique at the same time for learning to occur? This episode has lead me to believe that this is NOT the case and that possibly having student experience LESS can create student inquiry!
