Right Answers vs Discovery

I think that we should talk about "right answer" teaching and active learning. I recently was part of a discussion at a workshop that illustrated the difference in the two ways of thinking and the subsequent approaches. One of the participants in the workshop, when asked to demonstrate an active learning technique, asked us to get into groups of 4 and then answer this question, "Why don't the protons in an atom simply fly off into space?" The leader explained briefly that protons are positive charges and positive charges repel one another.

Our group talked for a bit, then decided that the answer was electrons, which are negatively charged and thus should combine with the protons and keep them in the atom. As the various groups in the room reported out, answers were "all over the place." It turns out that our answer is not the right answer—protons and electrons could combine but then the combined unit would fly off into space. What keeps the unit in place? Well, the answer is 'the strong force.' I didn't know that, I wasn't even sure that there was a strong force, and even now don't really know what it is. And, sessions being time bound, I never found out. We had to move on.

After the exercise the pedagogical question arose, "Why take all that time? Why not just tell us it is the strong force?" That question is one that all of us teachers should mull over.

To look at it one way, simply telling us saves a lot of time. It is more efficient. With the extra time gained a teacher could give the class a series of right answers, such as the definition of the strong force, and during the class the teacher could present a clear explanation of the theory of the atom. To find out how well students heard the theory, the teacher can ask the question about why protons don't fly off, receive answers, and identify which students know the answer and which don't.

To look at it a different way, asking groups to speculate on something that they know nothing, or little, about creates narratives of inquiry. These groups may not get to the right answer, though, as the example shows, the right answer can emerge in the discussion. But if the point is the right answer, why bother with the group? The answer is a bit unnerving. The right answer is not the goal of the group, the inquiry is. Given enough time, our group would have started to do some searching on the internet to find out the answer and would eventually have discovered strong force. The difference with the first vision is that we would have had to practice research. In the first version no one had to research.

The scenario leads me to ask, "Well, which way is better?" The answer relates to your definition of better. If better is replication, then the first is better, at least in the short run. If better is expertise, then the second is better, but probably not until there is a long run. At the end of the course the question would have to be, "Which scenario creates students who understand physics better?" The first way is very reassuring for many people. You don't know something. Someone tells you something. You know it and can prove it by telling another person what you know so they know it. In this manner the knowledge of the strong force can spread quickly and easily. The second way is often frustrating for people, especially if they are looking for the right answer.

But the second way also involves people in a narrative, or scenario—depends on the point of view you want to have—of discovery. That discovery journey should lead people to independent work of investigation and should emotionally invest them not only in the answer, but the context of the answer. The first aspect of the discovery journey (investigation) will lead to the manner used by life-long learners, and, if handled well by the teacher, should lead them to the confidence that they can be, and are, people who know how to learn on their own. The second part of the journey (emotional investment) will allow them to remember the answer better but also to hook the answer into something else that situates the answer. So the answer is not just something one could say on Jeopardy or in Trivial Pursuit, but is something that one understands. The answer, then, is something that you can work with.

Should we abandon the search for the right answer? Well, no, of course not. But should we teach for the right answer? I would say, no. We need to teach for the understanding and the life-long learning. The process I have sketched out here will lead to that, as it is called, 'deeper learning.' The issue, one to take up anther time, is that in all probability teachers who use the discovery method will not introduce their students to as many right answers, thus they will not cover as much teaching this way as they could if they taught the other way.