'핵심질문'으로 학생이 탐구하게 하기: McTighe & Wiggins (2013), Essential Questions

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2013). Essential questions: Opening doors to student understanding. ASCD.

(번역본 있는데, 확인하지 않음)

 

모교에서 철학 교생 할 때 선생님이 추천해주신 책. 다음 달에 교생 가서 수업 설계할 때 참고하려고 다시 메모하며 읽었다. 공감되는 꿀팁 많다.

 

1. 핵심질문이란?

- 핵심질문을 중심으로 가르치라. e.g. "People have different dietary needs based on age, activity level, weight, and various health considerations." 라는 내용을 이해시키고자 한다면, "How can a diet that is 'healthy' for one person be unhealthy for another?"라는 핵심질문을 중심으로 수업을 설계한다.

- 핵심질문은 정답을 유도하는 질문이 아닌, 탐구를 촉발하는 질문. 

A good essential question
1. Is open-ended; that is, it typically will not have a single, final, and correct answer. 
2. Is thought-provoking and intellectually engaging, often sparking discussion and debate. 
3. Calls for higher-order thinking, such as analysis, inference, evaluation, prediction. It cannot be effectively answered by recall alone. 
4. Points toward important, transferable ideas within (and sometimes across) disciplines. 
5. Raises additional questions and sparks further inquiry. 
6. Requires support and justification, not just an answer. 
7. Recurs over time; that is, the question can and should be revisited again and again. (p.3) 

- 폭넓은(overarching) 핵심질문도 있고, 보다 구체적인(topical) 핵심질문도 있다.

 

2. 왜 핵심질문을 활용해야 하는가?

- 핵심질문은 교사가 교수내용의 우선순위를 정하는 데 도움이 된다. 교사가 보기에는 모든 것이 중요하며 서로 연결되어 있지만, 학습자의 관점에서는 자명하게 중요한 것은 없다. 진도를 다 나가야 한다는 태도로 수업하면, 생각 없는 행군이 된다. // 교육과정과 교과서에 기초해 수업안을 짜 보면서 '다 중요하네, 뺄 게 없네, 다 그냥 강의해야겠는데'라는 생각에 빠지기 정말 쉽다. 학생 때 이걸 왜 배워야 하는지를 느낄 수 없는 공부가 얼마나 괴로웠는지 기억해야.

Nearly every teacher we know faces a common challenge: there is simply too much content and not enough time to teach it all optimally. Yet there is a paradoxical quality to planning and teaching once all the content has been specified: it seems to the teacher as if everything is important, and that it is all connected—that’s why it was chosen! But if everything is important and connected, then nothing is self-evidently important from the learner’s perspective. 
... In subjects like history and science, the need is particularly pressing. Textbooks present endless amounts of information with few organizing structures and, too often, with no obvious relevance or points of intellectual connection for students. When teachers feel compelled to “cover” all the designated content in standards, the result can be a mind-numbing march through unprioritized material with no clear goals or ideas for making sense of the work. (p.20)

 

- 시험 준비를 시키고자 하더라도, 교사가 내용을 다 읊어주는 것이 최선의 방법은 아니다. "언급함으로써 가르치기"는 가장 공부 잘하는 학생들에게만 유효하다. 학생이 머릿속에 구조를 구축할 수 있어야 학습과 장기기억이 용이하다. // 수능에 필요한 내용지식을 다 알게 하되, 그것이 수능 교재 내용 이상의 깊은 이해를 구축해서 얻은 자연스러운 결과이도록 하자.

Q. Although test questions in reading and mathematics may require higher-order thinking and transfer (e.g., interpreting new text passages and solving multistep word problems), most of the questions in social studies and science seem to involve recall of facts. How will the use of essential questions and inquiry prepare students for these kinds of tests? 
A. We agree that many test questions involve recall and low-level thinking. What simply does not follow logically, however, is that “coverage” and test prep are the best ways to prepare students for such test items. This confuses cause and effect. The implied two premises in the defense of coverage are that “If I covered it, you now know it and will easily give it back on a test when prompted,” and “this is therefore the most efficient preparation for tests.” But these claims are unsupportable, as a moment’s reflection on the better and worse performers in our own classes reveals. The student who has no mental framework, no ability to prioritize the content, and no points of connection with other previous content and experience will find initial learning difficult and long-term recall unlikely. The “coverer” is confusing the input with the output, the hope with the yield. “Teaching by mentioning” works only for the most bright, able, and motivated students. (p.27) 

 

- cf. '내가 가르쳤으니 애들이 배웠을 것이다'라는 오류. 토론과 숙고를 통해 개념들을 소화할 시간을 확보해야 함. // 교재에 내용이 다 있음에도 불구하고 우리가 수업을 -- 학교 수업이든 대학 수업이든 인강이든 -- 듣는 이유는 내용을 의미 있게 소화하는 경험을 위해서다. 만약 교사가 말하는 내용을 한 시간 동안 죄다 받아적은 다음 나중에 다시 찬찬히 읽으면서 무슨 말씀이었는지 이해해야 하는 식이라면, 굳이 학생 손 아프게 말로 강의하지 말고 그냥 책자로 써서 제공해주는 게 낫다. (나의 체험)

Throughout this book we have asked readers to explicitly set aside defined times in which collaborative inquiry into questions is expected to happen, so as to signal a shift in goals and means. Although any percentage we might propose would be arbitrary, we can say that a sensible range might be somewhere between 20 and 50 percent of your class time with students being devoted to in-depth collaborative inquiry. The greatest fallacy in our field—what we dub the “egocentric fallacy” of education—is “If I taught it and highlighted it, then they must have learned it (or should have).”The corollary is “Too much time in discussion and reflection takes away from precious time needed to cover all the material.” What we now know scientifically— what all good teachers know intuitively—is that time is needed for processing complicated ideas. Indeed, if we care about student understanding, then it is imperative that we allocate class time for meaning-making; for ongoing assessments to tease out confusions and misunderstandings; and to permit metacognitive insights about how to better inquire, discuss, and learn. (p.93) 

 

3. 핵심질문을 만드는 방법

- 다음과 같은 사고실험을 할 것: 교과서에 있는 내용지식이 '대답'이라면, 그것이 대답하고자 했던 질문은 무엇이었는가? e.g. '삼권분립'을 가르쳐야 한다면, 핵심질문은 '권력 남용을 어떻게 방지해야 하는가?' 등이 될 수 있음.

- 이렇게 하면 학생들을 진정으로 해당 내용의 의미와 중요성을 이해하기 위한 사고에 참여시킬 수 있다. 그냥 삼권분립을 외우게 할 수도 있지만, 그것이 얼마나 흥미롭고 효과적이고 전이가능하겠는가?

If the content you are expected to teach represents “answers,” then what questions were being asked by the people who came up with those answers? This conceptual move offers a useful strategy both for seeing a link between content standards and important questions and for coming up with ways of engaging students in the very kind of thinking that is required to truly understand the content. In short, expert knowledge is the result of inquiry, argument, and difference of opinion; the best questions point to hard-won big ideas that we want learners to come to understand. (p.4)

The point here is straightforward—by interrogating the content in this manner, we are engaging learners in making meaning and coming to understand the content’s meaning and importance. Alternately, we could have students memorize the fact that there are three branches of government and the roles of each, but how engaging and effective is that likely to be? Would such rote learning enable students to understand current and future issues related to our government? Clearly not. (p.28)

 

4. 핵심질문 활용하기

- 학교라는 게임의 룰을 바꾸는 것. 많은 교사들은 의도치 않게 학교란 교사가 가지고 있는 정답을 알아내는 곳이라는 신호를 주고 있다.

The importance of thinking explicitly about a culture that supports inquiry comes from the fact that a focus on essential questions establishes new rules for the game called school. For the majority of learners, school is a place where the teacher has the answers and classroom questions are intended to find out who knows them. Ironically, many teachers signal that this is the game even when they don’t intend to communicate it—for example, by posing questions that elicit only a yes/no or single right answer, by calling only on students with raised hands, and by answering their own questions after a brief pause. (p.43)

 

- 학생들에게 전달할 메시지: 탐구는 경기 관람이 아니고, 모두가 능동적으로 경청하고 참여해야 한다. 당신의 발언에 의문을 제기하는 것은 당신이 싫다거나 당신의 기여가 가치 없다는 것이 아니다. 실수는 배움의 당연한 부분이다. 등등.

Here are some examples of key ideas to communicate that may prepare students for the changes:
• There’s not a single correct answer for this question. Life is about the consideration of plausible and imperfect alternatives. 
• Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the best opinions are supported by valid evidence and sound reasons. 
• Coming to understand important ideas is like attaining fitness: it takes work and practice over time. 
• When a question is posted on the wall, it means that we are going to consider it again and again. 
• Inquiry is not a spectator sport; each person needs to listen actively and participate. 
• Everyone is fair game. I won’t only call on people who raise their hands. 
• If and when I or others challenge your comment, it doesn’t mean we don’t like you or don’t value your contribution. We’re testing the strength of the idea. 
• Considering another point of view in an open-minded way might help you clarify and expand your thinking and understanding. 
• Making mistakes is an expected part of learning. If you never risk making a mistake, you’re not likely to improve. That’s why we question answers—in order to improve them. 
• You may find that you are reconsidering things that you thought you understood. That is normal—even desirable. 

 

- 핵심질문 적용을 위한 4단계 과정: 큰 흐름은 '핵심질문에 대한 학생들의 잠정적 대답들을 듣고 검토 → 사고의 확장을 촉진하는 자료 제공' //학생들이 최대한 스스로 말하게 한 다음에 새로운 것을 가르쳐줘야 학생들이 '아하'하며 의미 있게 받아들인다. 정답을 알려주기에 앞서 학생들이 궁금해하게 만드는 단계가 필요하다. 많은 교수님들이 수십년의 연구를 통해 도달하신 탁월한 해석을 갖고 계시지만, 그냥 그 해석을 말씀해주시기만 하니까 그게 왜 좋은 해석인지 학생으로서는 알 도리가 없었다. 먼저 우리가 스스로 텍스트나 현상을 나름대로 해석하려 해보고 논박당해본 다음에 교수님의 해석을 들었으면 그 탁월성을 진정으로 이해할 수 있었을 것. 

We can describe what has to happen in any successful use of EQs, then, in terms of a four-phase process:

Phase 1: Introduce a question designed to cause inquiry.
Goal: Ensure that the EQ is thought-provoking, relevant to both students and the content of the current unit or course, and explorable via text, a research project, a lab, a problem, an issue, or a simulation in which the question comes to life. 

Phase 2: Elicit varied responses and question those responses.
Goal: Use questioning techniques and protocols as necessary to elicit the widest possible array of different plausible, yet imperfect answers to the question. Also, probe the original question in light of the different takes on it that are implied in the varied student answers and due to inherent ambiguity in the words of the question.

Phase 3: Introduce and explore new perspectives.
Goal: Bring new text, data, or phenomena to the inquiry, designed to deliberately extend inquiry or call into question tentative conclusions reached thus far. Elicit and compare new answers to previous answers, looking for possible connections and inconsistencies to probe. 

Phase 4: Reach tentative closure.
Goal: Ask students to generalize their findings, new insights, and remaining (or newly raised) questions into provisional understandings about both content and process. (p.45)

 

- 교사 발문 전략 예 (몇 가지만 선정함): (1) Wait time(질문 후 잠시 침묵하기. 간단한 기법이지만 학생 발언의 양과 질에 큰 영향을 미침) (2) Think-Pair-Share(각자 생각할 시간을 주고, 짝과 먼저 공유하고, 그 다음에 전체 공유하기. 모든 학생을 참여시키는 데 효과적) (3) Random calling(손 드는 학생만 시키지 말 것) (4) 학생의 말을 다른 학생이 요약하게 하기(“Justin, could you please summarize Maria’s point?” “Maria, did Justin accurately capture your idea?”) (5) Class Survey(엄지조사 등. 근거를 검토하는 질문 등으로 이어가기)

- 학생의 의견을 검토하는 다양한 후속질문 활용하기(probes). //다 달달 외우고 입에 익히고 싶다

...familiar probes:
• What do you mean by _____?
• Why?
• Can you elaborate? Tell me more.
• Could you rephrase that? I don’t understand your point.
• Could you give me an example or an analogy to explain that?
• How does this relate to (what we said before; what we read last week)?
• Can we come up with another perspective on this?
• What are you assuming when you say that?
• Do I understand you to be saying _____? (p. 56)

...asking for support and justification...:
• Why do you think that?
• What’s your evidence?
• What’s your reasoning?
• Can you find support in the text/data?
• How do the data support your conclusion?
• But earlier, didn’t we say that __________, which seems to be at odds with what you’re saying now? Can you clarify? 
• How does that square with what the text says on page ___? (p. 56)

... devil’s advocate ...:
• I disagree. Convince me.
• How would you respond to those who say ______?
• Have you considered another perspective?
• Who has a completely different idea or reason?
• Is it really either/or? Might there be different “right” answers or ways of thinking about this? (p.57)

[teacher's role as facilitator]
• What makes you think so, Ella? Can you show us where in the text (or problem or data) you got that idea?
• Does Jim’s answer square with what you all seemed to agree to about 15 minutes ago when Joe said ___?
• Is there another way to look at this? Ramon has made a compelling case, but didn’t Rosa suggest another interesting way to frame the problem?
• Do others agree? Sari, you’re shaking your head no. What are your thoughts?
• How are these answers similar? How do they differ?
• Can anyone explain what you think Priscilla is getting at? (This might apply when Priscilla’s comment is not clear and is in danger of being ignored even though the teacher thinks it has potential.)
• Now I’m confused. Yesterday, Ian, you said that the cause was ____, and, Tanya, you agreed. Have you guys changed your mind? (p.88)

 

5. 적용 시 예상 문제 대응 팁

- (내가 개인적으로 우려되는 문제 하나만 골라봄): 자꾸 '잘했어요' '고마워요'라고만 하지 말고, 학생 발언에 적절히 의문 제기하기.

Issue: Too nice 
Teacher-related indicators: Teacher doesn’t probe and critique student contributions. 
• “Interesting idea, Kate.” 
• “Thanks for sharing, Joe.” 
• “Good” (without qualifying why it is good). 

Student-related indicators: Students seem unwilling to disagree with peers or the teacher. 
•  Students remain silent in the face of a clearly incorrect, problematic, controversial, or unusual comment.  
•  Students become insecure, angry, or embarrassed if their contributions are challenged in any way. 

Suggestions
• Make clear that questioning an answer need not be threatening or aggressive. 
•  Use follow-ups, like “Do I understand you to be saying . . . ?” “Where is that interesting idea supported by the text?” “I’m not following you; can you explain your thinking (idea or argument)?”  
• Make a point of playing devil’s advocate (perhaps with a plastic pitchfork available as a prompt to break the ice).
•  Play dumb; for example, “I am not getting what you are saying, Joe. Help me understand your reasoning.” “Boy, I must be dense. I don’t see that in the text. Can you help me out?”