Chapter 3: Why do students remember everything that's on television and forget everything I say? (Part 3)

Why Don't Students Like School? by Daniel T. Willingham (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).

Storytelling

In the previous section Willingham describes 4 teachers who have their own unique teacher personalities, but all are consistently rated as good teachers and they all have one other thing in common - they organize their lessons around stories.

Willingham is quick to caution he is NOT suggesting that storytelling is the only way to teach content. And if you've been around a while and seen district education specialists prescribing one "true" pedagogical method after another, it's easy to understand why Willingham issues this caveat. Whether it helps or not remains to be seen. He also defines storytelling broadly enough that it may not resemble at all what you think of when you first hear the term "storytelling."

We are surely all aware by now that humans are particularly drawn to stories. Long before written language was developed, verbal stories were one of the primary vehicles for transmitting cultural knowledge over generations. The word "history" in English conveys the sense of a "story," the German word for story and history are one & the same (Geschichte). It is perhaps a testament (no pun intended) to the power of stories that they frequently take on the form of (sometimes harmful) myths and legends that are persistent over generations and impervious to reason and evidence.

Politicians, movie-makers, television producers, journalists, motivational speakers, all take advantage of our innate vulnerability to stories. I dislike television but if I make the mistake of tuning in for a couple of minutes to whatever my wife is watching I can easily be drawn in by the drama and wind up watching entire episodes of Top Chef. In a classic episode of Seinfeld we were let in on the joke that could equally apply to virtually all TV sitcoms, namely that it was all along a show about nothing at all (yes, my bias is showing).

Obviously there's something going on here that we might take advantage of in the classroom. Although Seinfeld may have been a show about nothing, it was also a show that took full advantage of the structure of stories, which Willingham breaks into the 4 Cs - causality, conflict, complications, character. The first term, causality, may need some clarification but I trust that the other three are pretty self-explanatory and you will no doubt be able to identify those components in any traditional story you can recall. Causality is equally simple to explain but not necessarily something you may have thought about in the context of a story's structure. It simply means that the events that take place in a story all have a cause. Things don't happen randomly or for no reason.

The causality component of stories seems to fit particularly well with Willingham's major pedagogical goal, getting students to think about content. That's because a good story doesn't tell you all the causal links, instead it requires the listener (or viewer, reader) to infer causal connections. We do this all the time and automatically. Who doesn't feel a little rush of pride that comes from making predictions throughout a movie or book and finding out that our predictions are correct (unless it's too obvious). Even being wrong can be satisfying if the story is well told and we can think how clever the writer was to have outwitted the audience.

So how do we apply this power of stories to engage an audience to classroom teaching? Do we all have to turn every content objective now into a story? The answer is no, although if you could pull it off it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. However, you can take those key elements of a story, the 4 Cs, and structure just about any content objective around them. It's pretty easy to understand how that would work in history or literature classes, and in science the historical development of many ideas can certainly be used extensively as the backbone of our lessons. But even absent a compelling historical narrative, there are many concepts in science that can be arranged around the 4 Cs.

Take photosynthesis, for example. Causality is easy, it's embedded in the "story" of science itself. It's what science is looking for. "What caused living things to evolve the ability to produce glucose" could be answered in a number of different ways. Evolution provides its own story structure that students can apply to any similar question in biology. Conflict? Easy, there's competition, survival of the fittest, limited resources, etc. Long ago in a heterotroph world ("dog-eat-dog" more or less), resources would have become limited and organisms that could get some or all of their nutrition "automatically" (autotrophs) would have prospered. Complications? You have to live near a light source, you have to get rid of this new, toxic, waste product called oxygen, etc. (Wait, oxygen is toxic???) What about characters? The organism itself, or the population of organisms if you want to get technical, can be seen as the characters in the story. I know some scientists/teachers are uncomfortable withanthropomorphizing, but I'm not one of them. Having students imaginethemselves as a plant, or even a carbon atom can make it easier tobring out the "character" in a story-structured lesson. In developing this story of photosynthesis I would want to ask questions and lead a discussion that has students making many of the causal connections for themselves.

Willingham actually uses an example from a math lesson, and while I can see that what he presents is reasonable and contains some of the elements of a story, it seems a bit of a stretch to use it as an model for the 4 Cs he has just presented - I fail to see how the "character" component fits in, personally. Maybe a math teacher can read it over and set me straight. Nonetheless, maybe that's a good thing anyway. Willingham has already explicitly stated that he is not proposing some rigid formula for organizing a lesson, and getting caught up in making sure that your lesson fits to a T some artificial structure misses the real goal, getting students to think about what you are teaching. Sometimes the conflict is between competing ideas, or how to decide whether something is true or not, and doesn't involve "characters" in the traditional sense. And that's OK.

Next Section:
What if there is no meaning? (On rote memorization)