Reply to comment

The overall flow of Wil's presentation was a joy to experience. He started us reading an article designed to provoke us to make the connection between the tasting activities we would do and the instructional changes to which we aspire. He allowed us the time to share compelling ideas elicited by the article but did not allow the conversation to become the activity. He did this without shutting us down because his excitement about what we were soon to try was palpable and infectious. His demeanor informed us that the best was to come. The lab set-up was organized to allow us to easily follow his verbal and projected procedure. The materials were colorful and in an arrangement that gave us space to work; in other words, the set-up was inviting and engaging. My Middle school students love a tray with materials that are colorful, organized and easy to identify. I could imagine them approaching Wil’s set-ups with exclamations of excitement. He gave us enough background information to serve as tools for the problem he set before us to solve. We had a first attempt with little direction, an additional activity to train us, and then a second try to solve the problem based on our first attempt and new information. The progression was logical and encouraging, with enough discrepant events to permit learning. He made it safe for us to rely on our unconscious and slowly bring our initial unconscious decision to the level of a more informed, conscious decision. We shared our observations along the way, so there was feedback so important to the co-constructive approach. Wil kept a check on our progress through conversation and questions and made mid course corrections in his approach where appropriate. His planning and structure were enough to engage without being overbearing and inhibiting.

The article, “Mmmm…not Aha! Imaginative vs. Analytical Experiences of Wines,” by John Dilworth made the point that the words used in wine tasting suggest that it is semi-scientific. He suggests that there is an imaginative component as well. It occurred to me that this is true in medical practice as well. The words are so technical and specific that patients can erroneously assume that medical diagnosis and treatment are “scientific” and exact. There is an imaginative component that makes medical diagnosis an art based on a story arrived at by experimentation and shared data.  As teachers, we need to choose out words and phrases carefully to reveal the uncertainty that characterizes any body of information still under exploration.

The article’s author describes both conscious and unconscious components of wine tasting; the conscious part involves the sensory qualities, and the unconscious part, the enjoyment. Both, he states, contribute to wine tasting. In the classroom, we offer our students information and activities to appeal to the conscious brain but have to remember that their unconscious brains approach the classroom experience with its own stories. If we daily create a positive classroom experience, then our students will be more likely to prosper from the classroom experience both in a positive approach to their science education and greater understanding of the local and global shared summaries.

The author makes further distinction between routine and sophisticated tasting. The routine tasting is prevalent when the taster is involved in another activity such as conversation over a meal. In this state, the taster will observe large grain differences like spoiling of the wine or pleasantness. The experience moves away from the conscious state. In sophisticated tasting, there is a perpetual consciousness like that needed in problem solving.  The take-home message for the classroom is that activities and conversations need to include problem solving opportunities to bring student attention to the conscious level. Wil modeled this type of classroom experience well.