A potlatch is a gift-giving feast practiced by indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast of Canada and the United States, among whom it is traditionally the primary governmental institution, legislative body, and economic system. This includes the Heiltsuk, Haida, Nuxalk, Tlingit, Makah, Tsimshian, Nuu-chah-nulth, Kwakwaka'wakw, and Coast Salish cultures. Potlatches are also a common feature of the peoples of the Interior and of the Subarctic adjoining the Northwest Coast, although mostly without the elaborate ritual and gift-giving economy of the coastal peoples (see Athabaskan potlatch).
A potlatch involves giving away or destroying wealth or valuable items in order to demonstrate a leader's wealth and power. Potlatches are also focused on the reaffirmation of family, clan, and international connections, and the human connection with the supernatural world. Legal proceedings may include namings, business negotiations and transactions, marriages, divorces, deaths, end of mourning, transfers of physical and especially intellectual property, adoptions, initiations, treaty proceedings, monument commemorations, and honouring of the ancestors. Potlatch also serves as a strict resource management regime, where coastal peoples discuss, negotiate, and affirm rights to and uses of specific territories and resources.   Potlatches often involve music, dancing, singing, storytelling, speeching, and often joking and games. The honouring of the supernatural and the recitation of oral histories are a central part of many potlatches.
Potlatches went through a history of rigorous ban by the Canadian federal government, continuing underground despite the risk of criminal punishment, and have been studied by many anthropologists. Since the practice was de-criminalized after World War II, the potlatch has re-emerged in some communities. In many it is still the bedrock of indigenous governance, as in the Haida Nation, which has rooted its democracy in potlatch law.
- N.B. This overview concerns the Kwakwaka'wakw potlatch. Potlatch traditions and formalities and kinship systems in other cultures of the region differ, often substantially.
A potlatch was held on the occasion of births, deaths, adoptions, weddings, and other major events. Typically the potlatch was practiced more in the winter seasons as historically the warmer months were for procuring wealth for the family, clan, or village, then coming home and sharing that with neighbors and friends. The event was hosted by a numaym, or 'House', in Kwakwaka'wakw culture. A numaym was a complex cognatic kin group usually headed by aristocrats, but including commoners and occasional slaves. It had about one hundred members and several would be grouped together into a nation. The House drew its identity from its ancestral founder, usually a mythical animal who descended to earth and removed his animal mask, thus becoming human. The mask became a family heirloom passed from father to son along with the name of the ancestor himself. This made him the leader of the numaym, considered the living incarnation of the founder.:192
Only rich people could host a potlatch. Tribal slaves were not allowed to attend a potlatch as a host or a guest. In some instances, it was possible to have multiple hosts at one potlatch ceremony (although when this occurred the hosts generally tended to be from the same family). If a member of a nation had suffered an injury or indignity, hosting a potlatch could help to heal their tarnished reputation (or "cover his shame", as anthropologist H. G. Barnett worded it.) The potlatch was the occasion on which titles associated with masks and other objects were "fastened on" to a new office holder. Two kinds of titles were transferred on these occasions. Firstly, each numaym had a number of named positions of ranked "seats" (which gave them a seat at potlatches) transferred within itself. These ranked titles granted rights to hunting, fishing and berrying territories.:198 Secondly, there were a number of titles that would be passed between numayma, usually to in-laws, which included feast names that gave one a role in the Winter Ceremonial.:194 Aristocrats felt safe giving these titles to their out-marrying daughter's children because this daughter and her children would later be rejoined with her natal numaym and the titles returned with them.:201 Any one individual might have several "seats" which allowed them to sit, in rank order, according to their title, as the host displayed and distributed wealth and made speeches. Besides the transfer of titles at a potlatch, the event was given "weight" by the distribution of other less important objects such as Chilkat blankets, animal skins (later Hudson Bay blankets) and ornamental "coppers". It is the distribution of large numbers of Hudson Bay blankets, and the destruction of valued coppers that first drew government attention (and censure) to the potlatch.:205 On occasion, preserved food was also given as a gift during a potlatch ceremony. Gifts known as sta-bigs consisted of preserved food that was wrapped in a mat or contained in a storage basket.
Dorothy Johansen describes the dynamic: "In the potlatch, the host in effect challenged a guest chieftain to exceed him in his 'power' to give away or to destroy goods. If the guest did not return 100 percent on the gifts received and destroy even more wealth in a bigger and better bonfire, he and his people lost face and so his 'power' was diminished." Hierarchical relations within and between clans, villages, and nations, were observed and reinforced through the distribution or sometimes destruction of wealth, dance performances, and other ceremonies. The status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The hosts demonstrate their wealth and prominence through giving away goods.
Potlatch ceremonies were also used as coming-of-age rituals. When children were born, they would be given their first name at the time of their birth (which was usually associated with the location of their birthplace.) About a year later, the child's family would hold a potlatch and give gifts to the guests in attendance on behalf of the child. During this potlatch, the family would give the child their second name. Once the child reached about 12 years of age, they were expected to hold a potlatch of their own by giving out small gifts that they had collected to their family and people, at which point they would be able to receive their third name.
For some cultures, such as Kwakwaka'wakw, elaborate and theatrical dances are performed reflecting the hosts' genealogy and cultural wealth. Many of these dances are also sacred ceremonies of secret societies like the hamatsa, or display of family origin from supernatural creatures such as the dzunukwa.
We will dance when our laws command us to dance, we will feast when our hearts desire to feast. Do we ask the white man, 'Do as the Indian does'? No, we do not. Why, then, will you ask us, 'Do as the white man does'? It is a strict law that bids us to dance. It is a strict law that bids us to distribute our property among our friends and neighbors. It is a good law. Let the white man observe his law; we shall observe ours. And now, if you are come to forbid us to dance, begone; if not, you will be welcome to us.
It is important to note the differences and uniqueness among the different cultural groups and nations along the coast. Each nation, community, and sometimes clan has its own way of practicing the potlatch with diverse presentation and meaning. The Tlingit and Kwakiutl nations of the Pacific Northwest, for example, held potlatch ceremonies for different occasions. The Tlingit potlatches occurred for succession (the granting of tribal titles or land) and funerals. The Kwakiutl potlatches, on the other hand, occurred for marriages and incorporating new people into the nation (i.e. the birth of a new member of the nation.) The potlatch, as an overarching term, is quite general, since some cultures have many words in their language for various specific types of gatherings. It is important to keep this variation in mind as most of our detailed knowledge of the potlatch was acquired from the Kwakwaka'wakw around Fort Rupert on Vancouver Island in the period 1849 to 1925, a period of great social transition in which many features became excaberated in reaction to British colonialism.:188–208
Before the arrival of the Europeans, gifts included storable food (oolichan, or candlefish, oil or dried food), canoes, slaves, and ornamental "coppers" among aristocrats, but not resource-generating assets such as hunting, fishing and berrying territories. Coppers were sheets of beaten copper, shield-like in appearance; they were about two feet long, wider on top, cruciform frame and schematic face on the top half. None of the copper used was ever of Indigenous metal. A copper was considered the equivalent of a slave. They were only ever owned by individual aristocrats, and never by numaym, hence could circulate between groups. Coppers began to be produced in large numbers after the colonization of Vancouver Island in 1849 when war and slavery were ended.:206
The arrival of Europeans resulted in the introduction of numerous diseases against which Indigenous peoples had no immunity, resulting in a massive population decline. Competition for the fixed number of potlatch titles grew as commoners began to seek titles from which they had previously been excluded by making their own remote or dubious claims validated by a potlatch. Aristocrats increased the size of their gifts in order to retain their titles and maintain social hierarchy. This resulted in massive inflation in gifting made possible by the introduction of mass-produced trade goods in the late 18th and earlier 19th centuries.
Potlatching was made illegal in Canada in 1884 in an amendment to the Indian Act, largely at the urging of missionaries and government agents who considered it "a worse than useless custom" that was seen as wasteful, unproductive, and contrary to 'civilized values' of accumulation. The potlatch was seen as a key target in assimilation policies and agendas. Missionary William Duncan wrote in 1875 that the potlatch was "by far the most formidable of all obstacles in the way of Indians becoming Christians, or even civilized". Thus in 1884, the Indian Act was revised to include clauses banning the Potlatch and making it illegal to practice. Section 3 of the Act read,
Every Indian or other person who engages in or assists in celebrating the Indian festival known as the "Potlatch" or the Indian dance known as the "Tamanawas" is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not more than six nor less than two months in any gaol or other place of confinement; and, any Indian or other person who encourages, either directly or indirectly, an Indian or Indians to get up such a festival or dance, or to celebrate the same, or who shall assist in the celebration of same is guilty of a like offence, and shall be liable to the same punishment.
In 1888, the anthropologist Franz Boas described the potlatch ban as a failure:
The second reason for the discontent among the Indians is a law that was passed, some time ago, forbidding the celebrations of festivals. The so-called potlatch of all these tribes hinders the single families from accumulating wealth. It is the great desire of every chief and even of every man to collect a large amount of property, and then to give a great potlatch, a feast in which all is distributed among his friends, and, if possible, among the neighboring tribes. These feasts are so closely connected with the religious ideas of the natives, and regulate their mode of life to such an extent, that the Christian tribes near Victoria have not given them up. Every present received at a potlatch has to be returned at another potlatch, and a man who would not give his feast in due time would be considered as not paying his debts. Therefore the law is not a good one, and can not be enforced without causing general discontent. Besides, the Government is unable to enforce it. The settlements are so numerous, and the Indian agencies so large, that there is nobody to prevent the Indians doing whatsoever they like.
Eventually the potlatch law, as it became known, was amended to be more inclusive and address technicalities that had led to dismissals of prosecutions by the court. Legislation included guests who participated in the ceremony. The Indigenous people were too large to police and the law too difficult to enforce. Duncan Campbell Scott convinced Parliament to change the offence from criminal to summary, which meant "the agents, as justice of the peace, could try a case, convict, and sentence". Even so, except in a few small areas, the law was generally perceived as harsh and untenable. Even the Indian agents employed to enforce the legislation considered it unnecessary to prosecute, convinced instead that the potlatch would diminish as younger, educated, and more "advanced" Indians took over from the older Indians, who clung tenaciously to the custom.
The potlatch ban was repealed in 1951. Sustaining the customs and culture of their ancestors, Indigenous people now openly hold potlatches to commit to the restoring of their ancestors' ways. Potlatches now occur frequently and increasingly more over the years as families reclaim their birthright. Anthropologist Sergei Kan was invited by the Tlingit nation to attend several potlatch ceremonies between 1980 and 1987 and observed several similarities and differences between traditional and contemporary potlatch ceremonies. Kan notes that there was a language gap during the ceremonies between the older members of the nation and the younger members of the nation (age fifty and younger) due to the fact that most of the younger members of the nation do not speak the Tlingit language. Kan also notes that unlike traditional potlatches, contemporary Tlingit potlatches are no longer obligatory, resulting in only about 30% of the adult tribal members opting to participate in the ceremonies that Kan attended between 1980 and 1987. Despite these differences, Kan stated that he believed that many of the essential elements and spirit of the traditional potlatch were still present in the contemporary Tlingit ceremonies.
In his book The Gift, the French ethnologist, Marcel Mauss used the term potlatch to refer to a whole set of exchange practices in tribal societies characterized by "total prestations", i.e., a system of gift giving with political, religious, kinship and economic implications. These societies' economies are marked by the competitive exchange of gifts, in which gift-givers seek to out-give their competitors so as to capture important political, kinship and religious roles. Other examples of this "potlatch type" of gift economy include the Kula ring found in the Trobriand Islands.:188–208
- Competitive altruism
- Conspicuous consumption
- Guy Debord, French Situationist writer on the subject of potlatch and commodity reification.
- Koha, a similar concept among the Māori
- Kula ring
- List of bibliographical materials on the potlatch
- Moka exchange, a similar concept in Papua New Guinea
- Potluck ("potluck" is the older term in English, but folk etymology has derived the term "potluck" from the Native American custom of potlatch)
- Pow wow, a gathering whose name is derived from the Narragansett word for "spiritual leader"
- Harkin, Michael E., 2001, Potlatch in Anthropology, International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, eds., vol 17, pp. 11885-11889. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
- Aldona Jonaitis. Chiefly Feasts: The Enduring Kwakiutl Potlatch. University of Washington Press 1991. ISBN 978-0-295-97114-8.
- Seguin, Margaret (1986) "Understanding Tsimshian 'Potlatch.'" In: Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience, ed. by R. Bruce Morrison and C. Roderick Wilson, pp. 473–500. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
- Atleo, Richard. Tsawalk: A Nuu-chah-nulth Worldview, UBC Press; New Ed edition (February 28, 2005). ISBN 978-0-7748-1085-2
- Matthews, Major J. S. (1955). Conversations with Khahtsahlano 1932–1954. pp. 190, 266, 267. ASIN B0007K39O2. Retrieved 2015-11-27.
- Clutesi, George (May 1969). Potlatch (2 ed.). Victoria, BC: The Morriss Printing Company.
- Davidson, Sara Florence (2018). Potlatch as Pedagogy (1 ed.). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Portage and Main. ISBN 978-1-55379-773-9.
- Swanton, John R (1905). Contributions to the Ethnologies of the Haida (2 ed.). New York: EJ Brtill, Leiden, and GE Stechert. ISBN 0-404-58105-6.
- "Constitution of the Haida Nation" (PDF). Council of the Haida Nation. Retrieved 9 December 2019.
- "Haida Accord" (PDF). Retrieved 9 December 2019.
- Graeber, David (2001). Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of our own Dreams. New York: Palgrave.
- Barnett, H. G. (1938). "The Nature of the Potlatch". American Anthropologist. 40 (3): 349–358. doi:10.1525/aa.1938.40.3.02a00010.
- Snyder, Sally (April 1975). "Quest for the Sacred in Northern Puget Sound: An Interpretation of Potlatch". Ethnology. 14 (2): 149–161. doi:10.2307/3773086. JSTOR 3773086.
- Dorothy O. Johansen, Empire of the Columbia: A History of the Pacific Northwest, 2nd ed., (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), pp. 7–8.
- McFeat, Tom (1978). Indians of the North Pacific Coast. McGill-Queen's University Press. pp. 72–80.
- Franz Boas, "The Indians of British Columbia," The Popular Science Monthly, March 1888 (vol. 32), p. 631.
- Rosman, Abraham (1972). "The Potlatch: A Structural Analysis 1". American Anthropologist. 74 (3): 658–671. doi:10.1525/aa.1972.74.3.02a00280.
- (1) Boyd (2) Cole & Chaikin
- An Act further to amend "The Indian Act, 1880," S.C. 1884 (47 Vict.), c. 27, s. 3.
- G. M. Sproat, quoted in Douglas Cole and Ira Chaikin, An Iron Hand upon the People: The Law against the Potlatch on the Northwest Coast (Vancouver and Toronto 1990), 15
- Robin Fisher, Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia, 1774–1890, Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press, 1977, 207.
- An Act further to amend "The Indian Act, 1880," S.C. 1884 (47 Vict.), c. 27, s. 3. Reproduced in n.41, Bell, Catherine (2008). "Recovering from Colonization: Perspectives of Community Members on Protection and Repatriation of Kwakwaka'wakw Cultural Heritage". In Bell, Catherine; Val Napoleon (eds.). First Nations Cultural Heritage and Law: Case Studies, Voices, and Perspectives. Vancouver: UBC Press. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-7748-1462-1. Retrieved 6 February 2011.
- Franz Boas, "The Indians of British Columbia," The Popular Science Monthly, March 1888 (vol. 32), p. 636.
- Aldona Jonaitis, Chiefly Feasts: the Enduring Kwakiutl Potlatch, Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1991, 159.
- Douglas Cole and Ira Chaikin, An Iron Hand upon the People: The Law against the Potlatch on the Northwest Coast (Vancouver and Toronto 1990), Conclusion
- Gadacz, René R. "Potlatch". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 27 November 2013.
- Kan, Sergei (1989). "Cohorts, Generations, and their Culture: The Tlingit Potlatch in the 1980's". Anthropos: International Review of Anthropology and Linguistics. 84: 405–422.
- Godelier, Maurice (1996). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. pp. 147–61.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Potlatch ceremony.|
- U'mista Museum of potlatch artifacts.
- Potlatch An exhibition from the Peabody Museum, Harvard University.
- University of Washington Libraries Digital Collections – Oliver S. Van Olinda Photographs A collection of photographs depicting life on Vashon Island, Whidbey Island, Seattle and other communities around Puget Sound, Washington, Photographs of Native American activities such as documentation of a potlatch on Whidbey Island.


This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
A teaching method comprises the principles and methods used by teachers to enable student learning. These strategies are determined partly on subject matter to be taught and partly by the nature of the learner. For a particular teaching method to be appropriate and efficient it has to be in relation with the characteristic of the learner and the type of learning it is supposed to bring about. Suggestions are there to design and selection of teaching methods must take into account not only the nature of the subject matter but also how students learn. In today's school the trend is that it encourages a lot of creativity. It is a known fact that human advancement comes through reasoning. This reasoning and original thought enhances creativity.
The approaches for teaching can be broadly classified into teacher centered and student centered. In a teacher-centered approach to learning, teachers are the main authority figure in this model. Students are viewed as "empty vessels" whose primary role is to passively receive information (via lectures and direct instruction) with an end goal of testing and assessment. It is the primary role of teachers to pass knowledge and information onto their students. In this model, teaching and assessment are viewed as two separate entities. Student learning is measured through objectively scored tests and assessments. In Student-Centered Approach to Learning, while teachers are the authority figure in this model, teachers and students play an equally active role in the learning process. The teacher's primary role is to coach and facilitate student learning and overall comprehension of material. Student learning is measured through both formal and informal forms of assessment, including group projects, student portfolios, and class participation. Teaching and assessments are connected; student learning is continuously measured during teacher instruction. Commonly used teaching methods may include class participation, demonstration, recitation, memorization, or combinations of these.
- 1 Explanation
- 2 Methods of instruction
- 3 Evolution of teaching methods
- 4 See also
- 5 Notes
- 6 References
- 7 Further reading
The most basic teaching method is explanation. Explanation is characterized by its function as "a tool that is used by a speaker for understanding or 'giving a sense' to the object of communication, of a debate, or a discussion ... The role of an explanation is to make clearer the meaning of an object (method, term, assignment) maintaining formally the necessary distance between the object of the action or study and the tools. In the learning/teaching process, explanation is a tool used by both, teacher and students. Its goal is to manifest comprehension.
Traditionally, explanation belongs to monological teaching methods where the information is transmitted from the teacher to the students (together with e.g. narrative, description or lecture). Skalková, 1999, says that in practice, individual forms of explanation often percolate. In this perspective, explanation is seen as the task fulfilled by the teacher with students passively receiving what is presented. Collecting feedback on students' perceptions of whether explanations are clearly identified whether students feel particular teaching assisted them in understanding the subject matter. Without student understanding, no explanation can be said to be clear We see explanation in a much broader sense:
Communication in school is a mutual interchange of information among teachers and students, studens and students during the educational process, i.e. students have an active role in the whole process (Mareš & Křivohlavý, 1995). Using explanation in a mathematics classroom is a normal procedure, but its roles and forms vary. Predominantly explanation is seen as a tool for describing relevant phenomena, developing students' logical thinking, and guiding students by inductive judgement to generalising. It leads to clarifying interrelations, demonstrating and justifying (Skalková, 1999, p. 172).
Although explanation is not often explicitly studied in literature, it is present in the background of most papers dealing with communication and reasoning. "Good teaching is good explanation" (Calfee 1986: 1-2). This quotation reflects the belief that the capacity to explain is critically important in teaching (Havita 2000). According to Behr (1988: 189), the art of explaining - the ability to provide understanding to others - is the central activity of teaching. Therefore, to achieve the goal of teaching, the teacher must adopt effective teaching methods that can lead to learners understanding the subject being taught. Being the most commonly used teaching method, explanation integrates well in all methods of instruction, such as discussions, seminars, practical lessons and tutorials (Havita 2000). Therefore, if used properly, this teaching method can develop logical operations: induction, deduction, comparison, analysis, synthesis and analogy. The main objective of explanation in teaching is to enable the learners to take intelligent interest in the lesson, to grasp the purpose of what is being done, and to develop their own insight and understanding of how to do it (Rahaman 2004). In addition, and with specific reference to technology education, explanation is used in classroom teaching to provide students with an understanding of the complex and interrelated nature of technology, which is technical, procedural, conceptual and social (Hansen and Froelick 1994). This involves the ability by the teacher to use explanation effectively in order to communicate information to students. From the standpoint of technology education, explanation in teaching is an intentional activity, which represents the discovery of truth, which is based on concrete deductive arguments (Gwyneth 2007). Explanation as it pertains to teaching can be considered as an attempt to provide understanding of a problem to others (Brown and Atkins 1986: 63).
Most formal definitions characterize explanation as a statement that makes something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure or operation or circumstances. Predominantly, explanation is seen as a tool for describing relevant phenomena, developing students' logical thinking, and guiding students by inductive judgement to generalising. It leads to clarifying interrelations, demonstrating and justifying (Skalková 1999:172). Mayes (2006) argues that explanation goes beyond mere description. Accordingly, a key aspect of explanation is the emphasis on why things happen. In other words, one can think of explanation as an attempt to identify the cause of something. Fairhurst (1981) contextualized explanation in term of requiring something to be explained (the phenomenon that needs to be explained), an explainer (the provider of the explanation) and the explainee (the recipient of the explanation). In this context, Metcalf and Cruickshank (1991) argued that the role of an explanation is to make some concept, procedure or rule plain and comprehensible. Brown and Armstrong (1984) operationally defined explanation as an attempt to provide understanding of a problem to others. This definition strengthens the view of Perrott (1982) who argued that a clear explanation depends on (a) identification of the elements to be related to, for example objects, events, processes and generalisation, and (b), identifying the relationship between them, for example casual, justifying and interpreting. Horwood (2006) on the other hand provides a distinction between explanation and description. According to Horwood (2006), description is purely informational, and the bits of information are isolated from any network of relatedness. In this context, an explanation is given when connections are drawn between and among pieces of information. Furthering this view, Hargie and Dickson (2003) argue that the act of explaining is essentially the same act of describing, instructing or giving of information.
According to Martin (1970: 59), the job of someone who explains something to someone "is to fill in the gap between his audience's knowledge or beliefs about some phenomena and what he takes to be the actual state of affairs". From Martin's point of view one can argue that what counts is causing the audience to know or believe something of which they were previously ignorant. At the extreme end, explanation has been thought of in a restricted sense as a special type of telling which goes beyond description. Pavitt (2000) is of the view that answering the question "why" is an explanation. In another debate, Trevor (2002) argues that for an explanation to be good the explanation must be valid in the context in which it is used and must also be understood by the listener. This implies that for an explanation to be understood, it should be clearly presented by the explainer.
In this regard, it is part of the responsibility of the explainer to ensure that his or her explanation appears sufficiently worthwhile and interesting to the listener for them to attend to the information being provided (Wragg 2003). From Wragg's point of view, good explanations can be described as clearly structured and interesting to the explainer. While good explanation can unlock understanding, poor or inadequate explanations may lead to confusion and boredom. From another standpoint, Gordon et al. (2006) are of the opinion that explanation is deemed successful if it fulfills the purpose of explanation. This implies that for an explanation to be understood, the explanation has to appear to be well structured by the explainee.
In the context of education, good explanation in teaching is essential for unlocking the students' understanding of the subject. It develops students' logical thinking and provides guidance by inductive judgment to generalizing. Leinhardt (1990: 3-4) distinguished between two types of teaching related to explanations: instructional and disciplinary. According to Leinhardt (1990), instructional explanations aim to explain concepts, procedures, events, ideas and classes of problems in order to help students understand, learn and use information in a flexible way. Disciplinary explanations are built around a core of conventions within each particular discipline and try to explain what constitutes evidence, what is assumed, and what the agenda for the discipline is. They provide the legitimacy of new knowledge, reinterpret old knowledge, and challenge and address existing knowledge (Leinhardt 1990). From a learning perspective, explanation holds a special place as one of the core critical thinking skills (Facione 1990). Good critical thinkers, according to Facione (1998: 5), are those who can explain what they think and how they arrived at that judgment. The Delphi Study expert panel, cited by Facione (1998: 6), defined explanation as being able "to state the results of one's reasoning; to justify that reasoning in terms of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, and contextual considerations upon which one's results were based; and to present one's reasoning in the form of cogent arguments". Explanation that works (Lipton 2004) is one that is "sticky" (people remember it, think about it, and can repeat it, often even days or weeks later), is easily communicated (people can explain it to each other), and guides thinking in new and better directions (it leads to new kinds of reasoning, which are not only more constructive and accurate but more engaging).
Methods of instruction
Howard Gardner identified a wide range of modalities in his Multiple Intelligences theories. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Keirsey Temperament Sorter, based on the works of Jung, focus on understanding how people's personality affects the way they interact personally, and how this affects the way individuals respond to each other within the learning environment.
The lecture method is just one of several teaching methods, though in schools it's usually considered the primary one. The lecture method is convenient for the institution and cost-efficient, especially with larger classroom sizes. This is why lecturing is the standard for most college courses, when there can be several hundred students in the classroom at once; lecturing lets professors address the most people at once, in the most general manner, while still conveying the information that they feel is most important, according to the lesson plan. While the lecture method gives the instructor or teacher chances to expose students to unpublished or not readily available material, the students plays a passive role which may hinder learning. While this method facilitates large-class communication, the lecturer must make constant and conscious effort to become aware of student problems and engage the students to give verbal feedback. It can be used to arouse interest in a subject provided the instructor has effective writing and speaking skills.
Demonstrating, which is also called the coaching style or the Lecture-cum-Demonstration method, is the process of teaching through examples or experiments. The framework mixes the instructional strategies of information imparting and showing how. For example, a science teacher may teach an idea by performing an experiment for students. A demonstration may be used to prove a fact through a combination of visual evidence and associated reasoning.
Demonstrations are similar to written storytelling and examples in that they allow students to personally relate to the presented information. Memorization of a list of facts is a detached and impersonal experience, whereas the same information, conveyed through demonstration, becomes personally relatable. Demonstrations help to raise student interest and reinforce memory retention because they provide connections between facts and real-world applications of those facts. Lectures, on the other hand, are often geared more towards factual presentation than connective learning.
One of the advantages of the demonstration method involves the capability to include different formats and instruction materials to make the learning process engaging. This leads to the activation of several of the learners' senses, creating more opportunities for learning. The approach is also beneficial on the part of the teacher because it is adaptable to both group and individual teaching. While demonstration teaching, however, can be effective in teaching Math, Science, and Art, it can prove ineffective in a classroom setting that calls for the accommodation of the learners' individual needs.
Collaboration allows student to actively participate in the learning process by talking with each other and listening to others opinions. Collaboration establishes a personal connection between students and the topic of study and it helps students think in a less personally biased way. Group projects and discussions are examples of this teaching method. Teachers may employ collaboration to assess student's abilities to work as a team, leadership skills, or presentation abilities.
Collaborative discussions can take a variety of forms, such as fishbowl discussions. After some preparation and with clearly defined roles, a discussion may constitute most of a lesson, with the teacher only giving short feedback at the end or in the following lesson.
Some examples of collaborative learning tips and strategies for teachers are build trust, establish group interactions, keeps in mind the critics, include different types of learning, use real-world problems, consider assessment, create a pre-test and post-test, use different strategies, help students use inquiry and use technology for easier learning.
The most common type of collaborative method of teaching in a class is classroom discussion. It is also a democratic way of handling a class, where each student is given equal opportunity to interact and put forth their views. A discussion taking place in a classroom can be either facilitated by a teacher or by a student. A discussion could also follow a presentation or a demonstration. Class discussions can enhance student understanding, add context to academic content, broaden student perspectives, highlight opposing viewpoints, reinforce knowledge, build confidence, and support community in learning. The opportunities for meaningful and engaging in-class discussion may vary widely, depending on the subject matter and format of the course. Motivations for holding planned classroom discussion, however, remain consistent. An effective classroom discussion can be achieved by probing more questions among the students, paraphrasing the information received, using questions to develop critical thinking with questions like "Can we take this one step further?;" "What solutions do you think might solve this problem?;" "How does this relate to what we have learned about..?;" "What are the differences between ... ?;" "How does this relate to your own experience?;" "What do you think causes .... ?;" "What are the implications of .... ?"
It is clear from "the impact of teaching strategies on learning strategies in first-year higher education cannot be overlooked nor over interpreted, due to the importance of students' personality and academic motivation which also partly explain why students learn the way they do" that Donche agrees with the previous points made in the above headings but he also believes that student's personalities contribute to their learning style.
The term "debriefing" refers to conversational sessions that revolve around the sharing and examining of information after a specific event has taken place. Depending on the situation, debriefing can serve a variety of purposes. It takes into consideration the experiences and facilitates reflection and feedback. Debriefing may involve feedback to the students or among the students, but this is not the intent. The intent is to allow the students to "thaw" and to judge their experience and progress toward change or transformation. The intent is to help them come to terms with their experience. This process involves a cognizance of cycle that students may have to be guided to completely debrief. Teachers should not be overly critical of relapses in behaviour. Once the experience is completely integrated, the students will exit this cycle and get on with the next.
Debriefing is a daily exercise in most professions. It might be in psychology, healthcare, politics or business. This is also accepted as an everyday necessity.
Classroom Action Research
Classroom Action Research is a method of finding out what works best in your own classroom so that you can improve student learning. We know a great deal about good teaching in general (e.g. McKeachie, 1999; Chickering and Gamson, 1987; Weimer, 1996), but every teaching situation is unique in terms of content, level, student skills and learning styles, teacher skills and teaching styles, and many other factors. To maximize student learning, a teacher must find out what works best in a particular situation. Each teaching and research method, model and family is essential to the practice of technology studies. Teachers have their strengths and weaknesses, and adopt particular models to complement strengths and contradict weaknesses. Here, the teacher is well aware of the type of knowledge to be constructed. At other times, teachers equip their students with a research method to challenge them to construct new meanings and knowledge. In schools, the research methods are simplified, allowing the students to access the methods at their own levels.
Evolution of teaching methods
About 3000 BC, with the advent of writing, education became more conscious or self-reflecting, with specialized occupations such as scribe and astronomer requiring particular skills and knowledge. Philosophy in ancient Greece led to questions of educational method entering national discourse.
In his literary work The Republic, Plato described a system of instruction that he felt would lead to an ideal state. In his dialogues, Plato described the Socratic method, a form of inquiry and debate intended to stimulate critical thinking and illuminate ideas.
Comenius, in Bohemia, wanted all children to learn. In his The World in Pictures, he created an illustrated textbook of things children would be familiar with in everyday life and used it to teach children. Rabelais described how the student Gargantua learned about the world, and what is in it.
Much later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Emile, presented methodology to teach children the elements of science and other subjects. During Napoleonic warfare, the teaching methodology of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi of Switzerland enabled refugee children, of a class believed to be unteachable[by whom?], to learn. He described this in his account of an educational experiment at Stanz.
The Prussian education system was a system of mandatory education dating to the early 19th century. Parts of the Prussian education system have served as models for the education systems in a number of other countries, including Japan and the United States. The Prussian model required classroom management skills to be incorporated into the teaching process.
Newer teaching methods may incorporate television, radio, internet, multi media, and other modern devices. Some educators[who?] believe that the use of technology, while facilitating learning to some degree, is not a substitute for educational methods that encourage critical thinking and a desire to learn. Inquiry learning is another modern teaching method. A popular teaching method that is being used by a vast majority of teachers is hands on activities. Hands-on activities are activities that require movement, talking, and listening, it activates multiple areas of the brain. "The more parts of your brain you use, the more likely you are to retain information," says Judy Dodge, author of 25 Quick Formative Assessments for a Differentiated Classroom (Scholastic, 2009).
- Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about Teaching methods. Camberwell, Vic, ACER Press
- "Teaching Methods". Teach.com. Retrieved 1 December 2017.
- "Lecture Method: Pros, Cons, and Teaching Alternatives". Blog.udemy.com. Retrieved 1 December 2017.
- "Cnc". Cirtl.net. Retrieved 1 December 2017.
- Vanaja, M. (2004). Methods Of Teaching Physics. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House. p. 100. ISBN 978-8171418671.
- "Teaching Styles: Different Teaching Methods & Strategies". Concordia University-Portland. 2013-01-05. Retrieved 2018-07-27.
- Du, Wenjiang (2012). Informatics and Management Science V. London: Springer. p. 267. ISBN 9781447147954.
- Neeraja, K.P. (2011). Textbook of Communication and Education Technology for Nurses. London: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Ltd. p. 313. ISBN 9789350253502.
- Heidgerken, Loretta (1965). Teaching in Schools of Nursing: Principles and Methods. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. p. 390.
- "What Is the Collaborative Classroom?". Archived from the original on 27 June 2012. Retrieved 14 December 2012.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2015-09-26. Retrieved 2015-09-25.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- Petrina, S. (2007) Advance Teaching Methods for the Technology Classroom (pp.125 - 153). Hershey, PA : Information Science Publishing.
- Donche, V (2013). "Differential use of Learning Strategies in First-Year Higher Education: The impact of Personality, Academic Motivation, and Teaching Strategies". The British Journal of Educational Psychology. 83:2.
- "Debriefing". Debriefing.com. Retrieved 1 December 2017.
- Gatto, John Taylor. A Different Kind of Teacher: Solving the Crisis of American Schooling. Berkeley Hills Books. ISBN 978-1-893163-21-8.
- Cleaver, Samantha. "Hands-On Is Minds-On". Scholastic.com. Retrieved 4 March 2015.
- Achinstein P 2010. Evidence, Explanation, and Realism: Essays in Philosophy of Science. London: Oxford University Press. Asbaugh AF 1988. Plato's Theory of Explanation: A Study of the Cosmological Account in the Timaeus. USA: State University of New York Press. Behr AL 1988. Exploring the lecture method: An empirical study. Studies in Higher Education, 13(2): 189-200.
- Asbaugh AF 1988. Plato's Theory of Explanation: A Study of the Cosmological Account in the Timaeus. USA: State University of New York Press.
- Behr AL 1988. Exploring the lecture method: An empirical study. Studies in Higher Education, 13(2): 189-200.
- Brown GA, Daines JM 1981. Can explaining be learnt? Some lecturers' views. Higher Education, 10(5): 573-580.
- Brown G.A, Armstrong S 1984. Explaining and explanations. In: EC Wragg (Ed.): Classroom Teaching Skills. New York: Nichols Publishing Company, pp. 121–148
- Martin RJ 1970. Explaining, Understanding and Teaching. New York, McGraw- Hill
- Jarvie IC 1991. Explaining Explanation. David-Hillel Ruben New York.
- B. S. Manoj, Multi-Track Modular Teaching: An Advanced Teaching-Learning Method, Amazon, ISBN 978-93-5361-582-6, June 2019.