# Another teacher’s experience

One group of Geography teachers decided to use the idea of “mysteries” as a pedagogic strategy. The teachers identified a number of natural phenomena that they were required to teach about. They then selected one that they wanted to focus on — volcanoes. Here is how they designed the pedagogic teaching method for the topic.

First, they prepared a presentation (8–10 minutes) on the Krakatoa volcanic explosion of 1883 in what is now Indonesia. The force of very hot magma meeting cooler magma blew up a whole island. Debris from the volcanic activity spread into the atmosphere and turned sunsets bright red all year round. The teachers found an account of the explosion written by a sailor who was in the vicinity of Krakatoa. The presentation also included a mention of a volcanic explosion in Iceland in 2010 that caused flights to be cancelled in many parts of the world, especially Europe. One teacher in the group did the preparation of the presentation and each Geography teacher used it to present to their class.

Next, the teachers produced 15 cards with pieces of information that helped explain the mystery of how volcanic eruptions occur. Each card had letter identification. The cards were juggled up. The students in groups then had to put the cards in order to make up an answer to the mystery of volcanoes. They then put their chosen letter sequence on the board at the front of the class. The teacher then did a question-and-answer session with the class before revealing the correct sequence (which the students then copied out in their exercise books).

Finally, the teachers prepared a short test. The explanation about volcanoes was written down with three key sentences marked but missing. The students had to fill in the spaces. Each teacher used this as a first evaluation of how well the students had learned and understood the topic.
The use of the cards motivated the students and the teachers used the approach on other topics. For example, in one case, a group of 12-year-olds were doing a “mystery” that concerned the disappearance of a tribe of Amazonian Indians. The slips of paper included information about:

- gold prospectors;
- water pollution;
- infectious diseases;
- hunting practices; and
- poverty among the non-Indian population.

One group of four boys were having great difficulty with the mystery. The teacher visited them and pulled out a data item about the tribe’s water supply. She then asked them to find any other data items about water and left them to work alone. With this action, the teacher had diagnosed a weakness shared by the whole group in classifying/grouping data and demonstrated how they could undertake the next stage in working towards a solution. When the students had grouped several data items about water, the teacher returned to suggest that they might form a group about diseases and health. This enabled her on a third visit to start asking them about the possible connections both within and between the two groups of data items. The students thus took their first steps on formulating an explanation.

In another case, a group of 14–15-year-olds were doing a “mystery” that focused on who was to blame for the need to demolish a block of (public housing) flats in a nearby city. The data items included reference to:

- the faulty materials and technology used in the building;
- the antisocial behaviour of some of the residents;
- the destruction of the community which lived in the terraced houses that were cleared to build the high-rise blocks;
- the physical deterioration of the building; and
- the fears of residents in the flats with young children.

One group of girls had initially sorted their data into two groups: one representing reasons for the demolition and the other against. But, in fact, they were not addressing the specific task and so were classifying in an unproductive way. When their teacher pointed this out to them, they realised that although they had looked at the reasons for the demolition, they had not been looking specifically at the question of who was to blame. They then began to attribute each data item to the person or entity that was responsible, for example the builders who built the flats or the residents who were antisocial. It was then easier for them to re-sort the data. This time they formed groups related to the local council, the builders, the antisocial residents and the government.

Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike License 4.0