I've been writing -- and sharing -- a lot of conceptual understandings, or generalizations, recently, which has gotten me thinking about the process of understanding. Lynn Erickson defines generalizations as "significant, transferrable, and conceptual ideas that students come to understand as a result of an inquiry" (Erickson, Lanning, and French, 2017). A generalization might also be referred to as a conceptual understanding, a big idea, a central idea, or a statement of inquiry; all of these phrases describe the relationship between two or more concepts.
I like a good generalization. It makes abstract ideas concrete. However, as my own understanding of conceptual learning has evolved over the years, I have also started to reconsider whether the process of understanding always results in such a concrete generalization.
A generalization is, in essence, an "answer" to a conceptual question. For example:
❓What effect do elements such as lighting, sound and camera angles have on a film audience?
🙋♀️ Film directors make decisions about lighting, sound and camera angles to elicit fear from the audience.
❓How do presenters engage an audience?
🙋♀️ Presenters use speaking conventions and non-verbal communication techniques to engage an audience.
❓Why is it important for readers to evaluate a text’s origin and purpose?
🙋♀️ Evaluating a text’s origin and purpose helps readers judge its credibility.
But not all questions result in a definitive answer. Sometimes, the inquiry process leads to more questions. And in one of the workshops I was facilitating earlier this year, one of the English teachers posed an interesting question to me: "Isn't creating a generalization imposing a specific interpretation [of literature] onto students?" Hmm... I hadn't considered that before, but there is perhaps some truth to that. After all, (one of) my understanding(s) of Macbeth might be Ambition and a desire for power can drive a person to commit morally questionable actions, but that is fairly subjective and not necessarily the same understanding that my colleagues (or students) might have of the same text.
I still enjoy the process of crafting a generalization. It clarifies my thinking and gives me something concrete, relevant and meaningful to frame a unit or lesson (as opposed to an old-fashioned learning objective or an impersonal standard). But I don't think that generalizing is the end goal of the conceptual thinking process. The thinking itself is the goal.