Two. The Improvised Equation: Finding Truth and Structure in Unscripted Communication
Why the 'Yes, and...' Principle Must Replace 'You’re Wrong' in Science Education
The lesson starts. Students take their seats, and a teacher approaches the front. The first part of every good and traditional physics lesson is about class-wide questioning. The teacher asks — the student answers.
If the student is wrong, the teacher often says “You’re wrong”, but they never say “Yep, and…”
When a student gives an incorrect answer, the teacher’s impulse is frequently to deliver a direct negation (“You’re wrong”), yet rarely do they employ the constructive affirmation of “Yes, and…”
Why?
‘Cause he teacher is unwilling to be wrong. The teacher is always right.
And here, in Russia, the system of education isn’t about mistakes, it’s about “be perfect and you’ll have a great score”. Why? I don’t know.
The mistakes are our gifts, we are learning from our mistakes. By knowing students’ mistakes the teacher can diagnose their knowledge and their progress in the subject.
Considering Physics—mistakes in solving problems could drive the student to more precise understanding of physics models, mistakes in lab-work could lead them to a deeper understanding of the nature of a physics phenomenon. And it’s wonderful to make mistakes!
A teacher must know how to meet their students halfway. I am not advocating for pandering to them in every instance—not at all. But it is unequivocally necessary for students to understand that making mistakes in class is not only allowed but encouraged.
All too often, the educational system is built on the principle of “replicate this, and don’t do worse than me.” This applies to both solving problems and conducting lab experiments. The student’s task, more often than not, is merely to follow the teacher’s template of actions correctly. And the grade is based on the number of errors the student has made.
But this approach is fundamentally wrong. And this methodology is not exclusive to physics, nor is it exclusive to Russia.
It is time to change the axioms of pedagogy?.. Well, we must abandon the system where a student starts with the highest possible score and loses points for mistakes. Instead, we should adopt a system where the student begins “from zero,” and grade-points are awarded for achieving specific milestones.
This “points for achievements” system is how assessments often work in academic Olympiads—students competitions. However, even this system is flawed. For several years, I served on the jury for the regional stage of the Russian Physics Olympiad for schoolchildren. We were sent standardized solutions and rigid scoring criteria for theoretical and experimental problems.
This is... inconvenient. This is because a student’s solution often does not conform to the “standard” approach anticipated by the organizers (especially in the experimental problems—using lab equipment).
It’s equally inconvenient in the theoretical round. For instance, a student comes to us for an appeal and argues: “You lowered my score on this problem. I disagree; according to the criteria, I wrote down this equation and that one. I should receive one point for each of these equations.”
Formally, they are correct. But in reality... in reality, their paper is covered with a dozen random formulas that came to mind. Of course, two random formulas from the entire physics course might suit to solving a dynamics problem. They inevitably will. But should we place such an undue emphasis on rigid scoring criteria?
Or consider another student who also appeals, saying: “I should get 3 out of 5 possible points for this problem because I wrote down this formula, included this diagram, and also referenced this and that point from the criteria.” Yet, their mathematical calculations are incorrect, and their final answer is also wrong.
These examples pertain to Olympiads and other forms of exotic control. But even in regular lessons, tests, and exams—yes, we must be flexible, and yes, we must be accommodating. But... should we really place such an accent on rigid scoring criteria? If we do, yesterday’s straight-A students might become failing students, and underachievers might undeservedly receive high marks.
Therefore, I’m for flexibility in communication with students during the educational process.
In conclusion, the rigidity of traditional grading systems—the subtraction method that punishes deviation from a set path—is fundamentally at odds with the true process of learning. It conditions students to fear the very mechanism of growth: the mistake.
The core of the issue is a failure in communication, a fundamental violation of the Improvised Equation.
To embrace the “Yes, and...” principle in education means shifting our focus from correction to construction. It means validating the student’s attempt (”Yes, I see the formula you applied”) before constructively guiding them forward (”...and now let’s build upon that to account for energy loss”).
This flexibility—this willingness to accept the unscripted moment—does not lead to chaos or undeserved grades; it leads to deeper, more resilient understanding. It empowers the student to become an active constructor of knowledge, rather than a mere repeater of instructions.
For teachers, embracing improvisation means stepping beyond the frame of the lesson plan to truly see the mind of the student. For students, it means learning that in the classroom, as in life, the biggest failures are often the most valuable, unscripted opportunities.
·F·I·N·