Essays
Self Descriptive Piece
i. My
confidence level wavers depending on the situation, so I feel myself
trying out different strategies all the time.
ii. Converations with colleagues, workshops, occasional readings also
effect the things I try.
b. A broad spectrum
i.
Perhaps this is lack of
experience, but I feel that adapting styles is necessary as we adapt to
the many different situations in out classes.
ii. Makes me feel adaptable--that was something I was concerned about
when I first began--could I adapt at the drop of a hat as well as they
told me I’d need to?
c. Would like to head more in the Rules-Consequences direction.
i. This year, I tried an interesting approach: I never really outlined
rules other than “you know the expectations”
about
a week into it-that’s it!. So far, so good—though I
am often at a loss of what to do in the event that a student really
challenges me.
ii.
However, during my student teaching, Co-op teacher was amazing at
establishing classroom rules with the students. 2 countries,
3 cities, four jobs and 6 apartments later, I can’t seem to
find the handouts he used/I stole. The nice thing was how
easy it made management: You are not following the rules that
we discussed as a class, so you have to face the consequences that we
discussed as a class. It took all of the emotion out of
discipline and since it was student created, they were being held
responsible for their decisions—especially with the
“tough student”. It was masterful.
III. Discipline and
Teaching Development
a. Year of the Tiger
i.
Just like my horoscope at
a Chinese Restaurant, the Reflective-Confident development fit me
pretty well. I think it helps
define why my discipline is scattered across the
board.
ii. Definitely reflective—I spend a lot of time
thinking about my day/students.
iii. even without going through classroom rules I still fear the day
that a student is super belligerent, etc.
iv. I wonder if I’ll ever feel
prescriptive-experienced, and I worry that I won’t maybe
that’s ok.
Metacomprehension
This testimony is based off of two delightful salespeople I have had
the chance to work with over the last few years. Despite spending only
a few hours with each, their impressions were lasting ones. Too, I am
using the male gender solely because writing s/he every time is a bit
cumbersome:
Though we seldom see plaid pants, a maroon double-breasted blazer, and
a half-smoked cigar anymore, the car salesman remains a worthy
adversary. His new wardrobe is now filed under ‘business
casual’ but his intellect and cunning is as sharp as ever. He
watches from the showroom, waiting to make his move. You approach the
car outside, he cracks his knuckles inside. You open the car door
outside, he licks his lips inside. You pause, perhaps glancing to see
if anyone is approaching. He runs his hand through his hair and crosses
into the outside air, prepared to engage you in a most infamous battle
of wits. The only weapons you need in this battle are prior knowledge
and your finely tuned metacomprehension.
Round one: metacomprehension. You have found a car you like and the
salesman can see it in your eyes. Sure you try to play it cool, but
he’s a professional, a master. That faint smile on your lips
as you drove the car back on the lot was a little more evident than you
had hoped. A little too loudly, your partner said “Wow, that
was a wonderful ride.” And you asked to talk numbers a little
more eagerly than you had meant to. Three strikes: the salesman sees
dollar signs in his eyes but you recognize this and slough it off
because you are still in control. Sure, you let a little bit of emotion
leak, but you allow that your eagerness will not affect your
willingness to walk away if you don’t get what you want.
You’ve studied the process. You know the steps. You know how
the game works. Thankfully you are aware that you must now adapt your
approach, strengthen from the inside, and not back down. You accurately
assess all that is going on around you: the things you are doing wrong
as well as the things you are doing right. This “awareness of
and conscious control over [your] understanding…”
is what will allow you to modify how you buy this car today ensuring
that you get the best deal (Standiford, 1984). If, however, you are
unable to make this distinction, you will be at the mercy of the car
dealer and will ultimately pay far too much for the car you like.
In this way, a student’s own ability to judge her
comprehension of the standings, or metacomprehension, is what prepares
her for mastery in any given subject (Dunlosky & Lipko, 2007).
By being able to accurately make the distinction between what she knows
and what she doesn’t know our student can focus her learning
accordingly ensuring success.
Round two: prior knowledge, relative accuracy, and efficiency. Sitting
at a mildly cluttered desk, you brace yourself to begin the
negotiations. Your stomach is all butterflies, but the flutters
can’t be seen through your tough exterior. You’ve
worked very hard since the last time you were at a desk like this. That
first time, your metacomprehension was unfaithful to you. You felt that
you could trust this nice man. He seemed honest and answered all of
your questions with sincerity. Having no prior knowledge, or schema, in
the area of car buying, you had no reason to doubt that this was an
honest negotiation with a peer. Unfortunately, you later found out that
you paid far too much for that first car. At that time, your relative
accuracy, or the relationship between how well you thought you knew
something in correlation to how well you actually knew it was terrible
(Dunlosky & Lipko, 2007). You thought you were getting a good
deal when in you reality you became a story to tell with a laugh in the
break room over jelly-filled donuts.
Wanting to prevent this in the future, you began to research. You began
to develop your knowledge base of car buying. You asked friends about
their experiences with buying a car. You looked at kellybluebook.com
and Yahoo! Autos to learn the various prices associated attached to a
single car: invoice, MSRP, etc. You called multiple dealerships in
order to compare price quotes, customer service, and availability. You
spent time in car dealerships negotiating for cars that you had no
intention of buying, just so you could get the feel of how to walk
away. Combating the metacomprehension failures outlined by Brown and
Brown, you filled your knowledge base with all of the possible
scenarios, you learned how to consistently interpret the messages set
forth by car salesmen, and you learned how to appropriately interpret
your own car-sales schema (as cited in Standiford, 1984). In the end,
you get a wonderful car for a great price and the sting of that first
encounter slowly fades away.
While our plucky protagonist has taken it upon himself to frontload his
knowledge of car buying, we must help our students learn to identify
the areas they need to focus on frontloading. Simple tasks such as
summarization, answering questions that require them to recall the main
points of their reading, and offering feedback to student responses can
all greatly aid student metacomprehension as well as improving their
relative accuracy (Dunlosky & Lipko, 2007; Standiford, 1984).
Round three: critique. Having recently bough a car, this was a fun
metaphor to try and develop. I think that as far as understanding what
metacomprehension is and how it affects our students as well as
ourselves it did a good job. When we are taken advantage of, we always
look back and ask, “How could I not see that
coming?” In a similar way, our students are engaged with
learning wanting success but sometimes not knowing how to achieve that.
They may ask, “How could I do poorly on the test, I studied
for, like, 4 hours?” This metaphor was also fairly effective
at outlining some strategies to improve metacomprehension. The things
we do to prevent ourselves from being taken advantage of in the future
are the same types of things that students must do to find success in
future learning.
One drawback to this metaphor is the nature of car buying versus the
nature of education. While we don’t necessarily need a car,
the convenience that we are accustomed to is hard to let go. We have
experience both with and without cars. When one breaks down we
re-shuffle our schedules and have to get rides from friends and have to
go grocery shopping on the bus. As a result we have an investment in
the auto industry and feel that we need a car. Our students may not yet
have that investment in education. Having not had a chance to
experience life both with and without education, they may feel that the
struggle to improve their learning is not worth it when everything has
been relatively easy for most of them.
Another problem I had was bringing the importance of efficiency into
the car buying metaphor. The primary focus for studying and improving
metacomprehension and relative accuracy in students is to improve
efficiency (Dunlosky & Lipko, 2007; Wiley, Griffin, &
Thiede, 2005). It was hard to find a place where efficiency is crucial
in learning how to buy a car. All of the scenarios to try and include
it seemed a bit forced, and I didn’t like that. Efficiency
was an important step to my understanding metacomprehension, so I
really hated leaving it out. The following quote by Dunlosky, Hertzog,
Kennedy, and Thiede eloquently explains that, “…if
people can judge what material they have learned well and what they
have not, they can focus their attention just on unlearned
information” (as cited in Dunlosky & Lipko, 2007).
Works cited:
Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. (2007). Metacomprehension: A Brief
History and How to Improve Its Accuracy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 16 (4), 228-232. Retreived 3
February 2008 from Academic Search Premier.
Wiley, J., Griffin, T., & Thiede, K. (2005). Putting the Comprehension in
Metacomprehension. The Journal of General Psychology, 132
(4), 408-429. Retreived 5 February 2008 from Academic OneFile.
Standiford, S. (1984). Metacomprehension.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. Retrieved 3
February 2008 from http://www.vtaide.com/png/ERIC/Metacomprehension.htm
Website Analysis
The Topic:
Writing a thesis statment
The Players:
The Purdue University Online Writing Lab and The Writing Center at the
University at Wisconsin-Madison
Introduction
Always excited to work with students on their writing skills, I spend a
lot of time hanging out at both Perdue’s Online Writing Lab
(OWL) and The Writing Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
(TWC). These are two writing resources that have proved invaluable to
my students and myself over the last couple of years. As my students
are currently (and happily) entrenched in an expository unit, I decided
to go back to the old neighborhood, nose around the thesis statement
sections, and see just what it is that makes these sites so valuable
for students.
Prior Knowledge
As our students’ brains are constantly working to organize
ideas and make meanings and connections (The Brain and Reading),
activating their prior knowledge helps them succeed at both. The OWL
does a decent job of this, reviewing the three major types of papers
that require thesis statements that students will probably be writing.
Allowing the students to classify their assignment this way will help
them activate any schema they have developed regarding expository
writing. There are also a few tips discussing what a thesis statement
looks like and where it will probably be located. The tips are short
and sweet, which are just right for most students. A suggestion would
be to activate links to the three types of writing described. This
would further allow students to determine what they do and do not know
at the quick click of a button.
Even though there are none on the thesis statement page, the OWL is
usually fantastic for non-examples. Allowing students to recognize what
they are familiar with as well as what they know isn’t right
will help students expand their schema. (I wasn’t sure where
to put this, though it bore familiarity with the Jewish/Christian
example on page 85 (Meyer 2003) so it ended up here in prior knowledge.)
TWC shines in the prior knowledge category. It very thoroughly answers
the question, “What is a thesis statement?” as soon
as the page is loaded. With such detail, students are able to make the
connections they need in order to determine where they should focus
their learning. In contrast to OWL, TWC explicitly focuses on the
characteristics of the thesis statement. By making sure that students
fully understand what a thesis statement is, TWC effectively prepares
students to comprehend the information that follows.
Signaling
The internet has so significantly changed the way information is
presented to our students and us. No longer are large chunks of text
the norm, but instead a variety of fonts, colors, bullets, spacing, and
sizes chop up information into small, digestible pieces. OWL is
masterful at this. The huge variety of text styles and spacing helps
students navigate all information quickly and easily: a large bold
heading sits above normal text that describes what type of thesis
statement is to follow. An example is then spaced, tabbed, and
formatted differently allowing the reader to receive a clear signal as
to what is explanation and what is a model. With this signal structure,
students are given the opportunity to selectively retain only the
information that is necessary.
TWC also expertly uses signaling, however on many more levels than OWL.
The first page begins with bullets, numbers, and many active links. By
giving the student a choice as to where to begin exploring, she is
allowed to selectively retain the information she needs in order to
succeed. Upon following a link from the front page, a student sees a
very heavily signaled page. Bullets outline what students should think
about during each step of the process. A table with maroon title boxes
and grayed examples helps set information apart for students. Lastly,
active links for more help are located at the bottom of the page. Every
piece of information is signaled on this page so a student can direct
his attention quickly to the desired topic.
Adjunct Questions
OWL has no questioning on their thesis statement page. There is plenty
of wonderful elaboration, however it would serve the students better to
turn that elaboration into elaborative interrogation. It would
certainly not detract from the efficacy of the web page, and, coupled
with suggested answers at the bottom of the page, could be very
effective. The examples themselves force the students to apply their
comprehension to their own essays. While not a form of questioning, it
serves a similar purpose by asking the students to use higher order
thinking skills which, like adjunct questioning, will help the
students’ comprehension.
TWC follows suit with very little blatant adjunct questioning. Instead,
it chooses to ask readers to “consult table below for
suggestions.” This is similar to OWL in that it is forcing
the students to use higher order thinking skills to make meaning out of
the examples.
Visual Appeal
Though it seems superficial, the visual appeal of the internet is a big
deal for students. My experiments at classblogmeister.com never got
very far as my students complained that it didn’t look
‘cool.’ It was still a blog, and had most of the
capabilities of a blog, but the wrapping didn’t appeal to the
students and as a result, they didn’t take the time to use
it. With aesthetics being so important, OWL stands out with a much more
current and ‘cool’ look about it. The colors are
bright an easy to see, and the layout of the page is aesthetically
pleasing. TWC is much more full of information, but trite fonts and a
Patrick Nagel color scheme might be a detractor for our Technicolor
student body.
Conclusion
For high school students going blindly into either of these websites, I
would suggest that OWL is more succinct and user friendly. It provides
necessary information quickly and is very easy to navigate. The few
drawbacks to the site are easily outweighed by its ease of use and high
level of good information. While TWC is extremely comprehensive, I
worry that the wealth of information and the visual appearance may turn
off some students to whom the internet has still not morphed into an
educational tool. Until they are willing to spend some time sifting
through a large amount of information, this may have to remain, as far
as my students are concerned, my little secret.
Sources:
OWL: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/545/01/
TWC: http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/thesis_def.html
Meyer, R.E. (2003). Learning
and Instruction. Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
The Brain and Reading,
NCTE. Videocassette. The author knows no further information about this
title.
Misconceptions
Concreteness, Activity,
and Familiarity
I learned a very important lesson my first year of teaching English. I
was under the impression that English—our primary form of
communication; our ticket to free expression, free thought, and
membership in a democratic society (Bernie Phelan, personal
communication, June 26, 2007)—would be very important to high
school students. Sure my vision was lofty and maybe a little
unrealistic, but these students were getting ready for the
‘real world!’ Soon they would be interacting with
thousands of new peers and dozens of new teachers at college, and
eventually a whole world of colleagues in their
careers—surely they understood the necessity of being able to
make a good impression. Surely they understood the importance of what I
wanted to teach them. But the students needed to teach me something
before I could ever get to what I wanted to teach them. I had to learn
that most students are generally not at all excited about English.
Fortunately, it is a small list of unfortunately large misconceptions
about the content area of English that is to blame for the lack of
excitement in students.
After years of skill based (grammar, usage, mechanics, diction, syntax,
etc.) worksheets and tests, students have misconceived that these areas
of study are not at all important to their academic or personal
futures. As a result they are resistant to learning skill-based English
as soon as I open my mouth. In order to help them overcome their fear,
I guide their learning using concrete models (Mayer, 2003), or anchor
texts (Ken Stamatis, personal communication, March 8, 2007). While
different than the sticks, squares, and other manipulatives that Mayer
describes, anchor texts are similar in the fact that they
“present the underlying structures of [English] in a simple
and concrete way…”(p. 283) without necessarily
giving a formula or list of rules and names to memorize. The anchor
texts are passages from high-interest novels (mostly young adult) that
contain examples of the skill or skills I am teaching. If, for example,
I want to teach alliteration and its effect, I might show my students
some excerpts containing alliteration, including the following from On
The Road by Jack Kerouac, “He'll sing 'Cement Mixer, Put-ti
Put-ti' and suddenly slow down the beat and brood over his bongos with
fingertips barely tapping the skin as everybody leans forward
breathlessly…” (p.146). With this excellent
example, we can talk not only about the repetition of
‘b’, but also its effect. After a few more similar
examples, I’ll ask my students to use alliteration for effect
in a sentence or paragraph of their own. In this way, they are able to
understand and practice a certain skill through discovery.
I also like to guide student learning off of the page and in the world
of movies and music. Episodes of CSI and the final courtroom scene from
A Few Good Men are wonderful ways to expose students to
Toulmin’s claim, warrant, and evidence without scaring them
away with the terms claim, warrant, and evidence. I also use a line
from Fergie’s song, “Big Girls Don’t
Cry” to teach consistency with subjects in writing (2006).
Movies and music are always high interest, and studying English
concepts using concrete examples in a variety of media helps teach the
universality of those concepts. This variety of concrete examples
allows students not only to learn a concept but also to transfer their
knowledge to a concept using what Brownell called the meaningful method
(as cited in Mayer, 2003). By avoiding worksheets, and instead using
anchor texts from high interest pieces of literature, film, and music,
I can guide my students to learning and mastery.
This type of teaching also lends itself to inductive methods of
learning. As Mayer explains, inductive methods aim to
“activate more of the student’s prior knowledge and
enables the learner to actively encode the strategy or concept to be
learned into a wider or more meaningful context.” (p. 298).
Using texts that students are familiar with allows them to make
immediate connections. Then, by teaching within these familiar and high
interest anchor pieces, the students are able to connect their learning
to a bigger picture, again promoting transfer to new situations (Mayer,
2003).
Strangely enough, students are also of the impression that reading is
boring. I’m not totally sure why since spending six weeks
poring over every single detail on every single page of Lord of the
Flies, while at the same time filling out large packets of knowledge
and comprehension questions, only to finish the read with a 100 point
fill-in-the-blank exam seems like something every 15 year old would
like to do! Since that is apparently not the case, I have to go back
with students and remind them that reading actually is fun because very
few people (us English majors excluded) actually ever pore over a book
like that in real life. It is important to learn how to engage in a
text—in any text, in fact—by using two of
Mayer’s three levels of discovery: pure discovery and guided
discovery (2003), I can better engage my students to re-learn that
reading is enjoyable.
I start with pure discovery by allowing the students to read. They are
required to read at least 25 books this year, however they may read
anything they want as long as it is a book—no magazines or
newspapers. We pass books around the class, we share what
we’ve been reading, we do book talks in front of the class,
etc. The students’ only requirement at this point is to
rediscover reading. As Anastasiow, Sibley, Leonhart, & Borish
state, the students aren’t necessarily learning skills at
this point, though they are getting “cognitively
involved” (as quoted in Mayer, 2003 p. 290).
Another pure discovery method that I have asked my students to
participate in requires the use of wikispaces. This has been one of the
most successful independent projects I have asked my students to do.
Over the summer, the students were asked to read three books from a
list of 15. While reading, they were required to log on to our class
wiki and discuss their reading with their peers. I had very little
involvement but instead watched the students explore reading with one
another. It was great, and I invite you to have a look at
twilightsehs.wikispaces.com .
Once they are invested, we begin to look at what they read a bit more
critically. This is where guided discovery (Mayer, 2003) is amazing.
Instead of huge packets of questions and college level interpretation
of a text, I give the students four or five things to look for in their
reading. The things they look for are often things that we have
discussed in class using anchor texts, and they apply to almost
anything that a student would choose to read. More Toulmin: We have
been studying claims, evidence, and warrants lately. What I asked my
students to do is, in their reading, look for a claim that a character
or an author makes, locate evidence to support that claim, and then
write a warrant connecting the two. In this way, they are invested in
what they have chosen to read, while at the same time I can teach them
how to use skills in English to examine their reading.
Problem Solving
Thankfully, I have just this year begun guiding my instruction to
follow Mayer’s four tenets of “thinking skills
instruction” (p.425). We have, as a district, recently
rewritten our English curriculum to be skills based. This allows me to
focus my instruction on a specific set of a “few well-defined
skills.” (p.425). Again, instead of a college level
interpretation of Lord of the Flies we focus on a few specific skills
at a time.
I am also trying to focus the students on ‘authentic
tasks’ (Mayer, 2003 p. 425). Admittedly this is something I
struggle with at times as it can feel forced or contrived. However,
when the students are asked to read and discuss in an online forum, for
example, I feel that the students are much more engaged than if they
are asked to write a one-page journal entry that they will turn in to
me. This type of activity also finds the students interacting with and
teaching one-another, which is Mayer’s third principle
(2003). I also have spent a lot of time with smaller learning
communities in my classroom. I will sometimes ask students to analyze
an essay or a visual argument in small groups. They must first discuss
with one-another before we reconvene as a whole class. They also spend
a lot of time editing one-another’s writing and ideas. I feel
like this helps them gain confidence as well as become less dependent
on their teachers for validation of their thoughts. Lastly, my students
and I ride Bloom’s elevator back and forth between knowledge
and evaluation all year long. We stop on every floor repeatedly, though
knowledge and comprehension receive the fewest visits.
I have found that by following Mayer’s four principles as
well as using “concreteness, activity and
familiarity” (2003) my students have become more engaged in
the classroom, and are slowly becoming more capable in their thinking.
As a result, it has been a really exciting year for me, and I
can’t wait to continue refining my teaching to better use the
aforementioned strategies.
References
Kerouac, J. (1957). On
The Road. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning
and Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Mediation Report
1. Title
of Conflict and Participants:
Shared
Space Dispute:
Trish
Stilts as Tessa Frisbee
Michelle
Torrise as Willemina Shakespeare
Luke
Azinger and Moderator Jules Fairtree
2.
Dates of Mediation Sessions:
10:00
am on 29 March 2008
3.
Description of the Disputants:
Willimena
Shakespeare is a woman who lives in the dorms and is extremely serious
about her studies. Her vision of college is that it is a place to
learn, and the campus, being a part of the college, should be devoted
to enabling that learning process one hundred percent. Her passion for
studying sometimes blinds her to the fact that many students go to
college for the social as well as, if not more than, the educational
experience. She has a very defined idea of rules and how people should
act in certain situations. This rigid outlook can prevent her from
seeing the issue at hand, though she is able to eventually focus on the
appropriate issue. This is evidenced by her difficulty discerning
between the issue at hand versus a larger, campus wide issue. She is an
acquaintance of Ms. Frisbee, though in what context is never really
explored.
Tessa
Frisbee is also a woman who lives in the dorms with Ms. Shakespeare.
She gregarious, witty, and has a very laid back personality and
therefore comes off as very agreeable. There is the potential, however,
that she could be capable of using these three traits to manipulate a
situation in her favor, though she appeared to be very genuine during
mediation. She enjoys college, though sees study as only a portion of
the experience. She believes that students need to relax as well as
study, which her socialization and athleticism will attest to. She is
also not one to hold a grudge. Despite the lengthy series of conflicts
she was having with Ms. Shakespeare, she was quick to invite Ms.
Shakespeare to play Frisbee with her at the end of the mediation
session, but not without a friendly joke to accompany her invitation.
Her laid back attitude, and the accompanying “I’m
cool with whatever” mentality, can be slightly detrimental to
mediation, especially when trying to find solutions.
4.
A summary of the First Disputant's story:
Ms.
Shakespeare was in a lounge studying with friends one afternoon when
Ms. Frisbee and her friends came in and started playing games. Ms.
Shakespeare felt that Ms. Frisbee was extremely loud and obnoxious, and
in light of the fact that she was clearly studying, very inconsiderate.
She was even more upset that this happened in a public space where the
expectation is that everyone needs to be considerate of one another.
She eventually threw both of Ms. Frisbee’s Frisbees out the
window of the lounge since she felt that “that is where they
should be playing.” Later admits to feeling like Ms. Frisbee
is trying to push her around.
5.
Clarifying Questions that were asked:
Ms.
Frisbee had no direct questions but did wonder why Ms. Shakespeare
became so upset since Ms. Frisbee had signed the room out in advance.
She also stated that she never asked Ms. Shakespeare to leave.
6.
A summary of the Second Disputant's story:
Ms.
Frisbee signed the room out so that she and her friends could practice
for an upcoming tournament. When they arrived at the room, she saw Ms.
Shakespeare studying, but felt that since she had signed the room out,
she was going to go ahead and play as planned. When they began to
practice, Ms. Shakespeare threw their Frisbee out the window. This was
upsetting, but since they had another Frisbee, they continued to
practice until Ms. Shakespeare threw the second Frisbee out the window
as well.
7.
Clarifying Questions that were asked:
Since
playing Frisbee is a sport and should be played outside or in a more
appropriate facility, why did Ms. Frisbee insist on playing in a study
lounge where someone could get hurt or something could get broken?
8.
A listing of all solutions offered:
No
sports indoors except in gym or other designated areas.
If a
similar conflict reoccurs, the two should clearly communicate their
circumstances and intentions to one another.
Be
polite with one another.
Check
the study lounge sign up list first.
Ask
politely if may use the space.
Use a
first come first serve rule for lounges if neither has signed up.
9.
A statement of the Resolution Package - who agreed to do what and when:
First
step, Shakespeare and I will go to advisor so we can designate one room
in the residence hall as quiet study only. That room will always be a
quiet room.
Second
step, if the disputants meet each other in a common lounge, the person
who was already there will have ‘rights’ to the
room, and the newcomer will have the choice to remain and respect the
mood that has been already set or leave and find a new place to study.
If, like the current situation, student A has checked the room out and
shows up to find student B already there, student A will politely
explain that she has the room checked out and then ask student B how
long she plans to be.
10.
A Narrative Critique of the Mediation. Please include what went
smoothly, what was a problem, and how it could have been improved.
When
the phone call started, there were a few distractions I noticed right
away: having had no previous interaction with either of the disputants,
I found myself facing some confusion as to who was speaking. Too, there
was occasional feedback and reverberation that made it difficult to
know if something new was being stated, or if a previous statement was
echoing back. Otherwise, the mediation got off to a good start. If I
were a mediator at this college, I imagine I would spend time caucusing
with the students before hand, just to get to know them a little
better. This would eliminate any mix-up of speakers. As for the
feedback, I could potentially be more strict with who talks and when,
kind of a “passing the mic” situation allowing
people only to speak in turns. However, I feel that the organic nature
of conversation has value, and am therefore reluctant. If I spent a lot
of time mediating in Gizmo Project, I would work through the kinks and
prepare my disputants accordingly with headphones and mics or similar
accessories.
We
began our mediation with short introductions whereupon I reiterated the
ground rules and expectations that were included in an e-mail send out
a couple of days before the mediation. Both disputants were agreeable
to these ground rules and said as much. Once the rules were verbally
agreed upon, I briefly outlined how the session would commence. I felt
that this was important so that each disputant would know that she
would have a fair chance to share her side. This was good because the
rules and outline were solid, therefore I could always refer back to
them if the disputants got a little out of control. I am not generally
like this in my classroom, so it was a welcome change to say,
“You agreed to the rules, you will have your fair turn,
please be considerate until then.”
Now, in
truth, I struggled with these rules a bit. As mentioned before, I think
there is value to conversation, especially in mediation. As long as
each disputant is allowed a fair say and comments remain constructive,
conversation—even if the comments were not solely
positive—can end up being very helpful. Ms. Shakespeare and
Ms. Frisbee have had this problem for a while, and I imagine that every
time they have talked recently, it has been very confrontational ending
in rash actions, like throwing a Frisbee out the window or plotting
dastardly pranks. For this mediation to have provided a place for
conversation in a controlled environment that hopefully
wouldn’t end in rash actions made me reluctant to cut off
conversations that maybe weren’t following the rules exactly.
This problem will hopefully be remedied with experience. Since each
situation is different, with different personalities and circumstances,
the more opportunities I have to mediate, the more comfortable I will
become knowing how to host conversations in these sessions. For this,
my first time, I feel that I was pretty effective at knowing when to
let them speak and when to pull the conversation back to the structured
format.
Thinking
on the spot was a bit challenging as well. In my mind, I had prepared
for how I felt the mediation session would go. Based off of my
background knowledge of the dispute and the mentality of my high school
students, I felt pretty prepared for the session. This preparation was
almost detrimental though, because when I was in the actual session,
the responses took a different path than I had anticipated and I was
caught off-guard. I thought that Frisbee would be much more
confrontational and I had no idea that Shakespeare would be so intent
on a campus-wide reform. I ended up having to process everything during
the mediation that resulted in a lot of verbal pauses
(“Umm,” “Uhh,” etc.), dead air,
and repetition on my part. I don’t think that these were all
negative because the dead air gave the disputants time to think and
talk, and I am a big fan of wait time in my classroom since it allows
students time to process and present thoughts. Also the repetition was
helpful to keep everyone up to speed since in the event that these
students are visual learners, it may be hard to remember everything
that was said previously. The pauses unfortunately make me sound like
I’m trying to think of what to say next, which is not really
convincing as a mediator. Next time I mediate, I will try to be
knowledgeable about the situation, but will try really hard not to
predict so many specifics about the disputants. Instead, I will focus
more on possible universal solutions.
A last
problem I encountered was the difficulty the disputants had in creating
solutions. This touched close to home, because I struggle with this all
the time with my high school students. Solutions need to be specific
and need to address almost all the possible scenarios, though the
disputants offered ideas such as, “Be nice to one
another” and “Talk to each other” which
feel very generic and almost too simple, If all it took was being nice
to one another, that’s great, but it hasn’t
happened in the past so I am nervous about how successful it will be in
the future. If this mediation session was primarily a sophisticated
opportunity to apologize to one another, then maybe these simple
solutions are all that are needed. As long as that is the case, I am
completely satisfied with their simple solutions and trust that they
will be successful. Yet if something deeper is happening here, then I
wish I would have the skills of some more sophisticated solutions I
could have brought to the table. I found myself wanting very badly for
the students to find the solution, and therefore didn’t offer
as much guidance as I should have until we came up with a solution
package. At that point, I felt like I had asked them for their advice
and suggestions, but ended up giving my own version of a solution
anyway. That was hard to deal with since I wanted them to find the
answers themselves. Since this is something I struggle with already in
the classroom and in coaching, I am not sure what to do next to remedy
this—wait time? Writing first? Caucusing? I will keep trying
and hopefully I will manage to find out a more effective method for
getting the students to truly come up with answers.
I do
think everything went well overall. The disputants were eventually able
to agree on a solution and also seemed to be able to talk through some
of their issues as well. Understanding that Shakespeare was primarily
focused on the campus wide rule and not just on Frisbee helped clear a
lot of confusion and misdirected anger. The fact that both disputants
left the mediation session with plans to spend time together in the
future made it feel extremely successful.
Assertive Discipline
Last
week, on the way to game night with our friends, my wife and I got
sidetracked. We had every intention of being there at 8
o’clock, in fact we pride ourselves on being on time. To add
to our excitement, our hosts had recently acquired a copy of
Loups-Garous, a party game we both love to play. But even with good
intentions and high motivation, sometimes people get sidetracked, and
last week, that was us. When we strolled up to their door, we
knocked and they let us in and immediately asked us why we chose to be
late. We mumbled a joke about aliens, and proceeded to take
off our coats. Our friends weren’t
finished. They again asked us why we chose to be
late. We ignored the question. A third time they
asked us why we were late, to which we replied that we merely got
sidetracked and were sorry. They then looked to the rest of
the room and said in a clear voice, “We are so impressed at
how timely all the other guests arrived tonight.” Using the
“broken record” and “praise”
(Wolfgang 2001) techniques respectively, our friends quickly
re-established order in the group and helped my wife and I realize that
the behavior we chose was interrupting the game playing process and
negatively affected everyone. In the future, we will now be motivated
to follow the rules that govern game night.
This, of course, did
not really happen, and in a way seems almost ridiculous. But
as I have been scanning my adult life over the past weeks, I have
struggled to find a facet of my life that follows the tenets of Canter
and Canter’s Assertive discipline model. I began by
summarizing my understanding of the model which I broke down into three
parts: the teaching of the rules, the enforcing of the rules, and the
praising of the participants.
The teaching of the
rules is a common element in all the research I found. A SKEP
article entitled “Assertive Discipline” explains
that a teacher must create and teach a discipline plan to students
(2008). Macintyre goes a step further to explain that the
discipline plan should consist of four or five “easily
understood” rules (2006). Wolfgang offers the most
complete explanation by adding to the above that the rules have to be
created by the teacher, they have to be taught to the students, and
they have to be displayed in the classroom at all times (2001). This
makes sense, and in order for any group to function, there needs to be
a set of ground rules that governs the expected behavior of each
participant. In adult groups, even if the rules are not taught
directly, as Canter and Canter suggest they should be, I will assume
that they are either posted or understood, and as mature and
responsible citizens, we will take the initiative to read, know, and
obey.
Next is the
enforcement of the rules. There is a myriad of possibilities
for how to go about enforcing the rules, but there is a commonality in
the rigidity of the enforcement: no exceptions are made for extenuating
circumstances of any kind (Wofgang 2001). Despite the condition that a
student is in socially, cognitively, emotionally, etc., the rules have
been stated and there is no reason not to follow them. If a student
does not follow the rules, a “discipline hierarchy”
is in place as a series of steps that the teacher can go through,
usually beginning with a verbal warning and ending with removal from
the classroom (Macintyre 2006). So many sports teams come to mind: red
cards and yellow cards; fouling out in basketball; etc.
And what discipline
program would work without praise? Nary a good one if I do
say so myself and Assertive Discipline is no exception.
Assertive Discipline emphasizes that “positive
recognition…will motivate students to follow [the] rules
that [a] teacher creates.” (Wolfgang 2001 pg. 91).
Canter and Canter have outlined a variety of praise methods that an
Assertive Discipline teacher could employ in his or her
classroom. The positive reinforcement system runs the
spectrum from verbal commendations to small tokens to positive letters
home.
With the basics of
Assertive Discipline in mind, I looked to find a part of my life that
follows this pattern. An obvious first choice, while not
necessarily a group, is the ‘club’ of law abiding
U.S. citizens in which we all are a part. As a part of this
citizenship we are expected to follow laws set forth by a group of
authorities. The rules are clearly defined (though there are
well more than four or five), posted in various places, and taught to
us throughout our lives. That’s part one of Assertive
Discipline. Since, in theory, all are created equal in the eyes of the
law, there is no discrepancy among those that
disobey—breaking the law is breaking the law and
that’s that. That’s part two of Assertive
discipline. It’s when we get to part three that I
draw a blank. I can think of few, if any, circumstances where a citizen
is rewarded for good behavior. Maybe a good driver
certificate every four years or so, but that is far from motivating.
This “law-abiding citizens club” is two for three,
and the parallels abound, but it misses the positive reinforcement
section and feels like a bit of a cop-out anyway (he he).
Next, I went my place
of work. This is where I spend most of my time, am part of a
staff and department, and am on a couple of committee. Try
though I might, however, I struggled to find Assertive Discipline
embedded anywhere in these groups of educators. Our
department has expectations of what (standards based curriculum) and
how (best practice) to teach, but they are ever-changing and therefore
difficult to post on a wall. Any discipline would come in the
form of an intervention, not as a consequence. We have
conferences and mentors where we can discuss how to improve our
techniques. Praise is much more evident, but is somewhat
contingent on being observed. If a no one is watching us
teach, than no one will have any thing to say in a letter
home. Again, two out of three, sort of.
In committees, a
similar circumstance occurs. Our advisory committee that
meets once or twice a month functions very well since we consistently
attend and contribute and are respectful and supportive of one
another. These rules were never stated, taught, or posted; we
just understood them. When a person fails to contribute to a
discussion or attend at all, that person receives no real
consequence. No “Who Squad” to find that
person in his office and direct him to the meeting or to the principal
(Wolfgang 2001). The one Assertive Discipline trait that is evident is
praise. It is a natural part of working together and
commending one another for good ideas and helpful insights.
When looking for
Assertive Discipline in my adult life, I have noticed a trend that the
smaller the group gets, the fewer facets of Assertive Discipline
I’m able to find. This gave me pause, and in trying
to gain some understanding, I ran across an essay by John Covaleskie
that explores Dewey’s ideas on discipline. In discussing
Michael Foucault’s influence on Dewey, Covaleskie states that,
…one
masters a
discipline in the act of submitting to it. [For example,] So long as
one resists the demands of mathematical discipline, one never quite
becomes a mathematician. But when one yields to the discipline of the
subject, one becomes at the same time its master (1993).
This made a lot of
sense as to why, as adults, the need for structured discipline
lessens. When we involve ourselves in groups, it is because
we want what the groups can teach us socially, academically,
professionally, etc. As a result we are willing to submit to whatever
rules govern this group since the potential benefit of participating in
the group outweighs the inconvenience of a few guidelines.
As a high school
teacher, I struggle with the idea of Assertive Discipline. It
seems to fit well in circumstances where the rules are black and white:
speeding, stealing, offsides, foot fault, etc. In high
school, however, it would be irresponsible to ignore the complexity of
our students’ lives. I think that discipline is
hugely important—especially at the age where they are
learning to drive and testing the social aspect of youth. But
to do it in a this way, with four or five rules that drive the students
every day despite being specific enough that they can’t be
disputed but vague enough that they can be all-encompassing could
damage the relationships that I am able to establish with my students
partly because we all accidentally break the rules sometimes, and
that’s ok.
References:
“Assertive
Discipline—Canter and Canter”. In SKEP Rules and consequences are
used to shape student actions (3.1). Retrieved March, 31,
2008 from
http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/SKEP_Rules_and_consequences_are_used_to_shape_student_actions
Covaleskie, J. F..
(1993). “Dewey, Discipline, and Democracy.”
Retreived April, 10, 2008 from
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PES-Yearbook/94_docs/COVALESK.HTM
Mcintyre, T.
“Assertive Discipline.” Retrieved April, 1, 2008
from http://www.behavioradvisor.com/AssertiveDiscipline.html
Wolfgang, C. (2001). Solving discipline and classroom
management problems: Methods and models for today’s teachers.
John Wiley and Sons.
Active Listening
It
all comes down to communication. Conflict and management issues are
rooted in the level and ability to communicate. In the three
mediation role-plays we all participated in, miscommunication was at
the heart of the issue. If Sally and Denise had merely talked
about their feelings, none of the accusations would have occurred and
the two would have been great friends at the end of the day.
Too, if Valerie and Prof. Peterson had just talked about expectations
and been honest and open with one another from the start, no dangerous
sexual harassment charges would have been threatened. A
similar issue presents itself with the shared-space conflict.
Classroom management also relies on communication. By merely
communicating our expectations, students will stay on task at all
times. And when students are having trouble outside of our classrooms,
they simply need to come talk to us, and we can understand their
problems so that they may deal with them in due time. Ah, so
simple, if we would only talk about our true feelings, everything would
be right with the world—if either of us is paying attention,
that is.
The problem with
communication is that people aren’t always paying attention
to one another. Even if we were to clearly express what was
on our mind, 75% of the time, the adults we are talking to are
distracted or preoccupied when listening (Jalongo, 1995).
Ironically enough, the more opportunities that have been made available
for communication, such as e-mail, internet, cell phones, etc., the
worse we are becoming at it. What about students
who have grown up in this communication inundated society, whose
maturity, intelligence, and ability to verbalize thoughts are all still
developing (Wolfgang, 2001)? They are even more distracted
and less apt to focus. If people are only listening to one
fourth of what is being said around them, there is bound to be
miscommunication leading to conflict and power disputes in and out of
the classroom.
Why do people only
listen part of the time? One idea is that it’s
because it is a lot of work to really listen to someone. As
most people are familiar with rhythm and beat of conversation, as well
as adept at multi-tasking, it gets easy to hear what a person says,
nod, and say “Uh huh,”
“Really?”, and “No way!” at the
appropriate pauses while thinking about school, class, dinner, bills,
remodeling, friends, family, errands, groceries…oh, um, what
were we talking about? Listening is a lot more than filling
in the pauses—it needs to be. The reason people
talk in the first place, according to Gordon, is that they have an
internal need that requires addressing (as quoted in Wolfgang,
2001). If someone comes to us because she needs guidance or
understanding for something that she can’t herself deal with,
then we need “not just to hear; [but to]…
active[ly] construct…meaning from all the
signals—verbal and nonverbal—a speaker is
sending” (Hennings as quoted in Jalongo, 1995). By
constructing meaning from a speaker’s signals, we can develop
an understanding of the true message behind what a person is saying
(Jalongo, 1995) and can use that understanding to develop
trust. And trust is the ultimate goal, for trust helps us
establish relationships, collaborate, and stimulate development
(McNaughten, Hamlin, McCarthy, Head-Reeves, & Shreiner, 2008).
With our apparent
need to learn how to listen more effectively, there is a simple
acronym, LAFF, outlined by McNaughten, et al., which sketches out the
crucial active listening strategies found in my research (2008).
L: Listen, empathize, and communicate respect
A: Ask questions and ask permission to take notes
F: Focus on the issues
F: Find a first step
At the center of the
first step is empathy, and appropriately so, since at the center of
active listening, we need to hear what the speaker needs to tell us,
not hinder her attempt at communication with our own preconceived ideas
and opinions. Just as we would not charge a new student with
deliberately trying to confuse us or assume the worst from him (Kaye,
1994), we can not do this to the students and colleagues because they
are familiar participants in our daily lives. With the goal
of establishing trust, we must act as a neutral party despite
potentially being exasperated, angry, or busy. In addition,
we need to listen intently and avoid daydreaming or becoming
preoccupied with other tasks (Slizewski, 1995).
The second step
embodies another crucial element of active listening. Only by
listening intently to what a person is saying can we ask appropriate
clarifying questions. By being able to encourage the speaker
to clarify what was said, or by offering door open[ing] questions
(Wolfgang, 2001) that instead of passing judgment lead the speaker to
continue speaking, we can prove to the speaker that we are interested
in what she has to say. By asking to take notes on what the
speaker is saying, we show that we are so interested that we will
record what is said so as to leave no stone unturned. By
taking notes, we not only earn trust but we show interest in what the
speaker is saying (McNaughten et al., 2008).
Note taking and
asking questions also allow for us to reflect and summarize what the
speaker is telling us. Geldard and Geldard (as quoted in
Hutchby), Wolfgang, Kaye, Jalongo, McNaughten et al., and Slizewski all
emphasize the importance of repeating back, in our own words, the main
ideas of the speaker. By restating what the speaker has told
us we have the chance to clarify and make sure that we are on the same
page with the speaker. We also prove to the speaker that we
have indeed heard what he has said to us, processed the information,
and are able to offer our own opinion that may be accepted or rejected.
By reviewing our
notes with the speaker, we can employ step three and focus on the
issues. Again, this serves and a tool for clarification not
only showing interest in the speaker’s story, but also
allowing him to make sure that nothing has been left out (McNaughten et
al. 2008). From there, we can work to find what the issues at
hand truly are.
The last step,
finding a first step, is a step contingent on where the problem
actually is. Wolfgang (2008) states that, as listeners, we
need to offer suggestions only if the solution of the problem is in our
direct control. If the student “owns” the
problem, then any suggestion we make as listeners will serve as
“roadblocks” in the student’s development
(p. 214, 212). On a personal note, there have been many times
where I have wanted to voice a concern to friends and colleagues merely
as a chance to process. Though as soon as I finish, I become
inundated with suggestions on what I should do to solve the
problem. This becomes frustrating because not only do I feel
like they don’t understand my purpose in sharing, they also
now have caused further frustration in me since, in addition to my own
problem, I have to politely accept or refute or placate my listeners
and their ideas. If the problem is not ours to fix, then
offering advice may have the effect of further frustrating the speaker
as well as losing the trust that has built between her and the
listener. Ultimately, if a student or colleague entrusts us
with their conflicts and concerns, then, we should reciprocate that
trust by taking time out from our busy lives and focusing on her for a
while.
As I struggle yearly
with our seemingly ever-changing curriculum, I have always been
thankful that, even though my content occasionally wavers, I have been
able to maintain a positive, comfortable classroom that students like
to be a part of. I’d like to think that a lot of
this comes from my own ability and willingness to actively listen to
the students. When I decided to become a teacher, it was a
reflection on all the teachers I had that made me feel important and
worth spending time with. That was a great feeling as a 16
year old, and I wanted to extend that same feeling to my
students. I hope that this is something I am able to continue
doing during my tenure in the classroom.
As for teaching my
students how to better listen to one another, I try to model it like
crazy. I am constantly making eye contact with students, and
I rarely, of ever, write down word for word what a student says on the
board. I will always write my own paraphrase and ask if it is
correct or not. I try to teach basic listening skills
throughout the year through modeling and verbal cues. I have
also used a participation grid that, seemingly elementary, is very
effectual especially with my sophomores. It is basically a
graphic organizer that I use with groups of four students at a
time. As one person talks, the other three take notes and may
not interrupt or ask questions until a specified time limit is
up. After a minute or two, the next person talks while the
three listeners take notes. Again, it sounds elementary, but
it is great because each person has an equal opportunity to speak and
it teaches the students how to listen without interrupting.
Those used to talking learn how to be a listener, and those who are
used to listening learn how to talk to a group.
Fresh on my mind is
Assertive Discipline, and that is where active listening seems to have
the least amount of importance. When a rules and consequence
style management system is set up, its black-and-white nature leaves
little room for talk. The examples listed in Wolfgang (2001)
make evident that if a student is breaking one of the rules, it is her
choice and she knows she is breaking the rules, therefore there is no
reason to talk with her about it. There are cues given to
help the student stop the inappropriate behavior before she receives a
punishment, but there is never any time devoted to understanding why
she is displaying that behavior in the first place.
As a teacher, my
ability to actively listen to my students determines the success or
failure I have in the classroom. As stated above, active
listening centers around developing a trusting relationship, and I can
not be a role model for students if they don’t trust
me. It’s hard enough to convince them that the
content we cover will help them in the real world. If they
don’t trust me as a person, then I will never stand a chance
to effectively guide them through a year of English. Too, as
a husband, a son, a colleague, and a friend, I need to (and want to!)
effectively and actively establish trusting relationships with those
around me, and active listening is a huge step toward helping me
achieve that goal.
References:
Hutchby, I. (2005).
"Active Listening": Formulations and the Elicitation of Feelings-Talk
in Child Counselling. Research
on Language & Social Interaction. 38(3), 303-329.
Retrieved April 19, 2008, from Academic Search Premier via EbscoHost:
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17418982&site=ehost-live
Jalongo, M. R. (Fall
1995). Promoting active listening in the classroom. Childhood
Education.
72, n1. p.13(6). Retrieved April 19, 2008, from Academic OneFile via
Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE
Kaye, K. (1994).
“The Art of Listening.” HR Focus. 71(10), 24. Retrieved April
20, 2008, from Academic Search Premier via EbscoHost:
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsh&AN=9410252303&site=ehost-live
McNaughton, D.,
Hamlin, D., McCarthy, J., Head-Reeves, D., & Schreiner, M.
(Winter 2007). Teaching an active listening strategy to preservice
education professionals.(Learning to Listen)(Report). Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education. 27, 4. p.223(9). Retrieved
April 20, 2008, from Academic OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE
Slizewski, P. (1995).
Tips for active listening. HR Focus. 72(5), 7.
Wolfgang, C. (2001). Solving
discipline and classroom management problems: Methods and models for
today’s teachers. John Wiley and
Sons.