I'm kind of afraid to post now. What if I lose my privilege to speak on this blog? Is there a digital version of sticky notes that Ms. Rector would allow?
Seriously, though, when I read back through all that we've accomplished in just a few days, I have to say that AI is exceeding my expectations. Yesterday, I got an e-mail from NWP that the interim report was due soon for the grant that funded the AI, and when I write it, I just want to say, "see blog" or use some yearbook cliche like "ya just had to be there." Because like most writing project experiences, this one will be difficult to capture in prose.
Every day, Jason and I go over to the student center, and SI folks ask how it's going. The experience is even hard to explain to CSUWP people on the inside. Yesterday, I just wound up saying that we're zooming in on the teacher-as-researcher part of the NWP trinity in a big way.
If this is even possible, it feels to me as if all the same intensity people generally feel about SI is magnified because it seems that the risk-taking element that often isn't stripped away until the 3rd week or so in the SI has been removed from the start. Maybe Megan Baker's husband who was sitting at the lunch table with us yesterday said it best: "This sounds like a Ph.D. in writing project."
I knew before you all got here that everyone in the room was amazing, but wow...I mean, you guys are truly great thinkers. It's an honor to see everyone digging in to understand the complexity of her or his practice.
I wish that the powers-that-be in your respective districts could see you in action. Not only would they would be awed by your devotion to your craft, but they would understand that in most cases, most schools have no idea how rigorous "authentic" professional development can be.
Want to know what I mean by "authentic"? Well, I guess ya just had to be there....
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Day 3 Daily Log for 6/27/07
Daily log: Wednesday, 6/27/07
We began the day with a new idea!!! Researcher’s chair will be cut in half---30 minutes one day, 30 minutes the next day….so that we can mull over ideas and organizational issues from one day to the next and also so that it’s not an oh-so-overwhelming 60 minutes barrage of help all at once….When it’s our turn, we will post on the AI blog the day before we have RC any context, summaries, or concerns about our own topic … our first victim---I mean---researcher in RC yesterday, Rebecca, mentioned as feedback that she didn’t think she was “ready for what happened yesterday.” Well put! Good feedback for the developing RC so that we can tweak it to better meet our needs!!!
We then picked on someone (Stacey) for going to the public library. Her Morning Pages are from a book she checked out from there: 8 short questions!!!
Stretch your thinking:
1. If your topic were a _____, which one would it be and why? (Think Dating Game….I’ll hum the theme song while you write….do do do do dum dum do dooooo)….
2. If your research were a color, which would it be?
3. If your topic were a weather pattern, it’d be _____. FYI…We decided an earthquake is not technically a weather pattern and "tornadic" is not a word, but I’m not mentioning any names (Cindy).
Then we had to have a moment for a small, but noticeable SNL reference to Jeopardy! With Will Ferrell and contestants like Sean Connery and Burt Reynolds…..how many times did Stacey have to say, “OK…we’re just moving on….can anyone hear me to going to question #3….? Just write anything. Anything at all. We're moving on."
We then finished the Morning Page:
If your topic were food (meal or snack, etc.), an animal, a TV show/movie, a famous person, a country...
Results:
We learned that Renee has fleas (which is totally okay) and that she tries to give her students the fleas…no, no, no. If it were an animal, the TOPIC she is researching would be fleas---something that jumps from one to another, a happy flea/idea exchange!!!
Stacey’s research would be multi-colored and polka-dotted---something between which she needs to connect the dots….no definite beginning or end!
Natalie broke ALL the rules of this activity, and will get in trouble later. She chose her research to be an aspen tree….writing across the curriculum is as annoying as those little aspen sprouts in our yard to her husband, Bob…teachers need to think like a gardener…
Muddy Easter egg water is the color of Cindy’s research….kids might get clever enough to try one color at a time or learn to mix color, use crayons to make designs instead of plopping the egg into all the colors making it impossible to see each one on top of the other….eventually….different filters give different views…it's a two step Easter egg process….each sequence gives more questions….this Easter egg will never be finished…!
Rebecca is still shell-shocked from yesterday and is a safe, non-frilly, mechanically sound Volvo testing out her research….with a solid structure and foundation to withstand any research issue.
Jason C. went from a 1960s Aston Martin (think James Bond) to the Millenium Falcon and Han Solo…always working on his research/technology at his disposal, fixing it, trying to make it better.
THEN it was time for round 2 of Rebecca’s researcher’s chair!!! Good luck, sister! She "played around with her question" about her project overnight (translation: I had terrible nightmares about the badgering mob of people coming after me yesterday.) She narrowed down the ideas from yesterday, as did the rest of us….Next step: What would we like to know about her topic/research? What to do when a brilliant kid does the work but chooses to do everything but participate about it appropriately?
Next....Open Activity time! We had a good discussion and debate about qualitative/quantitative research regarding our subjects. We read pages 2-11 and worked on formulating and articulating our research questions---what to steer away from and what to add to our thinking.
We learned to start with our questions and rephrase them with: “What happens when…”, “How…”, “What is….”. We then webbed about what we anticipate and our hunches about our own questions. The last step was to articulate what we want/need from other people in the group (a “Dear AI, This is what I need from you…..”) which can always help with the RC!!!
Conclusions: as we wrote our web of questions on colored paper, we concluded that colored paper and really new and good smelly markers make everything much better. Some people who shall remain nameless (Natalie, Steph) may have gotten a little too excited about the smelly markers. That's all I'm saying.
Last, we had “status of the class” for the rule followers reading the schedule, who shall also remain nameless (Renee). We determined the status of the class was, in a word, “crazy” and then went to lunch!!!
After individual time, one of the inquiry groups met. I wasn't a part of that, but I overheard that someone stole Renee’s pen but no one knows who it was (Jason).
We watched a video after lunch about Capitelli’s ELD students and the strategies used with them and their unit on family (inquiry context, data, teacher reflection, student work). How do conversations in between students to support English language learning and how do other kinds of conversations impact that learning?
Data from the video included interviews, whole-class discussion/review, evals in writing like stars and wishes, videos.
AI Primary data brainstorming ideas included: surveys, interviews, blog postings, student work, student feedback, field notes, grades, achievement data, test scores, interviews with colleagues, blog reflections, journals….to be continued as we continue with our research.
Lastly, Jason C. took the Researcher's Chair (brave soul) and Steph decided to record the whole thing on her laptop, though it was NOT her turn to do so. However, she is totally prepared for a career as a courtroom transcriber. (Good to keep one's options open.)
Jason's RC took many directions, some of which involved critical thinking and what that might look like in his classroom. What is anonymity on a blog? Renee asked what the freshmen did, since the sophomores in Jason's research did a good job deciding what good, bad, and ugly blogs looked like. Jason mentioned that the freshmen did nothing. They just sat around and did absolutely nothing, zilch, nada. Bad, bad, bad. (Actually, they haven't had a chance to do anything relating to this….that's coming up later in his research….!) Topics such as assessment, revision, and career skills for the future were also discussed relating to Jason's work so far.
We began the day with a new idea!!! Researcher’s chair will be cut in half---30 minutes one day, 30 minutes the next day….so that we can mull over ideas and organizational issues from one day to the next and also so that it’s not an oh-so-overwhelming 60 minutes barrage of help all at once….When it’s our turn, we will post on the AI blog the day before we have RC any context, summaries, or concerns about our own topic … our first victim---I mean---researcher in RC yesterday, Rebecca, mentioned as feedback that she didn’t think she was “ready for what happened yesterday.” Well put! Good feedback for the developing RC so that we can tweak it to better meet our needs!!!
We then picked on someone (Stacey) for going to the public library. Her Morning Pages are from a book she checked out from there: 8 short questions!!!
Stretch your thinking:
1. If your topic were a _____, which one would it be and why? (Think Dating Game….I’ll hum the theme song while you write….do do do do dum dum do dooooo)….
2. If your research were a color, which would it be?
3. If your topic were a weather pattern, it’d be _____. FYI…We decided an earthquake is not technically a weather pattern and "tornadic" is not a word, but I’m not mentioning any names (Cindy).
Then we had to have a moment for a small, but noticeable SNL reference to Jeopardy! With Will Ferrell and contestants like Sean Connery and Burt Reynolds…..how many times did Stacey have to say, “OK…we’re just moving on….can anyone hear me to going to question #3….? Just write anything. Anything at all. We're moving on."
We then finished the Morning Page:
If your topic were food (meal or snack, etc.), an animal, a TV show/movie, a famous person, a country...
Results:
We learned that Renee has fleas (which is totally okay) and that she tries to give her students the fleas…no, no, no. If it were an animal, the TOPIC she is researching would be fleas---something that jumps from one to another, a happy flea/idea exchange!!!
Stacey’s research would be multi-colored and polka-dotted---something between which she needs to connect the dots….no definite beginning or end!
Natalie broke ALL the rules of this activity, and will get in trouble later. She chose her research to be an aspen tree….writing across the curriculum is as annoying as those little aspen sprouts in our yard to her husband, Bob…teachers need to think like a gardener…
Muddy Easter egg water is the color of Cindy’s research….kids might get clever enough to try one color at a time or learn to mix color, use crayons to make designs instead of plopping the egg into all the colors making it impossible to see each one on top of the other….eventually….different filters give different views…it's a two step Easter egg process….each sequence gives more questions….this Easter egg will never be finished…!
Rebecca is still shell-shocked from yesterday and is a safe, non-frilly, mechanically sound Volvo testing out her research….with a solid structure and foundation to withstand any research issue.
Jason C. went from a 1960s Aston Martin (think James Bond) to the Millenium Falcon and Han Solo…always working on his research/technology at his disposal, fixing it, trying to make it better.
THEN it was time for round 2 of Rebecca’s researcher’s chair!!! Good luck, sister! She "played around with her question" about her project overnight (translation: I had terrible nightmares about the badgering mob of people coming after me yesterday.) She narrowed down the ideas from yesterday, as did the rest of us….Next step: What would we like to know about her topic/research? What to do when a brilliant kid does the work but chooses to do everything but participate about it appropriately?
Next....Open Activity time! We had a good discussion and debate about qualitative/quantitative research regarding our subjects. We read pages 2-11 and worked on formulating and articulating our research questions---what to steer away from and what to add to our thinking.
We learned to start with our questions and rephrase them with: “What happens when…”, “How…”, “What is….”. We then webbed about what we anticipate and our hunches about our own questions. The last step was to articulate what we want/need from other people in the group (a “Dear AI, This is what I need from you…..”) which can always help with the RC!!!
Conclusions: as we wrote our web of questions on colored paper, we concluded that colored paper and really new and good smelly markers make everything much better. Some people who shall remain nameless (Natalie, Steph) may have gotten a little too excited about the smelly markers. That's all I'm saying.
Last, we had “status of the class” for the rule followers reading the schedule, who shall also remain nameless (Renee). We determined the status of the class was, in a word, “crazy” and then went to lunch!!!
After individual time, one of the inquiry groups met. I wasn't a part of that, but I overheard that someone stole Renee’s pen but no one knows who it was (Jason).
We watched a video after lunch about Capitelli’s ELD students and the strategies used with them and their unit on family (inquiry context, data, teacher reflection, student work). How do conversations in between students to support English language learning and how do other kinds of conversations impact that learning?
Data from the video included interviews, whole-class discussion/review, evals in writing like stars and wishes, videos.
AI Primary data brainstorming ideas included: surveys, interviews, blog postings, student work, student feedback, field notes, grades, achievement data, test scores, interviews with colleagues, blog reflections, journals….to be continued as we continue with our research.
Lastly, Jason C. took the Researcher's Chair (brave soul) and Steph decided to record the whole thing on her laptop, though it was NOT her turn to do so. However, she is totally prepared for a career as a courtroom transcriber. (Good to keep one's options open.)
Jason's RC took many directions, some of which involved critical thinking and what that might look like in his classroom. What is anonymity on a blog? Renee asked what the freshmen did, since the sophomores in Jason's research did a good job deciding what good, bad, and ugly blogs looked like. Jason mentioned that the freshmen did nothing. They just sat around and did absolutely nothing, zilch, nada. Bad, bad, bad. (Actually, they haven't had a chance to do anything relating to this….that's coming up later in his research….!) Topics such as assessment, revision, and career skills for the future were also discussed relating to Jason's work so far.
Can't wait to see what happens tomorrow!
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Day 2: Sound Bytes
Snacks
We’re official! The chocolate arrived! One of the two bags of peanut M&M’s were opened before many computers were raring to go! Muffins, fruit, pistachios, peanut butter M&M’s, two bags of Twizzlers [Family Size with the Resealable Bag], and Natalie’s special request: cranberry juice and sparkling water. Again, we’re officially at a NWP event!
Natalie started the day by personalizing daily pages. Each person is given an invitation that contains two prompts: a written prompt and of course a visual from our residing artist! :)
Morning Pages: Our Personal Invitations from Natalie to Explore our Research
Renee, I was intriguiged with the idea of “tracking” in your writing circles. This particular artist, who creates images of sacred circles, clearly feels that the diversity of color, shapes and textures adds to the intensity of her message. Do you feel that homogenous groups would spark deeper or more shallow discussion? What are some of the problems in a homogenous group?
The suggestion was given to me by two teachers to let them form their own groups at first. This way they will have a comfort level with who they are with and usually the students put themselves in homogeneous groups naturally. Let them stay in these groups for a while and then make necessary changes.I am thinking that groups of 4 are the goal. From what I have experienced and heard in Kagan cooperative training that is the best number. Also, I am thinking that keeping them in the groups for 6 weeks is a good time. They could be in these groups for lit circles and writing circles. 6 weeks is a hexter and Kagan cooperative training suggests that amount of time also.
Stacey, I’m curious as to what you expect to glean from the Art of Revision ed, Wendy Bishop book. How do you see this relating to your research question?, I’m curious as to what you expect to glean from the Art of Revision book. How do you see this relating to your research question?
☼ As I was reading, I thought of something else I think I know: students need to have experienced something –sports, rodeo, music, cooking – where they have repeatedly practiced that something to get it right to understand the importance of revision. And, as a teacher, I need to help students make the connection between that something and writing! I see a lesson plan and demo in the works…
“It seems that the only way they [students] will actually take the love of writing – and the potential it has to offer their students into this real world is to have made it part of who they are as teachers. My process must address this internalization. Which means the process cannot be a one-shot strategy. Because in order for an idea to become part of who you are I believe there must be interaction over time. And this is a revelation that has occurred to me for the first time now. Prior to this minute I thought of my strategies and entities separate from the rest of my curriculum – but in order to succeed I see now that the concept must become part of my own teaching. I need to face the future and model what I know.”
Steph, it seems that you encourage your students to look at themselves as what they can be, not what they are. Did you know artist Keith Haring began his career as a graffiti artist, undoubtedly someone who many people didn’t think would amount to much. Have you given any thought to looking at any research models in the other arts to help develop your own research question?
“I think kids just don’t get taught ‘life’ much and therefore are so busy figuring that out that they forget to see themselves in it; therefore, I feel they don’t understand their own potential….We talk about ethical and political issues often as a result of looking at Picasso’s “Gernica” or reading one of many of Ginsberg orWhitman’s poems. It’s interesting. The kids have a lot of ideas and are often willing to support them, once they can take a temporary leave of all the other garbage they’re worried about and just put it out there and see what happens. They know full well they’re safe to do so in my class and that saying or doing anything to just please me makes me want to vomit or throw a temper tantrum, so that is never an issue.”
“Believe it or not, I’ve been thinking about the last question in particular, and Jason (Malone) and I were just talking about it yesterday in reference to students’ reactions to The Life of Pi, which Rebecca’s kids have been reading to mixed reviews in book clubs for the past couple of years. Well, you get the picture—more groovy serendipity in CSUWP. So it may be hard for me to think of these questions in the broader sense of t-r, but I’m going to try in the next 8 minutes.This question really has to do with the nature of truth, I think (oh, yeah, like I’m gonna solve that problem in 8 minutes…). Okay, so I’ll take a stand. I do think that truth is in the eye of the beholder to a large extent, but I also think it does matter. Yes, there is such a thing as empirical truth, at least when it comes to inanimate objects, but as soon as something moves, well, so does the nature of truth. One of the things I’ve learned in my years as a qualitative researcher (and a human being) is that truth is to a large extent the story we tell to make sense of what happened (cf. Life of Pi again).”
Rebecca, I’m curious about what, if any, parameters do you put in place to help monitor the discussion of controversial subjects in your book circles? Interpretation of artworks such as this one titled “Christ’s Last Day” would certainly be a hot topic in a public school setting - how do you handle the idea of censorship?
“My puzzle is how do I help students to not censor their discussions and deal with those ‘elephants’ presented on the pages of their novels in a productive manner.”
Jason, artist Piet Mondrian felt that balance in his life could be achieved through the balance of color, line and shape in his compositions - by looking into himself and using visual images to express larger ideas such as the feel of the city and essence of Broadway in this piece titled Broadway Boogie Woogie. How do you see this new technology changing the way students interpret ideas - or will it?
Paraphrased by yours truly! :0
The title didn’t match up with the picture. I expected movement and color. Broadway Boogie Woogie – it’s like legos! I got bogged down in my blog with so many ideas – that I was digressing so far away from my topic that I just tabled it for now.
Technology has reprogrammed the way we think – perception of ourselves, each other, the world.
Inquiry Groups
SJ [squared]
It has become apparent within the first two minutes of meeting that this group needs a task master. I’m happy to oblige. With a group as dynamic and energetic as this, we’ve decided on a few short hand phrases/actions that can be applied to the individual who needs to be reeled in:
I got it.
Arm motions.
Can we just focus on this one thing?
Distract the talkers with a shiny object! J
Mantra: Be honest and don’t take offence.
PAB’s
The PAB's are a pretty compatible, (if agreeably moody) crew. Some of the norms we agreed on included: equal time for all members, honesty in our responses, desire to be challenged and most importantly a philosophy of press, address, then bless!
Independent Study Time and Search Engines
Researcher’s Chair: Rebecca
The first official researcher’s chair! We realized that we need –of course -- more time. We’re toying with the idea that each t-r should have two time slots: the first, to share his/her research [half hour one day] and the second, to return with any questions he/she might have [half hour the following day]. This would give the t-r time to reflect on all the information we’ve bombarded them with. We’re learning as we go!
One Liners of the Day
If I got a Mac, I’d have to get a divorce. – Natalie
The essence of the M&M’s are taking over the room. – Cindy
“the Slowskis” seem to have inhabited pre-AP – Rebecca
Teacher research doesn’t give you any more control over the variables in your classroom, but you are able to discern patterns which help you understand what is happening in the classroom. – Cindy
The Inaugral Researcher’s Chair
After surviving…hmmm…I meant... experiencing Researcher’s Chair, I am ready to come back for more!
In all seriousness, I want to thank my fellow fellows for their tolerance of what felt like a random outpouring of my research experience. Your probing questions and thoughtful suggestions were thought-provoking and genuinely appreciated. I will be asking for more soon. It also was a good reminder of why book clubs is a practice I keep trying; just talking about it fired me up to go and take another crack at it.
Quick re-cap of my research:
Sophomores in my Pre-AP course participate in a book club once a week for a three or four week period. Below is a rough outline of the process:
Week 1:
Week 2:
Week 3:
Week 4:
Week 5:
1. I have the fall conference in mind (as well as my NCTE and NWP presentations) and would like to know what an audience of teachers wants to know about book clubs. During today’s discussion most questions seemed targeted towards the process and strategies that we used—is that what you would want to know more about? Can you give me the specific questions you have about book clubs in my classroom?
2. With your help, I think that I have arrived at the question that I am most interested in exploring: How can does partcipating in book clubs allow students to have an “authentic” experience exploring literature and the issues raised by literature? Is this what you heard me saying or did you glean (just for Stacey) something different in my ramblings?
3. That is all. I will burden my inquiry group with any more queries…if Cindy allows me stick around.
In all seriousness, I want to thank my fellow fellows for their tolerance of what felt like a random outpouring of my research experience. Your probing questions and thoughtful suggestions were thought-provoking and genuinely appreciated. I will be asking for more soon. It also was a good reminder of why book clubs is a practice I keep trying; just talking about it fired me up to go and take another crack at it.
Quick re-cap of my research:
Sophomores in my Pre-AP course participate in a book club once a week for a three or four week period. Below is a rough outline of the process:
Week 1:
- "Book Talks" (brief overview of each book) to introduce title options
- Student selection of top 3 choices
- Book club membership determined
- Students complete webquest on title to provide background, context, author info, etc.
- Book clubs meet to establish norms and goals
Week 2:
- Groups meet to discuss first third of book (discussion is guided by students’ sticky notes kept as they read and the discussion log with specific prompt provided by Cindy and me)
Week 3:
- Groups meet to discuss second third of book (discussion is guided by students’ sticky notes kept as they read and the discussion log with specific prompt provided by Cindy and me)
Week 4:
- Groups meet to discuss end of book (discussion is guided by students’ sticky notes kept as they read and the discussion log with specific prompt provided by Cindy and me)
Week 5:
- Groups complete mandala to reflect the “universe” of their novel and prepare to present mandala and their overall reaction to the book to the class
- Students individually create a found poem using what they decided was the most important page from the novel
- Presentations of mandalas
1. I have the fall conference in mind (as well as my NCTE and NWP presentations) and would like to know what an audience of teachers wants to know about book clubs. During today’s discussion most questions seemed targeted towards the process and strategies that we used—is that what you would want to know more about? Can you give me the specific questions you have about book clubs in my classroom?
2. With your help, I think that I have arrived at the question that I am most interested in exploring: How can does partcipating in book clubs allow students to have an “authentic” experience exploring literature and the issues raised by literature? Is this what you heard me saying or did you glean (just for Stacey) something different in my ramblings?
3. That is all. I will burden my inquiry group with any more queries…if Cindy allows me stick around.
Researcher's Chair
We had our first "researcher's chair" today, and we learned some things that we're going to start applying right away. The idea behind this activity is that each of us will get the chance to talk about our research project and get some feedback from the rest of the group. The first thing we learned is that we need more time--originally we (that's the royal "we"--actually it was Cindy and Jason) scheduled 1/2 hour for each researcher's chair, but after 1/2 hour today we all felt as though we had just scratched the surface with Rebecca's research, so we're planning to spend another half hour tomorrow. The plan now is to give each of us two half-hour blocks of time so that we can discuss our projects, take a night to reflect, and then come back and finish our discussion.
The other thing we learned is that it would be helpful to front-load the activity a bit more. Jason suggested that we write up a quick summary of what we've done so far so that we don't have to use too much time explaining our project at the beginning, and then to write down three questions to help focus our discussion and make sure it's as productive as possible.
I have the researcher's chair tomorrow, so on my blog I've written a summary of what I've done so far with my research project, which I decided was a useful activity in itself. It helped me to focus in a systematic way on what I've already done and what I still need to do, which is crucial for us "concrete-sequential" thinkers.
The questions that I hope we can address tomorrow are the following:
1. What things don't you understand about my project? I'm so close to it that I know I make a lot of assumptions about what others know and understand. The pre-institute blogging has helped me a lot to identify some of them, but I know there are many more. So what is it that is still not clear about what I'm doing and how I'm doing it?
2. What are the things that are troublesome about my project? If you were reading an article about this project, what would be frustrating about it? What things would you be rolling your eyes at, what issues would you be wondering why I'm not addressing, or what concepts or ideas would you be wishing that I would acknowledge?
3. What are the most interesting or intriguing aspects of my research project? What are the things that you think I should pursue further and explore more?
Looking at this list I'm sort of amused at the fact that these are pretty similar to the "stars and wishes" that we do at CSUWP for author's chair. That's interesting, I think, but I honestly didn't start out with that in mind.
TTFN CSUWPAI!
Just kidding everyone, txt tlk is annoying, but I couldn't resist using such an impressive string of acronyms!
(BTW, TTFN means "Ta Ta for Now." Oh, and BTW means "By the Way." ;-)
LOL
The other thing we learned is that it would be helpful to front-load the activity a bit more. Jason suggested that we write up a quick summary of what we've done so far so that we don't have to use too much time explaining our project at the beginning, and then to write down three questions to help focus our discussion and make sure it's as productive as possible.
I have the researcher's chair tomorrow, so on my blog I've written a summary of what I've done so far with my research project, which I decided was a useful activity in itself. It helped me to focus in a systematic way on what I've already done and what I still need to do, which is crucial for us "concrete-sequential" thinkers.
The questions that I hope we can address tomorrow are the following:
1. What things don't you understand about my project? I'm so close to it that I know I make a lot of assumptions about what others know and understand. The pre-institute blogging has helped me a lot to identify some of them, but I know there are many more. So what is it that is still not clear about what I'm doing and how I'm doing it?
2. What are the things that are troublesome about my project? If you were reading an article about this project, what would be frustrating about it? What things would you be rolling your eyes at, what issues would you be wondering why I'm not addressing, or what concepts or ideas would you be wishing that I would acknowledge?
3. What are the most interesting or intriguing aspects of my research project? What are the things that you think I should pursue further and explore more?
Looking at this list I'm sort of amused at the fact that these are pretty similar to the "stars and wishes" that we do at CSUWP for author's chair. That's interesting, I think, but I honestly didn't start out with that in mind.
TTFN CSUWPAI!
Just kidding everyone, txt tlk is annoying, but I couldn't resist using such an impressive string of acronyms!
(BTW, TTFN means "Ta Ta for Now." Oh, and BTW means "By the Way." ;-)
LOL
Day 1
this is late... I finally was able to post it...
Gotta love CSU servers.
The inaugural day of AI has come and passed and based on what we’ve seen already, it’s been going to be a great addition to the WP as a whole… Again, our focus is research and technology and here is what we are considering…
Renee wants to know… “How can I make writing workshops (writing circles) function in my classroom?” and “Are ability groups or choices better or not for writing circles?”
Natalie wants to know… “How can I help pre-service art teachers teach writing in meaningful ways?
Stacey wants to know… “How can I help kids become better writing group participants (esp. in terms of feedback)?”
Rebecca and Cindy want to know… “What happens when I use book clubs to help kids talk about difficult texts/topics in productive ways?”
Steph wants to know… “Why are skills-kids able to excel with abstract thinking during poetry instruction?”
E. Jason and Jason want to know… “ What happens when I use technology to create new opportunities for critical thinking discussions?”
The day was spent refining our questions and identifying our assumptions and goals for the two weeks ahead. In addition, plans were drawn out (or at least the process has begun) and our research review of S. Capitelli’s work has given us a look at what good teacher research looks like. A model to follow... and we still have Cindy to look up to.
Cindy and I really didn’t know what to expect but it is clear that it is already exceeding our expectations.
Gotta love CSU servers.
The inaugural day of AI has come and passed and based on what we’ve seen already, it’s been going to be a great addition to the WP as a whole… Again, our focus is research and technology and here is what we are considering…
Renee wants to know… “How can I make writing workshops (writing circles) function in my classroom?” and “Are ability groups or choices better or not for writing circles?”
Natalie wants to know… “How can I help pre-service art teachers teach writing in meaningful ways?
Stacey wants to know… “How can I help kids become better writing group participants (esp. in terms of feedback)?”
Rebecca and Cindy want to know… “What happens when I use book clubs to help kids talk about difficult texts/topics in productive ways?”
Steph wants to know… “Why are skills-kids able to excel with abstract thinking during poetry instruction?”
E. Jason and Jason want to know… “ What happens when I use technology to create new opportunities for critical thinking discussions?”
The day was spent refining our questions and identifying our assumptions and goals for the two weeks ahead. In addition, plans were drawn out (or at least the process has begun) and our research review of S. Capitelli’s work has given us a look at what good teacher research looks like. A model to follow... and we still have Cindy to look up to.
Cindy and I really didn’t know what to expect but it is clear that it is already exceeding our expectations.
Monday, June 25, 2007
It begins...
This morning is the beginning of AI, just another brainchild of WP's that is being watched by many across the country. Hope we live up to the hype. We'll be writing, blogging (a lot), and focusing on our research. All for the better of our classrooms and kids.
website address
Hi, all,
Here's the address for the Carnegie Foundation's Gallery of Teaching & Learning, which we'll be consulting all week. Since you're already familiar with her work, we'll focus primarily on the Sarah Capitelli link, but there's lots of other good stuff by writing project teachers on there, too, so we encourage you to browse. More to come.
- Cindy and Jason
Here's the address for the Carnegie Foundation's Gallery of Teaching & Learning, which we'll be consulting all week. Since you're already familiar with her work, we'll focus primarily on the Sarah Capitelli link, but there's lots of other good stuff by writing project teachers on there, too, so we encourage you to browse. More to come.
- Cindy and Jason
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Shaping & Owning Teacher Research
I appreciate Juarez's honesty and fair concerns about teacher research in her school. Funding and participation are indeed honest concerns with a busy teaching staff. But I seemed to miss how all of this inquiry and planning tied to equity in specific situations.
To start, I think that the idea of ownership is key with a staff. I like the term "teacher-owned" used in the article to explain relevance and subsequent involvement. I agree that "'Teacher research complements teaching.'" I was confused, however, on page 147 where Juarez writes about her objective in this process. She mentions that she never thought of becoming a better teacher as a goal. The deliberate reflection, I think, can't help but improve one's teaching, especially if the time is given during the day to do so. But, that brings me to the next question about this school's process: time and scope.
I got the feeling that one year was not a realistic timeframe in which to try new things, reflect on them, read articles, meet as a staff, make the required changes in the ideas tried out in class, and compose a professional piece for publication. When I reviewed the agenda for the year, I found it very rushed and Juarez herself mentions that next year, she would cut out the professional articles and discussions about them in an effort to save time. I think that would be a mistake and that maybe extending the timeframe for this process to, say, two or more years might allieviate the rushed feeling I sensed while reading this article.
Is it possible to expect teachers who are also coaches who are also StuCo reps who are also parents, etc. to accomplish all of this in one school year and really see a good, healthy body of data to support or reflect what they are trying to do? Or am I missing something? Because isn't it the entire school who are working on this goal? It must be exhausting, I would think, to plan and focus so much on this task. What about the building's other "standard" goals, such as technology or critical thinking, or other such buzz words going around these days (I'm thinking of my building's goals: communication, technology and critical thinking---but we gave ourselves three years to meet our goals in these areas....)?
Don't get me wrong. I think this is an outstanding idea and after I sifted through the weirdly-worded bits about the reorganization of the schools and then the five different schools on one campus, etc.(???), what the staff is trying to do sounds wonderful and commendable. I love the idea of their groups acting almost as "research writing groups" where teacher researchers could bounce ideas off one another and receive feedback on them...I love that kind of involvement and the generating of more and more questions....It sounds like a great experience.
I just am not sure about the pressure and realistic expectations of those in charge? Would this work in other schools, especially when we receive our high-stakes test scores in the months after our students have exited our classes? And where did the equity element go, or is that understood to be embedded in the teacher research?
To start, I think that the idea of ownership is key with a staff. I like the term "teacher-owned" used in the article to explain relevance and subsequent involvement. I agree that "'Teacher research complements teaching.'" I was confused, however, on page 147 where Juarez writes about her objective in this process. She mentions that she never thought of becoming a better teacher as a goal. The deliberate reflection, I think, can't help but improve one's teaching, especially if the time is given during the day to do so. But, that brings me to the next question about this school's process: time and scope.
I got the feeling that one year was not a realistic timeframe in which to try new things, reflect on them, read articles, meet as a staff, make the required changes in the ideas tried out in class, and compose a professional piece for publication. When I reviewed the agenda for the year, I found it very rushed and Juarez herself mentions that next year, she would cut out the professional articles and discussions about them in an effort to save time. I think that would be a mistake and that maybe extending the timeframe for this process to, say, two or more years might allieviate the rushed feeling I sensed while reading this article.
Is it possible to expect teachers who are also coaches who are also StuCo reps who are also parents, etc. to accomplish all of this in one school year and really see a good, healthy body of data to support or reflect what they are trying to do? Or am I missing something? Because isn't it the entire school who are working on this goal? It must be exhausting, I would think, to plan and focus so much on this task. What about the building's other "standard" goals, such as technology or critical thinking, or other such buzz words going around these days (I'm thinking of my building's goals: communication, technology and critical thinking---but we gave ourselves three years to meet our goals in these areas....)?
Don't get me wrong. I think this is an outstanding idea and after I sifted through the weirdly-worded bits about the reorganization of the schools and then the five different schools on one campus, etc.(???), what the staff is trying to do sounds wonderful and commendable. I love the idea of their groups acting almost as "research writing groups" where teacher researchers could bounce ideas off one another and receive feedback on them...I love that kind of involvement and the generating of more and more questions....It sounds like a great experience.
I just am not sure about the pressure and realistic expectations of those in charge? Would this work in other schools, especially when we receive our high-stakes test scores in the months after our students have exited our classes? And where did the equity element go, or is that understood to be embedded in the teacher research?
Friday, June 15, 2007
The Cycle of Inquiry
Well, my original plan was to respond to each of the three main ideas Friedman presents, so I figure I'll touch on the last one today, since we start the new chapter on Monday.
I think this one is interesting because it happens to be the place that Cindy started us on the first day of the institute. The "Cycle of Inquiry" gives us a very useful structure to follow, and I think that now that I have actually done some teacher research, I understand how it works a little bit better than I did before.
It's been a loooong time since Cindy first posted this list, so here it is as a reminder. This is basically the same as the cycle that we see in Appendix C of the chapter:
The key, I think, is that a teacher researcher goes beyond what a reflective teacher does, and in this chapter I feel that I may have found some examples of how teacher research builds on and adds important elements to reflective teaching.
First, reflective teachers talk formally and informally and listen to each other; teacher researchers engage in constructivist listening and/or structured dialogue sessions with guidelines, procedures, and specific questions to examine. This makes the process more efficient, productive, and useful for each individual teacher.
Second, reflective teachers look at the way their lessons go and make changes/adaptations as they are needed. Teacher researchers gather data systematically and analyze it through the inquiry process with a critical eye (and with the help of other t-rs whenever possible) to identify their own biases, blind spots, and assumptions--to see into and even "through" the data to find out what's working or not working and why. They then use an equally systematic approach to finding potential solutions, gathering more data, and continuing the cycle of inquiry.
Third, reflective teachers share "best practices" with colleagues when they can; teacher researchers consistently share the results of their research in public forums, (books, professional journals, blogs, conventions, writing projects, etc.) joining a t-r community of researchers who help and support one another. Researchers look for consistently reliable practices and share them.
I don't know if anyone else cares about this dichotomy, but I had a hard time seeing the difference between reflective teaching and t-r at first, so maybe this is more for me than for anyone else--but hey everyone, let's call it "sharing results" and call it good.
Anyway, enough from me, I'm looking forward to hearing from Steph about "Practical Practice," hopefully it delivers on its promise!
I think this one is interesting because it happens to be the place that Cindy started us on the first day of the institute. The "Cycle of Inquiry" gives us a very useful structure to follow, and I think that now that I have actually done some teacher research, I understand how it works a little bit better than I did before.
It's been a loooong time since Cindy first posted this list, so here it is as a reminder. This is basically the same as the cycle that we see in Appendix C of the chapter:
What do I want to know? We get fascinated in or curious about a piece of our teaching. That's asking questions.
How will I find out? We start collecting data about that piece of our teaching. That's, um, data collection.
How do I make sense of what I've found? Looking at the data with a critical lens can help us to identify patterns and connections that we didn't seen before. That's data analysis.
How do I share what I've learned? Now that I understand that piece of my teaching better, how do I share what I've learned? That's reporting or sharing your findings.
Now you have new questions. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
The key, I think, is that a teacher researcher goes beyond what a reflective teacher does, and in this chapter I feel that I may have found some examples of how teacher research builds on and adds important elements to reflective teaching.
First, reflective teachers talk formally and informally and listen to each other; teacher researchers engage in constructivist listening and/or structured dialogue sessions with guidelines, procedures, and specific questions to examine. This makes the process more efficient, productive, and useful for each individual teacher.
Second, reflective teachers look at the way their lessons go and make changes/adaptations as they are needed. Teacher researchers gather data systematically and analyze it through the inquiry process with a critical eye (and with the help of other t-rs whenever possible) to identify their own biases, blind spots, and assumptions--to see into and even "through" the data to find out what's working or not working and why. They then use an equally systematic approach to finding potential solutions, gathering more data, and continuing the cycle of inquiry.
Third, reflective teachers share "best practices" with colleagues when they can; teacher researchers consistently share the results of their research in public forums, (books, professional journals, blogs, conventions, writing projects, etc.) joining a t-r community of researchers who help and support one another. Researchers look for consistently reliable practices and share them.
I don't know if anyone else cares about this dichotomy, but I had a hard time seeing the difference between reflective teaching and t-r at first, so maybe this is more for me than for anyone else--but hey everyone, let's call it "sharing results" and call it good.
Anyway, enough from me, I'm looking forward to hearing from Steph about "Practical Practice," hopefully it delivers on its promise!
Friday, June 8, 2007
Dialogue
Another interesting aspect of the San Francisco Community School's inquiry program was the use of teacher dialogue as a tool for facilitating research. Friedman talks about long inquiry dinners during which members of the staff discuss aspects of their teaching. I found this to be a really interesting concept, less because of the fact that they had inquiry dinners, but more because of the way that the time was structured so much in terms of the different types of dialogues they engaged in.
We do get together as a department outside of school at least once or twice a year. Those are usually non-work occasions, though, and we try not to talk about school too much. I do talk a lot of shop at lunch, though, I really like to use that time to get ideas from the teachers I eat with.
This is not at all structured, though, it usually goes something like this: Nate and I quote some random movie back and forth for like ten minutes before I remember to ask him for a copy of the final he wrote for Tale of Two Cities and then Melissa tells us some crazy story about what strange thing happened to Brittony again--very informal and unstructured. Very useful though, so I can imagine that this kind of much more structured communication would be a great use of time.
We have early release on Wednesdays, and we use that time for meetings and staff development. This kind of dialogue for inquiry would be so nice to set up during those times. Right now our district is emphasizing Critical Thinking, which is something that I definitely support. It's essential for the future job market--it's all about solving problems, not "knowing information".
I think in a lot of ways, though, "Critical Thinking" is like teacher research or "inquiry," in that most teachers think they're already doing it (I admit that with t-r, I truly believed I was already doing it at first--go back to the first couple of these blogs), so it's tough to sell it to them. It's a lot like steph described in terms of staff development that is done by one or two people rather being a collaborative effort.
Everything is so abstract until you actually try to do it in the classroom, lecturing to a group of teachers about critical thinking is a lot like trying to teach my son how to play baseball without giving him a baseball or a bat. The best way to teach Critical Thinking is by getting people to engage in it--sort of like CSUWP, I think.
We do get together as a department outside of school at least once or twice a year. Those are usually non-work occasions, though, and we try not to talk about school too much. I do talk a lot of shop at lunch, though, I really like to use that time to get ideas from the teachers I eat with.
This is not at all structured, though, it usually goes something like this: Nate and I quote some random movie back and forth for like ten minutes before I remember to ask him for a copy of the final he wrote for Tale of Two Cities and then Melissa tells us some crazy story about what strange thing happened to Brittony again--very informal and unstructured. Very useful though, so I can imagine that this kind of much more structured communication would be a great use of time.
We have early release on Wednesdays, and we use that time for meetings and staff development. This kind of dialogue for inquiry would be so nice to set up during those times. Right now our district is emphasizing Critical Thinking, which is something that I definitely support. It's essential for the future job market--it's all about solving problems, not "knowing information".
I think in a lot of ways, though, "Critical Thinking" is like teacher research or "inquiry," in that most teachers think they're already doing it (I admit that with t-r, I truly believed I was already doing it at first--go back to the first couple of these blogs), so it's tough to sell it to them. It's a lot like steph described in terms of staff development that is done by one or two people rather being a collaborative effort.
Everything is so abstract until you actually try to do it in the classroom, lecturing to a group of teachers about critical thinking is a lot like trying to teach my son how to play baseball without giving him a baseball or a bat. The best way to teach Critical Thinking is by getting people to engage in it--sort of like CSUWP, I think.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Constructivist Listening
There are a number of things that are interesting about this chapter, but the most fascinating to me is the concept of constructivist listening. I love the idea that "People are capable of solving their own problems" (142). I know that for me often times all I have to do is say something out loud to someone else, and I gain a new clarity of thought. Just formulating one's thoughts into sentences, or listening to someone else articulate an important concept, is a valuable activity.
It reminded me in some ways of Cindy Griffin and Sonja Foss's concept of Invitational Rhetoric. This is the idea that not all communication is intended to persuade, or change the behavior or beliefs of others. I was a competitive debater for seven years, so this idea did not necessarily appeal to me when I was first taught it (I took a speech class from Cindy Griffin during my undergrad program).
But this may be the first time that I've seen a non-manipulative form of rhetoric that I think fits in to the concept of invitational rhetoric. You're not trying to persuade anyone, or get their feedback (one of the rules that would be nearly impossible for me to follow), but just to articulate your own thoughts and formulate your own way of thinking.
I think that Griffin and Foss go too far when they characterize persuasion as violence. It is simply not fair to say that all attempts to persuade are violent acts. I heard about a man who called his friend in the middle of the night to say goodbye--he was planning to commit suicide--and that friend stayed up for hours trying to persuade him that life was worth living and that he should live on. The man did change his mind, and eventually fell asleep without following through with his intention.
Persuasion is useful, and essential. But I think that for teachers, sometimes, we just need someone to sit and listen while we sort through all the incredible stresses, pressures, and demands of this job. Perhaps there is a place for invitational rhetoric in my personal philosophy--as long as it is clear that persuasion is not violence.
Rather than rambling on to another topic, I think I'll stop here for the night and bring up some of the other interesting concepts in a second post. That might also help us to keep our threads a bit tighter.
It reminded me in some ways of Cindy Griffin and Sonja Foss's concept of Invitational Rhetoric. This is the idea that not all communication is intended to persuade, or change the behavior or beliefs of others. I was a competitive debater for seven years, so this idea did not necessarily appeal to me when I was first taught it (I took a speech class from Cindy Griffin during my undergrad program).
But this may be the first time that I've seen a non-manipulative form of rhetoric that I think fits in to the concept of invitational rhetoric. You're not trying to persuade anyone, or get their feedback (one of the rules that would be nearly impossible for me to follow), but just to articulate your own thoughts and formulate your own way of thinking.
I think that Griffin and Foss go too far when they characterize persuasion as violence. It is simply not fair to say that all attempts to persuade are violent acts. I heard about a man who called his friend in the middle of the night to say goodbye--he was planning to commit suicide--and that friend stayed up for hours trying to persuade him that life was worth living and that he should live on. The man did change his mind, and eventually fell asleep without following through with his intention.
Persuasion is useful, and essential. But I think that for teachers, sometimes, we just need someone to sit and listen while we sort through all the incredible stresses, pressures, and demands of this job. Perhaps there is a place for invitational rhetoric in my personal philosophy--as long as it is clear that persuasion is not violence.
Rather than rambling on to another topic, I think I'll stop here for the night and bring up some of the other interesting concepts in a second post. That might also help us to keep our threads a bit tighter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
