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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
JC - I was very interested in this concept too. I have not gone to the website yet to see what it is all about, but I know it is important.
When I read this chapter I don't think I got out of it what was intended - although I do admit to skimming in places. The one continuous thought that I had was that I need to take this chapter to my district curriculm director and discuss communication with our school district. Then I decided we needed a district blog that was directed by one person - yes I have decided and so it shall be!! (definitely just kidding there!)
Also, as a passing point, the fact that you were a competitive debator for seven years has cleared up SOOOOO many things about you.
I read your posts all over the place and I sense your conviction with every typed letter :) Your debate voice comes out in your writing - maybe a good example for voice in a class????
I like the idea of constructivist listening, too...I took it, though, as a more concerted effort on the part of the listener to do just that---listen. In my school, several teachers participated in Cognitive Coaching, which sounds a lot like constructivist listening. We paired up to observe one another teach, focusing on one or two things the teacher or students did in an effort to improve our teaching. This also sounds a lot like the professional development options focused on equity described here. It was also like the listening/recording exercise we all did with our AI partners as we brainstormed ideas for our research for this summer.
I also just went to a training yesterday about biases teachers might have in the classroom and how biases might affect students' learning. All of this theory is very interesting to me because I really don't reflect enough, I think, about my own teaching. I tend to troubleshoot and move on. I guess that is how it is with the time we have during the school year.
I do like the idea of trust in this article. I think this has to do with your idea of intentions, Jason. Maybe postitive intent is an issue of trust when working on professional development. I agree with Friedman when she explains that a whole staff works best when focused on a common goal and can push one another towards that goal, therefore serving everyone's purpose. I bet we've all sat through some boring professional development put together by only one or two people. The buy-in's just not there unless everyone's on the same page.
An issue I did have with this article, though, is how the teachers each chose one student who was "underachieving and who also represented the groups of students we were consistently underserving" in order to "learn about our focus students' unique learning styles." (136) How does one students represent all students? I found this overgeneral in the sense that I felt they were clumping like kids all in one group. I wonder what group I'd be in???
The more I read this book, the more questions I have about "inquiry to equity" -- the biggest one -- why are we reading this book? Initially, I was trying to keep an open mind in hopes that eventually everything would become clear. It hasn't happened yet, and I must admit, I'm thinking the book isn't going to make my research crystal clear. I think I would have done better had we read T-R at work. It sounds like it would have provided more of a how-to guide to t-r. I'm looking forward to getting my copy soon.
As far as the article goes, I'm with Natalie (her comment on "Dialogue") -- how and why -- continued to surface in the margins of my book. She never really gives the reader "this is what I changed to get this result..." I'm looking for that. Again, it's not going to appear -- at least in this book.
I did like when she mentions the various lengths of research -- minicycles would seem to get teachers intrigued, yet I agree it wouldn't proved an in-depth analysis.
I would love to be involved with those dinner conversations. My favorite line "...we always find ourselves coming back to what we are learning from our students, what we are learning about teaching, and what we are learning about ourselves" (137). Who wouldn't want to be part of that type of conversation! :) I'm hoping we'll feel that in the AI.
P.S. I like the randomness of some of our posts on this blog. That's how my mind works.
Post a Comment