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.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
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)
