In the spirit of group work and also just to explore Vygotsky’s Premise that “learning and knowledge are active, creative processes” (Roskelly 28) Jeff and I had a discussion on gmail chat to form our post for today. We’ve edited that chat a bit for readability, but mostly what you see here is akin to the conversations that Roskelly observed in the book. We feel it shows similar details as chapter two about how groups interact to make a plan under which to proceed and test concepts. It also serves, we think, as a playful beginning for our discussion of Breaking (into) the Circle. Please note: all smileys, lols, j/k's have been redacted from this version.
Mackenzie: Hey.
Jeff: Hey.
Mackenzie: I'll try and refrain from using smileys, but it will take self restraint.
Jeff: So lets get on it.
I encourage smileys,
go nuts with them.
Mackenzie: Also, let's try and use descent grammar so we don't have to go back through and revise for it as heavily.
Jeff: Dont I always?
Mackenzie: Ha, yeah well that was more for myself.
OK, well, I'd just like to start by mentioning this book makes me hyper-conscious of everything I say in groups now.
Jeff: So, should we do this as an interview, or more of a conversation?
Mackenzie: I'd prefer conversation. Seems that's more natural which according to Roskelly is a better way to learn. By the way, James Strickland started things off by peeving me.
Jeff: How did Strickland peeve you?
Mackenzie: On viii like the third paragraph. I'll paraphrase: He claims robins are preprogrammed for life. Any time people make false claims about other species to stress human superiority I get peeved.
Jeff: yeah, that was a strange thing to bring up.
Mackenzie: I just want that off my chest. It’s false to my experience. Birds are very social learners.
Jeff: it seems like all animals are/have to be. Not social learners but learners.
Mackenzie: Yes, exactly. But also very different in their interactions than humans.
Jeff: Otherwise they wouldn't survive.
Mackenzie: No one species is more or less pre-programmed. We're all dynamic.
Jeff: But this may be a little tangential.
Mackenzie: Anyway, Roskelly didn't piss me off. Yes, but it will be fun for everyone to read I think! I am just excited for how this will document our dialogue in a way similar to what goes on in the book.
Jeff: No, she's too damn optimistic about group work/life to really be pissed by her.
She makes it all sound so easy.
Mackenzie: Ha! Yeah I think we're all inclined to write about something we've figured out pretty well by the time we publish.... er if that makes sense.
So as we further do the work all groups do at first meeting of figuring out a way to proceed, I'd like to suggest we take turns offering up things to talk about from the text. Jeff: I think that is a capital idea.
Mackenzie: Ha! Great!
I can start if you want?
Jeff: Go for it.
Mackenzie: One minute while I find/type a quote?
Jeff: K.
Mackenzie: I think the introduction is worth spending a little time on. Because it answers the “So What?!” question Ballenger is always bringing up.
Jeff: I'm looking at it now, and what specifically would you like me to discuss about it?
Mackenzie: Roskelly talks about a "circle of sameness that prevents voices from being heard and ideas from being questioned" (xii) and she generally says that small group work helps break up the traditions of established teaching that make that circle, traditions like hierarchy, race and gender. At least, I think that’s what she’s getting at. Also, that breaking those patterns is important for learning to occur, especially when we're interested in helping our students think about big, challenging and new ideas, like class, gender, and I'd add environmental issues.
Jeff: Ok, so yeah, she's talking about "breaking the circle", meaning exploring new places, taking on new roles, etc. Do you buy that what she offers us is the way to best achieve that?
Mackenzie: I guess I'm wondering if you agree with her thesis that group work is essential to that sort of learning?
Jeff: (I'm playing devil's advocate).
Well it looks like we've asked each other the same question.
Mackenzie: Yeah, that was my thinking to, to question her a little.
Ha!
Jeff: I'll go first.
Mackenzie: Great!
Jeff: Something she brings up a lot in the book is this idea of theory v. practice and while I think that a lot of what she talks about, her maxims, her reasoning for the efficacy of group work, are based on a teacher who is experienced within a classroom and has developed a certain level of comfort there.
Mackenzie: Yeah, I agree with that.
Jeff: So I guess my answer is, yes, I buy it, but I don't believe it's something I am able to achieve. It's not a place I'm ready to have my students explore because I hardly know what the "established" place is.
Mackenzie: Hmmm I can go with that.
Well we've learned the established place all our lives, our roles have just jumped. Now we wear teacher hats.
Jeff: But I don't doubt that her idea that this breaking the circle can lead to greater leaps.
It's just that now we're the jerks hovering over our groups with our arms crossed.
Mackenzie: For me, the challenge has been breaking up the power dynamic we all come into a class understanding. I think Roskelly offers a model with small group work.
Jeff: That's true, and I think that model is a good one.
Mackenzie: Though we're still in classrooms, a space that has a lot of other factors of control and a long history for everyone involved, so I'm wondering if group work really could be enough.
But I'm excited to try it.
Jeff: I think it could be if from the get-go you establish it. She talks about that in that first chapter. If you look on page 2,
Mackenzie: K
Jeff: 3rd paragraph she describes how from the very beginning she establishes the group: "'It's a writing course,' I told them. 'Guess what we'll do next time in class?' They all got it quickly. Write... 'And guess what we'll do after that... get into our groups.'"
Mackenzie: Yeah. And she makes them permanent, something I'm going to try next semester.
Jeff: Ya, that permanence is there from the start. And I don't think it's the same chapter but later on she shows us her syllabus and how that shows her students the emphasis she places on the importance of group work in the class and while she does point out that there are some flaws (some groups have too many quiet kids, some too many dominant) she believes the benefits of permanent group membership outweigh the negatives.
Mackenzie: Yeah, groups are integrated into every part of the curriculum. (An aside: I find the various figures in this book so interesting).
Jeff: Yeah, the diagrams are pretty cool. And the drawings. And the group names.
Mackenzie: Ha, I hate the names.
Jeff: I like group names.
Why do you hate them?
Mackenzie: Yeah, I don't like them, and I have no reason for it.
Jeff: Do you think it is patronizing to the students?
Because I could see it in that way
Mackenzie: Yeah I think so, that's part of it.
Also, just like she says, it invokes grade school.
Jeff: Yeah.
Mackenzie: But I'm convinced that making groups permanent does a lot for building interest in each other’s work. They get to see each other's work progress etc, see their impact, demand more of comments and feedback.
Jeff: I guess we should also address something she brings up a lot, which is: gender/race/culture differences as impediments to effective group work.
Mackenzie: Huh, I guess I read her as saying that differences become benefits.
Mackenzie: Huh, I guess I read her as saying that differences become benefits.
Jeff: Well, ultimately, yes.
Mackenzie: Let's say challenges?
Jeff: But she points them out as being the biggest points of group tension. Ok, yeah, challenges.
Mackenzie: Ah yeah, they definitely do a lot to effect the dynamic and at times make tension.
Are you thinking of a specific part of the book?
Jeff: Ch. 4. But i guess I was just curious what you thought to yourself as you read that chapter. Since our teaching experience hasn't been the same as hers; I don't have any black students in my class.
Mackenzie: That's true. Both in that our students are mostly white and the curriculum we teach speaks to issues of environmental sustainability, unlike Roskelly's which looks like it's centered on identity discussions. There's another part in the chapter I really want to discuss too. After we've finished your vein.
Jeff: I've not heard any complaints from my students that originated with gender issues.
Mackenzie: Well, but you have female students, people from different backgrounds still?
Jeff: But, ya, that's what i was getting at,i don’t have a similar teaching experience as she describes in ch 1 and later on
the differences in my class are mostly small town/big city backgrounds.
Mackenzie: Ah I see what you're saying. I don't think we should undercut gender here though.
Jeff: No, and a lot of what she said about gender was quite salient.
Mackenzie: I think there can be "issues" at play even if no one is complaining about them. Meaning there's things worth talking about that aren't readily apparent.
Jeff: Yes sir.
Mackenzie: Ha ah, haha. Well played. For example, I thought when she described toward the end of chapter 3 how male groups would hurry to get everything done, and often not put much effort into reflecting, flushing out what they were doing, that was very true.
I let my students mix and match groups each day, but often they stick to the same crowds.
And I notice the two groups that are all guys tend to be the first done talking, and have the least amount written down and usually the least substantially as well. Then they like to sit there and stare anywhere but at each other!
Jeff: Yes, and i can say that's been my experience as well, not only from a teacher's perspective.
Mackenzie: Ah, like now?
Ha, sorry, I can't escape that monitoring of my own behavior thing. Am I being the dictator or are we still having a good group dynamic?
Jeff: I think the problem is, and she says this on 111, that on the surface, gender issues seem not as big as issues of race.
Have you had any examples of that in your teaching this semester?
Mackenzie: Yeah, I think that's definitely true.
Jeff: Have you seen, for example, a male student "take over" a conversation or take on the role of group leader?
Mackenzie: I'm trying to think.
Jeff: Or not take into account the perspective of the females in the group?
Mackenzie: I'll say I do worry about that for myself.
Jeff: And maybe not even consciously but without being cognizant of it?
Mackenzie: I often question if I am undercutting the women in my class or dominating the discussion (I know I do that).
Jeff: Yes, I know I dominate the discussion as well, but is that a gender thing, or a novice teacher thing?
Mackenzie: I think both. I haven't noticed that with my students, but that's one of the struggles with group work for me. I can't be watching each conversation at every moment.
But I'm also happy to say I have a lot of assertive women in my class, and I have noticed that in class discussions, women tend to contribute the most.
I could talk about this gender part for the rest of our time but maybe we should get to some other parts of the book.
Jeff: I agree.
Mackenzie: We've also kind of curbed the race discussion, maybe that's something we can ask the class to take up?
Jeff: The big thing i want to know is how you've been affected by reading this book?
what changes will you make (either this semester or next) to your approach to group work?
Mackenzie: I feel like there's a lot I'm hoping to take back into my classroom, both this semester and next.
I'm definitely having permanent groups next semester, something I consciously decided not to do this semester (even though I have that maxims of small group work list from orientation up in our office).
I kind of wish we would have read this and bell hooks at the beginning of the semester.
Jeff: I thought those looked familiar!!!!! Now I know I'd seen them before.
Mackenzie: I'm going to let my students decide if they want their groups to have names!
I'm going to make group presentations a core part of my curriculum.
(One every unit by each group, half of participation points).
That will help with covering the readings I hope.
Jeff: I liked the idea of having a folder for every group. Also, just the importance of keeping group work relevant.
Mackenzie: I'm also getting them each a manila folder to keep track of group work, I thought that was one of those great teacher things to do.
I need to figure out the logistics of who keeps track of it... me, them?
What else?
Oh gender representation in each group.
Jeff: It would be nice if they would.
Mackenzie: At least, one member of each gender.
Jeff: Make them more accountable and all.
Mackenzie: Do you think that's a good idea?
Yeah, but if the one who is supposed to have it is sick–they're all screwed?
Jeff: In theory, yes.
But I just don't trust them to bring it to class, or not lose it.
Mackenzie: Ha, me too, sadly.
What about you?
What are you taking away from this?
Jeff: I think I'm going to take a "Roskelly light" approach.
Mackenzie: (Another aside: before we finish, can we talk about the bath room graffitti and some questions for everyone else to start talking about?)
Ha!
Jeff: meaning, I want to adopt some of her practices (highlighting the importance of group work early on, fixing permanent groups, manila folder) but I don't see myself being able to pull off a complete "Roskelly approach" next semester.
I don't think I'll give them group names, but maybe I will.
Mackenzie: That sounds pretty complete to me?
Jeff: You're right.
Well, I guess what I meant was, I want to do those things but I don't think I'll succeed.
I'll still dominate conversations.
I'll still give them inappropriate group assignments from time to time.
Mackenzie: Ha, yeah that's true.
Jeff: I just won't be able to, like I mentioned at the beginning, put the theory into practice
Mackenzie: But we'll do a little better because of Breaking (into) the Circle!
Jeff: INDEED!
Thanks, Roskelly!
Mackenzie: Oh, also I just want to add what I'm taking away is what Roskelly describes in the conclusion, that groups make the teacher a learner. I get to find out what they think of the readings, what they've learned.
That they make everyone in the class room closer to a level discussion and purpose.
Ok so, if you don't mind, I've got an idea for how to finish this off.
Ok so, if you don't mind, I've got an idea for how to finish this off.
On 99-100, Roskelly talks about some bathroom graffiti.
A topic that holds a warm spot in my heart.
Jeff: Ya, i thought that was an interesting exchange.
It sounded suspiciously made up though.
Mackenzie: Nah, there's photo evidence. I want to say that that conversation to me was just an awesome flame war, where people arguing that our culture is still inherently racist won.
My college would have graffiti conversations like that.
So it sounds believable to me.
Also, you never know who wrote what, meaning professors like Roskelli could have been involved in the conversation.
Jeff: Careful mackenzie, the way you're talking it sounds like you think argument is war...
Mackenzie: Also, I thought the exchange between students about varied high school experience was another nice point.
Haha.
Jeff: Ya, that's just another thing to keep in mind as we go forward with our plans to be better teachers.
Every student comes from a diff background and being able to address the needs of those often disparate backgrounds is something we ought to be prepared to do.
Which I'm not.
Mackenzie: Anyway, I think it just highlights both the race issue, that it is an important point of circle breaking that leads to learning, but also the inherent nature of group interaction and learning, something she describes nicely in the first couple of chapters talking about Vygotsky and other theorists.
I want to add, group work helps to give voice to our students and acknowledge they have real things to teach everyone in class, no matter what their background is.
I want to add, group work helps to give voice to our students and acknowledge they have real things to teach everyone in class, no matter what their background is.
Lets just think of what we'd like to ask everyone?
I'd like to know how/if people think sustainability can occupy the same circle breaking status as race and gender do in the book. How do class race and gender come into play in our classrooms?
Also, I'm interested in hearing from everyone more on the question you asked me earlier:
What will they take away?
Also if they've seen any of what Roskelly talks about in terms of group dynamic and everyone having different things to add to achieve learning play out in their classes?
Also if they've seen any of what Roskelly talks about in terms of group dynamic and everyone having different things to add to achieve learning play out in their classes?
Jeff: I'd like to know some ways in which we already achieved, knowingly or no, this idea of "Breaking the circle" in our experiences as teachers thus far, or if not, where we think we went wrong. And what Roskelly might offer as a solution
Mackenzie: One last thing I guess is how much it's important for groups to follow these natural models, and how do we as teachers negotiate keeping groups on task without keeping them from learning naturally?
Mackenzie: One last thing I guess is how much it's important for groups to follow these natural models, and how do we as teachers negotiate keeping groups on task without keeping them from learning naturally?
Jeff: And that's it! TTYL BTW delete all the smileys!
Good conversation, guys!
ReplyDeleteOne big issue in this book is how we view "otherness" or hierarchies of privilege in our class. Jeff's observation about "I don't have any black students in my class," and Mackenzie's rejoinder about gender was really telling. The ways we view "differentness" are something to be aware of, and via this awareness, we can deconstruct some of that privileging that (inadvertently) happens in our classrooms. Difference can be visible (gender, race), but it can also be invisible (religion beliefs, class, etc.) - and these invisible differences are the ones that we need to consider; many of us were raised to be aware of race and gender, (though sometimes simply being aware isn't enough) but differentness runs deeper as well.
When Roskelly first talks about how "the classroom can't be safe" (xii) I was taken aback: isn't that what teaching (and group work) is all about? Making a safe space in which students feel comfortable voicing their opinions? But Roskelly goes on to talk about the difference between "safety" and "trust," and I think this goes a long way to clarify - I think she's equating "safe" with "comfortable," and "trust" with the kind of open, encouraging climate that I think is necessary for a successful classroom. Her idea of making classrooms "unsafe" is more about shaking up the status quo, and getting people to rethink those deep-seated biases that accompany us into higher education.
Another main theme that dominates Roskelly's book is the "I've tried groups but it just doesn't work" theme. She gets to a lot of theory about this (gender roles, racial tension, etc.), but she also offers a good amount of concrete, useful advice, especially in Chapter 3 "The Circle Breaks," and Chapter 5 "Blueprint for Action." I have to say that I really appreciated this move within the book; applying theory to practice. (Which is something we all strive for in our classrooms!) There were several examples that really resonated with me, which I either want to try in my classroom, or prompted me to ask questions about my own teaching styles (or, pleasantly, supported teaching practices that I already engage in.) A lot of these examples got me pondering, so I thought I'd toss some ideas out to add to J+M's ample list of ponderables:
Should groups stay the same throughout the course of the semester? Does this increase accountability? Like Mackenzie, I let my students move around to form new groups each class, but for the most part, they don't. I can see both pros and cons to group continuity: On the plus side, students feel responsible to one another, and might actually develop some sort of camaraderie and understanding of one another (thus breaking the circle of differentness). But on the other hand, what if one or more of the groups is just a disaster? Do you force a disastrous group to hang in there through the course of the semester, or do you mix things up?
It seems from her excerpts of their writing that she encourages students to report to her individually about the participation of other students. I hadn't thought of this. It's a good idea in theory - asking groups to reflect on one another's participation and the group dynamic - but also runs risks: it asks students to "tattle," and it also places the teacher in a position of power. (i.e. "If things aren't going well in your group, let me know and I'll fix it.")
And what about grading: grade the group, or individuals? I've always maintained that individual grades are better, but I see, too, the value of group grades. Right now I grade my students on their written workshop comments, but I could see grading the group as a whole.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe've identified a danger in infantilization, which can come about if group names affront dignity, or if students find themselves unable to assess peers except in the role of tattle-tale. This issue has nagged me since I spend a lot of time dancing on the precipice of immaturity in my classroom, especially with regard to group work. Are my students too often "my kids"?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, don't we to well to extend Vygotsky's approbation of play into our classrooms? Would you find play a suitable mode for exploring the movements and pressures of power in your classroom? What kind of trust is necessary and how can it be established among older learners (i.e., past grade school)?
Also, let me give voice to my gut here: I can't see Mackenzie irreparably frightening, undercutting, or silencing his students--unless there is some seriously well-hidden menace in those laughs above. Maybe we best highlight the learning aspect of teaching by showing that we remain open to revision. I'm beginning to think that, when it comes to asking how our classes might disable/disenfranchise its participants, an ounce of generosity probably goes as far as an equal measure of vigilance.
I like Melissa's talk of 'safety' and 'trust', alongside Tom's juxtaposition of 'generosity' and 'vigilance'. As first year teachers, we don't have the weight of lived experience on our side. We don't know what works 'for us.' So, we need to give ourselves the benefit of the doubt, while not permitting ourselves to fall into an unreflective rut. This ties in with what Jeff and Mackenzie seemed to differ on regarding the inclusion of Roskellyian ideas in their respective classrooms. The differing levels of acceptance or resistance to new ideas and concepts are as much manifestations of our demeanors as they are an acknowledgment of them. We need to be willing to critique ourselves, and be willing to critique our critique; in other words, try new things, see how they work, examine how we as individuals do, or do not, excel at various strategies and consider how, or if, we are necessarily 'cut out' to teach in this way or that.
ReplyDeleteAs Melissa states safety can often mean 'comfortable' in the worst possible sense of not learning anything new; and, Tom's point about vigilance and generosity speaks to our own willingness as instructors and young teachers to be aware of how our own sense of comfort might inhibit good outcomes in the classroom. This awareness can be a double-edged sword as we might overextend ourselves in an effort to compensate for a perceived lack, or, we might be so self-critical that we are unwilling to extend ourselves enough. In this regard I would put myself closer to Jeff in my willingness to include Roskelly in my classroom. I want to be a good teacher; I don't want to be a blind a-hole who consistently overlooks how my own practices affect the learning outcomes of my students; however, I don't want to assume that ALL of my instincts are completely bogus, or that the long-term understanding of a seasoned professional like Roskelly will be immediately translatable into my classroom. Perhaps my first act of self-critique can be to examine my belief in this phantasm I call 'my classroom.'
I'm wondering at this idea of permanent groups, and how exactly to implement it. Melissa asked about how one should grade: individually, or as a group? I suppose my short answer would be both; however, this immediately raises issues of balance, fairness, and expectation. How do we balance a group grade with an individual grade? How do we account for group dynamics, in terms of participation within groups, as weighed against the group's work as a whole? And finally, just because we value groups as a pedagogical tool, this doesn't mean that we will convincingly articulate this to our students in such a way that they understand and appreciate it. And thus, we are asked to question how much weight the group participation should have in regard to individual students' grades. In other words, what do we do when a student, who otherwise does good work, doesn't 'buy in' to the concept of group work? We have to ask ourselves if the group dynamic failed due to some fatal flaw in the group itself, or, whether it was the result of our not 'selling it' properly, or, something else entirely.
This comes back to the notions of trust and comfort, do we trust ourselves enough as teachers to step out of our comfort zones? And, do we assume that just because we are stepping out, that we are placing our trust in the right thing? This takes us straight into the dialogue between our theory and our practice. Where we ask our theory to inform our practice, and our practice to inform our theory.
Hello 540-friends!
ReplyDeleteI’ve had a revolution! Now I am ready to make some changes in my classroom. As many of you have brought up, it’s an interesting tension between stepping back and letting organic things happen in your classroom, and taking a guiding hand to manipulate what happens. I think it would be difficult to assign (or let students assign) groups that last the course of the semester on the very first (or even second, third, fourth) day. Friendships haven’t had time to develop, and I have a number of students who seemed shy at first that just took a little longer to enter into the class dynamic. All of these things are important in forming workable groups.
I’ve decided, and constructed, portfolio groups. I’ve kept the inseparable-productive pair teams together, separated the goof-offs, given each group a space-cadet, a quiet one, and made a group I affectionately refer to (only mentally) as the “vocal” ones, ones that trump the quiet, thoughtful, smart ones who don’t say much, but when they do, it’s GOOOOOD.
I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, because there is no such thing, but I think it takes knowing your students to anticipate what problems might arise, which is why I believe it’s helpful to carefully craft groups and then step back to let them do their thing.
I was thinking that next semester we might have set groups for each unit. That way there is opportunity to tweak combinations that aren’t working.
In terms of the grading individuals/grading groups debate, I thought it might be interesting to include in the portfolio a ½ page assignment where they reflect on the success of their group, etc., that way they are individually held accountable for their participation in the group as a whole. In order to make the specific assignment I think I’d have to observe what happened in the groups, but I love the idea that they are accountable to each other, and have the benefit of seeing the same work as it goes through various stages of revision.
What were other people thinking to do?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the concept of having a set group for each unit is a good one. Like Jeff said, it's Roskelly-light. I agree with Kirsi and many others who have posted. Permanent groups make me nervous a little bit, although I do think there are a lot of possible advantages. Like Kirsi, I have taken to assigning groups as of late, because students tend to group themselves with students of a similar level and mindset toward the class (as well as a somewhat similar background, I'm guessing, financially and culturally), which doesn't really help anyone. Not that my groups are perfect, and set groups are often difficult when lots of people don't show up. But I do think it's a worthwhile concept.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of myself as a WRIT 101 student, I can see exactly why I would have hated group work: because I wouldn't have cared about the class. I would have felt like my job was to go in, do the work, and get my A. I think that a class like WRIT 101 often brushes against those attitudes, even with students who are not the greatest writers. It's a requirement to graduate, so it feels very individually driven. Group work is a total shift in that attitude. Has anyone else run into students that care more about their own papers than anyone elses?
Another thing I wanted to talk about was the discussion on 102 of how teacher opinions can function in the classroom. I know that I worry a lot about offering a really liberal perspective. When we were looking at op-eds, I had my students look at two about Don't Ask Don't Tell, but the one written in support of DADT was really poorly written and constructed. I thought it was a good chance to look at fallacies, but I realized I may have imposed my own views on the classroom too much. I mean, I think my views are right, but how do I open up the perspective without assuming an authority over my students as their teacher?
Emily,
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting that you bring that up because I encountered this very question when grading an op-ed that was arguing against doctor assisted suicide. The paper ended up earning a U because the research was light, the “expert” she had cited was a nurse at St. Pats, (presumably the person available when the journalist from the Missoulian had called for a quote) and the arguments were not well reasoned. But I had to ask myself, am I grading this more difficultly because I disagree with her opinion, because I am the perfect audience to find flaws in thinking?
This student boredom that Emily describes and Roskelly refers to as the Ferris Bueller mode of teaching is something I constantly come up against as a teacher/learner. Emma and I, in our conferences together after the peer review, decided that a possible way to bring challenging experiences into the classroom is to provide lively and potentially controversial reading materials. I didn’t have my students read the Thoreau essay because to me Thoreau has always been so soft spoken and nature-y in a way that I hate. The Wallace essay is great in that it directly challenges the student. Another one that really worked was a chapter from Jonathan Safran Foer’s book Eating Animals. Those were some of my best classroom participation days and I only wish I would have thought to bring in more group work on those days.
I think this could be a good way to break the circle of safety, which loosely ties back into Emily’s initial question, how much can we stir up the classroom politically, racially, socially, etc. before we risk alienating students?
It might look like I'm a nasty overachiever but your wrong! This is Emma's post:
ReplyDeleteEmily, I'm going through a similar problem as you -- I discussed it last week on the blog a bit, but to reiterate: I worry about asserting my own viewpoints in a way that is unproductive and authoritarian. I am generally on the bell hooks side of things, and wish to be very "human" with my students, and part of that includes being open with them about what I believe in the hopes that they will respond honestly and openly with me -- but the truth of the matter is that to them I am and will remain an authority figure, and it's dangerous to assert viewpoints as an authority figure because students may feel as if those views are being imposed upon them, and/or if they don't follow the authority's views they will be punished. There's a kind of tension between what Melissa was talking about -- "comfort" and "safety". I am striving to make them feel comfortable by enacting comfort myself, but in doing so am I making them feel unsafe?
Groupwork can, I think, be a good antidote to this conundrum, if done "right". Groupwork is a time for students to come together IN the classroom but somehow SEPARATE from the teacher -- it's more empowering than sitting and listening to a lecture, it's less evaluative-seeming than class discussion, and it's more active than a solo freewrite. Power hierarchies will play themselves out amongst the students, yes, but regardless of race/class/gender they will always be on more equal footing with one another than they will be with me. Therefore there is a more firm sense of "safety" right off the bat. Groups are a good place for students to test their own ideas, however tentatively -- they try them out on other students before they try them out in front of me or the rest of the class.
However, I worry sometimes about the performances that happen within groups. At times, competition and show-off-ness can be productive, in a capitalist sense where everyone is trying to out-do one another, but it can also be very limiting. Certain kids take on certain roles in their groups, and don't break out. The quieter ones are content to sit back, while the louder ones are happy to shriek. Also, they try to out-do one another with coolness -- being the funniest, being the one who cares the least, being the one who can make me laugh as I'm trying to get them on-task. And the problem is, I don't see an immediate remedy for this -- if they stay in the same groups all the time, they get comfortable and don't break out of their roles. Similarly, if they are always switched-around, then they'll always lunge for whichever role they're most comfortable in.
Set groups for each unit is an interesting idea -- but I still don't quite see how it will fix the problem of roles that students fall into. Maybe, as Kirsi suggested, if the groups involved a whole lot of thought, and a lot of mixture -- a verbal here, a shy one here, etc. etc.... but we're almost done with the semester and I'm only JUST NOW feeling like I've really gotten to know my students! So it'd be tough assigning those groups effectively the first few weeks of class.
ALSO I want to talk about how to be an effective teacher DURING groupwork. But I'm gonna save that for another comment. Smiley face.
<3 Emma
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought Kirsi's idea of switching groups up was an interesting way to enter into the Roskelly way of thinking. You know, these groups are PERMANENT (for the next 2 weeks) is a little less daunting thatn these groups are PERMANENT. Although, I must say, in my class group membership has been more or less permanent unless I specifically break up the class, something I've only done on a few separate occasions.
ReplyDeleteI'll shift the conversation now towards what Emma wanted to talk about. To be honest, I don't quite know how to be an effective teacher during group work. Most the time I sit at my desk and read their free writes, occasionally looking up, occasionally making my rounds around the room, occasionally interjecting with clarifications of anything. I almost feel more self-conscious while they are broken up in groups than when they are all looking at me during a lecture. I feel like I have to "look" busy, or deep in throught. I feel like I have to act, when really the students probably don't pay one bit of attention to me except for when I walk around the room. Am I the only one who feels this way, or is this an experience you guys have had? How do you make yourselves "effective" teachers during group time?
One time, I read a book during group work. They were silently reading each other's papers! There wasn't even discussion to listen to! Okay, it's a little shameful. Today I tried to spend a lot of time listening to my student's discussions. My favorite student Stephen told me that I made him nervous by "hovering," even though I was sitting in a chair. That is one point that I thought was interesting in Roskelly; how do we keep from affecting our student's group work? I think that the short answer is, we can't. I mean, I think it can work in positive ways. I forced a lot of groups to get back on track simply by sneaking up on them today. And I also think, in the case of our students, the group thing is a teacher-made construction that is created for the teacher's purposes. The students have a vested interest in getting their papers workshopped, but they don't really see things that way. What I want to talk about is, how do we get our student groups to function more like the proactive groups that Roskelly wrote about? How do we get them to interact in meaningful ways and care about the work of the group, making our role less authoritative in that good way? None of my students work all that badly in groups, but I also don't think they would list group work as some amazing element of WRIT 101. They do it because I tell them to do it, and then they promptly forget one another's names until the next group project.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that I like to do during group time is write on the board, putting up their schedule for the next few weeks or what we are doing next. But when students are silently reading, I often struggle with what to do besides the same.
I want to quote and respond to Melissa's post (I'm quoting just to make clear what I'm responding to: "I can see both pros and cons to group continuity: On the plus side, students feel responsible to one another, and might actually develop some sort of camaraderie and understanding of one another (thus breaking the circle of differentness). But on the other hand, what if one or more of the groups is just a disaster? Do you force a disastrous group to hang in there through the course of the semester, or do you mix things up?"
ReplyDeleteI thought Melissa raised some important questions and I want to go back to her discussion to lob some of my thinking at those questions. The reason I’m thinking of going with a “Raskelly original” approach is that I think there’s a lot to be said for having our students work through any sort of uncomfortableness to make a trusting environment for each other. I agree completely that the only differences in our classes aren’t race, gender and class. Those are just points of potential tension that can lead to clashes. A lot of the other, less visible, identity differences are just as much grounds for disagreement or even problems and as such challenge the group dynamic.
The important thing to me is that when our groups have to address those issues and work to find a median space in order to accomplish work, they break the circle of comfort (I agree with Melissa this a better term than safety). I’m comfortable trying to make semester long groups because 1. students won’t be engaged in group the entire class everyday, 2. I’ll be having peer work outside those groups regularly and 3. and this is to me the most important, it’s a space for students to find deeper meaning in the work of the class, meaning that Roskelly has convinced me may not be available to them without the inherent trials of long term groups.
I’m not so sure Roskelly asks her students to report back to her on each other so much as on the group dynamic and work, which I feel is an important distinction. By focusing her students on the group as a unit when as for feed back, she frames things so that, even if a student may take the opportunity to “tattle” they’re obliged to be thinking of themselves as part of a unit. I think the teacher plays the role of mediator here, just as we’re forced to in class. When conflict arises, the person organizing the course and giving out grades is also the person who mediates conflict in order to keep the dynamic functional. So I’d say yeah, we need to mediate group conflicts when students ask us just as we would in the class room.
Emily, I think when they're silently reading eachother's papers, we should be quiet too. It's when they're writing we need to jump in once a while (or were writing but stopped early). At least, that's what I finally realized!
As Emma mentioned, definite limitations grow out of competitive cycles. On the other hand, if "Falcon pride!" is an expression of competitive spirit worth cultivating, maybe one could have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteMy students belong to permanent "teams" and temporary "groups" within them, so that the subgroups first work on a task, then their respective reporters report to the larger team. (At least, I've done this three times.)
Once, a reluctant reporter who'd previously offered rather weaksauce contributions surprised me by writing "BLUE TEAM WON!" with several underlines on the sheet she turned in--a Roskelly moment? I fear I might be alone in liking this approach, but it has been useful and fun without negatively affecting group work on other days.
Tom: Hmmmm. I am probably giving too much thought to this, but -- I don't know how I feel about "BLUE TEAM WON". On the one hand, it does represent a certain amount of passion/emotional involvement, which is a positive thing, and yeah, a little friendly competition can really foster that -- on the other hand -- it raises some questions I don't know how to answer. Such as: won what? Won the teacher? Won the classroom? Who was the judge? The teacher? The classroom? That specific group? I think Roskelly would probably like it, probably laugh and get a kick out of it, but I think she'd put a little thought into these questions, too. If a classroom is something to be "Won."
ReplyDeleteI wrote this post last night in response to the earlier conversation but haven't had a chance to post it until now:
ReplyDeleteGenerally, I strive to imitate the students in whatever activity they're doing. If they're doing groupwork, I walk around and join groups briefly; if they're writing, I write too; if they're silently reading, I read silently; etc.
But as for "joining" the groups, I'm still working out how best to act when the kids are in groupwork. Whenever I come over, they almost inevitably react to me in some way: giggling, hamming it up, or falling quiet and then accusing me of silencing them. I try and joke about it, "Right, guys, I'M the reason you're not talking," but sometimes, I am! To use Roskelly-speak, I am always seen as an evaluator rather than a contributor. This may be due in part to what I say (or don't say) when walking among the groups -- oftentimes I am quiet, just observing, and when I do speak it's to try and guide them on-task, or to make sure they're addressing issues I want them to address. In this way, I really am playing the part of the evaluator -- which I don't want, I'd rather be seen as a contributor -- but how, then, to hold them accountable to me and make sure the groupwork doesn't turn into a discussion of what they had for breakfast or how some girl got a concussion in soccer practice? I want to come and join their conversations, but I don't want to dominate their conversations -- I want to watch and observe without seeming to evaluate -- what to do...
Next semester I definitely plan to take Roskelly's plan of having them respond to their groupwork personally -- I feel like that will be a good way to make them accountable without me physically looming over their shoulders. In that way I can respond to them, and let them know that I am watching, but during class I can focus on joining their conversations rather than monitoring them.
Question: when you guys assign groupwork, how much prep or reflection do you have? Roskelly seems to do a good job of introducing activities in a way that gets her students into a different "zone" (her words), and I really like this idea. Generally I just introduce the activity in terms of what I want from them, then set them free. When we come back together as a class, that's when we do some reflection, and sometimes I ask them why they think I wanted them to do a specific activity.
How many of you have lengthier "introductions"? Do you put more emphasis on the pre-activity or the post?
It should be really obvious, but I only just realized that if you expect a certain thing from your students in workshop, peer conferences, group work, etc, you have to be clear about what those expectations are. This is something Emma does a nice job of (from the class I witnessed, she told her students “ I need at least three sentences from each of you,”) and I had my most successful workshop yet, when beforehand we had a discussion about our accountability to each other. They brought up the point that when they select someone as their reader and that person doesn’t read thoughtfully, they’ve missed out on someone who would have been more careful.
ReplyDeleteI think this same principal applies to group work. If we want groups to be focused and productive we need to talk about what a focused and productive group looks like. The instructor can say something like, “I know you think I can’t hear when you have gotten off topic, but actually, I can.” Looking around the room it’s easy to tell who is on topic and who is talking about life in the dorms. And I think it is important to stress that when it comes to a student’s individual work they can do whatever they want, but in a group setting you need to be the best team-mate that you can or you are letting down the people who do care.
I gave one brief talk about the importance of good feeback and being an attentive peer reviewer during the PAA unit, but since then I have not given any sort of intros or post-review talks. I've been more focused on the students themselves, having them do a pre-fast-write about the changes they'd made to their paper from the previous draft. And later, afterward, what changes they plan to make based on the reviewers' comments. Thinking on that now, I think I've failed to express the importance of students to one another in the process of peer reviews.
ReplyDeleteRight now I happen to be sitting next to Savannah, who was venting about her students not providing concrete suggestions for revision on one another's paper. She complained about how they simply wrote "Good job", or, "I like this", both of which do nothing for the students' next drafts.
I wanted to respond to Emma’s questions regarding pre-instruction and the correlation between it and student outcomes. There seems to be a couple of things going on with this idea. Firstly, there seems to be a question of us knowing what we want/expect students to do. Then, there is the question of what we want the students to know/learn. Then, there is the question of how it is we articulate these things to the students. In terms of what we say to our students, I know for myself, there can often be a problem and a bit of a mixing-up between the doing and the learning. So, in my haste to articulate what I want them to do I omit some part of what I want them to learn, or vise-versa. This mix-up can lead to failures in the classroom, of which I’ve become painfully aware. I suppose the antidote, or, at the very least, a way to try and inoculate yourself from this kind of mixing-up would be to make sure that the objective is clear to you, and the activity is also clear to you, and that the relationship they have to one another is clear to you. However, I can hear someone objecting to the idea of ‘programming’ the students, or, by setting expectations, foreclosing on possibilities. I guess the question then comes up, what do we want them to learn? and, how does what they do contribute to that? and, how do we accomplish the task of getting them to do things in class and learn in a way that engages them and allows them to come to their understandings organically? The other objection I heard was the one that says we don’t want to do our students’ thinking for them; so, in instructing them and setting goals/expectations are we undercutting their ability to learn for themselves? If so, how do we overcome this? If not, how do we do this better?
ReplyDelete"On the other hand, don't we to well to extend Vygotsky's approbation of play into our classrooms? Would you find play a suitable mode for exploring the movements and pressures of power in your classroom? What kind of trust is necessary and how can it be established among older learners (i.e., past grade school)? "–Tom
ReplyDeleteI think Tom brings up an interesting point when he talks about Vygotsky’s emphasis on play as a method of learning and perhaps a strategy for exploring power in the class room. I’d say yes, play is in some ways important to that thinking. Roskelly backs us up here, I think, when she describes a graduate course in which her students are exploring Vygotsky’s principles.
You’ll remember a student is running an activity where her peers and Roskelly herself pretend to be 1st graders and invent a game. The students “play” the part, both in that they have fun wearing the masks of their younger selves but also in that the manner in which they invent the game is itself playful. I think the activity shows that we don’t have to be in grade school to be enjoying learning in a playful way.
I’d also point to this class. Often times Kate makes room for us to laugh and chat, and explore tangents. I’m not sure about anyone else, but the classes that are mediated with that sense of fun (and I’m not just talking about 540 here) are for me not only the classes where I find myself taking away the most but also where I want to come back for more. I think Vygotsky get's that component of learning right.
What I try to remember is that play is more than getting out the legos. Defining may be a bit tenuous, but I’ll venture that laughter is a good gauge of whether or not play is happening. What do you guys think?
I believe the disappointment I expressed to Jeff in my little venting session is relevant and worthy of exploration. However, I would like to provide a little clarification. Though we've discussed the qualities of good feedback, it seems that my students had a difficult time responding critically to one another's papers. I thought this was an issue of insecurity, so I had them mark their names out. I did this hoping that the anonymity would provide them with enough security give honest and constructive criticism. They worked diligently throughout the class period. I was certain that they were responding positively to the specific prompts I provided.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in their activity reflections, over half of my students revealed that they received no valuable feedback. Each student had his or her paper looked over by three people, and many of them announced that they had gotten little more than a “good job.” What were they doing the entire time? Had my activity, intended to reduce the effect of the debilitating self-consciousness they claimed in earlier fastwrites, eliminated their sense of accountability? Would a group environment have provided my students with enough security to request clarification or demand more helpful feedback?
Today I wanted to inspire my students to produce comments that they could be proud of. We went through expectations all over again. This time, however, I prefaced it with a writing prompt asking them to prove to me that they provided good feedback for their peers. What useful critique did you provide for someone else? How does this correspond with the comments that you received? Everyone told me that they had provided good feedback on Wednesday, but they got many more helpful comments on their drafts today. They are always upbeat, my students. I had them sign the papers that they reviewed and announced that I would be evaluating this work in conjunction with their final essays. Would a group have naturally produced the sort of accountability that I had to enforce? Does a circle of trust and comfort encourage better quality of work? Would a cause or united effort such as a competition or group participation grades increase group effectiveness? What bearing will this have on the quality of their work?
I would have to agree with Mackenzie wholeheartedly. Play is very important in the classroom. I used to struggle with this sense of needing to maintain my authority, but I have realized that I am kind of a silly, playful teacher (and person).
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to talk about John's point about how we can keep from stifling student's organic learning while still making our objectives clear. I have to say, from the experiences I've had so far this semester, I'm not a big fan of "organic learning" because I feel like it hardly ever happens that way. What seems to work well for me, when I have an objective, is to talk to my students about it. Like, "okay guys, I want to do this activity so you start thinking about appeals in this way" or whatever. This seems to get them way more on board and speaks to them like they're adults who have a stake in their own learning. Along with that is offering choices in how they want to accomplish an objective. Students aren't all resistant to the things that I have planned for them to do; most of the time, once they have realized the purpose, they are a lot more enthusiastic.
I want to continue on some threads John left off on earlier: "I guess the question then comes up, what do we want them to learn? and, how does what they do contribute to that? and, how do we accomplish the task of getting them to do things in class and learn in a way that engages them and allows them to come to their understandings organically? "
ReplyDeleteI think Roskelly's model of group work when thought of with the bell hooks reading from last week let us take things a new mode. Here, we acknowledge that to a point we only have so much say, and most of that say is an argument. We may "want them to learn" something, but ultimately they'll only learn what they want to. I liked especially the discussion of the poetry class taught by phone where students were interested in the sentimental poems the teacher was trying to push them away from. Ultimately, the class had the say. So too, we may want our students to take something away from our classes, but without finding a way to give them agency in that decision, we cut them out of wanting to learn it.
To push toward pedagogy, I just want to bring up my lesson from today. I let my students decide to forego a workshop or not for today, they decided to take a pass on the workshop. So today we strategized for the last two weeks by first discussing why need to revise, how I revise, why we need to do this course, what we need to do for the final portfolio and why, how many days we have left, what tools we use to write better. Then in groups my students made a goal for each day and method for achieving it. This weekend everyone will vote for their preference and then I'll draw my lesson plans to accommodate what we decide as a class. I suppose my discussion was an argument, but one they had the opportunity to oppose. Which they occasionally did. I think by putting our agendas out there (like the idea that I believe revision necessary for good writing) and making room for and encouraging critique of our pedagogy we spread the power around. I wonder if thats enough though?
Savannah brings up some interesting points about accountability and the means by which to inspire and maintain it in the classroom. This, along with Emily’s point about regarding students as adults responsible for their own education, echoes something I’ve been thinking about in Roskelly, two things actually. One is her concept of ‘programming’ students through our interpretations and ideas about them; the other is the varying levels of development in our studentsd that might potentially affect their reception to various activities in the classroom, esp. the discussion in the book about Vygotsky got me thinking about this. Firstly, I wanted to know how others felt about this concept of programming. I personally found it frightening, not in the sense that I was frightened by Roskelly, but rather by the potential for me to mis-program my students. This idea that we can actually create, or, at the very least, elicit a kind of behavior from our students is not novel, what is novel is that we may not be consciously aware that we are eliciting the response. This kind of discourse is helpful for seeing how our decisions about our students, even the unstated ones, can affect their learning outcomes.
ReplyDeleteThe other concern regarding student development I thought to be quite interesting as well. I was talking with Jimmy today in the English office and we were comparing notes on our teaching, and one thing we agreed on was that the subjectivities of our students were a definite source of wonder. Jimmy was concerned with how to properly acknowledge and deconstruct 'essentialism' in the classroom, while still being able to communicate with his students. This led us to discuss how we communicate with our students meaningfully when we know that they are not all from the same background and therefore do not come to the class with the same concerns and understandings. I brought up the Wittgensteinian idea of 'language games' and how language bounds our experience and our ability to communicate; relating this to the deconstruction of 'essentialist' concepts in language, we agreed that it is a challenge to overcome the notions of race, gender, sexuality, ageism, etc. when you have to use words that necessarily engender and reinforce these concepts. This is especially difficult when you know that different students are coming to the class with differing levels of comprehension and sophistication. In other words, you don't want to talk past or talk over your students' heads, but you also don't want to be actively reinforcing stereotypes and biases that libratory pedagogy seeks to expose and uproot. The only thing constructive thing I had to add to that conversation was that when we think of bell hooks and her idea of teaching as a 'practice of freedom,' we might put more emphasis on practice as the "repeated exercise in or performance of an activity or skill so as to acquire or maintain proficiency in it," in addition to thinking of practice as " the actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method as opposed to theories about such application or use" (OED).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid Moore includes this line in his syllabi: "When you speak, try to give your idea away to the group." I find the directive striking. It wouldn't be necessary unless it contradicted common experience in group discussions: we are cagey, we strategize; even when we have the good fortune to recognize them, we reserve the assumptions informing what we express.
ReplyDeleteSo I like Emily's and Mackenzie's idea of detailing one's objectives to the class. Like
David's instruction, it seems as though it ought to be the simplest thing in the world to do, but it requires extending trust. I'm not all the way there yet. In the middle of a task I often do say, "This is why I think this activity will help you," and "Here's what I expected when I was putting this together." A few times students have offered unsolicited suggestions, and in a tone that made it seem like they felt my idea had failed: beginning, "Well, I guess maybe you could have us...."
Yes, our students will glimpse more than a little of the theories informing our lessons along the course of the readings we assign, but taking time to walk them through the construction of an activity exposes doxa of pedagogy. Will students feel bored? Will you be spoiling a magic trick for them? If they are allowed to influence lesson plans, I hope they wouldn't.