Researchers boggle over the question
How might teachers create the best lesson?
Behavioralists say trial and error
While others say why should we care?
Take cats for example
Trying to escape out of their cage
Failure after failure will surely show them the way
Others say why waste time
Direct the cats to experts so they don’t waste one of their nine
Those cats are our students
Wishing to construct knowledge for themselves
Rather than from some book perched atop a dusty shelf
These felines walked in smart
Why let them exit dumb?
Trapped, caged in, wishing they could run.
Students take in the new and mesh it with the old
What comes out the other end is something NO future would withhold
Who wants a future withholding you and me?
One resembling that of a theocracy
Passive citizens simply waiting in line
Waiting to be filled by knowledge greater than yours or mine
Changing the way we learn entails changing the way we think
Disseminating knowledge both a mile wide AND a mile thick
A culture of inquiry
Moving beyond simplistic right and wrong
Allowing everyone to take part
Creating both lyrics and song
Our schools should reflect the community outside its walls
You can’t teach a baby to walk before it learns to crawl
So I say if students spend over 86% of their time
Embedded in the families and communities of which they reside
Why can’t schools match that demographic?
Or at least meet in the middle
Rather than remain stagnant, with an air that belittles
THEN the curriculum will become relevant
Drawing on STUDENTS’ expertise
Both chess MASTER and NOVICE learning together in perfect harmony
For aren’t we ALL pupils?
Is there not knowledge we ALL lack?
Admission. There’s a perfect word.
Adaptation and fluency, once polar opposites
That when mixed together sounded absurd.
But fluency draws on experience. And experience demands adaptation.
In turn, new learning and experience is acquired. The novice becoming expert, moving that much higher.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Classroom Environment
As teachers, we are often so bogged down in content and rigor that we fail to remember why kids come to school. An old principal of mine said it best: “Kids come to school to see their friends.” Although it was disheartening and shocking to hear at the time, she was absolutely right. My task was to figure out why. I thought about how I felt amongst friends. The following adjectives came to mind: Comfortable, safe, courageous.
With only two weeks left until Holiday Vacation, my students were feeling anything but safe, comfortable and courageous. They were not amongst friends. They were amidst stressed out students and teachers who were wrestling with too many tasks in too little of time. POL’s (Projects of Learning), a giant Exhibition of Work and Project Reflections were amongst the myriad of assignments they were trying to complete. Students became short tempered, irritable and argumentative with each other.
How could I as a teacher successfully intervene and get them feeling safe, comfortable and courageous again?
I realized I had to put them back amongst friends and uplift their spirits. I remembered this activity I took part in at Supercamp (A Summer program designed to build the academic, affective and cognitive domain of kids). The activity was quite simple. Fifteen sets of chairs were set up with each chair facing another. One student was the speaker and one was the listener. The speakers’ role was to say three SPECIFIC things they liked about the person sitting across from them. The listeners’ role was to simply say “thank you.” After a minute, they switched roles.
This seemed to be EXACTLY what my students needed. They were smiling before the activity even began! The activity served as a perfect springboard into the tougher activity we took part in next.
The next activity saw students sitting in a circle, each with a paper cup and three pretzels. One by one students were allowed to either give their pretzels to other students (if they wanted to recognize them for something), or take pretzels away (if they wanted to address an issue that has been upsetting them). The activity began benign enough with most students electing to give their pretzels away. However, a courageous student soon changed the course. Walking straight across the circle this student sat in front of her peer and admitted she was hurt by something her classmate said. The peer took it pretty well. From then on, input varied dramatically.
By the end of the activity, it was easy to see which students had positively or negatively affected other students. The students with the most pretzels in their cup clearly had an uplifting role on their classmates while the ones with few to no pretzels had a destructive role.
For the most part, I found both activities to be necessary. If I had it to do over again I might do a better job at modeling the ways to compliment classmates. Some conversations were not as rich as they could have been. I might also divide the class into smaller groups so students feel more comfortable in addressing discrepancies. Lastly, I think I might allow for a follow up activity so students could FULLY address the problems they had with each other to ensure they were adequately resolved. Otherwise, students are left to fend for themselves during the ensuing snack and lunch break which might prove even more destructive.
I have definitely seen a difference in the classroom environment because of this activity. Students DO seem more comfortable, lively and vibrant. If anything, it was a great distraction from the stress students endured for so long. They were finally “amongst friends.”
With only two weeks left until Holiday Vacation, my students were feeling anything but safe, comfortable and courageous. They were not amongst friends. They were amidst stressed out students and teachers who were wrestling with too many tasks in too little of time. POL’s (Projects of Learning), a giant Exhibition of Work and Project Reflections were amongst the myriad of assignments they were trying to complete. Students became short tempered, irritable and argumentative with each other.
How could I as a teacher successfully intervene and get them feeling safe, comfortable and courageous again?
I realized I had to put them back amongst friends and uplift their spirits. I remembered this activity I took part in at Supercamp (A Summer program designed to build the academic, affective and cognitive domain of kids). The activity was quite simple. Fifteen sets of chairs were set up with each chair facing another. One student was the speaker and one was the listener. The speakers’ role was to say three SPECIFIC things they liked about the person sitting across from them. The listeners’ role was to simply say “thank you.” After a minute, they switched roles.
This seemed to be EXACTLY what my students needed. They were smiling before the activity even began! The activity served as a perfect springboard into the tougher activity we took part in next.
The next activity saw students sitting in a circle, each with a paper cup and three pretzels. One by one students were allowed to either give their pretzels to other students (if they wanted to recognize them for something), or take pretzels away (if they wanted to address an issue that has been upsetting them). The activity began benign enough with most students electing to give their pretzels away. However, a courageous student soon changed the course. Walking straight across the circle this student sat in front of her peer and admitted she was hurt by something her classmate said. The peer took it pretty well. From then on, input varied dramatically.
By the end of the activity, it was easy to see which students had positively or negatively affected other students. The students with the most pretzels in their cup clearly had an uplifting role on their classmates while the ones with few to no pretzels had a destructive role.
For the most part, I found both activities to be necessary. If I had it to do over again I might do a better job at modeling the ways to compliment classmates. Some conversations were not as rich as they could have been. I might also divide the class into smaller groups so students feel more comfortable in addressing discrepancies. Lastly, I think I might allow for a follow up activity so students could FULLY address the problems they had with each other to ensure they were adequately resolved. Otherwise, students are left to fend for themselves during the ensuing snack and lunch break which might prove even more destructive.
I have definitely seen a difference in the classroom environment because of this activity. Students DO seem more comfortable, lively and vibrant. If anything, it was a great distraction from the stress students endured for so long. They were finally “amongst friends.”
The Inclusive Classroom
The learning I have experienced in “The Inclusive Classroom” has been monumental. Above all, it gave me the ability to look at my classroom through new, holistic lenses. I developed a new mantra as a teacher; one who made learning accessible to ALL students regardless of their background. And while this reflection pertains to only one lesson, it will have a colossal impact on my teaching in the future.
My lesson was designed to teach the law making process in the United States. Next door, they were working on a “Civlization” project that incorporated Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Since law is pivotal in providing safety for a civilization, my lesson set out to supplement Maslow’s second layer. Prior to the lesson, students had exposure to the two branches of Congress through a Webquest, simulation activity, and Q & A session. Students at least understood that they were a part of the lawmaking process as they were all given representatives’ names from either the House or Senate.
The objective of my lesson was twofold. I wanted to teach them how a bill becomes a law, along with the vocabulary associated with the process. I started by showing them the School House Rock Video, “I’m Just a Bill.” While the students appreciated this simple breakdown of the lawmaking process, monumental confusion still lingered in regards to the inherent intricacies. What constitutes a majority? Does the bill undergo changes in either house?
While I did not intend to differentiate at this point, I felt it vital to their understanding of such complex concepts. I wrote each of the vocabulary words onto construction paper and taped them to the board. Students were asked to inform me with their fingers as to how many of the words they understood. Most student s held up 4-5 fingers; this was problematic given there were 12 words total. I decided to break them into two groups. One group was for the vocabulary “novices;” they would learn the words with me inside the classroom; the other was for the vocabulary “experts;” they would take a dictionary and their vocabulary sheets and define the words in the main commons.
The division turned out to be a great success. I was able to work very closely indoors with the confused students while those in the commons challenged each other to see the words in a new light. My conversation indoors was more of a facilitation of learning. Each student while not knowing a great deal about ALL the words, at least knew a little about one. Therefore, they taught each other. I intervened when necessary; however they were very proficient in drilling each other and clearing up any misconceptions surrounding the terms. One student even drew a diagram on the board differentiating between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government! I was impressed.
Since students were already seated according to their branch of Congress (House or Senate), having them participate in a simulation was just a matter of having the right subject for a bill. The solution came from my classroom aid Christine. She mentioned that students had already created “mock” laws for their imaginary civilizations next door. PERFECT! Those laws could be the “bills” each committee proposed within my classroom. I divided the students into groups of three within their particular branch of government.
Once divided into their “committees,” students would discuss one law that they could agree upon. This became the “bill” they would urge Congress to sign. I provided each committee with a white board so that their bill could be visible to the other members of Congress.
Problems arose during each “committees’” discussion. Some students felt drowned out by others. Others refused to come to agreement. And still others remained disengaged. While this happened organically and reflected what generally happens in any discussion, it was an outcome contrary to what I desired.
After around 10 minutes with their committees, I invited both branches of Congress back to their seats. We debriefed the process. Many students vocalized their concern of being either silenced or disrespected during the committee discussions. I asked students to devise solutions that would counteract the tendency for some students to “step up” too far and others to “step back” too greatly. Students agreed that we needed some kind of system to ensure equal representation by all members of Congress. I met students halfway. Being an avid poker player, I keep a set of chips in my classroom. The chips would represent each student’s opportunity to speak! All students would now have a voice! I passed 2 chips out to each student.
Congress could now convene in a thoughtful, equivocal matter. Christine presided over the House while I led the Senate. Committees had the opportunity to propose their bill while receiving equal amount of input from other Representatives on how the bill should be amended. What resulted amazed me! The students after making several amendments UNANIMOUSLY passed each bill! They took part in the HARDEST part of the lawmaking process and succeeded in getting a bill past the first stage.
I expressed my pleasure with the class while alluding to the difficulties even our hired representatives have in coming to some kind of consensus. They seemed pretty pleased.
In short, I felt the lesson was a great success at inclusiveness. Students had the opportunity to learn the law making process through several mediums. There was a simulation, catchy song, a guided webquest, opportunities for pair/ share, and individual reflection all built into the lesson. Had I not been mindful of inclusive strategies, I may have elected to only include one medium of delivering the content.
The “inclusive classroom” allowed me to become a better teacher in several capacities. Now, before even planning a lesson, I consider ALL the diverse learning styles in the room. It’s no longer acceptable to be satisfied with a majority of students grasping the content. Unless EVERY student in the room has access to the content, I am not doing my job. Seeing the light bulbs go off in each of my students brought joy I have rarely experienced as a teacher. One student who seems to ALWAYS struggle with vocabulary couldn’t wait to get this particular vocabulary test back. She passed her first test! Not only did she pass, she got one of the top grades in the class! She seemed empowered. She finally had access to the content!
My lesson was designed to teach the law making process in the United States. Next door, they were working on a “Civlization” project that incorporated Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Since law is pivotal in providing safety for a civilization, my lesson set out to supplement Maslow’s second layer. Prior to the lesson, students had exposure to the two branches of Congress through a Webquest, simulation activity, and Q & A session. Students at least understood that they were a part of the lawmaking process as they were all given representatives’ names from either the House or Senate.
The objective of my lesson was twofold. I wanted to teach them how a bill becomes a law, along with the vocabulary associated with the process. I started by showing them the School House Rock Video, “I’m Just a Bill.” While the students appreciated this simple breakdown of the lawmaking process, monumental confusion still lingered in regards to the inherent intricacies. What constitutes a majority? Does the bill undergo changes in either house?
While I did not intend to differentiate at this point, I felt it vital to their understanding of such complex concepts. I wrote each of the vocabulary words onto construction paper and taped them to the board. Students were asked to inform me with their fingers as to how many of the words they understood. Most student s held up 4-5 fingers; this was problematic given there were 12 words total. I decided to break them into two groups. One group was for the vocabulary “novices;” they would learn the words with me inside the classroom; the other was for the vocabulary “experts;” they would take a dictionary and their vocabulary sheets and define the words in the main commons.
The division turned out to be a great success. I was able to work very closely indoors with the confused students while those in the commons challenged each other to see the words in a new light. My conversation indoors was more of a facilitation of learning. Each student while not knowing a great deal about ALL the words, at least knew a little about one. Therefore, they taught each other. I intervened when necessary; however they were very proficient in drilling each other and clearing up any misconceptions surrounding the terms. One student even drew a diagram on the board differentiating between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government! I was impressed.
Since students were already seated according to their branch of Congress (House or Senate), having them participate in a simulation was just a matter of having the right subject for a bill. The solution came from my classroom aid Christine. She mentioned that students had already created “mock” laws for their imaginary civilizations next door. PERFECT! Those laws could be the “bills” each committee proposed within my classroom. I divided the students into groups of three within their particular branch of government.
Once divided into their “committees,” students would discuss one law that they could agree upon. This became the “bill” they would urge Congress to sign. I provided each committee with a white board so that their bill could be visible to the other members of Congress.
Problems arose during each “committees’” discussion. Some students felt drowned out by others. Others refused to come to agreement. And still others remained disengaged. While this happened organically and reflected what generally happens in any discussion, it was an outcome contrary to what I desired.
After around 10 minutes with their committees, I invited both branches of Congress back to their seats. We debriefed the process. Many students vocalized their concern of being either silenced or disrespected during the committee discussions. I asked students to devise solutions that would counteract the tendency for some students to “step up” too far and others to “step back” too greatly. Students agreed that we needed some kind of system to ensure equal representation by all members of Congress. I met students halfway. Being an avid poker player, I keep a set of chips in my classroom. The chips would represent each student’s opportunity to speak! All students would now have a voice! I passed 2 chips out to each student.
Congress could now convene in a thoughtful, equivocal matter. Christine presided over the House while I led the Senate. Committees had the opportunity to propose their bill while receiving equal amount of input from other Representatives on how the bill should be amended. What resulted amazed me! The students after making several amendments UNANIMOUSLY passed each bill! They took part in the HARDEST part of the lawmaking process and succeeded in getting a bill past the first stage.
I expressed my pleasure with the class while alluding to the difficulties even our hired representatives have in coming to some kind of consensus. They seemed pretty pleased.
In short, I felt the lesson was a great success at inclusiveness. Students had the opportunity to learn the law making process through several mediums. There was a simulation, catchy song, a guided webquest, opportunities for pair/ share, and individual reflection all built into the lesson. Had I not been mindful of inclusive strategies, I may have elected to only include one medium of delivering the content.
The “inclusive classroom” allowed me to become a better teacher in several capacities. Now, before even planning a lesson, I consider ALL the diverse learning styles in the room. It’s no longer acceptable to be satisfied with a majority of students grasping the content. Unless EVERY student in the room has access to the content, I am not doing my job. Seeing the light bulbs go off in each of my students brought joy I have rarely experienced as a teacher. One student who seems to ALWAYS struggle with vocabulary couldn’t wait to get this particular vocabulary test back. She passed her first test! Not only did she pass, she got one of the top grades in the class! She seemed empowered. She finally had access to the content!
Monday, December 21, 2009
IDENTITY IN THE CLASSROOM
Starting with a simple question, I asked students to think about their identity and what made them unique. Next, they drew concentric circles branching off of their names. In those circles they wrote words that identified who they were. The task was fairly open ended as I did not want to lead students into the way I personally thought of identity. It was supposed to be natural and organic. Some students clearly struggled with the process. Belaboring over each word they struggled to identify exactly who they were. Others saw the task as limitless. Their barrage of words was a testament to the close relationship they had with their given identity.
After five minutes of writing I gave each student in the class a number. There were two sets of numbers (1 through 12). Set A (numbers one through 12) would make up the inner circle, while set B (numbers one through 12) made up the outer circle. To ease the process of organizing, I took groups one at a time and aligned them in their designated areas. Ultimately, every student had a partner in the parallel circle with whom they would share.
Each dyad consisted of a listener and a speaker. The listeners’ role was to give their undivided attention to the speakers while restraining from giving their own input. The speakers’ role was to speak for one minute regarding the three words that best described them. These were the norms:
1. The listener had to remain silent for the duration of the conversation
2. The dyad had to spend one full minute either listening or speaking
3. Information shared between the pair was to remain anonymous
4. After one minute, the pair would change roles and repeat the process
The conversations started out fairly safe as each pair could determine what information they felt most comfortable sharing. After having those in the outer circle rotate two spaces to the left however, I moved the conversation into a less safe realm. I asked students to share the words they felt least attached to in their brainstorm on identity.
After two rounds of such conversation, we debriefed the process as a whole group. I was AMAZED with what they shared. I simply asked what “struck them” about this activity. These are some statements they made in response: “I felt very comfortable sharing because of the people I was partnered with.” “ I felt weird sharing a negative word about myself.” “I learned something about someone that I didn’t know before.” After hearing these comments I felt that the activity already achieved its objectives. They were celebrating their diversity! However, I wanted to push them. I asked the class if they wrote any of their words because another student/ person saw them as such. For example, one student said they wrote “happy” even though they oftentimes did not feel happy. They wrote the word simply because it was a label given to them by other students. One student began to share a word given to another student and then caught herself, knowing that disclosing such information was in strict violation to the norms we set before the discussion. In essence, nearly every student agreed they had been given some kind of label that they wished wasn’t a part of their identity.
Finally, we closed with a discussion of “diversity.” I asked them to share with a neighbor what they thought the word meant. Most agreed that it had something to do with culture, religion and personality traits. We were reminded that diversity is complex and that individuals could not be confined to a couple of catch phrases or labels.
The culminating activity saw the students creating a “Paper Chain of Diversity.” Each student comprised a link. Some of the words they included were: “sneaky, awesome, athletic, photographer, dance, funny, different, nice, skater.” These words truly embodied the diverse interests /identities of a very unique class.
There were so many great ideas I took from this experience. I saw students truly appreciating each other- giving them the attention they deserved. I observed individuals stepping outside of their comfort zones and sharing information they usually kept hidden. I watched learners put together a complex chain and acknowledge their prolific differences. This class truly amazed me!
If I had it to do over again, I might challenge them to go a step further. I may ask them to include ways in which others have identified them. This is of course a more unsafe realm, but paradoxically I feel it is crucial in helping students develop their own autonomous identity.I feel a new sense of camaraderie amongst my students and can already see them developing as a class!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
