Reading McEntee et. al (chaps. 1-7) and Barahal

When I read over figure 4.1 describing "Student-Centered Family Meeting Protocol," my immediate thought was that it wouldn't actually work.  In what amazing school do they have a time where all these people can come together (teachers, students, counselors, facilitator, note-taker, AND parents).  My biggest concern is how to get parents to the meeting; many times parents work.  Even if they can come, many parents have different ideas of the role they play in their child's education; although I think nearly all parents care about their child's success in school, this is not always expressed in the same way (i.e: helping with homework).  If all parties can get together, I thought the questions asked of the students were pretty broad and possibly difficult for the student to answer; asking a student what is going well might not bring about any response because sometimes students feel like they really don't get anything.  As far as goals, I think it's a good idea in theory for students to set goals for their classes, but I don't remember setting concrete goals for myself in high school (except maybe to get a good grade).  Because I thought the first main parts of the protocol wouldn't work, I sort of gave up on the rest.  Then when I read the experience Amy had with the Protocol, I felt conflicted.  I realized how great some parts of the protocol were, like how student centered it was, and how the student's input was valued.  I think Freire would mostly approve of this method, though he might think the teachers still had too much

Reading Barahal’s article was particularly useful because, for me, it called attention to those skills (including “thinking”) that I tend to take for granted. Further, it had me reflect more on visible vs. invisible skills and made me think more about those token phrases and expectations that I see repeated in syllabi – “critical thinking,” “engagement,” “authentic participation.” I think the repetition of these terms might dilute them. In other words, we end up nodding along and using the token phrases – but I think we don’t give enough credit to what they might actually mean. Which is why reading about thinking about thinking was useful.

One reason I think our “token phrases” are problematic is because they can be interpreted very differently. For example, for me, the black-and-white definitions can come out to this –

Engagement = facial expressions show interest, student makes eye contact with teacher and other students

Participation = student is speaking during discussions, taking notes, interacting with teacher and other students

But I know that that’s not always the case. Engagement and participation aren’t black and white – and not every student or individual will engage or participate or think the same way (ex – introverts vs. extroverts).

Being explicit, defining your own meanings for words, talking through expectations, and inviting students to be part of this process – these are ways to avoid miscommunication. For example, rather than just saying: Participation is a % of your grade, our syllabus reads, “You should… come to class prepared to discuss the issues and questions that the week’s fieldwork has raised for you.”

The first chapter in The Heart of Teaching describes another useful example. Dowd explains her decision to reframe and understand why her students had behaved differently with a substitute teacher than they usually did. Rather than assume that students knew how to self-monitor and regulate their own behavior, she considered their experiences: “I knew that the move from eighth grade to ninth grade was a difficult transition for most students... My students hadn’t spent much time learning about democratic practices or decision-making. Now, abruptly, they felt the pressure for learning and responsible behavior squarely on their shoulders… I couldn’t just give them the tools. We had to create them together” (3 McEntree). So besides being clear about definitions, another important aspect of teaching is not making the assumption that everyone had developed a certain skill set, and being flexible about co-creating -

But, to push this discussion in another direction, I wonder, is there a way to know that students are thinking deeply about something if they aren’t also producing work based on that thinking? In other words, if students aren’t speaking in class or writing about a topic, how do you know that they are thinking?

While reading the stories from The Heart of Teaching, I immediately felt like I had been part of the classroom. Everything in the classroom was very realistic to me. Each chapter exhibited its own uniqueness that has allowed me see teaching in a broader perspective, which includes techniques to problem solving, and methods for finding solution. I have discovered that a common theme of these stories exhibits the deep concern and care the teachers have for their students.

JoAnne Dowd's Changing the Blame Game (Chapter 1) left me a strong impression that relates back to our Thursday, February 7th class discussions. In her chapter, we learned that she has worked very hard trying to understand why her students were not in their best behavior with her and the substitute teachers. During her weekend walks, she discovered that her students did not have the "tools" to know how to make decisions on their own and thus she developed a problem-solving process where she and her students will work together to find a solution in the classroom. With this new approach, she worked with her students and made all of her students to contribute, including those who often did not speak up, which were the girls in her classroom. This process gave her students the responsibility of "owning his or her behavior" (3) and an opportunity to create a safe environment for all students to speak out their own thoughts. The classroom becomes an environment where working together is a key to have a successful connection between teacher and his/her students. This story has allowed me to reflect back to my group's topic/concern on structure versus un-structure.  Jan Grant of The Presentation: Examining Students at Work (Chapter 2) realizes that, "When we raise the bar, when students and teachers together create an empathetic learning environment, and when students present their learning to a community of respectful listeners, levels of achievements soar" (22). Having a structure classroom where all members agree upon makes the learning classroom a more powerful and productive environment.

Also in the first chapter, we saw how the problem-solving model worked in one classroom, but not in another. This has led the Ms. Dowd to go back her own processes and question why. Because of this, she was able to revise her teaching model and use another approach, which was a better fit than the first time. In Ms. Dowd case, she then added four essential elements to her problem-solving process. Doing so, her process worked.

Therefore, it is very important for a teacher to be flexible within the classroom, yet, still set up goals and standards. Having communication between teacher and students is essential in order to run more smoothly and productively.   Not only is communicating significant, but also listening. We all have a voice. We all should be heard, even the non-outspoken ones. As Jon Appleby of When Students Reflect Together: Socratic Discussions writes, "Listening means that a person is willing to hear an idea and change her or his mind. Listening means that an individual is ready to learn" (26).

Ms. Dowd’s problem-solving process has made her students into “critical thinkers”, which is the goal Ms. Barahal trains her pre-service teachers working through “Artful Thinking” concept to reach. Ms. Barahal’s Artful Thinking Palette and Think/Puzzle/Explore routine are very worthy to be employed by pre-service teachers.   

The Barahal text reminded me of a recent conversation that I had with my future boss, the Principal of the school that I will be working in next year.  It was during a conversation when I was asking about the curriculum for the pre-K class that I will be co-teaching next year.  I was curious because I had never worked with students that young before.  Though I planned to move up to kindergarten or 1st grade the next year, I was still curious about the kind of things that 3-4 year olds would be learning in their early childhood education.  While my Principal acknowledged that the students were quite young, and that the curriculum wasn’t as academically focused as in older elementary years, that the goal was to prepare the students so that they wouldn’t be behind (as is often seen in urban students at the beginning of kindergarten compared to their suburban counterparts). 

            This goal included, not only preparing them for learning how to read and write, but to prepare them for critical thinking.  My Principal explained that with all the standardized testing existing in today’s education system, that critical thinking is often overlooked.  He then proceeded to explain ways in which we would implement fun, critical thinking methods within the fun, play based pre-k curriculum.  The example was given that while finger painting, we would pose questions such as, “what colors are you using?,” “where else do you see that color?,” “what do you think happens when you combine those two colors?”, “why do you think that?”

            This was similar to the practice explained by Barahal, where she uses art to teach critical thinking, and how to get teachers to think more about their student’s thinking.  I find the practice of increasing teacher’s awareness of not only what their students’ responses/answers are, but getting them to examine further the thinking that lead them to that answer.  Establishing how students get to a certain answer can help teachers better understand how to teach their students, and how to re-teach topics that may not be fully understood. It can also be a beneficial learning tool for students to use to reflect on their conclusions.  If they think about their own thinking process then they can better assess whether they are right or wrong (if there is a right or wrong) or if they truly believe what they are saying. 

            While this argument (that critical thinking, and thinking about thinking) seems like it’s stating the obvious, I think that we often overlook it in our pedagogy, and practice.  I appreciated Barahal’s critical thinking initiatives for preservice teachers, and hope to utilize her methods in my own teacher with the hope that my students’ will become thorough thinkers. 

            Reading the stories of the teachers who wrote At the Heart of Teaching was an interesting contrast to reading Dewey and Freire. While many of the theories of Dewey and Freire were apparent in this book, it was much more practical and grounded in real experiences. However, I noticed that all of these teachers had to make a conscious effort to engage in “reflective practice,” because it was not something their schools made time for or encouraged. These teachers took the initiative to think about what they were doing well and what they could do better. They also took extra time to pursue activities that could enhance their classes, such as Jan Grant’s “Students At Work” evening presentations (11). It was clear that when these teachers took the time to reflect on their teaching, they became better teachers. 

            A main purpose of this book was to share these great ideas with other educators, and it is clear that many people would benefit from this type of collaboration and reflective practice. While there are whole host of issues people talk about when they discuss “education reform,” there is very little focus put on teacher professional development. I find this extremely unfortunate, because this could be a great way to help teachers find creative ways to address some of the challenges they face on a daily basis. Many businesses and companies are starting to realize that when they allow for this type of support and collaboration among their employees, their performance improves. Why should this be any different with teachers? We constantly hear about teacher burnout, especially in low-income schools. I think that enhancing professional development, encouraging collaboration and reflective practice, and providing teachers with the time and support they need to improve their skills could be a great benefit to schools.