Finding Out About Things in Everyday Life

While reading this week's article about learning things in everyday life, the article first differentiates between learning because you're supposed to and learning because you want to. I think personally I started this class with the mind to learn because it was what I was supposed to do. I think because of the freedom in the classroom, it has shifted to learning because I'm interested. I have noticed that I think about topics we are discussing in class in my daily routine. I think this is an important thing for all students to experience so they learn genuinely.
When the article was discussing the student's ideas on how the moon goes through it's phases, I was at first shocked when I realized the ages were GRADE 11 rather than AGE 11. I thought there was no way kids would think so shallowly about the moon's phases and be so wrong. Then I realized I did the same thing and I'm in "grade 16" and 21 years old! Then when I saw the depiction of the student's thoughts it was exactly what I had originally thought as well. Soon after I really started considering the moon's phases, I realized how wrong I was. The figure shown of the moon directly behind the earth in it's shadow is of a lunar eclipse- not a new moon. When the students were asked to reflect upon their thinking, they still did not come up with the correct answer. I think this is because our knowledge about shadows tells us naturally that the earth blocks light from reaching the moon but we have never considered the grand scale of things in space. Wagenschein has referred to this misconception as "synthetic stupidity" and I have to agree. I am almost mad at myself for not realizing how wrong my thinking was. I was idly believing in something easy but as soon as I gave it an ounce of consideration I knew there was no way I was correct- I just didn't know what else it could be.
I think the article is correct when it sums this up as people being plain naive. The thinking exhibited by myself as well as the students in the article is no where near developed or mature. The diagram provided by the textbooks is clear and simple and correct in the position of the moon relative to the sun and the earth, however it is entirely misleading and inaccurate in regards to scale and perspective. It appears totally static, while in reality the earth and moon are constantly in motion. The article asserts that the reason behind this failure of a diagram is likely because the textbooks are intended to be so neat and petite. Because of this students do not understand how the moon phase phenomena really occurs. I think it is important to first introduce this concept by using an interactive model like Amanda W shared- Holding a tennis ball up (moon) and rotating yourself (earth) in the path of a projector (sun). After students understand this model, then and only then could a diagram like the ones that frequent our textbooks ever be effective.

Discussing or Arguing? Unpacking the Nature of Discourse

This article examined the differences in how learners and teachers communicate to find meaning. I think what this article discusses is really applicable to any way of communicating in life. I find that while teaching my high school drumline kids that they are so terrified of being wrong that they often do not listen to what I am hoping to explain to them. I realized this week that it was because I was feeding them solutions and answers rather than guiding them to find it for themselves. Obviously, I can't perform their show for them, but what I can do is show them their potential. Because I am on the "other side" of the line and because I wrote their music, I see the potential at it's fullest and it is apparent to me that they can not see it this way because they will never get a full outsider's view of the show until after it's over. My job, therefore, is to guide them towards getting better and becoming successful, well-rounded musicians. They are very responsive to my demonstrations, but not so responsive to my words (unless I've gotten worked up about something and go in to Coach mode). Often times, these kids are so fearful of being wrong that they find an excuse- any excuse to try and make the criticism I give them invalid. I have begun to ask for their opinions on things before I give them my own. By questioning how they feel about what they have just done, similar to the situation described in the article, I will be able to understand how they are perceiving what they do. They may accomplish something, but are seeking an easier way. They may fail at something and are seeking encouragement and advice but the important part that must happen is that they are seeking. When we talk about how to fix things, I generally try and ask their opinions on what they think should be done. Because my instructional time is limited, I typically take the scenario 1 approach and assert my opinion as univocal discourse, when in reality I would much rather find solutions using dialogic discourse. My ultimate goal for any person I teach is for them to become independent learners, and I feel as though dialogic discourse is the best way to go about this. Exemplified by Ms. Bee in scenario 2, dialogic discourse provides a guideline but the students are free to find the best solution for themselves. Students learn differently, think differently, and perceive things differently (particularly differently than someone with more experience in them) so why would we ask them to do things exactly as we, as educators, would? By allowing them to develop their own plan of action and expand upon that collaboratively with a group or individually, their learning is much more genuine.

Making Thinking Visible: Talk and Argument

I feel like the group discussions and freelance experimenting in class have been the most beneficial kind of learning I have experienced. I think that because we are a classroom of future educators and all are fairly well in to our higher education careers, we are very sensitive to the structure of the classroom and very aware of our peers and their ideas and feelings, which makes this type of learning very easy to both create and experience. I fear that in a younger classroom, this same type of learning will not be as effective simply because of the maturity level within the class. I know with the high schoolers I work with they pretty much need someone guiding them along the whole way-- which drives me crazy! I want them to be self-sufficient learners so I try to guide their thinking without giving too much away but so often they get frustrated, pout, and give up. (Ahh!) I think a lot of this has to do with the overuse of the Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) technique. While IRE works in some cases, it doesn't cover any gray areas. I also don't think it is very collaborative. I think establishing the argument talks/discussions are the most effective ways to not only allow students to talk out their ideas but the teacher can evaluate these talks as well if they are willing to become involved. The important thing to understand is that that arguing is not about who is right and who is wrong but about how well the ideas fit together with what we know and with what we are wanting to know- less about winning more about selling ideas. I think the freedom to think and understand is one of the most valuable gifts an educator can give their learners.

Teachsearching (Teaching as Research)

As the Teaching as Research excerpt explains, the most important part of learning is engagement. Without a student being engaged in what they are supposed to be learning, how can we as educators every expect them to genuinely learn? Learning without engagement may as well be answering a yes or no question. Generally, the answers are regurgitated after being memorized and God forbid the teacher ever asks "Why?" or "Explain." I shudder at the thought. The chapter explains that to first engage students in the topic, they must witness some phenomena. I think a really crucial aspect of this is giving them time to think about it themselves and become intrigued.

Regarding the moon journals in the chapter, Student 1 explains that he or she can move at his or her own pace and ask his or her own questions and that he or she likes it. I feel like this is very similar to how I felt about the moon assignment. At first I thought, "Oh crap. I have jacked up every SINGLE moon journal I have EVER done and here I am having to do it AGAIN?!" And yes, I have jacked it up a time or two but for some reason I became intent on figuring things out. By having the freedom to think about it on my own accord I actually asked my own questions and sought my own answers. Student 2 says, "It's fun to think about it without being punished." Again, I agree. The freedom to think is much like when teachers assign the whole class a book to read together. Yes, group discussions are good. Yes, we must all work together. Yes, blah blah blah. BUT- since when does a group of 20+ kids EVER like the same thing and understand it the same way? Yea, that's right. Never. So why do we make them learn all the same things in all the same ways? Why aren't we allowing them to think freely?  Student 3 seems to suffer from this lack of free thinking. It seems like all this student's educational life has been focused simply on "making it," "getting by," "survival." This student seems totally stressed and it's like he or she can't let that go and find the fun in it until later in the experiment. Student four kind of made me chuckle. This student seems to be the kind that takes thing at face value, and I love it when he or she says, "This was my first discovery (to understand that my understanding of the moon was wrong." It's like he or she is saying, "The first thing I was right about was that I was really wrong." Another example of learning forced information. This is true but WHY? Why not this? We memorize this as fact. Student 5 also reminds me of myself. I finally become engaged and suddenly it's frantic questions. Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Whaaaaat?! Exactly. Student 6 has that connection to the topic- like that typical star student that just "gets it." Student 7 voices my opinions exactly in probably my favorite quote of the article, "Not knowing can be so much more fun than knowing. It's opened my eyes to look for something. I curse whatever it was that led me to believe this puzzle was solved." 

After these students have clearly become engaged, having them explain their thinking is one of the most frustrating, yet must crucial aspects of this teaching style. Articulating one's thoughts can be really, really difficult as I have proven many times through weird arm motions and stuttering. The students have to prepare and organize their thoughts in a way that will communicate to the rest of the class their understanding of what is happening. This is an essential element to understanding. Cranking out that coherent explanation of one's thoughts is a very interesting process. It makes me turn over every stone in my head and consider from all angles- all to defend the point I have thought so hard upon. This is the part in my opinion where it all comes together. Ideas from each perspective meet, fight, knock each other out, and then finally and hopefully come to a conclusion. But is it ever really finished? I feel like with the Box Theatre experiment we have proven how one topic branches in to a thousand other thoughts and ideas and then very likely can take a sudden left turn to a whole new thing that we didn't even know we were getting ourselves into (color). The great thing is that I feel like I have come so far and learned so much and worked so hard for it. I actually think that this kind of learning will stick with me. I feel like I have learned how to think and how to figure things out on my own which is exactly what I need to  be able to do. Who would have thought sticking a box on my head would have gotten me so far?

Wanna Be A Blockhead?

Last class we met up with another science class and talked with them about box theater. At first, much like us, they were pretty apprehensive to go outside and stick a box on their head but soon enough you could hear the "OH WOW!"s coming from within the box. Our group of four (Melonie, Dayna, Amanda, and I) had a group of four students from the other class. All four of them got in the box, and all but one of them seemed pretty interested in what was happening and either wanted to see it again or offered up some thoughts on how it happened. Part of me wishes we had more time so really do more of the experiments and actually start with a small hole like we had done and "play" with it a little more before it worked so that maybe the students could have seen the box as more than just some weird contraption. On the other hand, there was a bit of an awkward moment when we were trying to talk with them about it because they weren't as enthusiastic as we have been the past several weeks. I think part of that is because they didn't really have time to think about it on their own and digest it and consider it from all angles. They pretty much saw it and then were asked "Why?"
Once we got past boxing everybody, we asked them specifically what they saw- a "beam" when the hole was facing the sun and a "projection" when the hole was away from the sun. They got that the hole facing the sun was too much light, and at first thought that the tape had something to do with it too. We shared ideas and they were pretty much on the same train of thought I was minus a couple details like the concave shape of the tape when it was punctured but I just don't think they had time to come up with a full explanation. We eventually got them to throw out more ideas (conversation wasn't exactly flowing) and they agreed that the light from the sun must hit the objects and then "bounce" into the box. We didn't get much in to the whole color topic... I don't think they really cared to go there, so we just shared our thoughts. They nodded. I think they knew that this was sort of a short term thing for them, so honestly I didn't get a lot out of it at all, although it was still fun to share the experience.

How to Talk

The articles, "How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk," and, "How Not to Talk to Your Kids," both reinforced how to use praise effectively when teaching or coaching children. "How to Talk" really made a point of one thing: justifying. You can say "Good job!" "Fantastic!" "Way to go!" all you want but children really need to know why. They not only need to be praised but they need to know what they did that earned it- truly. Basic praises without that reinforcement are hollow and open to sarcasm or false pretense. In the exercise within the article, I generally answered opposite of what I feel the article was looking for. When I saw the praise I usually took it as, "What a relief I pulled that off..." rather than skepticism. I do however, know a friend that is always skeptical and paranoid about everything that is said to him. He sees things as a trap. When I thought about it, I know that my parents do tend to reinforce the praise they give me like the article says. My mom says she's proud of what I've done because (fill in the blank here). My dad gives me advice and then tells me why he feels the way he does. This leads me to believe that my friend may not have been experiencing that same praise. I don't think that necessarily means he was raised wrong by any means but as the article said a good job can be taken away with a poor job the next day, while a reinforced praise can be taken back out treasured for much longer. I thought about this article a lot today because I taught my high school marching band kids. We have been having a lot of trouble getting them to take responsibility for their actions and take initiative and behave. Because we are on such a time crunch, our praise is really lacking a lot of that justification and reinforcement. This next week, I'm hoping that we can discuss as a staff these articles and try and implement these practices and hopefully get some harder work all around. I think it's going to be a difficult transition, and probably seem to be more trouble than its worth, but after it has time to take effect I hope that it will be better in the long run.

Ready, Set, Science!

The Ready, Set, Science article really opened my eyes to how NOT hard it is to incorporate science in to every day thinking. Actually- this class kind of did that. When I was in elementary school, I dreaded school but I particularly dreaded science. That feeling lasted all the way until well, now. I just never could be given enough time to really understand what was happening and the pressure put behind that understanding- or lack thereof- made me scared of it.
In the beginning of the article, it really just cleared up a lot of misconceptions about what scientists do and some basic principles about the subject. Just as I was starting to panic again I realized there was no need because my science brain somehow came alive fairly recently. For me, it seemed like as soon as we did the box theater experiment, a flip got switched and suddenly I was going all "Beautiful Mind" on everybody but instead of seeing math I saw science. Things began sparking my interest and I wanted to know how they worked. For example, after riding home in my friend's truck, I saw the reflection of all his stuff in the dashboard on the mirror. Why was it left-right backwards? How is this similar to box theater? And then I just KEPT thinking about it. I didn't just decide I didn't care. This is the kind of thinking I want to active in students. Just like in Ms. Martinez' and Mr. Dolens' class in the article, I want to get kids to think for themselves because that is what they will have to do in the natural "real" world.
The kids in the article seemed to undergo the "Think-Pair-Share" strategy. They were given time (very important) to gather their own thoughts, discussed those thoughts with others in a small group, and then presented them to everyone. This allowed for plenty of time to grow in their thinking, edit, and change their minds if they wanted. The best part is... they liked it. They were being scientists even though they weren't wearing goggles and gloves and mixing oddly colored liquids. I think it's so important to open up this world of science to children especially with how rapidly professions in science are growing in our world today. We need those innovative thinkers if we want to be a progressive nation and by living in fear of assessments and drilling test review after test review we are accomplishing little long term progress and going back to the "mile wide-inch deep" learning ways that JUST. DON'T. WORK. By integrating real world experiences with background knowledge and a little free innovation we will be teaching kids a wealth more than what we are now. We just have to believe that they are capable of that.

Block Head & The Virtues of Not Knowing

After our box theatre experiment in class, all I could think about was my reactions to what happened that day. I remember as I was assembling the boxes, questioning exactly why we had to do everything so precisely. I understood blocking out all of the light, but the part where the hole was poked I was curious about. We had to cut a square out of the box, cover it with the aluminum tape (best at blocking out lots of light), and then poke a hole. Why couldn't we just poke a hole straight in the box? Maybe this is me over thinking, but that simple procedure is what I have based my whole thought process on the box theatre upon. The important part was that I was thinking.
Before the experiment I had a pretty basic idea of what I thought would happen. I thought I'd just see a shadow of my head--- big whoop. What really happened totally shocked me. I actually thought that it was a trick! My mind was obviously blown and my inability to explain it irritated me. I spent the rest of the class pondering... but it didn't stop there. I thought I had an idea and talked myself in and out of several solutions- much like the students in the examples in the Eleanor Duckworth reading. The student who was observing the water volume experiment had a very similar reaction to mine when I stuck that box on my head and saw what I saw. We both had an idea... and then had to edit it. We talked ourselves in and out of it, talked in circles, and then finally started to settle.
I thought the article really brought in to perspective a lot of the faults in the way we teach today. I teach a high school drumline and just from being around them and observing I realized how terrified they are of being wrong. They want so desperately to have the last word and to be correct but in reality that is so irrational. Since then I have tried my hardest to teach them that it is TOTALLY OK to ask questions, to not understand, to talk about things, to figure things out... Very rarely will they get things right the first time, but that isn't what our education methods are teaching them. Dr. Seuss has a book called "Hooray for Diffendoofer Day" and my favorite line in the book is when the teacher, Ms. Bonkers tells the students "We've taught you that the earth is round, that red and white make pink, and something else that matters more- we've taught you how to think." That is the kind of teaching I want to do.

The Pendulum Question

If a washer was suspended from a kite string, acting as a pendulum, and swung at a fixed point, what would happen if the string was cut at the highest point in the washer's elevation? Mary Bell explored this question with a group of her colleagues, and then later with a group of 5th and 6th graders. The Pendulum Question was a very interesting article, particularly after we had unknowingly simulated the experiment in class. During our class discussion, I originally thought that, "If the pendulum were to be released at the highest point in its arced path [...] it would rise slightly higher in the arc due to centripetal force and then fall quickly downward in a bell curve form." I thought it would be similar to a child jumping off of a swing. I also wrote that the motion of the washer after cut would be dependent on the weight of the pendulum in comparison to the string, how and where the string was cut, and how accurately it was released.
We discussed as a group, and most of our thoughts were fairly similar. The biggest difference was whether or not the washer would arc upwards or not... like keys on a lanyard. The amazing thing was that in Mary Bell's article, the students made very similar predictions. I really thought it was amazing that kids in such young grades were thinking on the same lines as a college class, and according to Mary Bell, along the same lines as experts. Bell stated that it took three weeks for them to discuss all of the possible options. In the classroom, it took the students only a fraction of that time. In fact, the correct answer was unearthed in Bell's classroom in barely ten minutes of discussion! The most important part in my opinion was the students working together to not only prove but disprove several of the solutions to the question.
The "it depends" factor was very prominent in their discussion. The students were looking at the question from all angles like how fast was the pendulum was swinging, how heavy the washer was, exactly how it was released, and how high the swing was. The students struggled to articulate their ideas because of a lack of vocabulary, but were still able to work through it together. They neglected to use the real world examples as Bell had hoped, but she was able to bring it back in to conversation. My example of jumping off of a swing was brought up, but then I realized, just as the students had to, that the way a person would release from a swing and a washer would release from a string was completely different. A person is not attached to a swing unlike the washer and string, therefore it could not be compared. Something like the keys on a lanyard example would be much more accurate, and once I considered that example I had to reconsider my prediction! This taught me how important it is to consider real-life examples that are as similar to the experiment as possible. I also liked looking back in my notes (and Bell's students predictions) and seeing the changes of opinion after discussion. I thought this was really a fascinating experiment as far as the pendulum question and the way students interpreted it.