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?