III. Influential Research Framing Personal Theories of Learning (Part 2)
The idea of progressive discourse has also become critical to my working theory of class discussions in my English classes extending the importance of socioculturalism because it is a discourse in which the “sharing, questioning, and revising of opinions leads to a new understanding that everyone involved [agrees] is superior to their own previous understanding” (Kendrink, 2010, p. 86). Kendrick (2010) also highlighted the teacher’s role in creating a classroom culture that permits such discourse to occur, meaning a place in which group work is organic, meaningful, and sustained, and in which the teacher models how students should work in a group. Throughout my research and practice, I come to the idea again and again that my role and how I present myself in the context of the classroom is absolutely essential to the dynamic of the class. For progressive discourse to be achieved, the teacher has to promote and facilitate a collaborative atmosphere.
Beyond shaping discussions, creating a positive classroom environment in which students feel valued, comfortable, and safe is another vital element for generating the types of discourse that I want in my classroom. Without this sort of trust in a safe space, students will not be able or willing to share their thoughts and work with one another. In an effort to make the classroom environment an enjoyable and welcoming place from the very first day, I have tried to get to know my students on a personal level to show them that I care about each of them as an individual by greeting them at the door, asking them how their weekends were, or asking about sporting events and extracurricular activities.
Another step that I have taken in breaking this teacher-student binary in hopes of generating a collaborative environment between my students and me is showing them that I am human and am not infallible. As Weinstein and Novodvorsky (2008) asserted, “it can be beneficial for students to see that even ‘experts’ don’t know the answers all the time” (p. 59). When I first began teaching, I was distressed each time that a student asked a question that I did not know the answer to or if I stumbled over something I was saying. Now, if that happens, I am honest with my students and instead of pretending to know everything, I explicitly state that I do not know the answer and model how I would research and find out such an idea. I also try to incorporate a bit of humor in the classroom, particularly if I lose my train of thought or misspeak. Doing so illustrates to my students that I too am a learner and do not have the answer to every single question. Thus far, this approach has allowed me to develop positive relationships with most if not all of my students and has in no way been a source of classroom management issues. While I have a positive, personal relationship with my students, the proper boundaries in my authority are maintained in order to have the class run smoothly. As my developing theories about learning situate themselves in a sociocultural context of learning, cultivating a positive classroom environment as well as positive relationships in the classroom have become requisite building blocks for productive, dialogic discussions to take place.
My inquiry question developed from my observations in the fall, which led me to a variety of research on the best types of discussions in English classes. Much if not all of the research I came across asserted that dialogic discussions--in which the teacher is not driving the discussion but ones in which there are student-to-student interactions--are the best form of dialogue in regards to students’ intellectual development. With these ideas in mind, I set out in the second semester with clear plans to test out different models of discussion, restructuring and reflecting upon the questions I would ask as well as implementing wait time.
With my focus also on student engagement in full-class discussions, I had to then define student engagement in order to know what to be striving to generate. Thus, student engagement occurs when “students make a psychological investment in learning. They try hard to learn what school offers. They take pride not simply in earning formal indicators of success (grades), but in understanding the material and incorporating or internalizing it in their lives” (Newmann, 1992, p. 2). Student engagement involves both motivation and interest. Students must feel or see a connection between what they are learning in school to what they experience in life in order to care about or become invested in class discussions. Investment in education comes with ownership of one’s education. The more involved a student is, the more invested she is in her education, which leads to engagement. Personally, I find that being invested in a full-class discussion, both listening and responding verbally, leads to engagement and further development as a student and as a person. Too often, little connections are drawn or seen between a student’s life at school and outside of school; however, when those authentic, meaningful discussions take place, students can become engaged and see the valid and valuable connection between the two.
Beyond shaping discussions, creating a positive classroom environment in which students feel valued, comfortable, and safe is another vital element for generating the types of discourse that I want in my classroom. Without this sort of trust in a safe space, students will not be able or willing to share their thoughts and work with one another. In an effort to make the classroom environment an enjoyable and welcoming place from the very first day, I have tried to get to know my students on a personal level to show them that I care about each of them as an individual by greeting them at the door, asking them how their weekends were, or asking about sporting events and extracurricular activities.
Another step that I have taken in breaking this teacher-student binary in hopes of generating a collaborative environment between my students and me is showing them that I am human and am not infallible. As Weinstein and Novodvorsky (2008) asserted, “it can be beneficial for students to see that even ‘experts’ don’t know the answers all the time” (p. 59). When I first began teaching, I was distressed each time that a student asked a question that I did not know the answer to or if I stumbled over something I was saying. Now, if that happens, I am honest with my students and instead of pretending to know everything, I explicitly state that I do not know the answer and model how I would research and find out such an idea. I also try to incorporate a bit of humor in the classroom, particularly if I lose my train of thought or misspeak. Doing so illustrates to my students that I too am a learner and do not have the answer to every single question. Thus far, this approach has allowed me to develop positive relationships with most if not all of my students and has in no way been a source of classroom management issues. While I have a positive, personal relationship with my students, the proper boundaries in my authority are maintained in order to have the class run smoothly. As my developing theories about learning situate themselves in a sociocultural context of learning, cultivating a positive classroom environment as well as positive relationships in the classroom have become requisite building blocks for productive, dialogic discussions to take place.
My inquiry question developed from my observations in the fall, which led me to a variety of research on the best types of discussions in English classes. Much if not all of the research I came across asserted that dialogic discussions--in which the teacher is not driving the discussion but ones in which there are student-to-student interactions--are the best form of dialogue in regards to students’ intellectual development. With these ideas in mind, I set out in the second semester with clear plans to test out different models of discussion, restructuring and reflecting upon the questions I would ask as well as implementing wait time.
With my focus also on student engagement in full-class discussions, I had to then define student engagement in order to know what to be striving to generate. Thus, student engagement occurs when “students make a psychological investment in learning. They try hard to learn what school offers. They take pride not simply in earning formal indicators of success (grades), but in understanding the material and incorporating or internalizing it in their lives” (Newmann, 1992, p. 2). Student engagement involves both motivation and interest. Students must feel or see a connection between what they are learning in school to what they experience in life in order to care about or become invested in class discussions. Investment in education comes with ownership of one’s education. The more involved a student is, the more invested she is in her education, which leads to engagement. Personally, I find that being invested in a full-class discussion, both listening and responding verbally, leads to engagement and further development as a student and as a person. Too often, little connections are drawn or seen between a student’s life at school and outside of school; however, when those authentic, meaningful discussions take place, students can become engaged and see the valid and valuable connection between the two.