IX. Conclusions
Throughout my spring fieldwork, I examined my inquiry question by testing out different activities and discussion formats, which then led me to evaluate the inquiry question itself. Ultimately, my goal as an English teacher is to facilitate meaningful discussions for my students, which generates engagement--student interest, motivation, and buy-in to the discussion--which would then promote students’ intellectual growth. With my exposure to research on the best models of English classes, I came across again and again the ideas of progressive discourse and Accountable Talk--modes of discourse in which there are authentic, inquiry-based discussions with no specific or right answer and in which the class works as a collective unit to come to a newfound understanding of a text or an idea within a text.
Over the course of my observations, reflections, and interventions, I realized that I was taking too narrow of a look at the discourse in my English classes. Full-class discussions were not necessarily always the pinnacle mode of discourse because inevitably unless there were constraints that I implemented requiring each student to speak for a specific amount of time, more student voices would be heard than others. Additionally, it seems that full-class discussions can present the opportunity for certain students who are not actively involved in the discussion to zone out if they are bored or remain quiet if they are too shy to speak. More often than not, the open-ended, authentic questions that I tried to ask in full-class discussions would lead me to exactly what I did not want--a very small number of verbal participants. I continued to find disconnect between the theories and research that I read and the implementation of them in practice. Such a disparity led me to question my inquiry question itself. Perhaps I was too focused on engagement in full-class discussions.
Expanding my observations to both small and large-group discussions as well as hands-on activities, I began to see the benefits and drawbacks to each mode. Maybe, then, like most things in a classroom, there is no one cure-all activity for generating the most productive dialogical discussions, but instead that differentiating how material is presented and discussed keeps the classroom energy high and reaches more students by varying the routine and not getting complacent or bored in one style of learning. Keeping the format of discussions and activities varied could heighten student interest, which then translates to student engagement and motivation.
While the research I read was helpful in presenting new ideas and models of discourse towards which to strive, they were not necessarily a perfect fit for my classes. I had trouble reconciling the fact that simplistic, review questions generated more verbal participants than open-ended discussions did. Moreover, I found that tangible activities in which students had something to hold in their hands or had to write down intermixed with discussions increased student engagement and interest. For instance, at the end of The Odyssey unit, instead of discussing and deconstructing what an epic hero was and student thoughts and opinions on what made an epic hero, I assigned students to create their own stories and versions of what they thought an epic hero should be (Artifact 14). Students were excited about and interested in getting to write their own versions of a hero; each student was engaged because each student was required to write and create their story during time in and outside of class. During time to work in class, students consulted with their neighbors about the characteristics of their heroes. I doubt a full-class discussion about this topic would have generated such interest, motivation, and engagement.
In the last few weeks of fieldwork, my opinion towards progressive discourse shifted. While I see the value in discussions in which each student cares deeply about and is interested in verbally participating in a discussion, getting students to that point is extraordinarily difficult for me as a facilitator if not seemingly impossible. With activities tied to discussions and conversations that get students interested and excited, I have found more success in getting them to engage with ideas that I had hoped could be productive conversations in and of themselves. Nevertheless, these tangible activities or discussions that stem from initially simpler questions or ideas seem to be a good starting point in terms of scaffolding students towards a progressive discourse.
Overall, I came to the conclusion that the disconnect between theory and practice is not necessarily a bad thing because it made me be more reflective about how or why certain things in my classroom worked while others did not. Additionally, just because one model did not work in one of my classes does not mean that it should be written off as something that can never work. Having access to these theories for future years of practice is extremely valuable because they serve as models off which I can evaluate my own teaching. Theories like teaching practices are constantly evolving and shifting as well as context specific so being able to draw upon a wealth of knowledge regardless of whether it seems applicable at the moment is invaluable. Best practices and theories that inform teaching do not always have a causal relationship with great lessons or classes; instead, they help educators continually work to improve upon personal theories of teaching and learning. Just because I was not seeing a direct relationship between theory and my own practice in my first months of teaching does not mean the theories are disproven or invalidated. Theory will continue to inform and influence my practice throughout my career even when discord arises. It is this discord that propels me to continually try to find connections between theory and practice, a reflective process, which I believe helps to make me a better educator.
Over the course of my observations, reflections, and interventions, I realized that I was taking too narrow of a look at the discourse in my English classes. Full-class discussions were not necessarily always the pinnacle mode of discourse because inevitably unless there were constraints that I implemented requiring each student to speak for a specific amount of time, more student voices would be heard than others. Additionally, it seems that full-class discussions can present the opportunity for certain students who are not actively involved in the discussion to zone out if they are bored or remain quiet if they are too shy to speak. More often than not, the open-ended, authentic questions that I tried to ask in full-class discussions would lead me to exactly what I did not want--a very small number of verbal participants. I continued to find disconnect between the theories and research that I read and the implementation of them in practice. Such a disparity led me to question my inquiry question itself. Perhaps I was too focused on engagement in full-class discussions.
Expanding my observations to both small and large-group discussions as well as hands-on activities, I began to see the benefits and drawbacks to each mode. Maybe, then, like most things in a classroom, there is no one cure-all activity for generating the most productive dialogical discussions, but instead that differentiating how material is presented and discussed keeps the classroom energy high and reaches more students by varying the routine and not getting complacent or bored in one style of learning. Keeping the format of discussions and activities varied could heighten student interest, which then translates to student engagement and motivation.
While the research I read was helpful in presenting new ideas and models of discourse towards which to strive, they were not necessarily a perfect fit for my classes. I had trouble reconciling the fact that simplistic, review questions generated more verbal participants than open-ended discussions did. Moreover, I found that tangible activities in which students had something to hold in their hands or had to write down intermixed with discussions increased student engagement and interest. For instance, at the end of The Odyssey unit, instead of discussing and deconstructing what an epic hero was and student thoughts and opinions on what made an epic hero, I assigned students to create their own stories and versions of what they thought an epic hero should be (Artifact 14). Students were excited about and interested in getting to write their own versions of a hero; each student was engaged because each student was required to write and create their story during time in and outside of class. During time to work in class, students consulted with their neighbors about the characteristics of their heroes. I doubt a full-class discussion about this topic would have generated such interest, motivation, and engagement.
In the last few weeks of fieldwork, my opinion towards progressive discourse shifted. While I see the value in discussions in which each student cares deeply about and is interested in verbally participating in a discussion, getting students to that point is extraordinarily difficult for me as a facilitator if not seemingly impossible. With activities tied to discussions and conversations that get students interested and excited, I have found more success in getting them to engage with ideas that I had hoped could be productive conversations in and of themselves. Nevertheless, these tangible activities or discussions that stem from initially simpler questions or ideas seem to be a good starting point in terms of scaffolding students towards a progressive discourse.
Overall, I came to the conclusion that the disconnect between theory and practice is not necessarily a bad thing because it made me be more reflective about how or why certain things in my classroom worked while others did not. Additionally, just because one model did not work in one of my classes does not mean that it should be written off as something that can never work. Having access to these theories for future years of practice is extremely valuable because they serve as models off which I can evaluate my own teaching. Theories like teaching practices are constantly evolving and shifting as well as context specific so being able to draw upon a wealth of knowledge regardless of whether it seems applicable at the moment is invaluable. Best practices and theories that inform teaching do not always have a causal relationship with great lessons or classes; instead, they help educators continually work to improve upon personal theories of teaching and learning. Just because I was not seeing a direct relationship between theory and my own practice in my first months of teaching does not mean the theories are disproven or invalidated. Theory will continue to inform and influence my practice throughout my career even when discord arises. It is this discord that propels me to continually try to find connections between theory and practice, a reflective process, which I believe helps to make me a better educator.