Sparking Thoughtful Inclusivity

In my own middle and high schools, I never had any class-within-a-class experience. And, while my private high school had a large population of non-native speakers, the sort of inclusive atmosphere fostered by today’s teacher was not present. So, I had strong expectations of what I would be witnessing since my only knowledge was from our classes and readings. And, as usual, the divide between theoretical ideals and practical realities spanned a spectrum of application.

For the most part, it has been a revelation that CWC and inclusion classes have been largely indistinguishable from standard classes beyond including additional professionals. That is, those being “included” have not stood out from the students around them, except in special cases that were largely handled swiftly and efficiently. The biggest differences between the classes have been how the co-teachers and paraprofessionals worked together. The expectation of an individual leader within a classroom has been the standard mode of instruction for secondary schools to such an extent that when teachers work together within the same space there is usually a learning curve.

In the least effective CWC classes I have observed, the teachers were separate entities performing rigid roles. For example, I observed one class where a leave-replacement teacher had been working with a co-teacher for a few months, but they had not yet developed an effective working relationship. During the class, the “lead” teacher, the leave-replacement, instructed in a manner that depended largely on the static reading of text and answering of recall questions. As the class read the text in turns, the two teachers paced around the room in a manner that reminded me of sharks, always moving with eyes that lacked emotion. I could see how this would be intimidating and distracting to students attempting to read aloud while understanding a text. Strange behavior. At other times, the co-teacher merely filled out a google document that was a digitized ditto sheet. This class was largely a boring, lifeless exercise in staying attentive and productive.

In the best examples of CWC classes I have observed, the teachers utilized each other as partners, even when not of equal status. When it works, I am absolutely enamored with CWC classes (and that is coming from a guy who nearly always prefers to work solo). In one strong example of co-teaching dynamics, two teachers (one who was clearly the leader) created an active and participatory vibe in their classroom through energetic discussion; they riffed off of each other and the students, often poking and prodding students to engage in the conversation. These teachers also moved around the room constantly, but they did so in manner that created a whirlwind of inclusion and engagement. The movement extended to the stationary students and became the movement of minds as opposed to empty vessels marching around the classroom. Overall, it was apparent that these co-teachers were having fun.

I also witnessed another effective dynamic between co-teachers very different from the above situation. In another class in another school, ninth graders were reading Romeo & Juliet. In this class, it was clear that one teacher was leading the class, the activities, and the discussion. She was lively and enthusiastic while knowing her students and their needs intimately. And while she was teaching the class, her co-teacher (a quiet, smiling presence) was constantly but silently moving around the class, checking in with students without disrupting the flow of the lesson. It was so different from the above example of coteaching, but it was just as effective. This co-taught class displayed that there is no simple, right way to do a CWC class. That the relationships that our professor and guest speakers have mentioned are as diverse as the students being taught.

There is no one right answer. In anything, ever. So, we learn, we grow, and we adapt to our environment, as teachers and as humans. CWC and ENL classes that foster collaboration and cooperative development of knowledge and experience are reflections of a progressive society that evolves. All students should feel invested and engaged within a classroom community that challenges them to constantly become better versions of themselves. And, teachers should remember that they are not the singular paragon of all things in their specialty. We are all in this together…

War of the Words

In a recent observation, I watched an energetic post-lunch class crash against a wall of in-class reading and recall-question answering. The students, full of food, vim, and vigour, channeled most of their energy into resisting the flat instruction rather than exploring the text. The students were, for the most part, not actively engaged in what could be considered a fun novel—The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells.

Mr. Crane (a leave-replacement teacher) stated that they had done a little preface work with the novel by looking into the infamous radio broadcast and ensuing confusion of 1938. I remember listening to a recording of that broadcast as a young student and being enthralled, so I was excited to see the students work with this text.

When the students came in, they were practically vibrating. Once they were seated, Mr. Crane picked up reading where the previous class had left off. The teacher, the co-teacher, and the students took turns reading sections of the book. The students had packets containing questions to be answered, and all those questions were simple recall questions. Once the chapter was finished, the teacher called on students to answer the questions while the co-teacher filled the answers into a Google Docs version of the packet. Unfortunately, this style of work did nothing to actively channel the abundant energy of the class. So, that energy was released through resistance, distraction, and calling out.

The frustration of the students was palpable. Many students cried out that they didn’t understand what they were reading or simply, “I can’t!” They complained that the complexity of the book was equal to Shakespeare. And, they were becoming mired in a chapter that was not all that essential for a close-reading analysis of the larger novel. What seemed geared to encourage close-reading (or, at least, recall-depth reading) bogged the young readers down with minute details that bred crippling frustration. And, as they worked on simple questions, many had quite a bit of trouble; I wondered if they had ever been taught how to scan for key words to answer these types of questions.

I found myself considering the layout of the class, the energy of the students, and the way that energy was dispersed. If each student was a ball of energy, they emitted that energy outward towards other students. This can either be a problem or a resource. I found myself doodling the layout with each student at their desk and the potential directions of their energy:

Then, I thought about how that energy could be harnessed into small-group work for a more interactive, collaborative, and focused exploration of the text:

To utilize the small-group arrangement for active reading and analysis of the text, the text could be split into four roughly equal sections, and each group would become “section leaders” for their assigned portion. As the class reads the text aloud, students would be encouraged to write down any questions they have, highlight difficult passages, and record thoughts sparked by interest from the text. The teacher will pause the reading after each of the four segments to have the section leaders share what they recorded. Any questions that are posed may be answered by any member of the class; any notations of difficult areas or interesting points may also be catalysts for discussion. One member of each group should be responsible for capturing the discussion on the Google Doc for future reference. Rather than focusing on recall questions about largely irrelevant factoids, students will have generated their own questions and curiosities as well as the chance to respond to each other with a collaborative reading. 

Getting Backwards in Puerto Mieville

            Today in Puerto Mieville Middle School, multiple 7^th grade classes gave presentations on various epidemics in order to reach the target skills described in CCRAS for Speaking and Listening 4 & 5: “present information, findings, and supporting evidence such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning and the organization, development, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience” and “Make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and enhance understanding of presentations.” The subject matter was tied to a novel they had read just prior to this research project—Fever 1793 by Laurie Halse Anderson.

           

          With the above mentioned Anchor Standards in mind, Ms. Leiber ensured the lesson would go further than merely giving a presentation to developing listening skills. This was clearly stated on the board for reinforcement: “I will engage effectively in our presentations, following the rules for being an active and good listener.” On top of the presentation skills, students were learning the skills needed to be engaged learners. To begin each of the classes I observed, Ms. Leiber questioned the students on ways to be active and good listeners. They discussed expectations and etiquette that would ensure smooth presentations as well as the reality of anxiety and a few methods to get through it. To scaffold active listening, the students were given graphic organizers (a reflection sheet) that helped them capture their thoughts, at least one interesting new fact about from each presentation.

While the reflection sheets were largely for the students’ review, each presentation was followed by a short question/answer/comment activity. The presentation subject matter and the students ability to actively listen was reinforced by questions posed either by the teacher or a student. The presenter would field the question if s/he was able, or the teacher would step in if the answer was outside the scope of the presentation. This activity allowed the teacher to see which students were gleaning information from the presentation and make sure that what was presented was being accurately understood. And, to tie the presentations back to the novel that sparked this activity, connections were drawn with similarities and differences between the student-researched epidemics and the yellow fever of the novel.

Further, acceptable evidence for the presentation task was made tangible by having each student hand in a notes packet that detailed their research and sources. The student handed this packet in to the teacher after the presentation for review and grading. The note packet detailed the standardized categories that each student used as a structure for their presentation. I was very impressed by the quality of the presentations which utilized Google slide shows on a Smart Board. Ms. Leiber stated later that the students largely constructed these slideshows on their own, and that they were used to the format as the district had been pushing utilization of Google classroom and G-suite applications. Students were also encouraged to go “off-list” and pursue epidemic topics of their own interest and choosing.

I had a great day of observing at Puerto Mieville Middle School, and was impressed by the teacher’s thorough preparation and execution as well as the student presentations and discussions. It was interesting to see the variety of behavior when these students were confronted with speaking and presenting in front of the class. Perhaps the highlight of the day was when one student, visibly nervous and fidgety about having to take his turn was bolstered when one student started yelling out, “We believe in you, Jack!” which was picked up by the rest of the class until Jack couldn’t help but laugh.