Black Article
I thought that the Black article was interesting,even thought I thought it was lacking organization. Conferences do present a conundrum in the classroom. How DO you determine if a conference is successful or not? How DO you walk the line between a teacher led and student led conference? I know from my own personal experience, conferences have not been that successful. As a student I always came into the meeting with the thinking that I just had to say what the teacher wanted me to say, and make the changes to my paper that the teacher wanted me to make. I did not bring a whole lot of my own questions, concerns, and wants to the table. It is easy to say that a conference is supposed to be an open dialogue. But, we have to remember that our students will always view us as "the final answer," and have trouble being completely honest with us. (They are concerned in the end with their grades. They don't want to make us too mad!) I think it may be a bit utopian to think that students will ever just converse with us, the way they would converse with a friend. However, I think that we can work to acheive some sort of comfortable discourse with our students. (We don't need to be dictators.)
I have to admit I thought the author of the article was a little cruel in that she lowered her vocabularly with those students who she thought weren't quite as knowledgable in the area she was teaching. I understand that she did this automatically, not intentionally, but I was still shocked about it. Then, I had to think, do I do this to? And if I do, am I denying those students the opportunity to grow as learners? Am I typecasting them as just not as successful as other students?
This is exactly the reason why we as teachers need to be constantly self-evaluating. We often think we are doing things right, but upon closer look we might not be. Teaching is a constant learning process. No class, no student, is ever the same, so we have to be always able to adapt are lessons and approaches.
I hope everyone had a good Halloween!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I found myself wondering a lot of the same things that Ashley has pointed out. As I was underlining portions of the article, I thought, well this is all very true, and I agree that this is problematic, but HOW do you evaluate conferences, and HOW do you know what to change?
I suppose that, because (for most of us) this is our first time really teaching, it is helpful that we are not set in old ways of dictatorship, and that we are aware of these problems going into it. That makes it a little easier to know that we need to be conscious of the ways that many teachers fall into. It said in the article that most teachers have little or no training in conferencing, and that sounds about right. Most conferencing I have experienced has been unproductive. Like Ashley, I found myself trying to please the teacher, telling the teacher that I would change the parts of my paper that he/she pointed out as being weak.
So, WHAT do we do to make students come to conferences with real questions and concerns? HOW do we have a personal conversation with them about their writing that will really help them in their revision process? Here's a few things I've been thinking about after I read the article--small plans for practice that I might do:
-Have more than one conference per semester. Perhaps one after the 1st drafts for each paper. I've never had more than one before, and I always felt like I needed more.
-Keep record of how the conferences are going (be a "reflective" teacher). Maybe jot some notes down after the conference--during would be distracting.
-Have the students evaluate the conference. How has it helped/not helped their writing process?
-Before conferencing, make sure students know that they must come to the conference prepared to ask questions and really discuss their writing. This isn't just a private time for the teacher to lecture or point out what they think should be changed.
-Read the student's draft ahead of time, come to the conference with notes, suggestions, but don't dominate the conversation. That's a fine line to walk.
So, basically, I can come up with ideas about how to do the conference thing, and, generally, I think they're pretty good things to try, and can be helpful. But I can't help but agree with the article that there are so many things that go wrong in conferences. I guess always keeping ourselves in check, reflecting on our work, will help. Any other suggestions?
Regarding how we can determine if a conference is indeed successful, I found Johnson's conclusion very helpful:
"If students like the concept of conferences, do they like actual conferences? How often do we ask them? Why don't we? What parts of the conference were most effective? What words did the teacher use that the student didn't understand? What questions did the student still have after the conference was over? What questions did the teacher have? Where did the conference seem to be working best? Why? What aspects of conferencing does each party want to work on for the next conference? This kind of reflection and assessment can be built into course assignments and conferencing schedules. Leaving five minutes between conferences to jot down answers to these questions is all it takes."
But I'll also say: why are we so hung up on the conference? It's just talking--right? I think if they're happening then they're successful--so long as they're conversations and not monlogues.
It all seems to be about equality--"students as partners," Black writes. This, I think, will come easier for us than we think. As recent students (and current grad students, as the case may be), we really ARE on their level. I understand your concerns, Jillian and Ashley, but I think you'll do absolutely fine with conferencing.
ps. that was BLACK's conclusion, not johnson's. sorry.
I think Jillian listed a lot of good points about conferencing. The most important thing seems to be getting students to think of (roughly) five points they want to cover about their writing; it'll give them a chance to get their feet wet with meta-language and meta-writing, and it'll help you by providing more structure content for your conversation. It’ll also let you know what the student values about their writing in comparison to your own values.
Moving to the topic of frequency of conferences, I think we should be aiming for two. One can come closer to the beginning of class, after some substantial writing has been done. This way, you can steer the student in the right direction, and use the conference as an attempt to get to know them (as best you can). The second one can come later in the semester (before the final project), so you can discuss with students the progress they are making and also give them a hand with any final project problems. I don’t remember the articles we read saying anything about WHEN the conferences should be held, so this is my best attempt at figuring out an ideal situation. I’d like to know what other people think.
Overall, I think it’s important to maintain a casual atmosphere and to have an mandatory goal with your conference. And really, it is something you get better at over time. I feel lucky to have had the chance to tutor, as the (anonymous) feedback that I received from students and my supervisor helped me hone my communication skills. I think self-reflection is key, and maybe even secretly tape recording ourselves if we want to go that far.
Now that I think about it, getting anonymous feedback from students on these conferences would be a great idea, as long as it was done properly. I have a few ideas if anyone is interested.
I do find a great value to conferencing. As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, students may have trouble speaking up in class, being too shy, or are simply overwhelmed by the university setting, and as a result, participate little in the classroom.
Also, as we discussed, there is an emphasis on technology in the classroom, where, while students may realize many benefits from this, they may also be consumed with the technology to a point that they are distracted from classroom activity. In the end, the conference offers a solid opportunity for the student to engage in one on one interaction with a teacher, and to develop a better understanding of his or her work through this process.
I see similarities among conferencing and atheletics. In team sports, like basketball or rugby, a player may have to develop skills, but at the same time, the player has a whole host of teammates to pick up the slack where he or she is lacking. A player can essentially take a play off, and the contest is not yet lost. This is a little like an entire classroom, where a student may have talent, but is able to shy away from fully engaging the class at all times.
Other sports, like swimming or wrestling may have a team element, but are based almost entirely on the individual. Here a competitor has no teammate to turn to, and no one else to blame if problems arise. Similarly, a conference forces a student to engage his or her material, at least a little, and go one on one with a teacher to discuss/develop the work in question.
There are obviously other benefits as well. A conference also allows the student to fully engage his or her instructor. In a classroom of 20 or so students, an individual might feel that he or she has not been able to discuss everything that needs addressed in a paper. Even if the student is comfortable in the classroom, and has little problem with participation and classroom discussion, there is just not enough time in a 50 minute class with so many students who also need to address problems in their own writing.
Having the chance to meet a teacher individually can lead to a more in-depth discussion of a piece of writing. It can also give both the student and the teacher a chance to better understand one another. When people connect on a human level, outside of the classroom, it can lead a greater respect for other people as individuals, and also the work that they produce.
So I do plan to incorporate the conference into my classrooms. Unfortunately, I don't know how often this can take place. In the middle of an important project, I think that conferences would be too valuable to pass up. However, I also recognize that due to time constraints, I probably won't be able to organize conferences for every project.
I also wanted to comment on the teacher who used a specific kind of language while dealing with students she deemed as having a different level of vocabulary. I understand why she made this decision, and think I might do the same sometimes. However, I also become frustrated with this mindset.
While dealing with students from different social and economic backgrounds than that of their own, teachers may find themselves unfamiliar with the language spoken by these students. They probably do not understand all of the words, slang, and dialect used. At the same time, the students will likely not understand everything the teacher says, if the teacher is speaking in a language most comfortable and familiar to him or her. Should the teacher then "dumb down" his or her speech in a way that the "lowest common denominator" can understand? Yes and no.
Teachers must realize that they will almost never be dealing with students at the same academic level as they are. When they are speaking, even in casual conversation, they will probably do so in a more elevated tone. In order to fully engage the students, they must speak in language that the students understand. At the same time, though, they must maintain their positions in a given classroom as the teachers in charge. They still must appear educated and well-prepared for the discussion and instruction.
That all said, I think there is still something to be said speaking and teaching with a level of depth and sophistication, even if students are unfamiliar with this approach. Allowing the students an opportunity to be part of a traditional academic setting provides a chance for a student to become well-rounded and equipped for success in and out of the classroom.
The idea that teachers should scale back their level of vocabulary so that they can communicate with students from different backgrounds underestimates students' ability to understand complex thoughts and ideas. This reminds me of American politics.
In the current political environment, candidates, particularly presidential candidates, attempt to shorten answers to serve the interests of the 30-second sound byte. Rather than providing thoughtful, in-depth answers to complex questions, candidates opt instead for what will sound best when read on a bumper sticker. Unfortunately, this is true for candidates of all political stripes.
On a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, Gary Kasparov, the former Russian chess champion, spoke about his recently published book, as well as his decision to challenge incumbent Vladmir Putin for Russia's presidential election. Kasparov spoke with a level of sophistication that seemed unlike that of any of the U.S. presidential candidates (at least the front-runners). Kasparov did not underestimate the electorate's ability to understand his message, even with all of its layers. As a result, I gained a great deal of respect for the chess mastermind, and also developed a craving for the same from my own candidates.
This notion that a candidate thinks he or she ought to resist complex thoughts and language is similar to that of teachers who do not feel students will be able to gain anything from a well-thought, genuine message. Students will instead not only respect the ability to articulate sound thoughts, they might even embrace them.
Post a Comment