I thought I knew what this meant and how it
occupies a rightful place in any class. For one, it's a technique I normally do
with my grade schoolers to drive them to certain points. And ok, I admit that
whenever I have a clear agenda in mind of a MUST KNOW from my list of
WHAT-all-Filipino-children-MUST KNOW-&-understand about Social Studies,
then I resort to this technique to test what my students know. Also when
students are immersed in their project based learning, and on their own or mostly
and collaboratively with their peers, I feel that I still need to do short
lectures just to see whether my students are in fact getting what they should
be getting from our classes.
And after all, in college, it's the staple technique of most UP professors.
Though most have bored me to death and I end up going back to the handout or
readings to do my self study just to nail a passing grade, I have found myself
actively engaged (but silently) with very few professors, and professors who
do it really well, namely: Dean Acoymo (300 level course, Educational
Philo class), Dr Manzano (300 level Curr Studies courses), Sr (or Dr)
Priscilla Mananzan (100 Level Educ major course) and Prof Casambre (100 level
Speech Class). Their styles are quite varied--ranging from narrative ones,
theatrical ones, relaxed ones, and the talsik-laway-but-so-what-Im-great type.
The sexiest of them all is Dean Acoymo (he reminds me of Winnie the
Pooh bec of his shirt; such a fashion model with his colored contacts... so
masculine and yet so loveably and admirably gay. what an aura!) What
I love about the experience of being at the receiving end of their
teacher-directness is this: I got a unique experience out of their lectures.
Their discussions have triggered thoughts, daydreams, questions, and more
questions---and so in my mind, I validate, I wonder, I ask-- I come out of it
challenged and moreso inspired. Even in online learning platforms, lectures and
conference presentors, Im sure there's quite a number out there, effectively
delivered through YouTube or Podcasts, and live classes in MOOCs or online
conferences.
Now comes this Harkness Discussion at The Beacon Academy which made me question
teacher directed approaches. Mailin very much believes in it. And I admit, I
was a bit of a skeptic (though I never get my skepticism in the
way): like what's the diff? what's this western construct? or some
recycled idea? isn't HD just like small group discussions with guide
questions or something like opening up minds and ideas or having students freely
respond to a story through minimal prompts or minimally invasive teaching?
But hey, because I am eager to try, I did try it. And I must say, it spelled
the difference in the way I listened to adolescent learners. HD is truly one
decent, research based classroom practice among an array of student driven
teaching approaches.
My prior experiences and mode of thinking as a grade school teacher is to
actively listen to my students share or discuss. But then while doing so,
I have a dropdown list--are my students getting this, this, this and so
on? I have clear measures on the knowledge and understandings Id like to hear
at a certain point and time. If I do not hear it, then they omg they haven't
learned it :( In Harkness Discussions however, my brain behaves
differently. Though I give a set of guide questions, I end up actively
listening, but gradually, I am learning to recede and let go of my guide
questions because I am after finding out these: what am I learning from my
students? what am I getting about how they are learning? At this day and age,
and in the context of learning the IB way, IB trained teachers can just assume
that students can spill out K &Us cuz after all at the MYP and DP level, it
is a given that they are critical and conceptual thinkers. Though that is
largely a given, what is mostly is HOW
they use it and arrive at it--the process of constructing knowledge is always a
wonder to me and to my mind, one way to really know the process (not the
product) is to immerse in their thought processes represented by their spoken
communication. HDiscussion is about recognizing the learner's process and
most of all their insights and their new found knowledge from their own
perspectives.
Having been convinced of HDiscussion in my Year 1 at Beacon, I therefore ask:
does it mean we throw Teacher directed discussions out the window? Well, Id be
thankful of course. For one, while I do find teacher directed discussions as a
respectable technique, it doesn't mean I am competent at it…especially when
handling topics I am learning and relearning. Lecturing is the least of the
approaches I resort to here at Beacon because we do want things largely driven
by students...also because Id rather do online discussions than F2F. Online
discussions (and even live online ones) allow me the time to organize my
thoughts in writing before I spill otherwise I can be winding and jump from one
idea to the next. Or even let's say I give myself time to do my ppts and notes,
by the time I face the students, sometimes, I miss out on important details.
Yikes! But then I still had to risk doing so because my History
class openly said they do want lecture-discussion types. It's a way for them to
validate their understandings. Then again, I just sense I have gaps in the way
I do my teacher directed discussions. When I use it to facilitate giving feedback,
wrap-ups or to introduce a unit, I'm a bit ok. But to do a sustained one for
about 30-40 minutes or even beyond without my students getting bored, that
remains to be my challenge. Hence, I do hold an admiration for gifted
Winnie-the-Poohs who can do it successfully.
And also, a part of my brain holds on to these:
- I believe in the diversity of
teaching practices as long as it is aligned to a specific philosophy and
learning theory.
- I also think academic freedom
benefits the students most because in the end, immersing in the experience
of learning from different types of teaching practices (and not
necessarily the prescribed ones by an accrediting body) makes one's
learning holistic.
- This is also me saying with a
strong and solid learner presence and self regulated learning expected of
a largely IB driven student population, in the end, learners will always
choose to make something out of their learning AND NON-learning from a
diversity of courses, teachers, classmates and teaching styles.
- And this is also me saying that
because NOT ALL learners are that way, there is a place for explicit
skills instruction and teacher directed learning...discussions and
lectures included.
- And to me HD is not EQUAL to teacher-directed discussions or lecture. I am for preserving HD for how it is defined and researched by its worthy proponents and instead search for a commonality=different means to a common end we can all benefit from.
Therefore I think a better school in the end, is
the one that skillfully combines these: learner driven, subject driven and
teacher driven approaches. As it is, having a Harkness Discussion in its
purest, research based sense ( More on HD here ) is great and should still be balanced off
with lectures which are just as great, when done verrrry effectively and
selectively. It is one good way to demonstrate the quality of thinking through,
or some kind of consciousness raising especially if a slice of our student
population need to see divergent thinking vs/ and logical, systematic thinking
at work.
And so this request to learn from a peer. Itago
na natin sa pangalang Eomer. I just happen to know his resume (hehe), and
teacher evals by students (double hehe). So I know, he is more
experienced than I. If it were a choice of a social scientist (Eomer) vs a self
learned social studies teacher (Eowyn), I believe the social scientist is THE
teacher to have in any high school. Therefore I kinda felt so relieved to know
that he'll be teaching the Hist 12, students I once handled. It also means
I can rely on an I&S co teacher anytime. And Im just as curious about
what makes this teacher tick and what I can learn from these 'ticks'--which
is really the whole point of a peer learning session. (And btw,
Eomer comes across as a secure and relaxed person. I recall him going
straight to the ALT with a question or 2 about one in service output we had to
do. He nailed the DP History course aim in his poster. I never felt I was
an LC around him and that I was just any co- teacher around him. So yeah,
I can level with him anytime and need not second guess my being blunt or
straightforward. And who gets to witness an Anthro major teach these days
by the way...the only Anthro teacher I know passed away so Eomer must come from
a rare breed of intellectuals....a historian is common, but an anthro major with a teaching experience in
history must be a great blend)
After the observation, this is how I really felt: "Kainis...kainggit...bakit
ba hindi ganito ang HS world history teacher ko!!!" As usual I felt as
deprived a student that I was back then. And now asking: have I deprived
my Hist 11 last year...my gahhhhdddd!!!
These are the reasons for my envy, btw:
1) This teacher embedded his discussion in an ongoing narrative. He was just
like telling a story which is what makes History attractive. And you can see JW
completely attracted to the topic.
2) The source analysis was placed in a non intimidating and natural context. In
his ppt are curated photos, paintings, stats, and he would just spill
historical tidbits here and there. (Yeah right Aleta, and your source analysis
was so textbook bound due to the required COPVL of IB which I had to do by the
book!!!)
3) The teacher modelled a way of thinking through history--moving from past to
present--global to local. His content knowledge was very much intact and that
is why he can model the way to navigate the knowledge and understanding
expected of world history topics.
4) The I&S completely surfaced but subtly--an interplay of Econ, Culture,
Geog and Philo. And this was, again, done skillfully and not something forced
as THE facts one should know or arrive at like how some teacher directed
discussions can turn out to be. Though I am able to comfortably do that
among my Gr 5-7 students with the amount of concepts and knowledge I have,
doing this among the higher levels require mastery (and experience in the
manipulation) of content knowledge to be able to do the integration skillfully.
And if in case he disagrees that he has mastery of such knowledge, then that
only means, he must have the gift of teaching (yes I do believe in this
classification having been around all types of teachers...there are the gifted
types, now whether you are born with it or acquired it is matter of debate)
5) The Criterion A wasn't left out at all. Key terms, people and events were
all part of the narrative---the historical details in support of the big ideas
were clearly there. It was good to witness how an MYP I&S class provides
the breadth needed for a Hist 11 class which requires an in depth
examination and closer analysis of WH topics.
AND finally (oops back to my LC hat), as a teacher observer I
didn't feel this teacher was out to demo-please me at all. Yes, I did get a
sense of teaching-the-pakitang-gilas-(at gilalas)-kind during my stint of
teacher observation modes in some job. Eomer didn't come across as a sage
on the stage (like how Sandel can come across or how some whites are in
TEDTalks or an all knowing, saksak-ko-sa-baga mo-ang-values-o-views KO). He was
not out there to mold you rather let you consider a manner of thinking or perspective.
He simply came across as a teacher who does love what he knows (like from the
19___ teaching days), the act of finding out and freely shares what he continues to discover
and access as a digi-migrant among our digi-native youth.
Hence, there is a good place for teacher directed discussions, only when done
effectively. (And not doing either or effectively IS worse, haha!)
I now have arrived at somekind of reappreciation for two approaches @work.
BUT, here's decluttering noise 4me:
I therefore conclude, there is more required to run a high school
class of a range of adolescent critical thinkers...even the silent ones like GM
had his head up the whole time and not even an NB pulled a test question/
remark. This means in the PCK of things, the CK bears more weight as a
starting teacher in any HS, and the PCK or PK can later on follow. Which only
validates the fact that what should be licensed in a BSE 2B teacher is CK more
than pedagogy. And the fact that among teacher volunteers for HS, it is more
advantageous to get BS/ BA grad rather than an Educ grad (a key finding in
teacher training among UP teacher volunteers in public school). I
therefore think TBA must find value in the BSE or BS major of teachers because
the PK and PCK will surely fall in place. The added MA Educ provides the
frame for theorizing and reflection. Without that BS/ BA Major in a discipline, the MA Educ may
not hold water. This is me putting on a teacher education hat (can't help
it).
Of course, I am not one to be envious 4ever. Good that I am also a teacher-learner
(and a most fortunate parent) who can celebrate in the realization of
having a co-teacher who is obviously most capable. Lastly I am simply
gladful that we have this kind of teaching in our midst. In the end, it still
is a good blend maybe of my bookishness-follow-the-DP-Guide manner to preps HLs
and his au naturel. But I dont think my strategies will always work, esp for
SLs.
As to whether I can translate or put into action what I learned from his
classes is something I need to chew on. Can I just practice among Gr 7-8
students (and not DP where the stakes are a bit higher)? I now have a new experiment to look forward
to :) X=pure HD vs
Y=HD + lectures but the concern would be related to examining learner
presence, and qualitatively.
