Learning experiences, Moment 3 – Perspective from Viviane Robinson
Moment 3a
Michael:
There was a couple of other interesting issues that came out in that initial role play. And one was you suggested that you could tell him about different ways he could manage and help kids come up with the success criteria by themselves. And he sort of said, “Oh, yeah, OK, OK, OK.”
So what interested me about that is that you ploughed on, in effect. You said things to him, and you kept saying things to him, and he kept smiling and being pleasantly compliant as all nice people do. And you ploughed on. So that one of the things that ... or one of the things that goes wrong with that is you don’t stop and check for real agreement. And yet you know that you wanted to stop and check. So what is interesting there is, how come you didn’t?
So that I think there’s potential future learning that comes out of that is … how can you cue yourself earlier on to say, “Stop, let’s really check in how Jack’s feeling about this. Or whether I’m just tossing out suggestions at an ever increasing rate and speed that I hope that he’s going to, that’ll hook him in at some stage.”
Moment 3b
Catherine:
And I think it was my burning desire to have the conversation over and done with in as pleasantly, pleasantly as possible … But I didn’t do that in the first ... Yeah, so maybe we could try that again, do you think?
Michael:
We could do, but it’s also … what stops you checking? That is the key thing – what is it about you or Jack, a conversation between you, that causes you to keep going when you know – from all the things that we have done previously – stopping and checking is a good thing to do?
Viviane:
Michael is probing what stopped Catherine from checking because he knows that, since she already has this skill, he needs to help her explore what stops her from using it in this situation. This aspect of Michael’s facilitation is linked to the emphasis of Argyris and Schön on what people are thinking but not saying during a conversation. If these unexpressed thoughts are incompatible with Model II values, then they will interfere with fluent use of such Model II skills as checking.
Catherine:
I know that it’s a good thing to do. But I also know that he’s just going to fob me off, so it’s almost, it’s either ... I don’t know how he’s going to react if I do actually check … to the point of him saying, you know, “I don’t want anything to do with this.” Or whether it’s just a nice smooth way out of it, so …
Michael:
So by keeping going allows you to get to the end of your conversation – to say all that you had in your head to say to him, and then leave. If you check, he might derail you.
Catherine:
That’s right.
Viviane:
Through Michael’s probing, Catherine has realised that she did not check because she feared Jack’s refusal.
Michael:
So checking is dangerous.
Catherine:
It is dangerous. So there’s a certain amount of nervousness around checking. And the thing about checking is, you don’t know the response. But with Jack, I have a fairly good idea that it’s going to be fobbing off again. And so the nervousness is, “Oh, at some point I’ve actually got to confront this.” And I don’t know if I want to.
Michael:
So that takes you back to that Model I stuff, doesn’t it, of “Let’s keep things pleasant. Let’s not risk either of us being upset.”
Viviane:
Michael makes an explicit theoretical link to the value base that acts as a shared standard against which he and Catherine can judge the effectiveness of the conversation. We know from the research on effective professional development that it is important for ISTEs to make these theory–practice links so that learners understand the principles that underpin the practical skills they are developing (Timperley et al., 2007).
Catherine:
That’s right, yeah.
Michael:
So what do you want to do about that? Do you want to … rerun that part of the conversation with Jack, and do some checking?
Catherine:
Yes.
Allan:
From Jack’s perspective, I think I need more voice. And I think you need to give me that opportunity, even setting it up like: “I want to suggest some things for you to reflect on and see if this does make a difference. But if things don’t sound reasonable for you, it’s really important to, for you to say that – ‘That’s not reasonable. I’m not going to try it, for this reason.’”
Catherine:
So me setting it up so that you have that chance to say something like that.
Allan:
I think so. Because that deflects the fobbing off. That says, you know … that addresses that issue, doesn’t it?
Catherine:
OK, that’s useful, that’s good.
Viviane:
Allan is suggesting that Catherine gives Jack more choices about the design of his professional learning. Giving choice is not incompatible with the ISTE making suggestions about how to proceed as long as there is careful checking with the teacher.
Moment 3c
Catherine:
So, Jack, I’ve got a suggestion around how to involve the students a little bit more around your writing samples. And as I’m explaining it to you, I want to check in to see how you, whether you are understanding it first of all, but also how you feel about giving it a go. And if you think it’s not going to work, that’s when I want to know, ‘cause I want you to guide the conversation basically.
Jack:
OK.
Catherine:
OK?
Jack:
Yep.
Catherine:
You had some fantastic writing samples. You put them all up, and then you talked about them in great depth. And what I’m going to suggest to you is switching that around a little bit so that the kids can look at the samples, they can come up with what’s quality about it, and then maybe come up with some success criteria around that. And I’m just wondering what you think of that whole little process? Or whether you even understand what I’m talking about?
Viviane:
Catherine has given her suggestions and clearly invited Jack to say whether he agrees or disagrees with them.
Jack:
Yep, so you’re saying that I do all that work for the kids?
Catherine:
Yeah.
Jack:
And that I could get them to do that … more of that themselves?
Catherine:
Yeah.
Jack:
And why would I want to do that?
Catherine:
Well, the reasoning behind that is that whole notion of having kids being partners in the learning, which eventually leads to them having more ownership of the learning, leading to more independence in the learning. Have you heard of that notion of self-regulated learners? Yeah, and so it’s about shifting the focus from you being the expert all the time to the kids having some input into that. So it’s not just …
Viviane:
Catherine has sufficient theoretical knowledge to provide clear reasons for her suggestions. The reasons help Jack to think more deeply about the alternative he is being asked to consider.
Jack:
Would you see it as a problem that the kids … it would take longer? And it would be longer before they got to the writing stage?
Catherine:
And that would be something that you would have to just live with for a little while. But what I suggest you do is give it a go, and see if it’s worth spending the extra time to have the kids actually involved. Because that will be what will make the difference, I suspect, into changing some of your teaching. If you can see a difference in kids’ interactions, or in kids’ quality of writing, or even the research would say that ...
Viviane:
Catherine is not claiming that the alternative will be better, only that it is worth trying and seeing what difference it makes to the students. She is encouraging Jack to test the effectiveness of the suggested approach by experimenting.
//
Allan:
Stop talking and check in with me. Because that’s what I want, I’m wanting you to check in with me there. “So does it sound reasonable?” would be something that would, that gives me ...
//
Catherine:
Does that sound reasonable?
Jack:
Yeah, it does. It does actually.
Viviane:
This could have been another opportunity for Catherine to ask herself why she did not stop to check how Jack was reacting. If there is a connection between Catherine’s fear of refusal and her failure to check, she needs multiple opportunities to interrupt those thought patterns and to practise checking.
//
Allan:
So going out of role here, that was the most engaged I’ve been in that whole conversation.
Moment 3d
Catherine:
And that’s because I respected you to be able to ...
Allan:
You gave me the opportunity to speak.
Catherine:
Yeah, OK.
Michael:
But then she started to go on a bit.
Catherine:
I got into that again.
Allan:
It’s almost like you’re not trusting me to understand. And so I feel like you have to re-convince me again and again. Whereas if it was just, “Is that making, is it making sense to you or do you need …” Yeah, then that would give me that opportunity to say, “Yep, I understand, and I’m actually quite engaged now.”
Catherine:
And if it comes back to the theory, it’s about respecting you as a learner and as a person that catches on really quickly, and that I don’t have to do the whole barrage. But it’s about checking in all the time. It’s interesting, isn’t it? You think you have to talk more to convince, but in actual fact it’s … it’s gauging, which you do with kids as well, gauging how much support or scaffolding that they need.
Viviane:
Catherine is learning more about what her sincere desire to respect Jack means in practice. She accepts the suggestion that it means checking more frequently with him about what he has understood and whether he needs more explanation.
Michael:
And how little they need, in fact, is the case here, isn’t it?
Catherine:
That’s right, yes.
Michael:
So I think there’s quite profound learning in there for you around that, because it’s, “How do you cue yourself?” – and I don’t know the answers – “How do you cue yourself to stop arguing and start checking much earlier on than you have done?”
Catherine:
Yeah, I think it’s … When you’re working with people that you know are on that learning journey with you and that the conversation flows really, really easily … And I think you’re probably more aware of how you’re going to say something to someone who’s a little bit resistant. So you think you have to talk more, whereas in actual fact you probably don’t. It’s good learning, isn’t it.
Viviane:
Catherine is realising that her strategy of persuading harder when she senses disagreement or reluctance may be counterproductive because it reduces the opportunity for smooth collaborative planning of the learning experience. In addition, the more she persuades, the less likely she is to get trustworthy feedback from Jack, and she needs that feedback in order to facilitate effectively.
Reference
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., and Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
