Contraindications
This project resulted in some unexpected, at times negative, discoveries; these can serve as reminders that while strong relationships are crucial in any line of work as human in nature as teaching, they are also imperfect and unpredictable entities.
For instance, at the onset of this inquiry, I was forced not to use one of the focus students I originally wanted to because he continually failed to show up to our arranged interview times. Because I wanted to specifically target unnoticed, struggling, and under-motivated students, it was often a challenge to get even the students I did choose to show up. I had to personally track down both Harriet and Candice on my final day of student teaching in order to do their last interviews, and I was unable to use a picture showing Phillip's face because he never turned in his photo release form. The takeaway here is that even though both I and my students benefited significantly from this project, the relationships that led to this benefit required much perseverance, as do all relationships of any quality.
It can also be very difficult to build relationships when the process feels forced. It requires energy to pursue interactions with students who do little to indicate a desire for these interactions, and because of this I was not fully successful at bonding with each of the five focus students, having never felt fully comfortable talking to Phillip. This requirement of energy and perseverance also speaks to why there are multiple days in which I did not interact personally with any of the focus students; on these days I just did not have the energy to find or take advantage of opportunities for contact. This raises the question of whether such a line of inquiry can be sustainable for the teacher in the long-term; this will be addressed further in the next section entitled Future Implications.
Taking a look at the specific students, Phillip showed very little in the way of measurable changes, and his uncommunicative temperament made even an informal assessment of change difficult. At the end of the third quarter Phillip had an 84, which was about his average, and Jessica had a 55, which was her lowest grade so far this year. These trends, despite their seemingly negative implications regarding personalized student-teacher interaction, do fit in with the level of interaction I had with each student. The students who improved were the ones who committed the most to working on an improvement plan. Phillip, who neither improved nor declined, was not selected because he had poor grades but rather because he had poor social skills. Because teacher-student interaction is itself a very social thing, Phillip seemed to struggle to gain from it.
Jessica needed but was unwilling to commit to an improvement plan, and while she always came to class she often showed up late. Given that the beginning and end of class were the times during which I most often communicated with focus students, I ended up speaking with her much less than the others given that she was not there at the beginning of class. So it makes sense that her grade might go down even if my increased attempts at personal attention were beneficial for her.
My two major attempts at feedback-driven responsive instruction (the essay workshop and the Great Gatsby literature circle unit) received mixed post-implementation reviews. While the new workshop structure resulted in twice as many focus students submitting essays, Jessica failed to turn one in despite having previously succeeded at doing so. The literature circle structure seemed to benefit Candice, Derek, and Harriet in the ways previously discussed, but it further alienated Jessica from the novel and consequently the class based around it. Phillip expressed an increase in understanding as a result of this unit, but he also used the setup as an excuse to not do any reading on his own.
One could simply conclude from this that no one strategy is going to work for every student, and this would be true. One point of this inquiry, however, is to increase personal attention in a way that allows the teacher insights into why this or that strategy does not work for a given student. Were the inquiry to continue I would still incorporate the strategies that did work for some of the focus students (as well as many other students in the class) while also continuing to build relationships with and solicit feedback from those students who were still not being reached fully-- in this case Jessica and Phillip.
For instance, at the onset of this inquiry, I was forced not to use one of the focus students I originally wanted to because he continually failed to show up to our arranged interview times. Because I wanted to specifically target unnoticed, struggling, and under-motivated students, it was often a challenge to get even the students I did choose to show up. I had to personally track down both Harriet and Candice on my final day of student teaching in order to do their last interviews, and I was unable to use a picture showing Phillip's face because he never turned in his photo release form. The takeaway here is that even though both I and my students benefited significantly from this project, the relationships that led to this benefit required much perseverance, as do all relationships of any quality.
It can also be very difficult to build relationships when the process feels forced. It requires energy to pursue interactions with students who do little to indicate a desire for these interactions, and because of this I was not fully successful at bonding with each of the five focus students, having never felt fully comfortable talking to Phillip. This requirement of energy and perseverance also speaks to why there are multiple days in which I did not interact personally with any of the focus students; on these days I just did not have the energy to find or take advantage of opportunities for contact. This raises the question of whether such a line of inquiry can be sustainable for the teacher in the long-term; this will be addressed further in the next section entitled Future Implications.
Taking a look at the specific students, Phillip showed very little in the way of measurable changes, and his uncommunicative temperament made even an informal assessment of change difficult. At the end of the third quarter Phillip had an 84, which was about his average, and Jessica had a 55, which was her lowest grade so far this year. These trends, despite their seemingly negative implications regarding personalized student-teacher interaction, do fit in with the level of interaction I had with each student. The students who improved were the ones who committed the most to working on an improvement plan. Phillip, who neither improved nor declined, was not selected because he had poor grades but rather because he had poor social skills. Because teacher-student interaction is itself a very social thing, Phillip seemed to struggle to gain from it.
Jessica needed but was unwilling to commit to an improvement plan, and while she always came to class she often showed up late. Given that the beginning and end of class were the times during which I most often communicated with focus students, I ended up speaking with her much less than the others given that she was not there at the beginning of class. So it makes sense that her grade might go down even if my increased attempts at personal attention were beneficial for her.
My two major attempts at feedback-driven responsive instruction (the essay workshop and the Great Gatsby literature circle unit) received mixed post-implementation reviews. While the new workshop structure resulted in twice as many focus students submitting essays, Jessica failed to turn one in despite having previously succeeded at doing so. The literature circle structure seemed to benefit Candice, Derek, and Harriet in the ways previously discussed, but it further alienated Jessica from the novel and consequently the class based around it. Phillip expressed an increase in understanding as a result of this unit, but he also used the setup as an excuse to not do any reading on his own.
One could simply conclude from this that no one strategy is going to work for every student, and this would be true. One point of this inquiry, however, is to increase personal attention in a way that allows the teacher insights into why this or that strategy does not work for a given student. Were the inquiry to continue I would still incorporate the strategies that did work for some of the focus students (as well as many other students in the class) while also continuing to build relationships with and solicit feedback from those students who were still not being reached fully-- in this case Jessica and Phillip.