Character Sketches as Problem-Solving

Since learning about the impact of conversation patterns on students, I have become more deliberate about structuring the environment so that my students manage their own learning. I have become better at identifying what  I must do to introduce curriculum and then releasing students to teach themselves. This isn't always easy. One of my struggles has been around Language and genre. How on earth can students teach themselves the structure of an unfamiliar genre? I decided to use a character sketch as a test of how to do this.


We began with the word 'characteristics'. Students worked in groups to uncover its meaning.

1. What do you think it means?
2. What are associated words?
3. What doesn't it mean?
4. How might the word be used in Science? in Language? in Math?

Next we took one of the associated words, 'character', for small group discussion. I gave them conversation prompts:

1. What are some of your favourite characters from books and movies?
2.  Who are the most vile villains?
3.  Who are some very weak characters?

The next day, I used  this link to help learners understand the kinds of things one might include when discussing a character. I asked them to picture a friend, foe or family member and privately consider:

• gender, age and name
• appearance
•  physical and personal strengths and weaknesses
• likes and dislikes
• feelings and behaviours towards other characters
• feelings of other characters towards the character
• feelings of character towards himself/herself
• personality at the beginning of the novel
• changes in personality as story progresses
• your opinion about the character

This was a visualization exercise, not something to be shared with the class. Students were free to take risks with their thoughts!

We then read the Rowen character sketch looking for evidence of the above.

Today when students met, I gave them the task of figuring out the structure of a character sketch. We began by looking at the structure of narrative.

Next we looked at the structure of the Science essays they had recently submitted.

Since students have been learning to code, we created an algorithm for the structure.

Finally students worked in groups with the Rowen character sketch to figure out its structure.
I reminded them of the conversation pattern necessary for learning and had them plan for group dynamics.

Groups set to work and I was astounded at the level of conversation between students as they deconstructed the text.

After 20 minutes we regrouped and gathered ideas. I added the word psychological but the rest came from the students.

When I think of the number of times I've stood at the front and told students how to structure a character sketch, I cringe.

Students are now watching the film, The City of Embers, with the intent of writing a character sketch for one of the characters. We began watching before deconstructing the Rowen text which means a few students are faced with a dilemna; the character they have chosen doesn't change.

This is the perfect time to introduce flexibility and creativity into the learning. A mental model works until it doesn't. Then what? Students must learn not to become attached to their models.

This is my opportunity to introduce the types and purpose of characters. Students will work in groups to invent a 5 paragraph character sketch format for a flat character. The character sketch has become a problem solving activity. 

Decentralizing Communication: The Knowledge Building Circle

On Tuesday I took four students to the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat in Toronto to meet with the 100 or so people who decide what Ontario students should be learning, The Gods of Curriculum! My students were there with a number of other students to share their experiences in Knowledge Building classrooms. I will have more to say about the day in a yet to be written post.

During that meeting, research was presented on communication patterns in classrooms and what happens when the teacher is no longer the hub of communication.  Below is a rough interpretation of the data we were shown.

The least amount of learning takes place when communication looks like the pattern below:

TEACHER
STUDENTS

Reading levels and vocabulary begin to increase when communication patterns look similar to the one below. Note that although more discussion is taking place between students, the teacher remains the focus.

The biggest increases in reading levels and vocabulary occur when interactions are primarily between students and the teacher is no longer the center of the classroom.

I presented this information to my grade 6 and 7 classes. I often share research with students to help them understand why things are structured certain ways in our classroom.

 Each class then engaged in peer conversation in slightly different ways.

Grade 6

4 students seated around 1 desk.
1 large sheet of paper on the desk.
Fifth student stands and holds marker to map the conversation flow.

Students were asked to discuss who the Canadian flag bearer at the Olympic closing ceremonies should be. There is a social media campaign to have Gilmore Junio carry the flag even though he did not compete because of the tremendous sportsmanship he showed in giving up his place in the competition to a team mate who stood a better chance of winning a medal.

Once the discussion was finished, groups explained how the pattern represented their conversations and what insights they gained from looking at the patterns.

If students are to have extended conversations that lead to deeper learning, they need strategies for eliciting information from others. To that end, we practised conversation starters that are used in Assertive Inquiry to understand someone's mental model.

Students walked around the room stopped at a partner and had only 2 options for conversation. They had to look at something their partner was wearing and begin with:

"Tell me about ... your jacket."

Once the person had finished speaking, the listener followed up with, "Tell me more about ... (something that was said)."

At the end of the activity we debriefed.

Grade 7

The grade 7s have been pursuing a mini-inquiry based on an article given to me by Cheryl Patterson, one of HWDSB's Student Success Coaches who is in the I-Think Initiative.

Students began the inquiry by discussing their schema on the Olympics.

Next they read the article and annotated the text with observations and questions.

Next we gathered and shared our questions, placing them on The Thinking Matrix.

Students then took their or someone else's questions and sought answers.

Today, after showing the class the research on conversation patterns, we decentralized the room.
Desks were pushed to the outside, chairs placed in a circle and students shared what they had discovered. Initially I had wanted to give every student the opportunity to speak first before questions or comments could be made; however once we began, students felt it would be better to ask questions and make comments in the moment. Whoever was sharing information had control of the conversation. Others raised their hands to indicate they wished to comment or ask questions. Side conversations were not permitted. That meant that I was an equal member in the class and had to raise my hand and wait to be selected to speak.

Students were highly engaged, asked great questions and built on each other's ideas. There were however, many misconceptions and assumptions, as well as conclusions drawn based on half-formed ideas and initial research. A few times students questioned information by asking if the student had confirmed information by visiting more than one site. Several times students offered probable explanations that were pulled out of thin air.

Knowledge Building requires students to recognize and contend with misconceptions and assumptions. The next time we meet, I will reintroduce those terms and we will examine the information being shared to consider whether it should be accepted as fact or if more learning needs to be done. This will be the perfect opportunity to introduce The Ladder of Inference.

Grade 6 Introduction to Integrative Thinking

A news article about the Olympics provided the opportunity to introduce Integrative Thinking to my grade 6 students. The article from The Associated Press tells how athletes competing in the Olympics are not allowed to wear tribute armbands nor stickers honouring those who have died

In the past I might have used this article to teach debating. And while teaching students strategies for arguing leads to lively times, in the end a debate is not all that useful. Skilled debaters' eloquence and wit is admired. One side defeats the other. The good ideas from the opposing side are lost. No solution to the conflict is found. The original tension that arose from the opposing points of view is never resolved.

Given the complex problems facing the world, teaching students to seek entrenched positions and enter into conflict is something that we need to move beyond. Integrative Thinking is about finding creative solutions when opposing points of view arise.

We began by constructing models of the opposing side. This is descriptive and should involve no value judgements.

Identify the Extreme Models

Model 1:  Any Message Allowed

Model 2: No Messages Allowed

Identify Stakeholders

Next we identified 3 stakeholders: IOC, Athletes and Fans. We then looked at how each stakeholder benefits from each model. These are Pro-Pro T-Charts

Identify 1 the Most Significant Benefit for Each Stakeholder from Each Model 

(this is a simplified version of Integrative Thinking)

Students worked in groups of 4 for the next part of the process.

Create a Solution the Includes the Benefits

An interesting solution from another group included every uniform having a black dot to recognize the personal struggles of each athlete. 

At the end of the period we debriefed and discussed the difference between debating and Integrative Thinking. Many students saw that this would prevent arguments. One student recognized that in debating no solution is actually found.

Nice work grade 6s!

Mental Models and Marshmallows

For the next few weeks my grade 7 students will be delving deeply into Integrative Thinking. Initially, I had planned to begin the year with Integrative Thinking. I found, however, that my students were not quite ready to embrace these thinking and problem solving tools. A foundation needed to be set in place, so we've spent our time developing inquiry and collaborative skills. They've now reached a point where I know that they will gain maximum benefit from solving problems and exploring complexity through Integrative Thinking.

We began today with students divided into random groups of 4 and the Marshmallow Challenge Students had 18 minutes (fun timers) to build the tallest structure using only spaghetti, masking tape and string that would support a marshmallow.  At the end of 18 minutes we had 3 standing structures. We then debriefed by watching the Ted Talk and discussing a number of points on collaboration, prototyping and communication.

Next we revisited  a slide show that students had seen in the fall, as it was necessary to refresh their understanding of Mental Models including:

1. We are constantly creating models of the world in our heads.
2. Our models are always incomplete.
3. People hold different models.
4. Model clash.

In light of the marshmallow challenge, we discussed how easy or difficult it had been to communicate the models in their heads of what the spaghetti structures should look like to other members of their groups. Providing students with the experience of struggling to understand someone else's mental model in such a concrete way, deepened their learning.

Students handled this process well. They became comfortable with the idea of models and collaboration.

Exit cards required students to reflect:

1. What do you understand now that you didn't understand before?
2. What is your most significant learning from this activity?

These questions are deliberately vague and open-ended. They don't require students to provide the answer that they think the teacher wants. Instead, students are free to articulate their own insights.

Informal Support for Integrative Thinking - A Different Kind of PD

On Tuesday February 4 the HWDSB Integrative Thinking Initiative had its first informal support meeting. Part of the shift we are trying to make with this project is developing a professional Collaborative Culture as described in In Conversation: Leading the Instructional Core:

Fullan and Hargreaves (1991), in What’s Worth Fighting for: Working Together for Your School describe three noncollaborative cultures: 

1. Balkanization – separate and competing groups seek power and influence for their own ends.
2. Comfortable Collaboration – staff stay out of deeper, more extended relationships that
could foster problem-solving, exchange of craft knowledge and professional support.
3. Contrived Congeniality – characterized by a set of formal, specific, bureaucratic procedures
to increase the attention being given to joint planning, consultation and other forms of working together.

These noncollaborative cultures do not encourage the level of professional interaction, collegiality and pressure that supports school improvement. Collaborative Cultures, in contrast, are not balkanized, simply congenial, or only structures of shared work. Instead they are cultures that support deeper, richer professional exchange.

Because the Integrative Thinking Initiative is just getting started, we were not a large group, perhaps 10. What was interesting though was the make-up of the group: Teachers, a Principal, a Vice-Principal, Student Success Coaches, a Consultant and a Superintendent. We sat around a table and discussed Integrative Thinking from the perspectives of those working directly with students, those helping teachers develop Integrative Thinking curriculum and those at the board level who bring the larger board vision to the work we are doing. 

This was a conversation where I didn't feel the "hierarchy". There was a time when teachers would never have felt comfortable sharing their challenges understanding and implementing a new practice directly with  a Superintendent for fear of being judged inadequate. To be moving beyond that is refreshing and useful. 

Teachers brought ideas for lessons they are developing and results from initial attempts at Opposable Models and Causal Modeling as well as questions. 

Things we discussed:

1. Why we build extreme models.

2. When building models, being very conscious of describing the models and not attaching value judgements or perceived benefits to the models.

3. The difference between debating, which places people into conflict and Integrative Thinking, which is solution focused.

4. Suggestions on how to improve lesson ideas.

5. Clarification on mental models.

6.  Clarification on why we build models.

7. Causal modeling. 

8. Conflict - students need to recognize differences between bullying and conflict.  

The environment was relaxed and helpful. I'm looking forward to more of this!

Yes and ... sometimes its about direct instruction.

This very teacher-directed lesson will become part of our exploration of Mental Models.


After ending our War of 1812 Inquiry, where within the constraints of the discipline students were free to demonstrate their learning in ways meaningful to them as long as their work could be QR coded, my 7s now find themselves in an extremely teacher directed learning environment. It's necessary. There are gaps evident and sometimes (see John Hattie) explicit instruction is the way to go.  This assignment is not about "THE BIG IDEA". It's about filling in a few holes in the foundation so that the next time students enter into Inquiry, they are better able to communicate their learning.

The task was developed by our middle school Science teacher, Jacqui Swartz, who with very little time, has an inordinate amount of curriculum to cover. We've decided to combine Science and Language.

The activity is laid out step by step. Students understand that we are "hoop jumping". We are engaged in this task to develop a skill. Practice is needed the same way hockey players practice shots. The structure or essay formula is important. Just as a mechanic is not free to put brakes together in "ways meaningful to him or her", a student must learn to follow instructions.

Below is the grade 6 version.

My students know that they are following a recipe and why we are doing it. It's quite interesting to watch how they approach learning with this kind of task.

What Stuck From Last Year?

Sometime within the next few weeks, the LNS will be releasing its Knowledge Building site which features a number of my last year\s grade 7 and 6 students speaking about how we learned.

What I wanted to find out before the students see themselves is what do they remember? What has stayed with them? What approaches to thinking about problems do they continue to use? What strategies are they continuing to apply when facing a complex problem. So, I pulled them aside one at time to ask what has stuck with them.

1 student specifically mentioned finding value in bad ideas. She remembers to do this when considering seemingly bad ideas to help her find what is useful within the idea.

2 students mentioned causal modeling.

Almost all students identified The Ladder of Inference.  They could explain how it worked using relevant vocabulary (data pool, assumptions, conclusions, taking time to understand, deciding whether or not a reaction is needed, shooting up the ladder).  Several discussed how it prevents them from reacting with anger or overreacting. Others use it when observing friends and family members. One discussed how he uses it to try to understand larger global events. Students are using it in the classroom and in their personal lives.

Tomorrow, they will finally have the opportunity to see their footage. It will be interesting to discover what else emerges.

My Grade 7's Work on Moral Machines Reaches The Netherlands

Last fall I had the pleasure of Skyping with Yvonne Zonderop, a journalist from The Netherlands. She had heard about the work my grade 7 students had done on Moral Machines and whether or not machines should be allowed to make moral decisions on behalf of humans. The topic had sprung from a very provocative article written by Gary Marcus in The New Yorker.

Today I received an email from Yvonne that the article is now published. I found her framing of our work interesting. Given how rapidly technology is changing, laws and law-makers can't keep up. The kinds of discussions my students engaged in are the very discussions we need to be having on a national and international scale.

The article is in Dutch, but google translate gives the gist.

Odds and Ends

It's been a busy few weeks!

The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat's Knowledge Building website is about to be released based on the work of Marlene Scardamelia and Carl Bereiter. It represents a huge leap forward in inquiry and takes us so far past the world of standardized testing that I can't wait for its release. I've had a sneak peak because several of my students from last year were filmed explaining how we approached learning, particularly with the work we did with The Rotman School of Management's Integrative Thinking K-12 Initiative. There are many fabulous Ontario teachers and students represented who are fully engaged in Inquiry and Knowledge Building. Audrey Hensen, Dundas Central's former VP is also featured discussing Inquiry from an administrator;s point of view. As well, there are one or two clips where I explain how we approach learning. Four of my students will be visiting the LNS on February 11 to share face to face their experiences with deep thinking.

The HWDSB Integrative Thinking Initiative launched.

The Working Group for Inquiry, a very informal group that meets monthly to share and learn about inquiry, continues to meet. We have room for more members if you're interested.