PHASE 2
Students Direct The Conversation
After reviewing the literature and findings from phase 1, I attempted to continue the trajectory of success. Students are showing more ownership of their actions by the increase of productive class time they have been exhibiting which has resulted in an increase in their class grade. More noticeably, the ELL student population has increased in all areas of data collection.
As seen with the exit slips, 91% of the students enjoy the informal conversations we have been having. The results suggest that the journal have led to an increase in productivity and grade scores both as class averages and for ELL students.
Phase 2 is a continuation of the dialectical journals with one change, the student direct the conversation with the teacher. They will ask questions or render comments, the teacher responds, and students respond to the teacher response with answers the teacher asks or additional questions of their own. The technique used here is a role reversal giving students more power in where our dialectical conversations go. The dangers of this role reversal is without any prompting can/will the students make any meaningful conversation with the teacher? I can negate this effect by choosing a topic with a wide range of possible directions the conversation can lead and give the students the choice to pick whichever direction they please.
I found within my review of the literature a reinforcement of this notion. As Carol Cox concluded in her article Literature-Based Teaching: A student Response-Centered Classroom, "Teachers must recognize that their students acquire knowledge in this fashion; they must take responsibility for student learning by providing a classroom environment where they initiate activities that facilitate experiences which engage students in the active construction of meaning and knowledge about themselves and the world" (Cox, 1997). The dialectical journal, when properly implemented, is a powerful means of cultivating such an environment as it encourages students to problem-solve and construct their own meaning in a self-directed, specific, and authentic manner.
It was after reading articles like these that led me to reintroduce the journaling segment with this role reversal change. Even though these theories focus on students using response journals as a supplement to understanding assigned texts, it makes sense for this theory to transfer to students using dialectical journals in that the same metacognitive process is taking place. If the amount of investment and effort given in a class is personal as theorized by Hannam (1971), Spack and Sadow (1983) and Pomeroy (1999), it should be governed by the students as opposed to established by teachers, then perhaps students should have a say in the learning process as well.
As seen with the exit slips, 91% of the students enjoy the informal conversations we have been having. The results suggest that the journal have led to an increase in productivity and grade scores both as class averages and for ELL students.
Phase 2 is a continuation of the dialectical journals with one change, the student direct the conversation with the teacher. They will ask questions or render comments, the teacher responds, and students respond to the teacher response with answers the teacher asks or additional questions of their own. The technique used here is a role reversal giving students more power in where our dialectical conversations go. The dangers of this role reversal is without any prompting can/will the students make any meaningful conversation with the teacher? I can negate this effect by choosing a topic with a wide range of possible directions the conversation can lead and give the students the choice to pick whichever direction they please.
I found within my review of the literature a reinforcement of this notion. As Carol Cox concluded in her article Literature-Based Teaching: A student Response-Centered Classroom, "Teachers must recognize that their students acquire knowledge in this fashion; they must take responsibility for student learning by providing a classroom environment where they initiate activities that facilitate experiences which engage students in the active construction of meaning and knowledge about themselves and the world" (Cox, 1997). The dialectical journal, when properly implemented, is a powerful means of cultivating such an environment as it encourages students to problem-solve and construct their own meaning in a self-directed, specific, and authentic manner.
It was after reading articles like these that led me to reintroduce the journaling segment with this role reversal change. Even though these theories focus on students using response journals as a supplement to understanding assigned texts, it makes sense for this theory to transfer to students using dialectical journals in that the same metacognitive process is taking place. If the amount of investment and effort given in a class is personal as theorized by Hannam (1971), Spack and Sadow (1983) and Pomeroy (1999), it should be governed by the students as opposed to established by teachers, then perhaps students should have a say in the learning process as well.