Return-Path: <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id SAA27888; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 18:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 18:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <bd005d53.25004d5f@aol.com> Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Mkenned99@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:116] more MI stuff X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: OR In a message dated 08/19/1999 3:00:14 PM Central Daylight Time, Barbara_Garner@jsi.com writes: << Can you share more specifics: what were you teaching? What did you do? What was the reaction of your students? >> Dear Barbara: Thank you for asking. Here are "more specifics:" I run a court-ordered parent education program for families with children ages birth - 10 yrs. As with many ABE - type students, my students often have many life challenges -- compounded in my class by either having had their children removed from their custody or by having the threat of removal hanging over their heads. They don't want to be in my class when they arrive. Parents and their children attend the program together and are in separate structured groups for the first part of the evening and then together for parent-child interaction time at the end. The "messy class" I wrote about was one of the last in a series of 16 classes. Small groups of students were each given pictures of different "behavior management" situations and asked to address a set of questions for each situation: "What's happened, happening, who, how old, why, what could a parent do and say?" And then to further consider the questions: "What is the parent trying to teach? What is the parent modelling? What is the child learning? Are the answers to these three questions the same or different? Why?" I told students they could choose to demonstrate their responses to these situations and questions by either writing the answers to each question, performing a skit or song, or drawing or creating a collage, and they could use whatever material they found in the room. One group performed skits of their situations (much of the mess was made by this group!), one group drew pictures on large paper with some of the questions answered in large writing with markers, another group had one member make very brief notes of their discussion and he then reported for his group, and the last group wrote out their answers in detail and together shared in reporting their answers to the large group. Everyone was engaged in the process and focused on the content, and they were lively and excited to "dig in" and plan their presentations. It was great! One of the students in the "skit" group said "No other teacher has ever been able to get through to me. I've learned so much!" Having worked with her for some time now, I'm certain that no one has ever given her "permission" to express herself in "non-traditional" ways. The students in the "drawing/marker" group were the quietest members of the group, and their presentation got everyone's attention and enabled these members to really "show off" what they knew in ways that they have had difficulty doing in large group discussions. I've used this modified "Choose three" activity when introducing the idea of child development/expectations. My students have the raw material; they have kids! I give prompts of the kinds of things I want them to tell the rest of the group about a given age/stage and they decide how they will present their "data." As facilitator, I "translate" their "data" (picture, skit, list) into the language of Piaget and Erikson -- the "stuff" in their books, the notions and phrases we hear in the popular literature and media -- and with them I turn it all into a chart/matrix that stays up in the classroom for the rest of the program for us to refer to. The other thing I have modified as a result of the FOB-MI issue is my nightly class evaluation form. Instead of asking what they liked or didn't like about each class, I ask, "What happened in class that helped you learn? What didn't help you learn? What would have helped you learn better?" My tendency has been to want a "diagnosis" or assessment at the beginning of a program and then proceed. But, from what I understand of MI theory, and as two researcher/authors seemed to have found out themselves, asking for self-reports from students in this way is much more immediate and accurate for classroom planning anyway. I am a linguistic learner. I love words and talk and analysis. I still have large and small group discussions, ask questions and offer reading material and worksheets, but my classroom isn't exclusively this way anymore. I can see that my valuing other ways of learning and expression help me help my students more than I ever would have thought before I tried enhancing my lessons using MI theory. The ironic thing is, what we in the program try to teach our students is that young children learn through play; dramatic play, reading books, building towers, singing songs, touch, experimentation . . . . If I want my students to value that kind of teaching/learning for their children, I have to model it everywhere -- not just with their children while they are in the program -- but in the adult classroom, too! I would like very much to hear how others have thought about and used MI theory in their work. Thanks again everyone! Mary Kennedy Family & Youth Services Bureau 253 W. Lincolnway Valparaiso, IN 46383 (219) 464-9585
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 11:03:57 EDT