In a recent GCP session, we did an exercise in which we looked at a Venn diagram which represented intersections between personal, academic, and disciplinary identity.  As with most Venn diagrams, there were areas were only two of the identities overlapped, and a tiny triangle in the middle that represented the intersection of all three identities.

I guess I found that this Venn diagram didn’t really fit my understanding of my own identities, so I didn’t really find filling it out very productive or enjoyable.  If my personal, academic, and disciplinary identities only overlapped in a few ways (as represented by a tiny triangle), why would I be in the field I’m in?!?  I have invested time, money, hard work, intellectual effort, and heart ache to get to this point, and presumably my three different identities must be compatible and similar for me to be successful and happy where I am now.
NB: To me, this is one of the ultimate failures of Venn diagrams, or perhaps the way Venn diagrams are used.  The concept is clever, but the size and scale of the circles needs to be considered extremely carefully, so that the areas of overlap are actually proportional.  I think if we used squares instead of circles we would be much better at this (because people just aren’t very good at drawing circles, but we are good at drawing squares, and we tend to take more time to consider their size before we draw them).
NB: The idea of having separate personal, academic, and disciplinary identities (as well as, presumably, family, relationship, consumer, etc., identities), seems wrong to me.  I don’t think people have one unified identity, but I don’t think it is so easy to even partially untangle and/or label parts of people/identities.  I think people are more complex — for example, family issues may influence academic behaviours, which can become part of disciplinary beliefs.

We also talked about how disciplines can exclude people, or groups of people.  This seems to be a problem in environmental education — practitioners and researchers are concerned about “the lack of diversity.”
I know that it is easy for my to feel personally comfortable in environmental education as an academic and professional discipline because of the privilege that I was born with (race, class, socioeconomic status) which allows me to pursue expensive outdoor activities and higher education.
Filling in a Venn diagram does not address the implicit expectations and assumptions of my discipline that keep less fortunate people, or those with a different upbringing, from feeling comfortable within the boundaries of my discipline.  Nor does it encourage me about the future of environmental education in terms of increased “diversity.”

I do not believe that it is the job of any teacher, or any discipline, to “teach” certain ways of seeing/believing to students; rather, it is a teacher’s job to present different ways of knowing to students and to facilitate the students’ understanding of the concepts.  “Teaching” has an overtone of forced belief, which I do not support.  Further, it would be pointless to try, since it is virtually impossible to force someone to believe something they don’t want to believe.
It is certainly possible that disciplines exclude those who don’t think the same way as they do, and don’t make a great effort to explain themselves to others, just remaining closed and exclusionary.  I maintain this is better than forcing square pegs into round holes.  Of course, it would be best for disciplines to be more open to multiple ways of thinking — but then might they lose their identity as disciplines?

My second teaching practicum this term took place in one of the courses I TA in, a first year seminar for science students.  The goals of the course are to help first year science students start to think about science beyond just the content that they receive in their lectures, and to consider what it means to think like a scientist, how to communicate in science, what the nature of science is, and how science and society are related.

The class I taught was very near the end of the course, and was part of the “Science and Society” unit.  This unit is new this year, and all of the instructors and TAs were creating much of the content on the fly (usually there is a very structured lesson plan to follow for every class).   The class I taught had a couple of suggested activities in the lesson plan, but I was free to modify them or drop them completely if I wished.  I chose to keep them, but change them so that they facilitated the over-all learning objective of my lesson.

The learning objective was to have the students realize that while science influences society, and society influences science (ideas we had discussed in previous classes), society also influences who we think of as scientists.
My teaching goals were
1. To use PCK effectively during the lesson.
2. To use a pedagogy of interactive communication.
3. To facilitate meaningful learning, by helping students connect new information to their prior relevant knowledge.
My mentor evaluated me on these three goals, as well as using the COPUS instrument (http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/COPUS.htm), which is an incredibly valuable and informative tool for teaching evaluation, that I had never heard of before.

I started the class by reminding the students that I would be the instructor and that the instructor would be the TA, introducing my mentor, and reminding the students that he was there to watch me, not them, because I was taking a class to become a better teacher and practice teaching was a part of the class.
Then we moved to the first activity, in which I asked each student to draw a scientist.  I emphasized that nobody else was going to look at the picture, so it didn’t matter if it was a “good” drawing or not (usually when we start the class with writing, I immediately collect it, and I wanted to be clear that I would not collect the drawings; we also share a lot of work in the class, and I wanted to emphasize that this wouldn’t happen either, since it was the first time we had done any drawing). This set up the class for later meaningful learning.

I had them put their drawings away and take out their homework, which was to find some interesting research done by a UBC scientist.  I told them to share it with their groups, and that they had to “sell” their research, since they had to decide whose was most interesting.  Some groups finished quickly, and others were slow.  As well, some groups had trouble deciding whose was most interesting.  To solve this, I had the people who were the top candidates both present the research they found in 10 (really 15) seconds and let the whole class vote.  This lead to spontaneous applause, and it was pretty awesome.  This, or something similar would be a much better way to present the homework in the future (my mentor also suggested some other good ideas).  This activity required PCK, since it was related to the overall unit and since I had to adapt to my specific class.  The class worked in small groups, which I know is their preferred form of communication and learning.  I don’t know how meaningful this learning was for them — I hope some of them found research that was connected to their prior knowledge, and that they understood.

We moved to the next activity, which was thinking of examples of different kinds of science in their daily lives.  This was a much more meaningful activity.  As I had been teaching this class all term, I knew they would be able to do this activity (PCK).  They worked in their groups, and then we reported out to the whole class (different kinds of communication).
Talking to my mentor afterwards, I realized that I might be giving students too long to do tasks in group work.  I tend to wait for the slowest group to be done, and that probably means the quicker groups get bored.  I am going to try to change this and see what happens.

In the last activity, I had them take out their drawings, and I asked them if the scientist they drew looked like any of the researchers we had talked about during class — most said no.  I asked if the scientist looked like them — again no.  Mostly they drew an old white guy.  And I wondered why that was, since they all want to be scientists.  There was DEAD SILENCE.
There was some discussion about the reasons, and about naming female scientists, but they really got the point. (Meaningful learning, PCK, communication).
I asked them to draw themselves as scientists, as suggested they frame the picture, or put it on their walls.
About 1/4 of the class thought this was the best part of the lesson.  Another 1/4 liked the previous activity, and how it showed science was all around us.  I think this has something to do with the different levels of critical thinking amongst the students.

The other point my mentor mentioned was that I could use even more communication strategies, and that I was never really a co-learner.  This relates to what came up in my other teaching practicum, that I can let students answer each others’ question instead of giving all the answers myself.  Something to work on.

It’s time to reflect on the list of disciplinary behaviours I created several weeks ago in terms of transformations that are key to my discipline.  Here is the original list:

“7 Important Disciplinary Behaviours of Outdoor Environmental Educators

For my second GCP teaching observation, I watched (and participated in) an Inquiry class for pre-service teachers.

I was particularly watching for
1) the instructor’s use of PCK2) the different kinds of communication that facilitated the students’ learning
3) whether the instructor was able to make the content meaningful by helping the students connect it to relevant prior knowledge

The class started off sort of slowly.  The instructor had a very casual check-in with the students, during which they could bring up anything of interest to them that they had seen or read in the last week, or they could talk about how they were feeling about their program in general, or they could ask questions.  While this was a discussion for the whole class in a way, it was ok if some students had brief small group discussions at the same time.  The instructor did not always answer the questions or comment right away — she made space for other students to share their thoughts and ideas.
I have always admired this instructor’s skill in creating this extremely welcoming atmosphere at the beginning of her classes.  She creates a unique sense of community, in which everyone’s contribution and voice is valued to the extent that they wish to participate.  There is no time pressure, and no pre-determined content to cover.  I think this is an example of a very special kind of PCK which frames the rest of the lesson appropriately, by creating an open atmosphere.  Students are already communicating and learning and teaching, and the topics are very relevant to their lives.

The official lesson began, and the class continued with some work they had started during the last class.  This was focused on telling stories about physical objects.  Here, the instructor showed extensive PCK about specific kinds of communication, and invited the students to share their own efforts at creative expression/communication.  It was amazing to see how a class with 40 students felt like a small group.  I don’t know if the students felt that way, but I did, and have had the same experience when taking a class from this instructor.  She achieves this through PCK, but also by her body language and non-verbal communication.  When she focuses on a student, she will smile with genuine delight and joy, and the whole room lights up with a feeling of connection and inclusion.  She shares her own stories and foibles, and checks her ego at the door (as they say).

Additionally, the whole lesson she gives the students becomes incredibly relevant and meaningful to them because she keeps suggesting the ways that the students (who are pre-service teachers) can deliver a lesson like this when they are teaching in their own classrooms.  And they way she makes suggestions or listens to their ideas is very open — there are no wrong answers, only multiple possibilities.

This was really one of the most effective lessons I have seen, in terms of PCK, communication, and meaningful learning.  It is almost frustrating to watch such an instructor, because I can’t imagine ever being so good.  Of course, her style and mine aren’t the same, but she is an amazing role model.  But so many of the things she does are hard to qualify, and thus hard to emulate.

Part of the GCP is practicing teaching, paying specific attention to the concpets that have been introduced in the program.

At the end of October, I taught a guest lesson in a graduate course on case study research methodology.  One of my GCP mentors came to the class and participated as well as evaluated me.
My goals were 1) to work on using Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) while teaching (I define PCK as a good understanding of the appropriate and effective pedagogy for the content and learners in a specific class), and
2) to give students a chance to learn by communicating with me and with each other.

To begin the lesson, I introduced myself and had all of the students introduce themselves to me.  I made sure to write down their names, and their research areas if possible, so that I could refer to them by name later in the class.
The first thing I did was talk about the process of doing case study research (the students had read an article I had published based on a case study), to give the students idea of what is involved that they would not read about in a journal.  I did not want to focus on my findings specifically, because the class was about case study, not early childhood or environmental education (the topic of my paper).  I set aside time for questions, and answered them during my short lecture as well.  I believe this kept the class engaged.
Next I introduced a small group discussion, based on the principles and characteristics of case study that the class already knew.  I highlighted three questions the groups could discuss.
The discussion and question part of the class went on for much longer than I expected it to, but it was very fruitful.
I showed some of the children’s drawings from my research to illustrate some of my points.
I also talked about my method of data collection, observation, and then had the class do an activity to practice observing one another.
After this, I read the poem “The Blind Men and the Elephant”.  In retrospect, I was pretty rushed at the end, and probably should have skipped this.

Before the class, I was worried about having adequate PCK, as I was just dropping in to the class as a guest teacher.  To alleviate this, I spoke with the regular instructor about how she understood the overarching narrative of the class, what they had already covered, what they would cover, and what she thought would be helpful for me to discuss.  I checked my ideas for the lesson with her.  As well, she was able to tell me who was in the class, and since some of the students were familiar to me, this was very helpful.  Finally, I had taken a class from the instructor previously, so I was familiar with her pedagogical style.
Ultimately, my mentor gave me quite positive feedback on my level of PCK.  She commented that I created a comfortable classroom climate by learning people’s names, showing a sense of humour, and explaining clearly what I planned to do during the lesson.  She indicated that I showed content knowledge as I was able to answer questions that emerged.
She also pointed out areas where I can improve: instead of answering all of the questions myself, I could turn the question back to the class so that students can participate more and teach each other more.My mentor also suggested that I could have reviewed the article at the beginning of the class.  I specifically did not do this, because, as a student, I find this incredibly boring and annoying.  However, since I did not know the class very well, I probably should have checked to see how many students had read the paper.

Teaching this grad class was an enjoyable challenge.  I felt prepared, and as usual had to adapt my plan on the fly.  The comments I received from the students indicated that they enjoyed most of the class, and that they thought the part I taught best was either when I was talking about my own work, or the chance I gave them to do the observation activity.  This tells me that I am not as comfortable with the content knowledge about case study as I should be, if I were to teach a whole case study course.  It confirms my belief that students enjoy active learning and learning through interactive communication instead of lectures.