Sept 23
In EPSE 308, my group was tasked to design a group activity around the topic of risk and resilience. We came up with a plan to split our class into 6 groups, with each one of us leading a group through identifying elements of risk and resilience in sample stories we would provide. We took that a step further, and each took on one of three following leadership styles: Positive/Supportive, Neutral/Non-interactive, and Nay-Sayer/Doubter, as we were interested in how those traits might affect our classmates’ abilities to complete their assignment.
We ran our idea past our seminar instructor who gave us the thumbs up. So, come class time, we arranged the classroom into 6 groups of desks and placed a few copies of a story and a sheet of questions on each table. The Positive/Supportive leaders shuffled a few people around to make the groups even. Then we went to work.
I had been thinking all week about how a Nay-Sayer/Doubter would act, and I came up with a more subconscious, body language oriented method. So, during my group’s discussion I stood just inside their comfort zones and hovered above them with my arms crossed. I tried so hard not to smile or give nods of encouragement, but I did catch myself nodding at a couple of moments, my natural supportive nature escaping. I walked around the group, peering over people’s shoulders at the passage and would ask the same question multiple times, or ask them to clarify where they found their answers within the passage. I could see the effects almost instantaneously when they began to avoid eye contact with me and their energy reverted back into themselves. They became less keen to talk to each other the longer we went and more anxious as they second-guessed themselves because I had asked a question twice; which to them meant the first answer was wrong (it wasn’t). I was really proud of my group’s ability to continue on as best they could regardless of my actions. Meanwhile, I was hurting inside watching my classmates, with such bright minds with great attitudes, go through dealing with what I was embodying and how much it affected them; knowing that there might be people out there who are indeed like what I was portraying.
After our 15 minutes were up, my fellow Nay-Sayer/Doubter revealed our leader characteristics for what they were. There were a few “aha!” and “I knew it!”s around the classroom. Then, as a whole class we discussed the effects that people felt and what we witnessed as the leaders:
My group tried to rationalize my behaviour at the beginning, giving me the benefit of the doubt with “I thought you just didn’t eat lunch” or “I thought you must’ve just been really tired”. But then moved into becoming annoyed and frustrated with how I would interrupt or cut off a discussion to re-ask the question they were trying to figure out. Other groups found that the Positive/Supportive person would almost end the discussion when they would speak up and say that everything was great and perfect, which eliminated the desire for their group to continue to explore an idea. One of the Neutral/Non-interactive group went off topic and ended up not completing all the questions, while the other were actually pretty self-contained and organized.
We then asked each group to share what they had discovered in their passages and asked questions regarding how our classmates might have helped support the students’ in their stories and how they could bring those techniques into their own classrooms.
All in all, I think that that was one of the most valuable, low-risk, ways of witnessing just how much power we are given as educators and how easily your body language and/or mood can affect your students and surroundings. It scares me not only how easily someone could abuse the power we have, but also how immediate and unquestioningly we are given that power. Being a teacher is a huge responsibility and one not to be taken lightly.
I am very thankful to have had the opportunity to participate in that presentation.
