11 November 2009
Group 4: Wailing wall, Learning
“Wailing Wall”- Learning, Group 4
1. Who are the teachers and learners in the situation? What explicit teaching is going on?
Most of us identified the Sunday school teacher as the teacher & the students as the learners. One person noticed that throughout the course of the class, the clear boundaries because more fluid, as the teacher began learning from her students and working with their abilities.
The teacher had some clear examples she had prepared, like showing them that she couldn’t drink a drink box when she was holding a pen, and needed to let go. It also included the story of the wailing wall, taught in a manner that would interest children of this age.
2. What is the implicit message?
One student commented that implicit learning occurred when the teacher was shocked and shouted out; while she may have had no other intentions, this action may have sent mixed messages and confused them about whether or not she cared for them.
Another person saw that the fact that she continued teaching even after she was sat on, likely gave them the message that she really cared for them.
One person saw implicit learning that God loves them and they are special through the Chosen game. Also, the open space and interactive activities shows them that they are free to be imaginative and sensory.
3. What do they learn though null learning?
Perhaps the lack of prayer at the beginning and end (although it was in the middle) may have sent mixed messages about what the focus of the class was.
Neshama learned that over everything is not always the solution because you’re not the one doing the work.
Null learning also occurred in the fact that the classroom was not regimented, meaning that it would not be a sterile environment, but would adapt to the needs of each child.
4. Depending on which angles you take on each of the previous questions, you get different answers as to whether or not the three types of learning in this situation create a coherent whole. I think that general, it is often the case that something that is implicit or null learning contradicts the explicit larger picture, because a teacher cannot think of ahead of time every possible null/implicit learning that could result from his or her classroom setting, and because teachers, too, are only human. I think it is particularly interesting to attempt to think about them as a coherent whole, however, because it forces us to try and identify the implications of every choice in the classroom and then rectify it to the larger goal of the class by possibly behaving differently or making different choices, if necessary. This way of thinking forces the teacher to be intentional about every choice.
5. Everyone seems to agree that the teacher worked hard to have activities which were appropriate for their ages, and allowed them to learn things through their senses. Nurturing Your Faith mentions welcoming each child in the 5-6 age range, and the text mentions that the teacher does this, but the teacher also plays the Chosen game, which clearly does a good job of making them feel welcome and special.
In summary, the group in general seemed to think that the teacher did a very good job adapting her plan to the age group, and keeping them engaged. We varied as to what was considered null or implicit learning, but we all saw both going on, as well as a lot of really solid explicit learning.
Prayers & Peace,
Group 4 (Julie Bender)
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 11th, 2009 at 11:47 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through this RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
12 November 2009 at 9:20 am
After posting this last evening for our group, I spent time meditating on the Wailing Wall and all the learnings from our group discussion. Every morning I spend time reflecting on the God Pause – and so I did this morning – check out the God Pause for today
)
12 November 2009 at 9:18 pm
Hello Group 4,
The tension in your answer of question number two is interesting. I can see both sides. Of course we don’t know what Lamott shouted,but the kids could have been scared. Then learning also happens when she comes back. I think leaving for a little bit to take a breather an then coming back to fully engage the children in good. It also speaks to having help in the classroom. I think the fact there was also another person in the class points how positive it is to have others involved in the teaching. We don’t see the mom having much verbal part in the teaching, exept at the end. But there is definately a support system in place.
I have taught sunday school and VBS to preschoolers. It is hard to have parents in the classroom. It is great to have them there, but my stress level goes up just slightly? Anyone else?
13 November 2009 at 8:04 pm
Frieda says...
In terms of null learning–what was overlooked–I wonder what was the role of Frederick’s mother. She didn’t seem involved even in managing her child. An issue I see is that Sunday School teachers lack training in “classroom management” so the kids act wild. It would be great if the church community would support the Christian education curriculum as a practice of the faith and more parents would volunteer especially as “shepherds” to help manage kids and demonstrate family invovement as so many introductory posts last week indicated the importance of family in faith formation.
Frieda
14 November 2009 at 2:35 pm
It was hard to tell if in the focal situation the teacher was sharing with us everything that she said to the children. If she was sharing all of her words with us, I think she missed opportunities for explicit learning. For example, she never said that she mentioned to the children what the purpose of the loved and chosen exercise was- was she explicit in letting the children know that God loves and chooses them? If so, this would be explicit learning- but without the explanation it is just implied and the point could be missed- especially with this age group. Similarly with the letting go/box drink exercise; she didn’t do a very good job of explaining to the children what the meaning or purpose of it was.
14 November 2009 at 9:16 pm
I think I saw threaded through this story the learning process of the educational leader: from 1) entering the situation from a fully-loaded stance full of preparations and expectations of perfect transfer of her understanding into the minds of the children, to 2) her frustration when that (for so many obvious reasons) didn’t happen, to 3) giving herself a time out to realize that maybe they might have different approaches to religious education than herself (”grown-up” versus “kid” ritual comforts, e.g.), to 4) beginning to learn her own lesson of letting go, with help from Neshama.
If I read this correctly, then along the way, the author gave us the gift of vulnerability in exposing some of her own inconsistencies, fraud, doubt, and hypocrisy. For example, ritual was an emotional security blanket for her, but she failed at several obvious places to take advantage of the explicit meaning available in it to her students. Did she explain that not only she, but also God, loves and chooses them (we aren’t really told)? She inwardly virtually sneers at the realty of God’s light being brought into the world as she symbolically lights the candles. As Wendy notes, she exegetes the marker / drink box exercise in her own words and experience, rather than in any way intelligible to little boys. In the midst of all her prayer-paper-stuffing, did she ever actually let go of any of her concerns, or trust God (or the glovebox elves) to really care for her and address them, or did she just remain a tangled emotional ball of rubber bands practicing an embodied illusion of prayerful trust? Even in the final paragraph, after she has learned to begin letting go of her role as expert (Palmer object-expert-amateur model), she still has some residual doubt about how much the kids really “get it” (how much of the information and understanding contained in her has been transferred into them).
… or maybe I’m being way too generous, and the essay was in fact just a rich storehouse full of null learning examples?
I have to also echo the comments about her heart-breaking neglect of bringing in the mother/family present in this educational situation. As Frieda notes, this is a (missed) matter of good management. The discomfort it brings is valid, in that it requires flexibility in reshaping the conversation around questions that include the older member as well — which necessarily means the leader needs to let go of controlling the situation. Relinquishing control can be a fearful and desperate matter of faith in any situation! Perhaps if the “teacher” had asked for input from the parent, she would have had some of her burden and anxiety either reduced or shared. And who knows, maybe the anxious vibes the author noted in the mother were not, in fact, a shared disdain of energetic boys, but simply a reflection of the author’s radiated discomfort in the presence of disorder. What a great place for a calming presence!
15 November 2009 at 3:57 pm
hessma says...
what great questions and comments! I think the essay is a deeply personal one that “lets us in” on the typical sort of work that happens in any learning event with children. I would caution against “making explicit” too much of the intentionality of the content through words, because indeed these kids will learn and know something much more powerfully through the relationships and action, then through words at this age.