Wk 3- Reading-Buts Should be/Could be Ands

Wk 3- Reading-Buts Should be/Could be Ands

 As I’ve continued reading the Art of Possibility (chapters 5-8), I've considered how some concepts presented relate to the art and practice of teaching. Zander (2010) reminded me that as teachers, we teach no matter where we are positioned. I think this is really necessary with today’s boom in virtual learning and mobile technology. Teachers may or may not use a podium. In 21rst century engaged, personalized, and student centered learning, it’s most appropriate for teachers to step back sometimes. Often the teacher’s role is as a guiding facilitator, encouraging students to believe in and follow their own interests, passions, and questions for motivation as they learn the concepts necessary.

What is key for Zander's concepts to work in classrooms?

<--more--!>

In order to do that effectively, teachers need to, as the book mentioned, grant greatness to our students. The book asked, “How much greatness are you willing to grant?” (Zander, 2010, p.104) which I think is a great checkpoint question for educators. It’s important to ask ourselves why we don’t give students more charge in their learning and address those issues. For instance, do we tend to “stay in charge” as teachers, not relinquishing our perceived control, because we’d be threatened of losing control? What might that look like and would it definitely be a bad thing? (In order to let go we need to operate from a balanced central self as the book called it rather than a calculating one that operates defensively in survival mode.) Do we believe students will take charge of their own learning as we expect them to? Are our expectations fair or even accurate? How do we know or can we? Are there ways to ensure a commitment from the students to take charge as we encourage autonomy? How do we know if we don’t try?

How much greatness are you willing to recognize?

Expectations are mentioned since part of becoming a dynamic teacher involves what the book referred to as “throwing out the shoulds”.  Essentially, it suggested that conflict resolution happens more easily when leaders shift focus from what should have been (with blame and denial) to what could have been. While I agree, I envisioned applying this in my own practice. As a teacher we must hold certain expectations of our students just as our students hold certain expectations from us. If this is true, then how can there not be “should haves” as a by-product of that?  Then, like Zander recommended changing the word but to and, I extend that thinking to try changing the words “should have” to “could have”. Then it’s possible to consider alternate paths as a reflection for the better good instead of non-productively pointing fingers.

To make this work in the classroom, we need to lay clear expectations for specific student actions, due dates, detailed responsibilities, but when it comes to the larger, broader outcomes of lessons, labs, and projects, we need to be open to how it may evolve, implement, and pan out. It may not be as we expected if we do invite students to act as their own guides more often.

Then expectations of the teacher would have to include checking to make sure students know how to develop their thinking and implementing as they work toward the comprehension of concepts even as its personalized. Checking that those curricular concepts are hit within the students’ implementation processes or making connections evident to ensure they recognize that what they’ve done ties in relatively to what they need to know. (as declared by State Board of Education.)

What is key for Zander's concepts to work in the classroom?

Finally, my favorite, most applicable suggestion from Zander’s book recommended supplanting the word “but”, which grammatically and inherently sets up a contradiction, with the word “and”. We’ve been taught to grammatically set up sentences this way since childhood. It supports a very narrow, polarized way of considering the world categorizes opposites in a childish black/white fashion. This in turn lends itself easily to the survivalist’s thinking mode of the calculating self. This and that, as well as us and them, are opposites on polarized sides. It is the way many of us have become used to thinking about things, as if everything is fighting or debating.

I was surprised at how liberating it is to simply remove the word but and substitute it with and. Then the contradictions falls away and everything just is the way it is. From there we can operate in a much more productive manner for problem solving and innovation moving forward. Is this important? On a personal level I say, yes! On a national level, considering education has become so political in a dichotomized political system of perceptions and affiliations, I say another resounding yes!

This week, I challenge you to try making buts into ands and should haves into could haves to see for yourself, but you don’t have to-I mean- and you don’t have to! That's what I should have-no could have said and now did!

Sources

Zander, B. & Zander R. (2000). The Art of Possibility: Transforming Professional and Personal Life. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Key pic obtained from:  http://www.freeimageslive.com/galleries/home/general/pics/key0001.jpg
Star pic obtained from: http://www.freeimages.co.uk/galleries/light/index.htm