icebreaker ideas that complement Finkel's proposals

Here are some icebreaker  ideas that are in line with Finkel’s theories:

Toss Out the Negative – Keep the Positive(an opening or closing)

Supplies needed: 3 slips of paper and pencil/pen for each participant

Process Description: This idea will adapt to any subject in which your participants can identify positive and negative traits/behaviors.
· Ask each participant to place three small pieces of paper in front of them on the table. Number the papers from 1 to 3.
· Have participants write one negative trait/behavior (name topic or activity) on paper #1.
· On paper #2, have participants write a positive trait/behavior.
· On paper #3, have participants write down another negative trait/behavior.
· After participants are finished, have them line papers up on table in any order, but all the papers must be in a horizontal row. The order of the papers is up to the individual. Mention to participants that there is no way for you to know in what order they might have placed their papers.
Now, give the group the following instructions: Now we are going to mix up your papers as I give you some brief instructions. All I ask is that you follow my instructions carefully, one step at a time.

1.     Exchange the paper on which you wrote #1 with the paper on its immediate RIGHT. If there is no paper to the immediate right, leave the #1 paper alone.
2. Exchange the paper on which you wrote #2 with the paper on its immediate LEFT. If there is no paper on the immediate left, leave the #2 paper alone.
3. Exchange the paper on which you wrote #3 with the paper on its immediate RIGHT. If there is no paper on the immediate right, leave the #3 paper alone. You have now mixed up your papers!
4. Wave your hand over all the papers and come down on the paper in the MIDDLE of the row. Grab it, ball it up and throw it away! This is a trait/behavior we are trying to eliminate.
5. Only two papers remain. Wave your hand over both papers and come down on the paper on the RIGHT. Grab it, ball it up and throw it away! This is another trait/behavior we are trying to eliminate.
6. Congratulations! You have eliminated two negative traits/behaviors and kept an important, positive trait/behavior.
7. Ask if participants will share the positive trait/behavior they identified. These could all be recorded on flip chart for all participants to see and read.

Discuss the results in a group setting.

:
Creative Training Techniques – A Newsletter of Tips, Tactics and How-To’s for Delivering Effective Training, October 1998, Volume 11, Number 10, page 6.
How this can be used with Parent and Family educational programs:-
This activity can be used for a clear comparison of positive and negative behaviors related to any topic. Identify the subject matter for presentation and then have participants consider positive/ negative traits and behaviors related to topic.

The Rules of the Game

Supplies needed: Soft (kush-type) Ball, game pieces or puzzle, whistle
Process Description: Give people in the group a game implement (either game pieces, puzzle, or kush ball- not all of these). Stand up to play the game.
Say: I have two balls. We are going to play ball. I will tell you when to begin. All I am going to say is that I want you to play ball. I am not going to give you the rules of the game. However, I do have some rules that I want you to follow. When you break one of my rules, I am going to blow this whistle and I may even scold you for not following one my rules. Ok. Start playing ball.
Have a goal in mind for the game (ball should be handed from one person to the next or rolled or tossed). Blow whistle when players break the rules to the game. After a few minutes tell them to stop the game. Ask questions: How did you feel about playing this game? Was it easy to play? Why or why not? Were you able to figure out the rules? How would you feel if I had stopped the game along the way to give you instructions? Why is it important for your children to know the rules you want them to follow? What would make it hard for children to follow the rules you set? What have you learned about playing a game without knowing the tiles that you can apply to disciplining your children?
How this can be used with Parent and Family educational programs:

Motivating With A Potato?
Supplies needed: Sturdy straws

Process Description: This activity is good to use with a training program dealing with the topic of motivation/relationships/leadership.
1. Ask for 2-3 volunteers.
2. Talk about that in order to be a good leader you must “lead by example”.
3. So, to demonstrate this we are going to use these potatoes and straws.
4. Tell the volunteers that they must do exactly as you do.
5. Now, ask the group if they think you can puncture your potato all the way through with the straw – are there any doubters? (You should get some head nods).
Ask the volunteers if they believe you can do it.
6. Next, ask everyone “if I told you I have done this before do you think I can do it?” (you might get some head nods but the majority of them should doubt you). Ask them why they still doubt you (answer: should be because we didn’t SEE you do it yet, it’s just heresay.
7. Now, ask them to motivate you (yelling, clapping, etc.) – now stab the potato with the straw all the way through. Now that you have been successful ask the volunteers if they believe they can do it since they have now seen you be successful. Ask group same question. Should begin to have more believers than doubters at this time.|
8. Now have volunteers stab potato. Have group yell and clap for them. When they have been successful ask the group if they think they could do it now.
9. If one of the volunteers in not successful have them try again and state that we always “dust ourselves off and try again” if we wish to be successful at anything.
10. NOTE: In order for this to work you must have a sturdy straw and you must hold your thumb over the top of the straw to create air pressure. Also, don’t be timid, you must use a lot of force. Practice at home until you feel confident. With my experience, most people can do it within the first three tries. Have plenty of straws in case some break. The potatoes are NOT cooked.
How this can be used with Parent and Family educational programs: This activity is good to use with a training program dealing with the topic of motivation/relationships/leadership.

IDEAS FROM:

Contact name, county and email address:
Matt Devereaux, Ph.D.
University of Tennessee mdevereaux@utk.edu

is this possible?

Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students. —Paulo Freire

I love the idea of this but there are many facets that must be considered: power/authority issues, direction of course, sequential questioning.

In your opinion is it possible?

Chapter 9- Conclusions

Teaching with Your Mouth Shut, by Donald L. Finkel

Chapter 9- Conclusion: Providing Experience, Provoking Reflection

Key Points:

“Teaching with your mouth shut entails (a) avoiding the natural temptation to teacher through Telling, and (b) providing students with instructive experiences and then provoking them to reflect on those experiences” (p. 162).

“The only limits to how far a teacher may go in “creating circumstances that lead to significant learning in others are (1) her own imagination, and (2) the practical constraints within which she must operate” (p. 162).

·         Students learn from experiences, not verbal instructions. Jean-Jacques Rousseau posited that this type of education relies upon four pillars:

1.    Focus on the child’s natural development

2.    Remove the child from dangerous influences

3.    Create a supportive relationship between teacher and student

4.    Careful supervision of the environment by the teacher

·         By “providing an experience” that is “provoking reflection of the that experience”  you are creating a thinking environment

·         John Dewey reflected on the need to distinguish the difference between intelligence and thinking. According to him, “No person can directly convey an idea to another person”; this can only occur indirectly through creating a situation that promotes thinking (p. 151).

·         To make a thinking environment, the teacher needs to understand how to organize it so it can connect to an experience

·         There are two recommended prompts when trying to solicit a thinking outcome. These are the secret to leaving Telling behind:

o   1. Instruction needs to create a disequilibrium

o   2. It should encourage reflection on those experiences

·            Great books offer powerful experiences for reflection. Teachers should be aware that there is a difference between “immediate experience” and “reflective experience” (p. 153).

·            The open-ended seminar permits students to direct their learning from each other. The teacher’s role is to provide them the opportunity to discover and discuss.

·            An inquiry-centered course not only meets the criteria set by Dewey for a true learning, it also provides opportunities for experience and reflection.

·            Writing, both teacher-generated and student-created, are direct methods that encourage reflection and promote personal relationships.

·            Conceptual workshops, when designed around sequential questioning, address intellectual and social experiences.

·            Prompting experiential learning environments allow students to become “a self governing group of equals”; this “self-reflective group” creates a democratic classroom (p. 157).

·            Collegial teaching can be experientially beneficial and also helps the teachers and students when redefining authority roles.

·            Telling is ineffective because:

o   1. Student experiences are presumed by the teacher

o   2. Reflections is done by the teacher, not the learner

o   3. Telling is a “default setting”; teachers teach according to the way they were taught (p. 160). This is not necessarily the best methods for the individual learner.

·            Reflection on this book can be maximized by re-reading it, organizing simple devices to help you facilitate discussion, and participating in the conceptual workshop provided in the appendix

Finkel, D. L. (2000). Teaching with your mouth shut. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Experiences with Collegial Teaching or Team Teaching

I will be participating in a new class this year, Humanities, with a fellow English teacher. I have positive and negative feelings about this course. This chapter discusses some of the differences and concerns with co-teaching.

In your experiences with co-teaching, do you think it offers substantial benefits to the students that a single teacher cannot? Is it something you are willing to do or is it something you find frustrating?

Chapter 8 summary

Teaching with Your Mouth Shut, by Donald L. Finkel

Chapter 8

Significant Points in the Chapter:

          Issues concerning power and authority are to be reviewed and determined by the teacher. But what happens when there are two teachers sharing the same environment?  How to divide up this task in collegial teaching, without compromising a positive student experience, is explored in this chapter.

A Thought Experiment

          Students will consciously, and unconsciously, have predetermined interpretations about a class. If the student has a negative attitude about the course, it will be revealed in an inquiry-centered class and there is not much a teacher can do to prevent this; “any student determined to do so will find ample evidence from which to draw conclusions about the teacher’s own interpretation” (p. 135). However, if a second teacher is brought into the equation, this can change everything.

          Co- teaching is inviting because it exhibits the possibility to learn from one another. This exemplifies the spirit of inquiry-based learning; by inquiring together we learn together. Students are still an important part of this equation that has been rephrased; the only thing that changes is the framework of the classroom.  Finkel explains this restructuring on page 137, “What actually takes place in its day-to-day activities is not very different from what took place when I taught the course alone.”

          One advantage of co- teaching is that an extra component can be added to classroom; a weekly faculty panel. This component would serve as important function because it offers new perspectives and viewpoints to consider. A faculty panel could be organized as a class where each teacher presents a short formal response to the class concerning the material. Afterwards, the teachers continue their discussions and invite the students to join in the conversation.  In this process, “we formulate our hypotheses and draw out conclusions in the presence of the other” (p. 137). Another advantage to this component is there are two teachers to assist with any cynical students; one can continue to led and the other can work with the student.

Collegial Teaching

          Collegial teaching refers to “any arrangement where more than one teacher is responsible for the conduct of one course” (p. 138). It is not team teaching. There are five identified areas that separate collegial teaching from team teaching:

1.    The two teachers are equals; they must respect each other as intellectual colleagues

2.    They must be different and these differences should be visible to the students

3.    They must act as intellectual colleagues, not just administers of the course material

4.    They primary interest should be collegial conversation, rather than a predetermined curriculum. This necessitates inquiry-centered classes.

5.    They must view the students are participants of the collegial conversation

Collegial teaching is focused on the teacher-teacher relationship so where does this leave the students? To answer this concern, Finkel suggests revising the students’ role in the classroom to one of an auditor. The student cannot remain a passive recipient of information if their role has be revised because it invites them to participate. As an auditor, they are genuinely encouraged to join the conversation, as an equal, from the beginning of the course. It is worthwhile to remember that “a community of inquiry does not require participants of equal skill or knowledge. It only requires people who are willing to treat each other as equals and who bring some interesting differences with them into the community…” (p. 142).  

     This raises the questions of whether the student will accept this invitation and role of intellectually engaging in inquiry with the teachers. According to  Finkel, some can, and want to, do this immediately. Others might struggle with this newly defined role in the classroom. Finkel asserts that it is important to encourage them to take this major step because this kind of self-knowledge is what “ought to be fundamental part of a liberal arts education.

But Is It Teaching with Your Mouth Shut?

     At first glance, this does not appear to teaching through inquiry-centered instruction; the teachers are just letting their colleague do the talking.  But if you delve into it, the central activity is conversation. The teachers are indirectly discussing issues with the students rather than telling them what the problem/solution is to a question.  When the colleagues differ, students are presented with multiple viewpoints and they can discern what is important to them from these differences. This also illustrates another way to separate power and authority, making it a more democratic environment, without weakening the teachers or the students.

Finkel, D. L. (2000). Teaching with your mouth shut. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Summerhill Question

Summerhill was a community which claimed to take responsibility for itself. Problems were discussed and resolved through openness, democracy and social action.

In your opinion, does you think that Summerhill is suitable for all children – or do some need more structure?

"The function of a child is to live his own life- not the life that his anxious parents think he should live, nor the life according to the purpose of the educator who thinks he knows best" - A.S. Neill

Chapter Seven Summary

Teaching with Your Mouth Shut, by Donald L. Finkel

Chapter 7

Significant Points in the Chapter

When learning to Teach with Your Mouth Shut, the difference between power and authority are crucial to distinguish, both for the teacher and the student. There will be times the teacher needs to refuse to meet some of the learners’ expectations; “good teaching involves a teacher in a multitude of refusals, often on a daily basis” (p. 132). However, this does not mean the instructor is giving up his/her authority. Separating power from authority is at the heart of teaching without telling. Within this distinction, the development of a democratic environment can be created.

When the Teacher Refuses to Teach:

          When creating an environment of independent groups of learners, discussions, responses, and ideas are exchanged. However, inevitably there comes a time when the conversation will stall. Naturally, the students are going to turn to the teacher for directions.This is the time the teacher needs to refuse to lead.

          There are three reasons why the teacher needs to resist leading. First, is it important for the students to have a place where they have autonomy over their questions. Second, the group needs to learn how to inquire without being dependant on the instructor’s interpretations and opinions. Third, students will earn to respond and sustain inquiry on “their own terms” and develop “an authoritative voice of their own” (p. 115). When the instructor forces the learners to struggle, they are assisting them in learning to govern themselves.

          When students govern themselves, the classroom becomes democratic. Students start to trust their own authority to uncover the truth through individual and collective inquiry. This is based on mutual respect and faith in the members of the society. The teacher is also contributing to a democratic society because her/she is teaching students a sense of responsibility to participate to the “whole”.

          An instructor cannot simply tell students these important democratic characteristics; “character develops in response to an environment” (p. 116). Shaping character is best achieved by structuring the environment. An example by Dr. Ford is provided to illustrate a possible method for teachers to use when creating student-led inquiry. Under his tutelage, Dr. Ford gave his students:

·         One limit

·         One central constraint

·         One general orientation

·         One minimal promise of support

·         A sense of importance to their task

He acknowledges that students will flounder but insists that the teachers must resist the urge to take over because, “the only real education system for democracy is democracy” (p. 118).

          Creating the path for self-sufficiency does not include making obstacles. Teachers should let the students know what he/she is trying to foster. They should be made aware that their tendency to be dependent is “virtually universal and usually unconscious” (p. 119). The transference from a parental figure to a teacher, or other authority figure, is usually deeply rooted and hard to break. Students have to learn how to pull themselves away from the teacher for a democratic group to emerge.

          It is easy to confuse power with authority. Power is “the ability to make things happen” (p. 121). Authority “is that which justifies or makes legitimate a particular arrangement or set of affairs” (p. 121). Learners need to be able to take power into their own hands and still respect the authority of the institution. However, this does not imply that the teacher relinquishes all of his/her power to the students. “A teacher can hand over the power to determine what goes on in the classroom without handing over his power over what happens in the course as a whole” (p. 123). Sometimes the teacher will need to make these distinctions clear to the student, particularly by pointing out specific behaviors as they manifest in the classroom. When these exchanges occur, it can be “socially awkward” because the teacher is not helping the traditional sense the student expect. Therefore, the teacher needs to be prepared for this role.

A Continuum of Democratic Teaching Practices

          Conceptual workshops promote behaviors that reinforce a democratic classroom, especially if the room is arrange so the focus remains on the students and group work. In addition, student participation in conceptual workshops will help prepare them for open-ended seminars. The example of A. S. Summerhill School is provided to support this claim. Besides conceptual workshops and open-ended seminars, self-reflective groups promote democracy: “the “self” in “self-reflective groups” refers to the group’s collective “self” (p. 130). In this structure, students learned about group behavior by studying the behavior of their own group. This method adds a political, anthropological, and psychological dimension to the democratic classroom. From it, students can learn to observe, hear, and recognize behaviors, which can gradually help the group transform.  

Finkel, D. L. (2000). Teaching with your mouth shut. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.