Saying Goodbye to My Guides; A Reader's Response to Ladybugs, Tornadoes, and Swirling Galaxies

In these final chapters of Ladybugs, I felt like I was slowly saying goodbye to a dear friend or mentor. Much like Dumbledore must go away so that Harry can rise up and face challenges with his own power, I must close the book (or the iPad), and carry the wisdom of these master teachers within me, and manifest them through my own practice.

I appreciated many of the practical examples and tips for how to get a classroom of inquiry moving. One thing I find myself continuing to return to in my reflections, is how to get a system of publishing work in place that excites the students and gives them ownership. As of right now, my students have produced many wonderful works, particularly in creative writing, but very few of those works have gone through any kind of publishing process where their thinking can be made visible to an audience beyond their classmates or their teacher. Buhrow and Upczak Garcia give many good reasons why publishing is important, reminding me of things like, “by displaying work, students can take pride in what they have written. It also gives the other children access to environmental print” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L. 1974). 

Beyond just theoretical reasons why publishing is important, the authors also offer pragmatic tips and examples of how they encourage meaningful publishing in their own classrooms. They talk about how some kids like to create posters, whereas “some kids like to present their information in a different way from most people, and making a comic strip to show what you know is one of them” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L. 2219). I have a small group of students who are very interested in graphic novels and comics, and I think letting them publish their learning in this format that speaks so strongly to them is a wonderful idea.  I also really like how the authors describe how “putting their work out there helps the students build confidence and pride in their writing. Often we take an easel with the kids’ work taped to it and put it in the school’s front lobby. The first thing people see is our kids’ thinking. Next to the work we place a pile of yellow sticky notes and some pens for people to write comments” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L. 1974). I am so inspired by how Buhrow and Upczak Garcia make publishing an interactive experience. Students in their classes are motivated to publish because they know they will be receiving feedback from peers and community members, which also reflects how research is treated in the adult world as well. In blogs, forums, and even newspaper articles, there is always a space reserved for feedback to the authors or for readers to publish their own thoughts that were stirred by the piece. Why shouldn't our students experience that same satisfactory feeling of knowing our work has reached someone? I think this plays right into Brad and Anne's questioning of what a final product even is. They say, “the idea that there even exists a final product is something we go round and round about. If we are promoting a transformational style of learning, is anything really ever finished? Don’t we just keep questioning and learning in the cycle of life and knowledge?” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L.2281). In today's world, is a writing piece ever "finished" and closed off forever? Or does the piece continue in the dialogue between author and reader, for as long as the conversation holds interest?

I really respect how the authors scaffold "the publishing process so that regardless of where [students] are with their writing or English-language acquisition, they are able to do it. Consistency in this area has helped our ELL students. Seeing their own stories in published format is inspiring, and the more work that makes it to a completed, published format, the  better. Doing this shows the children that their worlds and words matter. If they are publishing for others to see, it inspires them to do great work” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L. 1959). Buhrow and Upczak Garcia do more than emphasize the benefits of publishing, but they also offer novice teachers like myself tips for how its practically done. In one example they describe how,“Using strips of paper, we scribe what is said by the child with whom we’re working exactly as they talk, while putting their words into conventional syntax. With another strip of paper we draw lines to represent each word. The kids then copy what was scribed, which are their words, onto the other sheet. This is a way to scaffold this process, and the more the kids experience what it takes to explore a topic and publish it, the  more quickly they are able to do it more independently” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L. 2123). They also bring in peer collaboration, something that has been a stated goal of mine to incorporate more often in my instruction. The authors explain that “when [students] are making their big posters, kids use pencils to put their words down and then self-edit. The piece is peer-edited, and we look at the writing and give it a final edit. That way we can write the words that are not conventionally written on a sticky note and let them fix them” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L. 2085). This technique makes the writing process as independent as possible, while also utilizing peer collaboration, and finally the teacher as the last step. 

Another helpful thing the authors do is offer further explanation for how to use anchor charts to scaffold for writers, something I have been wanting to get more comfortable with in my own practice. Often I make a chart with the students, only to have it fade away into the background and from our memories. Students don't get into the habit of referencing the charts and eventually the poor dusty neglected things get put away to make room for something new. Brad and Anne “build an anchor chart for the kids to refer to while checking what to add to their posters" saying "Anchor charts enable the kids to be more strategic in their thinking” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L.2576), but Buhrow and Upczak Garcia also make these charts fluid and interactive all year long. This might be the secret to their success, because students don't forget about a living document that belongs to them and can be modified and edited as new information and needs arise. What a wonderful way to increase metacognition and to give kids that proper feeling of ownership over their classrooms and their learning. In my own practice, I would have to get into the habit myself of referencing the charts and reminding students that we can add or edit, in order to model the proper way to use these handy tools. 

The authors also make sure to honor their kids choices in the publishing process by keeping an open ear and mind to student input, something I have been getting better and better at across the year. I related strongly with the statement that “the ideas for how to publish pieces come from the children and what they know or are interested in. We can provide models for ideas, but frequently the kids modify them and come up with better ones. We not only let them, but encourage them” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L. 2001). Particularly the last sentence resonates with me and sounds like something I would say or write. As I said in my Mosaic video for Language and Literacy, "I love being able to say 'yes' to my students" and I do it as much as possible. For me, this is one of the simplest and most authentic ways to give them the power to drive their own learning. 

I also like the idea of using self-assessments to increase metacognition and encourage students to track and monitor their own growth, another key indication of ownership.  The authors insist that “Self-assessment is an important part of the inquiry process because it lets us know whether or not the kids are internalizing the process and the meaning of what they have been doing. It Is also a path to independence” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L.2534). I would be curious to see how the students in my class would enjoy and utilize this tool. I believe encouraging metacognition in any form is beneficial, or as the authors say, it helps us because “We think about our thinking, which internalizes learning at extraordinarily deep levels” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L.2326).

My ears really perked up when I read their description of what their room looks like when students are given time to independently work on their own inquiry projects, because this is exactly what I am thirsting to create in my own classroom. It's much like my "Classroom of Wonders" I described in my previous Ladybugs reflection post. I am still trying to figure out a way I can justify taking up an hour of instruction time per day to let my students pursue their inquiries, when I know my administration and parents have certain expectations for what type of learning should take place during the day and what it should look like. I would love to do what Buhrow and Upzcak Garcia do and “keep blocks of time open for inquiries. Some students will be using fewer sources, others more, but they are all learning in an authentic way. The students have the desire or the spark of wonder, and the teacher is guiding them by explicit and implicit modeling. Some kids will be working more independently and taking notes, whereas others will be with the teacher, who will be scribing their words” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L. 2465). I know to some people, this would look disorganized and they would question how the common core is being reinforced when students seem to be doing "whatever they want." I am going to do some serious thinking about how to demonstrate that this block of time is accomplishing important work that honors both the students' desires and reinforces the common core concepts they need to be reviewing. 

Finally, I wouldn't be me if I didn't spend a moment reflecting on the balance between a teacher's need to promote social justice and her duty to respect the stance of the school or the individual families. The authors of Ladybugs have some interesting comments on this conundrum, and inspire me with their bravery and candor and assertion that good teaching must confront political issues and social inequality. They say that “acknowledging political inequalities and racial bias in our world has helped us to speak out against them. To be able to teach and do the necessary assessments we have had to take a step back and examine what we thought we knew about these inequities” (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L.2594). I found this very relatable in light of my own recent experience in fumbling between my desire to promote inclusive thinking and attitudes and challenge a civil rights issue I feel storngly about, and stating an opinion to my students that upset and offended parents and administration. As I look back upon this event, I realize that my statement of an opinion did not in fact open up inquiry, but came off as teacher-centered beholding of all information and me having the right answer. Buhrow and Upczak Garcia point me towards reconciling my mission to encourage social justice and critical thinking, by using the art of inquiry. They state “we have learned that inquiry is a valid literacy pathway for ELLs and all learners. We believe that it promotes democracy through questioning and engagement by allowing students to follow their curiosities" (Buhrow and Upczak Garcia, 2006, L.2609). In a true "Classroom of Wonders" I would invite the students to wonder further about the social issue they brought up, rather than instantly providing my version of the truth.  

Brad and Anne were wonderful guides to me in helping me appreciate the power of a student-centered, inquiry-based classroom, as well as offering me pragmatic how-to steps in making it a reality in my own practice. I'm going to miss sitting down with these teaching heroes every day, but in order to become the hero myself, I must integrate their wisdom into my own beliefs and practices, and make them my own.