Janoski 1

Applications and Connections of Educational Theory and Summer Fieldwork

Practice
During the course of the summer semester, the theoretical course
readings which were steeped in practice and the fieldwork practice that was
infused with theory were both invaluable towards my growth as an educator.
Quite literally every document and every fieldwork session provided some
form of insight, large or small, that was worked into this unit plan either
consciously or subconsciously. In this brief overview, I will focus on a few
specific authors and models, connecting them each back to fieldwork
experiences. The first section considers the particular structure and
activities found within the plan, and addresses facets of design and
implementation, respectively. The second section examines why the specific
content of educational narratives was chosen for this unit and how the
specific lesson itself contributes to the definition of learning which I formed
through the readings and fieldwork experience. In short, the design,
implementation and content of the plan were all constructed to provide
maximum student engagement and agency in regards to their education,
and to foster the deepest levels of critical thinking, writing, speaking and
reading that will translate from the English classroom to complex and
successful lives beyond the walls of high school.
In the constructing of my plan as a structural whole, the Tomlinson and
McTighe readings were of critical importance. Their model of Understanding
by Design [. . .] focuses on what we teach and what assessment evidence

Janoski 2

we need to collect, while their model of Differentiated Instruction [. . .]

ensures that teachers focus on processes and procedures that ensure
effective learning for varied individuals (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006, p. 23). Additionally, these models are applied to Backwards Planning, which
stresses that teachers first ask what should students know, understand, and
be able to do before they design specific lessons and activities (Tomlinson
and McTighe, 2006, p. 27). All of these theories were taken into
consideration in the design of my educational narratives unit. Initially, I
found myself subconsciously straying to the activities section of the plan
before I had finished with the goals sections. It is relatively natural, after
thinking about teaching and learning in a certain way for so long, to want to
design outcomes last. However, this method is not logically sound. Students
cannot be expected to reach certain levels of understanding or skillsets by
engaging in activities that were designed with the belief that they will result
in certain outcomes. I desired my students to be able to think and speak
critically about a text, so I placed a group discussion at the heart of my
lesson. I did not, for example, plan to lecture students with examples of text
interpretation and expect them to be able to organically and originally
replicate such interpretations without practical involvement. Goals must be
designed to be ambitious, but reachable by every student, regardless of
individual weaknesses or preferences.
In regards to this universal attainability, the model of Differentiated
Instruction is critically helpful. In designing the final project for students, I

Janoski 3

was tempted to simply make it a paper. This would be vastly easier on the
educator in terms of design and grading. However, it is not fair or realistic to
think (based heavily upon my personal history with writing a lot of papers)
that all students will produce their best work in such a medium. In our
fieldwork, AJ continually stressed the idea that fair doesnt mean same
when it comes to activity options (A. Schiera, personal communication,
2015). Gardners Multiple Intelligences further highlighted the importance of
examining student strengths and weakness and providing learning and
assessment opportunities that cater to all (Gardner, Multiple Intelligences,
2015). Therefore, I not only included different mediums to assess students,
but also provided a section in the lesson with a more behaviorist, lecture
framework to pair with the more constructivist and socio-cultural seminar
discussion. This allows for students of any intelligence type or learning style
to engage with the material, assuming that expectations are made clear.
The seminar discussion, when coupled with the additional measure of
reviewing expectations and goals of the activity with the students, provides a
clear and focused layout to classroom time. In our Leaders of Change
planning sessions, we often addressed the issues of conflicting lesson goals
or levels of student comfort (A. Schiera, personal communication, 2015). I
tried to ensure that my lesson included periods of focused review and preassessment to gauge the comfort, aptness and concerns of the students, and
provide feedback and lesson changes when appropriate. AJ constantly told
us that a lesson will never work exactly as planned, as well as instilling in us

Janoski 4

the understanding that communication with students and flexibility are vital
(A. Schiera, personal communication, 2015). I often observed group
discussions in Leaders of Change that strayed a bit from textual grounding
(observation, July, 2015). This must be allowed for to the extent that
discussions off topic are still working to develop a strong community of
learning. Therefore, I have built into the lesson the realization and
willingness to extend the discussion of classroom rules if the students are not
ready to close this conversation. Anecdotal relation can provide immense
learning opportunities. Additionally, I was careful to challenge The First
Day at points in the formation of discussion questions. There were real
dangers of instituting that a text is always right to students in Leaders of
Change, as well as over-facilitating conversations (A. Schiera, personal
communication, 2015). Therefore, my discussion questions are complex but
few in quantity. Students in Leaders of Change often answered in ways that
did not pose further questions to the texts or their peers, so I tried to include
measures (shared rubrics, etc.) that would facilitate peer response and
critical questioning (observation, July, 2015).
All of this planning can be effective only if the implantation is such that
students feel engaged with the educator as well as the material. Fostering
student relationships is, to me, the difference between the Pedagogy of
Poverty and great teaching (Haberman, 2010). Students reported to be that
they desired teachers that challenged them, that were serious but also
friendly and caring (Leaders of Change Students, personal communication,

Janoski 5

2015). Teachers should strive to pinpoint the Zone of Proximal Development

of their students and push them just beyond their comfort zones (Vygotsky,
Zone of Proximal Development, 2015). Students noted that the toughness
of Mrs. Warfield helped them get where they are today, and lamented their
peers who were given lower expectations and slipped through the system
(Leaders of Change Students, personal communication, 2015). A particular
instance of caring engagement with a student that I described in my blog
highlights the importance of positive reinforcement, and honest caring about
student success (R. Janoski, Teaching and Learning Blog, 2015). Students
are perceptive as to when teachers are simply putting on masks to cover
indifference. My unit works to build caring relationships with students
through measures such as thanking them after classes, reminding them to
contact me with any concerns, providing feedback and addressing concerns.
All of these issues point to a perennial problem of [. . .] reformers using a
deficit model in characterizing the people they [seek] to help [. . .] (Tyack,
2003, p. 112). We should never assume that our students cannot or will not.
My lesson is very challenging, but I think it is important to teach to the high
end (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006, p. 20). If we do not, the result is
students who are truly thoroughly trained in failure (Tyack, 2003, p. 98). In
short, it is [. . .] the schools responsibility to ensure that schools succeed
(Tyack, 2003, p. 99). Again this can only be accomplished through [. . .]
establishing trust and involving students in meaningful activities [. . .]
(Haberman, 2010).

Janoski 6

Habermans comments on activities provide a succinct transition to a

discussion of the content in the lesson. Among other things, Haberman
notes that whenever students are involved with issues they regard as vital
concerns, [. . .] with explanations of human differences, [. . .] with planning
what they will be doing, [. . .] with applying ideals such as fairness, [. . .] in
redoing, polishing, or perfecting their work, [. . .] in reflecting on their own
lives and how they have come to believe [things], good teaching is going on
(Haberman, 2010). These values and practices are important to me and to
my beliefs in involved and usable learning, and I tried hard to reflect them in
my planning. By actively forming a democratic and shared set of classroom
rules and expectations, students realize their personal agency in affecting
their educational narratives. Students are also able to self-grade and selfassess their work in the week following the unit. Students are given the
opportunity to reflect on their own lives and educational narratives as well as
reflect on and respect the differences in their peers narratives throughout
the unit. They also are primed to examine the cultural and socio-economic
forces that influence, for better or worse, their schooling narratives through a
critical reading and analysis of The First Day. As referenced in my blog,
students in Leaders of Change responded enthusiastically and engaged
deeply with materials when it was relatable to their own education narratives
(R. Janoski, Teaching and Learning Blog, 2015). During a discussion of the
senior project in high school, students hands vied for attention to expound

Janoski 7

upon their multiple informed opinions and engage in discourse and

translatable and applicable knowledge and skills (observation, July, 2015).
This examination of and grappling with the educational narratives of
self, other and text through discussion, interviewing, reading (and
eventually, mastery through a teaching and presenting) directly address the
issues raised in Erikson. While multicultural education might be a
problematic term in certain contexts, Erikson makes clear the foundational
understanding that culture shapes and is shaped by [. . .] learning and
teaching (Erikson, 1993, p. 32). It is critical that students be given
opportunities to realize what invisible cultural assumptions and frameworks
operate in their lives, other students lives, and, most importantly, in the
classroom environment (Erikson, 1993, p. 39). An understanding of
difference, here highlighted through the stressful situations related to school
experience in The First Day, as well as understanding anothers
educational narrative through the peer interview, allow the invisible to
become visible, celebrated, respected, and shared without losing ones own
unique background. In this lesson, by examining what societal forces may be
negatively impacting their educational narratives, students gain the
confidence and agency to challenge these forces, and to turn cultural
borders into cultural boundaries, without an unfair system of power at
play (Erikson, 1993, p. 40).
Although the ideas in Erikson are fantastic, applicable and (I believe)
correct, I would like to challenge his notion that in the short run, we cannot

Janoski 8

change the wider society (Erikson, 1993, p. 48). I agree that change is
difficult, and that we should focus on our classroom environments promoting
fairness and social justice education, but the optimistic in me says that, while
the long term change of these pedagogies will be more impactful, our
students can also change society for the better by being taught in such ways
in the short term, through everyday advocacies and interactions with others.
In this vein, I would like to highlight the section of the students final project
that requires them to address a concern they have in the construction of
education, and posit a recommendation that points towards some change.
Anyon recognizes the danger in a hidden curriculum [. . .] help[ing]
reproduce [power] relations in society (Anyon, 1980, p. 90). Students must
be made aware of this danger, and helped to preserve their differences from
the dominant society, while simultaneously learning to utilize acceptable
modes of discourse and skillsets that the dominant society values in order to
enact change within it that will spread to the world at large. MacLeod also
highlights this issue of educational slant, and stresses the important of
student agency in changing systems (MacLeod, 2009, p. 24). In engaging
with the own educational past, the students final projects will help them
crystalize thoughts and methods to positively change their educational
futures and goals, as well as the futures of all students.
Again, the design, implementation and content selection of my
educational narratives unit are all crafted to focus on and promote student
agency and activism in the process of education, and to give them the

Janoski 9

skillset of critical thinking, reading, writing and listening that will help them
achieve such change. In conclusion, although this plan is strong in many
ways, there are many weaknesses. I will discuss further concerns in a
separate section online; however, I would like to address the most
problematic one in this discourse. In Leaders of Change, we viewed a section
of a talk by Chimamanda Adichie, which cautioned against the danger of
viewing a person as a single story (Adichie, lecture, 2009). I recognize that
in my unit, students are being asked to focus on a single facet of their whole
life tapestry: their educational history. It is my hope and belief that through
careful instruction, fruitful discussion, and related futures lessons, my
students will be able to leave a unit such as one on educational narratives
with the knowledge that we should never assume things that we learn from
one part of a story, or apply one persons story to another person in a similar
group. Rather, I believe my students will be able to use the knowledge and
skills gain in this lesson to better their entire lives and society at large.

Janoski 10

Works Cited
Adichie, C. (Director) (2009, July 1). The Danger of a Single Story. TED Global
2009. Lecture conducted from , .
Anyon, J. (1980). Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work. Journal of
Education, 162(1), 67-92.
Banks, J., & Erikson, F. (1993). Culture in Society and Educationa Practices. In
Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives (4th ed., pp. 31-58).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gardner, H. (n.d.). Multiple Intelligences Oasis - Howard Gardner's Official MI
Site. Retrieved August 1, 2015, from
http://multipleintelligencesoasis.org/
Haberman, M. (2010). The Pedagogy of Poverty versus Good Teaching. Phi
Delta Kappan, 73, 81-87.
Janoski, R. (n.d.). Teaching and Learning Blog. Retrieved August 1, 2015, from
http://rjanoskiblog.weebly.com/
Leaders of Change Students. Personal Communication, July, 2015.
Schiera, AJ. Personal Communication, July, 2015.
MacLeod, J. (2009). Social Reproduction and Theoretical Perspective. In Ain't
No Makin' It: Aspirations & Attainment in a Low-income Neighborhood
(3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tomlinson, C., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction &
Understanding by Design Connecting Content and Kids. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tyack, D. (2003). Thoroughly Trained in Failure: Mismatch of Pupil and School.
In Seeking Common Ground: Public Schools in a Diverse Society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (n.d.). Vygotsky | Simply Psychology. Retrieved July 1, 2015,
from http://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html