Students were circling the same points about the change in pay causing the violence in the Homestead Strike. They were overlooking more immediate causes, like what actually happened on the day when the violence occurred. Twice, I tried to get them to turn to the documents connected to the day of the event. Yet, each time they kept returning to point out that violence erupted because of the change in pay. I thought I was clear about us trying to address a different aspect of what caused the violence, but students were either not interested or not understanding. I was so frustrated. I could step in, yet again (as I had multiple times throughout the discussion despite wanting to limit my voice) to clarify what I wanted them to discuss. This would help us get to key content that I hoped we would explore when I planned the lesson. But, if students were truly still interested in this point about pay and wanted to keep trying to resolve their disagreement around it, then maybe that was more important to honor even if we sacrificed my ideas for where the discussion would go. I had to choose between stepping in again to clarify my question and following students' line of conversation to allow them to resolve this point of disagreement.
-
Elena
11th Grade
US History
Second Year Teaching
- What is the teacher's dilemma? Consider the teacher's goals, possible actions, beliefs about the situation and the students, and their own self-perceptions.
- Complete or modify the following sentence in a way that captures the teacher's central tension in the situation: "While on the one hand, the teacher believed/wanted/felt/did __________, on the other hand, they believed/wanted/felt/did __________."
- Thinking about your own classroom, how do you decide when to redirect a discussion toward your intended learning goals versus allowing students to pursue their own line of inquiry?