Practice Analysis

Practice Analysis

Group 3

Ball State University

Group Member	Role	Commented On
Megan Brown	Interview Kristen Smole, write her analysis, write group reflection	Group 4
Christina Guy	Interview Dr. Kevin Nolley, write his introduction and implication, compile paper	Group 4
Jennifer Murphy	Interview Dr. Kevin Nolley, write his analysis, complete Table 2	Group 2
Emily Sheperd	Interview Kristen Smole, write her introduction and implication, compile paper	Group 4

The following paper reviews the best and worst teaching experiences of educators Kristen Smole and Dr. Kevin Nolley, an analysis of how those experiences relates back to relationships in learning, and what practitioners can learn from their experiences. In addition, there is a reflection of the highlights, process and a final summary table, Table 2. Practice Analysis.

Kristen Smole

Introduction

           Kristen Smole is a graduate student pursuing her master’s in political science at Purdue University. In the junior year of her undergraduate career at Purdue, she became a teaching assistant (TA); as a TA, she has taught “Constitutional Law”, “Women in Politics”, and “Deviants in Mass Media” (K. Smole, personal communication, September 23, 2017). She shared that Purdue’s TA program is different than most because even at the lowest level they expect TA’s to be able to teach entire lessons; at the graduate level, she is the only instructor students interact with (K. Smole, personal communication, September 23, 2017).

        Ms. Smole’s best teaching experience was teaching “Constitutional Law” because of the small class size and their use of a hybrid Socratic method (K. Smole, personal communication, September 23, 2017). A typical Socratic method requires everyone in the classroom to be asking and answering questions to force critical thinking, and the majority of the class grade is based off of this participation; many constitutional law classes utilize this method to prepare students for law school. Many students at Purdue take the class as part of their Law and Society undergraduate coursework, but they do not plan to attend law school. In the hybrid method, students can partake in the traditional Socratic method in class, or they can submit a reflection discussion at the next class based off of the conversation during the class period. Students choose one track at the beginning of the semester, but they are able to change mid-semester if they so choose (K. Smole, personal communication, September 23, 2017). This method still allows students to have deep conversation and learn from each other, but does not put people with anxiety in an uncomfortable situation which may cause their grades or learning to suffer due to lack of participation or high stress levels that affect attention. (K. Smole, personal communication, September 23, 2017). Ms. Smole noted that this contributed to strong teacher-student and student-student relationships (K. Smole, personal communication, September 23, 2017).

        Ms. Smole’s worst teaching experience was teaching “Deviants in Mass Media”. In this class, students use examples from films as case studies for discussion; the case studies often include controversial figures. The class has 55 students which often meant students had to compete to talk. There were three “alpha male personalities” who were especially rude and hostile (K. Smole, personal communication, September 23, 2017). The alphas were more focused on what they wanted to learn which often did not relate well to the topic. This caused open hostility between students who wanted to learn as the class was designed, and those who wanted to mess around and negatively control the conversation (K. Smole, personal communication, September 23, 2017).

Analysis

Ms. Smole discussed both positive and negative experiences when viewing her classes from a relationship in learning lens. Her worst experience seemed to involve a difference between autonomous and relational self-systems that clashed with the setup of the course. These two self-systems seem to be gender related although they are not gender specific (MacKeracher, 2004). A person with an autonomous self-system is largely more independent in their learning than someone with a relational self-system. A person with a relational self-system learns more through their relationships with others. This particular class that Ms. Smole taught was very large, and people had to compete in order to talk. Ms. Smole described the environment as hostile, with more of a men vs. women atmosphere (K. Smole, personal communication, September 23, 2017). The idea that women are often more relational in their self-system and value the relationships they build during their learning experience while men are more independent and autonomous in their relationships to others may have a role in this. If the women are unable to engage in rapport talk and are constantly being talked at via report talk, it may cause them to tune out of the learning experience and walk out with a negative feeling. Women typically feel more comfortable sharing their thoughts and feelings in private conversations, whereas men enjoy speaking out in public settings more often. (MacKeracher, 2004). This may cause men to become frustrated with women when they speak out in public because, due to their relationship self-system, women may discuss their ideas and opinions for a longer time. Smole also noted that the men in the class were very focused on asking their own personal questions to learn from her, but the class was not really designed for the autonomous learner.  Due to these two self-systems being so different, we can relate them back to learning experiences, and come to the conclusion that if a learning environment is unable to cater to both the autonomous self and relational self, it can turn into a negative learning experience for one or the other parties.

“The learner-facilitator relationship is the primary context within which learning occurs” (MacKeracher, 2004, p. 151). Ms. Smole’s most positive experience included a class that was small in nature, which allowed her to get to know each student on a more individual basis. With Ms. Smole being able to get to know her students, this may have contributed to an environment in which her students felt safe. If the students felt safe, this would enable them to feel comfortable enough to take risks her in classroom and push themselves a little further than they may have had she not taken the time to build a relationship with them. Ms. Smole stressed that in her facilitator-learner relationships, she has to keep a balance between helping and enabling. A student who is much too dependent on her needs to have that sink or swim moment on their own. Smole also stated that sometimes these students are just asking for help but don’t know how to ask (K. Smole, personal communication, September 23 2017). It is evident that Ms. Smole has a good grasp on how to develop positive facilitator-learner relationships, especially when her class size can cater to the building of these relationships.

Implications

One of the most important takeaways from the conversation with Ms. Smole is the importance and uses of the facilitator-student relationship. Traditionally, the Constitutional Law class she teaches is a Socratic method course; when one of her students shared a concern with her about this, she not only made an accommodation for this student, but recognized the complexity of all of her students and allowed all of them to utilize the discussion paper if they did not want to speak in class (K. Smole, personal communication, September 23 2017). This is one way Ms. Smole shows respect for her students, which in turn increases engagement in the course (Froneman, du Plessis, & Koen, 2016). Continuing with the facilitator-educator role, if students are seeking her out too much and relying too heavily on her, she allows the sink and swim moment. It is important for students to be able to rely on their informal support systems for challenges that do not relate back to the classroom; this sink or swim moment allows them to address those challenges (Froneman et al., 2016).

From Ms. Smole’s worst teaching experience, it is possible to see the importance of understanding autonomous and relational learners. Unfortunately, the course was set up in an autonomous manner. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) share in Women’s Ways of Knowing that while autonomous learners can thrive in an autonomous or relational setting, relational learners tend to fail in an autonomous learning situation. Many students were silenced as understood by Belenky et al. (1986) in Ms. Smole’s “Deviants in Mass Media” course. Given the larger size of the course, a possible way to create a relational learning setting would be through discussion based group work that would allow numerous students to be able to share their thoughts around a subject.

Dr. Kevin Nolley

Introduction

Dr. Kevin Nolley has been a professor and academic advisor at Ball State University for years. He holds a BA in Latin and English Education, a MA in Adult and Community Education, and an EdD Doctorate of Education in Adult, Higher, and Community Education. His area of emphasis is Medical Education, program planning and evaluation. His recent Ball State graduate classes include EDAC 635 Teaching Adults and EDAC 655 Continuing Professional Education, as well as Crim 260 Research in Social Science at Ivy Tech Community College (K. Nolley, personal communication, September, 27, 2017). .  

Dr. Nolley’s best teaching experience was at a secondary school in Indianapolis Cathedral, the students were anywhere from fourteen to nineteen years old. This was his first time teaching and the students were very enthusiastic, they could handle almost everything he threw at them educationally, and they all had a good sense of humor. These friendly and humorous relationships created a relaxed environment that made him feel more comfortable as a first-time teacher. Good relationships with his supervisors helped tremendously and other faculty mentoring him made the school year easier and move along faster (K. Nolley, personal communication, September 27, 2017).

A specific time he was able to support relational and autonomous learners was in an online environment. He set loose parameters for the assignments and some students would work together and bounce ideas off each other in order to tackle the assignments, while others worked on their own and would check in every once in awhile to make sure they were on the right track (K. Nolley, personal communication, September, 27, 2017).

His worst teaching experience occurred in a graduate class about ten or twelve years ago. He made a comment about his ex wife, in a joking manner, and one of the students took offense to the comment. From then on, he felt very guarded when interacting with the class. He felt like the other students were guarded as well because they did not want to tangle with this student. He felt a strain on what he could say, how he could joke, and what kind of examples he could use. He went on to explain that a big part of an adult education course is not just training, but learning new things and pushing the envelop for students to think about a new idea. Some people do not take this well and can become offended easily (K. Nolley, personal communication, September 27, 2017).

This strained relationship made the rest of the semester awkward. It was hard to dive deeper into the content and ask probative questions. This experience was negative for relational learners because it created a stressful learning environment where the rest of the students felt more guarded than usual and communication seemed strained because of students not wanting to step on other students’ toes. In terms of what could have been done differently, he explains he should have addressed the situation as soon as it happened. He could have met with the particular student outside of the classroom to vocalize his intention behind the comment and to clarify that he would never purposely try to offend a student (K. Nolley, personal communication, September 27, 2017).

Dr. Nolley stated that in his experience the relationship between the student and the professor is more significant than the student’s relationship with the subject. If the student likes and gets along with the teacher then they will most likely do well even if he or she is not particularly fond of the subject (K. Nolley, personal communication, September 27, 2017).

Analysis

Dr. Nolley’s description of both his most positive and negative teaching experiences centered around the community that already existed and/or the one created.  He describes his time at Cathedral as the most positive due to the relaxed, motivated nature of the students, along with support, validation and mentoring from colleagues.  The pre-existing community allowed him to jump in and be real with the students. According to Smith (2001), showing realness with mentors and students facilitates learning.  Teachers are more effective when they express real feelings and can simply be themselves.  In addition, caring for the learner, accepting them and valuing them as humans is key.

Dr. Nolley’s ability to be himself, joke around, and be real with the students facilitated a meaningful learning environment for relational learners as well as autonomous learners.  Regardless of learning style, the building of trust is imperative to the community.  For relational learners, trust is built through group sharing and interactive projects. While autonomous learners value opportunities to think and contribute more introspectively (Mackeracher, 2004).   

Dr. Nolley’s negative teaching experience is an example of a time when the trust factor was removed from the community of the classroom.  He described a time that another student expressed their discontent following a comment he made.  In that moment, Dr. Nolley never addressed the concern of the student, therefore allowing this student to have power over the relationship of the learning experience. This resulted in a break of trust.  The lack of trust among the class hindered sharing and the class’s ability to go deeper.  He indicated that this was especially impactful for relational learners as they felt inhibited and not able to openly share with the group.  

Implications

What we can learn from these cases is that relationships are key when it comes to creating inclusive learning environments where students can learn interdependently and practitioners can grow into their professional roles comfortably. In Dr. Nolley’s case, he went into a school with a relaxed and inviting environment, his colleagues also worked as mentors and were happy to give him advice.

Having an inclusive environment amongst faculty allows practitioners to feel comfortable, relate to each other, and gain confidence in themselves as educators. Teachers have a good idea of what working conditions are necessary to do a proper job, and these working conditions have a direct relation to their professional interests (Vanderlinde & Kelchtermans, 2013). In order to promote an inclusive environment amongst the faculty, educators could be paired together, a more experienced educator with a less experienced educator, and once a week they may get together to discuss highlights, problems they may be experiencing, and share advice. This pairing of educators will help encourage positive relationships amongst the faculty and potentially create a welcoming environment for new educators to walk into. Through conversation and meetings with fellow educators, desirable working conditions can potentially be met.

As an educator, it is also important to promote relationships between your students and yourself. Trust and respect will certainly aid in an easy and effective teaching/learning experience. In order to promote this educator/student relationship, one can include a segment in his or her class policy about respect and sensitive topics. Although sensitive topics can evoke a great deal of emotion, sometimes they can lead to in depth conversation that end with changed perspectives. This should be discussed at the beginning of the course and students should know that if they do find something offensive the matter should be discussed between the student and the educator privately. This will give the student a safe place to discuss his or her feelings and allow the classroom or learning environment to remain a neutral place where students can work as interdependent learners.

Reflection

Highlights

Interviewing both educators was helpful in analyzing how relationships in learning play out in a real life classroom. Reading about relationships in learning is one thing, but to sit down and talk with a facilitator about how they see the various relationships in their classroom playing a role in the learning experience was insightful. The most notable points in our analysis revolve around the differing relationships in the classroom created by the autonomous self and the relational self along with the impact they have in the pre-existing community. These two types of self identification were something we had never thought a whole lot about before, but after completing the interviews and readings, we see that they have a significant effect on relationships in learning.

Process

Megan and Emily both appreciated getting to meet face-to-face to interview Ms. Smole. We both thought it may have been difficult to determine a date and time that worked out well for all three of us to get together, but it was surprisingly easy. In terms of the whole group, we each focused on our own portions of the paper following our respective interviews, and it was extremely helpful that we interviewed in pairs instead of one person relying off the interview notes of another person. In terms of whole group, we each followed the plan we set in place at the beginning of the semester. Each person had their own due dates to follow based on the portions of the paper they were to complete, and this seemed to be an effective way of working for our group. We would recommend for future classes to interview in pairs and meet face-to-face if possible.

Table 2. Practice analysis

	Educator 1	Educator 2
Name of the case	Kristen Smole: Graduate Student and Teaching Assistant at Purdue University.	Dr. Kevin Nolley: Professor and Academic Advisor at Ball State University
Why the best/worst	Best: Teaching a class with a small class size using a hybrid Socratic method.  Allowed for choice around group discussion/interaction and/or written reflection based on the conversation. Worst: A large class size with outspoken “alpha-male personalities” that created a hostile class environment therefore inhibiting other’s freedom to speak.	Best: Teaching at a secondary school in Indianapolis in which students were enthusiastic and receptive and co-teachers were encouraging and supportive. Worst: Teaching a graduate class in which a student’s comments went unaddressed the entire semester allowing for a strained, inhibited classroom environment.
Main theoretical ideas we can learn from the cases	Learning styles are gender related at times. Women tend to be more relational learners and men more autonomous.   Autonomous learners have the ability to also thrive in relational settings. However, relational learners typically fail in autonomous settings. Positive and impactful facilitator-learner relationships are built on mutual respect.	Relational and autonomous learners both value trust within their learning community.  Realness within the community (classroom) facilitates meaningful learning.   Positive teaching environments and mentor relationships are valuable to all involved.  When teachers feel supported by colleagues, they gain confidence and strategies for the classroom.
Main tools/strategies we can learn	Provide varying methods for students to share their thoughts and ideas. Maintain a balance between enabling students and supporting students.  Allow them to troubleshoot on their own at times. Large group settings do not always allow for meaningful learning by both relational and autonomous learners.  Find ways to support both.	Be genuine and engaging with students. Build trust by expressing interest in students’ experiences. Maintain a safe environment for all to feel comfortable sharing openly. Create mentor relationships between experienced and new staff members.
How to improve the case	Break down larger classrooms into smaller groups to allow time for all to express their thoughts.	Establish respect and ground rules at the start of the class.  When problems arise, address the issues quickly and in a safe, open environment.

References

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Froneman, K., du Plessis, E., & Koen, M. P. (2016). Effective educator student relationships in nursing educator to strengthen nursing students’ resilience. Curationis, 39(1), 1-9. Retrieved from doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.bsu.edu/10.4102/

MacKeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult learning (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Smith, M. K. (2001). Relationships, learning, and education. Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved from http://infed.org/mobi/relationship-learning-and-education/

Vanderlinde, R. & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Learning to get along at work: developing

effective relationships with other adults at school is a crucial part of each new teacher’s

first year. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(7), 34.