I'm fascinated by structure. If peace is a language than it is definitely a structure. At the same time I'm also conscious that expectations often shape results. Expectations are thoughts that often turn into reality. Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't you're right, at least according to Henry Ford. But if this is the case of what importance is structure? What does structure matter if belief really determines results? At the first Peace as a Global Language Conference I was lucky (or unlucky) to be in three presentations. So here I'd like to look at each presentation in term and examine the relationship between the structure of each presentation, my expectations and the outcomes (as I perceive them).

Was this introduction strident? Are the words too rigid?

Integrating language learning with political activism With Paul Arenson, David A. Hough, Darrell Moen, Richard Wilcox

In this presentation I was a panellist. Perhaps because this was my first time to be on a panel I was very conscious of the contradiction between the theme of the discussion and the 'top-down' panel format. The panellists were advocating activism, yet the structure of a panel is inherently authoritarian. Those on the panel automatically acquire the mantel of expert whether they desire it or not. Discussion inevitably filters through the panel. Discussion is also sequential, which in turn limits the total volume of ideas expressed.
Accordingly I decided to illuminate the structure by stepping outside it. The method I chose was to create topic cards covering a variety of themes. When it was my turn to speak I set a timer going, shuffled the cards and put them into a hat. Cards were drawn from the hat and I spoke as I liked until my time was gone. The themes covered were my father, a chess story, juggling as a metaphor for teaching, quotations by George Bernard Shaw and inconsistency. I had 9 minutes.
You may be wondering what the topics I talked about have to do with integrating language learning with political activism? But my point was to demonstrate that structure is often more important than content. Radical content is one thing but the delivery is another. If the experience leaves the students passive and uninvolved then the content may whither to nothing in a frost of indifference and resistance. Further the process may destroy potential interest in the content itself. Proof of this is seen in the present system of compulsory education.
Of course one panel discussion isn't a system of education, and besides the audience were there by choice so it could be argued that I was merely being arrogant and provocative in fracturing the panel structure, especially considering I had never met two of the other panellists before. After all perhaps there is a time for experimentation and perhaps there is a time for simply listening. But I believe experience is important. Hearing about a structure and experiencing it are qualitatively different. Moreover I wished to demonstrate the use of chance as a technique for learning.
Chance takes different forms. There are unplanned moments provided by serendipity. That is one form. Then there is the conscious use of Chance structures, such as the 'Out of the Hat' structure I used instead of a simple lecture.
Chance breaks the sequential flow of information which is inherent in the transmission or banking models of learning ⁽¹⁾. When accepting chance the teacher as symbol of authority is undermined. Chance pushes the teacher and student alike to make their own connections to the material. Chance is also game-like and for this reason very effective with children.
As it happened I did have some topic cards directly focusing on political activism but on the day chance dictated that they remained in the hat. For those interested in using this particular chance structure it should be noted that the teacher can retain a lot of control by determining what topics or activities will be used. A further step towards democratisation of the classroom is to turn over the creation of the chance pool to the students. For example, I get children to each draw the picture of the game they want to play on a scrap of paper. The paper drawn from the hat determines the game we play.
Using a random structure is one way of dismantling the concept of 'teacher as authority'. The content is separated from the teacher. Also it can help illustrate the idea that it's possible to distinguish between content and the content provider. It demonstrates that the structure of a situation places limitations on the outcomes from that situation.

[ p. 24 ]

But on the day I missed an opportunity. Without thinking I began with the panellists when it came to choosing who should draw a topic card from the hat. I could have gone directly to the audience or even better found a way to select a drawer at random. That would have broken down the panel structure more completely.

Structure or process? Does the ambiguity illuminate or confuse?

The cancer of competition Chris Hunt

I have done this workshop many times. Notes relating to the content of the presentation can be found online starting at www.wisehat.com/resources/papers.htm [Expired link].
My format is to ask teachers to what games they use with students, notice how they are usually competitive, get the teachers to experience a competitive game from the perspective of a student, discuss the nature of competition and then provide examples of non- competitive and co-operative games.
I define a competitive game as one in which there is a scarcity of winning. The number of people who can 'win' the game is restricted. Some people will win others will lose. A non-competitive game is where the objective is open to all. One person or group achieving the objective does not prevent another person or group from obtaining a similar result. A co-operative game is one in which players are required to actively help each other in order to secure the objective.
But for some reason, I felt nervous and uncomfortable during my presentation. I lacked confidence. Partly this was because the room was large and the number of participants relatively small. There were also heavy tables which I wanted to move aside in order to create a more intimate space. But primarily I was uncomfortable because I was subconsciously labelling the participants as 'University Professors'. I was conscious of my lack of academic credentials. I was creating a hierarchy of value and putting myself at the bottom. This existed entirely within my own mind. I was intimidating myself. It's very useful to recognise this. One precept to help with this is never to make assumptions. The next day, one of the participants commented to me how successful and tactful I had been in dealing with a wide-range of people with different backgrounds and interests. I had distributed feedback cards and the warm response indicated that the presentation had been well received. Accordingly I was projecting rather than simply being. I was making assumptions, but it appeared my beliefs had not unduly affected the results ⁽²⁾.
Here is the feedback card I used. The card measures two criteria, fun and usefulness. It's a simple but effective. The criteria are useful benchmarks for the effectiveness of a presentation or class.

But to what extent are feelings really beliefs in action?

Human rights and conflict resolution in our classrooms With Alison Miyake

My final presentation was a joint presentation with my friend Alison Miyake. This was a very warm experience for me. It was interesting to observe how the structure we created with the participants overcame the limitations of the physical space. Tables filled the room completely and making the open space for people to sit in groups required a lot of pushing and shoving. We created a lagoon of intimacy surrounded by a craggy coastline of schoolroom conformity. In part we were aided by coincidence. Initially there were eight participants and we had them sitting in a circle. We then asked them to create a value line according to language preference. English at one end of the line, Japanese at the other and those with bilingual ability in the middle. We then sliced and folded the line to create two groups of four. The aim was to create two bilingual groups but like a conjuring trick people ended up back where they originally were.

[ p. 25 ]

Despite our grand title we wanted to show the importance of personal human relationships. We asked individuals to introduce themselves to their group and say what they hoped to take away from the presentation. We then asked each group to find an uncommon commonality (Kagan, 1992, p. 83). This generated much more interaction and team building than the original introductions.
From here we introduced two different stories about conflict in the classroom. One from the teacher's perspective was given in English, the other from a student's perspective was given in Japanese.
Despite offering a bilingual presentation we made no attempt to translate the stories but rather got people working within each group to support each other.
One of the exciting dynamics of multiple group discussions is that information is conveyed in tandem. The volume of information in circulation is much greater. Of course, this means that the teacher loses the central position of authority and can never know everything. The exchanges become much more personally relevant to the students as they are not going through the filter of the teacher.
One of the difficulties with giving a longer presentation at a conference is the movement of people into and out of the presentation as they go from one presentation to another. After 'half time' we had lost some of our original participants but had doubled the numbers altogether. We had planned to get people to share negative experiences in school and then role-play them for each other (Faber & Mazlish, 1996. pp. various). We had not done this before and I was nervous about asking people to perform. As it happened the group dynamics created were so energising and the personal recollections so powerful that the role-plays virtually made themselves.
We had prepared a handout listing various structures and techniques useful for group building and conflict resolution. But we allowed the participants to determine the speed at which we proceeded through the presentation. So we ran out of time! In hindsight this was inevitable. I cannot speak for Alison but I did not mind running out of time. The experience had been shaped by the group. I felt we had experienced classroom democracy in action. The group went its own way rather than running to the plan we had created. That we did not look at practical classroom applications was what the group chose. If I have regret it's that we hadn't planned on capturing the energy created for the future. Some spark was there and we allowed it to dissipate into lunch. But I feel that with the structure we used such a spark could be created again.
I believe that it's critically important that the structures we teach in are examined and evaluated and made concrete so that students and teachers can transcend them, if and when desired. But in order to do this we also need to be aware of our own internal assumptions and beliefs. There is interplay here. Shakespeare mentioned players and the stage, but of greater importance is determining the identity of the director.

How does the structure of this writing affect your beliefs?

Notes

(1) Are students empty bank accounts awaiting deposits of information or thinking beings that shape their own reality? See Pedagogy and Organizing – a guide for democracy teaching at www.corporations.org/democracy/pedagogy.html [Expired link].

(2) Not making assumptions is 'one of the four agreements' for happiness. See: www.miguelruiz.com/.

References

Faber, A. and Mazlish, E. (1996). How to Talk So Kids Can Learn - At Home and in School: What Every Parent and Teacher Needs to Know. New York: Fireside Press.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan.

---

Topic Index Page Index Author Index Title Index Main Index

---

[ p. 26 ]