APPLYING

Running
head:
THEORY
APPLYING
TO PRACTICE!
THEORY TO PRACTICE! !

Applying Theory to Practice

Analysis of a Story from My Teaching Placement
Kathryn Eveleigh
McGill University

APPLYING THEORY TO PRACTICE!

Applying Theory to Practice

Analysis of a Story from My Teaching Placement

My host school is located in Saint-Lambert, and students who attend Chambly

Academy are from the suburban neighborhoods, in and around the city. Saint-Lambert is a
rather conservative, affluent, and Anglophone-speaking area on the South Shore. Students are
from lower- to upper- middle class. Chambly is an IB school, therefore students are expected
to have access to technology and to perform at an elite academic level; such expectations are
difficult to meet when some students do not have Internet access at home or have learning
difficulties, and special needs. Furthermore, Chambly is an inclusive school that accepts
international students. I do not have any international students in my Secondary 3 English
class, but the cultural make-up of my students is quite diverse consisting of students with
Caucasian, Lebanese, Italian, Arabic, and Greek backgrounds.

My teaching placement classroom is overcrowded: both in terms of desks and bodies.

Desks are arranged in single seats but there is minimal space between them. There are thirtytwo students in my Secondary 3 English class, therefore the desks are even lined along the
chalkboard at the front of the class. Of my thirty-two students, the class gender ratio is fairly
even, with the boys outnumbering the girls by two. Having a few more boys than girls affects
the teaching dynamics in my English class because most boys, contrary to most girls, tend to
stay focused for shorter periods of time, enjoy oral work rather than written, and do not
express too strong of a preference for teacher support.

A few weeks ago, I was a little deterred from having to deal with at least five

reluctant students who did not see the point in what I had planned for my lesson. I thus
decided to try a different teaching approach. I was eager not to have a repeated incident
wherein this one student, Alex, defiantly called out in class, Whats the point of this? This
actually has no point! as we were reading our class novel and answering comprehension
questions. I switched up the class activities, and had students engage in group discussions.
Following group work, I assessed their analyses and opinions in a whole class setting. Instead
of focusing mainly on MELS competency 2, I shifted towards competency 1, thus
encouraging students to engage in what they did so well: talk.

APPLYING THEORY TO PRACTICE!

Students chose their groups but were informed that I was going to circulate around

the class and write down the names of students who were contributing insightful ideas and
interpretations. They were allowed to be in groups of four or five. I also had a set of
discussion questions, but allowed students to choose which discussion question they wanted
their group to answer. In some instances, there were students who obviously put on a show
when I would join a group. Yet for the most part, as I walked around the class, I noticed a
significant improvement in overall student engagement and avid, on-task participation. It is
important to note that, unlike classroom management theorist William Glasser who asserts
that teachers should endeavor to befriend their students, build strong supportive
relationships with them, provide encouragement and stimulation, and show unending
willingness to help (Glasser, 187), I did not participate extensively in my students
discussions. I observed, and contributed a bit if students needed guidance, but overall, I was
not trying to befriend them. My behaviour was purposeful in that I chose a less direct and
influential role with the aim of providing (and not so much participating in) quality teaching
and learning moments with their peers (Glasser, 186).

After ten minutes, I had students return to their original, individual seating so that

they would be sitting not necessarily next to their friends. The transition between activities
was smooth and efficient, and students continued to show respect during the class discussion.
Compared to the previous class when students would just cut off their peers and complain
that the activity was pointless, students now raised their hands and contributed meaningful
comments.

In accordance with Glassers choice theory, my classroom practice was successful

because I talked to students, not at them. I asked them to pick their groups and (to a certain
extent) their topics, and to participate and produce quality work. If they chose to do their
work, then they would be compensated for their insightful remarks with grades. I was not
rewarding with the intent to control, as Glasser states that as a deadly habit (Glasser, 196).
Rather, students were graded on doing their best: if they were on-task, communicating
properly in the English language, and making connections to the novel, then they could not
fail this learning opportunity. I thus eliminated failure: all opinions and comments were
validated and valued. And, in doing their best, without fear of failure, students produced
quality work.

APPLYING THEORY TO PRACTICE!

By having students work in groups, more voices could be heard. Typically shy

students were able to speak up with less inhibition, because they were with friends and in
smaller groups. They practiced building and nurturing quality relationships with their peers in
this instance. Small group work appeals to students basic needs as it not only establishes a
sense of safety and a sense of freedom, but also a sense of belonging (Glasser, 189). Students
could more easily obtain attention from their peers and from the teacher as I circulated the
class and sat in on each group (Glasser, 189).

The previous class, my students had adopted non-compliant and confrontational

behaviour toward me as a deliberate strategy by asserting that my lesson was pointless. I

believe that they intended to gain a pay-off: either reducing my expectation for quality
work, or improving their social standing with peers. However, in trying out a different, more
collaborative learning approach, my class did not involve a power struggle. Students were
given responsibilities that they were to carry out in a more autonomous way. I was not
watching their every move or monitoring their every word. Also, the group and class
discussions were useful work (Glasser, 190). The novel we were reading deals with the issue
of sexual assault which students considered as information [...] that students express a desire
to learn about (Glasser, 190). I thus made sure that my guiding questions were open to
various interpretations and were applicable to both our class novel and the real-world.

However, one drawback that I feel I will encounter with Glassers theory is that the

focus on personal choice, personal responsibility, and personal transformation does not take
into account that a lot of my students are just lazy. Leaving them to self-regulate themselves
and intrinsically motivate themselves to learn would not yield consistently high-quality
results because my students will, sooner than later, choose to take it easy and not do any
work. Although nagging is one of Glassers seven deadly habits, if I were to stop urging them
to do this or do that, then I feel that my students discussion would quickly turn into chatty,
irrelevant conversation (Glasser, 196).

I reflected critically on my classroom practices and lesson objectives after my

previous lesson when Alex had called out, Whats the point?. I realized that my students
were just being difficult because the bottom line is: they dont want to do the work...any work
in fact. I needed to wrap my head around this: I did not want to keep struggling with students,
and feeling the urge to justify myself. I forced myself to really hone in on what each of my

APPLYING THEORY TO PRACTICE!

lessons learning objectives are, but, straying from Glassers choice theory, I cannot allocate
excessive freedom to my secondary 3 students. They are not mature enough to assume that
responsibility and be consistently productive and proactive in their learning. Their sense of
self-determination is not developed to the point where they will all fully accept the
consequences of their choices.

Glasser states that teachers must recognize that they cannot force motivation into

students and, in the long run, can seldom do high-quality teaching with the boss
approach (Glasser, 191). Relating to that, I think that I should try to motivate my students to
succeed through Jones and Jones theory on involving students in academic goal setting.
Drawing from both Glasser, and Jones and Jones, I see academic goal setting as a potential
beneficial and effective instructional tool because by having students participate in individual
goal setting, I would be enabling students to experience a sense of understanding and
controlling on their learning, while incorporating their interests (Jones & Jones, 237). If
other teachers are concerned about their students maturity level or behavioural problems
when designing lesson objectives and instructional methods, I think Jones and Jones theory
on student motivation, specifically academic goal setting, allows teachers to still give
students a form of choice. By jointly establishing what material the students are expected to
learn, and the activities they will need to accomplish in order to develop their proficiency,
students are given a sense of direction and commitment (Jones & Jones, 237). This
decreases the chances of having to hear, But whats the point of this?.

I feel as though, especially in light of my limited teaching experience, I could not

fulfill the MELS competencies if I were only to solely use lead management, let my students
be the decision-makers in their curriculum, and only explore topics that interested them. My
goal is to have my students achieve academic and personal success, and I need to find out
how I can get them to succeed before I can lead them in achieving their own success. In
relation to Glassers axiom that states that we can only control our own behaviour, I believe
that I must master my own teaching behaviour, thereby exerting a degree of control and
limiting choice, to be able to eventually pursue choice learning, and be able to take a less
intrusive and more facilitating role as a teacher (Glasser, 190).

Until then, the next time Alex, or any other student, counters me and my learning

activities in front of the class, I plan to exercise self-discipline and self-control to react

APPLYING THEORY TO PRACTICE!

calmly but firmly. I plan to take the energy out of impending less-effective behaviour and
explain myself using I statements (Glasser, 197). I will take ownership for what I think will
provide effective learning opportunities for students-- which can also make a real difference
in their lives-- but I will not allocate too much time to justifying myself. This is not a power
struggle. Student provocation, in light of a learning activity that said student is not interested
in, is an incident, not an on-going discipline-worthy issue. In other words, in trying to find a
medium with Glassers theory, I am the teacher, and I should not allow the student to
completely control the interaction or my selection of the learning activities. I will take my
students interests into consideration, and I will try whenever I can to involve them directly in
the learning process, to lessen any behavioural issues (Glasser, 200). My goal is student
success and I need to attain that through the learning activities that I am most comfortable
and effective in teaching.

APPLYING THEORY TO PRACTICE!

References
Glasser, William. (2014). William Glasser on releasing the power of positive choice.
Building Classroom Discipline, 11th Edition. Ed. C.M. Charles. United States:
Pearson, 183-204.

Jones, Vern, and Jones, Louise. (2013). Chapter seven: Enhancing students motivation
to learn. Comprehensive Classroom Management. United States: Pearson,
215-278.