Reflections on “Good” Teaching

by Victoria Nichols

As reluctant as I am to admit it, I enrolled at the Boston University School of Education (SED) approximately seven months ago with, at least in part, the naïve Freedom Writers, Dead Poets Society ideation of what makes a “good” teacher. I had fallen trap to the “natural-born teacher” fallacy which Elizabeth Green (2014) so brilliantly summarizes in Building a Better Teacher (p. 6). Unconsciously I had equated manic energy, hilarity, sacrifice, and other aspects of personality with “good” teaching, but those are not essential characteristics. A brief survey of some of my high school friends uncovered something incredibly revealing. When asked “Who was the best teacher you ever had?” many responded with a question of their own: “Do you mean best or favorite?” And that, I believe, is a truly important distinction. The most energetic, the most memorable, the most loved teachers are not always going to be the “best” teachers.  

So what does make a teacher “good?” It is an incredibly nuanced question. At the heart of the issue is that fact that the majority of the stakeholders in education define the term “good” differently. For some, the “goodness” of a teacher is directly proportional to students’ achievement on standardized, high-stakes testing. For others, a “good” teacher is one that “gets” students into the best colleges and universities. For others still, a “good” teacher broadens a student’s horizons, challenging him to become a valuable member of society. But then the question becomes, how do you measure something so nebulous? What individual factors, what criteria, when added up, total a “good” teacher?

I think it is important to take a moment to note that in addition to these definitions of “good” being disparate amongst US stakeholders, this idea of “good” differs from country to country as well. How a culture defines the “goodness” of a teacher depends greatly on that culture’s norms and values surrounding education. As Pasi Sahlberg points out in the article What if Finland’s great teachers taught in U.S. schools?, “In Finland, half of surveyed teachers responded that they would consider leaving their job if their performance [were] determined by their student’s standardized test results” (Strauss, May 2013). This is in stark contrast to the US, where in some areas, 50% of a teacher’s evaluation is based on Value-Added Measures (Jones, Slide 15, October 2014).

Thus, at the heart of the “good” teacher debate in the United States is the question of our culture’s reliance on standardized testing. Given my background with Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory, it may be somewhat unsurprising that I am fiercely weary of standardized testing, especially the ability of these measures to accurately portray a student’s “intelligence.” Consequently, I do not think using Value-Added Measures truthfully determines a teacher’s “goodness.” My definition of a “good” teacher is not one who is able to churn out students capable of acing high-stakes testing. While this is no small feat, and not an achievement that should be ignored given our culture’s perception of academic success, I believe that a “good” teacher is something else, something more.

In my pursuit to find the handful of criteria which I believe comprise a “good” teacher, I decided to peruse the Danielson Framework for Teaching. Overall I found the Framework incredibly extensive, and I definitely agreed with several of the components, but nonetheless I felt that some aspects of effective teaching were still missing. After much deliberation, I drafted my own Framework for “Good” Teaching: 1) Thorough knowledge of content and pedagogy, 2) Passion for content and pedagogy, 3) Dedication to differentiation, 4) Excels at crafting dynamic, engaging, and energizing lessons, and 5) Willingness to continually develop, learn, and adapt as both content and pedagogy continually evolve. While I readily admit this is not a complete list, I believe that if an educator adheres to these criteria, they would be viewed as “good.” In fact, I have seen this in practice. 

But before providing an example of a “good” teacher, I want to explain my criteria. It was not until enrolling at SED that I began to truly realize the monumental importance of a strong education and background in both content-matter and pedagogy. I cannot even begin to comprehend how an educator enters the classroom without a background in Lesson Design, or Adolescent Development, or Teaching Text. I strongly believe that, much like Finland’s system, it should be mandated that every future educator should graduate from a Masters-level teacher education program. Were that the case, so many more teachers would have a thorough knowledge of content and pedagogy, a strengthened ability to craft thoughtful lesson plans, an understanding of differentiation, and a flexibility to evolve as an educator. In other words, were everyone to have to graduate from such a program, so many more teachers would meet the criteria I detail above and would be given the foundation necessary for effective teaching.

I would also like to note that, because of my background working with the Good Project, differentiation has been of particular importance to me. The Good Project defines work as “good” when it is excellent, engaging, and ethical. I believe that, in turn, differentiation embodies these “Three Es,” as this practice challenges teachers to teach more purposefully and more thoroughly, with a clear focus on the success of every student. Utilizing differentiation as a guiding principle, I have found myself completely engrossed in crafting some of my most thoughtful lesson plans. But what about the ethics of differentiation, of teaching in general? How can I devote my time to be maximally effective for the widest range of students? That’s a difficult question, but an important one. As a student teacher, I am still practicing this skill, but I have observed a common trend in the master teachers I have observed so far: they are continually adapting their teaching to better respond to each student’s individual skill set. That was particularly true of my 10th-grade English teacher, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Robinson met most, if not all, of my criteria. Most striking, however, was his true dedication to differentiation. One teaching strategy he employed that I hope to emulate in my own teaching was, each semester, instructing students to read one book of their choice and to write a brief paper in response. This brilliant move allowed students to choose readings that would challenge and interest them on an individual level. Above and beyond that teaching strategy, however, Mr. Robinson also identified my personal frustration of not being challenged. Noticing my apathy, Mr. Robinson gave me a suggested college reading list. He instructed me to read as many books as I wanted and informed me that he would grade any additional response papers accordingly. Holding me to a higher standard, he graded me as a college professor would, forcing me to grow exponentially.

Thus, I truly believe that Mr. Robinson was such an effective teacher because of his adherence to my five aforementioned criteria. Mr. Robinson wasn’t an especially lively or energetic teacher, nor did he have us continually bent over with laughter; these fickle aspects of personality were not what made him a “good” teacher. Instead, I consider Mr. Robinson a good teacher because of his knowledge, his passion, his strong lesson plans, and his differentiation strategies. Unfortunately, these criteria better adhere to the education culture in somewhere such as Finland, than they do here in the United States. Which, in turn, raises a striking question: How can I strive to uphold my Framework for “Good” Teaching when my criteria do not align with the educational culture to which I belong?

References

Danielson, C. (2014). The Framework. The Danielson Group. Retrieved from                                             http://danielsongroup.org/

Greene, E. (2014). Building a Better Teacher. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Jones, N. (2014). Teacher Evaluation Research.

Strauss, V. (2013). What if Finland’s great teachers taught in U.S. schools. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/15/what-if-finlands-great-teachers-taught-in-u-s-schools-not-what-you-think/

Civil Servants’ Craftsmanship: a Good Work Toolkit Approach

by Wiljan Hendrikx & Hans Wilmink

What does the craftsmanship of Dutch civil servants entail, and what does it take to support it?

Faced with this challenging question, a Dutch Ministry’s HR department in The Hague called the Dutch Professional Honor Foundation for help. Armed with a Good Work Toolkit-based approach, 4 groups with a total of 28 participating civil servants took up this challenge with their peers in 4 sessions per group. The 16 meetings were organized between October 2013 and January 2014. Together they formed a ‘developmental trajectory’ aimed at exploring civil servants’ Excellence, Ethics and Engagement, and strengthening their capacity to recognize, think about, discuss and act upon dilemmas faced in daily working life.

In 2 of the 4 groups there was debate about the approach used at the start of their first session. Participants were uncertain about what to make of the project, and their questions centered in particular around the intentions of the ministry:

“To explore and define for yourself what the core of your role entails? Is this really what the ministry expects us to do? Do we really get the discretion to think about these issues and discuss them independently?” they questioned. Moreover, a tone of uncertainty also resonated through their questions; civil servants had to ask themselves: are we capable and reliable workers or are we independent professionals?

Despite these initial doubts and hesitations, practically all participants pushed through. During the project, the tide turned and participants started to actively engage in the debates about Excellence, Ethics and Engagement within their own work, eagerly sharing their own stories. By the end of the project, a delegation of participants even volunteered to exchange thoughts with the ministry’s management on how to continue working with Good Work ideas and notions.

We can report several interesting findings based on the group discussions. First of all, we came across a number of core motives that civil servants – at least of this particular department – seem to share, causing them to be really engaged with civil service. First, our participants shared a strong desire to serve their minister, regardless of his/her ‘political color’. “Serving your minister” was seen as an honorable duty in and of itself. Second, they expressed a strong wish to put their expertise to (good) use. Being able to show what you can do and being appreciated for doing so within as well as outside of the organization is rewarding. Values like” being objective” and “independence” were often mentioned in this context – having the discretion to think for yourself independently of dominant trends. Third, our participants all felt personally involved in the policy domain of their ministry and the ‘common good’ it strives to serve.

Moreover, the group sessions allowed us to identify several dilemmas and tensions civil servants encounter in their work. First, there is a strong tension – sometimes even conflict – between civil service and political management. The bifurcated point of view of a professional civil servant and of a member of a political party often lead to vastly different solutions to a problem or situation; the latter attaching much more value to political feasibility and desirability. Second, we can discern a tension between civil service and society. A problem orsituation can be perceived in a completely different way from a technical/professional viewpoint than from a societal one, creating imbalances in the societal support base. A final tension we came across is between political management and society. Not only politicians, but also civil servants need to have a keen eye for societal interests and sensitivities. It is not directly up to the civil servant to neutralize the tension, but it is seen as his duty to signal and explicate these in order to communicate them to their political management, even when they are politically unwelcome.

Using Good Work concepts of Excellence, Ethics and Engagement to explore and discuss civil servants’ craftsmanship really opened discussions that would not have otherwise been possible. A narrative-based approach combined with small discussion exercises turned out to be a good starting point for debate. The greatest challenge for our participants was the use of the Good Work Toolkit’s narratives. Despite the undisputed quality of these stories, the civil servants did not recognize themselves enough in these stories, nor did they associate them with their own experiences. Our important lesson: focus on narratives from the profession itself right away and use these to collect participants’ own – similar – stories as soon as possible. As a consequence, we have developed our own toolkit, particularly aimed at civil servants (see Gerard van Nunen’s blog).

During a final collective session, after the end of the project, 14 participants volunteered to assist the ministry in its efforts to make Good Work for civil servants commonplace. This is an initial, promising sign that we have had some impact. We look forward to maintaining and improving civil servants’ craftsmanship through regular discussion and reflection among peers, based on our shared narratives.

Learning about Good at Project Zero Classroom

By Paromita De

From July 21st-25th, 2014 the Harvard Graduate School of Education hosted Project Zero Classroom (PZC), an institute for educators to delve into Project Zero concepts and see how they can better understand and meet their students’ needs as learners. Plenary sessions and mini-courses during the institute focused on topics such as creativity, comprehension, causal thinking, global understanding, and ethics. Sessions led by Good Project researchers allowed educators to examine ways in which issues of “doing good” arise in professional and personal realms.

Three mini-courses during PZC were taught by Good Project researchers. “The Good Project: Ideas and Tools for a Good Life”, led by Lynn Barendsen and Wendy Fischman, gave participants an overview of different Good Project initiatives and themes through interactive exercises and discussions. For example, findings on the importance of quality time from the Good Project’s Quality study were illustrated through an activity where participants observed alignments or misalignments between their personal values and the amount of time they spent on different activities during the week (such as work, commuting, spending time with family, etc.). A second mini-course, “Teaching ‘Good Work’ in the Classroom: An Introduction to the Toolkit”, was led by Shernaz Minwalla of the University Liggett School in Michigan and allowed participants to examine what Good Work means to them. Through this session, participants discussed what Good Work might look like in different vocations, explored their values, and deliberated on sample dilemmas from the Good Work Toolkit. Carrie James and Katie Davis led a mini-course titled “Cultivating Digital Citizenship – Strategies for Approaching Dilemmas of Privacy and Identity Online”, during which participants reflected on digital ethical fault lines – ethical issues that arise in the use of digital media – such as “privacy” and “identity”.

Two plenary sessions led by Good Project researchers discussed the influence of digital media on youth. Carrie James’ plenary looked at how dialogue occurs in digital spaces – such as commenting on social media – and digital dialogue can be channeled to develop our social and civic voices. Howard Gardner and Katie Davis’ plenary featured findings from their books The App Generation and a recent Good Project study on creativity and how it has been influenced by changes in technology. Project Zero Classroom gave the Good Project an opportunity to connect with educators and share ideas for making “good” a priority in the work they do with students.

Good Work Toolkit for Civil Servants

by Gerard Van Nunen

Martin is a 35 year old civil servant in the office of Migration and Asylum at the Ministry of Safety and Justice in The Netherlands. After he finished his masters in ‘Policy and Management in Multicultural Society,’ Martin specialized in migration issues because he wanted to help people seeking safety and shelter in a new environment. Human dignity and human rights are very important values for Martin.

A few years ago Martin collaborated on a vision and mission statement for the Ministry. He believes he contributed to a just immigration and naturalization policy. This work gave Martin personal and professional satisfaction. Further, managers and other policy makers see Martin as loyal and competent.

But times have changed. Martin finds that the political tone in government has hardened. Politicians and fellow civil servants frequently speak of immigrants in terms of ‘problems’ or ‘costs.’ The Secretary of State wants to rewrite the vision and mission statement and has asked Martin to be involved in the process. The new statement must focus on the rapid return of immigrants, stricter eligibility requirements for immigration, and cost reduction. On the one hand, Martin is flattered that he has been approached to rewrite the statement. On the other hand, he has serious professional and moral doubts about the new policies he has to express in the statement. What should Martin do?

For years, civil servants have faced growing challenges in their work. Professional expertise is increasingly undervalued, and their work seems to be obstructed by a tangle of rules and unwieldy structures. These developments adversely impact the intrinsic motivations of these workers. The Dutch Professional Honor Foundation promotes professionalism across different fields. In cooperation with the Dutch Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Professional Honor Foundation has organized a ‘Good Work Pilot’ for civil servants working at the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. This initiative is part of a larger national project called ‘Better Work in Public Administration’ (Beter Werken in het Openbaar Bestuur), which strives to improve the work done within the public sector. Inspired by the Good Work Toolkit, the Professional Honor Foundation developed a toolkit specifically aimed at civil servants and their complex professional environment, which is characterized by political, societal and organizational demands and by conflicting professional standards. The Good Work Toolkit for Civil Servants provides workers the opportunity to revisit what professionalism means to them and to explore the tensions happening within the profession. The Toolkit poses the following question: How can inherent tensions within the profession of government/public policy be dealt with in such a way that makes Good Work possible? The concrete case of Martin’s professional dilemma above, taken from the Toolkit, shows that Good Work in public policy is not easy or clear-cut. The question about what is ‘Good’ in the Civil Service profession is open to discussion.

The Good Work Toolkit for Civil Servants consists of narratives, assignments and reflection questions that deal with and analyze the practical reality of civil servants. All materials are based on real-life experiences. With the help of this toolkit, professionals are encouraged to discuss their own work and to learn from each other.

The toolkit for Dutch civil servants is structured into four sessions. The introductory session discusses the concept of ‘Good Work’ and asks ‘what is good?’ with regard to civil service. After the introductory session, three substantive meetings follow, each addressing one of the three E’s. For Excellence – which we have translated into the Dutch word for ‘craftsmanship’ – participants learn that its interpretation depends upon personal, institutional and societal standards. With Ethics, the participants take a closer look at the concept of ‘responsibility’ and how it pertains to their role as civil servants, asking the question, “what are consequences of my work for others?” The last session revolves around Engagement as an essential part of Good Work. Civil servants are invited to discuss the personal meaningfulness and importance of their work.

Sample cases, like Martin’s dilemma, facilitate the discussion of important issues, ideas and conflicting values within the profession of civil servants. This is done in a non-threatening and open environment. During the sessions, participants reflect on the experiences of others, enabling them to reflect on their own experiences, and discuss the overall profession with each other. In this way, useful strategies are developed to make Good Work possible, despite the hierarchical structure of the organization in which civil servants inevitably find themselves.

The Good Work Toolkit for Civil Servants is not a ‘course’ or ‘training’ and does not intend to form any professional code of conduct or list of competencies. The goal of the sessions is, through dialogue, to strengthen civil servants’ abilities to analyze different types of problems from their daily professional practice. The toolkit encourages participants to think for themselves and to exchange experiences in a group, so that they may discover and make explicit the core values and responsibilities of the civil servants’ profession. In this way, the toolkit is a constructive contribution to the quality of civil service and professional pride.

Combating Social Isolation Across Generations

by Jennifer Tu

Since 1994, people of all ages, from children and teens to veteran professionals, have contributed their voices to the Good Project’s body of knowledge and experience. I first met Dr. Howard Gardner over dinner at the Aspen Institute, and though I learned who he was only after our conversation, I was deeply impressed by his gentle wisdom and ability to bring out the best in others. This focus on others, rather than one’s own ambitions, reminded me of the elderly whom I volunteer for. After learning about the Good Project, I also found that its promotion of responsibility, community, and empathy resonated with one of my big ideas: intergenerational integration.

“I may forget your name. I may forget what you look like. But I’ll never forget what you mean to me.” This quote from a ninety-year-old woman, whom I’ve visited every weekend through the Harvard College Alzheimer’s Buddies (HCAB), reminds me of the gravity of not only the neurologic disease itself but also the social isolation associated with it that debilitates millions of people worldwide. Seniors increasingly lack a sense of belonging, are disengaged from others, and have shrinking numbers of fulfilling relationships as they deal with losing loved ones over time. In nursing homes and hospices, the only human touch that many receive is to force them to do something, whether to take a pill, eat their meal, get a shot, or move out of a chair. From personal experiences working in the nursing homes of New Orleans and Boston, I believe that there is a feasible, effective way to improve the quality of life of the ever-expanding elderly population. As dementia and associated issues are increasingly medicalized, I propose that social innovation can build on existing programs by integrating high school youth with the elderly for intergenerational interaction. Specifically, early exposure of high school students to nursing home communities can be a productive solution that mutually benefits both parties. While many college organizations exist to help elderly communities, I believe that young people need to have this kind of experience this earlier.

Intergenerational interaction can address many pressing concerns of the elderly. When I say goodbye to my Alzheimer’s Buddy every week, I have learned to avoid using “have a great week” to wish her well, because she would respond with a despondent sigh. Without a sense of belonging or value from another person, it is not surprising that social isolation has been statistically linked with increased risk for depression, dementia, falls, re-hospitalization, and even all-cause mortality. In the face of these grim consequences, all is not lost. Expedient, cost-effective, and mutually beneficial partnerships between senior care programs and youth organizations present a positive opportunity for preventing social isolation and preparing for America’s “Silver Tsunami.”

In high school, I started Generation to Generations (GEN2GENS, at www.gen2gens.weebly.com), a program that taps into something most people take for granted. Rather than view the growing elderly population as a burden in today’s economy, we view elders as a treasure trove of wisdom that can be passed on to young adults and improve their outcomes. The interaction between older and younger generations not only empowers the elderly to impact youth, but also provides additional opportunities to complete their legacies, and in the process, find renewed purpose. Imagine high school jazz ensembles, cheerleading squads, and chamber musicians going all out, sharing their talents in nursing homes. Now, imagine nursing home residents giving feedback and sharing life stories. Entering its third year in New Orleans, GEN2GENS makes this reality. Once my peers saw how much the elderly loved to see them, they engaged in learning that can’t be replicated in the classroom. The GEN2GENS team at my high school has continued for three years, organizing year-round talent shows, conversational visits, and an annual Generations Festival at several local nursing homes.

Currently, I serve as co-director of two college organizations with similar missions: Harvard-Radcliffe’s Music in Hospitals and Nursing Homes Using Entertainment as Therapy (MIHNUET, at www.hcs.harvard.edu/mihnuet/), which brings undergraduate performers to nursing homes in Boston every weekend, and the Harvard College Alzheimer’s Buddies (HCAB, at www.alzbuddies.weebly.com), which matches college students with Alzheimer’s patients at a local hospice on an individual basis for weekly visits. Each organization has its unique strengths. HCAB specializes in matching college students with Alzheimer’s patients at a local hospice on an individual basis for weekly visits. One patient summed up her feelings by telling us, “your smile, the way you talk, having you here is much better than a pill.” As a volunteer, I can testify to the longitudinal relationships that we build between Buddies, the emotional investment both parties make, and the lessons that students learn about dealing with loss. On the other hand, MIHNUET works on a broader scale by bringing undergraduate musicians to more than twelve senior care sites every weekend. A recent post on the MIHNUET blog by a hospital recreational therapist reads, “They brought life to the room and helped our patients and family members relax, forget their surroundings and enjoy an hour of live music. The room was packed and you could hear their voices filling the halls with lyrics to everyone’s favorite songs.” These two programs offer exemplary models for facilitating intergenerational interaction.

By combining both “vertical” integration through the in-depth relationships of HCAB and “horizontal” integration through the breadth of connections of MIHNUET, I envision a “diagonal” model for intergenerational programs that can be implemented by organizations at an earlier age. By tapping into the diversity and flexibility of high school students’ interests and talents, programs for intergenerational integration can both address the immediate needs of America’s elderly and provide youth with personal experiences in service and advocacy, generating awareness of growing concerns in the aging population. Thus, meaningful relationships on a local scale can provide a starting point for national or even global action, providing a solid foundation for elderly care in the future. By taking the time to bridge generations and combat social isolation, anyone can take a step towards a good world, where everyone is connected.