Teaching & Learning at Phoenix Park

I would like to begin by congratulating Michelle on a job well done. The presentation of material was clear and very concise. There were many discussions which elaborated on the issues presented by the teaching at Phoenix Park, which in turn increased my understanding of the teaching methods employed at Phoenix Park. I would also like to thank Scott for the wonderful spread of food, it was delicious!

I, like many of my classmates, would have loved to have had the opportunity to experience a learning environment similar to that encountered by the students at Phoenix Park. Instead, my learning consisted of traditional methods in which teachers introduced a particular topic, leaving little or no room for student self exploration. In comparison, students at Phoenix Park were introduced to a topic via open ended questions, which gave them opportunity to be as creative and in depth as desired. Students were responsible for their own learning, which in turn provided them with a sense of pride and accomplishment, which is sometimes lacking in the more traditional learning environment. This sense of pride and accomplishment led students to be more successful in mathematics, simply because they understood the mathematics. Boaler emphasizes this success in her following statement “The Phoenix Park students did not seem to have this shallow view of mathematics; they were aware of the depth of the subject-the different layers that may be encountered. The student also demonstrated an unusual awareness of the diversity and breadth of mathematics. They did not regard mathematics as a vast collection of sums; they seems to have a richer and more balanced view of the subject.” (Boaler, pg. 77)

As an educator, I questioned whether or not the techniques employed at Phoenix Park would be applicable to classrooms throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. My initial response was absolutely NOT, however, after much thought and discussion I am confident this open-ended approach to teaching would definitely work in our classrooms. That being said, in order for this approach to learning to work, a great amount of support from students, parents, administrators and board officials would be required. It would be a very time consuming process, and one which requires the teacher to be well organized and to have an extensive understanding of the subject material. As Sharon mentioned, it is not necessary that we do a complete program overhaul in one year, rather we could implement this particular technique at a rate comfortable to us. As well, a transition period for students is necessary as they move away from the more traditional methods of “drill and practice” and “practice makes perfect” towards an open-ended learning experience in which they are responsible for their own learning.

An area of concern for myself, as well as one pointed out by Boaler, is that of disruptive students. This particular type of student is present in all classes, across all grade levels. In the case of Phoenix Park, and I would venture to say in all cases, students were disruptive not because of the approach to learning, rather because of a lack of motivation to learn. As educators, the challenge for us then is to employ methods so as the unmotivated are motivated. As is stressed in the approach to differentiated instruction, it is important to meet the needs of all diverse learners in our classroom. For the disruptive students at Phoenix Park, this may mean reducing the amount of freedom they had by assigning particular questions to be complete (this seemed to be their preferred method of learning).

I think the open-ended approach to learning is great, but I question how or if it would work in some of the more rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. In these areas teachers already have a heavy workload, and in some instances are teaching outside their teachable areas. As well, there is the issue of multi-grading, which is a common component of many small rural schools.