Response to Mirtz

Although I found Mirtz's article to be a little shortsighted at times, I took some good advice from this reading. I have experienced the “direct/indirect” talk as both a student and an instructor. I like that she breaks down the idea of “off task” talk and instead discusses it in terms of direct and indirect discussion of topics. I think this idea fits well with the other article , because it would be very easy to assume as an instructor that our students were being disrespectful and take it personally. At the same time, assessing the frequency of indirect talk could be a good time to critically self reflect on our teaching methods. One of the areas that Mirtz doesn't really account for occurs when she discusses the reasons for “indirect” talk. She makes a very good observation that part of the indirect talk comes as a result of the students feeling each other out and developing an idea of boundaries or points of connection within the group. It is also important to note that the students are also feeling out the instructor. Mirtz does comment on this later on in the article, but I don't think she stresses the importance of establishing boundaries the first week. It is really no fault of the students if they misinterpret this allowance of exploration as a lax teacher and are subsequently shocked when the teacher suddenly switches from “interpreting” to “enforcing” a matter of weeks later. Even if the switch is not as drastic as this, it is still a much easier task to impress a sense of discipline and boundaries upon them within the first week rather than attempting to constantly redirect them weeks later.

I very much liked her suggestion that we don't attempt to control the discussion too much, and to allow for looser demands. I have felt more comfortable in classrooms where the discussion is rather broad and allows for a number of different ideas to come to the table. I think it also gives the students a sense of confidence that the instructor trusts that they are intelligent enough to direct their own discussions and supply the details to a broad subject. However, for this to move fluidly a sense of community and trust is very important. I understand why she allows for more indirect talk in the beginning and I think that smaller and more relaxed groupings in the first weeks could be effective for establishing this. In the class that I most recently observed, the instructor spent the first five minutes talking to the students on subjects other than class. He was very friendly and allowed the students to talk to him and to each other briefly while he organized himself. I was instructed to do this in my ESL classes as a “warm-up.” Again to bring in the second article, I think it is important to check ourselves when we do anything like this, because the students could take it as laziness, etc. on our part if we don't keep the first discussions under control.

Mirtz gave some good advice when discussing just how to get these conversations under control. I like her idea of the instructor as an interpreter, rather than a controller. I definitely think addressing issues of group dynamics in class is a good idea. Especially if tension develops within a class. I personally would not just put it on a handout, although a brief mention of what is expected could be a good thing to included on a syllabus. By discussing it in class you allow the students to give their input and they can freely address issues that may not have been apparent to you. Her suggestion to reflect on why indirect talk occurs is good, but I don't think it's a good idea to devote too much time to this for reasons of practicality. Giving specific tasks seems to be the best of these suggestions. This was another strategy that I am familiar with from my ESL experience. It not only keeps the students on task without being too constrictive, it also allows a series of ends for those who move at a slower pace. It keeps students who move at a quick pace occupied and gives extra time to those who need it. By providing a series of questions, etc. there will be no awkward silences where one group is still working when all others have finished. This strategy is also effective in that you don't end up being too hard on yourself as an instructor because you don't meet all the objectives that you want to accomplish.

When reading this article, the personal biases I have against group work were not entirely squashed. While I see the benefits of group work, and definitely intend on incorporating peer review and discussion groups into my class, I would never pick groups myself and I don't think I could bring myself to assign a graded major group project. I think that students know themselves well enough to choose those they work best with (within reason). I have read various theories (mainly in ESL) that suggest the idea of scaffolding (or pairing weak students with strong, etc.). While this idea can have benefits, it puts a lot of unfair pressure on students and is often very transparent. Scaffolding seems more reasonable within the context of a composition class, but I would still be concerned that the students would figure out that I was pairing weak and strong. I suppose this would be a case where larger groups could be more appropriate if I were to employ scaffolding.

I liked Mirtz's idea of peer group reports, but I would keep these anonymous or in the form of a paper. If a student in my class felt uncomfortable for some reason I would definitely want to know and I think the only way to find this out is in a private paper or anonymous hand-in. The anonymous idea could get ugly, so I suppose I would ask for signed papers. As for the students' awareness of their own direct/indirect talk – I would ask this at the middle or end of the semester so that they would have time to develop a classroom community before attempting to assess how things are working.