The "Big Blow-Up" and being Genuine

I'm a little behind on blogging so I'd actually like to 'backfill' a little and discuss what interested me about Monday first, then catch up in another post.

The big focus Monday in E1 was the "blow up" at Table 3 when Tomme told Bill he was 'badgering' and that she 'hoped he didn't do this in the classroom'. (See Abby's post and clip on Monday "How to Interact with Others and Badgering".) I found the EPSRI discussion around this blow-up as interesting a phenomenon as the blow-up itself--the way we all read about the fight in Abby's notes in the am, talked about it over lunch, and (for me anyway, observing in the afternoon) focused on the dynamics in the group for the rest of the day, only to end by clustering around Abby's clip at 3:30 with rapt attention followed by more discussion, with many theories of why Tomme was angry at Bill, and whether Bill was in fact pushing limits and testing the group in a social sense. It's interesting to me how potent a display of anger is in this setting, and how it could consume our research attention as it did. Even today, two days later, I remain intrigued by the question of what in Bill's behavior, if anything, could have prompted Tomme's annoyance.

After the discussion with Amy and Rachel over Rogerian ideas yesterday, and Virginia's blogpost (see Tuesday's "Awkward Introductions: What are you doing here?) about feeling less authentic than she would have wished in explaining her interests in energy to the teachers, (not to mention my own fib to Virginia when she asked me what I'd done the night before, and I replied that I'd done typical toddler things when in fact my daughter was asleep by the time I got home), I've been thinking a lot about the notion of being 'genuine' and what it means in the context of the classroom. Rachel made a comment at some point (during the rights and responsibilities discussion) that as researchers one of our responsibilities is to faithfully represent the experience we're seeing in the classroom. This is interesting, because I immediately and intuitively agree with that as a responsibility, but when I examine it a little more deeply it's not clear to me to whom the responsibility is owed? Is it to the learners in the classroom (who have a right not to be misrepresented) or to the reading researchers in the PER community (who have a right not to be misled)? Both, surely. There is a kind of basic necessity for genuine-ness in faithfully representing whatever's observed which seems almost moral. But what interests me even more is that it seems to me there is an even larger more fundemental 'responsibility' to be authentic as a learner beyond the merely moral responsibility not to fake data. A researcher learns though the vehicle of her research, so if there is anything unfaithful in that research, the person it hurts the most is the researcher herself, who therefore has closed down an opportunity to learn. The real problem with misrepresenting the classroom in our notes or misrepresenting ourselves in the classroom is that it cuts short either our participation in the activity of learning, or our display of that participation. A genuine (which here also means transparent) portrayal/enactment of the learning process is perhaps the most winning form of authenticity in the classroom.

Mary Bridget made a note in Abby's blog about badgering that she felt Bill's having missed the introductions at the table on the morning of the first day may have set the stage for the "Blow Up." From watching this group in the afternoon, I had some questions about the 'genuineness' of Bill's stance as a learner... he pre-selected an 'energy event' (ice cubes melting in a drink) that before the group even left the classroom, and then tried hard to have his scenario included even though the group consensus was not leaning in his direction. The event closely echoed the lemonade probe we used in UE1 in June (Bill attended). The probe led to a great discussion in June about why we can't have cold energy instead of hot, and a decision that that really was an arbitrary decision. Bill it seemed had so enjoyed this discussion that he wanted to recreate it...even though the rest of the group was focused on events in and near the ship canal. He tried for a while to help the group to divide their whiteboards into 4 pieces so that each person could diagram a separate event. Lane constrained them however to come to consensus: even here Bill could not let go. So the group chose a kayaker, and then in deference to Bill, put a glass full of ice on the deck of the kayak. They then used two whiteboards, one of which was "inset A" referring back to the glass (tiny in the main picture.) What I wondered in reflection was whether Bill was trying to recreate the comfortable environment of UE1 because he had been yelled at in the morning? or whether he had started the day with a desire to stand a little outside the learning experience? so I went back and watched a lot of the morning's interactions in this group leading up to the confrontation. I was curious to see if there was something 'inauthentic' in Bill's approach to the group that had prompted Tomme's unhappiness.

This proved to be pretty tedious slogging, watching to see if the group abreacted to Bill's lateness (and there was a comment from (I think it's Melanie) about timeliness being a right & responsibility, but it didn't seem too pointed) as well as watching to see if Bill was checked out, or behaving in a leading manner. Right before the "blow up" Bill did begin questioning in a way that was a little difficult to watch. He kept asking, "what's in the battery?" and Melanie was obviously reaching, not connecting with the question. This is what she meant I think when she said, "this is not working for me"--her body was becoming still, sort of shrinking into itself, and it seemed as if she was having 'brain freeze'. Tomme's response, after defending her by squelching Bill, was to quietly provide her with a detailed description of what happens inside of batteries. On this second, careful, watch-through, I did not read this as a moment of Tomme resisting the free flow of questions from Bill and reverting to traditional 'teacher mode', but rather that Tomme perceived the technique of leading questions to be a little bullying when it was obviously confusing rather than intriguing the questionee. I think her statement "I hope you don't do this in the classroom" was her attempt to express a lack of safety she perceived for Melanie (as well as for potential imaginary students) and wished she rushed to secure. It wasn't a lack of genuine-ness that provoked her; it was a lack of empathy.

It looks as though Bill's effort to reach back to UE1 (and subsequent slightly less than genuine 'choice' of the ice cooling moment) was more a response to being chastised than an attitude he'd carried with him into the day from the start. This led me to wonder if lack of authenticity isn't usually a sign of some kind of internal flight from potential judgement.