I currently teach two sections of economics, and two sections of medieval history. How the two sections react to discussion topics, discipline, freedom, distractions, homework, and all the rest is never the same. The initial temptation is to dislike the variation, because it makes my job more difficult. But that's the surface-level temptation. At a deeper lever, I appreciate the intricacies. I don't want to teach robots, though some teachers might.
What fascinates me is not even that the sections are so different, but to what degree a single personality can affect the attitude and direction of an entire group. For several years now, I have been obsessed over group dynamics. What role does each person play in a friend group? What sorts of personalities best work together? I'm in the habit of labeling people in accordance with the theories I've come up with. For example, in any effective group of friends you've gotta have an ideas person. They always have great ideas, but don't necessarily have the tools to act on them. Other roles can include organizer, communicator, connector, marketer, initiator, expert, mood-lightener, mediator, leader, photographer, and more. No one is restricted to one particular role, but everyone has certain strengths and weaknesses. You gotta know your comparative advantage! Me, I'm an escalator — I escalate things. I'm great at taking an idea and bringing it to the next level, adding a new aspect or challenge, hopefully resulting in a better experience. If not better, at least more memorable, right?
There is a broader category where I label people as well. All, or nearly all, my friends are "troopers". I use this term to describe someone who is willing to try something new, someone who is willing to lose sleep or skip a class or just simply operate outside their comfort zone. A trooper is anyone you can text at 10 p.m. on a Thursday and invite to the midnight premiere of Twilight: Breaking Dawn Pt. 2, and they go. Troopers have a sense of adventure, and are vital to any healthy friend group.
With this approach, you can see how intriguing classroom dynamics could be. There are two students in particular I'll think of as "game-changers" in the most obvious sense. One, in eighth grade, is probably the biggest reason I have a discipline problem in the section. It's an indirect effect, though. She is the type of person I love — full of energy and wonder and the undeterred by societal expectations. Part of this, though, means that she has no filter. She doesn't just say what she's thinking the moment she thinks it, she practically yells it. I honestly doubt her ability to restrain her initial reactions, and I'm not sure I want to repress her anyway. Crushing enthusiasm isn't one of my favorite activities. The problem, though, is essentially the same as the "broken window theory" in criminology. The theory says that a building with a broken window left unfixed is much more likely to attract more vandalism, a wall with graffiti draws more graffiti, and so on. Once someone is shouting out in class regularly, it opens the floodgates. I doubt the other students recognize this effect, but they certainly act on it.
One of my tenth grade sections is generally combative and energetic, while the other is generally agreeable and reserved. Though I get along well with reserved sections, and they get along with me, it can be more difficult to stimulate quality discussions. In the reserved section, there is a girl who causes friction. To put it simply, she annoys many of the other students. I find her highly entertaining, and she is a great student, but her personality is just somewhat provocative. When you project this over the entire day, entire semester, and, in many cases, several years, it can wear down the most patient classroommates. What those students don't realize, however, is that, without this girl, it's very likely their section could drop from "reserved" into "boring". She creates a majority of the entertainment in the classroom, irregardlessly of whether that entertainment is appreciated by everyone or not. This is valuable from a pure entertainment perspective, but also from a Socratic method/discussion perspective. She gets other students involved and actively participating in class.
In both of these cases, if you take away one element, you have an entirely different group dynamic, and an entirely different experience.
Part of the draw to analyzing classroom dynamics is the fact that a large majority of the students are completely oblivious to the effect those around them have on their behavior. They are reacting genuinely, but unconsciously. It's innocent, but also naive. It makes me curious where the line is between oblivious and manipulative. Is being manipulative wrong? What is the best level of awareness to have? Are you aware of your level of awareness? Should you be?
This sentence is a non sequitur. This sentence is not a non sequitur.
A few of my students have been accusing me lately of being a hipster. When I began to argue with them, I realized something. I don't fit my definition of a hipster, but I do fit their definition, so I can't win. My hipster friends would be insulted to be grouped in with me, but my students don't have an accurate conception of how hipstery someone can be. That being said, I'm going to end this post with a link to a probably thought-provoking and possibly condemning opinion piece on hipsters:
How to Live Without Irony.
This sentence is a non sequitur. This sentence is not a non sequitur.
A few of my students have been accusing me lately of being a hipster. When I began to argue with them, I realized something. I don't fit my definition of a hipster, but I do fit their definition, so I can't win. My hipster friends would be insulted to be grouped in with me, but my students don't have an accurate conception of how hipstery someone can be. That being said, I'm going to end this post with a link to a probably thought-provoking and possibly condemning opinion piece on hipsters:
How to Live Without Irony.
