“All I see is red.”
“What happened? It looks like it’s bleeding to death.”
Recently, while having coffee with some former students of mine, they reminisced about being in my class, specifically the way I would mark up their essays. Though they didn’t always appreciate the grade they received, they knew that I would never assign a score without thoroughly commenting on their papers…in red ink. Even if they did well, they knew to expect a paper covered in red, asking questions of their arguments. The most common two words I wrote were “why?” and “how?” What I found most reassuring from this conversation with them was that even if they didn’t receive the grade they wanted, my comments began to permeate their thinking, which they believe has helped their current writing. AND, they said they never took it personally, nor expressed anger towards me, as they would to other teachers. They knew that I was earnestly trying to improve their writing, not arbitrarily criticizing their work.
This made me reflect on my recent project with a doctoral cadre of Kentucky teachers. We weren’t grading essays together, but rather working on our own IDM inquiry blueprints, which included an assessment of each other’s work. Their comments and suggestions were the metaphorical red pen to my inquiry. By the end, my work was a mangled carcass of what it had once been. Yet, I didn’t walk away discouraged. This wasn’t the first time my inquiries have been torn apart, nor will it be the last. I also don’t see it as a reflection of my abilities. Instead, I feel confident in how I need to move forward and improve my work.
As lead writer of the C3 Framework, Kathy Swan often says, writing a compelling question is like writing poetry. The same can be said of writing the entirety of an IDM Blueprint. It’s not going to come easily or quickly—often a compelling question comes in a moment of inspiration. But it is NOT like writing poetry in that we think of poetry as an individual endeavor. Sure, published poets go through editors as any published writing would, but it nonetheless has a definitive author. Looking at the New York Toolkit, there is an author to each one, but any of us who worked on the project knows that there is not a singular person to which credit should be given. I am proud of the inquiries I worked on, but I also recognize that they wouldn’t be nearly as valuable if not for the gauntlet they went through prior to publication. To truly create a captivating inquiry, there must be a team behind it.
Though we may stand alone in front of our students, effective teaching is truly one of collaboration. Reading through my current inquiry with the cadre led to a constructive dialogue and many questions. Their questions were meant to not only better understand my purpose, but to also probe this purpose so as to find ways to strengthen the inquiry. In this process, we became a team of inquirers, putting ourselves in the shoes of our students. Being forced to verbalize my thought process with a group of master teachers was most certainly a gauntlet—a room full of teachers with their red pens, tearing my inquiry apart in order to help me rebuild and reinforce.
I’m still working on this inquiry, which will eventually be posted in the Kentucky Hub of the C3Teacher site. One thing I can promise is that it is NOT going to be the same one I started with. Just as we use those red pens to help push our students’ abilities, this collaboration will produce a stronger inquiry. I will be the author, but it has a team behind it.
Working on an Inquiry? Remember, collaboration is key! Come collaborate with other C3 Teachers at the NCSS Conference’s C3 Foundry in New Orleans. Help build our team of master teachers, committed to promoting student curiosity through inquiry.
