After the Fact

“It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.”  –John Wooden

One area of growth that I have as an educator is having my students intentionally reflect on their work.  Far too often I am eager for them to turn in their assignments that I forget all about the valuable learning experience I am skimming over.  

One of the only times I consistently remember to have my students reflect is after a discussion activity.  Since they have been talking, I want to make them write as a follow-up.  For some reason, this same instinct can be absent when my students produce a written product.  

Generally, after a discussion activity I have my students respond to the topic and explain ways in which their ideas have been strengthened, challenged, and/or changed.  However, while putting together my presentation on discussion strategies for a conference this weekend, I was reminded of other strategies, including 3-2-1, Exit slips, and a modified KWL chart (what I originally thought, new information from others, what I think now).  

Coincidentally, today I was reading Productive Group Work by Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey; the authors mention a math teacher who includes "two questions related to their study habits and group work.  The first asks them to report the amount of time they spent studying alone and with the group outside of class.  The second question asks them to estimate the grade they will receive on the test."  This practice accomplishes two things: (1) it helps the teacher to evaluate students own judgment matches up with their performance, and (2) it helps to reinforce the idea that success is greatly influenced by personal effort (see Carol Dweck's research for more info on this).   I really like this idea and plan to use it on my next test/major assignment.   

Moral Dilemmas and Case Studies

In Making All Kids Smarter by John Delandtsheer,  the author states that "all students benefit when they are given opportunities to discuss issues of right and wrong because it helps them look at real-life problems from multiple perspectives, listen to others, and then formulate their own opinions" (pg. 89).  With my medical pathway students, I like to pull out medical case studies that I find online or in other sources.  They often provide rich opportunity for discussion as students try to make sense of the actions of the participants and evaluate the decisions made.

I am starting a new unit this week on organ transplants and I have a few case studies that I like to use, which I will attach below.  Hopefully, you find them helpful as well.  Last year, I had students have these discussions in a large circle; however, I am thinking of trying a fishbowl discussion instead.  As a follow-up I have them write a response to the discussion now that they have had time to formulate their own thoughts, listen to the thoughts of others, and reevaluate their initial impressions.   


Case Study 1:

A 19-year-old woman is being treated for a serious kidney disease. She is currently on a dialysis machine, but treatment is steadily decreasing in efficacy. Before her condition declines any further, the physician suggests family members undergo tests to determine tissue compatibility to transplant a kidney. Only the brother shows a degree of compatibility high enough to be considered a candidate. The physician meets the brother alone to discuss the risks and benefits of the operation. Although agreeing to be tested, the brother decides not to donate a kidney after weighing the various alternatives because of the risks, and because, as he puts it, he doesn't "feel he and his sister have ever been close enough that they would ever take that kind of a risk for each other." The physician repeats a full explanation of the risks involved, and urges him to rethink his decision because of the serious nature of his sister's illness with increasingly little time to spare. The brother remains adamant in his refusal. What should the physician tell his kidney patient?

Case Study 2:


In England, the Whitaker family faced a terrible situation: their son, Charlie, suffered from a rare disorder that prevented his body from producing red blood cells. Without daily medications and frequent transfusions, Charlie would simply die. With them, he continues to live, but under close medical care.
For a while, it looks as though Charlie’s parents had figured out an answer to this dilemma. They proposed to use in vitro fertilization to have another child, but with an added twist. They would, as is usual in this procedure, have the eggs fertilized outside the womb in a laboratory dish, but they would then include an additional step. Using new screening techniques, they would screen the embryos to see which would be most able to donate blood-making cells to Charlie. That would be the one that they would choose to implant and bring to term.
In contrast to the United States and many other countries, in England someone proposing such a procedure must obtain government permission –in this case, from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. The Authority rejected the request by the Whitaker family, saying that it was not right to create a human life with the express intent of saving another life.
This case raises two kinds of questions.
First, do you agree with the Authority’s decision? Why or why not? What are the significant moral considerations in this case? What consideration is decisive for you?
Second, who should make these decisions? The United States does not currently have such a board, nor do most other countries. However, something similar is currently under consideration in several countries. Leaving aside financial considerations about who should bear the cost for the moment, who should have the right to make the final decision in such cases? Who should make the decision if the procedure is being paid for by federal health insurance? Private health insurance? The individual patient or family?

***as far as I know, I found these case studies on http://ethics.sandiego.edu; however, I can no longer find them on the site.

No Longer Gifted

I just received my copy of Making ALL Kids Smarter by John Delandtsheer in the mail today after waiting for it to come out for the last few months.  Since John was the one who conducted my GATE training, I knew that his book would  be chock full of useful info and thought provoking  insight.  And I have not been disappointed.

Though I am only part way through, one of the things he emphasized in the training I attended, and is featured in his book, is the fact that GATE students may in fact decline.  John states, "GATE students who underperform may not lost their gifted status but they very well could lose their giftedness" (pg. 5).  Many times students are tested into a GATE program during elementary, frequently being identified as second graders; however, if the same child was tested two years or 6 years later, he/she might not qualify anymore.  Due to the way that most districts structure their gifted programs, students are never tested again, and so never have to deal with being removed from the program later on.  This make sense from an administrative standpoint, who wants to spend more resources to test students multiple times when it is not mandated (CELDT and many other tests are already mandated for other special populations).  However, this also makes sense from a counseling standpoint because who wants to be the one to contact parents to let them know that thier child is not longer considered gifted.  Consequently, there are also students who may not qualify for services during 2nd grade when they are initially tested, but the same student may qualify later on.