Today I got to experience an exciting event at Prairie Creek that related in an interesting way to Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development. I got to be part of what they called a “culminating event” which was the end-of-theme product of one of the 4/5 classes. They organize their learning throughout the year in themes, and they had spent the last couple weeks studying mushrooms. Today their final project took the form of a school-wide and parent-inclusive presentation, which took the place of the usual “all-school gathering.” The 4/5 class (the Herons) first did a little skit about the importance of mushrooms and how they help spruce trees grow, and then separated into stations around the school grounds for people to visit and learn different things. One group taught about puff-ball mushrooms, one group taught about mushroom identification, one did a skit about ink-top mushrooms, one taught about parasitic mushrooms (“Mushroom Mind Control”), and others contributed with even more topics and activities.

When I was talking to Molly (the teacher of the 2/3 class I’m with), she said that these culminating events are valuable for a couple different reasons. One is that the older students solidify their own learning by teaching others. They get to practice public speaking and interactive teaching, and are models for younger students to look at for when they eventually produce their own culminating events. But most relevant to Erikson was when Molly said that these events are opportunities for every student to be successful because each student can teach or present their topic in a way that plays to their strengths. Like I mentioned above, some students did a skit, some did a more formal presentation, and others ran activities where they weren’t the center of attention but were more like facilitators of the activity.

Both the Herons as well as my class (the Egrets) should be in Erikson’s stage of industry versus inferiority, which means that they are in the midst of developing a sense of competence and confidence in their own abilities. By giving students a chance to succeed in different ways, this culminating event would hopefully allow students to feel industrious, not inferior. I have also seen ways in which Molly creates opportunities for success in her own classroom. She often designs lessons in ways that allow for differentiation. Every time that I have visited, there has been at least one part of an activity where students were allowed to choose between a couple options based on their own interests and learning preferences. For example, last week students were allowed to pick between drawing leaves in their nature journals or actively finding and identifying leaves around the school grounds for the last 15 minutes of school. This allowed students to choose and be successful in activities that related to their strengths.

Furthermore, Molly also thinks about differentiation when giving students directions. She always likes to give both verbal as well as visual directions. Sometimes she’ll do this by saying directions as well as writing them on the board. Sometimes she’ll do this by saying directions, and holding up fingers to tap along with each direction so that students remember the directions by remembering which direction each finger holds. This gives students opportunities to be successful in following directions if they learn and remember in different ways. Molly also often has students turn to a partner and repeat the directions before sending them off, which also seems to be a very effective way of giving clear directions to students and making sure that they fully understand them.

In these ways, I think both Molly and Prairie Creek in general promote an environment that encourages healthy identity development for students.

I would classify myself in Marcia’s moratorium stage. I am in this stage because I have explored many different identities, but haven’t firmly committed myself to a lot of them. For example, I have learned about many different religions by talking to friends and going to services when I’ve been invited, but I do not identify with a specific religion (I grew up in a nonreligious household). I have also explored different occupational options. I used to think I wanted to be a vet, but d then I shadowed a vet in my hometown and decided I didn’t like it. Then I thought I wanted to be a physical therapist but shadowed a PT for a day and also didn’t love it. Now I am interested in teaching and am pretty certain that I will go into education, but am not sure exactly what that will look like. I am open to working in an independent school, in outdoor ed, in a public school, or teaching in another more tangential way, such as working on a farm and teaching visitors about sustainable farming. Hence, I am actively exploring many parts of my identity. I have specific values that I strongly identify with, and am settled with who I am in that sense, but I would still place myself in moratorium because of the exploration taking place in other parts of my life.

Something else that I was thinking about today was when for the first 15 minutes of class after lunch, Molly played a video of a read-aloud book. This meant that the images of the pages were projected on the screen along with a recording of someone reading the book in time to the images. I was wondering if this watching the students and wondering if this was easier for them to follow or harder. It was probably easier for some that the images were large, and they could read along with the words. But personally I found it much less engaging than watching someone read a book to me, and related to some of the kids who were completely zoning out. Also, the video didn’t allow for students to ask questions, or to slow down, or to go back and repeat something. I wonder how student take-aways differ between being read a book in person and watching a recording of the reading of a book. Maybe some prefer the video while others prefer the real book, even if it’s harder to see.

Lastly, while watching the kids watch the video, I noticed that they were allowed to sit however they wanted on their chairs. Their chairs were stools without backs. Some sat at tables in a conventional position, some sat with their legs criss-crossed on their stool in the middle of the room (no tables), some sat on the ground and leaned their arms on their stool, and others sat in other positions. I thought it was neat that students weren’t reprimanded for sitting in unconventional ways, and also realized that it’s kind of ridiculous that I am impressed by this – why do we think students have to sit in a certain (generally unnatural) way to learn successfully? I think allowing students to choose where and how to sit is actually a positive way of giving them some autonomy and trusting that they know the best position for them to learn from.