Todd Erickson

CRCRTH601
Final Paper
11/21/11
Listen to Teach, Teach to Listen:
The Teacher as Listener
Or
Teaching, All Ears
Part One: From Whence
In her instructional and informational Teenage Liberation Handbook,
Grace Llewellyn (a former middle school English teacher) has a chapter
titled, School is Not for Learning. In this chapter she poses an answer to a
question that, while assuming a general lack of success in schools to fulfill
their purpose, maintains a spirited desire for people to learn in meaningful
ways (and justifies the title of the guidebook itself): Why dont people learn
in schools?...Our brains and spirits are the freest things in the universe. Our
bodies can live in chains, but our intellects cannotThe mind will be free, or
it will be dead. It can be numbed, quieted, and restrained so that it
memorizesIf it is fiercely alive and teamed up with a forgiving spirit, it may
find a way to be free even in schoolBut these strategies are defenses, not
full-fledged learning (46). One may find a variety of reasons to disagree
with Llewellyns emphatically steadfast claim of the ineffectiveness of
schools. While it may be easy to find elements of schools that exemplify the
confining atmosphere she describes, there are also often elements of schools
that do, in fact, lead to meaningful learning. Thus, as socially rebellious as
Llewellyns ideas might be considered to be, one might also inquire the
degree to which she is unable to see these institutions from multiple
perspectives. In addition, this is not to mention the problematic statement
that our bodies can live in chains, but our intellects cannot particularly in
light of the existence of multiple intelligences: one thinks of the student with
exceptional bodily-kinesthetic inclinations or tendencies for whom neither

mind nor body can grow in chains (one must ask, too: whose could?). These
issues aside, however, Llewellyns argument has import: many schools are
operated with a stringent atmosphere of students bereft of intellectual
freedom, subject to instruction molded by the pressures of high-stakes
testing, scripted lessons, unsupportive administrations, andmost damaging
perhaps, if instructional time is the most important elementstagnant
teaching practices based on outdated educational philosophies, nevermind
careless and indifferent educators. These are places of anything but the
exploration, risk-taking, and lively thinking that legitimate, useful, and
sustainable learning requires. As Brooks and Brooks state, It is difficult for
teachers to embrace teaching practices designed for the construction of
meaning in such a regressive educational climate (150). The mere amount
of problems that schools face is mind-bogglingsometimes so much so that
the inclination to ignore them (to not actively seek problems) seems justified.
One might even do better to simply sit back, read The Teenage Liberation
Handbook, and put together plans for leaving school successfully.
This paper refuses to do so. With all due respect for the intellectual
effort and often valid reasoning of Llewelynns ideas, as well as kudos for
taking on the task for making an unpopular argument, and while taking into
account the fact the Llewelynns work may serve as an effective means to a
solution of the task of educating ones child or oneself, the concept of simply
leaving a school does not help the problems of the school being left. In other
words, the problem of obtaining meaningful individual education is different
from the problem of schools being able to best provide that education.
Llewelynn does not, and does not seem to mean to, propose solutions for the
latter issue. Rather, she proposes a solution for the former while (somewhat
cynically, perhaps) ignoring the possibility that solving the latter would also
solve the first. Understandably (given the books purpose, she ignores the
fact that a successful school would provide all of individuals in it with a
meaningful education. This author believes that it would serve our
democratic society far better if schoolsthe institutions that, when working
at their best, are the most powerful equalizer in an economically stratified

societyundergo changes rather than simply be left empty in the wake of a

diaspora of courageous teenagers.
Thus, this paper chooses to stay in school. It is meant to provide a
humble yet adventurous proposal regarding a means to move towards some
of that change that students deserve. Humility in action: the author, by no
means, aims to provide an exhaustive list of all the solutions to all of the
problems in education. On the contrary, in recognizing that problems need
to be a part of education, it seeks to change the kinds of problems that are
encountered in schoolsthus, for example, the problem of students not
having intellectual freedom is replaced by students use of intellectual
freedom to solve problems that are relevant to their lives.
Finally, the author aims to do so in a clear (but not necessarily simple)
way that provides justification from literature for its argument and
subsequently an authentic theoretical framework for the application of the
proposed solution.
Just hear me out.
Part Two: Story Time, an Audible Proposal
A few anecdotes based on personal experience would serve well as
exemplars of the admittedly broad problem that the subsequent description
aims to define.
In a large urban high school, a freshman student has been scheduled
to have consecutive classes in opposite ends of the building. Thus, the
student has a passing time of four minutes to travel the length of two
football fields and couple of tight stairwells shared with perhaps a good fifth
of the schools 4,400 students. The relatively small student, with his
relatively huge backpack, struggles to push his way through the crowds,
often getting to class slightly after the bell, but never entering the class in a
disrespectful or disruptive manner. The teacher, somewhat wary of being
deemed too soft on the student or negligent of his disciplinary duties, turns
the student in as tardy each time. The demerits received for this accumulate

so much so that the student begins to receive punishment for being tardy.
This student is called down to the office and told simply that he has
accumulated demerits and must serve after school detention as a result.
The student attempts to speak in order to explain his tardiness, does so in a
respectful manner, but is abruptly interrupted with a stern, blunt, somewhat
jarring Doesnt matter. End of discussion.
Meanwhile at the other end of the school building in the middle of a
science class, a teacher is confronted with a student who is refusing to do his
or her work. In response to this situation, the teacher provides a warning to
the student, stating that she or he must start doing the work or leave the
classroom and head to the office, whereupon the student would sit for the
remainder of the period and receive seven demerits for failing to comply with
a teachers request. The student continues to refuse to do the work; the
teacher responds consistent with the threat given: the student is sent to the
office. Period over.
Finally, at another point in the day, an administrator addresses his or
her department in a faculty meeting. The administrator discusses a recent
conference that she or he attended and mentions a prominent political
figures emphasis on the need for students to be better problem-solvers and
decision-makers. This is then followed by a period of time in which teachers
work in groups to devise lesson plans that are consistent with a series of new
curriculum objectives mandated by the state. The words problem solving
and decision making, however, do not seem to appear in these objectives,
nor are they ever again spoken at the meeting, nor do they appear directly
or implicitly in the created lessons. Meeting adjourned.
None of these are meant to serve as critiques of the individuals
involved. The purpose of this paper is to strengthen the voice of the
individual, not to do away with it by degrading the adults in the situations.
Simply critiquing the individuals involved would be hypocritical, for these do
not give voice to the adult individuals involved. Rather, I mean to suggest
what in the approaches to the situations might be altered to result in more
positive outcomes, namely learning opportunities. That said, the main

reasoning for citing these anecdotes is this: however different they may be,
they are similar in something that they do not exemplify enough of: listening.
In the first example, a student is punished despite having presumably
reasonable explanations for the incidents that resulted in that punishment.
Upon attempting to state his point of view, the student is given no chance to
make an argument, no opportunity to speak his mind. There is no
discussion. In fact, he is met with not only almost complete lack of audience,
but with the little audience he is given being rude, disrespectful, and lacking
any empathy whatsoever. He is a victim a system that is enacted by the
adults around him. Regardless of how much patience and wisdom the
student may have, regardless of how respectfully he may respond to the
situation, he is given reason to develop resentment not only toward the
individual assigning the consequence, but toward the system in which
theyre operating, and perhaps towards people in general if the interaction is
considered modeling. The students voice is neglected by a series of choices
that the adults make yet push responsibility for onto the strict system of
rules and consequences. The system takes precedence over the students
individual needs and circumstancesindeed, these are never even given
airtime.
In the second example, one may claim that not only is there a lack of
listening, but also even a lack of communication, period. The student is
never given a choice not to do work, for that would be considered an excuse,
a kind of giving up on the student. (Note that, ironically, sending the
student out is not necessarily construed in the same way.) It is simply never
considered to ask the student why he or she is refusing to do work, there is
no opportunity to legitimately complete the reflection process that might
enable his or her mind to focus, and there is no acknowledgement of the
possibility that the work itself is not challenging, not beneficial, and not
meaningful for the student. The purported need to teach the specific
curriculum in the way the teacher knows how to (perhaps via a somewhat
scripted textbook) trumps the needs of the individual student. As far as the
student is concerned, there is no voice, for there is no legitimate and direct

opportunity to use ittheres seems to be no evidence that could lead to an

inference that somebody is listening.
In the third example, it is an issue of the degree to which an individual
listened (which shall be considered in the definition soon to follow). If
listening is seen not simply as the reception of information but also the
action that occurs as a result afterwards, one can see that the administrator
while attentive, astute, and conscientious enough to relay significant and
meaningful informationdid not transfer this into the action that was to take
place in the rest of the meeting. Thus, the important skills of problem
solving and decision-making are handled in an all too familiar way:
mentioned and then forgotten. The content of what was said at the
conference, in this way, is never transformed into actionthe listening that
was done by the administrator is, in effect, made mute by the decisions that
chronologically followed yet ignored it. An opportunity to incorporateor at
least to discuss the incorporation ofthese thinking processes in ones
teaching is therefore missed.
One can assume that the list of anecdotes goes on and on. What
listening, for example, does a four-hour multiple-choice test involve? What
voice do students have in an hour-long lecture? What voices are listened to
when a curriculum is determined solely by a textbook? What opportunity for
curiosity and inquiry is provided when a teacher determines theres not
enough time for such things, or simply doesnt care, or just thinks that the
students dont know what theyre talking about, cant do something, wont
learn if classroom control is tipped on the instructional scale? Of course,
there is evidence of some listening going on (and one could easily and
optimistically assume so for all schools), but there is clearly not enough of it,
of the right kind, at the right time, and in the right space. In addition, while
it is evident that this may be the case in a variety of school settings and with
a variety of individuals that do work in them (teachers, administrators,
students, etc.), it may serve best to begin with the teacher as listener,
specifically in the classroom. Accepting the idea that the teacher is
ultimately there to serve the students in the way that best enables them to

learn, it is also logical to see that it is the teachers behavior and

understanding that should first be adjusted in a way that would lead to
change and improvement sooner. It is through such change that the
emphasis on and importance of listening becomes apparent to students,
both directly through activities that explicitly focus on it and indirectly
through everyday modeling. Thus it is the teacher that becomes less of a
loudspeaker and more of a roundtable with an interesting centerpieceit
seems ridiculous to have to say which of these would more often result in
better learning.
A skillful teacher is, of course, many thingsa designer of curriculum,
a critical practitioner of various educational theories, a maker of copies, an
assessment gurubut at the root of these is the role of listener: one who
mindfully chooses A) to take multiple points of view into consideration, to
withhold judgment, to proactively believe (both in students and their ideas),
to act in ways that implicitly and explicitly respect the act of listening (and,
therefore, the individuals involved), and B) to then act to develop with
sensitivity the kinds of situations that most benefit learning. With this
definition, listening is a not only a choice, but is a choice to follow-through by
responding and designing with and through the content gained by listening.
Both of these parts of the definition are of equal significance, but it would do
well to consider the latter in a bit more detail here, as it may more often be
considered a separate process altogether (i.e. conceptualizing the response
to listening as apart from the listening).
A simple example may demonstrate the need for the latter part of this
definition. The teacher who has noted various elements of student behavior
that speak of the wants and needs of his or her students (a need for
relevance, a desire to be challenged in meaningful ways, etc.), may have the
sensitive ear (literal and figurative) that a teacher needs, but without the will
to act upon this information, it may as well be contended that the teacher
certainly heard, but did not listen. (Keep in mind that this does not consider
the possibility of external pressures and stressors that prevent or subvert the
teachers efforts to do so.) In effect, this teacher has chosen to ignore the

students. Thus, without any change resulting from the listening that took
place, the listening itself may as well have never happened. In effect, this
teacher does not teach; rather, this teacher instructs, this teacher orders,
demands, even enslaves the students into a rigid system of often
disconnected and forgettable knowledge noodle soup. A hypothetical case
might aptly sum up the course of a year in such a class: in such a class, the
student with the uncanny memory but a noticeable lack of effort succeeds
by getting As on short answer and multiple-choice tests. Thus, no wonder
such a classroom breeds disconnect in its relationships, discomfort amongst
the students, a fear of inquiry and curiosity and being wrong. No wonder
such a teacher feels as though he or she is battling against the students,
approaching the class with a predisposition for debilitating and sabotaging
conflict. This is not to suggest that conflict is always badin fact, it is more
likely to be considered necessarybut that the conflict needs to be of the
most beneficial kind, the kind that occurs organically through the process of
exploration and sincere, equitable, and respectful communication between
the teacher and the students. It is the kind of conflict that meaningful
listening can both help to define as well as resolve in a constructive way.
Given this definition, listening is something that through its absence or
its resultant action can be, respectively, both the root of and the remedy for
many of the issues a teacher is faced with. It is central to constructivist
student-centered teaching, to curriculum design, to classroom
management, to creating a positive learning environment, to interacting
with ones students, and to the ever-important process of reflection. The
skillful teacher is, in fact, the skillful listener.
Part Three: Says Who?
There is a great amount of literature that states importance of listening
in the classroom, explicitly or otherwise, for both the students and the
teacher. As stated above, however, the focus here will be specifically on the
teacher as listener, as a model for students: Moral education for youth

starts with us adults: the lives we lead and thus project; the routines by
which we keep our classrooms (Sizer 121). In addition, this reasoning
seems logical in light of Arthur Costas statement that What the teacher
says and does in the classroom greatly affects student learning. Certain
teacher behaviors influence a students achievement, self-concept, social
relationships, and thinking abilities. Teacher behaviors that invite, maintain,
and enhance students thinking fall intoquestioning structuring the
classroomresponding[and] modeling (359). For purposes of
organization, this paper will refer to statements concerning the influence of
and need for listening in the realms of developing constructivist curriculum
and instruction as well as in responding to or interacting with students in a
way that helps to create a positive classroom culture.
First of all, why constructivist curriculum and instruction? In the task of
developing curriculum and instruction, the benefits of constructivist teaching
methods have been proven, even if one simply considers the ineffectiveness
of other methods. Though it may incorporate some definition of listening in
the classroom, The lecture method has long been found wanting in terms of
student learning (Costa 361). It is not that kind of incorporation of listening
that this paper aims to emphasize the importance of. Rather it is the kind of
listening that constructivist teaching employsone that honestly works to
take into account or listen to and act upon the ideas, interests, needs, and
problems of the students being taught. When determining how to structure
a lesson, how to determine the topics to be covered, dialoguemust be
kept in focus as we consider which teacher behaviors are facilitative.
Analysis of those instructional strategies intended to enhance thinking,
creativity, cooperation, and positive self-worth stress the need for this
dialectic discussion strategy (359). Again, it is not that listening is wholly
absent from the activity of a lecture, but that it is not the most beneficial
kind (one that incorporates no inquiry or doubt on the part of the listener,
one that supposes no subsequent action on the part of the listener, one that
purports the content of the lesson to be unchanging, final, andin a way

dead). There is no discovery involved on the part of the student and it lends
itself to an education by memorization.
That said, the use of constructivist methodsthose that put the
students in the drivers seat, so to speakinvolves a great deal of
listening. One need only consider the first three elements highlighted in
Brooks and Brooks Becoming a Constructivist Teacher: 1. Seeking and
valuing students points of view. 2. Challenging students suppositions. 3.
Posing problems of emerging relevance for students (150). None of these
three can be presumed to work without a teachers close listening to
students to obtain and understand a students point of view, to respond in
challenging ways to students ideas, and to determine what is of significance
to the students themselves. In the same article, a set of descriptors of a
constructivist teacher is provided and elaborated upon. A consideration of
just a few of them makes the significance of careful listening obvious in ones
instruction: Constructivist teachers allow student responses to drive lessons,
shift instructional strategies, and alter contentConstructivist teachers
encourage students to engage in dialogue, both with the teacher and with
one anotherConstructivist teachers seek elaboration of students initial
responses (154). All of these require a sincere effort on the part of the
teacher to listen to students ideas and voices and to follow-up that initial
listening with action that incorporates the obtained information. An
antithetical example is referenced in Bobilya and Daniels article on Eleanor
Duckworth: teachers who choose or are made to feel bound by the
requirements of a textbook, and believe that their success as a teacher will
be marked by the completion of lesson plans, and the scores their students
attain on tests (75). This teacher need only listen to students when they
are responding to questions to deem whether they have stored the correct
information from the reading or from the pre-determined lab activity or from
the vocabulary list. Anything besides this, deviations on the part of the
students will be deemed inappropriate and inconvenient (75). In the
context of this paper, these deviations are heard and dealt with but
certainly not listened tothey have no place in the classroom. On the other

hand, Duckworth is referenced as saying, if teachers have confidence in the

potential of each child, and children are encouraged to pursue the having of
wonderful ideas, regardless of whether those ideas are deemed wonderful
by the outside world, they will be more likely to someday discover an idea
that no one else has had before (76). All of this not only requires a new
understanding of what knowledge is, how a classroom should operate, and
what freedoms students need to have, but has the implication thatat the
root of all of thisa students ideas are understood as legitimate, worthy of
being listened to, worthy of being used to guide further instructionequally
important as those of a textbook.
Additionally, if one considers the definition of listening as posed above
(listening and taking resultant action), it is not real listening even if this
teacher did in fact allow students to pose their ideas, but then did nothing
with them in terms of shaping further instruction. Thus, a teacher who does
not listen in this way cannot be a constructivist teacher, cannot have
genuine constructivist problem-based learning happen in the classroom,
because even if she or he does know the studentstheir interests, their
issues, their needs, even their thinking (such as the makeup of their multiple
intelligences)it is not used to guide content and instruction. A great deal of
learning is missed out on because of this lack in follow-through. It denies the
idea that personally posing and resolving problems gives students
opportunities to become more meaningfully involved, because educators
trust their studentsto organize their learning and fashion meaningful
culminating experiences (Barell et al 259). It neglects the idea that we all
have different inclinations to use multiple kinds of intelligences, that we each
learn best in different ways, and does so despite the fact that knowing the
different thinking styles can help educators make sense of the differences in
students thinking processes and lead to enhancing learning (Lozano 192).
Granted, there are a great many pressures that may be considered in the
creation of excuses for such a lack in listenings follow-through. This paper
cannot grant the courage to overcome such barriers, but perhaps the use of

the ideas posed in the fourth part may help bring such barriers to light more
frequently.
In terms of assessment, one also finds the great significance of
listening. This is not only seemingly obvious in strategies such as the simple
back-and-forth discussion of topics with students (or perhaps in a specific
strategy such as dip-sticking), but in a greater context of the data a
teacher gathers. Data is often connected to testing, which is often of the
standardized fashion (multiple-choice, short answer, and so on). In the realm
of high-stakes tests, teachers sometimes resort to listening to data derived
from these tests to the detriment of listening to other data that is more often
available and probably in greater quantity. As Costa states in Mediative
Environments: High-stakes accountability causes educators to search for
hard data by which to assess their efforts. Therefore, what teachers observe,
by inference, is soft data, however, the hardest, most objective data
available may be that collected by an enlightened teaching team that
gathers data over time in the real-life, day-to-day interactions and problem
solving of the classroom (137). Clearly, the real hard data of which Costa
speaks is that which requires close listening on a broader scale, throughout
the day, over the course of many daysnot simply that in which a student
takes a test.
Finally, the act of listening is of great significance in the development
and upkeep of a positive atmosphere in a classroom. In Designing the
Invitational Environment, John Barell states that The power of our
responses to students inquiries, answers, and projects can do so much. We
should express appreciation, validate ideas, ask for elaboration and
clarification, and encourage students to go beyond whatever they or we
think their limits are (108). In addition, Arthur Costa states in Teaching For,
of, and About Thinking, that teachers should respond to students ideas in
such a way as to maintain aclassroom climate that creates trust, allows
risk taking, and is experiential, creative, and positive. This requires
nonjudgmental listening and the probing of students and each others ideas
and assumptions (354). Needless to say, doing these things requires a

great degree of care in listening and the follow-through that this papers
definition of listening includes. Also, it touches upon another aspect of the
definition, which is to listen in order to take multiple points of view into
consideration, withhold judgment, and to proactively believe in the students
ideas. Doing so helps to create an atmosphere in which acceptance is
unconditional and that enables learningin Teacher Behaviors That Enable
Student Learning, Costa says as much: Nonjudgmental acceptance
provides conditions in which students are encouraged to examine and
compare their own data, values, ideas, criteria, and feelings with those of
others as well as those of the teacher (367). This also leads to the
application of empathy in the relationship, a response which communicates
that the teacher not only hears the students ideas but also the emotions
underlying the idea (369). In other words, the teacher has listened to the
student.
This is, of course, a brief survey of some literature. Indeed, the use of
listening in the classroom appears directly or otherwise in a seemingly
endless amount of writing about teaching. Nonetheless, hopefully what is
offered here provides some foundation for the definition that has been put
forth. How about something that might help one think about how to act
upon that definition in his or her teaching?
Part Four: You Might Think of It This Way
A quick online search of stressful professions will allow the reader to
find a fair acknowledgement of the difficulties of teaching in a holistic sense
(regardless of how well this may translate into the professions economic
benefits). In his article, Mediative Environments, Costa discusses several
sources of stress for teachers: Teachers may lack a sense of power and
efficacyTeachers feel isolatedteaching is often reduced to a rubric, a
simplistic formula, or a list of competenciesThe feedback of data on
student achievement is for political, competitive, evaluative, or coercive
purposesEducational innovations often are viewed as mere tinkering

(135). That said, the problems that teachers face need to be solved with
solutions that simultaneously provide buffers to these stressors, lest they
subvert the use of the solution. A solution should make use of ones
autonomy, involve some sort of collegial component, not be superficial or
pedantic or obsessively empirical, and should have real meaning and results.
The theoretical framework below, meant to address the somewhat general
lack of listening on the part of a teacher, was constructed with these
elements in mind: it is ideally able to be shaped and directed by the
teachers ideas, choices, and construction of instruction; it aims to avoid
rubrics and superficial simplicity (though these may be used in a section of
it, such as gathering assessment data); it is not meant to be used for
evaluative or political purposes; and it is meant to serve as a catalyst for real
and meaningful change in ones instruction (though this, of course, is
ultimately left up to the teachers use of it).

The above novice draft of a concept maphowever incomplete as it

may be when put under scrutinyis meant to serve as a basic visual

explanation of the following theoretical suggestion or framework for

approaching teaching as a listener, or, rather, as a more effective listener
one who both listens in the receptive and open-minded ways already
discussed, and who uses the synthesis and analysis of the gained
information to shape how she or he thinks about instruction.
In this model, the listening that a teacher must do is broken into two
main categories: interpersonal and intrapersonal. In simpler terms, a
teacher must not only listen to his or her students, but also to him or herself,
in order to provide more effective instruction. Both inter- and intrapersonal
listening serve different purposes, but work together towards the ultimate
goal of improving instruction. Hopefully the graphic does enough to clarify
some of the tasks of the two kinds of listening, as well as the relationship
that both have to instruction and to each other. Intrapersonal listening is
shown with a by-no-means-exhaustive list of thinking topics that are brought
about by the use of metacognition for reflection. In this respect, a teacher is
questioning components of his or her own thinking such as the motivations,
values, and emotional state that has influenced it, with the aim of finding
elements that have affected both the instruction developed as well as many
of the elements on the other side of the map such as listening to build trust
and positive relationships, or listening to determine or infer problems (of
various kinds) or needs of students. Following the concept map, this
intrapersonal listening would then inform the more mindful development of
instruction in which the teacher again is listener, but now interpersonally.
This interpersonal listening, which may be used to gather information about
students interests, for example, is then used in the process of intrapersonal
listening when the teacher considers how his or her state of mind may have
influenced such a discussion, or what prejudices she or he may have about
the students interests, or how this connects to what worked or didnt work in
the lesson of the day, which in turn then informs the next moment/s of
instruction. The logical conclusion to be drawn here (no pun intended) is
that simply responding to interpersonal moments without reflection often
leads to less effective instruction, for time is not taken to seriously consider

the meaning of the information gained from external sources as well as how
ones internal filters, predispositions, prejudices, emotions and so on might
shape or respond to it.
As with any theoretical framework (amateur or otherwise), theres
room for critique. Of course, a teacher may not have time to sit and think to
himself during classto do so would more often be deemed irresponsible,
certainly a poor use of class time if the students sit idly by in waiting (though
the same may not always be said if both students and teacher are reflecting
simultaneously). Thus, such an inference is not the aim of this framework.
Rather, it is meant to emphasize the need for close interpersonal listening to
be followed by a sincere period of intrapersonal listening for reflection on the
part of the teacher, and this is ideally done before the creation of further
instruction, so that the instruction may be created in a more mindful manner
(one that takes into account the mlange of information gathered through
listening). It would, in an ideal world, be quite convenient to be able to put
everything on pause in the midst of a lesson, but the workings of the
universe do not currently offer the chance to do so. Thus, this period of
reflection needs to occur when realistically plausiblenot necessarily after
every single interpersonal episode.
In addition, the concept above is clearly a dichotomous one, and such
structures are often deemed to be conducive to rigidity or conflict. The
author makes no such claim. Not only is the diagram a living one, but also
is open to suggestion and interpretation. In addition, there are at least two
important points that the diagram is meant to help make clear and which
counter the downfalls of so many other dichotomous systems. One is that
the two kinds of listeninglistening to students and listening to oneselfare
not mutually exclusive (thus should not be seen as negating each other or as
being hierarchical in relation). As is the case with thought and emotion,
creative and critical thinking, methodological believing and doubting, the
acts of interpersonal and intrapersonal listening work best in concert. One
cannot teach without some combination of the two: even the most rigid
standardized test designer must listen to students on some level, and even

the most student-centered teacher needs ample (if not more) time to reflect
and adjust internally. Thus, inter- and intrapersonal listening are symbiotic,
and the cyclical pattern in the center is meant to signal them as such. The
second point meant to be abundantly clear is that listening plays an
invaluable part in all facets of the school day, from the moment when one
greets students at the classroom door to the quiet alone time at ones desk
after school when adjusting and finalizing the next days lesson. One does
not, for instance, stop listening to the students when they have left for the
day, nor does one stop listening to oneself when the students arrive. A final
argument may be that the collegial branch of interpersonal listening could,
for instance, be elaborated on a great deal, and one might also consider
adding another branch that considers the interactions with parents of
students. But such is not the specific topic of this paper.
In conclusion, whatever faults of generality or accusations of simplicity
may be brought to bear in response to this piece, the author must make a
point to say, yes, it may be obvious that listening is important for a teacher,
but it is also often something that is not done enough, in the right way, and
at the right time (which, arguably, could be always). Hopefully the
conceptual framework above might provide some help for the teacher who
perceives the value of listening and would like a new way to see its role, or is
looking for some language to use in describing the processes involved. At
the least, it emphasizes a need for teachers to listen for opportunities
when listening in certain ways might lead to better outcomes for all involved
in the educational adventure of the lively classroom.

Works Cited

Barell, John. Designing the Invitational Environment. Costa 106-10.

---, Cheryl Hopper, and Ann White. Big Rocks and Powerful Kingdoms:
Problem-Based
Learning in Science and Social Studies. Costa 256-61.
Bobilya, Andrew J., and Brad Daniel. Eleanor Duckworth: The Teachers
Teacher.
Sourcebook of Experiential Education: Key Thinkers and Their
Contributions. Ed.
Thomas E. Smith and Clifford E. Knapp. New York: Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group, 2011. 73-80. Print.

Brooks, Grennon Brooks, and Martin C. Brooks. Becoming a Constructivist

Teacher.
Costa 150-57.
Costa, Arthur L., ed. Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching
Thinking. Alexandria,
Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum development,
2001. Print.
---. Teacher Behaviors That Enable Student Thinking. Costa 359-69.
---. Teaching For, Of, and About Thinking. Costa 354-58.
---. Mediative Environments. Costa 135-40.
Llewelynn, Grace. The Teenage Liberation Handboook: how to quit school
and get a real life
and education. Eugene, Oregon: Lowry House, 1998. Print.
Lozano, Armando. A Survey of Thinking and Learning Styles. Costa 19296.
Sizer, Theodore R., and Nancy Faust Sizer. The Students Are Watching.
Boston: Beacon
press, 1999. Print.