listening to a challenging perspective

7/29/2019 Listening to a Challenging Perspective

1/22

SCHOOLS 41

Listeningto aChallenging Perspective1

SOPHIE HAROUTUNIAN-GORDON

I. INTRODUCTION

In a forthcoming book, Preparing to Turn the Soul: Teacher Education for a New

Century(in preparation), I argue that if elementary and secondary schools are to be

places that expect all students to acquire the skills and values they need to take advan-

tage of the rich opportunities that American life offers, then we need schools that treat

racial, ethnic, economic, social, and cultural differences between people as resources

for learning and, hence, utilize them in positive ways. Or, to put it as Dewey might:

schools where differences between people are a basis for conjoining2, or working

together to pursue ends that are held in common. Others have argued as much3, but

the goal has been difficult to achieve. Indeed, Sarat gives us some insight into why the

goal has eluded us:

When Sarat says that to be an American is to be a neighbor to difference and at the

same time, harbor suspicions that difference may be our national undoing, he may

mean that Americans are both surrounded by yet fearful of those who come from dif-

ferent racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. When he says that Americans fear that dif-

ferences can never be bridged, he may mean that Americans fear that the interests of

other groups outside their own will diminish their power to get what they want.

Hence, unless the other groups become assimilated, meaning, perhaps, unless their

goals become consistent with the national goals, the other groups may work to

advance their particular goals and disorder may break out. Here, Sarat seems to point

to the basic tension that agitates our diverse societythe desire to pursue our own

1. A version of the present paper was presented as the Presidential Address, Philosophy of Education Society Annual

Meeting, 2003. That address is published in Philosophy of Education Yearbook, 2003, ed. K. Alston, (Urbana-

Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2004).

2. E.g., J. Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: Free Press, 1944/1916), 87.3. E.g., J. Garrison, A Deweyan Theory of Democratic Listening, Educational Theory46, no. 4 (1996), 43539.

4. A. Sarat, The Micropolitics of Identity/Difference: Recognition and Accommodation in Everyday Life, in Engaging

Cultural Differences: The Multicultural Challenge to Liberal Democracies, eds. R. Shweder et al, (New York: Russell Sage

Foundation: 2002), 397.

To be an American is to live an ambivalent relationship to difference: it is to be

a neighbor to difference and at the same time harbor suspicions that difference

may be our national undoing, that differences can never be bridged, and that

without assimilation, disorder lurks just below the surface of our national life.Yetdifference is an integral part of American culture; America is a hybrid

nation. Difference has been a part of the cultural life of Americans since the

nations founding.4

Journal Issue Two r3 11/9/04 3:35 PM Page 41


2/22

interests while at the same time maintaining control over the freedom of others so that

our own interests are not jeopardized.

Now, in theory, it seems to me that schools could be places where Americans learn

to navigate the tension between the desire to pursue ones own interests and the fearthat others doing likewise will limit ones success. Schools could be such places if indi-

vidual interests were, first of all, clear, and second, became shared by others in the

groupthe class, the school, the local community, for exampleso that, together,

the members of the community pursued goals that they held in common.

In order to pursue common goals, people must listen to one another so as to learn

what others think and value. In some instances, people must listen to views that chal-

lenge their own. Such may be the case when people come from different cultural or

economic backgrounds. However, by listening to a challenging viewpoint, one may

gain perspective on ones own views and values. One may, upon reflection, decide to

modify ones beliefs, and one may also gain help in so doing from the very perspec-

tive that posed the challenge.

Useful as it may turn out to be, it is not always easy to listen to beliefs that con-

flict with ones own. In fact, one may choose not to listen, given the discomfort that

conflicting beliefs arouse. So the question arises: Under what conditions does one

undertake the difficult task of listening to a perspective that poses a challenge?

Unfortunately, we know little about the answer to the question. For research on dia-

logue5

, with some notable exceptions [e.g., Fiumara (1991), Garrison (1996), Bogdan(2001), Schultz (2003)]6, has focused upon the speaking rather than the listening

aspect. We have looked at such things as patterns of discourse, the content of

classroom conversations in which dialogue takes place, types of dialogue, the place of

dialogue in teaching and learning and in societyall the time thinking about the

speaking aspect of the conversationthe talking. But what about the listening? And

under what conditions does one work to listento understand through hearing and

learninga perspective that differs from ones own?

To address the question, I began by analyzing the case of Platos Theaetetus, in

which the young mathematician Theaetetus comes to take a perspective that Socrates

suggests and, having done so, proposes a modification of the argument that the two

have been constructing.7 In analyzing the Theaeteteus, I came to five hypotheses about

the conditions under which listening to a challenging perspective occurs.

42 VOLUME ONE ISSUE TWO NOVEMBER 2004

5. E.g., S. Haroutunian-Gordon, Turning the Soul: Teaching Through Conversation in the High School. (Chicago: University

of Chicago Press, 1991); N.C. Burbules and B.C. Bruce, Theory and Research on Teaching as Dialogue, in Handbook

of Research on Teaching, 4th ed., ed. V. Richardson (Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association,

2001), 110221; Burbules, The Limits of Dialogue as a Critical Pedagogy, in Revolutionary Pedagogies: Cultural

Politics, Education, and the Discourse of Theory, ed. P. Trifonas (Routledge, 2000), 25173.

6. G.C. Fiumara, The Other Side of Language: A Philosophy of Listening(London: Routledge, 1990); Garrison, op. cit.; D.Bogdan, Musical Listening and Performance as Embodied Dialogism, The Philosophy of Music Education Review 9,

no. 1 (2001): 322; K. Schultz, Listening: A Framework for Teaching Across Differences (New York: Teachers College

Press, 2003).

7. S. Haroutunian-Gordon, Listeningin a Democratic Society, op. cit.



3/22

S OP HI E H ARO UT UN IA N- GO RD ON 43

First Hypothesis: If one listens to a challenging perspective, then one does so

because one has a question that one wishes to resolve. That is, one is more inclined

to listen to the different or challenging perspective if one is seeking to resolve a ques-

tion to which one does not know the answer. The hope is that listening will sparkideas that help resolve the question.

Second Hypothesis: If one listens to a challenging perspective, then in listening to

resolve a question, ones listening is interrupted. Perhaps the listener hears an idea

with which he/she disagrees. Or the listener hears an idea that seems incomprehensi-

ble. At such moments, one may stop listening momentarily and ask oneself: Why did

the speaker say something so objectionable? What does the speaker mean by that

comment?

Third Hypothesis: If one listens to a challenging perspective, then the nature of the

interruption will determine the direction of subsequent listening. If the listener

hears ideas that contradict the listeners beliefs, then the listener may: 1) recognize in

him/herself a heretofore tacit belief; 2) question the belief or the grounds for accept-

ing the belief; 3) shift so as to grasp more of the details of the challenging perspective.

Fourth Hypothesis: If one listens to a challenging perspective, then one may use cri-

teria provided by that perspective to identify criteria for new, more acceptablebeliefs or modifications of the old belief. Hence, one may use the challenging per-

spective, once grasped, to evaluate ones heretofore tacit belief. It may also provide

ideas for modifying the belief.

Fifth Hypothesis: If one listens to a challenging perspective, then the question may

be resolved or modified, or it may become an even more pressing dilemma. In the

latter case, it becomes what I call a genuine question: the question feels even more

pressing than it did initially. Given the formation of a genuine question, one may con-

tinue the task of listening to a challenging perspective, still with the hope of securing

help in the quest for resolution.

To test these hypotheses, I present below another case, this one from my own experi-

ence as a teacher educator. The case is one in which I was forced to listen to a per-

spective that challenges my ownnot at all easy.

II. THE PARTICULAR CASE

A. Background on the Case

I have been the director of the Master of Science in Education Program at

Northwestern University since the fall of 1991. The program prepares people with



4/22

44 S OP HI E HA RO UT UN IA N- GO RD ON

baccalaureate degrees who wish to become elementary and secondary school teachers.

In 199697, I assisted two of our teacher candidates with a Masters Project, a research

project that addressed the question: Would fourth grade students become more toler-

ant of people from different cultural traditions if they engaged in interpretive discus-sions about the meaning of texts that came from a variety of cultures? To answer the

question, the two teacher candidates, who I call Marsha and Paula in the book that I

wrote about them8, led a series of interpretive discussions with two fourth grade

groups of ten students each. One of the groups was from an urban public school and

the other was from a suburban neighborhood school. Marsha and Paula, referred to

as the leaders below, selected five textsone from Caucasian America, two from

Africa, one from French Canada, and one from thirteenth century Moorish Spain.

They prepared questions about the meaning of each text and led a discussion about it

in each of the two classrooms, for a total of ten discussions. In the last two discussions,

they mixed the two groups: they took five students from the urban group to the sub-

urban school and five students from the suburban group to the urban school.

An interpretive discussion9 is a discussion about the meaning of some text. The

text may be a book, film artifact, data set, painting, mathematical problemany

object that has enough ambiguity to permit interpretation of its meaning. To prepare

to lead an interpretive discussion, one develops a cluster of questions about the

meaning of the text. The cluster consists of a basic question (BQ) and eight follow-

up questions. All of these questions are interpretive questionsthat is, questions thatmay be resolved in more than one way, given the evidence in the text. The BQ is the

point of doubt about the meaning that one wishes most to resolve. The follow-up

questions point to particular places in the text. A follow-up question, if resolved in at

least one way, suggests an idea about the resolution of the BQ.

In carrying out the their Masters Project, the leaders developed a cluster of ques-

tions about each text. My job, as their teacher, was to question them about the mean-

ing of their questions so as to help them clarify the point of doubtthe question they

wished most to resolveand the questions that followed it up. Often, it takes even

experienced leaders four or five rounds of cluster revision before the BQ is clear and

the follow-up questions are likewise and, indeed, follow up the BQ. As the leaders dis-

covered, it is no easy task to write a clear question! But the payoff of so doing is that

the questioner: a) becomes clear about what he/she does not know and wants to dis-

cover; b) identifies passages in the text that suggest ideas about resolution, and hence,

gains familiarity with the text; and c) comes to the discussion seeking help from the

discussants in understanding the work and, hence, is eager to hear their ideas. In

short, the leader is ready to lead. Or so I maintain.

8. S. Haroutunian-Gordon, Preparing to Turn the Soul: Teacher Education for a New Century, op. cit.

9. The term interpretive discussion was coined by the Great Books Foundation, which publishes books and prepares

people to lead discussion about the meaning of textsinterpretive discussion.



5/22

S OP HI E HA RO UT UN IA N- GO RD ON 45

I have argued10 that the leaders and the discussants made great progress during the

course of the project: over time, the clusters of questions contained fewer technical

terms and vague phrases, posed the deepest point of doubt in the form of the BQ

more clearly, interpreted the quoted passages in the follow-up questions more fully,and related the passages to the BQ more directly. I argue that as the clusters became

clearer, the discussions became more focused, and the discussants seemed to become

more interested in resolving questions about the meaning of the text. For example, in

the first discussions, both groups flitted between several issues, never fully resolving

any of them. In the final discussion, which took place between members of both

groups in the urban school that I call Central, the discussants rapidly identified an

issue and pursued it for nearly one hour. Despite the fact that some were in an unfa-

miliar setting and all were conversing with people they had only just met, they ques-

tioned one another, built arguments to support their claims using textual evidence,

and, when persuaded to do so, changed their positions. The leaders, too, showed

progress in asking discussants to clarify their meaning and in posing fewer interpre-

tive questions, which they repeated, thereby helping to maintain focus in the discus-

sion. During the course of the research project, the leaders rarely posed the BQ

directly, doing so only if the group seemed to raise it. Perhaps as a consequence, the

groups became more and more skilled at identifying a point of doubt that they shared

and pursuing its resolution. Furthermore, both participants and leaders seemed to lis-

ten better as the discussions progressed, perhaps because they were seeking help inclarifying and resolving issues they cared to address.

I argue the above claims in detail in the book. Indeed, the videotapes made of the

ten classroom discussions, as well as the cluster preparations themselves, suggest that

both children and adults can acquire the skills and dispositions required for prepar-

ing, leading, and participating in interpretive discussion. In studying the data from

the project, I have come to ideas about how I, as an educator with many years expe-

rience leading discussions and preparing leaders, might help teacher candidates more

effectively. However, I later discovered that my learning was not as complete as I had

believed it to be. The rude awakening occurred, and I found myself listening to

perspectives that challenged my own. In telling the story, I refer to the hypotheses,

indicated above, about the conditions under which such listening occurs.

B. The Case

After the Masters Project had been completed, the leaders graduated from the Master

of Science in Education Program and assumed teaching positions at Central School

the urban school where they had conducted the research. Three years passed. One day,

the three of us were joined in a conversation by Barry OConnell, an English profes-sor from Amherst College who had spent part of the year working with me at

10. Preparing to Turn the Soul, op. cit.



6/22


Northwestern while the leaders were carrying out their research. As Barry happened

to be in town in October of 2000, I decided to assemble the group for a discussion,

as informal communication with the leaders had raised an issue. And so we gathered

at my home, and I wasted no time putting the question on the table:SHG: I told [Barry] that at the end of the last conversation we had, you guys

broke it to me that you really havent been using interpretive questions while you

were teaching, and so my question to you was, well, why not?11

MARSHA: Well, interpretive discussions work best when you have ten kids andI had twenty [in the first year of teaching], and I didnt really have the parental

support so that I could call on one of them to be a discussion leader, which means

that it would be VERY12 complicated [to conduct interpretive discussions at

Central School], and so I started coming up with things like thatAnd then I

tried to say: OK, lets just be honest, because I think those are things that you

could manage and work through, and find resources if you were really dedicated

and said Im going to do this. And then Itried to forget about all that and really

be honest andnarrow down the reasons why I didnt [lead interpretive discus-

sions]. And I came up withthree that I think were the main ones.

SHG: Why dont you say what they were?

MARSHA: The first one was thatwhen I started teaching third grade, I

feltthat, OK, my kids dont have books at home, they dont have parents that

read to them. They had a kindergarten teacher who focused almost exclusively on

phonics; they had first and second grade teachers who rigidly followedbasal

programs. Worksheets and standardized test preparation was a HUGE deal in sec-

ond grade, and thats all they did. Thats what reading wasa worksheet and

the Iowa Test Prep Book. And then most of my kids had failed the reading test

for Iowa and were repeating third grade and so they hated reading and no won-

der: they didnt have any confidence in readingAnd so the biggest goal I saw for

myself coming in was: Ive got to make these kids love, at least like, to read, so

how am I going to do that? And I didnt think the best way was through inter-

pretive discussion. I thought it was through things like Read-Aloud13 where I

could get my kids to laugh atJames and the Giant Peach, or I could get my kids

When I say that the leaders havent been using interpretive questions, I mean but do not

clearly ask whether they have been preparing clusters of questions and leading discussions about

the meaning of texts. Marsha seems to grasp my intended meaning, however:

11. Prior to the conversation recorded here, I had asked Marsha and Paula to reflect upon their use of interpretive discus-

sion in their classrooms. Both refer to e-mail messages that they sent me in response to my question. Marsha begins

the present conversation by restating three points that she had made to me in her e-mail communication.12. In the excerpts from transcript quoted here, I give some words in upper case to indicate emphasis placed upon the

word by the speaker.

13. Read-Aloud is a teaching strategy in which teachers read books, often fictional works, to their students. See James

Treleases Read-Aloud Web site for more information.



7/22


The reader will recall that myFirst Hypothesis about the conditions under which lis-

tening to a challenging perspective occurs is that the listener has a question to which

he/she does not have the answer. In the above instance, I had a question, viz.: Why

had the leaders failed to prepare clusters of questions and engage their students in

interpretive discussion after I had worked so hard and, indeed, they had become so

successful at doing so? Now, the above excerpt suggests that, while I had a question I

wanted to resolve and may have been seeking help in so doing, I was already having

to be mad at Judd and Shiloh, so that was a big part of my reading program. I

also had DEAR. time, where they could see that, OK, I can pick up a book by

myself or with a friend and this could be a great thing.

SHG: DEAR. time. Do you know what this is [to Barry]?

PAULA: Drop Everything And Read14

MARSHA: And then I had lit circles,15which I thought were similar to inter-

pretive discussionthey were more subdued and [child-]centered. The goal

and I didnt get there my first year, [although I did in the] second and third

yearwas to have three or four students sitting together in a circle having a dis-

cussion on their own. And part of that involved asking questions, so I saw that as

being similar to interpretive discussion and embracing the same philosophy as

interpretive discussion. And then, um, OK, I had one more.

SHG: No, those were the three thingsRead-Aloud, DEAR. time, and the lit

circles.

MARSHA: But were still on reason number onegetting kids to learn to love

to read. And I just didnt think, not that interpretive discussion didntbuild

self-esteem and all these things, but I just saw it as it couldnt evokesome of the

passion I wanted my kids to feel about books; it couldnt achieve the student-cen-

teredness that I thought lit circles could. Um, so that was one reason.

14. Drop Everything and Read (DEAR) is a teaching strategy aimed at encouraging students to read for the love of it. See,

e.g., S.I. McMahon et al, The Book Club Connection: Literacy Learning and Classroom Talk(New York: Teachers College

Press, 1997), 5960.

15. Lit circles, or literature circles, encourage students to discuss works of literature among themselves. Paula makes the

following comment: Usingnotes to guide discussion, students work in small groups with a regular, predictable

schedule to discuss their reading. Group meetings are student-led, and the teacher is a facilitator who circulates among

groups, not a member [of a group] or an instructor. Group meetings aim to be open, natural conversations about

books, so personal connections and open-ended questions are welcome [personal communication]. The literature cir-

cle strategy is also discussed in S.I. McMahon, op. cit., and in H. Daniels, Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in Book

Clubs and Reading Groups. (Portland, Maine: Stenhouse, 2002). Interpretive discussion differs from literature circles in

the following ways: 1) Interpretive discussion does not follow a pre-set format. Instead, the topics that arise depend

upon the question(s) that group members wish to resolve. 2) Discussions are led by leaders. Leaders have prepared for

the discussion by developing a cluster of questions about the meaning of the text. Leaders are teachers, other adults,or students, who have prepared a cluster of questions and are designated the leader. 3) The aim of the discussion is to

resolve a question (or questions) about the meaning of the text that is of concern to the group. Forming a clear ques-

tion, or point of doubt, is also one aim of the discussion. Discussants are encouraged to share personal experiences that

relate to the formation or resolution of the question.



8/22

difficulty following the answer Marsha provided, as I seemed unclear that she was still

on the first of three reasons she wanted to give to explain why she did not engage her

students in interpretive discussion. So, much as I had a question to resolve, there are

indications that I felt uncomfortable hearing the answer and, hence, had difficulty fol-lowing it. Marsha, however, continued her response:

When Marsha says, if I was going to do it right, and remembering what Paula and I

went through, it was very, very time-consuming to go through all those rounds, she

may mean that, given all she had to do getting her classroom in order at Central

School, she did not engage her students in interpretive discussion because she did not

have time left over to prepare the clusters of questions. Now, as a classroom teacher,

she might not have had to do multiple rounds of revision, as neither I nor Paula would

have been there to question her meaning. Perhaps, then, it was not just time (or lack

of time) but the memory of how it felt to spend the time revising the questionswhat

I prefer to think of as clarifying the point of doubt and working to resolve itthat

deterred Marsha. She may suggest as much when she gives her third reason:


16. CPSChicago Public Schools.

MARSHA: The other reason was that I walked in as a third grade teacher and my

position was created: [Central School] went from two third grades to three third

grades. So I went into a bare classroom...I mean there was NU-uh-THING.

There was a scissor and there were some old basalsIf you werent there the year

before to do your orders, well you dont get any suppliesI didnt even have con-

struction paper, pencils, glue, things thatas an elementary teacher, you just

assume youre going to have. And I didnt have math textbooks. I had never taught

before. Id gone through a yearlong program at NU [Northwestern University]

and now Im supposed to come up with a MATH PROGRAMThere was an

incredible amount of time spent Target shopping, Office Depot shopping, getting

pencils, getting supplies, figuring out, OK, what science experiment can I do that

is in the CPS16 book and then not only what can I do, but now Ive got to make

the shopping list and go out and buy all the things to DO this experiment. I just

didnt think I had the time to do cluster writing. Because for me, if I was going

to do it right, and remembering what Paula and I went through, it was very, very

time-consuming to go through all those rounds [of revising the clusters of ques-

tions]. So, that was another thing: just time.

MARSHA: And then trying to be real honest, my third reason was: I think that

to be a successful teacher you have to bring into the classroom things that you

love, some of your own passions. I think thats one way to avoid burnout and

things like that, not that I was at that point, cause I was a first-year teacherI

had just spent a year doing a lot of academic work at NU, and not that I dont

like thatnot that I didnt enjoy it, but I LIKE OTHER THINGS. I likedoingarts and crafts thingsI wanted to spend time with my kids designing



9/22


The above exchange suggests that Marsha, Paula, and I had different perspectives on

the activity of developing clusters of questions. When Marsha recalls my saying that

as a teacher, I not lived for it, but, she may mean that she recalls my saying that

interpretive discussion sustained me when teaching sixth grade. If that is her mean-

ing, then she is correct: I recall telling them that the opportunities to prepare clusters

and engaging the students in interpretive discussion were critical to my happiness in

the classroom. Why? Because in preparing the clusters, I questioned myself so as to

clarify points of doubt I had about the textan experience I found extremely stimu-

lating, especially when I shared it with other adults who then co-led the discussions

with me. Hearing their ideas, and, subsequently, those of the students, helped me dis-

cover my own ideas, beliefs, interests, feelings, and questions. The excitement of

exploring a text was matched only by the exhilaration I felt as my mind would leapagain and again into the unknown where I struggled to liberate ideas, first in myself

and my co-leaders and later in the students during the discussions. When Marsha and

Paula say that developing clusters of questions was something they had to get

through, I begin to wonder: Could they have felt discomfort rather than stimulation

and delight in the experience?

Here, then, was a moment described by mySecond Hypothesis about the condi-

tions under which one comes to listen to a perspective that challenges ones own, viz.,

mylistening was interrupted. No longer could I devote my attention solely to the

contents of others remarks. While I had begun with the question of why Marsha and

Paula failed to conduct interpretive discussion in their classrooms, their comments

had challenged my own perspective, and I was aware of the challenge. Why had their

experience of preparing clusters been so different from my own? I begin to wonder

whether had I pushed them too hard and caused them to reject the discussion-lead-

ing experience instead of helping them to acquire the skills and dispositions needed

to succeed as leaders.

As my listening was interrupted, I found myself in the situation described by my

Third Hypothesis about the conditions under which one tries to listen to a perspec-tive that differs from ones own, viz.: I discovered a heretofore tacit belief. I realized

that, until this moment, I had believed that I had helped Marsha and Paula to acquire

covers for their books, and so cluster writing wasnt a PASSION of mine. I

remember, Sophie, talking about when YOU did cluster writing in teaching and

how you [said] something like, not lived for it, but

SHG: Right.

MARSHA: It was something that I...

PAULA: had to get through...My reasons were almost EXACTLY the same.

SHG: Mmhmm.



10/22

the skills and dispositions needed to be successful discussion leaders. Perhaps I formed

the belief seeing them progress in preparing clusters and leading discussions while

under my tutelage. Now, I began to question my success. What, if anything, had I

done, albeit unwittingly, to discourage them from pursuing interpretive discussionswith their students? A new question arose for me, and the direction of my listening

began to change:

As I listen to the above exchange, I hear two ideas: First, when Marsha says, some-

times I couldnt tell what was better, she may mean that although I indicated when

questions became clearer in the subsequent rounds of revision, she was not clear why

I made those judgments. Second, when Paula says that she felt like they got the green

light for a given round, it sounds as though they saw me as an authority whose rea-

soning about what was clear was beyond comprehension and questionhardly the

position I imagined that I had occupied. Had the reasons for my judgments been

unclear, or had the criteria I was using to make the judgments been the mystery? And

had I seemed an incomprehensible and arbitrary judge? Marsha and Paula continue:


MARSHA: I sent it [an e-mail, during the research period] to Sophie. I said how

I was so, discouragedYou would say, Oh, you guys have made so much

progress with your cluster writing, and I didnt think I had. I didnt think I was

better in many ways. It was always something of a mystery to me, how we got

there, and I was just so relieved that we somehow DID get there.

PAULA: That we got the green lightfor that round.

MARSHA Yeah, because sometimes I couldnt tell what was better.

BARRY: Soyou also werent sure how to recognize when it was good and when

it wasnt?

MARSHA: Right. And you COULD recognize when your kids made beautiful

book covers, which was something they had never done before. And it was so

exciting to go through the process with them and watch them achieve it and take

home their very first book that they were an author of. And somehow that felt

like more of a benefit, both to me and to them, than watching a discussion over

a few weeks and saying theyre getting better.

BARRY: So, Sophie?

MARSHA: Sophie was truly the force that kept it goingThere were so many

times I would have given up.

PAULA: We both had an experience in [Sheridan, the suburban school] and I

have this sort of [Sheridan] world in my mind, where everything is always better

and easier and greater[remembering her mentor at Sheridan] She was invited

to something and she couldnt come and she was trying to explain to methat



11/22


When Paula says that Sheridan School had started something like a literature group

or interpretive discussion for the teachers, she may mean that the school valued the

activity because it arranged for and expected teachers to participate. In a place where

discussion was thought to be important, for teachers as well as students, she and

Marsha might have had more encouragement to prepare for and lead interpretive dis-

cussionsor so Paula seems to conjecture. Here, she offers yet another reason why she

did not hold interpretive discussions in the class at Central School once she began

teaching: the staff and administration of the school did not seem to value the activity.

Barry makes the following observation:

Here, Barry seems unconvinced by Paulas suggestion that interpretive discussion is

most likely to be practiced in a school that values it. Why? Because, as Barry sees it,

the students at the Central School showed the most dramatic forms of progress,

meaning, perhaps, that the Central students seemed to have developed questioning

and other discussion skills even more fully than did the students at Sheridan.

Now, when I say, Mmhmm after Barrys comment, I seem to be agreeing that

their perceived lack of interest in interpretive discussion on the part of the school is

perhaps not the most critical reason why the leaders failed to prepare for and lead the

discussions in their classrooms. Barry continues by returning to an issue that Marsha

raised previously about the love of reading:

she had this very important thing to go toI think the school had started some-

thing like a literature group or interpretive discussion. [The teachers were read-

ing] the same text [and] everyone was going to one teachers house. It was after

school, and there was wine and cheesethere was peer pressure to go, which you

would NEVER find in OUR school; no one would EVER get together after

school. I always thought to myself: maybe, maybe, at a place like that [teachers

would hold interpretive discussions with students].

SHG: Um.

BARRY: Yet it was arguably, if you look at what you did, it was the kids at

[Central] who showed the most dramatic forms of progress through interpretive

discussion.

SHG: Mmhmm.

BARRY: You know, I take the love of reading thing very seriouslyI have this

fantasyprobably very close to [Marshas]that if I can help [elementary/sec-

ondary students] become writers and readers on their own, I dont even care what

it is. If I can get them excited about reading comic books, this gives them some

chance of having a life independent of the circumstances that are going to keep

trying to pull them back in a certain way.



12/22

When Barry says, If I can get them excited about reading comic books, this gives

them some chance of having a life independent of the circumstances that are going to

keep trying to pull them back in a certain way, does he mean that if students learn

to love reading, they will develop skills that will open up jobs and possibilities forenjoying life that will not be easily available to them, given the constraints that low

socioeconomic circumstances and perhaps race impose upon them? Is he agreeing

with Marsha that learning to love reading is a teachers goal? And if so, does that mean

that teaching students to participate in interpretive discussion is less important than

letting them read bookseven comic booksthat students find of interest? If that is

his perspective, and perhaps that of Marsha and Paula as well, then it is a perspective

different from my own, and indeed, challenging to it.

Here, then, mylistening is interrupted (Second Hypothesis) for a second time.

Once again, the direction of my listening begins to shift, and I become aware of

another heretofore tacit belief (Hypothesis Three), viz: participating in interpretive

discussion helps students love reading more. And why do I hold that belief? Because

they are finding more meaning in the text as they discuss it, so why shouldnt they love

it more? Once again, recognizing a heretofore tacit belief seems to affect the direction

of my subsequent listening. I begin to question my belief when I go on to say:

When I say, I dont think I was ever suggesting that you do nothing but interpretive

discussion, I may mean that other activities, such as making book covers, may be

acceptable activities in the classroom. However, while I can appreciate the enjoyment

that students and teachers might glean from such a project, I cannot imagine it being

nearly as valuable as participating in an interpretive discussion. So, as I read my com-

ment, it seems that I was not questioning my belief (that participating in interpretive

discussion helps people love reading more) so much as mollifying the leaders.Indeed, I seem to shift the subject as I continue. Perhaps to encourage the others

to consider a benefit of discussion that they may be ignoring, I remind them of the


SHG: I dont think I was ever suggesting that you do NOTHING BUT inter-

pretive discussion. I just think that doing it is so difficult that you need all the

help you can get, so thats what we were about. And [there were] some goals you

had in mind, when you started the projectyou havent mentioned them

hereFor instance, the goal of getting kids to tolerate people who come from

other cultures, thats a social goal, a very powerful goal for you, its really why you

started the project, you know? And I think that the interpretive discussion oppor-

tunity seemed like it might be useful because people were talking with one

another, it wasnt just that they were going off and reading books that you had

picked outSo what you were wondering, I think, when you started the project,

was: will these conversations help [the students] to become more tolerant and

more open? Thats actually an interesting goal, and it is something that I hope youhavent given up as you think about what you want to have happen to children.



13/22


goal with which they began the projectthat of getting kids to tolerate people who

come from other cultures. So perhaps I am more interested in reminding the others

of the value of interpretive discussion than understanding their perspective. Soon,

however, I return to trying to do so, as I reintroduce the question of whether partici-pating in the discussions helps participants to love reading:

Once again, my listening is interrupted (Second Hypothesis): Did I hear Marsha

correctly? Did she say that she liked The Giving Tree less after she had prepared for

and led two interpretive discussions about it with the fourth grade students? Once

again, my listening is about to shift, as I discover a belief that I had not previouslyacknowledged (Third Hypothesis) viz.: the leaders will come to love reading more as

a consequence of leading interpretive discussion. Barry questions the leaders about

their meaning:

SHG: Yes, [interpretive discussion teaches people] to listen to each other and lots

of other things we could list, right? Skills. But learn to love to read? Umm

MARSHA: I used to love The Giving Treeas just a simple little story that just

warmed my heart. And after we got into it, I dont know if I loved it as

muchNow, The Crystal Stair, I will say, the Langston Hughes poem, thats

different. That one, definitely getting deeper into it, even though we didnt have

a true interpretive discussion, getting deeper into it made it grow for me. Thereare a bunch of the ones though,Jean Labadie17 or whateverThere was a period

of several months when I couldnt even LOOK at The Giving TreeIf I saw the

cover I needed to look the other way because it was so complicated for me that I

wasnt sure where I ended up with it.

17. The story was entitledJean Labadies Big Black Dog. It is a French-Canadian folktale as told by Natalie Savage Carlson.18. Jean Labadie is a farmer and storyteller. Jean suspects his neighbor, Andre, of stealing his chickens, and, to scare Andre

away from the hen house, he invents a big, black watchdog, who he describes to Andre in vivid terms. Andre subse-

quently claims that he sees the dog and describes him to others. When they begin to complain that the dog runs wild

and growls at them, Jean then shoots the dog in the presence of witnesses, who agree that the dog is now dead.

BARRY: You say, well, this wasnt true of The Crystal Stair, and I was actually

surprisedI mean, I think I understand why it was true for The Giving Tree, but

I was surprised to have you includeJean Labadie.

PAULA: That one was too complicated for me.18

BARRY: Well, but was it? Its far and away the most difficult story you gave, and

the level of sheer sophistication in that story is enormousI remembergoing

through Sophies chapter about [the discussion ofJean Labadie] and thinking,

Oh, God, Im so glad this is [Paula] and [Marsha] and its not me, and that they

have to struggle to find a basic question hereOf course, Sophie would answer

by really getting to the genuine point of doubt [about] this business in which

everybody acts as though something is real and it becomes real. How do you talk



14/22

When Barry says, If you can get kids to think well about that story, there isnt any

text in the world they couldnt take on, he may be asking: Why do you say that lead-

ing interpretive discussion aboutJean Labadiemakes you love the story less? After all,

if you were able to help students discuss how fiction becomes reality[how] every-

body acts as though something is real and it becomes realwhy wouldnt you see

it as a valuable experience that you, the teachers, helped to create? Here, Barry seems

to reason that the experience of leading discussions aboutJean Labadieshould have

made the leaders love the text more, given what they were able to accomplish.

Paula responds:


19. E.G. Speare, The Sign of the Beaver. (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1983). It is historical novel that presents the clash

of values between the Whites and the Penobscot people of Maine in the eighteenth century.

20. The focus of an interpretive discussion is upon trying to determine the meaning of the text. At moments, however,

discussants may review the facts of the storythe occurrences over which there is no debate. They may also evaluatethe textdiscuss whether they agree or disagree with what they think the text is saying. When the project began, dis-

cussants did much more evaluating than they did at its conclusion, and when Paula says, there was some evaluative

stuff going on, she may mean that despite the evaluative comments, the participants were primarily trying to under-

stand the text rather than judge whether it was good or bad, right or wrong.

PAULA: I [remember] a time when I could barely keep ahead of my kids in Read-

Aloud, and I finally quit trying to stay ahead, like you should in an interpretive

discussion. And so I read along with them. And at the end of The Sign of the

Beaver19the baby diesthe baby doesnt make it.

BARRY: Right.

PAULA: And I remember sitting [there], reading, and you know how like your

eyes go two sentences ahead? And I was reading, and theyre all listening because

we know something bigs gonna happen, becauseevery day were predicting,

when the family is going to comewere VERY into itI saw the lines and my

eyes, I started, I looked up, I could see them. As I read the words, were all crying

because were so sad to realize this is what happened. And then we took some time

and we stopped and we talked about it and it was sort of an interpretive discus-

sion: Why would the author do this? Whats happening?Yes, there was some

evaluative stuff going on20

, but the point is that to me, that was as powerful asanything that we had ever done [in the interpretive discussion project], and it was

spontaneous, and [the emotion] had built up over a month of reading this book.

MARSHA: And you experienced the same things with your kids at the same time.

PAULA: RightIt wasnt me setting up this point of doubt question that I hoped

about this?If you can get kids to think well about that story, there isnt any text

in the world they couldnt take on.

PAULA AND MARSHA: Right!

BARRY: Thats as sophisticated as I would teach seniors in a literature class

in college.



15/22


When I say, Right, right, I mean that I am listening to Paula, comprehending what

she is saying. I am also agreeing that even though she had not developed a cluster of

questions in preparation for discussions ofThe Sign of the Beaver, her students may

well have come to love the story nevertheless.

At the same time, my listening during the conversation has been interrupted at

least three times that we have seen thus far: 1) when I heard Marsha say that she could

not understand why the questions in their clusters improved when I said that they

had; 2) when I heard first Marsha and then Paula and Barry ask whether interpretive

discussion helped discussants love reading; and 3) when I heard Paula and Marsha ask

whether interpretive discussion helped the leaders love reading more. None of these

questions have been resolved thus far. So, while I can listen so as to follow Paulas story,

I am listening with at least three unresolved questions on the table, although I may

not be thinking about all three at every moment. In addition, there is the question

with which we began, namely, why had these two leaders, who had been so success-ful and shown so much growth, failed to prepare for and lead interpretive discussion

in their classrooms? That question has become even more pressing for me, as indicated

in what follows:

theyd come around to as well, or.tossing out, or trying to, like, peer at my list

to see what the next question wasthat was so complicated for me. And so I

thought to myself [that] there WERE times that I think we achievedlike those

kids never forgot that bookI had kids who read that book twice after we read

it aloud, they went back and reread it.

SHG: Right, right.

PAULA: I felt so guilty for not doing interpretive discussion, but when things like

that [the shared moment when the baby dies] would happen, Id be like, OK,

someones reading the book over again, that [reading/discussion ofThe Sign of the

Beaver] must have done something.

SHG: Theres no question, Paula, in my mind, that you were doing things thatwheneveryone discovers what happensthe baby dying and everybody was

overwhelmed. You said you sort of started to have an interpretive discussion, isnt

that what you said?

PAULA: Right.

SHG: Spontaneously. I interpreted you to mean you started to talk about the

meaning of the book, just naturally.

PAULA: Right. We did that all the time in Read-Aloud. We did do it all the time.Every day. But they werent interpretive discussions. I hadnt prepared clusters of

questions. We were talking about meaning and people were, you know, saying



16/22

When I respond to Paula saying, You said you sort of started to have an interpretivediscussion, isnt that what you said? it may mean that I was hearing what sounded

like a spontaneous effort to interpret the meaning ofThe Sign of the Beaver. When I

continue to question Paula, asking her what she meant, I seem to be seeking evidence

that she did, after all, carry out interpretive discussion at moments. Perhaps I was

thinking that if Paula and her students tried to interpret the meaning of the text and,

in fact, did that all the time in Read-AloudEvery day, then perhaps the activity of

interpreting the text did help them love the text morejust as I believed. Maybe

Paula was actually leading interpretive discussion all the time despite her claims to

the contrary.

And yet Paula reiterates, But they werent interpretive discussions. I hadnt pre-

pared clusters of questions. And I have to admit that she is right: something is miss-

ing if she was not preparing the clusters. So, if she thought it important to help the

students interpret the text, why didnt she make the effort to develop the clusters,

which would have helped all to develop fuller interpretations? My dilemma has

become more pressing. Perhaps I am on the way to forming what I called above, under

the Fifth Hypothesis about the conditions under which one listens to a challenging

perspective, agenuine question. Barry continues reflecting upon whether participa-tion in interpretive discussion helps students love reading:

When Barry says that, if interviewed today, the fourth grade students who partici-

pated in the project might [speak about] something called love of thinking, he

may mean that the experience of trying to understand the meaning of the text might

help discussants discover the pleasure of pondering an object that they cannot imme-

diately comprehend. When he says that love of reading and love of thinking arent

quite the same [but] theyre importantly reinforcing of each other, he may mean that

if one learns to reflect upon the meaning of a text, one may discover more things in

it and therefore love it more. Hence, the pleasure of reading will be enhanced because


BARRY: Im not sure that [the fourth grade students in the project, if interviewed

today] would [speak about] love of READING so much, but they might [speak

about] something else a little bit different called love of THINKING[While]

those two arent quite the same, theyre importantly reinforcing of each other.

[Also] when you talk about The Sign of the Beaver, and how extraordinary that

moment was, and having taught literature all my life, Im with you completely,

and I wouldnt want anything to get in the way of such a moment. But what hap-pens when youre teachingThe Sign of the Beaverfor the fourth time?

PAULA: And you know what happensThats true. Right.

this is what I think this means, so they were interpreting things in the book, but

it wasnt the true interpretive discussion.



17/22


of the pleasure that is derived from thinking. Likewise, the pleasure of thinking will

be enhanced by the experience of reading, especially texts that permit one to reflect

upon ambiguities and thereby explore meaning in life.

If I am interpreting Barry correctly, then perhaps I am hearing an argument insupport of the claim that interpretive discussion should encourage love of reading. I

like the argument, and I am glad to hear support for a belief that I had begun to

question. Perhaps I need not yet reject my deep-felt conviction. Furthermore, Barry

opens an argument in favor of developing clusters of questions in preparation for dis-

cussion when he asks, But what happens when youre teachingThe Sign of the Beaver

for the fourth time? He elaborates his meaning:

When Barry says, I was condescending to [my students] without knowing it. Because

I wasnt myself in struggle with the material again, he may mean that after teachinga given text numerous times, he no longer questioned its meaning and, hence, was

behaving as though he knew what the text meant, whereas the students were trying to

figure it out. When he says that I, Sophie, got to [him] with interpretive discussions,

he may mean that when he and I began preparing clusters of questions about the

meaning of texts that we were teaching at Northwestern, he realized that he had not

been using the teaching opportunity to explore points of doubt with studentspre-

cisely the role of one who leads interpretive discussion. For as a consequence of

preparing a cluster of questions, the leader enters the class in a state of doubt about

the meaning of the text. That point of doubt may or may not be of interest to the dis-

cussants, and it may or may not be addressed in the discussion. Regardless, the prepa-

ration casts the leader in the role of a listener seeking understanding rather than a

dispenser of wisdom. Barry continues:

BARRY: And you cant be genuinely there in the same way. That is to say, is there

a place, and this is a real question for me, and its the place that Sophie first gotto meI was realizing that after years and years of teaching that I wasnt honestly

pressing myself in certain kinds of ways because Id had all these situations where

X happened and Y happened and I could simulate them again and my kids could

be even more meaningfully satisfied, but in fact I was in some sensethe words

I used to SophieI was condescending to them without knowing it. Because I

wasnt myself in struggle with the material again.

BARRY: Now the truth is thatI dont have time to do clusters over and over

again for every text Im teaching, even when Im only doing two courses. I could-

nt possibly do that. Im not fast enough, Im not smart enough, and I would need

Sophie all the time for much longer than the two of you. She was devastating tome. She was not nice to me [laughter] because I was much slower, slower than

shed hoped. And I never got a pat on the back [more laughter]. And for good rea-

sonSo, but, what did I learn from it?



18/22

Now, what am I hearing? Once again, my listening is interrupted (Second

Hypothesis). Barrys description of his experience with me challenges another tacit

belief that I had not heretofore acknowledged (Third Hypothesis) viz.: I was helping

him to question his understanding of the text, and he was appreciating and enjoyingthe experience. Had both Barry and the leaders, found my questioning of their ques-

tions annoying rather than illuminating? And had Barry, like the leaders failed to rec-

ognize that he was making progress in clarifying his questions, which is what he may

mean by saying that I gave him no pat on the back? Now I begin to wonder whether

the reasons for my judgments about the questions had been a mystery to Barry as well

as the leaders. But Barry returns to an issue he raised previously:

Here, Barry seems to ask: Might it be that preparing a cluster of questions helps us

find questions in a text with which we have become very familiarto disorient our-

selves, as he puts it? If so, it would seem to perform a very important function.

Furthermore, preparing clusters of questions would seem to be something that at least

experienced teachers would want to do, so as to continually find new meaning in the

text. Paula responds:

Here, Barry asks: Is it possible that working with the clusters made you more open

throughout your teaching to what you were uncertain about? Less anxious in the face


BARRY: The other [issue], then, is what and when and how do we reencounter

ourselves so as to come into situations that become familiar to us, so we usefully,for the sake of our students, as it were, disorient ourselves again? And where might

interpretive discussion, cluster-making come there?

PAULA: I have to say that if I had taught The Sign of the Beaver for the fourth

time and I knew the material well and I could dig deeply knowing how much I

had already internalized, then it [preparing a cluster of questions about its mean-

ing?] would almost seem like an interesting thing to do, and I can completely see

why youre right. I wouldnt have cried, cause Id see it coming. But I still believe

that first or even second or even third year, when you havent even read the book

yet, youre reading it along with them and the times an issue

BARRY: Maybe youre leaving something REALLY, REALLY basic out.

PAULA: Which is what?

BARRY: Is it possible that working with the clusters made you more open

throughout your teaching to what you were uncertain about? Less anxious in the

face of [uncertainty]? In other words, whether or not you were doing clusters and

interpretive discussion leading, did the experience help youbecause I think the

most important thing to do for teachers starting out is to help them understand

that doubt and uncertainty are absolutely where its at and fine.



19/22


of [uncertainty]? In so saying, does he mean that, since developing a cluster of ques-

tions requires one to identify a point of doubt about the meaning of a text, it places

value upon the ability to find and clarify points of uncertainty? And as a consequence,

might those who learn to develop clusters discover that ambiguity and uncertainty areto be cultivated rather than eschewed, as they lead one into discovery and perhaps new

understanding?

When Paula says, We view things through a totally different lens as a result of going

through that experience, she may mean that, in answer to Barrys question, experience

with interpretive discussion helped her to identify and, indeed, value ambiguity. But

is that what she means? Was her perspectiveher lenschanged in a positive way?

I hear in my words the reiteration of my initial dilemma: On the one hand, the lead-

ers and the discussants had made so much progress during the project, and the jour-nals of both Marsha and Paula had described many moments when they seemed to be

aware of and enjoying the progress. Today, however, they were telling me that they had

not developed clusters of questions while teaching, that they were not sure why their

cluster writing improved when I said it had, that they were not sure whether partici-

pating in interpretive discussion helped discussants learn to love reading or whether

preparing for and leading the discussions had helped them to love the texts that they

had explored. In short, my dilemma was more pressing than ever.

And why? Because in listening to Marsha and Paula talk about why they had not

prepared clusters of questions and led interpretive discussions in their classrooms, I

had uncovered heretofore tacit beliefs that I then began to question. Indeed, the lead-

ers seemed to have been telling me that my beliefs were not true, at least as far as they

were concerned. Hence, listening to them set me on a new questone of seeking evi-

dence that interpretive discussion was having certain consequences that I believed it

should have.

I have come, then, to the moment described by myFourth Hypothesis about the

conditions under which one listens to a perspective that challenges ones own, namely,

the new criteria are used to determine features of the new beliefs or modifications ofthe old ones. So what are the new criteria that I am coming to expect my beliefs to

meet? What should I accept as evidence that leaders see some versions of questions as

PAULA: I think that youre rightWe view things through a totally different lens

as a result of going through that experience, theres NO question about that.

SHG: Its hard for me to know exactly where we are because you know what you

wrote in the journals [that they completed during the research project] and what

you seemed to experience at that time and what youre saying now arent exactly

the same thing.

M & P: Right.



20/22

better than others? That participation in interpretive discussion helps people love the

texts they discuss? That it helps them love the activity of trying to understand the

texts? That preparation for and leading discussion helps the leaders care about the

texts, engage themselves with questions explored by the texts, and tolerate, seek, and,yes, love the discovery of ambiguity, uncertaintyof questions! I seek help from

Marsha, Paula, and Barry in identifying appropriate criteria as the conversation con-

tinues. Here, we focus upon only one of the issues that has arisen:

When I say, I think theres no question but that they, and evenfrom one draft tothe next, they did get better, though what youre reporting isthat the criteria for get-

ting better werent terribly clear, I may mean that while I could see why some

clusters were better than others, or why a later draft of a cluster of questions was bet-

ter than an earlier one, that I am hearing them say they did not understand why I

made those judgments. When Paula says, Maybe its more of the clusters than the

discussions, she may mean that while she can see why some discussions were better

than others, she had trouble seeing why some clusters were better than others.

Now, is it, as I say, that the criteria for judging the clusters were not clear? Or is itthat the leaders, and perhaps Barry, did not see why I applied the criteria as I did and,

hence, called some clusters and drafts of clusters clearer than others? When Marsha

recalls their attempt to prepare a cluster of questions without my help and says, we

felt like we did a great job, and then we were so proud of ourselves, because it was like,

we had worked through several rounds, and when Sophie got a hold of it, it was like,

ehhhhh, does she mean that without my prodding, they revised the questions sev-

eral times, that they were satisfied with their final version and felt discouraged when

I questioned its clarity? If so, perhaps she means that at least some criteria for revision

were clear to them but that I applied the criteria differently than they, and they did

not see why I found their version wanting.


SHG: I think you would see that the clusters get better, I think theres no

question but that they, and evenfrom one draft to the next, they did get better,

though what youre reporting is that you sometimes didnt know if it got better,

couldnt tell that it got better. That the criteria for getting better werent

terribly clear.

PAULA: Maybe its more of the clusters than the discussions.

BARRY: I do think its clusters.

MARSHA: I remember one, at one point when we went to work by ourselves and

Sophie was out of town, and we felt like we did a great job, and then we were so

proud of ourselves, because it was like, we had worked through several rounds.

And when Sophie got a hold of it, it was like, ehhhhh, you know?



21/22


In fact, I now think that both problems occurred: at times, the leaders were

unaware of or ignored criteria that could have been used to detect weaknesses in the

clusters, and at times my standards for clarity were different so that I found weak-

nesses where they saw none, even though we all could recite the relevant rules of eval-uation. As a consequence, helping people to strengthen their clusters of questionsto

make them clearerrequires more than giving them a list of criteria to apply. While

such a list is helpful, use of it must be accompanied by reasoning when application of

the rules is unclear.

In the above excerpt, I seek help understanding what I should accept as evidence

that leaders see some versions of questions as better than others. I see now that I may

have been remiss in conveying to both the leaders and to Barry all the criteria I applied

when evaluating their clusters, although I did give them some, and in failing to

explain my rationale when applying the criteria. Perhaps evidence that a questioner

sees some clusters or questions as better than others might be given by: 1) stating the

criteria that are to be applied to judge the clarity of the cluster; 2) applying the crite-

ria and explaining why the questions should be changed in particular ways; 3) chang-

ing questions using the criteria; and 4) reviewing and agreeing with the reasoning of

applying the criteria in particular ways. Perhaps there are other forms of evidence as

well. My job, it appears, is to seek multiple forms of evidence so that I am clear the

questioner sees progress in clarity of the questions.

The conversation that I had with Marsha, Paula, and Barry in October 2000 wasnot easy. It forced me to listen to perspectives that challenged my own as it raised tacit

beliefs for examination. Those beliefs were and still are fundamental to my work as a

teacher educator. At the same time, listening to those perspectives allowed me to

secure help from the othershelp in determining new criteria that my cherished

beliefs needed to meet to be deemed acceptable. Recognition of new criteria, as well

as recognition that I hold other beliefs that need to meet as-yet unidentified criteria

in order to be sustained, brought about the fifth condition that I hypothesized under

which one listens to a perspective that challenges ones own. That condition, what I

call the Fifth Hypothesis, is that the question becomes a genuine question. For the

question with which I began, or a modified form of it, has become a question that I

am even more eager to resolve. The importance of that question for me is evident in

the following comment, which I made near the end of the conversation:

SHG: But, clearly [the research project] was a tremendous challenge for you. It

was challenging all the time, and I think that part of what Im hearing you [ask]

is: Did [preparing for and leading interpretive discussion] make me love the stuff

more? Youre saying, Paula,21 [you] didnt want to see those stories again, [you

were] so sick of working on all that stuff. So you know, this is to go backto one

of the questions I raised earlier. Maybe I could have [helped you prepare for and



22/22

What, then, is mygenuine question? When I say, Maybe I could have [helped you

prepare for and lead discussions] in a way that made it a little easier tolearn it anduse it [productively], I seem to ask: What do I need to do to help teachers and teacher

candidates prepare for and conduct interpretive discussions in their classrooms? The

conversation of the past two hours has made the question more pressing. At the same

time, it has enabled me to hear ideas about the criteria that a satisfactory resolution

will need to meetthe questions that I need to answer and the sources of evidence

that I can gather and examine to address at least one of them and so, to embark upon

resolution. I am deeply grateful to Marsha, Paula, and Barry for helping me define

and pursue my quest. That they are still in dialogue with me suggests that perhaps allof us have learned from listening to perspectives that challenged our own.22

III. CONCLUSION

The foregoing analysis seems to confirm my hypotheses about the conditions under

which one listens to a challenging perspective. We have seen that, at least in the pres-

ent case, having a question moved me to draw the parties together for conversation

and try to grasp ideas that conflicted with my own even when it was uncomfortable

to do so. It is interesting to see the second and third conditionsfinding ones lis-

tening interrupted and uncovering a heretofore tacit belief that itself is then ques-

tionedseem to go together. And as real conversation is complex, it is perhaps to be

expected that listening will be interrupted and tacit beliefs uncovered again and again.

Indeed, perhaps one difficulty in listening to a challenging perspective is that one is

likely to uncover several such unexamined beliefs. If, however, the question becomes

a genuine question, one may return to further study of those beliefs on a future occa-

sion. Surely, I will continue to examine my convictions that interpretive discussions

help leaders and participants love reading and thinking, and that the clarity of a ques-

tion is easily apparent. Perhaps most important, I have discovered that I need to findevidence to support these convictions if I am to stick by them.


21. In fact, Marsha had made the comment. See page 13. Perhaps Paula felt similarly.

22. I also wish to thank Marsha, Paula, and Barry for comments on an earlier draft of the paper, for permission to pub-

lish it, and for their unfailing support at every turn in our saga.

lead discussions] in a way that made it a little easier tolearn it and use it [pro-

ductively]. I dont know.


listening to a challenging perspective

Documents