Sal Cusmano

Eliciting and Interpreting Individual Student Thinking Growth

Claim
I believe that I have grown in my attempts to conduct the teaching practice of eliciting
and interpreting individual student thinking (EIST). I believe I have a grown in these attempts
for a few reasons. The first, is that I have gotten better at asking launching questions as my
initial launching question was too broad. The second reason is that I have improved my
following of student thinking as I asked more open-ended questions that gave students more of
a way to answer beyond a simple “correct” answer. The third reason is that I have improved the
interactions I have with students by building a greater rapport with them. And finally, I have
gotten better at making sense of student thinking.

Evidence and Reasoning

Launching Questions
The first way I believe I have improved in my practice of EIST is in how I conducted my
launching questions. In my initial attempt at EIST I asked the following launching question “Do
you know anything about public health?” (First EIST 0:00-0:17). This question was way too
broad in its scope as it provided no definition of public health or any information as to what
public health entails and provided no easy on ramps for the student to engage with the
material.
In contrast my second attempt at conducting EIST went much better because my
launching question was much improved. My second question was “How much do you think
public opinion effects war efforts, both in Vietnam and in war more generally?” (Second EIST
0:18-0:25). This second attempt was much improved because it was more focused onto how
public opinion influences war efforts. This made it easy for the student to onboard onto the
conversation without feeling overwhelmed by such a generic question, but at the same time it
was open ended because it was not a simple yes or no question and was one that the student
needed to contemplate.
Following Student Thinking
The next way I feel like I improved my practice of EIST would be in how I followed
student thinking. In my initial attempt at this practice my second question after my launching
question was “in times of public health crises there are people who want the government to
come in and say we need this restriction or that restriction. What political party or ideology do
you think these people belong to?” (First EIST 1:47-2:10). This was a terrible question to ask for
EIST as it is not open ended in any way whatsoever. That is an open and shut question looking
to see if the student could correctly identify how certain political parties feel about what the
government’s role in public health is.
My second attempt at conducting EIST went far better than the first attempt. My follow
up question for my second attempt was in response to my student’s first answer that he
thought public opinion effected war a lot. So, I asked him “how do you think it effects war a
lot?” (Second EIST 0:31-0:35). This prompted a great discussion I had with my student as he
connected the fact that a lot of people in the United States wanted to stay out of the Vietnam
War to the fact that a lot of people in the United States wanted to stay out of WWI and that
public reaction had a lot of impact on morale of the war and how many people wanted to fight
in the first place. (Second EIST 0:36-2:57)
Interactions with Students
The next way I feel like I showed a lot of improvement in my efforts to conduct EIST was
in my interactions with students. Although I was laid back and calm in both attempts, I made for
this teaching practice most of my first attempt was came across as very awkward with my
student being very silent for most of it or giving short answers. (First EIST 0:43-0:50) This was
likely because I was still very new to the class when I conducted this attempt and the fact that I
chose such a broad and intimidating launching question to start the EIST attempt.
In contrast, my second attempt went much smoother with the discussion between me
and my student going far better and being far greater in depth. (Second EIST 0:36-2:57) This
was likely because I had already been with that class for 3 months by the time, I conducted this
attempt and I had built a greater rapport with the students in general and with that particular
student more specifically.
Making Sense of Student Thinking
The final way I believe I showed growth was in how I made sense of student thinking
between the two attempts. In my first attempt I made one decent attempt at making sense of
student thinking. My student had just said that nutrition and what people eat was a part of
public health and I took that and rephrased it and asked if that was what he was saying. (First
EIST 1:05-1:35) While I think that my attempt to make sense of my student’s thinking was done
okay here, it was the only time through out the entire attempt at conducting EIST that I ever did
so.
In comparison, my discussion with my student in the second attempt at conducting EIST
went far better as the discussion I had with this student contained multiple attempts of my
making sense of student thinking. (Second EIS 0:36-2:57) (Second EIST 3:07-3:47) (Second EIST
5:30-end). These attempts show me both restating my student’s thinking and asking if that was
what he meant by what he said in parts of his responses such as when I asked him if he thought
that United States was not so much doing bad in terms of how they fought the Vietnam War,
but that the match up and the terrain was not to our benefit. (Second EIST 5:30-end), but I also
used what he said to connect to another question. For example, my student said that
propaganda played a part in the war effort in WWI and I used that as a lead in to the next
question when I asked how media coverage and the media in general can effect a war effort
(Second EIST 3:07-3:47).

Conclusion
Overall, I feel that I showed much improvement in my attempts to conduct the EIST
teaching practice. The questions I asked in my second attempt were both better at allowing
students to onboard into the discussion and were far more open ended than my first attempt.
The atmosphere of the conversation was much more relaxed and laid back and friendly in my
second attempt as well. And finally, I made sense of student thinking more often.