Ballenger's teacher research method can generally be seen as two phases: (1) Discussion in Real Time and (2) Stopping Time.
Often, we find our plans for instruction don't happen the ways we expect them to. These puzzling moments happen when kids catch us off guard, say something seemingly incorrect or off point. By turning these puzzling moments around on ourselves, the teachers, we look at these instances in new ways. We err on the side that says the children make sense or have valid reasons behind their thinking and contributions. These moments should be explored further and
can be explored further through recording conversations and stopping time to look more closely at them. We don't always understand something until we have time to think about it, hear it repeated, and put aside our assumptions. This is at the heart of "stopping time".
During a science talk, Ballenger asks her class if mold is alive, and, in allowing the conversation to follow the direction of the kids (stepping back, which is hard to do), the conversation moved to talking about what other things they think are alive. The kids came up with the sun, the moon, and the clouds. Rather than Ballenger interrupting and correcting their ideas, she records talk that becomes valuable to her in possibly understanding how her kids are thinking, making sense of the world, and what knowledge they already possess.
-------
Below are excerpts of the conversation and what Ballenger believes is going on:
Michel: It's always bright...and when the sun goes down it comes back.
- Ballenger thinks that Michael may be associating the sun's setting and falling with when someone goes away and comes back; this is a kind of proof that they are alive. (p. 22)
Rubens: If [the sun] wasn't alive, then the sun wouldn't light and we wouldn't have no light and all we'd have is dark nighttime and all we'd do is dreaming, dreaming, dreaming.
- Ballenger thinks that Rubens seemed to be thinking of light and life as connected and darkness as connected to sleep or death. (p. 22)
-------
Similarly, I decided to record a turn-and-talk that took place during a math whole group lesson on determining the cost of (some weight) of an item when the cost is set per pound. (JF = teacher)
JF: So adding on another 1 dollar and 10 cents... and that will get you to 3 dollars and 30 cents. Thumb up if you agree with Samantha. Excellent. $3.30... hm. I’m gonna go again a little bit out of order and I want to look at 4 pounds of carrots. How would you be able to figure out the cost of 4 pounds of carrots? How could you figure that out? Turn and tell the person next to you.
Students break into conversation.
One partnership:
Myles: ...It’s $4 dollars and 40 cents because every time it goes up--
Samantha: because...because you can just add $1.10!
Myles: Whatever the dollar is is going to be that...it’s going to be that number. But for 10... 10... I already know what 10 is. When you get to 10 and 10...you get 100 cents is 1 dollar so that would be 11 dollars.
Samantha: For me, I just at 10 cents to get to 40 and then I just add another dollar to get to 4.
In my analysis during stopping time, I found that Myles breaks from what the teacher is asking the partnership to do when he moves right on to figuring out what 10 pounds of carrots is. Rather than looking at this as an off-task behavior, looking at it as something valuable. Earlier in the lesson, the teacher skipped over 10 pounds (which appears first in the rate table) because solving sequentially for 3 pounds then 4 pounds was less of a burden. Myles, however, is one example of a student who is ready for elegant solutions (finding the quickest, simplest, effective way to solve a problem), and maybe can share the burden of teaching a solving strategy to the rest of his peers.
