Reflecting on Going to the Movies

The in-class demo of Going to the Movies was very useful insofar as it gave me a model of responses to difficult situations and impasses in this type of field work (e.g. subject's attention drifts, she is unable to explain what she is doing in a manner that illuminates her thinking, she resists suggestions that she review what she has to make sure she doesn't have repeats, etc.) I found the game that Dr. Duckworth played (having subject close her eyes, removing a row, reopening eyes and identifying) to be the most useful aspect of the demo, both in terms of helping me know how to do the work and in helping the child begin to see patterns.
The experience was bizarre; I have never observed a child without interacting with her, and I think it made me more uncomfortable than the situation made her. I did the fieldwork last week with a peer, but seeing it done with a 6-year old made me really want to find a child with whom I could conduct this exercise.
One of the central discomfiting elements was that I could not figure out what the girl was thinking and there were long stretches when she did not seem engaged and I did not feel that she was really trying to figure out the question of the work. In the end she did seem to have figured out something of a system, but I was skeptical about the strength of that experience. In other words, if we were to do an exercise that required her to do essentially the same task, but with a twist, would she begin where she left off with the paperclips? If not, would she at least move more quickly through the task, either consciously or subconsciously drawing on what she learned? The overarching question here is: how do we know when learning has happened? We can see progress in a session, and we can assume that there is a cumulative influence of small lessons over time, but how can educators know when a skill has been acquired, when an idea is understood in such a way that it will be transferable to other types or moments of learning? This same question is relevant in more traditional models of learning. How do we know that a kid really understands equations just because she passed an algebra test? So much is at stake in education, and I believe in non-traditional education, but how can I advocate for a model of learning that would require such a massive overhaul of education when I don't know how to evaluate its efficacy? How do I make other people believe? Do we need more research, or do we just need to publicize and package what there is? How can we combine what we know about the positive effects of this work with what we know about the dehumanizing effects of traditional public education.
A big question for me to consider this semester (and beyond)--How do I synthesize the lessons of my classes and see the arts as a method of learning, humanizing schools, engaging family and community in learning, and reinforcing a positive school-defined social role? When this can happen, schools will be more humane, more efficacious in teaching kids what they need, and students will achieve and attain at higher levels.