Sharing? Or Bragging?

Like many teachers who share what they do with the world, I've been accused of bragging...

When I started blogging a couple years ago, I searched for good blogs by teachers that I could follow (via feedly, my favorite feed reader). One of the blogs I stumbled upon was Silvia Tolisano's Langwitches blog. Tolisano is really, really dedicated to the idea that teachers should document what they're doing, and then share it with the world, even if they get accused of bragging for doing so. She even argues that teachers have an obligation to share, and that there's more to gain than lose by doing so. 

Of course, it's hard and it takes time, and somehow, while getting teachers to share what they do with each other ought to be one of the main points (if not THE point) of professional development, it never happens often enough. 

When teachers are able to share ideas on their own, outside the framework of PD, it's probably most effective.  --Or is it? You bump into so-and-so in the copy room who has a great idea you want to try, and you agree to talk more later, but it almost never happens... You forget, or you're too busy, and a whole year goes by without the two of you getting together to share that great idea.

And then there's that whole Midwestern inferiority complex to deal with: if you share what you're doing, either in person, or by giving a presentation, or by constantly emailing your colleagues with links to articles, videos of your students, blog posts (including ones you've written yourself), etc, then you're going to seem like you're bragging. --And we Midwesterners don't do that, except when we do, because we feel so inferior to the rest of the world.... (Insecurity is the flip-side of bravado, as I will be the first to admit.)

Another great blogger I follow (Richard Byrne of Free Technology for Teachers) passes on the message of Derek Sivers to remind us that "what's obvious to you, is amazing to someone else." We all should be sharing our ideas and lessons with each other a lot more than we do, even when we feel we have nothing to offer, even if we fear we might be bragging by doing so. What we share with each other might have a significant impact on others that we can't even imagine.

Last year, when I offered to film a few classes so that other folks could see what I was doing with student-led discussions, I didn't know then that I'd be giving a presentation at MAIS on the topic several months later. I also didn't know I'd be giving that presentation again in-house, or that I'd be asked to give it yet again next fall at the ISACS Conference. [As it turns out, my proposal wasn't accepted!] There's a ripple effect to sharing, as Tolisano points out. Maybe those student-led discussions are good; maybe they're just hot air, but if my sharing gets even one teacher to think twice and try something--anything--new, then it's worth it.

If nothing else, I've been having good--if far too brief--conversations with some of my colleagues as a result of this work. I look forward, for instance, to talking more with Johnathan Woodward about how he's organzing his student-led discussions (and how he gets the Spanish club to do such amazing things), with Lori Durant and Nate Mattson about their experiences with minecraft and gamification. I wish I knew how Anita Larson and Brianne Vigen set up their Salon days. I wish I had time to go through my entire curriculum with Matt Whittaker--and maybe that can be arranged, actually...

But in the meantime, I'm going to keep on bragging, I mean, sharing. --And you should, too! If nothing else, please contribute something to Whittaker's "Great Lessons" Archive. If it helps, pretend that it's called the "Probably Mediocre Lessons" Archive. 

Don't let me win his "Best Lesson" contest by default! (If I do, I'm going to use that $100 prize to make some of you share what you do.)

Pacing and Intensity

Here's a clip from 2A English 12 (forgive the audio quality). One of the things I like about this clip is that while the quality of the conversation is pretty good, the pace is also relaxed. Some times, these discussions are really intense and fast-paced. Sometimes, they're more relaxed and the students dig a bit deeper into the issues that come up. 

You can't really tell from this clip that there's a time-limit on this conversation, nor can you tell that the students are multi-tasking (by using the GoogleChat function while also talking face-to-face). 

Sometimes students say that these discussions feel scripted, and that is a risk, but I also think that our students aren't used to consciously and actively preparing for discussions. They're perhaps used to thinking of discussions as totally accidental and unpredictable, and so when they've actually prepared, then they feel as though the conversation is scripted. Sometimes, we do stumble on unexpected topics and discussions take an unusual turn, but it's also okay if students just work on articulating and organizing their thoughts about the reading...

"Do you agree or disagree?"

Some Student Responses

Some time ago, I asked my students to reflect on their experiences with the Student-Led Discussions we've been having all year. Some students don't like them, of course, and some find them stressful, and indeed a good Complex Fishbowl Discussion is pretty intense. At one point, long before I asked the students to do this reflection exercise, one student (I can't remember who) said, "I feel like our classes are really productive." That made me pretty happy. Of course, not all discussions are truly productive. My one section that really struggles often tells me they felt we had a good discussion when in fact I know they could have done much better. As part of the "homework" I gave to my attendees at MAIS, I provided some links to student reflections. Those links are below:

• these two students feel they struggle (but only one does)
• these two feel they’ve made progress (and they have)
• these two are confident, and rightly so
• these two international students have struggled (one more than the other)

I hope to do more with reflection exercises next year.

Group-Grading: A Work in Progress

One of my classes is really struggling with the group-graded Fishbowl discussions. They would be really happy if I just let them have Simple Circle discussions for the rest of the year. That would be easy and simple.

This group of students seems very reluctant to problem-solve their way out of an impasse. I can think of several strategies they might use to improve their performance as a group. Should I tell them what those strategies are? 

I have, at times, given them class-time to hash out new strategies, but they don't really talk to each other in the right ways during these sessions. If they honestly assessed their own strengths and weaknesses and then did some strategic thinking about how to use their strengths to compensate for their weaknesses, they could improve. A few (perhaps not enough) of these students are accomplished athletes, and I'm surprised that they haven't transferred their skills from one domain to another...

But they'd have to get past thinking like individuals who are competing with each other for the best grades ... they'd have to truly pool their insights and skills. They'd have to see themselves as a team.

What I'm assessing, along with their critical thinking and reading skills, is the overall quality of the conversation and the demonstrated teamwork of the group. 

And, as I found out during parent-conferences, some parents don't yet understand the direction we're moving in. I had a frustrated parent ask me, "Why are you teaching collaboration in English class?" I wanted to say, but didn't: "Why aren't we teaching collaboration in all classes?"

Too many of our students are still passive learners. We have a ways to go if we're going to change that.  

While I won't be giving up on group grades for discussions, I may experiment next year with combining individual grades and group grades in both Simple Circles and Fishbowls. I also plan to have the  Outer Circle from the Fishbowl help me assess the quality of the Inner Circle's discussion...

Observation Dates: An Open Invitation

My English 12 students are beginning to read Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones. If anyone would like to stop in and observe our Complex Fishbowl student-led discussions, please note the dates below. (This is the last sequence of student-led discussions for the year, apart from a very few in May.) 

We start each class-period with an assessment of some kind. These take anywhere from 30 to 40 minutes at the start of the class period, so if you want to observe the discussions, please try to arrive by 9 for the 1B class, by 11 for the 2A class, or by 2 for the 4B class. Barring any unforeseen events or special schedules, the available dates are below:

1B: 9-9:50 on 3/13, 3/17, 3/23, 3/25, 3/27, and 3/31.

2A: 11-12 on 3/16, 3/18, 3/24, 3/26, 3/30, and 4/1.

4B: 2-3:05 on 3/13, 3/17, 3/23, 3/25, 3/27, and 3/31.

Because State Music contest is happening on March 16th & 17th, we may have to revert to Simple Circle discussions on those days, so if you want to see how that format works, those are the likely days.

If you bring your device, I can share the students' prep-doc with you so you can see how they use it, as well as the chat function, during the discussion. 

In the 1B class, we're experimenting with gendered discussion groups, as this class has struggled with group-dynamic issues. The girls have also decided they want to try using TodaysMeet as a second (& public) back-channel; I will project it on the screen as they discuss the reading for the first couple sessions. If they like it, we'll stick with it; if they don't, we won't!

You don't have to stay for a full hour, though you are welcome to do so. I think it takes about 30-40 minutes to get a real feel for the format, but pop in or out whenever you need/want to. 

You don't have to know anything about the novel to get a sense of how discussions like these could work in your class or your discipline!

I have told the students we may have visitors, so don't be shy!

MAIS 2015 Presentation: Student-Led Discussions

This is my presentation for the 2015 MAIS Conference. Obviously, it doesn't give you access to what I said during the presentation, but you should be able to access all the links from here.

I used Slides.com (at the suggestion of Mr Mattson) because it's one of the few free presentation vehicles that allows embedding of non-YouTube videos. I'm also proud of using my first QR code! (Thanks to Señor Woodward for that tip!)

What Do We Want For Our Students?

I teach seniors, mainly, so I really want to make sure they're prepared for the college classroom. I don't want them to be the shy student I was. I don't want them to have the problems that these college students at Stanford have. [Update: Sometimes, the video below goes offline; it's usually temporary, so check back in a few days, if it's not available.]

Adina Glikman. Raise Your Hand. The Resilience Project. Online Video. Stanford University, 27  Jan. 2015. Web. 7 Feb. 2015.

Instead, I want them to have the confidence to speak up in class, to take ownership of their learning. I want them to be like these students in Alexis Wiggins's class.

Alexis 7 minutes 2012b from Authentic Education on Vimeo.

I want my students to be able to do this:

And this:

And this: 

Where I am Now: Complex Fishbowl Discussions

In a previous post, I described the Simple Circle format I begin with each year. Last year, I started a lengthy experiment with fishbowl discussions. Off and on, in previous years, I had used a simple fishbowl format, but I'd never used it repeatedly over a long period of time. I combined the fishbowl format with a group-grade, which was an idea Brandon Neblett, my principal, urged me to try during some PLC discussions we had last year. This was a game-changer! (I've blogged about my experiences last year here and here.)

The group grade idea inspired me to get out of a rut. I'd been using Simple Circles for 15 years or so without changing the format much at all. (It's probably not a good idea to use any teaching method that long without seriously re-examining it! --And I know there are other areas of my teaching that need such re-examination.) 

I was afraid of using a whole-class group grade (though I may try it soon!), so I figured out a way to use a group grade within a fishbowl format. What I'm calling the Complex Fishbowl format is the result. I've been using it for much of the year in three of my classes.

For the Complex Fishbowl, I divide the class into two teams; each team gets 16 minutes inside the "bowl" to discuss the day's reading. Then the other team, which has been listening to the first, gets 10 minutes to ask the first group some questions. After that, the teams switch places and we do another 16+10-minute round. In two of my classes, the teams have been working together for much of the first semester. (A student in one class said "we're a family now," when I asked if they wanted me to re-configure the teams.) 

All the students use their laptops throughout the entire discussion. Each team uses a shared GoogleDoc to prepare for discussion, collecting in it quotations, questions, and ideas for their conversation. (While I have given out templates for this PrepDoc, as we call it, in the past, I am now asking the students to create their own organizational structures.)

Screenshot of GoogleChat session: Here, at the top,
I made a suggestion & then gave out some praise.

They also use the GoogleChat feature to monitor their own participation, making sure each group member contributes equally, and to keep track of the time. (I lurk in the Chat, participating when necessary, and giving out praise for good conversational moves.) 

When a group is in the outer circle, it uses its shared PrepDoc and the Chat function to brainstorm questions for the upcoming Q&A session, during which it must engage with the entire inner circle. 

Screenshot of GoogleChat session:  Here, the outer circle is planning its Q&A session. One student
has to rely on his friends to give him a question because he forgot to prepare his own while
listening to the inner circle's discussion, It happens.

Each group is graded as a group, according to a rubric. (This rubric is created with iRubrics, a free standalone feature of the RCampus LMS.)

In order to be successful, the groups must strategize before & during the discussion. They have to learn to function as a team outside of the fishbowl, while listening, and while prepping for class.

During the discussions, I am monitoring the two PrepDocs, the two chat sessions, while also keeping a tally of individual participation for each segment of the conversation. I am also keeping time, along with the students. (I have just recently turned over the job of keeping time entirely to the students...) Obviously, my goal is to get all my classes to the point where they don't need constant monitoring. We're almost there in two of three classes...

Here's a screenshot of my laptop screen: I have the two PrepDocs open, and the two Chat sessions. 

In this discussion format, with the group grade, the students are now fully invested in having the best discussion they can; it's their job to make sure everyone is participating to the best of their abilities. (Because I also do some kind of daily assessment, the group discussion grade is roughly 30%-50% of the day's overall grade.) 

As you'll see from the annotated 58-minute video below, the conversation does not really involve me at all. And while this complex structure can seem artificial, I think you'll see that, at its best, it has its own flow... 

Please let me know what you think in the comments!

More About Simple Circles: Variations, Advantages, Disadvantages

VARIATIONS ON SIMPLE CIRCLES

In a previous post, I described the Simple Circle Discussion (SCD) format. Sometimes, if a class is having lots of trouble leading its own discussion, I'll try a few variations on the SCD theme. The following variations can be used for all or part of a discussion.  

Ooh! Look at That!
This variation is helpful when students just don't know where to start. Maybe the text is confusing, really complicated, or overwhelming. In such cases, we play a few rounds of "Ooh! Look at That!" All they need do is point out something they liked or found interesting or confusing. This strategy is great for discussions of poems. "I like that metaphor in line 4." "Is that an allusion in line 10? To what?" And so it goes, until finally the conversation starts moving in a more fruitful direction.

Divided Circle
I don't use seating charts for circle discussions unless I absolutely must. So most of the time, students sit near their friends. If they are only interacting with their friends during the conversation, despite my directions to include everyone, then I resort to a Divided Circle. I draw an imaginary line down the center of the circle and require those on one side of the line to interact only with those on the other side. This variation is of limited value.

Gendered Circle
If I notice that boys are only interacting with boys, or girls only with girls, then I require that boys must call on girls and vice versa. This works best in classes where the gender divide is pretty even. 

3 Quotations
When I'm not hearing enough references to the text, I require the group to provide 3 relevant quotations in response to each question, or 3 passages in support of each new idea. We can't move on to a new topic or question until we hear 3 relevant quotations.

Raise the Stakes
If students reach plateau with this format, I start demanding higher-quality participation from everyone:  bigger, better questions, a quotation with every response, connections to other texts/courses. I might also outlaw the changing of topics until the students have dug into each one more deeply. Over time, I've come to believe that this strategy, too, is of limited value.

ADVANTAGES OF SIMPLE CIRCLES

The clearest advantage of the SCD format is that the students are responsible for sustaining the discussion. It's no longer my job to keep it going; it's theirs. I use SCDs to teach this skill in particular. Once students master the art of sustaining the conversation, then we can work harder on improving the quality of the conversation.

With a SCD, the students are listening to each other, responding to each other, and focusing on each other, instead of on me. 

This format prevents the most assertive students from taking over, and gets most of the quieter students to speak up, at least a bit. In the Socratic model, when the teacher calls on a shy student, everyone focuses on that student. Here, the shy student can (learn to) ask questions of others, shifting the focus back onto the group.  

With this format, the teacher is actually listening to the conversation--the entire conversation. With the Socratic Method, which I have critiqued before, the teacher can easily fall into the habit of listening only for certain answers, the answers that will allow the teacher to ask the next question in the magic sequence. I find that I listen much more deeply during student-led discussions. And I have time to really think about what my students are saying.

DISADVANTAGES OF SIMPLE CIRCLES

Assertive students master this discussion format rather quickly, and it ceases to be a challenge for them. They earn their quota of points for the day and then coast. Unless they're motivated by genuine interest in the topic, they end up caring more about points than ideas. 

Shy students will often opt out, deciding to take a zero for the day.

The intensity of these conversations flags easily, perhaps because there's no collaborative effort, perhaps because there's no reason for the students to strive for higher-quality discussion. Unless all the students are invested in the quality of the entire conversation, this format can only take them so far.

To push student-led discussions to the next level, one must employ more structure and make quality-control the responsibility of all the students. 

Please let me know what you think in the comments!

One Way to Begin: Simple Circle Discussions

The first kind of Student-Led Discussion (SLD) I use each year is a Simple Circle Discussion. As I wrote earlier, I got the idea from Terry Falsani. Sitting in a circle, the students must sustain respectful conversation about the text, calling on each other to keep the discussion going while avoiding repetition. They must ask the group's permission to change the topic, and they must engage with each other, not me.

For the first few sessions, I sit in the circle with the students, but I remove myself from the group as soon as I can. The students find it difficult, at first, to talk to each other. They keep looking to me for approval, sometimes addressing their comments to me. I remind them repeatedly that this is their conversation, not mine; that they are to look at each other, not me.

When I'm no longer in the circle with them, I can walk around its edge, monitoring the students' laptop screens, because they have their reading journals open. After I catch a couple folks using their laptops inappropriately, the students realize they need to stay on task.

The students tend to want to call on their friends during the discussion. I tell them they are to call on people we haven't heard from yet or recently. I remind them to look all the way around the circle for raised hands before they call on anyone. If a student with a hand up is being ignored, I will interject with a "Call on X!" comment.

Although at first we begin by raising hands and waiting to be called on, I tell the students that the goal is to get beyond that stage to something that resembles free-flowing conversation. It takes many sessions of practice to arrive at that stage.

Class roster with point-totals,
as it appears in ClassDojo.
I could use photos of my
students instead of avatars.

I start grading the second Simple Circle session. I tell the students that I'm looking for 5 significant contributions from each of them. I define such a contribution as a good, open-ended question, a thoughtful response to a question, or a comment about the meaning or style of the text. I let them know that I want all contributions to be quotation-based, so we start by letting passages from the text inspire questions and support responses.

As the students converse, I am tracking their participation on my phone, using the ClassDojo app. (Yes, the app is designed for the primary grades, but it is a quick and easy tracking tool. You can customize it to track whatever positive and negative behaviors you define. I keep it pretty simple.)

Here's what it looks like when I'm
about to give a student a point.

When a student reaches the 5-point mark, I give that student a signal that means "you have to be quiet now." It's important not to let the more talkative students dominate the discussion. Putting a limit on their contributions makes room for quieter students to speak up, though they may be reluctant at first to do so. 

When we start having Simple Circle Discussions (SCDs), I do have to sit through many awkward pauses. I've written about this before. I know from experience that if I'm silent now, I'll be rewarded with self-sustaining discussions later.

While I might have to sacrifice some ideas by shutting down the more assertive students, I am often surprised at how the class ends up touching on many of the main points I want to hit. Over time, they get better at this, and I can always make sure we get to those ideas later, through pre- and post-discussion assessments. It's important to realize, however, that the students must develop a sense of ownership; otherwise, these discussions will never be authentic.

Eventually, after most of the students have approached or achieved the 5-point mark, I allow the "muted" students to speak again (I use a hand signal for this, too).

I speak only if absolutely necessary to supply missing information, correct missunderstandings, and redirect stagnant lines of inquiry. Sometimes, I can do this silently by slipping notes to shy students or holding up a sign.

At the end of the session, it helps to give the class some feedback and some pointers about what to work on and how to prepare better for next time.

Below is a clip of a SCD I had filmed back in September of 2014 (see a larger portion of the video here). It was only our 4th discussion of the year, so it should give you a sense of where we start. We were discussing Stephen King's "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption." The students had gotten bogged down in some unimportant issues, and to shake them up a bit, I held up a sign that said "Ask BIG questions!" You'll see the students looking toward me to read the sign. And then the discussion does get a bit better after that point.

"This is kind of a big question."

Even though the pacing was slow, and the students wasted time on some lesser issues, there were also some bright spots. Without prompting, the students made a connection between prisons and schools. I had planned to ask them to think in this way, but they came to this point on their own--I just had to be patient.

I'll describe some variations on SCDs and address the advantages and disadvantages of this discussion format in a future post.

Please let me know what you think in the comments!

Getting Ready To Try Student-Led Discussions

This post is dedicated to John Dings (1939--2014), 

who was my teacher and friend for many years.

If you want to start using Student-Led Discussions, you'll need time, practice, discussion-worthy texts, and active readers.

TIME

Student-Led Discussion (SLD) techniques take lots of time. I'm not sure it's possible to have a quick SLD. I recommend 30-minute sessions, at the very least (you need to build in time for the awkward silences I mention below). And don't expect students to master these techniques until you've spent many such sessions on them. Eventually, you may want your SLDs to last for an hour or so, if the length of your class-period allows. If a text is worth talking about (more about that below), then it's worth talking about at length.

Trying out SLDs once or twice, or just now and then, would be counterproductive, a waste of time. You'd never see any real results. Sustained practice is required. SLDs are a long-term commitment, and I don't see any way around that. I also don't see that as a drawback. In the Humanities, at least, intellectual conversation is our bread and butter. It's what we do. It follows reading and precedes writing; ideally, it's all part of a connected learning process.

PRACTICE

As the students learn to function without your constant guidance, without your continual questioning, they will falter and fail. You'll have to sit through some awkward silences, but the more you restrain yourself here, the better the results will be in the end. 

If you rescue the students from their silence even once, they'll rely on you to do it again, and then you'll find yourself playing a waiting-game of who's-gonna-crack-first? When the silence gets really unbearable, I just smile and say, calmly but cheerfully, "I can wait all day!"

Before these early sessions, it's good to chat with the students to find out if they feel ready (I address specific preparation strategies below), if they're worried or scared. Some anxiety is natural; learning to conquer it is important. 

Likewise, after the early SLDs, it's helpful to process each session a bit. Save 5-10 minutes for this and ask them what went well, what didn't work, what they learned about how to prepare more effectively next time. Give them a few of your thoughts about how they did, but don't overwhelm them with too much feedback at first. 

Find out if they actually used all the advice you gave them about preparing for discussion! Sometimes, my students don't take my advice until I prove to them, repeatedly, through their own dismal experience, that it's actually good advice.

Know that the road to mastery is neither swift, nor smooth, nor linear! But the journey, with all its twists and turns, all its high- and low-points, is where all the learning happens!

DISCUSSION-WORTHY TEXTS

Make sure you're assigning discussion-worthy texts. Don't try SLDs with something short and simple. If the text in question isn't complex and interesting to the students, then they'll run out of things to say pretty quickly, especially when they're in the early stages of learning these techniques. 

Give them something challenging--you want them to puzzle through the difficulties together, and a certain degree of confusion gives rise to authentic questions. So start with something rich and meaty, and then make sure each successive text is even more challenging. Rich texts will challenge the students on the level of vocabulary, sentence structure, narrative structure; ambiguity, controversy, relevance, and unusual perspectives are conversation-makers. 

Discussion-worthy texts get kids thinking across disciplinary lines, and you want them making connections, bringing everything they've ever learned to bear upon those texts. Not everything you ask them to read needs to be covered in a SLD.

ACTIVE READERS

Above all, SLDs require students to be active readers. If your students are passive or reluctant readers, SLDs can turn them around somewhat, but don't expect the process to be instantaneous (remember, it takes time and practice.) And here's where advance preparation comes in. 

• Question-Formation Tools

I generally try to stay away from giving students study questions in advance of the reading. I think it's much more valuable to have them formulating questions for themselves, as they read. Only with the most complex or potentially overwhelming texts do I give study questions, and then I rely upon such questions (which tend to be lengthy, full of historical background, literary terminology, or relevant biographical information), to take the place of a lecture.

So rather than giving students questions in advance, I try to teach them how to ask good questions. It's easy to find lots of advice about leading discussions by formulating good questions. Even if such advice is written for teachers, it's really meant for those who are leading discussions, and in this case, that's your students! 

I've also found it effective to give students a list of question stems which provide students with question-templates they can use with almost any text. As students get into the habit of formulating questions while they read, they become better readers (and better thinkers, and better conversationalists).

• Pre-Discussion Assessments (Indirect Instruction)

The discussion itself shouldn't be the only way you assess the students' mastery of the text. I'm fond of rotating through a number of pre-discussion assessments: each class period, the students know they should expect either a quiz, or a journal-check, or a short in-class writing assignment, or a video-response question (à la Flipgrid.com). These assessments help hold the students accountable for doing their reading, and it gets them in the habit of thinking about the reading before they get to class. If they know they'll be held accountable for reading, that they'll have to prove in some way that they read, then they're more likely to read with their brains more fully engaged.

These assessments also give me ways to frame the upcoming discussion through indirect direct instruction. Whether students realize it or not, the questions on a quiz indicate what I think is important in the day's reading; likewise, a writing/Flipgrid prompt lets me direct the students' reflection before they begin to speak. 

Student-centered teaching doesn't require me to relinquish my role as instructor; it just means that more of my direct instruction is indirect. And because I don't offer much direct instruction at all, what I do provide, through these assessments, carries a bit more weight than it might otherwise. This is one of the benefits of my silence, which I wrote about earlier.

(This way of thinking about assessments as indirect but powerful teaching tools is something I learned long ago from one of my most important mentors, John Dings, who died a few months ago and to whom this post is dedicated.)

I mentioned reading journals; I generally use a progression of styles. I start with simple double-entry journals, in which students build up a collection of quotations and reflect briefly on their significance. Text-based SLDs need to reference the text frequently, and this kind of journal gets the students in the habit of weaving the text into their conversations.

Later on, the students write a one-page reflection on what I call a "synecdochic quotation," a passage that, all by itself, represents a larger theme or message in the text as a whole (or at least as much of the text as we've read so far). The students must find these passages on their own and explain how they contain or illuminate a meaning that reaches beyond their immediate context. Thus, we move from fragmented observations to more sustained and connected thinking. (Teaching students to identify a part of the text and show how it contains the whole is yet another method I borrowed from John...)

When I begin to use SLDs, I check the students' journals quite frequently; as time goes on and they come to rely on their journals to help them during the discussions, I can check them a bit less often.

Any kind of pre-discussion writing can serve intermittently as a kind of script during the conversation, and this can be a great help to quieter students. I allow them to read directly from their journals, if that's what it takes to get them participating. Because their journals are digital, the students have their laptops open during discussions. (I'll say more about how I integrate technology into SLDs in another post.)

• Pre-Reading Research

With some texts, especially those that rely on specialized background knowledge, I have students do research projects (usually in groups, with the results of the research shared in presentations) before we read the text in question. I won't describe these projects here and now, but I choose the topics. When we read Flight, for instance, by Sherman Alexie, I have the students research the Ghost Dance, The Battle of Little Bighorn, the Sand Creek Massacre, the Wounded Knee Massacre, and the Pine Ridge shootout. Without some knowledge of these subjects, the students would be at a loss, and while I could lecture about these subjects, it's better for the students to learn about them by researching them and then teaching their peers what they learned. This information, which they feel they "own," because they actively researched it, then gets woven into their discussions, usually without me even having to prompt them for it.

• Post-Discussion Assessments

Obviously, with the use of various post-discussion assessments (paper topics, reflective blogging prompts, test- and exam-questions), I can continue to frame the students' thinking about the text. I won't say much here except that, as I do more and more SLDs, the more I find myself building these assessments on ideas that arise from the students' conversations. As I listen to and assess the SLDs, I am busy jotting down notes for future assessments. I actually get lots of ideas from the students themselves! That's when I know we've had a really great discussion, because I end up with lots of hastily scrawled notes about exam questions, paper topics, and project ideas. When the students teach the teacher, then the students are truly reading actively!

Please let me know what you think in the comments!

Who's Driving This Bus? Why I Use Student-Led Discussion Techniques

This post is dedicated to Terry Falsani, who taught at Marshall from 1993 to 2001

Discussion is a skill, just like reading or writing, and as such, it needs to be taught. Too often, I think, teachers assume that students naturally know how to participate in discussions, but there’s nothing natural about academic discussions, especially those based on texts.

Most students haven't had the chance to witness many intellectual conversations in their short lives. The world-at-large certainly doesn't provide them with many models to imitate when it comes to civil conversations, based on critical thinking. 

When I was in high school, I was the shy girl who never talked. No one ever taught me how to participate in class. In fact, I never found my voice until I crossed the line from student-territory into teacher-space. And as a teacher, I was in control:  the class was mine to create, and the conversations, mine to direct. That sense of ownership was truly liberating; that feeling of control made it possible, finally, for me to speak up and participate fully.

Our students shouldn't have to become teachers (not literally, anyway) in order to feel that same sense of liberation. We should help them find their voices and become full participants in our classes, and we can do that by letting them play a larger role in teaching themselves and each other.

* * *

In my early days of teaching high school, I took on full responsibility for leading all the discussions. I believed in the Socratic Method. I really thought that if I just asked the right questions, in the right order, most of my students would magically turn into great conversationalists and eventually come to the same conclusions I had about the text or topic we were discussing. And that's what was supposed to happen, right?

Time and time again, however, that magic moment failed to materialize... Maybe I was doing it wrong. (I'm sure I was!) Maybe I was worn out from following up every student-answer with yet another question. Textbook examples of Socratic discussions read like verbal tennis matches--with all the students playing the teacher, instead of each other. 


--And I mean "playing" in more than one sense. We ought to be a bit suspicious of the Socratic Method. It's absolutely dependent on the Master Teacher and his wicked backhand. It also requires that the students play along. The Socratic style can easily devolve into a performance in which the teacher is showing off and the students are sucking up to flattering the teacher.

Nearly fifteen years ago, while dealing with a particularly taciturn group of students, I found the Socratic Method failing me. I desperately sought the advice of a wiser and more experienced colleague (the great Terry Falsani). She introduced me to the concept of Student-Led Discussions and shared her favorite technique with me. I adopted it immediately, and it changed my teaching forever. I haven't led a discussion since then.

* * *

Since those early days, I've come to question all my initial assumptions about what class discussions should look and sound like. I now believe that everybody should participate; no one should be allowed to just sit back and listen. I no longer think I should try to get my students to see the text exactly as I do. Granted, that’s very hard for me, especially when I'm teaching my favorite novels--as my AP Lit students can verify! I still try to shove nudge them in the right my favorite direction. After all, I have some good ideas, and it's my job to pass those ideas on, isn't it?

Well, yes and no. There are lots of ways to pass ideas on without lecturing or dominating class discussion. In a future post, I'll explain how teachers can use indirect direct instruction to help their students frame discussions, so that lots of good ideas get into the mix. But for now, my point is that the teacher's ego is the biggest obstacle on the path to student-centered teaching. (I should know:  mine gets in the way all the time.)

We teachers love the sounds of our own voices. But perhaps the more we talk, the less we actually teach... Our silence might serve our students better. If we talk a bit less, they might stop craving our approval, as they so desperately do, and start thinking, really thinking. In the midst of our silence, they can discover ideas for themselves, ideas they can truly own.

These days, I no longer think that I should be at the center of the conversation, controlling its direction. I no longer need that sense of ownership. After all, I found my voice long ago. I can afford to give my students my silence, and on our best days, they learn to talk to, and think with, each other while I am on the sidelines, intensely alert, agonizingly hopeful, and almost completely silent. (Although I'm silent, I'm also very busy:  I'm taking notes, assessing student performance, and planning, in response to what I hear, pre- and post-discussion assessments that will help frame future conversations.)

* * *

Are Student-Led Discussion techniques really necessary to teach conversational skills? I think so. With teacher-centered methods, old Socrates owns the discussion, and nobody gets anywhere unless he drives the bus toward Truth and Enlightenment...



As long as the teacher is responsible for sustaining the conversation and for maintaining its quality, the students are just along for the ride, with no real reason to care. It's not their bus, they're not driving it, and they don't really know where they're going. 

Student-Led Discussion techniques make the students responsible for keeping the conversation going, and, better yet, they can also make the students responsible for quality-control. Such discussions put the students in the driver's seat; together, they map out their journey and decide on their destination. 



We've got to get our students talking to each other, instead of just talking to us, seeking our approval as they do so. We've got to get them questioning each other, rather than waiting for us to lob the next question at them. We have to let them start driving this bus. 


Feel free to let me know what you think in the comments below!

Video Clips from Student-Led Discussions

Last year, Mr Neblett asked me to consider filming some class sessions, with the aim of making them available to faculty. I agreed to do so. The goal was to follow up on some of our PLC work last year related to the question of "how can students engage in more effective discussions?" 

These video-clips are from my 4B English 12 class. The students were discussing the end of Sherman Alexie's novel Flight. We were using a fishbowl discussion technique. The class has been divided into two teams; each team gets about 16 minutes inside the "bowl" to discuss the day's reading. Then the other team has 10 minutes to ask the first group some questions. After that, the teams switch places and we do another 16+10-minute round.These teams have been working together for much of the first semester.

All the students are using their laptops. Each team uses a shared GoogleDoc to prepare for discussion, collecting in it quotations, questions, and ideas for their conversation. They also use the GoogleChat feature to monitor their own participation, making sure each group member contributes, and to keep track of the time. The group in the outer circle is also using a shared doc to brainstorm questions for their upcoming Q&A session. Each group is graded as a group, according to a rubric. As you can see, the conversation does not really involve me at all.

"Let's move on from there."

"Can I ask a question, even though it's over?"

"Are you done now?"  "What's the literary effect of this?"

"Let's switch places." 

"Good timing."


When we're reading a novel, we routinely spend about 50 minutes of each 90-minute class-period in discussion until we finish it.The students are fairly used to the routine now, and my future plans are to change up the rubric, making it harder to get a good grade. The students will have to use more quotations during the discussion, ask better, bigger, deeper questions, and avoid changing the topic so often. I also plan to start having the students in the outer circle help me assess the conversation that takes place inside the fishbowl. Perhaps after that, they can help me assess their own performance. Up until very recently, I've been providing a template for the shared PrepDocs, as we call them, but with our next novel, I'll ask each group to create its own template.

Please let me know what you think in the comments!