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!)
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Saturday, February 7, 2015
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.]
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.
And this:
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.
I want my students to be able to do this:
And this:
And this:
And this:
Thursday, February 5, 2015
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.)
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.
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...
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.)
Please let me know what you think in the comments!
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. |
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. |
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. |
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!
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
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!
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.
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.
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. |
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.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."
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!
Sunday, February 1, 2015
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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
- Question-Formation Tools
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)
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!
Please let me know what you think in the comments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)