Folks worked independently and promised to blog about what they doing/working on...
Kari, Brandon, Brianne, Nate, and Miriam checked in. Look for their posts in the future!
I worked on planning to more consciously use my question stems, which I have never actually required students to use, and I also hope that we can have discussions in English 12 in the near future about my "Think About It Thursday" blog post about the Duluth lynchings...I also worked on preparing a Flipgrid question related to The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien for one section of English 12. I haven't used Flipgrid in a while, and the kids and I enjoy it, so it will be good to get back to it.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
PLC 1/23/14
Discussion Board
I have been using Discussion Boards with success in the Honors/AP courses for the past couple of years. I have not used them with the non honors. So I spent some time earlier this week (because I thought I was going to get to it today in class) putting together directions for the Discussion Board and a question post. The topic is on the Age of Exploration. They watched episode 2 of Guns, Germs, and Steel about the encounter of Pizarro and the Incas and will read the Requerimiento. I created one Discussion Board for both sections and will allow them to respond to someone not in their section or in their section. I am not sure how the cross section response is going to go, but I thought it would add another dimension for students to hear from someone they have not been in class with all year.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Virtual water cooler
I think we should have a spot for general questions and comments, so I am creating one. I hope you find it useful. In my D2L-based online courses, students have a "water cooler" discussion forum, simulating that coworkers run into each other in such a spot and informally exchange a few thoughts. As you may have guessed, I have a general comment. I took the time to visit each PLC's blog today and found some of them really interesting. Nonetheless, I experienced the same dilemma that I know from online classes - both from my students and from being the student. As much as responded to some of the posts, I didn't know what to write without repeating things or just agreeing. Those one-to-two sentence responses are poo-pooed in online classes. Sometimes I could have added my two cents of wisdom or a visual, for example to the infographics, but that seemed almost intrusive to me. In other words, even though I understand the intentions of being accountable and encouraged to experience the other PLCs, I am uncomfortable with actually having to post on others' blogs. I want to post only when it's meaningful, and sometimes, it is nice to just lurk. I am interested in hearing what you think about that.
Image: mnenergysmart.com
Socratic Seminar
This
is a technique for ensuring quality discussions that I experienced in an
AP seminar. I am interested in philosophy but by no means an expert,
and I found myself wondering about the name of the technique. I remember
the Socratic Method as posing a series of questions that make the
discussion partner dig deeper and possibly contradict him- or herself. I googled the term and found a good overview here: Univ. of Chicago Law School
This discussion technique does not aim at exposing fallacies or inconsistencies. Instead, it encourages foreign language students to speak and practice target vocabulary or phrases. This could easily be adjusted to other content areas.
Prior to the Socratic Seminar, students prepare strips of paper that contain the phrases or terms to be practiced. These are placed in the middle of the circle so that they are easily visible. In our AP seminar, we used phrases to initiate or respond to questions and to state one's opinion, agreement, or disagreement.
Students are assigned to sit in either an inner or an outer circle. Kids in the inner circle participate in the discussion; each student in the outer circle is assigned to observe one of the speakers. The observers have check-off sheets with items such as "makes a contribution, uses target vocab/phrase, refers to the text/film etc, asks a question, agrees or disagrees, integrates another discussion member, makes eye contact" (just like in Brianne's post) etc. Observers also note any undesirable behavior as well as the most interesting thing their partner said. The discussion begins the same way as in Susan's contribution. After one round, students switch roles.
This discussion technique does not aim at exposing fallacies or inconsistencies. Instead, it encourages foreign language students to speak and practice target vocabulary or phrases. This could easily be adjusted to other content areas.
Prior to the Socratic Seminar, students prepare strips of paper that contain the phrases or terms to be practiced. These are placed in the middle of the circle so that they are easily visible. In our AP seminar, we used phrases to initiate or respond to questions and to state one's opinion, agreement, or disagreement.
Students are assigned to sit in either an inner or an outer circle. Kids in the inner circle participate in the discussion; each student in the outer circle is assigned to observe one of the speakers. The observers have check-off sheets with items such as "makes a contribution, uses target vocab/phrase, refers to the text/film etc, asks a question, agrees or disagrees, integrates another discussion member, makes eye contact" (just like in Brianne's post) etc. Observers also note any undesirable behavior as well as the most interesting thing their partner said. The discussion begins the same way as in Susan's contribution. After one round, students switch roles.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
1/9/14: Attendance
Present today: Susan Nygaard, Kari Greenan, Brianne Vigen, Miriam O'Brien, Johnathan Woodward, Nate Harsha, Brandon Neblett.
We talked about strategies we've tried lately and in past classes to improve the quality of discussions.
Talked for a while about giving a group grade for whole-class discussions, getting students to draw out reluctant speakers...the conversation was wide-ranging, so I won't try to reproduce it all here.
We decided to work individually during the next PLC session and blog about what we did.
We talked about strategies we've tried lately and in past classes to improve the quality of discussions.
Talked for a while about giving a group grade for whole-class discussions, getting students to draw out reluctant speakers...the conversation was wide-ranging, so I won't try to reproduce it all here.
We decided to work individually during the next PLC session and blog about what we did.
A mini-discussion activity designed for AP Spanish
La opinión no es tuya (It's not your opinion)
Objectives:
This discussion activity took place towards the end of a unit dealing with technology and its role in today's society. Students had read and listened to a variety of sources on the effects of technology on communities, families, and in education. The sources came from the United States and from Latin America and were all in Spanish. Students were then asked to defend statements dealing with the main themes from the in mini-discussions (each lasting about 5 min).
Example content:
Below are a few examples of statements students were asked to defend in their mini-discussions and their English translations. The statements were printed on note cards and a student would draw a card, read the statement and then go on to defend it.
This was a formative discussion activity intended to provide students with a comfortable context to practice using Spanish in discussion. I observed groups throughout their discussions but refrained from interrupting the discussions. The skills practiced here will eventually be formally evaluated in the form of large group discussions and persuasive essays.
Objectives:
- Students will use the target language (Spanish) and course content to formulate and support their argument.
- Encourage students to think outside the box and to make and support arguments that they might not necessarily agree with.
This discussion activity took place towards the end of a unit dealing with technology and its role in today's society. Students had read and listened to a variety of sources on the effects of technology on communities, families, and in education. The sources came from the United States and from Latin America and were all in Spanish. Students were then asked to defend statements dealing with the main themes from the in mini-discussions (each lasting about 5 min).
Example content:
Below are a few examples of statements students were asked to defend in their mini-discussions and their English translations. The statements were printed on note cards and a student would draw a card, read the statement and then go on to defend it.
-
“Tener acceso a Internet es demasiado poder
para un individuo.
Los gobiernos del
mundo deben limitar el acceso a Internet.”
"Internet access is too much power for one individual. The governments of the world should limit the access their citizens have to the internet."
- “Es importante separar la identidad privada y
la identidad pública.”
"It is important to separate one's private identity from one's public identity."
- “Las redes sociales tienen un afecto negativo
en el activismo político.”
"Social networks have a negative affect on political activism."
- “El crecimiento constante de la vigilancia
siempre nos hace mas seguros."
"Increasing surveillance always makes us safer."
- “La obsesión con las redes sociales es una
fase breve."
"The current obsession with social networks is a brief phase."
This was a formative discussion activity intended to provide students with a comfortable context to practice using Spanish in discussion. I observed groups throughout their discussions but refrained from interrupting the discussions. The skills practiced here will eventually be formally evaluated in the form of large group discussions and persuasive essays.
Roundtables
Roundtables
This is the discussion format I used for three years teaching a junior and senior elective on international relations at Sage Hill School. I took the Harkness model of student-centered discussions and modified it to fit the needs of this course specifically. It was the most rewarding activity I have ever conducted in class, and many of my students told me it was the best part of the course for them.
Three objectives:
1. Compel students to think deeply about a question that has significant meaning for the world today. I asked compelling questions that present opportunities for students to study both past and current case studies. For example, Under what conditions should the United States go to war? To what extent is it appropriate to compromise civil liberties in the interest of national security? To what extent does radical Islam present a threat to the United States?
2. Compel students to own the discussion. I gave them plenty of time and resources to prepare their perspective and then turned the entire discussion over to them. Students sat in a large oval so everyone could see everyone else's face (standard format for every class). Half of the final grade was based on how the group as a whole performed, so there was an incentive to conduct the conversation well.
3. Compel students to develop a high level of awareness in a group conversation. Each Roundtable was considered the "test" of the conversation skills we spent the entire year discussing and practicing in day-to-day classes. The students reflected on each Roundtable the class afterwards, and I provided them with my own detailed observations on the process and evaluated them as a group on the process of the conversation.
Context:
A key objective of the course was the development of specific dialogue skills. I was explicit with the students that the class was designed to have adult conversations about adult topics and that I considered them equals in the process of investigating and answering tough questions. I attempted to make the experience one that as closely equated everyday life as possible, so from the first class, we discussed what makes a good conversation and why, and then we put those principles into practice every day. The toughest past was de-programming them from raising their hands when they had a question, but after about five weeks, they got used to it. The fundamental principle throughout the year was that they spoke to each other first and me second; the class was theirs, not mine. This daily practice was important in prepping them to effectively own the Roundtables when they came around.
Time frame:
1. 3 85-minute classes in the library to prepare. Students read and took notes on resources I had prepared (mostly magazine, journal and newspaper articles) that helped them develop a perspective on the question.
2. 80 minutes of an 85-minute period for the Roundtable itself. I gave them 3-4 minutes to get ready, I opened the conversation by asking the question and then I sat back, listened and observed. I did not speak for the next 80 minutes.
3. 20-30 minutes of the next 85-minute period to review the Roundtable. I solicited the students' reflections on how the conversation went and why, and I presented a written analysis of the conversation based on my observations.
Evaluation:
1. The process of the conversation: Students (as a group) were evaluated on the extent to which they effectively responded to each other's questions, posed questions, listen to each other's responses, deferred to each other when two or more spoke at the same time, noticed and acknowledged body language and invited those who had not yet spoken into the conversation. This was 50% of the (group) Roundtable grade.
2. The content of the conversation: Students (as a group) were evaluated on the extent to which they utilized the most important points of the sources they read to prepare for the Roundtable. This was 50% of the (group) Roundtable grade.
3. The Roundtable Paper: Students (individually) were evaluated on their ability to answer the question effectively in a paper they wrote on their own, due one week after the Roundtable. They were expected to use the Roundtable conversation as a means of helping them write the paper.
Final analysis:
The work these students did, during the Roundtables and in their papers, was the best work students have ever done in any classes I have ever taught. The greatest part of it was watching them develop as a team in each Roundtable, seeking not only to make great contributions to the conversation, but seeking to bring out great contributions from each other and holding each other accountable to the standards we had established for the group. It was amazing to watch teenagers talk non-stop for 80 minutes about a question of intellectual merit. They continually raised their own standard for performance, both in content and process, throughout the year because they saw the value of a class that was organized around their own individual and collective growth and in which they drove the discussions.
This is the discussion format I used for three years teaching a junior and senior elective on international relations at Sage Hill School. I took the Harkness model of student-centered discussions and modified it to fit the needs of this course specifically. It was the most rewarding activity I have ever conducted in class, and many of my students told me it was the best part of the course for them.
Three objectives:
1. Compel students to think deeply about a question that has significant meaning for the world today. I asked compelling questions that present opportunities for students to study both past and current case studies. For example, Under what conditions should the United States go to war? To what extent is it appropriate to compromise civil liberties in the interest of national security? To what extent does radical Islam present a threat to the United States?
2. Compel students to own the discussion. I gave them plenty of time and resources to prepare their perspective and then turned the entire discussion over to them. Students sat in a large oval so everyone could see everyone else's face (standard format for every class). Half of the final grade was based on how the group as a whole performed, so there was an incentive to conduct the conversation well.
3. Compel students to develop a high level of awareness in a group conversation. Each Roundtable was considered the "test" of the conversation skills we spent the entire year discussing and practicing in day-to-day classes. The students reflected on each Roundtable the class afterwards, and I provided them with my own detailed observations on the process and evaluated them as a group on the process of the conversation.
Context:
A key objective of the course was the development of specific dialogue skills. I was explicit with the students that the class was designed to have adult conversations about adult topics and that I considered them equals in the process of investigating and answering tough questions. I attempted to make the experience one that as closely equated everyday life as possible, so from the first class, we discussed what makes a good conversation and why, and then we put those principles into practice every day. The toughest past was de-programming them from raising their hands when they had a question, but after about five weeks, they got used to it. The fundamental principle throughout the year was that they spoke to each other first and me second; the class was theirs, not mine. This daily practice was important in prepping them to effectively own the Roundtables when they came around.
Time frame:
1. 3 85-minute classes in the library to prepare. Students read and took notes on resources I had prepared (mostly magazine, journal and newspaper articles) that helped them develop a perspective on the question.
2. 80 minutes of an 85-minute period for the Roundtable itself. I gave them 3-4 minutes to get ready, I opened the conversation by asking the question and then I sat back, listened and observed. I did not speak for the next 80 minutes.
3. 20-30 minutes of the next 85-minute period to review the Roundtable. I solicited the students' reflections on how the conversation went and why, and I presented a written analysis of the conversation based on my observations.
Evaluation:
1. The process of the conversation: Students (as a group) were evaluated on the extent to which they effectively responded to each other's questions, posed questions, listen to each other's responses, deferred to each other when two or more spoke at the same time, noticed and acknowledged body language and invited those who had not yet spoken into the conversation. This was 50% of the (group) Roundtable grade.
2. The content of the conversation: Students (as a group) were evaluated on the extent to which they utilized the most important points of the sources they read to prepare for the Roundtable. This was 50% of the (group) Roundtable grade.
3. The Roundtable Paper: Students (individually) were evaluated on their ability to answer the question effectively in a paper they wrote on their own, due one week after the Roundtable. They were expected to use the Roundtable conversation as a means of helping them write the paper.
Final analysis:
The work these students did, during the Roundtables and in their papers, was the best work students have ever done in any classes I have ever taught. The greatest part of it was watching them develop as a team in each Roundtable, seeking not only to make great contributions to the conversation, but seeking to bring out great contributions from each other and holding each other accountable to the standards we had established for the group. It was amazing to watch teenagers talk non-stop for 80 minutes about a question of intellectual merit. They continually raised their own standard for performance, both in content and process, throughout the year because they saw the value of a class that was organized around their own individual and collective growth and in which they drove the discussions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)