Discussion 1: Discussion as a Way of Teaching
For my first observed lesson at my practicum site during spring quarter, I attempted to teach, model, and employ a Socratic discussion with juniors all in one 50 minute session. This lesson failed, crunched for time as it was, as students continually spoke out of turn, did not follow up questions or statements with comments before adding their own, and they generally did not follow the guidelines that had been put in place and modeled for them.
I really appreciated the ground roles that were listed in this article. I believe that had I employed some of these the discussion would have been much more genial and productive. The most frequently reoccurring error was that when an open-ended question or statement was made by a student, it often went unanswered and either another student would speak over them or someone else would simply utter a new statement. I had a reward system employed for participants who followed the model, but I did not have a system of punishment to negate unwanted behavior. Using the ground rules presented here, I believe it would have been beneficial to engage in a class discussion to address what students viewed as bad discussion, use the responses generated from the class to come up with our own relevant ground rules, and then put these into place in the form of discussion rules. The mentioned rule of having to comment on a new statement or question at least 3 times before moving on to the next subject is such a great idea as it ensure each idea will have the discussion and attention it deserves without being overshadowed by another concept or a louder individual.
I also really liked the idea of employing conversational roles. Having positions assigned to student would provide a greater framework for how discussion should progress while also giving participants the scaffolding needed to develop the critical thinking and skills necessary to engage in a higher level open discussion. These roles could be utilized on a revolving basis where with each new subject participants receive a new role where they must focus and work on different aspects of conversation.
I really appreciated the ground roles that were listed in this article. I believe that had I employed some of these the discussion would have been much more genial and productive. The most frequently reoccurring error was that when an open-ended question or statement was made by a student, it often went unanswered and either another student would speak over them or someone else would simply utter a new statement. I had a reward system employed for participants who followed the model, but I did not have a system of punishment to negate unwanted behavior. Using the ground rules presented here, I believe it would have been beneficial to engage in a class discussion to address what students viewed as bad discussion, use the responses generated from the class to come up with our own relevant ground rules, and then put these into place in the form of discussion rules. The mentioned rule of having to comment on a new statement or question at least 3 times before moving on to the next subject is such a great idea as it ensure each idea will have the discussion and attention it deserves without being overshadowed by another concept or a louder individual.
I also really liked the idea of employing conversational roles. Having positions assigned to student would provide a greater framework for how discussion should progress while also giving participants the scaffolding needed to develop the critical thinking and skills necessary to engage in a higher level open discussion. These roles could be utilized on a revolving basis where with each new subject participants receive a new role where they must focus and work on different aspects of conversation.
Comments
Post a Comment