Discussion as a form of instruction
Discussion as a form of instruction
I am someone who naturally tends to think of education in terms of instruction and assessment. I find myself filtering activities that I am reading about or learning into one of these two distinct categories. But I also realize that this distinction is nominal and can be deleterious to complex learning. In reading the chapter by Wolsey and Lapp this became especially clear to me. This chapter outlines the ways that small-group as well as class-wide discussion can play the role of effective instruction. How did your view of discussion in the classroom change after reading this chapter?
In this chapter we learn that class-wide discussions on course content can be faulty if they aren't structured properly. The authors provide a few examples of common activities that make class-wide discussions more effective. Among these methods were the Socratic Seminar (or Socratic debate), the Chips method (in which each student is provided 3 chips to donate to the center of the class each time they have a substantial response, encouraging every student to use up their chips and participate), and the Inner and Outer Circle method (also called the Fishbowl method). All of these methods can be effective if employed properly. From my experience as a student, such activities cast light on how much more dynamic learning and disciplinary knowledge development can be in comparison to extensive dependence on receptive literacy tasks like chapter readings. Class-wide discussions present students with a unique opportunity to build off of their classmates' understandings of the content. What is your experience from the standpoint of a student with class-wide discussions? How do you feel about class-wide discussions being effective in your classroom and in your discipline generally? How frequently in a school-year could you use class-wide discussions? If you're already teaching in a classroom, how has your professional experience affected your view on class-wide discussion?
The authors included these methods to outline how they can be effective. But there are others; one I thought of was popcorn discussion. Like popcorn reading, students take turns by choosing the next student at random. This method would help facilitate sharing among those students who might not otherwise participate in collective activities. It encourages participation in ways that the other methods might not because what the students are expected to share does not necesarily need follow from what the previous student shared; in the methods mentioned by the authors, there is the potential for students to be discouraged from sharing what they might have if it breaks from the flow or centrility of what has already been stated, which decreases participation and diversity of ideas in a collective activity. Can you think of any collective activities that you could add to the list? Did you think of any faults or drawbacks to the activities in this chapter that you'd like to mention?
In employing small-group discussions, we can expect to see a higher percentage of the class participate than in a class-wide discussion. The authors claim that this is the nature of the two types of discussion, and while I agree with the arguement's logic, I see room for a closer look at the role of the teacher in facilitating inclusive participation. Firstly, in a class-wide discussion, the teacher can direct the discussion in certain directions to facilitate coverage of content that a wider percentage of students would respond to. Secondly, the teacher is in a seat to direct the discussion to students who need to increase their participation. Lastly, the teacher holds a sort of jurisdiction and authority over the balance of a class-wide discussion that they would not have in a classroom of small-group discussions. The teacher can only be in one place at a time, but they can surely make their way around the classroom during small-group discussion to address these concerns. Do you see small-group discussions as more effective than class-wide discussions as the authors do? Do you disagree with anything in particular in my critique of this section of the chapter? What can you share about your experience with small-group discussions as a student. If you've already been a teacher in a classroom, what would you like to note about the success of small-group discussions?
Hi Hugo,
ReplyDeleteI had a couple responses to your blog post. First you did a great job giving a quick overview of the Wolsey and Lapp reading and posing questions about the reading to link to our own practice. You also asked several questions throughout your post which I appreciated because it can be helpful to have jumping off points for these blog posts.
The first question of yours I wanted to respond to was the question regarding how my view of discussion in the classroom changed after this reading. To this I would say that it did change a decent amount. I have always understood the importance of classroom discussions and the need to give everyone in the class the chance to participate. However, this reading does a good job of breaking down why it is important, the pitfalls of big group discussions, and giving tools we can implement in the classroom to better facilitate group conversations. I enjoyed learning about these strategies. While a lot can feel like common sense, sometimes it takes me that moment of reading these strategies to go “oh yeah… duh!”
The other question of yours I wish to respond to was the question about my experience and standpoint as a student with these techniques of class wide discussions. I vividly remember using the Socratic seminar, as well as the fishbowl discussion. I also remember hating these at the beginning of the year. I was always nervous to speak to my peers and had a hard time remembering the reading materials. But, as time went on, I became more familiar with my peers, note taking, and reading strategies, to where these discussions became much easier. I think it really is one of those things that is going to be awkward until it isn’t.
As educators it is important to have these strategies and to give our students a chance to voice their opinions. Some of these strategies, like the fishbowl, may seem cringy at first… but they are just going to be awkward until they are not. If we make sure we give our students the support to work though this awkwardness, a great amount of learning can be the result!
Ana
Diggity dang, that was an incredibly precise overview of the reading. Kudos to you Hugo, I envy your analysis and writing skills. Like Ana, I also have a couple responses to your post.
ReplyDeleteI am unsure as to how teaching of history is formatted, but in art education we are taught that students view the teacher as the point of authority. The hierarchical orientation of the education systems positions teaches and what not. What we are being taught in our courses is how to deconstruct this dynamic and make it a collaborative learning experience where the student is treated like an equal in the classroom. Personally, I am still trying to wrap my head around this concept and how to implement it in my own, future classroom.
With this dynamic in mind, the authors noted a behavior between teacher led discussions. In that, when teachers provide leading discussion questions, students are more inclined to provide the answer that they believe/think that the teacher wanted to hear rather than perform a deeper, interconnected analysis of the content. Which begs the question, how do we aid students in facilitating meaningful conversations and inquiries about their knowledge.
Personally, I preferred small-group discussions because it took a lot of pressure and anxiety about having to speak and be listened to by the entire class. However, in small groups, I still avoided participating and defaulted to listening instead. Which helped my knowledge building but hindered my ability to talk about the subject. If I am looking at small groups from the perspective of a teacher instead of a student, I think small groups are valuable in breaking down information but do not provide the same opportunity for critical inquiry as with class-discussions where the educator can be more involved.
Whether it be small groups or the entire class, learning can also be incredibly dependent on how individual students learn. Which is something that I think might have been overlooked in the reading. We often read up on strategies to get students to think/learn in a different ways instead of identifying, building, and strengthening the way students learn. If that makes sense.
Hi Hugo, thank you for this thoughtful synthesis of Wolsey and Lapp, and for your excellent questions. I was definitely thinking about my own experiences as a student while reading this chapter. In response to your question, “What is your experience from the standpoint of a student with class-wide discussions?” I would say it has been a mixed bag, and it definitely depends on the instructor, the subject matter, the discipline, and my fellow students. In classes where I am comfortable with the subject and the discipline, I am more eager to speak in discussion, especially if I have already taken a class with that professor and if I know the students in class personally/ have friendships with them that extend beyond the classroom. However, all of these factors can be present, and I can still get anxious about participating in discussion. I think that anxiety is a really important factor in whether discussions can be productive for some students, and frustratingly, I know from personal experience that all of the stars can align (comfortable with students, professor, subject, discipline) and I’ll still feel too anxious to speak sometimes. This usually happens in classes where I feel like something is at stake: a grade, an identity, a career. At those times, I am more comfortable expressing myself through writing, and leap at opportunities to write before I speak. Perhaps an important question to add to the list of questions Wolsey and Lapp propose teachers ask themselves as they plan for discussions would be: how do my students feel comfortable expressing themselves? Are there ways I can incorporate this knowledge into my discussion planning? (perhaps that’s what the 4th point on 63 is getting at, but it looks vague on the page). I also recognize that the strategies Wolsey and Lapp offer us in this chapter can be effective tools for reframing discussion into a less anxiety-inducing activity. Tossing a chip into a ring is certainly less scary than piping up with an original thought out of nowhere. I think that small-group discussion works especially well for this, too. When I was TA-ing last semester we’d project a quote from an assigned reading on the board, then have students discuss the quote in small groups and write down their thoughts. Then, we’d break back out into the larger group and students could share what their smaller groups had discussed. This, hopefully, lessened the anxiety involved in large group discussion because students had already worked over ideas first in smaller groups.
ReplyDeleteHi Hugo, I really appreciate your input in this week’s discussion. I particularly liked your honesty as you openly confessed that you considered assessment and instruction as a major component of education. I find myself to be sharing a similar opinion on this topic. However, I think this is linked to the form of education we were provided in primary, middle, and high school. In that, as a novice in the field of education, I used to think that providing good quality presentations and intensive assessment should mark all criteria of education. Based on this reading and this course, I am learning about new elements of teaching that can be incorporated to get the job done effectively. One of the most important things I learned in this text was to promote learning not in a sense that produces higher test scores but more so to develop critical thinking skills paired with increased content knowledge. For example, to prepare for the final test, I had memorized anything and everything I needed to know, however, since I was a poor test-taker I would receive a score lower than my expectation. The idea is that teachers often regulate instruction so that it best matches their understanding of a topic, but the reality is that everyone understands differently. Therefore, as contemporary educators, we should put forth a better strategy that reduces assessment pressure and excessive note-taking, instead we should promote strategies like teacher talk to increase student understanding of the discipline along with development of lifelong skills such as critical thinking.
ReplyDeleteHello Hugo!
ReplyDeleteThank you for such a thoughtful and detailed response. You asked so many important questions, and I’d like to take the time to respond to a few.
Firstly, you ask, “How do you feel about class-wide discussions being effective in your classroom and in your discipline generally?”
Within art specifically, I believe that class-wide discussions are necessary within the process. The first thing that came to mind was critiques. Inherently, throughout the process of critiquing, we are also engaging in class-wide discussion as well!
Class-wide discussions, like critiques, allow art students to build off of opinions and findings from their peers that were previously unseen. Additionally, I believe class-wide discussions could also be helpful when first beginning a new chapter/topic/unit. (For example, engaging in a class-wide discussion about material already known by students in order to assess and re-align class content based on the feedback).
Another question of your I’d like to address is “Do you see small-group discussions as more effective than class-wide discussions as the authors do?”
I feel as if class-wide and small-group discussions both have a rightful place within the classroom. I view both as being more geared towards certain kinds of conversation or activities. Personally, as a student, I find that I experience more anxiety within small-group discussions. With less people, you are inevitably forced to speak more, which can be frightening!
As you mentioned, I really think that the success found within small-group and class discussions are mostly determined by the teachers ability to facilitate participation. The anxieties within class discussion are scary in general, but with a teacher that fosters a comfortability to speak, the fears engrained within both small group and whole class discussions almost cease to exist.
Hi Hugo:
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog post. It was both insightful and thorough. To answer some of your questions, the Wolsey and Lapp chapter really did alter my view on in class discussions and student engagement. When I was in high school, I remember being apprehensive towards whole class discussions because I felt like my contribution to the discussion was not helpful. I feel like that as educators, we need to approach collaboration in a way that incorporates the voices of all our students without invoking the pressure that whole class discussion can entail. Some of the examples Wolsey and Lapp provide seem to be useful approaches to use, and once I am an educator, I will probably utilize them in my own classroom.
One of your questions really resonated with me. In your last paragraph, you discuss the effectiveness of small group discussions. After reading this chapter and observing a class who engaged in small group work, my perception of the practice changed. Like you said, the teacher was only able to cover so much of the class in 40 minutes. When she was engaging with one group, another was talking about things that were not related to the subject they were discussing. I feel like large group activities like the inner and outer circle socratic seminars can combat this distraction by allowing the teacher to listen in on both the discussing group and view whether the outer group is taking notes and asking questions to the inner group. This allows the teacher to manage what is being discussed during this collaborative activity, as well as ensure that students are thinking about the information that is presented.
Hi Hugo,
ReplyDeleteClass-wide discussions are indeed an invaluable tool in the educational arsenal, particularly in disciplines like history where interpretation and critical analysis play a pivotal role. As a fellow student, I wholeheartedly agree that properly structured class-wide discussions can significantly enhance the learning experience and foster deeper engagement with the course material. Personally, I have found class-wide discussions to be immensely beneficial in my history courses. They provide a platform for collaborative learning, where students can challenge each other's viewpoints, pose thought-provoking questions, and collectively explore complex historical issues. Moreover, engaging in discussions cultivates critical thinking skills and enhances one's ability to articulate and defend their arguments. Class-wide discussions work well in history class because history isn't just about memorizing facts. It's about understanding different viewpoints and stories about past events. When students talk with each other and look at different sources, like old documents or books, they can better understand how history can be seen in different ways. So, these discussions help students see how history is more complex than just learning dates and names.
Hey Diego! thank you for synthesizing the reading and providing some great prompts. I believe that small group discussions are more effective than class-wide dialogue. With that said, I highly value class-wide discussions because you will hear many perspectives that cannot always be found in small groups. Not every student feels comfortable sharing their opinion with a whole class. I have been the student afraid to share with the class, and I have witnessed those who struggle. I understand that class-wide discussion is economical for time. Unlike our college courses, we won’t have 3 hours to sift through critical thinking and discussion in rotating small groups. Small group discussions might be something that takes up a class period. I think an important part of moderating discussions that is mentioned in Wolsey & Lapp’s article is openness to where the conversation can go. It is mentioned that most times educators have an answer that they are seeking from the class. In that situation, it becomes a competition to capture what the teacher is looking for. I feel like physical and verbal reinforcement of a student share helps build trust and engagement. If things get off-topic, you can kindly reframe and move the conversation along. I struggle with popcorn reading because it puts pressure on students to call on peers who might not want to share. I’m also not sure about cold-calling on students. I enjoyed the insider-outsider method and playing to different students’ strengths.
ReplyDeleteHi Hugo,
ReplyDeleteI think your analysis of the text is amazing and I really enjoyed reading through it. In regards to your question about open wide discussions I was thinking about my experiences i high school. I would sometimes openly participate and engage in discussions but other days I would dread participating for fear I would say something irrelevant or off topic or my contribution wouldn't be as meaningful as someone else's. And thinking back to my experiences through the lens of an educator I don't think I could bring myself to ask my students to participate in class wide discussions. Opting for other strategies like a socratic seminar.
Hi Hugo, I also wonder how we can get more interactions from students. I work with 7th graders and getting them to interact with each other and interact with work is almost like pulling teeth some days. I find that incorporating topics students are interested in such as analyzing their favorite song lyrics and how there is word play and figure of speech within the lyrics showing examples of how what we learn is applicable to real life. When getting students to participate within art classes and how art is related to our everyday world I like to discuss things like clothing or even the packaging for food. When we can make correlations of what we are working on within the classroom it helps children feel more connected to what they are working on.
ReplyDeleteHugo: Thanks for distilling the chapter into discussion points!
ReplyDeleteMy experience with successful class-wide discussions and small-group discussion is varied. I find class-wide discussions to be more useful *after* there has been structured engagement with the course materials by individuals and within small groups. Having small groups respond to or come up with discussion questions helps students to focus their thoughts and make decisions about how they want to contribute to the larger class discussion. Small groups give students a chance to test out their ideas and to fine-tune their thoughts before addressing the whole group. Class-wide discussions are useful for summarizing main points and making connections between ideas and concepts in a way that can be visible to all the students in the class. I find they are also useful for generating a set of guesses or hypotheses about how one idea or principle is related to another. It takes the small group discussion to really examine the substance of an argument or the evidence for claims that were made in the whole group discussion. In general, I think a combination of methods makes for a productive class discussion - whole group to open up and start to define the contours, small group to deepen conversation, and whole group again to draw some connections, name themes, and draw conclusions.