Teaching

and Learning Episode

Teaching and Learning Episode William Rodick George Mason University

Teaching and Learning Episode

The Year 5 Language A English students are learning in the context of a unit titled, The Devil in Every-City, during the duration of the third quarter of our school year. The units Area of Interaction (AOI) focus is Health and Social Education, chosen in conjunction with its significant concept: All action and inaction have far-reaching implications in a global and historical world. The unit question that students explore is, What impact do any of us have on the world? The aspects that guide the conceptual learning of the unit were decided upon after considering the central ideas of the novel that is the units explored resource, The Devil in the White City, by Erik Larson, along with consideration of how such conceptual learning may be assessed using the subjects assessment criteria. The Devil in the White City is a historical novel that parallels the impact of Chicagos world fair at the end of the 19th century and the calculating killings of H. H. Holmes. The novel intimately captures the thoughts and emotions of many of the architects of the fair, chiefly Daniel Burnham, alongside the sometimes parallel, sometimes contrasting thoughts and feelings of Holmes. The author moves between the personal to the collective in allowing the reader to consider the impact - positive and negative - that all things and people have on each other. To consider both the proximal and the global is an important step in building student awareness, particularly in exploring the AOI of Health and Social Education. To examine the development of such thought, the assessment for the unit asks students to create, either individually or in groups, campaigns of global importance, with the hopes of reaching large audiences. The project is open-ended, individual interaction and personal inquiry guidance with the teacher is built-in. This project links conceptual understanding of impact among things in the world with an exploration of author impact upon a reader, and the many methods that an author employs in establishing persuasion and control of a story, even if it is historical and non-fiction. During the reading of this novel, there are many planned learning activities intended to both assist student understanding of our learning objectives and assess the growing understanding of the conceptual aims of the unit. A particular instructional activity that I had not employed prior to recognizing its value for this unit was the Socratic seminar.

Teaching and Learning Episode

In planning this unit, I thought back on my instruction of novels in the past, and I found that there were many instances in which I desperately wanted students to see depth, connections, and analysis. When students would miss some of the depth, my instruction would shift to lecture. I would take away student opportunity to think analytically. I would still prompt students and involve them, but student thought became focused on my interpretation of correct analysis. I needed to remove myself from the equation. I had tried to become more of a background figure in our discussions, and with a small group of students, this made things easier, but I needed a strategy that would give students the best opportunity for expressing themselves and their thoughts. I wanted them to be able to do more than just analyze the book; I wanted them to field ideas of their peers, weigh those responses with their own interpretations, and then make comments that incorporate multiple layers of thought and perspective. It was during this stage of searching for a quality activity to suit my classs needs that I considered the Socratic seminar, which I had heard float in the air of various professional development activities and during my courses at George Mason University. There is a wealth of information that discusses the benefits of such an activity, which relate to the aims I had for my novel discussions: to foster authentic engagement, to prompt ideas to occur, to establish an inner voice of reason, and to develop critical thinking skills (Chorzempa & Lapidus, 2009, p. 55). The Socratic seminar also seemed that it would make possible other aims that I had for novel discussion. On the surface, my goal consisted of many standards for nonfiction reading, listening, and speaking, including the ability to not just read for understanding or make claims, but make substantive claims that use support and textual evidence. The Socratic seminar could provide such an avenue by allowing students the opportunity to closely read a text and contemplate multiple perspectives and ideas without the pressure of being called upon. I also noticed the potential for students to use the Socratic seminar conversations to help guide critical thinking and base later note taking and reading on peer modeling. The connections that are made through collective pursuit of inquiry extend

Teaching and Learning Episode

individual student thought, and such an extension of thought can carry over to later individual reading. This also had the potential to bridge student reflection: as students recognize the types of notes that yield the greatest responses from classmates, they consider the shaping of their own contributions in garnering peer responses. The key potential benefit of the Socratic seminar in my class is its facility as a form of

differentiation. I recognized from the start that Devil in the White City would be moderately challenging for two of my students, who demonstrate aptitude for textual comprehension and analysis; suitably challenging for two other students; possibly overwhelming for two students who were just previously English as an Additional Language students; and for three new students, whom I had not had the opportunity to formatively assess, I expected the levels of ability could vary across the board. The Socratic seminars style of open-ended questioning allows each student to respond at his or her own level, regardless of ability. Students who have difficulty benefit from exposure to responses from advanced learners or peers with different perspectives (Schneider, 200, p. 59). Advanced learners have the ability to pursue challenge within their own lines of inquiry. Since a large percentage of my learners were new to the class, their roles in

classroom discussion had yet to be solidified, and they were likely to be tentative about participating in class discussion. Additionally, there were some students who were less comfortable with speaking and interacting than others. Some students were still less comfortable speaking at all, and although they had the potential for providing stimulating points, many of our classroom discussion environments were not adequate in giving those students opportunities. Also important to consider were those students who are vocal and have little difficulty dominating conversation, but lack substance and a contemplative nature that would guarantee quality contributions. The Socratic seminar allows for all of these students to develop (over time and practice) habits of discussion. For the meek, especially my three new students, conversation is modeled by peers. They are also able to ponder more carefully without the added fear of being called on without notice. When these students wish to share, the opportunity and their own impetus have the chance to converge to ensure

Teaching and Learning Episode

confident, quality points. For students who speak more often, the expectations and format for speaking have shifted. Before, such students had only to consider the correct answer (correct being defined as similar to the thoughts of the teacher), and then to be first to respond with that answer. When the format shifts to group conversation, and includes multiple perspectives and definitions of what is correct, the student who speaks often has no necessary end point for his or her thought process, and must consider multiple ideas, ensuring more carefully considered responses. The more advanced learners for my course have demonstrated consistent progress

over the past two years in summative performance, improving in the ability to analyze author choices, to express ideas, to provide support for arguments, to organize for more effective expression, and of course an improvement in the use of vocabulary and grammatical elements. The importance of the Socratic seminar for these learners is to push the depth of thought from a tendency to rely on the superficial. I wish for these students to move from good understandings of texts to perceptive understandings that demonstrate the connective tissues of analysis; to move from providing adequate detail and support to illustrating the fullness of an argument in order to persuade others. The ELA learners demonstrated aptitude for analysis early on in the year,

particularly in writing exercises. These students were able to perform similarly in my course as they were in their Portuguese Language A course (their native language) in the shared criterion that assesses content of ideas the demonstration of understanding of author choices and the providing of support for coherent arguments. These skills could cross over from one language to another. What these students needed was the language of efficiently processing and expressing those ideas coherently in English. Through the Socratic seminar, these students could observe their peers, listen to the statements these peers make, and then use modeled language to express their own ideas. They could clarify misunderstandings that may exist based on difficulty level through prompting questions or listening to their peers. The students who were new to the course had difficulty interacting within the tight-

knit peer groups that already existed, despite the students of these groups being incredibly

Teaching and Learning Episode

welcoming. I knew that this reservation would limit the expression of their ideas in classroom discussion. The Socratic seminar could remove pressure from these students, but allow them the opportunity to speak when they felt ready. The forum also allows these students to take part and build their comfort level at their own paces. The seminar allows students to take notes on the text, express ideas through writing, and then contribute when comfortable. The students can reflect on the modeled speech and contributions of their peers to consider, reconsider, and shape possible contributions. The learning still occurs for them whether they express themselves or not, as they are exposed to a variety of perspectives and ideas, coming from their peers. Ludy discusses how the Socratic seminar can build student ownership, and this

idea is quite appealing as a complement to other goals I have for increasing student reflection and self-assessment (Ludy & Plumb, 2000, p. 27). I believe that developing the ability to reflect on ones own learning is the most powerful tool a student can have in ensuring growth. Further, the conversation itself serves as a platform to actively involve everyone in the assessment process, as students recognize throughout the discussion which comments serve the groups needs. They all work together and shape their collective learning to some extent (Ludy & Plumb, 2000, p. 27).

Considering this episode of the Socratic seminar was its first in the class, there were many things that went well in terms of its purposes and learning through inquiry and critical thinking. One very important piece of note is my own part in our discourse. There were moments during this learning episode where I performed my job better than I had in the past because we used the Socratic seminar. One particular moment was near the beginning of our discussion. A student, P.S., noticed that the author Gary Larson includes a psychologists definition of psychopathy in a section that departs from the storyline. He argues that this is proof that H. H. Holmes, the novels serial killer protagonist, is a psychopath. In his argument, P.S. notices characterization, but is not yet analyzing how Gary Larson is shaping this characterization. He is unaware of the fallacy of his argument. In other discussions, I may have taken this opportunity to point out that Larson has not directly stated that Holmes is a

Teaching and Learning Episode

psychopath, and in doing so, I would be doing the thinking for P.S., but during this Socratic seminar, at this moment, I held my tongue. This gave another student, I.O., the opportunity to argue the very thing to P.S. that I would have. Because the forum was organized so that all students could participate as they each chose, students did not look to me first for answers. They also were able to build confidence and express ideas that they generally would have expected from me. This establishes a shift in the classroom in which students can see each other as holders of knowledge, and they can have confidence in their own knowledge. From the start, it became clear that the Socratic seminar was providing more

opportunities for critical thinking than our conversations had before. Part of this was assisted by reviewing from the start that strong arguments have textual support, and this idea was reinforced frequently through the modeling of the class that preceded this episode, and by the students themselves, who seemed interested in proving their ideas to each other during the episode. Students were making connections between varied parts of the text because they had the opportunities to look over their ideas on paper, carefully consider many different perspectives that connected to their own ideas, and could develop ideas without the pressure of being called upon. The Socratic seminar format allowed me to consider ideas as they were expressed.

This made formative assessment much more straightforward, as I could observe the conversation forming and intervene when I felt necessary. At one point, I wanted them to extend to consider the shaping of their evidence by the author, so I asked, How has [Larson] created a sentence thats affected your perception of Holmes? The answers that came from this question were ones that demonstrated careful considered of the conversation up to that point, the varied perspectives of their peers, and the text itself: He kind of appeals to emotion; [] as if Holmes was the one writing; He was the one thinking; He made me feel that Holmes was better than others, because normally when its really hot, youre really sweaty andand he was fresh. Students were able to consider rhetorical persuasion, perspective and point of view, and author influence on characterization all incredibly

Teaching and Learning Episode

varied elements of analysis synthesized in this collective thought. After this moment, students did well with limited guidance throughout. Through their continued critical thinking, students uncovered a host of ideas, any of

which we could have been taken forward into deeper discussion. Had I planned better, by either taking greater consideration of time management or by being better prepared for the routes of inquiry and critical thinking that were likely to occur, the discussion could have proved even more valuable. Inquiry seemed natural through the Socratic seminar process. By pursuing her own inquiry, one of the recently EAL students, was able to connect an idea that came up in the conversation from the previous class that Larson inputs episodes where he discusses elements like the definition of a psychopath, without directly stating that Holmes is a psychopath, and that this subtlety affects the readers perception of character. This conclusion is something she may not have reached in another format of discussion. The Socratic seminar allowed students to simultaneously plan their thoughts and test those ideas in a comfortable, (mostly) stress-free environment. It became obvious that students were exploring ideas together, and the collective pondering became something much more effective than individual pondering could ever be. Inextricably linked to successful inquiry seemed to be the questions that I asked and the questions that students asked each other. I planned questions in the manner suggested by Christene Alfonsi in her article, Hey, teacher! Get off that stage: assessing student thinking with Socratic seminars. I created an overarching opening question, several core questions, and a closing question, all in consideration of my objectives. I observed the conversations that developed carefully, and at one point decided that the time was right for one of my prepared questions: Which sentence or group of sentences, in that section that you read, is most important in showing us how Larson wants us to see Holmes? This question seemed to best suit the path of inquiry developing in student conversation, and it focused us on our objectives.

Teaching and Learning Episode

Many of the barriers to learning and instruction that occurred during this learning

episode will serve as points for improvement as I continue regular use of this strategy. One focus for that improvement is how the episode is planned. As Alfonsi emphasizes, the start of a Socratic seminar sets the tone for discussion. Our episode would have benefitted from a warm-up that could have guided student critical thought before speaking. Especially since we have not tried this method often, students were tentative to participate, and providing them with more tools for discussion from the beginning of class would have helped stimulate their conversations. Smaller questions directly following the big opening question may have also kick-started student confidence by providing them with many routes to relate back to the opening question. This may not be necessary in most Socratic seminars (since I did not come across these suggestions in readings on the strategy), or even with this group once we establish rapport, but it seems that the students at this level of exposure to a new format needed more support. Although all Socratic seminars seem to stress that the teachers role as a facilitator is

less demanding than in other formats for discussion, making mistakes with this role certainly affected the product of student thought. Albeit my impact on the conversation was an improvement over other forms of novel discussion employed in the past, I intervened too often. At points, my need for student understanding pushed me to explain rather than guide, even to the point where I unintentionally interrupted student responses. At a particular point, I took complete control and developed a long-winded explanation of the question I was going to ask before asking the question. This altered the discussion from probing inquiry to a search for a correct and definitive answer: In his actual writing, how has he used sentence structure, how has he used vocabularyto make this a close relationship between you and Holmes? Although this question did force students to go back through their notes and reflect on conversation to critically think, it was too narrow to allow students to continue exploring their own ideas. I also noticed that my errors then served to model student responses they finished each others sentences, demonstrated impatience, and intended to explain directly, rather than probe. Its fortunate that I can see how my first

Teaching and Learning Episode

10

experiences with this strategy can easily be improved, so that in the future, I can take advantage of the possibilities afforded by this teaching technique. Another change that may be made for our next use of this strategy is to use the two-

circle system that is often a part of the Socratic seminar. Although much research suggested that the essential element of the Socratic seminar is the presence of pertinent questions, asked by the teaching facilitator and by students of each other, the two-circle system is also frequently used. In the two-circle system, half of the class is in an inside circle that consists of the students who will speak, and an outside circle consists of the other half of students who will listen, paying attention to the flow of ideas and manners of speaking. The two circles alternate so that all students can exemplify the best aspects of discussion that they witnessed from the outside circle. During my readings, I expected that this component of some Socratic seminars was used to accommodate class size, and since my class has only ten students, I thought it might be best to use only one circle. I believed that the other system would increase the pressure new and uncomfortable students would feel to take part in the conversation, since they would stand out more in a group of five. To take advantage of the benefit of this system, I could ensure that most timid speakers comprise the outer circle to begin, giving them time and preparation before moving them to the inner circle. I will also stress before each discussion that speaking is not required, but that everyones input is welcome and desired. To ensure that timid speakers get the opportunity to express themselves, and to

ensure that I have the ability to formatively assess them, I will also have students turn in original thoughts in writing (at least the final reflection, and one or two main ideas they may not have had the chance to express). I would ask that these include reference to the peer discussion and textual reference (Alfonsi, 2008, p. 70). My goal is not to give students a grade, but to gain insight into student learning, especially for those whose ideas may still be evident in writing, but not in discussion. I think it would be crucially important for me to use this information to provide feedback to the students about my perception of their performance and ideas. During this learning episode, there was a great deal of encouragement for self-

Teaching and Learning Episode

11

reflection, but students were not left with a concrete understanding of my evaluation. I could use a checklist system to categorize comments, and make overall comments in consideration of their contributions and the written original thoughts they submit at the sessions end (Alfonsi, 2008, p. 70). I will prepare myself more to ensure that I model appropriate interactions during the

discussion. Students had difficulty talking over one another, directly responding, and sharing speaking time. I do believe these areas will improve with practice, but I cannot overlook my impact on that improvement. Once we as a class gain a better understanding of our individual and group roles in relationship to the strategys effectiveness, I will try to balance more of the conceptual learning with objective learning. In an example from Schneider, Jeanne Rose is leading a Socratic seminar about Twelve Angry Men. Jeanne could have had her students analyze playwriting, character interactions, character realism, the influence of setting on development, or an uncountable number of other aspects of literature, but her overarching question was about intolerance, linking together a contextual concept of her unit with other classes the students were taking (Schneider 58). It is the potential for this strategy to increase interdisciplinary teaching and conceptual learning in my classroom that I most wish to capitalize on with future use. Finally, I would like to continue to take advantage of reflection. I think that reflection

that bridges self-assessment from one instance of the Socratic seminar to another worked quite well, and it could work even better with peer-review following that reflection. Through such discussion, students gain more specific guidance that they may not be aware of through self-evaluation, and it creates another opportunity to teach discussion techniques like positive criticism. Overall, I recognize the ideal of this strategy, and will definitely make it a regular tool in my teaching kit. This episode demonstrates that the Socratic seminar is an effective technique, and from reflection, has the potential to be a very powerful tool that suits my classrooms needs.

Teaching and Learning Episode

12

References Alfonsi, C. (2008). Hey, Teacher! Get off That Stage: Assessing Student Thinking with Socratic Seminars. Ohio Journal of English Language Arts, 48 (1), 65-71. Chorzempa, B., & Lapidus, L. (2009). To Find Yourself, Think for Yourself. Teaching exceptional children, 41(3), 54-59. Ludy, J., & Plumb, B. (2000). Immersion Circles and the Socratic Seminar Process. California English, Winter, 26-27. Schneider, E. (2000). Shifting into high gear. Educational Leadership, 58 (September), 57-60.

Teaching and Learning Episode

13

Appendix A: Learning Episode Transcription BF: Hes / really specific \ in <trying to> describe Holmes with x x x. WR: --Can you-can anyone give an / example? BF: /Right in\-/in the beginning theres- IO: There were-I-When we were analyzing that quote./ That part that he gives when he\ / finally arrives in Englewood- KP: Englewood. IO: -And /then hes like observing everything \and you can / see that\-it /looks like Larsons just \ / citing like only \/ telling whats happening and \/observing\, /but then we-if you read it closely just like we talked about \/we can see that its \/ actually what-he wants Holmes to think\/ like out of the police station /like-he let\-/ he like\-/theres a police station here\/ but then we can see \/why theres\ a police station right there BF: I-theres an example. It says, /Despite the heat Holmes looked fresh and crisp. As he moved through the station, the glances of young women fell around him like wind-blown petals. /Thats really specific \ and it shows like what Holmes is like describing what other people like the women feel about him. WR: So what has-what has Larson /done here?\/What is it \that Larson has done with / language? \/ How has he created a sentence thats \/ affected your perception of Holmes? IO: Hes really- PS: He / kind of appeals to emotion. WR: Sure IO: -as if Holmes was the one writing-he was the one thinking BF: He / made me feel that Holmes was better \ than others, because / normally when its really hot- BF: he PS: Youre sweaty. BF: -you-youre like sweaty and-and he was.fresh x x x IO: x x It looks like hes writing as if he was / Holmes \ thinking everything-

Teaching and Learning Episode

14

Appendix B: Learning Episode Spatial Orientation Students: LM, JJ, PS, PH, BF, CO, IP, KP, IO

PH PS

BF CO

JJ

IP

KP LM IO William Rodick

Teaching and Learning Episode

Appendix C: Unit Planner

15

MYP unit planner

Unit title
Teacher(s) Subject and grade level Time frame and duration

The Devil in the Every-City

William Rodick Language A English Year 5 1 Quarter

Stage 1: Integrate significant concept, area of interaction and unit question

Area of interaction focus
Which area of interaction will be our focus? Why have we chosen this?

Significant concept(s)
What are the big ideas? What do we want our students to retain for years into the future?

Health and Social Education

All action and inaction have far-reaching implications in a global and historical world.

MYP unit question
What impact do any of us have on the world?

Assessment
What task(s) will allow students the opportunity to respond to the unit question? What will constitute acceptable evidence of understanding? How will students show what they have understood? Students will create either one collective or multiple individual campaigns that demonstrate an understanding of the authors (Devil in the White City) message of our reach in affecting future and/or global consequences. Which specific MYP objectives will be addressed during this unit?

A Content understand and analyse the language, content, structure, meaning and significance of both familiar and previously unseen written texts understand and apply language A terminology in context analyse the effects of the authors choices on an audience compose pieces that apply appropriate literary and/or non-literary features to serve the context and intention compare and contrast works, and connect themes across and within genres express an informed and independent response to literary and non-literary texts

Teaching and Learning Episode

B Organization

16

create work that employs organizational structures and language-specific conventions throughout a variety of text types organize ideas and arguments in a sustained, coherent and logical manner employ appropriate critical apparatus C Style and language mechanics use correct grammar and syntax use language to narrate, describe, analyse, explain, argue, persuade, inform, entertain, and express feelings use language correctly use appropriate and varied register, vocabulary, and idiom use appropriate and varied sentence structure use correct spelling (alphabetic languages) or writing (character languages)
Which MYP assessment criteria will be used?

A Content

B Organization

C Style and language mechanics

Stage 2: Backward planning: from the assessment to the learning activities through inquiry
Content
What knowledge and/or skills (from the course overview) are going to be used to enable the student to respond to the unit question? What (if any) state, provincial, district, or local standards/skills are to be addressed? How can they be unpacked to develop the significant concept(s) for stage 1?

CCSS RI 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 W 1a., 1c., 1e., 2a., 2b., 2c., 2f, 3-5, 9 SL 1, 4

L 2, 3, 4, 5

Approaches to learning
How will this unit contribute to the overall development of subject-specific and general approaches to learning skills?

Organization In this unit, students will need to organize their work, their time, and the conveyance of ideas. Students use Edmodo to help develop and maintain organizational skills. Collaboration Students will collaborate frequently, even as a whole class (with ease since there are so few students) during classwork, but are also given the option for collaboration on their unit assessment. We will reflect frequently on their collaboration strengths and weaknesses. Communication Students frequently communicate their ideas verbally and through writing, including collaboration. They are encouraged to communicate in a variety of ways and through a variety of mediums, and will be given many opportunities to use an array of communication through classwork, but may also use any form for their unit assessment, so long as the form is assessable. Information Literacy Much information literacy during this unit will come in the form of analysis of multiple forms of literary and nonfiction media. They will also research at points, especially for the unit assessment, so students will practice the research skills of sorting through valid and invalid information

Teaching and Learning Episode

17

that they have learned in previous years and subjects. Reflection Students reflect consistently, particularly during discussion, which has naturally taken on a metacognitive form that guides inquiry, which also leads to making connections between our work and its purpose. The most apt example is during rubric creation, in which students are metacognitive in adapting rubrics, and continue that reflection once they learn about self-performance. Thinking I am moving students away from thinking that is linear, for which they need to find a specific answer. By using more reflection and metacognition in our discussions, students are consistently questioning assumptions, and never taking an answer at face value. Transfer Through context, we are frequently making connections between our study and the study that occurs in other classes.

Learning experiences
How will students know what is expected of them? Will they see examples, rubrics, templates? How will students acquire the knowledge and practise the skills required? How will they practise applying these? Do the students have enough prior knowledge? How will we know?

Teaching strategies
How will we use formative assessment to give students feedback during the unit? What different teaching methodologies will we employ? How are we differentiating teaching and learning for all? How have we made provision for those learning in a language other than their mother tongue? How have we considered those with special educational needs?

Students are becoming familiar with rubrics by creating task-specific criteria for each assessment that is given. There are three different groupings for task-specific criteria: honors, standard, and entering. After students create the criteria, I adapt it, and we review it. Students use this information as they complete an assessment, and reflect upon performance afterwards. Students receive frequent and timely feedback on progress through formative assessment that takes on the form of discussion (including Socratic seminars), group work, pair work, writing workshops, and guided reflection. Students will personalize their learning through individual evaluation and reflection, choice when given assignments, task-specific clarifications for assessment, and individualized attention.

Resources
What resources are available to us? How will our classroom environment, local environment and/or the community be used to facilitate students experiences during the unit?

Communication and assignments will be enhanced through the use of Edmodo. The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson

Figure 12 MYP unit planner