1.

Discussion Lead Self-Assessment

Name:

Please reflect upon your presentation below. Be honest; you are not giving yourself a grade with this, but are
instead demonstrating to me your ability to effectively and constructively assess your own planning and teaching.
Be thorough; cursory answers will be assessed as an indication of both your effort and your ability to engage in one
of the most important teaching activities: reflection and self-improvement.
Topic: Objectivity in History

Singer Chapter: What is Social Studies?

What was your goal? What did you want your classmates to learn or be able to do? Did you accomplish your goal?
My goal was to have my classmates question the nature of objectivity within history and how that translates into our
teaching of it. I wanted my peers to have an idea of how they would address objectivity in their classroom
(example: would they present their own opinions on an issue, go against popular myth of national heroes, etc.). I
think I did accomplish my goal, as we (the class) had an engaged, in-depth discussion on the problems of true
objectivity. We examined specific situations were objectivity is called into question, in relation to Columbuss
discovery of the New World and the Founding Fathers owning slaves. I feel that, at the very least, my classmates
have a better understanding of the issues of objectivity when teaching and that they will have to navigate their
lessons somewhat carefully to preserve objective teaching (not simply espousing opinions at students).
Evaluate the lesson/activity you used. Which worked and why? Which did not work and why?
The primary activity was Singers History is Messy from the chapter. I thought it went very well, as I circulated
around the room, stopping at each of the three groups and discussing with them. Individually, each group was very
engaged and active, discussing the various scenarios offered. The key success, I feel, was that the groups all had
varying conversations, so while there was some overlap, in the class-wide discussion, we hit a number of different
ideas about approaching controversial historical scenarios. This allowed everyone to encounter the differing
perspectives on the issues. The biggest flaw I see, looking back, is that I did not assign the specific historical
scenarios to the groups. Had I gone through and tasked each group one to examine, the overall discussion would
have been more varied and covered the entire activity, rather than the first two. Additionally, I also use a brainstorm
activity at the beginning of class, which worked well, but I should have waited a little longer before starting the
official lesson, to let one of the groups finish writing their ideas on the board. I started early, which made it difficult
for them to stay focused, as there was someone at the board writing at the same time.
Evaluate the questions/prompts you used. Which worked and why? Which did not work and why?
Overall, I thought my questioning was very strong. I focused on my main goal well and was able to keep any
tangents we explored connected to the question of objectivity and history. I kept the discussion going back and forth
across the room and kept the class engaged. I did have a problem with repeating myself, often saying the same or
highly similar phrases/questions about the current focal point of the discussion. This highlighted the importance of
the issue, but created, at times, a somewhat repeating discussion, preventing us from moving forward to new ideas.
Evaluate your voice, wait time, and general presentation. Which characteristics worked well and why? Which
could you improve upon and how?
I felt my voice was informal and more conversational than lecture, which helped encourage discussion and class
participation. Simply talking about the ideas is much easier and straightforward to a more rigid, question-answer
session and I think makes the subject(s) much more accessible. My wait time was good, as I provided at least three
to five seconds after each questions and tried to rephrase any question that hung on the air for a significant time.
There was not much need for it, but in practice, it went well. My general presentation could have been more
formalized however. I should have written my main questions/instructions on the whiteboard/PowerPoint slide. I
was asked to repeat and clarify a number of times, which slowed down and slowed down the discussion.
What do you think makes for good engaged discussion? What role can you play in accomplishing this?
A good discussion needs strong questions and a somewhat informal setting. People respond to questions and can
think better when they are just talking about ideas, rather than being interrogated. Keeping a discussion
conversational allows for greater participation, as it does not pressure those involved. Strong questions provide the
framework, setting the foundation for answers to propel the conversation forward. Additionally, one of the most
overlooked qualities of a discussion is knowing when to stop talking. As the facilitator, you should not always be
talking. Offer a question or input a point, but stop talking if the discussion is taking off. Let the participates engage

1. Discussion Lead Self-Assessment

Name:

and do the talking. Their thoughts and ideas are the goal of the exercise, not the teachers. In order to do this, I have
to come prepared with questions and think on my feet. I natural gravitate to a more relaxed, conversational
manners, so once that nature takes over, I need to focus on quality questions and listening to the answers and
engagement of the participates, to keep the discussion progressing forward.