Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Dr. Catherine Kurkjian, Professor, Department of Reading and Language Arts Central Connecticut State University 13 th Connecticut State University Faculty.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Dr. Catherine Kurkjian, Professor, Department of Reading and Language Arts Central Connecticut State University 13 th Connecticut State University Faculty."— Presentation transcript:

1 Dr. Catherine Kurkjian, Professor, Department of Reading and Language Arts Central Connecticut State University 13 th Connecticut State University Faculty Research Conference Central Connecticut State University Saturday April 17, 2010

2

3 Five rounds of conversations were assigned during the course of the semester of to be conducted every other week during the off campus component of RDG 589 Creative Language Arts Hybrid class. The class was divided into 5 groups based on the grade level that they taught (Groups A-E). Roles were determined and changed for each round. Each round of conversations focused on a different assigned topic. Each group selected and discussed a separate article related to the topic in question. (i.e. all focused on differentiating instructions each group read a different article about it) In-class time was devoted to Fishbowl conversations during which each group got to be in the Fishbowl. There was time for conversation to take place between those inside the Fishbowl and those outside the Fishbowl. The leader (Proposer role) was then required to write a paper on the topic following the discussion.

4

5

6

7 Transcripts of Conversation In class Fishbowl Discussions Fishbowl Papers by Proposers communications Content Analysis on the go (Round 1-5) searching for patterns across and within groups More formal analysis across questions and data sources Student Focus Group at the end of the semester

8 Modifying the on the run process that evolves with student questions- revised rubrics as questions emerged. I had not envisioned how the monitoring would work and the degree to which each person was required to interact with people in each role. Expanded roles so that to a certain degree everyone led a discussion- Monitors took the lead on this. Summarizer still in process- everyone likes the summary of the summarizer and says that the person captured everything.( Change the assignment and rubric to address what the issues that discussion missed that were addressed in the article) A weak leader impacts the tone of the conversation although this changed in Round 2 and Round 3 Selection of the article is key- when leaders selected articles which were appropriate to their level or area – the conversation was more in-depth (leader role) and vice versa Modeling seems helpful- when professor intervened during discussion with a probing question or gave feedback on the process after each session it seemed to facilitate the process in the next round Monitoring conversations about what others were discussing were often in-depth and facilitated in in-class face-to-face conversations between Fishbowl Group and others

9

10 Conversation was broadened through monitoring of other groups- impacted in- class discussion as well Opportunity to merge professional literature and research-based practices with curriculum Technical glitches- Blackboard is down or human error Labor Intensive grading and monitoring student discussions Did not capitalize on the resources of the Internet- only print based articles. Need to address article selection process Students needed to warm up- An in-class computer-lab session to scaffold discussion would be helpful. (Sink or swim on Round 1 is not a good idea)

11 Conduct a more fine-tune analysis and review student Focus Group Data Revise article selection process- whole group must agree upon articles prior to discussions according to criteria ? OR My own selection of article for different levels coupled with an anticipation reaction guide- Before and After Reading Activity) Rework Summary Process and rubric so that Summarizer must revisit the articles once more Use new and revised rubrics which are in place for Monitor, Proposer, Opposer-or revise rubric as a checklist with just the criterion listed to facilitate grading Set up a trial run with lots of professor intervention-followed by a class discussion of the process- Provide proposer of Round 1 with opportunity to redo role on Round 5- Leadership Paper rubric revision Rework Fishbowl so everyone is engaged more of the time Rework Unit Grading Checklist to include a reflection on each of the topics to explain how ideas would be integrated into their unit. Right now it can only inferred by their activities.


Download ppt "Dr. Catherine Kurkjian, Professor, Department of Reading and Language Arts Central Connecticut State University 13 th Connecticut State University Faculty."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google