ACTION PLAN Instructional Approach: Fishbowl Discussion (Student-Led) (A) How will this new instructional approach capture

and maintain student attention? This instructional strategy will capture student attention in three deliberate ways: 1. It will create a space for freethinking rather than structured facilitation. In order for students to be fully engaged in a lesson, they must be active participants. By encouraging thoughts to grow and develop, students will realize that discussion relies heavily upon continuous interpretation, rather than a single declaration of the right answer. In So What Do They Really Know, Chris Tovani claims that assessment is too often characterized as judgment and punishment rather than informational and helpful. I completely agree. School should not be a place founded on rank, but rather they should be a place where individualized learning is blended with collaborative learning, reflection, and creation. Above all, assessment should be relevant to the lives of my students. In order to achieve this, I will embrace the notion of student-asthinker. In other words, my students will be able to communicate with, in, and around texts. Rather than hindering student response with four multiple-choice options, I will work to draw out various interpretations that reflect the unique daily occurrences and cultural experiences of my students. 2. It will allow students to communicate with their peers in a direct and immediate fashion. This is vital when creating a dialogic classroom. Collaborative learning leaves space to analyze the similarities and differences in varying analyses of texts. When students are able to bounce ideas off of on another, they are in turn able to form more objective claims, consequently strengthening their own arguments by acknowledging the counterpoints of a claim.

3. It will lessen the gap between facilitator and audience. Classrooms need to move into the realm of Student Voice. Rather than acting as the key voice of reason, I will take a backseat approach and simply observe what my students think and how they reason. Although I will chime in every now and then, the discussion will be almost entirely student-led. Furthermore, the fish-bowl discussion will maintain student attention for three reasons: 1. It will ensure equal and continuous student participation. Since each student will have a designated role, they will be held accountable for their responsibilities as a learner. 2. It will challenge students to think both independently and jointly. Students will need to form their own claims, while simultaneously acknowledging the claims of their peers. 3. It will require students to use textual evidence to back up their claims. Students will need to immerse themselves directly in the text, while also learning how to elaborate upon their initial claims with their own reasoning. (B) How will I prepare students for their new roles? A fishbowl discussion requires designated roles, which each student will perform. Students will need scaffolding in order to fully benefit from their role. Before I specifically explain the elements of a fishbowl discussion, I will first teach students what a student-led discussion (a) Sounds like: students make claims, compare opinions, challenge each others viewpoints, and refer back to the text; the teacher occasionally interjects, but this is rare. Students respect one anothers opinions, yelling is prohibited. (b) Looks like: students make eye contact with one another and do not get out of their seats or throw things. Some students could be taking notes; others could be simply listening to their peers. (c) Feels like: an intellectual conversation among colleagues. In order to prepare students for this type of classroom talk (student-led), I will continue to incorporate space for dialogic learning and small group discussion in my daily

lessons. Desks will be moved into groups of four so that students are readily available to communicate with one another. Lastly, as a class, I will model strong forms of discussion versus shallow responses. There will be at least one class period designated to teaching classroom talk. (C) How will I model for students what they are expected to do? Fishbowl discussions rely heavily upon desk setup. Because of this, it is vital that I show students how the desks will be setup prior to their execution of the fishbowl. Since there are roughly thirty students per class, I will make two horseshoes, fifteen desks per horseshoe. Think of it like this: (( In the front will be my chair and an open seat next to me (that a student can use if they want to hop in and make a comment while they are in the outer horseshoe). Next, I will explain the fishbowl and student roles: students in the inner horseshoe will discuss, while students in the outer horseshoe will evaluate. Students will swap halfway through class. This will be a 2-3 day activity. The first day will be group 1 discussion, followed by group 2 discussion. As the first group is speaking, group 2 will evaluate, and vice versa. Prior to the discussion, students will receive a rubric on how to assess their peers/how they will be assessed, which will look something like this:
Discussion Eval Outer Circle Name:__________________ Inner Circle Name:___________________ Date__________

Directions: Rate the individual and the group overall for each category 4.0= Superior, 3.5= Good, 3.0=Okay, 2.5=Mediocre (at best), 2.0 or less=Not Good at all (Note: Its okay to fall between numbers!). And dont forget to provide your rationale in the space provided. Individual: A) Contribution and Engagement (contributions on 1 2 3 4 topic?) # of contributions___ B) Respect of Group (Not dominating or disrespecting of others) C) Use of text or relevant examples (backing up points with specific use of text or relevant examples?) D) Listening (tracking of other speakers, positive body language, connecting to others thoughts using name?) Group:

1 1

2 2 3

4 4

A) Balance of Participation (active dont dominate and quiet speak up? B) Use of textual evidence/specifics (specific examples from text or real life used for needed comments?) C) Active Listening (tracking of all speakers, engaged body language ?) D) Speaking and acting with respect (respectful in in disagreement, respectful tone, no interruptions?) E) Connections amongst thoughts (thoughts picked up and referenced by name and connection?) F) Question/ideas fully explored (seminar question answered, ideas explored fully before moving on?) Grade you would give this Discussion Overall_____Why? What is one thing this group did well in this Discussion?

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

What is one thing this group needs to focus on improving for the next Discussion?

We will go over this as a class so that students are fully aware of what will be expected of them/how they will be evaluated. Lastly, I will explain why my roll will mostly be a silent observer (because students need to learn how to carry out conversations without a facilitator, etc.). (D) How will I manage students while I am teaching in this new way, while also increasing their engagement? Since a fishbowl discussion leaves so much room for freethinking, I anticipate problems arising in the realm of textual evidence. As a collective whole, the 8th grade teachers are focused on improving students use of evidence and reasoning. If students veer too far off topic, I will reel them back in. I particularly like Intervention 8 from Love and Logic: Is this the right place for that? I will use questions like this without waiting for the student response. In doing so, I will be able to keep the conversation flowing without spending unnecessary time correcting student misbehavior. I believe direct verbal intervention will work best for classroom management during the fishbowl. Since this is a student-led assessment, I do not want to act as a policewoman, but rather as a proud observer. I will increase student engagement by nodding my head at positive and strong student comments, taking notes, making eye contact with

students, offering my praise, and pushing students to delve deeper into the text if they forget to provide evidence. Although it is my job to get students to participate, it is not my job to make them have fun. As Weinstein and Novodvorsky point out in Middle and Secondary Classroom Management, I am not a counselor or a recreational director. I will focus less on creating unrealistically fun lessons and more on creating a space for deep thinking, group communication, and peer evaluation. Although many students will not find the fishbowl particularly entertaining, students will gain valuable practice time for speaking, listening, and note taking skills. (E) How will I manage my own self during this sequence? During the fishbowl, I will manage my own demeanor just as I have mentioned above: a silent facilitator with occasional commentary. I am a firm believer in dialogic discussion; instead of me talking at students, Id rather talk with them, and better yet, Id rather they talk with each other. I am not ignorant enough to believe that the fishbowl will go flawlessly. I am fully aware that I will have to remind my students to be respectful, thoughtful, and persuasive. I will offer directions when more direction is needed, but ideally, I would like my students to carry the discussion where they will. As Ive stated, I will take notes one each students engagement/participation to assess both the student, and also the benefits and drawbacks of the fishbowl discussion itself. As stated in Middle and Secondary Classroom Management, one of the pitfalls of teacher-led discussions is unequal participation. By taking a backseat, I can almost guarantee full student engagement (as long as he/she follows his/her role), and act as a facilitator, not a questioner.

EVALUATION PLAN Observable Student Evidence: (A) What will serve as evidence? The fishbowl discussion will produce two pieces of concrete student evidence: 1. The discussion evaluation filled out by Student A for Student B. 2. The discussion evaluation filled out by Student B for Student A. The peer evaluation rubric (found in the Action Plan) sets clear guidelines for students to review their partner while he/she participates in the inner horseshoe. The fishbowl discussion will produce one piece of abstract student evidence: 1. Teacher notes on student participation in both the inner and outer circles. (B) How will I carry out this evaluation plan and gather evidence? This evaluation plan will be executed in two ways: 1. Collection of student-produced data. Prior to the final submission of the peer evaluation discussion rubrics, students will have about fifteen minutes to review the commentary and scores they received from their peers. In this time, students will be expected to ask each other clarifying questions and explain his/her rationale for the scores he/she provided. If for some reason students disagree on the scores, students can write a three-sentence explanation disputing their received score. If disputations arise, they will be stabled to the rubric and submitted for deliberation. Once students submit peer feedback, I will make sure each section was scored and given a rationale. I will also read the answers to the three questions posed at the end of the rubric. If all sections are scored, a rationale is provided, and the questions are answered, student data will be complete. 2. Active recording of student participation through tally marks.

Along with student-produced data, I will also record participation through tally marking. In order to most efficiently record student participation, I will create a premade seating chart (inner and outer horseshoe), which I will label with student names. In this seating chart, I will make two columns per student: 1. Comments. 2. Use of textual evidence and relevant examples. For every comment a student makes, I will make a tally in the Comments section; for every time the student goes back into the text, or offers a highly relevant comment, I will make a tally in the Use of textual evidence and relevant examples section. Since this is slightly subjective, I will use my academic and professional opinion on what is and is not relevant to classroom talk. This data will be factored into their final grade, which will be 70% student evaluation, 30% teacher evaluation. (C) How is this linked to my original action plan? My original proposal and action plan focused on student-led talk, peer feedback, equal participation, and the use of textual evidence alongside independent thinking and reasoning. My evaluation and use of student evidence reflect the components of my initial vision. Since the student discussion evaluation rubrics will serve as 70% of the final grade, whereas my data will only serve as 30%, I will ensure that my role is one of a facilitator rather than a questioner. My tally marks will be that of a semi-silent observer, as opposed to a tough arbitrator.

FINAL EVALUATION AND REFLECTION A) Heres what I had hoped to do: Ideally, I hoped to engage my students in a student-led discussion, which would be critiqued and evaluated by their peers. By creating a rubric that graded the individual alongside the class as a whole, I envisioned a space for classroom talk that focused on connections amongst student thought. I hoped to enhance student participation by making students chiefly responsible for their

grades and their ability to facilitate a conversation among peers. I wanted to be an observer rather than the sole facilitator. Lastly, I hoped to model classroom talk the day prior to the actual fishbowl discussion. During this time, I also expected to go over the rubric and make it clear that textual evidence would be a necessary component to the discussion. B) Heres what I did: Due to time constraints within the curriculum, I only had one day to introduce, explain, and execute the fishbowl. Because of this, my original plan was heavily modified. For example, rather than devoting an entire class period to modeling and practicing classroom talk, I added this into my directions on the day of the fishbowl. I spent about seven minutes giving directions and going over expectations, rules, and regulations of the fishbowl. Once students knew what was expected of them, we spent about ten minutes going over the rubric. I decided to shorten the rubric that I had originally planned on using; it looked like this:
Discussion Evaluation My Name:___________________ My Classmates Name:___________________ Date__________ Directions: Rate the individual and the group for each category. The categories are: 4 = Superior, 3 = Good, 2 = Mediocre, and 1 = Poor. Individual: A. B. C. Involvement and Engagement (contributions on topic) How many times did he/she speak?______ Use of text or relevant examples (backing up points with specific use of text or relevant examples) Listening and Respect (looking at other speakers, positive body language, connecting to others comments, not disrespecting of others) 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4

Group: Use of textual evidence/specifics (specific examples from text or real life used for needed comments?) B. Active Listening (tracking of all speakers, engaged body language?) Speaking and acting with respect (respectful when in a disagreement, no interruptions?) Balanced Participation C. Connections amongst thoughts (group builds off of one anothers thoughts?) Question/ideas fully explored (question answered, ideas explored fully before moving on?) Circle the rating you would give this Group Discussion overall 1 2 3 4 A. 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4

Why did you give them this rating? What is one thing this group did well in this Discussion? What is one thing this group needs to focus on improving for the next Discussion?

After explaining the rubric, I gave students their pre-made partners and group (A or B). Group A got about 15-20 minutes to discuss, as did Group B. To enhance student focus on their designated role (either talker or grader), I decided not to put the empty conversation chair next to my chair. Although I was quite nervous about how the time crunch would affect my overall plans, I am happy with the outcome. My students are working on small-group talk, which served as practice for a student-led discussion. Moreover, with every text we have read in class, students are expected to use textual evidence, so referring back to the text was not a new skill for them. C) Heres the good news about student response: Overall, student response was positive, thoughtful, and fairly persuasive. My students discussed their silent reading book, Forged By Fire, in a fine blend of subjective and objective nature. Group A discussed Chapters 1-3 on the following questions (which I projected on the Smartboard):
Chapter 1: 1. How is Gerald's mom portrayed? Is she an antagonist or a protagonist? Does she have redeeming qualities? 2. What is the effect of seeing the events of Ch. 1 develop through the eyes of a child? How does this method of telling the story affect the reader's response? Chapter 2: 1. At the end of Ch. 2, what assumptions might be made about Gerald? His future? 2. Why was Gerald's mom taken into custody? (jail) Do you agree with this decision? Chapter 3: 1. What different roles does Aunt Queen play in Gerald's life? Why does he need her? Why does she need him? 2. What can you gather about Aunt Queen's house? About Gerald's neighborhood? Does his socioeconomic status matter in this story?

Group B Discussed chapters 4-6 on the following questions:

Chapter 4: 1. How does Gerald react to the idea of his mom coming back? Is his reaction realistic? How would you react if you were Gerald?

2. What does the bike symbolize? For Gerald? For Aunt Queen? Chapter 5: 1. What can we assumed about Monique's new family? About how they treat one another? About how they treat strangers? 2. Why does Angel say that Gerald is scared? Of who? Of what? Chapter 6 1. How does Gerald relate to Angel? 2. What does Aunt Queen's death mean for Gerald's future?

Without guided questions, students would have been at a loss when it came to facilitating discussion. The discussion ran very smoothly in 2nd and 4th hour. I interjected only when there was a lull in the conversation, which was rare, for textual evidence and relevant examples were used very frequently. I also interjected when I thought someone made a particularly interesting comment. On a whole, students were honest and fair when grading their peers individual contribution. When grading the group however, students were slightly confused; I used my notes to change some of their grading for this portion of the rubric. Students were respectful in disagreements and their overall body language, but in some cases, I would have liked to see an increase in balanced participation. Lastly, some students took advantage of the allotted time they had to explain why they deserved a better grade; I took their comments into consideration when giving them an overall grade. D) Heres the bad news: In 3rd hour, the fishbowl did not go as well as I had hoped. Some students did not contribute anything to the discussion and did not even open their books. Because of this, the group grades for 3rd hour were significantly lower than the group grades for 2nd and 4th hour. In all classes, students struggled with building off of one anothers ideas. Since students had a lot to say about the book, they were eager to voice their opinions, consequently forgetting to step back and listen to their classmates thoughts.

E) Heres what I conclude about this experience so far: So far, I am confident in the power of student-led discussion. Many students far exceeded my expectations when it came to voicing their opinions. I can conclude that most students engaged in the fishbowl because the text being discussed was relevant and controversial. If I had done this with a canonical text for example, I do not believe student participation would have been as active. F) Heres how I would adapt it for future use: There are three concrete ways the fishbowl could be modified to benefit my students needs: 1. Time: Students could use more time to fully explore the nuances of a text. Next time, I will devote two class periods to the fishbowl, which will cover: practicing student-led talk, reintroducing the elements of a fishbowl discussion, explaining how to grade a group as a whole, (day 1), discussion and reflection (day 2). 2. Student-created questions: Next time, I will have students create the questions for the fishbowl. This will increase student engagement and will ensure that students discuss topics and themes that they find particularly compelling and/or confusing. 3. Take-home prep work: Next time, I would like students to come well prepared for discussion, with page numbers, relevant examples, and possible topic starters. I hope that this will reduce conversational lulls and awkward demeanors, while increasing balanced participation.