I couldn’t wait to try this seminar approach after seeing people talk about it on our Facebook group. So thank you for whoever posted it! In my brief research on this, I’ve seen it referred to as the Harkness Method, a Fishbowl Discussion, or a Circle Discussion. Whatever you want to call it, the kids thought it was cool and so did I! If you’ve done seminars in the past and find it difficult to attach a subjective grade or you want to make kids aware of their discussion tendencies, this is a really cool tool to implement.

It was timely because I was having my students read Jared Diamond’s argument for The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race. I told my students to take annotations and to come to class ready to discuss. I didn’t tell them anything more.

When they walked into the room, I told them to write down the most interesting concept they read, or to create a discussion question for others to respond. I encouraged them to create a question of high-order nature, something that prompts an opinion and or doesn’t require a one word response. I then told them that I will look for, and mark down:

• H = High Order thinking response
• L = Low Order thinking response
• CL = Connection Life (Could be high or low order)
• Ct = Connection to the text (Could be high or low order)
• Cv = Connection to course vocabulary or concepts from any unit of study
• R = Repeat concept
• 🙁 = Interruption
• ○—-> When a student starts a new topic/question

I took the time to lay out their faces (printed from a seating chart option from our online management system) and arrange them around a circle. I put them in alphabetic order to get them seated quickly and make it easier for me to chart while discussing. I used a 9×13 sketch notepad because I wanted enough space to write. Since I love using my colored flair pens, I used a different color for each new topic/question that students pursued. Then, I just LET GO! I didn’t speak for the next 45 minutes, and it was awesome.

I had 20 different colored pens ready to switch at a moments notice. I started with a bullet point next to the face of the student that started the question and then let the lines follow to the responders. I took notes next to the student’s faces so that they could later see how they contributed and also so that I could assign a score at a later time.

I was most concerned that I wouldn’t be able to keep up with the discussion and chart the quality of their contributions at the same time, but I surprised myself. What we were left with was a very cool visualization of our class seminar.

I later took screen-shots of the circle discussion and posted them to our Schoology LMS. A student did ask me if they thought that was a good idea or not (ethically), and I did pause to consider. But then I concluded that every student in that classroom knew how the conversation went since they were all there, there is no grade posted next to their name, and it is posted to our closed classroom community. Student and I agreed it was OK. 🙂

We debriefed the next day and had them look at our charts. I told them that I might use an “O” symbol for opinion next time and maybe even break it up into two separate groups and assign a “leader” to help chart the discussion. This might encourage better conversation if they don’t think that I am listening as intently, especially if it is a topic that is a bit more controversial. I told them that it was cool to notice the color dominance of some questions compared to others, illustrating topics that may have been more thought provoking or of heightened interest. I also told them to pay attention to their L or H symbols next to their name. Students who have many L’s tend to be the students to receive only 1 point on FRQ questions when asked to explain (2 pts. possible). As I heard another teacher put it on Facebook this week, “Some students don’t know how to close the loop.” I really liked that analogy.

Of course, I heard through the grape vine that students didn’t like how they weren’t “warned” of the impending seminar (the ones not prepared, so I don’t feel bad), and some kids felt that certain students dominated the discussion and they couldn’t pitch in (since there was downtime in the discussion flow, this is not true). But I had many more kids praise it, and enjoy the seminar than I expected. I really do think they appreciated the visualization of their seminar and that we really are taking the time to evaluate the types of contributions they make. Of course, assigning a letter grade to something like this is still somewhat subjective, but I am flexible in listening to their argument for a higher grade if they feel it’s unjustified, and I’m offering an opportunity for a  grade bump if they complete an alternate assignment that I have prepared.

I will use this method again and it’s encouraged me to do seminars more frequently. We have so many topics that promote good conversation/debate in Human Geography that it’s almost natural. Once again, I have the AP Human Teachers Facebook group to thank for being the best PLT on the planet.

Have any of you used this method? What are your preferred symbols?

P.S. I know you’re dying to know where I got my Face Pixelizer from :).  Here you go!