one: I enjoyed having a chance to bounce ideas around of what we all were reading for our blog issues assignment. I can't possibly read everything, even with the help of Google Reader, so it was really nice to get a sense of what was going on in Library Blogland other than the four authors that I was following.
two: The idea of Socratic seminars sounds interesting. But the idea of being in a fishbowl while half the class critiques how well I'm discussing is majorly setting off my social anxiety buttons. It's one thing to be self-monitoring the quality of my contributions, another to have a general idea that the teacher is observing everyone for a participation grade, and quite another thing entirely to have half the class explicitly taking notes on whether you're talking too much, or not enough, or not being insightful enough, etc. And the quality of discussion that Metzger reports her class achieving with the Socratic seminars is what I remember from my high school English classes without putting people into fishbowls, though since I went to a selective all-girls Catholic high school, that might not be a fair basis for comparison.
three: I found the article "The Book Club, Exploded" really exciting. I have to say that I have never participated in a book club, apart from the book-club style small reading groups unit my sophomore year of high school, so I've never really thought about the possibilities of book clubs, even though I'm from Seattle, one of the article's model cities! I like the idea of arranging book clubs thematically, so that the club is more about a set of ideas than one particular book. I think that that could draw in people who think that book clubs are going to be like high school English redux, especially if it's marketed as being an idea/theme group rather than a book group per se. But there's also value to the old everyone reads the same book formula. I'd imagine that one of the nice things about that kind of a group is that when you refer to something in the book, everyone knows what you're talking about, which isn't always the case the rest of the time.
I can definitely relate to having anxiety about being evaluated by my peers and teacher based on my comments in a socratic seminar. I have yet to participate in SI 500 discussion because my fellow classmates are very open about their judgments of other's comments, and I don't want that to be me. I guess it would depend on the material though, and seeing as I don't understand much of what's going on in 500, it makes me more nervous. But if I actually knew the material better I might be more confident in my responses and participate more.
ReplyDeleteMy first response to the Socratic Seminar was that all the critiquing with the inside/outside circles was good in that this would mean that peers would eventually become more equally comfortable and able to participate in the discussion. Since peers were monitoring the discussion, I thought that this added respect may convince those quiet people to participate. But after reading your comment, I believe this may not work for everyone. Do you think that if you had the respect of your peers (which would be gained via the Socratic Seminar system of critiquing contributions) that you would be more comfortable? And I don't think that the quality of insights should be critiqued in the Socratic Seminar.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment about the inside circles and outside circles. I can see how some people may enjoy this method but to me it feels very on-the-spot and makes me feel quite nervous, even if I am comfortable with the material. I would much prefer talking in small groups to having an outside circle take notes on what you are saying.
ReplyDelete