Low Successes
But just as the high successes
with Stephen and David prove Wilhelm and Rosenblatt true, so do the
low successes. Some students failed to "see" anything, or
even to try to see anything when they read. These same students had
little they thought they could relate to in the book, and as a result
didn't enjoy it as much as those who did see and could relate. Take
Alison, for example. She has mixed up visions of what is happening in
several of her on-line responses:
I liked uhm when the
he told the storie about the stolen sneakers. there isn't nothing
in the storie that I didn't like. What made me laugh was when he told
the storie about the stolen sneakers and the boys he told said theres
no such thing as sneakers falling from the sky. the part when he said
that the sneakers fell from the sky It must have been a gift from
a god and the sneakers was worth a million dollars.Why does he have
to go to CampGreenLake if they fell from the sky? I really cant say
because i have no things that have happened to me or I can amagine
like that In my life. - Alison, response 1
In her response, Alison shows
she doesn't quite make the inference that the shoes fell off of an overpass
because somebody threw them off. Nor does she identify with any of the
characters, or events that have taken place so far. She does, however,
ask a really good question--a question that shows me she is struggling
with the text, attempting to make meaning out of it. In short she is
transacting with it. Her other responses show similar patterns, and
her AR test score is a passing grade. I see Lonergan's (1980) statement
about inquiry at work in Alison. She inquires, which prompts her to
see into the situation (insight).
But some of my other lower
skilled readers proved Wilhelm and Rosenblatt right by exemplifying
what happens when no visualization or transacting with the text takes
place. Take Maria, Jose, Gary and Cherrie, for instance. None of these
students passed the AR test at the end of the reading unit, and during
the seminar, few of these students had anything to say. What interests
me the most, however, is the absence of their on-line responses. If
responses are given, they are very weak, contain little if any real
substance, and are so general as to raise questions about the completion
of the actual scheduled reading. For example, in her first response,
Maria says,
This book is okay and
I feel you when you said that the story gets off the subject becase
they do start talking about how and what his great great grandpa Well
this is all i have to say. - Maria, response 1.
Enigmatic in both its content
and its brevity, Maria's reply shows me that in her mind she didn't
"see" anything. Jose's responses are similar to Maria's--vague,
brief with little indication of visualization:
I think that this book
is pretty cool. so Stanley is going to a camp. The name of the camp
is camp green lake.They make him dig holes all day and dont let him
drink any water. I also think that he sould tell some one that he
didnt do what he did. The kids are dumb to have them wierd names that
they have. He should get biting by the snake and go home. I think
that I am goin to like this book. This will be the frist book that
I will actully read and enjoy. - Jose, response 1
Gary doesn't bother to post
any responses, but does miss passing the AR test by one question. Having
been to wilderness camps himself, he did confess that "he knew
how some of those guys felt".
Summary of Online
Responses
In
summary, Wilhelm and Rosenblatt, and even Lonergan are validated with
almost every student response, be it positively or negatively. The students
who were able to visualize what was going on in the story or identify
with characters, and were able to have what they saw prompted out of
them and written down on the boards2go message board--these were the
students who did really well on the AR tests. The students with milder
successes were those able to do some Wilhelmesque visualizing, Rosenblattian
identifying or even Lonerganian questioning. The students who showed
evidence of little to no success were those who failed to engage in
any of the above activities.
Socratic Seminar Success
After giving the students
close to a week and a half to finish the book, conduct a practice seminar,
take the AR test, and begin working on their projects (which I called
their "Know Shows"), it was time for the penultimate activity
of "The Seminar." Having researched the ins and outs of the
Paideia or Socratic seminar with the packets fellow classmates, Paige
and Yvonne gave me, and having plundered several other seminar-friendly
Web sites, including North Carolina State University's Literacy Junction
(www.ncsu.edu/literacyjunction/),
I created seminar guidelines , questions for students who may need prompting
during the discussion, an on-line entrance ticket, a paper exit ticket,
and a point keeper with space for both positive
and negative
marks. To be as unobtrusive as possible, I told the students that
the discussion was completely theirs. I videotaped the seminar while
the students ran it.
[See
a Quicktime Movie of students leading a seminar (1.7 MB)]
The
effectiveness of the seminar was mixed. I had students who said nothing
the entire time, as well as some who spoke so often it seemed as if
the others didn't exist. Most of the comments were on task and reader-response
based, although a few students made statements that were silly, fluffy,
or way off-task. The students who de facto led the discussion (I didn't
assign any leader because I wanted to see if leadership would emerge
naturally, and it did) typically refocused the questions by moving on
to something else, or restating the question and giving their own response.
Most of the students did make comments, and many replied thoughtfully
to other students' comments, building on ideas or amending their opinions.
Although text-based comments were present some of the time, the majority
of comments were either clarifications of events, characters or situations
in the story, or personal responses to them.
One of the factors I thought
of after the seminar was Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: To observe
is to alter. I began to wonder how much of the discussion was for the
camera, and how much of it was made up of the real conversations I had
heard the students engaging in on their own at lunch, as they left the
classroom to go to their lockers, or walking down the hall, not knowing
they were in my earshot. I do believe I taped some natural, even honest
discussion, but much of the dialogue was not. For example, I had one
student who adopted a ghetto ebonics dialect merely for the viewing
pleasure of her audience, saying things like, "Me think he up to
sumthin" or "What up with dat?" Typically very well-spoken,
she led me to conclude that she was putting on quite a show for the
camera. But though it had its negatives, I will say that video-taping
the seminar sure made keeping points easy.
All in all, the Socratic
seminar was much more orderly, effective, and according to the exit
surveys completed by the students, desirable than the discussions found
in our previous literature circles. Students said they liked the format,
enjoyed the discussion and found that they had much more to say about
the book than they previously thought they would. Some did comment that
they wished all students had a chance to say something about each question,
but while this is true, I happen to know based on the students' reading
schedule updates that most of the students who didn't speak during the
seminar were ones who didn't finish the book. Thus, for now I will keep
the process as it is.
Conclusion
I began by postulating my
inquiry project question: Will merging technology (on-line discussion
board) with Socratic or Paideia seminars assist my students, especially
the lower skilled ones, in enhancing their book discussions, their visualization
of the text, and their overall engagement with the material? I end now
by concluding that those who actively transacted with the book, attempted
to visualize the book's content, sought a personal connection with the
book's characters, or began their reading with a question--these were
the students who ended the project with reading skills enhanced by this
experience. Although not as elaborate as I would have liked, the on-line
message board gave students a space they could discuss their ideas and
have a record of it afterwards. The prompts I used assisted some in
reporting these visualizations, connections or inquiries. The Socratic
seminar gave the students who read the book opportunities for increased
comprehension, personal enjoyment of dialoguing with others about the
book, and by logging their personal responses onto an Internet discussion
board, an opportunity to discuss their insights, comments or inquiries.
Ultimately, I still need
to figure out better ways of eliciting stronger reader-responses and
visualizations from my lower skilled students. The stronger skilled
students will develop with or without my guidance. It's the lower skilled
students that my efforts need to continue to be expanded. But while
I didn't see the immediate results I had hoped for--all students being
held spellbound by the book, acing the AR tests, creating beautifully
written on-line entries and cracker jack alternative projects - I did
see success. Students did talk about the book to each other and responded
to higher level thinking questions. They entered conversations about
issues relevant to their own lives, and even began to learn to see things
from another's view point. In her exit ticket, Cherrie admits that she
learned from the seminar that Stanley was "chubby." She concludes
that she had pictured him "skinny." Like David, who also made
a picture of the character out of his own image, Cherrie, a slight girl
herself, projected overriding images onto a character that was clearly
portrayed by the author in a different way. She also reveals that students
are looking for ways to relate to the book. The seminar helped her see
things she hadn't, to picture images that Wilhelm (1997) would say are
the sine qua non for making meaning from a text. Thus, I feel that this
project was a success. In the future, I plan to begin using these techniques
at the start of the school year instead of at the end.
Acknowledgments
When I began this inquiry
project I knew nothing about Paideia seminars. I found a well-worn copy
of Mortimer Adler's The Paideia Proposal and perused it; after
reading it, I realized I still knew nothing about merging seminars with
novel reading and seventh graders, a potentially volatile combination.
This is where my ECI 521 colleagues came in. Paige provided a packet
of Paideia information, which proved enormously useful to conducting
a seminar, and Yvonne gave me a similar packet full of background information,
which helped me understand more the goals of a seminar. Thanks.
About
the Author:
A 1994 graduate of Appalachian
State University, Johnny Walters teaches 7th graders
at Cedar Creek Middle School in Youngsville, North Carolina and is currently
pursuing his master's degree at North Carolina State University. He
lives in Louisburg with his wife Paula and their daughter, Sophie.
Email: jpandswalters@msn.com
