Student Work Inquiry Rounds can Reveal an Array of Wisdom
The National School Reform Faculty's "Student Inquiry Rounds" may be just one protocol, but it has many different looks, depending on the way it is being used by a teacher.
This protocol invites the "presenter" to bring copies of a piece of student work to a collaborative team. With this protocol, the presenter is asked to say nothing about the work, but simply to distribute it for examination by the group. Individuals in the group then share what can be "seen" by looking at the work, what questions they have, and what interpretations they can make. Only after time is devoted to each of these pieces does the presenter return to answer some of these questions and to reveal his or her purpose in bringing the work to the group. To finish the protocol, the group then discusses potential "next steps" the teacher may take.
It may seem frustrating that the true purpose of looking at the student work may not be revealed until the group is deep into the protocol. However, this allows the presenter to reveal the purpose of looking at the work when he or she believes it to be right.
When I was a relatively new teacher in a department full of veterans, I remember being terrified to believe a piece of work was really, really good. As an English teacher, I would sometimes read student work that made me think deeply, made me laugh, or even made me cry...and I would think, "this student knows how to write!" However, I would simultaneously wonder if my colleagues would think the same thing. I would then wander into a few of my favorite colleagues' classrooms and ask them to give me some feedback on a piece of student work. When I did this, I would always ask for feedback without telling them why I needed it. Fortunately, they didn't press me to know why! Sometimes, my colleagues would confirm my thinking; other times they would open my mind to aspects of the work that I hadn't considered.
The Student Inquiry Rounds protocol offers me this same opportunity to gather feedback without the pressure of explaining why, but I only have to approach the protocol in this way if it is the way that is most beneficial. With this protocol, I can approach it in any of the following ways:
This protocol invites the "presenter" to bring copies of a piece of student work to a collaborative team. With this protocol, the presenter is asked to say nothing about the work, but simply to distribute it for examination by the group. Individuals in the group then share what can be "seen" by looking at the work, what questions they have, and what interpretations they can make. Only after time is devoted to each of these pieces does the presenter return to answer some of these questions and to reveal his or her purpose in bringing the work to the group. To finish the protocol, the group then discusses potential "next steps" the teacher may take.
It may seem frustrating that the true purpose of looking at the student work may not be revealed until the group is deep into the protocol. However, this allows the presenter to reveal the purpose of looking at the work when he or she believes it to be right.
When I was a relatively new teacher in a department full of veterans, I remember being terrified to believe a piece of work was really, really good. As an English teacher, I would sometimes read student work that made me think deeply, made me laugh, or even made me cry...and I would think, "this student knows how to write!" However, I would simultaneously wonder if my colleagues would think the same thing. I would then wander into a few of my favorite colleagues' classrooms and ask them to give me some feedback on a piece of student work. When I did this, I would always ask for feedback without telling them why I needed it. Fortunately, they didn't press me to know why! Sometimes, my colleagues would confirm my thinking; other times they would open my mind to aspects of the work that I hadn't considered.
The Student Inquiry Rounds protocol offers me this same opportunity to gather feedback without the pressure of explaining why, but I only have to approach the protocol in this way if it is the way that is most beneficial. With this protocol, I can approach it in any of the following ways:
- Bring only the student's work.
- Bring the student's work along with the assignment instructions
- Bring the student's work with my own comments and corrections on it
- Bring multiple copies of one student's work
- Bring multiple versions of the same assignment, completed by different students
If I would like, I can shape this protocol in a way that allows participants to quickly infer why I have brought it forward. If I bring a piece forward with a low grade on it, it may be clear that I am wondering how to help the student; if I bring work with a high grade on it, I may be wondering how I can push this student. If I bring only the student's work, however, it pushes my colleagues to investigate to figure out why I have brought a particular piece forward to be analyzed.
When I am in trainings, I share a piece of work from a student who highly impressed me. This particular piece of work may be my single favorite assignment that I have ever had turned into me. Always, my groups recognize the strengths of this writer. However, they also recognize some red flags that may have been present...not so much in the construction of the writing, but the content of the writing often makes them ask questions about some of this former student's characteristics.
This protocol, like so many of the NSRF protocols, helps me to see the array of responses people can have when looking at the same thing. And because I know how to open my mind to these various ways of thinking, my students and I are the beneficiaries of the surplus of wisdom in the room. If you have a chance to try the Student Inquiry Rounds Protocol, I hope you will try it sometime without giving your group more information than they need; I think their responses will pleasantly surprise you!
Comments
Post a Comment