I liked being able to move around and “jump in” to the inner circle when we had something to contribute. This allowed more thoughts and ideas from different people to be discussed, compared to the previous seminar when not every student got a chance to talk because everyone wanted to talk at once. One thing I didn’t like was that if you wanted to expand on a topic that was being discussed, sometimes the topic was changed by the time you got to sit down in the inner circle. Overall, I think this Socratic seminar method worked well and gave everyone more chances to participate. Trying two separate seminars might help the class as a whole in the future – this would allow everyone to participate, while at the same time allowing students to expand on a topic before the topic has changed.
I liked the fact that people had many more times to contribute than with the class as a whole. I didn't like how some people made an effort to get up and sit in the circle and then didn't even get to contribute because a whole new set of people wanted to sit down and nobody else would get up so they had to leave without saying anything. In the future, I would set up two separate group seminars and then maybe rotate half of the kids to the other group halfway through, that way it would be smaller and more topics would be able to be covered.
I liked this method better than the other one because everyone got a chance to participate. Although it was hard to get a spot in the inner circle at times, once you did everyone had a chance to talk. I think by making the conversation between six people only, it was easier to voice your opinion. Like Alison and Lanie said, I like the idea of having the class split in half so that a smaller group of people would be talking but there would also be less rotating.
I did like the inner circle/outer circle method much better than I liked the whole BIG cirlce seminar. By standing up, you were able to show that you had something to say and people were aware of it (kind of like raising a hand without being so elementary). It was easier and less stressful to make a point to 6 people than to have to try to make eye contact with an entire room. On the other hand, I think that once a person makes one comment they should leave and let someone else take their spot because they can always come back and people had to wait to long to jump in. Overall, this method was a success I think.
I liked this seminar better because it was easier to jump in and start talking. Also only five other people were looking at you while before there were twenty five others. I think its important to be able to interact as a class to so maybe after one or two more we can try going back to the whole class.
I liked this seminar because once you're in the inner circle, it is easier to talk and expand on others' ideas. I didn't like the fact that once you got in the circle, people had already moved on and what you wanted to say was no longer pertinent to the discussion. I also agree with the idea of having a couple small groups because I think it would allow us a better chance to voice all of our ideas.
During this type of Socratic Seminar I liked that everybody talked at least twice, and some people didn't completely monopolize the conversation. But at the same time I think that it was really hard once you were in the circle to concentrate on what people were saying while trying to think of your own comment, and being rushed by the people hanging over your shoulder. It was a challenge to start saying your comment and get out everything you needed to say without being interupted or feeling hurried. It seemed like a race to get in there, then a race to say something. I stick by my idea of buzzers, or talking cards/list like in Model UN.
Overall I liked this seminar much better than the previous one. I found it much easier to get my ideas across without feeling like I needed to interupt 20 other people to do it. I agree with Taylor that sometimes by the time you actually got in the circle the conversation had already moved on to another topic. This is basically unavoidable however. I can't think of anything that would improve this seminar, but I think maybe after another seminar of this nature we might be able to come up with some good ideas on how to make the seminar better.
I think that this type of seminar made it easier to contribute to the conversation. It seemed to me that everyone had plenty of turns to talk during the conversation. However, I often found myself losing my train of thought when people were leaving the circle and i was having a conversation with them, or when people were lingering around me while I was still finishing a thought. Overall, though, I think it was much more successful then the last.
While I think that the format of this seminar allowed more people to be heard with less interruptions and distractions, there were a few things I didn't like about it. For starters,when the group inside the circle made a point that I wished to elaborate on or counter, I would stand up and wait my turn, but by the time I got inside the circle, the conversation had shifted in a different direction, and I had no point to make. Also, the other format, though noisy and chaotic, was better for the sort of arguments and point/counterpoints that we were seeing in the seminar today.
I found that there were both advantages and disadvantages to the new format for the seminar. I liked the fact that everyone got a chance to speak and could share their opinion without many people interrupting. Not to sound repetitive, but I didn't like that conversations would change before you had time to make your comment, which happened frequently to some people. All in all, I enjoyed this type of seminar rather then the previous one we attempted.
I liked the inner/outer circle. It did give people a chance to talk, though sometimes the subject had changed by the time that you got in there. One thing I didn't like, though I doubt it had much to do with the setting, was the fact that we didn't cover all of the topics. After a while the seminar just went in circles, and it was frustrating. Besides that, it was kind of fun, moving around a little and making sure you could get a spot to discuss the book.
I liked that this seminar seemed to involve people that usually would not speak up. I did not like how this seminar would get very choppy. If you wanted to make a point you had to get into the small circle at which point people were no longer talking about the same topic you wanted to comment on. In the future I think we should try to go back to the old type of seminar.
I liked how everyone had the chance to speak in this seminar. But I perferred the first seminar, it was easier to say your thoughts when the disscusion was still relevant to what you had to ssay. In this seminar by the time I was in the circle the disscusion had alredy moved on.
I mostly liked the seminar because it was easier for people to speak even though only six people could talk at a time. This time, everyone got a chance to talk. I did not like that the people going into the inner circle had to wait for other people to come out, because someone might want to address a subject which was already covered by the time they got into the circle. I think that this will help the class with the seminar for now, but later we might want to go back to the more sophisticated whole class version.
I thought it was good that it was much easier to get into the conversation this time. I also agree with connor that it's much easier to contribute when only five people are looking at you instead of twenty.
I liked the whole inner circle outer circle thing, but I didn't like how if you had something to say, by the time you got in to the circle your point was no longer valid to the discussion. I liked that the discussion was smaller and overall i liked this way better than the whole class.
I really apreciated the fact that I could leave the discussion circle when ever I finished saying my thoughts. This was a much more effective method of a socratic seminar because everyone got the opportunity to say something. When the discussion reached a topic of interest, it was easy to join in on the discussion. I didn't like the fact that their was occasionally a "line" to get into the circle, but with a large group, that is bound to happen. I think a person should be allowed in the center a minimum of four times because I did notice that some people did spend much more time in the middle than others.
I like it because everyone got to talk, and it was easier to interject in the conversation, because their are only 6 people, but I alot of time, when I wanted to talk about something, I would be over by the time I got into the circle
Do you think that we should ask that people leave the inner circle after they make a point? This will mean they will have to go back to make a second point.
I agree with what Ollie said about feeling it was hard to concentrate with people hovering over you. Also, I thought it was a little bit harder to voice your opinions with the set up. When someone made a comment that sparked a reaction, before you could get the chance to enter the circle, others already responded and the dicussion would start heading in a differnt direction. However, overall it was more organized.
I liked being able to move around and “jump in” to the inner circle when we had something to contribute. This allowed more thoughts and ideas from different people to be discussed, compared to the previous seminar when not every student got a chance to talk because everyone wanted to talk at once. One thing I didn’t like was that if you wanted to expand on a topic that was being discussed, sometimes the topic was changed by the time you got to sit down in the inner circle. Overall, I think this Socratic seminar method worked well and gave everyone more chances to participate. Trying two separate seminars might help the class as a whole in the future – this would allow everyone to participate, while at the same time allowing students to expand on a topic before the topic has changed.
ReplyDeleteI liked the fact that people had many more times to contribute than with the class as a whole. I didn't like how some people made an effort to get up and sit in the circle and then didn't even get to contribute because a whole new set of people wanted to sit down and nobody else would get up so they had to leave without saying anything. In the future, I would set up two separate group seminars and then maybe rotate half of the kids to the other group halfway through, that way it would be smaller and more topics would be able to be covered.
ReplyDeleteI liked this method better than the other one because everyone got a chance to participate. Although it was hard to get a spot in the inner circle at times, once you did everyone had a chance to talk. I think by making the conversation between six people only, it was easier to voice your opinion. Like Alison and Lanie said, I like the idea of having the class split in half so that a smaller group of people would be talking but there would also be less rotating.
ReplyDeleteI did like the inner circle/outer circle method much better than I liked the whole BIG cirlce seminar. By standing up, you were able to show that you had something to say and people were aware of it (kind of like raising a hand without being so elementary). It was easier and less stressful to make a point to 6 people than to have to try to make eye contact with an entire room. On the other hand, I think that once a person makes one comment they should leave and let someone else take their spot because they can always come back and people had to wait to long to jump in. Overall, this method was a success I think.
ReplyDeleteI liked this seminar better because it was easier to jump in and start talking. Also only five other people were looking at you while before there were twenty five others. I think its important to be able to interact as a class to so maybe after one or two more we can try going back to the whole class.
ReplyDeleteI liked this seminar because once you're in the inner circle, it is easier to talk and expand on others' ideas. I didn't like the fact that once you got in the circle, people had already moved on and what you wanted to say was no longer pertinent to the discussion. I also agree with the idea of having a couple small groups because I think it would allow us a better chance to voice all of our ideas.
ReplyDeleteDuring this type of Socratic Seminar I liked that everybody talked at least twice, and some people didn't completely monopolize the conversation. But at the same time I think that it was really hard once you were in the circle to concentrate on what people were saying while trying to think of your own comment, and being rushed by the people hanging over your shoulder. It was a challenge to start saying your comment and get out everything you needed to say without being interupted or feeling hurried. It seemed like a race to get in there, then a race to say something. I stick by my idea of buzzers, or talking cards/list like in Model UN.
ReplyDeleteOverall I liked this seminar much better than the previous one. I found it much easier to get my ideas across without feeling like I needed to interupt 20 other people to do it. I agree with Taylor that sometimes by the time you actually got in the circle the conversation had already moved on to another topic. This is basically unavoidable however. I can't think of anything that would improve this seminar, but I think maybe after another seminar of this nature we might be able to come up with some good ideas on how to make the seminar better.
ReplyDeleteI think that this type of seminar made it easier to contribute to the conversation. It seemed to me that everyone had plenty of turns to talk during the conversation. However, I often found myself losing my train of thought when people were leaving the circle and i was having a conversation with them, or when people were lingering around me while I was still finishing a thought. Overall, though, I think it was much more successful then the last.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think that the format of this seminar allowed more people to be heard with less interruptions and distractions, there were a few things I didn't like about it.
ReplyDeleteFor starters,when the group inside the circle made a point that I wished to elaborate on or counter, I would stand up and wait my turn, but by the time I got inside the circle, the conversation had shifted in a different direction, and I had no point to make. Also, the other format, though noisy and chaotic, was better for the sort of arguments and point/counterpoints that we were seeing in the seminar today.
I found that there were both advantages and disadvantages to the new format for the seminar. I liked the fact that everyone got a chance to speak and could share their opinion without many people interrupting. Not to sound repetitive, but I didn't like that conversations would change before you had time to make your comment, which happened frequently to some people. All in all, I enjoyed this type of seminar rather then the previous one we attempted.
ReplyDeleteI liked the inner/outer circle. It did give people a chance to talk, though sometimes the subject had changed by the time that you got in there. One thing I didn't like, though I doubt it had much to do with the setting, was the fact that we didn't cover all of the topics. After a while the seminar just went in circles, and it was frustrating. Besides that, it was kind of fun, moving around a little and making sure you could get a spot to discuss the book.
ReplyDeleteI liked that this seminar seemed to involve people that usually would not speak up. I did not like how this seminar would get very choppy. If you wanted to make a point you had to get into the small circle at which point people were no longer talking about the same topic you wanted to comment on. In the future I think we should try to go back to the old type of seminar.
ReplyDeleteI liked how everyone had the chance to speak in this seminar. But I perferred the first seminar, it was easier to say your thoughts when the disscusion was still relevant to what you had to ssay. In this seminar by the time I was in the circle the disscusion had alredy moved on.
ReplyDeleteI mostly liked the seminar because it was easier for people to speak even though only six people could talk at a time. This time, everyone got a chance to talk. I did not like that the people going into the inner circle had to wait for other people to come out, because someone might want to address a subject which was already covered by the time they got into the circle. I think that this will help the class with the seminar for now, but later we might want to go back to the more sophisticated whole class version.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was good that it was much easier to get into the conversation this time. I also agree with connor that it's much easier to contribute when only five people are looking at you instead of twenty.
ReplyDeleteI liked the whole inner circle outer circle thing, but I didn't like how if you had something to say, by the time you got in to the circle your point was no longer valid to the discussion. I liked that the discussion was smaller and overall i liked this way better than the whole class.
ReplyDeleteI really apreciated the fact that I could leave the discussion circle when ever I finished saying my thoughts. This was a much more effective method of a socratic seminar because everyone got the opportunity to say something. When the discussion reached a topic of interest, it was easy to join in on the discussion. I didn't like the fact that their was occasionally a "line" to get into the circle, but with a large group, that is bound to happen. I think a person should be allowed in the center a minimum of four times because I did notice that some people did spend much more time in the middle than others.
ReplyDeleteI like it because everyone got to talk, and it was easier to interject in the conversation, because their are only 6 people, but I alot of time, when I wanted to talk about something, I would be over by the time I got into the circle
ReplyDeleteDo you think that we should ask that people leave the inner circle after they make a point? This will mean they will have to go back to make a second point.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Ollie said about feeling it was hard to concentrate with people hovering over you. Also, I thought it was a little bit harder to voice your opinions with the set up. When someone made a comment that sparked a reaction, before you could get the chance to enter the circle, others already responded and the dicussion would start heading in a differnt direction. However, overall it was more organized.
ReplyDelete