I’ve taught the same basic Writing 121Z class for years,
changing out texts as needed but sticking to the same approach (teaching
different writing patterns and rhetorical moves, grouping by theme). I tried
something different this year, though. I’ve used online discussions but have long thought that they needed revamping or replacing, so I took the plunge and
did it. I converted them into class-based discussions and
renamed them A Big Class Discussion Event (ABCDE); I like thinking of fun names
for assignments. I had been collecting different discussion protocols for
several months, so I wrote them up and tried a different one for four specific discussions.
For ABCDE 1, I used something from Derek Bruff’s podcast Intentional Teaching, “Take It or Leave It.” On the show, Bruff invites three panelists to discuss three different journal articles. They each share their opinion of the article; they either “take it” or “leave it” and explain why. I liked the format, so I set up something similar with the class. I gave them an instruction sheet that had two quotations, one each from recent texts we’d read. I directed them to choose which one they “take” or “leave” and write a short paragraph explaining why, using evidence from the text. Then I paired them to discuss what they’d chosen. After that, the pairs became squares to discuss and then debrief. Each square came up with a closing thought or question, which each person wrote on their sheets. They turned them in for credit, which I graded P/NP (10 points). If a student was absent, I gave them a way to make up the discussion.
For ABCDE 2, I used human barometer (aka value lines). This
discussion focused on the Four Freedoms speech of FDR and the Farewell Address
of DDE. I pulled statements directly from each speech and used those for the
statements in the exercise, which I put on the students’ instruction sheet. I
started by having them pick one statement to write down some thoughts about,
then they shared that with a partner. Then we did human barometer as per usual.
There was some robust discussion among the students in both classes. I then had
students count off into groups of fours and debrief as they did for ABCDE 1.
That was a good way to end the discussion.
ABCDE 3 was a hexagonal thinking discussion. This was quite
the feat to pull off. When I did it in Fall ‘24 at Linn-Benton, I had one class
with three workshop teams and lots of table space. In Fall ‘25 at Chemeketa, I
had two classes with five workshop teams and no table space. Thus, the
logistics were more challenging. Fortunately, there was a room next door with
plenty of tables that was vacant at the time of my classes, so I was able to
use it. We prepped the class before with the students writing the words on the
hexagons, then we conducted the discussion at the next class. Such rich, robust
discussions! Students mentioned many times how much they enjoyed it. I retained
their hexagons so I can use them again. Since I will have two sections of 121Z
in Fall ‘26, that will help.
Below are some pictures from the classes' discussions.
Finally, for ABCDE 4, I retained the online discussion “What are you taking away from Writing 121Z?” I revised the rubric to solely focus on the requirements (first post of two or more paragraphs that discusses two questions from a list of 5 using evidence to support their answer, second post responds to a classmate using at least one paragraph). I can see potentially changing this to a discussion tables format at some point. I might try this for Fall ‘26.
.jpg){kind=link}