Get in the Bowl! CriticalThinking ActiveListening AnalyticalResponding in Group Discussions

In relation to the 2020 Ministry of Education goal:

• “Until English teachers start developing critical-thinking skills in the classroom, […] students will never be able to converse with native English speakers ‘at a viable level of proficiency.’”

–Chavez, A. (2014). The Japan Times

Socio-cultural tradition

Academic System

Students with limited ability

to think critically and

independently

Laskar, B. (2007). Critical Thought and Literature in the Japanese

University Classroom. The Kanda Journal 19(Spring) 1-11.

© Vanessa Armand 2015 For accompanying materials, visit vanessaarmandtesol.weebly.com

•Whole Class

• Small Groups

•Debates

• Fishbowls


Benefits Drawbacks

Whole

Class

• Guided, controlled content

• On task; Easy spot-check

• T-fronted, more T-talk

• Limited talk time per S

Small

Groups

• Freer, S-driven content

• More talk time per S

• Less T-talk

• Likely off task

• Less easy spot-check

• No guarantee quality &/or

quantity of S participation

Debate • 1:1, focused S-driven content

• On task; Easy spot-check

• Less T-talk

• Limited S talk time

• Stressful, intimidating

• Not real-world convo. skill

Fishbowl • Freer, S-driven content

• More talk time/S, Less T-talk

• Real-world convo. skill

• Stressful, intimidating

• Min. guarantee quality &/or

quantity of S participation© Vanessa Armand 2015 For accompanying materials, visit vanessaarmandtesol.weebly.com

• PURPOSE• To guarantee active listening,

comprehension checking, &

appropriate responding

• To use specific language & strategies to

facilitate conversation

• To promote more active participation

• To keep students on task

DIFFERENT FROM CONVENTIONAL DISCUSSION FORMATS• Raises awareness through observation

• Gives accountability© Vanessa Armand 2015 For accompanying materials, visit vanessaarmandtesol.weebly.com

• The setting

4-year private university

English Program w/NEST

English-only conversation area

available

• The Course

Speaking; 2 semesters (SPRING, Fall)

Textbook: Pathways 4 Listening,

Speaking, Critical Thinking

No program-dictated goals/objectives

• The students

25 English Majors

2nd year, highest sections

Average age: 20 years

Mixed fluency/accuracy

TOEIC: 560-700

Culture: Japanese (Chinese,

Filipino, Peruvian)

Some experience living abroad


Stage 1: Fishbowls Set-up:1. Elicitation/Discussion of:

• expressions for opinions,confirm understanding, [dis]agreement

• strategies for keeping a conversation going

2. Small group practice w/expressions

3. Class discussion: Constructive Peer Feedback

4. Prompt Prep: personal opinions/examples

5. Fishbowl: 3-4 “fish” (X5 bowls), peer feedback (oral & written)• #1) structured format, 5 min. • #2 & 3) free-form format, 10 min-15 min

Cats

Teacher

Fish


Stage 1: Fishbowls

• Initial problems:• Minimal use of conversational

expressions & strategies

• Limited prompt-specific content

• No support for arguments

• Not all students speak

• The “I think— I think—End of conversation” phenomenon

• Fishbowl solution:• Required use of expressions; use of

strategies

• targeted content/listening/responding

• required support for arguments in initial round,

• required speaking in initial round

• Improvements: • More & varied use of expressions• More confirming understanding• More sustained conversation• Some deeper reasoning (w/help)

• Continued problems:• Limited ability to support argument• Lack participation from some fish

• New Problem:• Confirming understanding, but no

direct responding, only repeating own opinion


Stage 2: DebatesSet-up

1. Prompt Prep: both sides

2. Receive assigned side, meet w/fish of assigned side & choose individ. arg & support

3. Debate*: 6 “fish” (2 bowls), peer feedback (oral & written)

*Highly structured format:

• Present argument & support to opponent 2 min each

• Formulate counter while other fish present approx. 8 min

• Each fish counters opponent 1 min

• Open discussion 5 min

C3 P3

C2 P2

C1 P1

con pro

C3 P3

C2 P2

C1 P1

con pro


Stage 2: Debates• Improvements:

• More real clarification of meaning & confirming understanding

• Some deeper reasoning in initial round

• Sustained talking time per fish

• Continued problems:• Limited ability to support

argument

• New Problems:• Counter-arg = too broad or too

narrow in reasoning• Time consuming process, lmtd

time for rebuttal & open disc.

• Fishbowl problems:• No support for arguments

• Not all students speak

• Confirming understanding, but no direct responding, only repeating own opinion

• Debate solution:• 2 min. talk-time to fill w/support

• 1-on-1 discussion guarantees speaking time for all fish

• Structured listening/responding time w/confirm understanding & counter


Stage 3: Hybrid Fishbowl-DebatesSet-up1. Prompt Prep: both sides

2. Mini-fishbowl (simul. bowls; no cats)• 4 fish/bowl• 5 min. to per prompt• Discuss each fish’s arguments for each

side of prompt issue• Open discussion format (no specific

language)• No peer feedback

3. Transition to Debate• 2 fish assigned “pro”, 2 fish

assigned “con”• Meet w/fish of assigned side &

choose individ. arg & support

4. Debate (simul. bowls; no cats)• 4 “fish”/bowl: 2 pro, 2 con• Highly structured format:

1. Present argument & support to opponent 1.5 min each

2. Formulate counter while other fish present approx. 6 min

3. Each fish counters opponent 1-2 min

4. Open discussion 5 min

C2 P2

C1 P1


Stage 3: Hybrid Fishbowl-Debates

• Debate problems:• Limited support for arguments

• Counter-arg = too broad or too narrow in reasoning

• Time consuming process, lmtd time for rebuttal & open disc.

• Hybrid F-D solution:• Free-structure fishbowls before

debate = more ideas, more arguments

• Time taken for modeled arg & counter-arg w/whole class input

• 1.5 min. talk-time to for initial arg

• Improvements: • Some deeper reasoning

arg & counter-arg

•Continued problems:• Limited ability to support

argument

•New Problems:• Counter-arg = too broad

or too narrow in reasoning

• Time consuming process, lmtd time for rebuttal & open disc.


The prompt: “Agree or Disagree —Your salary is more important for happiness than how much you like your job.”

1. Student: I agree because money can make you happy.

2. Teacher: How can money make you happy? What would you buy and how would it make you happy?

3. Student: Even if I don’t like my job, but I have a high salary, I could buy a motorcycle.

4. Teacher: Why would you buy a motorcycle?

5. Student: Because I like them. 6. Teacher: Why do you like them? How

would it make you happy?7. Student: Because they are cool.

8. Teacher: But how would it make you happy? What could you do with a motorcycle that would make you happy?

9. Student: Um... I could drive really fast. 10. Teacher: OK. How would that make you feel

happy? 11. Student: ……… um……. I would feel free. 12. Teacher: OK, so go back to the prompt. Why

is that more important than how much you like your job?

13. Student: Um… even if I don’t like my job, if I make a lot of money, I can still feel free?


• Most preferred debates because:

• Uninterrupted individual talking time

• Focus on only one person’s opinion

• More intimate and less intimidating

• Focus on limited # of reasons as support

• Helpful for critical thinking ability

• Competitive

• Some preferred fishbowls because:

• Structure=comfortable & familiar (like conversation)

• Communal thought process• No requirement to argue

for/against a specific side of the issue

• freedom to agree/ disagree with various ideas


• Most said fishbowls were more difficult because:

• Being watched nervousnessinterrupted thought processes

• Lull in conversation anxiety

• Too many opinions to focus on and understand

(discussion group = too large)

• Thinking of opinions/comments while others are talking not focusing on the conversation and missing points made by others

• Some said debates were more difficult because:

• Thinking under time constraint to counter-argue stifled reasoning

• Waiting to respond to counter argument lost train of thought

Um… uh…


Student %

No improvement a little

some a lot

• + “I learned many useful expressions.”

• + “Since the classes started, I have made myself to think something's aspects of pros and cons.”

• + “I learned many vocabulary [words].”

• - “I tried to tell my opinion and thinking in many ways. I wanted to tell more directly but I spoke not logically.”

• Student feedback:• “I'm still not good at

explaining my opinion and I get confused between my opinion and the counter arguments.”

• “I could learn some useful phrases, but I [still] couldn't say my opinion well in fishbowl and debate.”

• Future improvements:

• Add activities to clarify and practice argument vs. counter-argument and rebuttal/response

• Conceptualize support in cause-effect terms from positive and negative side of same argument (ie. What are benefits of this argument? What are drawbacks of opposite side of this argument? What are consequences the opposing view?)


• “Even if I think about previous problems in Japanese language, it is very hard to think about [how much I have improved in critical thinking]. But [the teacher] explained to us how to think critically, so I hope that I have improved that.”

• “I like fishbowls [but] my English ability can be more improved in debate.”

• “I like debates because [in] fishbowls, [it is] too hard to think [of] many reasons.”

• “Fishbowl is hard because I am not good at talking in front of an audience.”


[email protected] www.vanessaarmandtesol.weebly.com© Vanessa Armand 2015 For accompanying materials, visit vanessaarmandtesol.weebly.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.vanessaarmandtesol.weebly.com/

Works Cited

Chavez, A. (2014, Jan 10). Teachers must nurture critical thinking, confidence in English for a shot at 2020 goals. The Japan Times. Retrieved July 16, 2015 from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/01/10/our-lives/teachers-must-nurture-critical-thinking-confidence-in-english-for-a-shot-at-2020-goals/

Laskar, B. (2007). Critical Thought and Literature in the Japanese University Classroom. The Kanda Journal 19(Spring) 1-11.


http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/01/10/our-lives/teachers-must-nurture-critical-thinking-confidence-in-english-for-a-shot-at-2020-goals/

Get in the Bowl! CriticalThinking ActiveListening AnalyticalResponding in Group Discussions

Documents

Transcript of Get in the Bowl! CriticalThinking ActiveListening AnalyticalResponding in Group Discussions