1) Using protocols like "critical friends" helps to bring teachers together to brainstorm about what really good student work looks like. It also allows teachers to communicate in a non-threatening environment of their peers. Teachers end up with more ideas for their classroom. It also helps teachers manage the curriculum instead of just implementing it.
2) I think an openness to criticism would be one of the main conditions. We take pride in what we do, so I can see how this would be kind of uncomfortable at first. I hate to use the words "safe space/place", but I feel like that would have to be of utmost importance.
3) It could be used on a smaller scale I think. It might be a good idea to limit the time and or responses so the kids can get the hang of it. Maybe make what the "friends" are dissecting something simple, and from there get more difficult.
4) The main two protocols that I have chosen for my PBL are "roundtable" and "consensus". I chose roundtable because I thought it would be a good way for groups to get ideas down on paper, it's low stress, it's quick, and they can't skip turns. This will work out great since we also have to do PE. I like consensus because it allows both student-student feedback, as well as teacher-student. I think this would be good for my students to brainstorm what they know about FITT.
I love your idea for using roundtable with your students. I like the consensus protocol for the same reasons as you. I plan to use it for something similar.
ReplyDeleteHi Clark,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your suggestion of introducing the critical friends protocol with a simple project with shorter time frames so students learn the routine of the protocol before having to use it with a more in depth project. I agree with Taylor that your roundtable idea with students is a good one!
Thanks,
Dawn