By Lydia Smith, Texas
As an 11th and 12th grade English teacher in a competitive, all-girls Catholic prep school, I am always revisiting the following question: How do I help students develop critical thinking skills with depth and complexity? In my pursuit of making students independent critical thinkers, I turned to The Final Word protocol, and, with my students’ feedback, modified the protocol to deepen their interpretations.
Learning to Think Critically
Before turning to The Final Word, Socratic seminars were my primary means for having students prepare textual evidence and analyze that evidence in class discussions. Socratic seminars enable students to generate multiple ideas around multiple pieces of evidence. They are perfect for brainstorming literary analysis papers broadly, and I now use Socratic seminars before students write papers. Students love the freedom in the Socratic seminar, yet I wanted students to look at a passage and challenge themselves to interpret with depth. The Final Word structures a discussion so that a participant offers a passage from a text, interprets this passage, hears others interpret the passage, and at last has the final word on the discussion. The Final Word enables students to practice the art of developing analysis.
Trying on and Altering The Final Word
I first introduced The Final Word protocol as a seminar with half of the class. I thought the same energy in the Socratic seminar would translate to The Final Word. With 8-12 students in a group, though, the discussion dragged. Focusing on one passage for so long became tedious. My students were complying but not learning. When I asked students to give me feedback as I do after each seminar (What worked, what did not work, what do you need?), they reported missing the Socratic seminar. I needed to match the energy of the Socratic seminar.
Instead of using The Final Word as a replacement for the Socratic seminar, I decided to use the protocol as a step leading to the Socratic seminar. To increase the energy level in The Final Word discussion, I shrunk the groups into 4-5 participants to offer a better balance between listening and speaking. I went over the directions and put the students into groups, but before I could observe each group, they were done. They had rushed through the protocol because they didn’t know what to say – they didn’t know how to respond. They were still not analyzing a passage with depth.
During the next class period, I modeled the protocol with three students in a fishbowl. With the protocol projected on the screen, the four of us sat in the middle of the classroom, and the rest of the class observed. As we walked through each step, I explained to the class what we were doing and why. Timing was important. I explained why I analyzed the evidence the way I did. I provided a list of ways to respond in case they needed help. I explained every reason for the steps in The Final Protocol.
The protocol worked better. As I circulated among the small groups, I found the students looking at each other instead of wondering what I was writing (notes on what students were saying). They finally “got it.” I did have to reinforce the importance of timing each person. For some students (and adults), the timer prevents someone from dominating the discussion. But for most of my students, they needed to work on talking more. By talking more, students stand a greater chance of analyzing with more depth.
Students gave me immediate feedback. They reported feeling rushed to respond after the first person shared the passage and analyzed it. They needed more thinking time to respond critically and suggested building a silent thinking time into the protocol. Done. They also felt confined by the protocol’s structure, something we all struggle with in protocols. We trust the protocol, but sometimes we need to be free! I certainly did not aim to stand in my students’ way when it came to natural discussion about literature! In response, I built in an optional, though timed, open discussion after the presenter’s final word. The resulting protocol has met my original goal, but I will continue soliciting students’ feedback on the protocol.
Reflection
I hope to offer readers a tool to foster critical thinking, but I also hope to show the power of SRI practices on student learning. By using an SRI protocol and by stepping into the role of facilitator, transformational learning – a core SRI practice – took place. Students practiced the skill of interpreting a passage with depth and complexity. Because transformational learning ideally never ends, I know that I will continue improving and altering the protocol to meet my future students’ needs.
“The Final Word” Seminar
Adapted from the Final Word Protocol by Lydia Smith
Purpose
The purpose of this discussion format is to deepen your critical thinking about a specific passage. By working in a small group collaboratively, each participant will enhance her ideas, understandings, and perspective on the passage. Mark the passage and the ideas you like; you may return to the passage when writing your paper about the text. Best done in groups of 4 or 5 participants.
Roles
Facilitator / timekeeper (who also participates); participants
Facilitation
1. Participants sit in a circle and identify a facilitator/time-keeper.
2. Each participant participants comes prepared by having read a shared text, highlighting different passages of significance, and bringing ideas and textual evidence to share with the group.
3. The first participant begins by reading the passage she chose and explaining what it means. (1 minute)
4. Participants sit silently to reflect and process the quote and what they heard the presenter say. (30 seconds)
5. Each participant responds to what the first participant says by going around the circle. (30 seconds each person) Here are some ways of responding:
- Explain why you agree with the interpretation.
- Disagree with the interpretation.
- Offer an alternate interpretation of the quote.
- Connect that idea to another idea or another quote.
- Pose a follow-up question for the group to consider.
- Wonder aloud about the idea or quote.
6. The first participant has the final word by responding to the responses that she heard. (30 seconds)
7. Optional: Have an open discussion of everything said. (1 minute)
8. The next round starts – go back to number 3 above.
Debrief the Protocol (usually completed through an online survey)
What worked well? What did not work well? What did you learn?
If you have any questions or feedback for Lydia, she can be reached at lydia.smith@me.com. Feel free to discuss this and other topics in our Facebook group.
