Hi everyone!I wanted to thank you, again for participating in Friday’s fishbowl discussion. As promised, I will sum up some of the points I made at the end of class. Please use this space to provide additional feedback, reflections, and observations on your experience with this activity.
In answering the question, What type of space did we create/participate in on Friday’s discussion section?, I proposed the following observations based on Elizabeth Moje’s article, “Powerful Spaces: Tracing the Out-of-School Literacy Spaces of Latina/o Youth:”
A space influenced by institutions: we are at the University of Michigan, which implies a relationship between UM and education/learning
A space influenced by time/temporality: our discussion section length (50 mins); but also, how did your observations/comments in class differ from what you may have thought at the beginning of the semester? Or, how have you changed based on your experience in this class?
A space influenced by things material/physical: your level of comfort varied (depending on whether you were in the inner circle or outer circle); differences between being an “observer” vs. being the “observed.”
A space influenced by identities: how was our space complicated by identity? Which identities did you prioritize? What assumptions were you making about other people’s identities? Which identities were less obvious or not really addressed?
A space influenced by power: your relationship to each other and to me (GSI vs. student); what other power dynamics did you observe? How do these power dynamics affect your participation in class?
Also keep in mind that these categories often overlap.
I look forward to reading your responses!
-Isabel
4 comments:
The "Fishbowl" allowed for a more personal space for those who were part of the discussion. I observed more of a flow among those who were discussing, although this may have been a result of the pressure of being under observation. People spoke to one another and made eye contact as opposed to looking at Isabel when answering a question, which generally occurs when in a large group discussion. I felt that the power in the discussion group was shared equally by those who chose to participate. I felt that the discussion was controlled by the students more so than when in a large group setting.
Despite these positive aspects of the exercise, I also felt there were some major negative aspects. The discussion in the center of the room was extremely exclusive, since the observers were not allowed to talk. I personally felt very much left out especially when I had an opinion I wanted to voice. There were moments when I lost interest in the conversation because I could not understand what the participates were saying.
I did not feel that identity was a big issue in this exercise, although I did feel that those who felt a personal connection to the material participated more. I have noticed in the past, as well as in the "Fishbowl", that people generally have a very stereotypical idea of what Latina/os look or act like, not taking into account that Latina/os come from many different backgrounds and do not all have the same characteristics. As a Latina, I have sometimes felt a bit excluded from those who consider themselves Latina/os in the group because I do not look like the "typical" Latina.
Overall, I found this exercise very interesting, however, I would not suggest it as a method to be used regularly.
Similar to Mia, I found both positive and negative aspects to the fishbowl exercise.
As some other classmates described it, the space created by this exercise was a lot more intimate than usual. It really put more focus on each individual, and more pressure to answer the questions.
Because those in my group had read, I truly preferred facilitating discussion in a smaller group, as people were less nervous to talk and it created a more flowing conversation about the article - rather than our past discussions, where it has been a strict "question - answer" theme, and people didn't really voice any other opinions or questions about the readings. At the same time, when people were discussing the second reading, it was quite awkward since it made it blatantly obvious who had done the work and who had not.
In regards to those who were observing on the outside circle, I understand why they would feel left out, but were it a full class discussion, I doubt that they would be so intent on voicing their opinion. I think allowing those on the outside to answer direct questions about the reading would essentially defeat the purpose of a fishbowl discussion, however if those on the inside circle are actually in a conversation, those observing could be allowed to raise their hand and add some thoughts.
All in all, I enjoyed the exercise - maybe mostly because my facilitation experience went well - and hopefully it encourages people to participate more in full class discussions.
I thought the fishbowl activity in discussion was an interesting way to study the concept of spaces discussed in Professor Moje’s article. What stood out to me was how in the same temporal and physical space we could have two very different interactions within the groups. I think this is a testament to how much a space can be affected by the individual identities. I thought it was also interesting how the spaces we created in discussion during the fishbowl activity were very different than the normal space created during a normal discussion section. It seemed that the inner circle became more personal than normal discussion while the outer circle was less personal than usual.
I really did not enjoy the "Fishbowl" method that we used in section a few weeks ago. I thought that it lent itself to people on the outside of the fishbowl dozing off and not paying attention, and those on the inside feeling uncomfortable and on the spot. I still believe that a more productive version of discussion is a simple conversation, facilitated by the GSI. If the GSI sits back and lets the students talk and occasionally throws in an opinion or idea that will keep the conversation going, students are more likely to react positively. Also, the Fishbowl technique made it extremely apparent who did and who did not do the reading which I thought was embarrassing for many people in the class. Classrooms should be an inviting environment where people feel free to express themselves instead of either having to keep their mouths shut or feeling like that have to speak for the sake of speaking.
Post a Comment