AP Language: Socratic Circle
For today's first socratic circle we will be breaking into two groups: the first will be our "fishbowl," leading a group discussion about an article that discusses the debates of teens and technology usage; the second will be our audience, observing how discussion is going and how they feel about points brought up in the conversation.
After twenty minutes, we will switch roles, and group 2 will have their own discussion on an important article on this same topic, while group 1 live comments (see instructions below).
Instructions:
Audience members: in the comments section of this post, make thoughtful observations about the conversation taking place in the "fishbowl." Good observations will do the following:
- Identify when you agree/disagree with observations and specifically state why (ASR: Apt Specific Reference).
- Observe what specific group members did that helped to
- "propel" conversation forward,
- respond to their group members,
- and provide thoughtful observations.
Fishbowl members: students who do well in the "fishbowl" will do the following:
- Come to discussion prepared, having read and researched materials beforehand.
- Work with peers to promote a civil, democratic discussion, set clear goals, and establish individual roles.
- Propel conversations forward by posing and asking questions that probe reasoning and ask for evidence.
- Respond thoughtful to diverse perspectives, synthesize (combine) comments, claims, and evidence, resolve contradictions, and investigate meaning.
They seem pretty good at backing up What they are arguing with parts of their article
ReplyDeleteAsking discussion "propelling" questions
ReplyDeleteThey are taking a rather non-biased approach, and I think have a good overall handle on the article.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sam, if it's strictly research there should not be bias.
ReplyDeleteSome good back and forth arguments here, good points on both sides.
ReplyDeleteI think that Ian raises an interesting point with his argument that this article not trying to argue towards anything. This is probably just because they are a research place that is supposed to present unbiased facts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ian. Since it is a research center, it is unlikely that they have a bias.
ReplyDeleteI'm really interested in how they figured out people were more likely to see their friends at a place of worship. Sophie brings up a very good point, it's just results from a survey.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sophy in how sometimes completely fact based things can be made overly complex and that they are still just facts and don't always have to have a far fetched meaning.
ReplyDeleteTucker, thank you for saying that people still use phones that are smart, that is important to note.
ReplyDeleteAre not smart*
Delete1. I agree with Ian wanting there to be more information but disagree on how he feels the value of human contact is going down. I like how Sophie points out that this article is based on surveys, not a really opinionated piece. I like how Haley says that these are the results, not opinionated categories.
ReplyDelete2.
a. Ian gave the first summary of the piece., and then his opinion that much of the data was often common sense. Rothry gave what she believed to by the claim of the piece. Ian gives his opinion on the difference between time together and texting, is that time as valuable. Rothry brought up the places debate.
b. Ian and Rothry bounce back and forth. Stefan called out Ian. Amanda moved the talk onward. Margaret split up Ian and Stefan this time. Haley and Ian debating. Margaret drags in Sophie who had been quiet until now. Stefan tries to play devils advocate. Tucker informs Ian why the article is structured how it is.
c. Stefan observes how Ian is presenting the data to push his opinion. Happens again, they continue to argue. Ian appears to be focusing on certain parts and ignoring others. Sophie brings up how this article brings up the data found in surveys, and how this is the more fact based articles. Ian wants more than just the data. Most people want the why the data exist, not just the data.
Ian brings up a good point about who is taking the survey.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Margaret that because it is a fact based article it is hard to assign meaning behind the facts. Sometimes the facts don't have a purpose in an argument, sometimes they are just facts.
ReplyDeleteI like how Tucker brings up how the research center is a trusted source and should be a good place to find wide and varied data.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Ian saying that data is influenced by what the human in question wants the information to support. Humans are very good at manipulating data to support their point of view, no matter what the data is actually saying.
ReplyDeleteI think Ian very concisely summarized the article.
ReplyDeleteI support Sam's proposition that the article has no bias due to being a research center.
Rothery propelled the conversation often by introducing new points.
Hailey clarified these points well.
I agree with Margaret because I find myself in a similar situation here at MSSM. Phones aren't necessary for making plans due to our closeness.
I agree with Ian that school is a huge outlet for socializing and planning, due to the above point.
I have noticed that just about every survey generally ends up supporting the person who paid for it. Generally how data works, so I agree with Ian
ReplyDeleteI commented on the wrong blog. Really early is said "they don't need to make a claim to make their point"
ReplyDeleteGreat start
ReplyDeleteagreed
DeleteI don't feel like the group did a good job of giving an overview of the article for the outer circle. Alana gave a good introduction but nobody elaborated on it.
ReplyDeleteNot a lot of dominant speakers. They are talking together. Will changed the topic by asking a question and propelled the people
ReplyDeleteI think Mitchell made a good point that about how the article isn't really supporting phone use, it is just opposing Twenge and her article
ReplyDeleteMarc makes a good point. Things get phased out, past trends have "ruined a generation" and turned out to be a blessing in disguise.
ReplyDeleteShea does a good job at quoting the article and propelling the article
Mitchell and Zach are just having a casual conversation. They all seem to be in agreement about the different subjects. Entire discussion is very casual, not many disagreements.
ReplyDeleteMarc did a good job relating current happenings(blaming certain behavior on the a major person/thing), he used Elvis as an example for whom a past generation blamed for certain behavior.
ReplyDeleteVery quiet, doesn't know what to talk about.
ReplyDeleteUnlike our group, they are unable to continue discussing one paragraph for the entire time.
ReplyDeleteI liked how Humam (sorry if that's misspelled) used a quote to back up his argument. I also liked how Will brought the conversation back to the article and is propelling the conversation forward by asking level 1 and 2 questions. Mitchell made a good observation how the article is against Twenge, but it isn't for people to have smartphones. Shea made a good argument by connecting the thought that phones are ruining the generation to how people thought Elvis was ruining people. He brought up that people were reading more magazines rather than spending time with their family, and connecting it with how people spend time on their phones rather than with their family.
ReplyDeleteI liked Marc's comment about the generational similarities between the adults reacting to a changing culture both now and in the past.
ReplyDeleteMitchell and Will are doing a good job of propelling the conversation and introducing new points.
ReplyDeleteWill is being a good leader in this conversation by propelling it forward.
ReplyDeleteyes!
DeleteHuman brings up good point using a personal example.
ReplyDeleteMore talk about arguing Twenge's article than the article at hand
Shea is backing up his opinion with quotes which is helpful for the outer circle to understand the article. I also appreciate Marc making everyone chill out when they got loud and getting Jilan to talk :)
ReplyDeleteShea asked for what correlation meant and they explained it. Marc did a good job of calming everyone done and letting shea and jialan talk
ReplyDeleteI really like zack's point on how cellphones may not be the cause of depression but depression may cause people to use technology. It was an interesting take on the topic.
ReplyDeleteI like how Humam counters the argument that phones are causing depression by bringing up that people may use their phones because they are depressed. He made a good point by saying that the article he read should have suggested this.
ReplyDeleteZack, Mark, and others made a good point that smartphones can help people connect with people and feel less depressed. I agree with this.
There are four main people talking. No attempts to bring in quiet others.
ReplyDeleteretracted.
DeleteI disagree with Humams point about depression and smartphones. Twenge backs up that claim and it has been proven to be supported. Oftern something that seems to help, is actually doing damage. Its why, with any addiction really, its next to impossible to solve it ourselves.
ReplyDeleteWhile smartphones do increase the ability to talk to other people and this is good, it does make it harder if nothing outside the 'digital worls' is done.
Here is just one source to show the causation using people who have a gaming addiction. While its an extreme case scenario, the concepts and science are still applicable.
Deletehttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201402/gray-matters-too-much-screen-time-damages-the-brain
This circle is doing a pretty good job of making sure everyone is participating.
ReplyDeleteMarc switched the topic, yayyy! They spent quite a while on the last topic so... yeah!
ReplyDeleteMarc does a great job to bring up a new point and spread variety of conversation.
ReplyDeleteThe conversation kind of strayed from the specifics of the article talking about depression related to smartphones but I liked how Marc tried to bring it back when he asked what his group thought about the Twenge article
ReplyDeleteMarc brings up a good question about how reliable the statistics are. He brings up that kids may have lied if surveys, and I think this is a good thing to keep in mind. This suggests that people shouldn't just rely on statistics.
ReplyDeleteMarc brings up, and the group agrees, that Twenge purposefully worded her piece to make the older generations feel a certain way about smartphones/social media.
ReplyDeleteZach makes a good point, but it's also off topic
ReplyDeleteZach, although brings up a good point about Twenge's article, makes claim on her piece and not going into the article they read.
ReplyDeleteGO JIALAN! YAY
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Zack when he says that adults are portraying the idea that if you have sex or drink than you will die. I do agree with Marc that they are showing the negative effects, but people do not say that you will die if you make a bad decision.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree.
DeleteJialan and Alana get to talk again
ReplyDeleteSome of the examples that are created are really exaggerated and off topic
ReplyDeleteYASSSSS Shea! Staying on topic!!!
ReplyDeleteThe circle could benefit from making sure to reign in the tangents sooner. Better to save them for Pete's trig class.
ReplyDeleteThey have now officially changed the discussion from their article to Twenge's
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shea's point about the difference between the generations and he backs up his opinion with reference to Twenge's article. I disagree with Zach when he said that Twenge's article was using the title to give the smartphone a negative connotation. Will points out the Twenge's article is indeed credible which I also agree with
ReplyDeleteMAH DUDES STAY ON TOPIC
ReplyDeleteAlana made a good point that while arguing Twenge's article, it fails to show that pros of her writing as well. Go Alana! You got this!
ReplyDeleteShea makes a good point of steering the conversation back to the article. I do think that there is a lot of discussion about the Twenge article, and the discussion should be more directed towards the current article. Mitchell brings up a good point that the article didn't bring up the pros about Twenge article, which is important because it shows that the author isn't looking at Twenge article with an open mind.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to keep in mind is that while correlation is not causation, a strong correlation may imply a direct correlation which is as good as causation in most cases.
ReplyDelete