RUNNING HEAD: Instructional Design 1

Instructional Design: 6th Grade Collaborative Discussions

Tracy Howse

Towson University
Instructional Design 2

Section I
Instructional goal and learners

Through a front-end analysis of middle school learners, it is evident that students need

more strategies for collaborative discussions. This instructional problem is especially prevalent

throughout 6th grade discussions on fictional texts. Debates come more naturally to students, who

are conditioned to respond to questions with the “correct” answers about their readings.

This instructional design will focus on increasing 6th grade students’ proficiency in

collaboratively discussing fictional texts. Throughout any design process, including a needs

analysis and learner analysis is crucial to addressing the instructional problems. The progression

of problems seen in the Pebble in the Pond model (See Appendix 1) culminates in the following

instructional goal: students will be able to use strategies including turn taking and active

listening, classroom management, and creating questions to lead a collaborative discussion.

Front-end analysis

Analyzing needs and learners provides information necessary to designing instruction; it

helps the designer choose the intervention needed to achieve the instructional goal. The first step

is to conduct a needs analysis, “which helps determine what kind of change the instruction

should bring about” (Brown, 40). After a needs analysis comes a learner analysis. This step

requires gathering information about a learner’s approach to instruction through prior

knowledge, skill, attitude, and predisposition (Brown, 73).

Needs Analysis:

I have observed that students do not effectively collaborate in group discussions,

particularly about fiction texts. Allison Rossett’s 1995 needs analysis model uses data and

responsive recommendations to solve problems (Brown, 50). For gathering information, the

author states that one needs to understand the students’ current level and desired levels of
Instructional Design 3

performance within group discussions. It is also important to understand students’ feelings

towards the assignments, causes, and possible solutions. The categories required for gathering

the necessary data and student information are outlined below:

 Optimal Performance: The optimal performance coincides with the instructional goal.

Students should use strategies such as turn taking and active listening, classroom

management, and creating questions to lead a collaborative discussion. Students also

must achieve the progressive goals that lead up to the instructional goal (Appendix 1).

These include a foundational understanding of fictional stories, differentiating between

debates and discussions, understanding discussion strategies, and creating collaborative

questions.

 Actual Performance: Students are currently not operating at this level, especially

regarding fiction texts. They spend a majority of discussion time arguing over predictions

and opinions. An observation of a class attempting to discuss a text informs this

information. Surveys about what makes a good listener will also aide in this data

collection step (Appendix 2).

 Feelings: When attempting to understand students’ feelings about discussions, it would

be apt to give and analyze reading logs. Teachers will be able to see what types of books

students enjoy reading and, therefore, whether they prefer fiction or non-fiction. This will

also show how often they read. Reading logs clarify that the problem is due to a lack of

discussion techniques, rather than simply disliking the reading assignments.

 Causes: Regarding the last section, I have found that the students generally appreciate

fiction works and group discussions. Therefore, the causes of this design are not rooted in

motivation or environment, but rather a lack of skill.

Instructional Design 4

 Solutions: The general solutions for this instructional problem must be focused on

teaching skills. Those will be more thoroughly outlined in the “Guidance/Instructional

Strategies” section.

Observing and collecting this data will enhance the instructional design and further analysis,

creating a student-focused instruction of the overall goal.

Rossett also states that, once you have gathered information about these five categories,

there is a five-step process for conducting the needs analysis. For this process, three steps require

making instructional decisions based on the prior data collection.

The first step is determining the purpose based on initiators. For this instructional problem,

the initiator is “performance problems” and thus the instructional design should also address

possible causes (Brown 52). Step two requires identifying sources who have the information to

teach and facilitate these group discussions. These sources would be 6th grade English teachers,

reading specialists, and library media specialists within the school. The third step focuses on

gathering data through tools. It is evident that students will need a culminating discussion that

will give them an authentic learning experience through applying their new skills. Throughout

this process, questionnaires and various formative assessments will help teachers monitor

students’ progress.

Step four is performing an assessment of students’ needs. For this step, teachers will

discuss a text previously used in class and analyze students’ current successes with group

discussions. The fifth step is selecting the appropriate solutions, which for this problem, will be

rooted in the increased collaboration between students.

Instructional Design 5

Learner Analysis:

Dick, Carey, and Carey’s 2011’s model focuses on gathering information about the target

population through a list of information. This list includes skill, prior knowledge, attitudes,

motivation, educational and ability levels, learning preferences, attitudes, and group

characteristics (Brown, 80). Observing skill, knowledge, motivation, and group characteristics

will occur during the initial discussion. The reading logs will look specifically at their attitudes

whereas the discussion survey (Appendix 2) will look at their knowledge and skill. The final

learner analysis needed will be educational and ability levels and learning preferences. Since this

is designed for students within their English classes, teachers should have prior evidence of these

details, such as previous assignments.

Learning Context:

Smith and Ragan’s 2004 analysis of the learning context details two steps: instruction to

help learners reach the instructional goals and describing the learning environment (Brown 52).

Each step of the PITP model outlines knowledge and skills students must learn in order to

achieve that specific goal (Appendix 1). The learning environment for teaching this instruction

will also be based on Smith and Ragan’s supplantive and generative learning environments.

Therefore, educators will focus on supplying instruction about the discussion techniques and

knowledge necessary, whereas students will generate questions and lead these discussions.

Technology and content standards

This instruction corresponds to Maryland’s Teaching and Learning: English Language

Arts standards and the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) Standards for the

21st-Century Learner. For mdk12, I specifically used the College and Career-Ready Standards for

Reading Literature (RL) and Speaking & Listening (SL). The standards, progression of

problems, and application are outlined here.

Instructional Design
Technology and Content
Standard(s)
RL2
“Determine central ideas or
themes of a text and analyze
their development;
summarize the supporting
details and ideas” (mdk12).
SL1.a
“Come to discussions
prepared, having read or
studied required material;
explicitly draw on that
preparation by referring to
evidence on the topic, text,
or issue to probe and reflect
on ideas under discussion”
(mdk12).
21st-Century Learner 4.1.3
“Respond to literature and
creative expressions of ideas
in various formats and
genres” (AASL).
SL2
“Interpret information
presented in diverse media
and formats (e.g., visually,
quantitatively, orally) and
explain how it contributes to
a topic, text, or issue under
study” (mdk12).
SL1.d
“Review the key ideas
expressed and demonstrate
understanding of multiple
perspectives through
reflection and paraphrasing.”
21st-Century Learner 1.3.4
Progression of Problems
SWBAT demonstrate a
foundational understanding
of fictional stories.
SWBAT identify the
difference between a debate
and collaborative discussion.
SWBAT demonstrate
strategies for turn taking and
active listening.
6
Standard Application
This first pebble ensures that
students have a basic
understanding reading fiction
(RL2). The knowledge and
skills required feature story
elements.
The SL1.a standard
highlights the importance of
this information for
discussions. Therefore,
students will review these
details when reading the
fictional text, preparing
themselves for their
discussion unit.
For this pebble, students will
need to differentiate between
debates and collaborative
discussions. The AASL
standard applies to their
knowledge of various oral
formats.
Students should also be able
to apply their story elements
to their understanding of
discussions and debates. As
stated in the SL2 standard,
they should be able to
understand how different
formats (in this case oral
formats) contribute to the
discussion of the text.
The third pebble has an
increased focus on strategies
for discussions. Part of this
section is actively listening
to peers with different
opinions (SL1.d).
Instructional Design
“Contribute to the exchange
of ideas within the learning
community” (AASL).
SL1.c
“Pose and respond to specific discussion questions, such as
questions with elaboration
and detail by making
comments that contribute to
the topic text, or issue under
discussion” (mdk12).
21st-Century Learner 3.2.1
“Show social responsibility
by participating actively with
others in learning situations
and by contributing
questions and ideas during
group discussions” (AASL).
RL1
“Read closely to determine
what the text says explicitly
and to make logical
inferences from it; cite
specific textual evidence
when writing or speaking to
support conclusions drawn
from the text” (mdk12).
21st-Century Learner 3.4.3
“Assess own ability to work
with others in a group setting
by evaluating varied roles,
leadership, and
demonstrations of respect for
other viewpoints” (AASL).
SWBAT create collaborative
opinion and why questions.
SWBAT use strategies
including turn taking and
active listening, classroom
management, and creating
questions to lead a
collaborative discussion.
7
The discussion strategies
include designated
discussion roles such as the
time keeper and moderator.
This aligns with the AASL
standards on exchanging
ideas within the learning
community of the classroom.
During this stage, students
will create opinion and why
questions for analyzing and
understanding the text. The
standard SL1.c focuses on
posing and responding to
such questions.
AASL’s standard has a
similar concept through the
lens of social responsibilities
in a group discussion.
This culminating pebble does
include all previous
standards. It also specifically
demonstrates RL1 and
AASL’s 3.4.3.
RL1 states that students will
use the text to make
inferences and support
conclusions when speaking.
This is the foundational
knowledge necessary for a
successful group discussion.
The corresponding AASL
standard focuses on
assessing one’s work and
that of others in group
settings with different roles
and respect for others.
Instructional Design 8

Formative Evaluation:

Formative evaluation allows us as educators to test the approaches used to teach the

tasks. The formative evaluations used within this plan focus on usability testing. This format

allows educators to test how users were able to complete the tasks based on the end goals in a

controlled environment (Brown, 168). The controlled setting described in the usability testing

will be the isolated information that the students will eventually apply in the summative

evaluation.

Pebble one requires a foundational understanding of fictional stories. This formative

evaluation will incorporate usability testing and analyze if this instructional design effectively

explained these basic elements. A foundational understanding of a text is required for a

discussion and therefore the formative evaluation for pebble one will focus on the students’

abilities to chart these elements on a graphic organizer (Appendix 3). This assignment gives

students the opportunity to collect their thoughts for the discussion. It also allows the teacher an

opportunity to evaluate whether or not the instructional design sufficiently covered this material.

Pebble two requires students to differentiate between debates and collaborative

discussions. Similar to pebble one, the assignment will isolate this information and ensure

students acquired this foundational information. The data collection tool is a Venn Diagram

(Appendix 4). Since this task is designated to collect information on a specific topic, teachers

will evaluate the students’ ability to categorize topics like “opinions,” “why questions,” and

“predictions” under “collaborative discussions.” Students should categorize topics such as

“arguments,” “theses,” and “choosing sides” under “debates.” The center of the diagram should

also include many of the strategies: turn taking, active listening, time management. If students
Instructional Design 9

are unable to understand the difference, the educator will have to adjust this topic prior to

continuing the progressions.

The third pebble focuses on turn taking and active listening through roles such as the time

keeper and moderator. In this step, the plan is to teach these roles outside of a discussion.

Teachers will collect data through student-teacher conferences where they will discuss in-class

participation, behaviors during class time, and application of textual knowledge. The reading log

used during the front-end analysis will also aid the teacher in these conferences. During this data

collection, the teacher will take time to ensure students have gained the proper skills necessary

for large-group discussion, such as discussion techniques and application.

The goal of pebble four is to have students write effective discussion questions. This

section is still utilizing the concepts of usability testing by isolating the discussion questions

prior to the discussion. However, it also incorporates some of rapid prototyping by creating

prototypes of the end products. Students will be creating why and opinion questions that apply

their understanding of the story and discussions. This is their final preparation step before the

group discussion. The teacher will use a rubric (Appendix 5) when assigning the task to the

students and to grade the assignments. This will allow the educators to evaluate if the previous

steps were effective in teaching strategies and discussion questions and whether or not students

will be able to have group discussions.

Summative Evaluation:

The summative evaluation will be a culminating analysis of a change in skill, building

upon the previous four pebbles and formative evaluations. Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec wrote

about group processing in 1998. Group processing ensures that group members reflect on “their

work and interactions with team members,” helping the team improve (Brown, 175). For a class
Instructional Design 10

discussion, it is important to analyze the students’ skill and the classroom environment. This

model outlined by Johnson et al. has four steps including “feedback, reflection, goal

improvement, and celebration” (Brown, 176). The students will have a two-day collaborative

discussion on the fictional text that will incorporate each stage of this model.

The first step, feedback, focuses on giving students information about their participation

and successes within the larger group, which will occur day one through a fishbowl discussion.

The classroom will be set up so that there is an inner and outer ring of students, and each student

will have a partner in the opposite ring. Students on the inner ring will discuss while students on

the outer ring will evaluate their partners. Halfway through the class, students will switch

positions and the discussers will become the evaluators. Their evaluation handout (Appendix 6)

requires them to follow along and check whenever their peer participates.

Step two of Johnson et al.’s model is reflection. For homework after day one, students

will complete the reflection portion of the handout. This gives students the opportunity to reflect

on their participation and the group’s efforts. Once these students have reflected, they will be

able to complete the third stage of goal improvement.

On day two, the class will begin discussing ways to improve their goal. This can include

personal goals such as “more participation” or group goals of spending more time on each

question. This gives the teacher the ability to see if the ID process was successful and how

students are responding to the topics. Therefore, the teacher will be able to see if there were steps

that would have improved the process.

Once the class has spent about 15 minutes brainstorming newer goals, the students will

get into a full-class group and wrap up their discussion. This will allow students to work with all

their peers and give them a chance to work together as one large team. It will also give the
Instructional Design 11

educator one final analysis of the ID process at the end, making final notes about altering the

plan for the following year. Johnson et al. explain there should be some celebration at the end. I

suggest some sort of class-wide reward if the students demonstrate effective team work

throughout their large discussion.

Section II: Problem Four

Guidance/instructional strategies

The fourth instructional problem’s goals state that students will create collaborative

discussion questions, such as opinion and why questions. Students will work independently to

create their questions then utilize instructional activities including reciprocal teaching, critique

sessions, and cooperative learning to edit and improve their responses. The students will also

receive advice through “elaboration feedback” and “review feedback” methods. I will apply

Robert Gagne’s nine events of instruction to organize these instructional methods and the

feedback.

1. Gain the learners’ attention: Gaining the learners’ attention requires the educator to

engage students immediately. Since this is pebble four of a five pebble steps, students

should understand the overall goals. Ruth Akers states in “a journey to increase student

engagement” that a way to increase engagement is “making student choice the norm”

(30). Preparing students for this assignment, the educator will gain their attention through

choice of partners.

2. Inform the learners of the objective: The objective of this specific task is to prepare

questions for the group discussion. Therefore, the students can and should resubmit their

questions until they achieve the standards of the rubric. This way, they will achieve the

highest grade and be sufficiently prepared for the culminating learner evaluation.
Instructional Design 12

3. Stimulate recall of prior learning: To stimulate the recall of prior learning of the three

previous pebbles, students will participate in reciprocal teaching. This is a concept in

which students teach each other the content. Although this generally occurs in group

discussions, the students will do this activity in pairs and spend time reviewing these

concepts prior to writing their questions. Since this unit is based on large group

collaborative discussions, I do not want to incorporate a different style of discussions

right before the summative evaluation of the design process and final learner analysis.

4. Present the stimulus: Presenting the stimulus for this assignment will occur through

examples. At this point in the PITP model, students understand the foundations of

fictional stories, collaborative discussions, and conversation management. Therefore,

they are familiar with how the questions should influence the overall discussion, but have

not practiced creating their own to date. This problem-based learning requires students to

take this open-ended topic of fictional stories and incite others to participate. Giving

students examples of successful questions will help stimulate their questions.

5. Provide guidance for the learners: The guidance for the learners will occur through the

educators’ rubric (Appendix 5). After seeing these examples of questions, the rubric will

allow them to check the effectiveness of their discussion questions. This guidance is

critical for an open-ended assignment in that it will allow students to stay on track.

6. Elicit learner performance: The instructional activity of critique sessions will elicit

learner performance. In this fashion, students will offer suggestions and praises regarding

their partner’s questions. Students will be able to analyze if their peers successfully

accomplished the objectives from the rubric, thus increasing their analysis of discussion
Instructional Design 13

questions.. This peer review portion prior to submitting the assignment will ensure the

students submit their best work.

7. Provide feedback: Feedback for instructional problem will take the form of elaboration

feedback and immediate feedback. Wendy Jaehing and Matthew Miller state in their

article “Feedback types in programmed instruction: A systematic review” that elaboration

feedback “tells the learner why an answer is incorrect or why the correct answer is

correct” and gives students the opportunity to increase understanding (224). Studies have

found this type of feedback to be effective for students. This instructional design process

also provides the instructional delivery of “providing immediate feedback to both

students and the instructors.” The rubric used for this section is further explained in the

Learner Evaluation as a part of immediate feedback.

8. Assess learner performance: Students must be able to create opinion or why questions

that use the text to inspire connections and discussion. The educators will use the rubric

(Appendix 5) to evaluate students based on their current ability to create questions.

Students will be graded on content, connections, and grammar, ensuring that their

discussion questions make sense, use text information, and give opportunities for

connections. Students will be graded at this portion of pebble four, but may continue to

resubmit the assignment to increase their grade and better prepare for the discussion.

9. Enhance retention and transfer: As stated in stage eight, students may resubmit their

assignment to increase their grade. The instructional activity utilized here is cooperative

learning, which will be especially effective after the stage six “critique session.” Students

will work together to improve their discussion questions through analyzing the teacher’s

feedback and collaboration. This method is review feedback, which requires students to
Instructional Design 14

continue responding until they have achieved the correct answer. Jaehing and Miller

claim that this continuation of instruction may also function as reinforcement (227).

Therefore, students will retain the change in skill and will be able to create more effective

discussion questions in the future.

The plan focuses on the supplantive and generative learning environment suggested by Smith

and Ragan (2005), as stated in the Learning Context section. This section is more specifically

generative learning, in that the students will be creating text-based discussion questions, rather

than answering the teacher’s questions about the text.

Learner Evaluation

In pebble four, this plan is evaluating a change in skill through writing discussion

questions. The intended skill is to increase proficiency in writing collaborative discussion

questions that incorporate details from the text and spark responses. This is not a change in

knowledge because students are not being tested on their knowledge of the text, nor is it a change

in their attitude about the text. Students are being evaluated on their ability to take the

information from the text and present supported opinion or why questions.

The data collection instrument suited for this will be a rubric (Appendix 5). This rubric is

critical to the formative evaluation step, because it allows the teacher to analyze the ID process.

However, it will also be used specifically for the learner evaluation when looking at whether the

students can effectively create questions for their class discussions. This is a category of

instructional delivery is “providing immediate feedback to both students and the instructors.”

Brown states that students and instructors can “communicate with each other in a way that

allows them to adjust their activities according to feedback received” (Brown, 110). Thus, just as

the rubrics can provide guidance and academic feedback for students, they can contribute to

analyzing the instructional design process.

Instructional Design 15

References

Akers, Ruth (2017). “A journey to increase student engagement.” Technology & Engineering

Teacher, 76(5), 28-32. Retrieved from http://proxy-

tu.researchport.umd.edu/login?ins=tu&url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct

=true&db=tfh&AN=120774321&site=eds-live&scope=site

American Association of School Librarians (2007). “Standards for the 21st-Century learner.”

Retrieved from

http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/guidelinesandstandards/learningsta

ndards/AASL_LearningStandards.pdf

Brown, Abbie H., & Green, Timothy D. (2016). The essentials of instructional design:

Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice (3rd ed.). New York:

Routledge.

Jaehing, Wendy, & Miller, Matthew L. (2007). Feedback types in programmed instruction: A

systematic review. The Psychological Record, 57, 219-232. Retrieved from http://proxy-

tu.researchport.umd.edu/login?ins=tu&url=http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-

tu.researchport.umd.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=24658186&site=eds-

live&scope=site

Maryland State Department of Education (2014). “Maryland college and career ready curriculum

framework: Speaking and listening: Grades 6 through 8.” Retrieved from

http://mdk12.msde.maryland.gov/share/frameworks/CCSC_Speaking_Listening_gr6-

8.pdf

Maryland State Department of Education (2014). “Maryland college and career ready curriculum

framework: Reading literature: Grades 6 through 8.” Retrieved from

Instructional Design 16

http://mdk12.msde.maryland.gov/share/frameworks/MDCCRS_Reading_Literature_gr6-

8.pdf
 Instructional Design 17

Appendix 1

Pebbles Project Graphic Organizer

Tracy Howse

Instructional Problem: 6th grade students have difficulty discussing fictional texts.

Instructional Goal: Students will be able to use strategies including turn taking and active
listening, classroom management, and creating questions to lead a collaborative discussion.

Guidance
Provided Learners: 6th Graders

SWBAT use
strategies including
SWBAT SWBAT turn taking and
SWBAT SWBAT create
identify the demonstrate active listening,
demonstrate a collaborative
difference strategies for classroom
foundational discussion
between a turn taking and management, and
Progression understanding questions, such as
debate and active creating questions to
of Problems of fictional opinion and why
collaborative listening. lead a collaborative
stories. questions.
discussion discussion.

P1 K P2 K P3 K P4 K & S End P K & S

Knowledge: Knowledge: Knowledge: Knowledge: Knowledge:

Know that Know that in a Know that Know that Know how to
foundational debate, the goal collaborative opinion questions actively listen/
elements of a is to defend one’s discussions can do not have take turns during
story fuel a position/stance be fostered “correct” a conversation.
conversation. using support through various answers.
from the story. roles such as Know how to
Know basic time keeper and Know that keep time and
elements of a Know that in a moderator. collaborative monitor for a
story. collaborative questions help discussion.
discussion, the Know that the analyze and
Skills: goal is to use time keeper understand the Skills:
Be able to evidence from focuses on text. Be able to apply
demonstrate an the story and keeping the story elements to
understanding joint knowledge conversation on Know that discussing a
and retention of to further an track. collaborative fiction story.
fiction stories. understanding of questions go
the text. Know that the beyond asking Be able to
Be able to moderator about explain the
explain the focuses on information difference
Instructional Design 18

elements of a Know the facilitating within the story, between

story, including appropriate times participation. but need to discussions and
setting, for each type of include details debates.
characters, discussion. Know that all from the text.
sequence, and participants are Be able to write
conflict. Skills: responsible their opinion
Be able to own Skills: questions.
Be able to map explain the participation, Be able to create
the story plot in difference active listening, opinion-based Be able to
terms of between a debate and question. collaborate with
exposition, rising and a preparedness. peers who hold
action, climax, collaborative Be able to apply other opinions.
falling action, discussion. Skills: basic story
and resolution. Be able to elements to Be able to
Be able to apply explain the roles creating explain why
elements from a in a collaborative discussion discussions are
story towards discussion. questions. important to
their discussion. reading and
Be able to Be able to analyzing fiction
Be able to explain how collaborate with texts.
explain the distinct roles can peers for sharing
appropriate times support opinions.
for debates and collaboration.
discussions.
Be able to
effectively model
being a time
keeper and
moderator

Be able to
demonstrate
techniques for
taking turns
within a
discussion.

Be able to
demonstrate
active listening
skills, including
listening to other
opinions.
Instructional Design 19

Appendix 2
Student Survey
1. After reading an assignment, do you prefer to…

a. Answer questions

b. Discuss with the class

c. Do a “free write”

2. Do you prefer…

a. Individual presentations

b. Discussing in small groups

c. Whole-class discussions

Please write some important features of a group discussion:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

How can you insure everyone gets a turn to speak?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
Instructional Design 20

How do you manage time in a discussion?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

What is the difference between a discussion and a debate?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
 Instructional Design 21

Appendix 3
Story Elements
Name: ___________________________________ Date: __________________
Directions: Outline the story elements. Then take notes for a classroom discussion.

Climax:

Exposition: Resolution:

Setting:

Characters:
Instructional Design 22

Conflict:

Questions:

Additional Notes:
Instructional Design 23

Appendix 4
Venn Diagram: Collaborative Discussions vs. Debates
Name: ___________________________________ Date: __________________
Directions: List similarities and differences between Collaborative Discussions and Debates.
Write “Collaborative Discussion” features on it’s their side of the diagram and “Debates” on the
other side. Write the similarities in the middle.

Collaborative Discussions Debates

Instructional Design 24

Appendix 5
Discussion Question Rubric
Name: ___________________________________ Date: __________________
Directions: Create three questions (opinion or why questions) for our class discussion. They each
be graded using the following rubric:
3- Excellent 2- Average 1- Below Average

Content The question draws The question uses The question is not
from the text and minimal elements related to the text.
use elements from from the text.
the story. You do not as an
You ask an opinion opinion or why
You ask an opinion or why question. question.
or why question.
Connections The question The question The question asks
connects different connects different about one fact
parts of the text. parts of the text. within the story,
rather than inspiring
The question gives The question is too conversation.
others the specific.
opportunities to
make connections.
Grammar There are no There is one There are multiple
grammatical grammatical grammatical
mistakes that affect mistake. mistakes and is
understanding. difficult to
understand.
Instructional Design 25

Appendix 6
Group Fishbowl Discussion Observation
Who Spoke: ________________________ Who Evaluated: ________________________
Directions: Write your name next to “Who Spoke” then exchange papers with your partner.
Evaluate your partner when they are part of the group discussion. Every time your partner
participates, place a check in the appropriate box.
Makes an original comment

Quotes or paraphrases the text

Asks a follow-up question

Responds to another student’s question

HOMEWORK: After day-one of discussions, answer the following questions

What are your thoughts about this feedback?

How well did you collaborate with others?

What do you need to work on tomorrow?

Additional Thoughts: