Above: Partial portraits of John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison.
Artifact: Extended Analysis of Abolitionism Debates
Context
As I wrote in Artifact Analysis 7, debates, simulations, and other dramatic uses of the first person are becoming a revealing (if not obvious) method for implementing activities that require students’ use of the first person. In a particularly energetic recent activity, students prepared one of two sides of a debate in which they argued for either William Lloyd Garrison or John Brown in order to determine the “more effective” approach to abolitionism: violence or nonviolence. Students did not have a choice in which perspective they were to prepare, which added a fascinating twist as students had to negotiate between their own perspectives and those of the assigned position. We conducted the debates in a Fishbowl format, where six students—3 representing each position—traded arguments for 4–5 minutes, while the rest of the class looked on from a surrounding ring of desks, and took notes on the debaters’ arguments and approach.
As this was my first time facilitating a fishbowl-format activity, I was very excited to see it play out in a way that was anything other than a disaster. Since I am finally in the position of teaching two sections of the same class, I can try an activity 1st period, reflect upon how it went, and try again 7th period, either keeping the same plan or adapting it according to how the morning went. The personalities of my two classes differ greatly, and the same activities tend to go over better in 7th than in 1st—I have a feeling this is largely because I’m more confident in my instructions the second time through. This observation held true in the case of the fishbowl, for which the procedures were smoother the second time around. Additional factors are simply the time of day, and the chemistry among the students in the class. Seventh period is alive, animated, and various; first period is quiet, if not disinterested, and only a couple of students’ attitudes vary from a norm.
The activity reminded me that fishbowls are better suited for discussions than debates, but it worked well for the sake of demonstrating the process of argumentation to prove a point, where the full class could reflect on one case, rather than working in small groups. For the sake of consistency and alignment with my lesson plans, I will continue to refer to the exercise as a “debate,” although in reality it was simply a staged discussion.
As this was my first time facilitating a fishbowl-format activity, I was very excited to see it play out in a way that was anything other than a disaster. Since I am finally in the position of teaching two sections of the same class, I can try an activity 1st period, reflect upon how it went, and try again 7th period, either keeping the same plan or adapting it according to how the morning went. The personalities of my two classes differ greatly, and the same activities tend to go over better in 7th than in 1st—I have a feeling this is largely because I’m more confident in my instructions the second time through. This observation held true in the case of the fishbowl, for which the procedures were smoother the second time around. Additional factors are simply the time of day, and the chemistry among the students in the class. Seventh period is alive, animated, and various; first period is quiet, if not disinterested, and only a couple of students’ attitudes vary from a norm.
The activity reminded me that fishbowls are better suited for discussions than debates, but it worked well for the sake of demonstrating the process of argumentation to prove a point, where the full class could reflect on one case, rather than working in small groups. For the sake of consistency and alignment with my lesson plans, I will continue to refer to the exercise as a “debate,” although in reality it was simply a staged discussion.