Group Members: Haley Lienau, Donnell Rochelle, Hunter VanDyke, George Georgiev

Date of Inquiry Discussion: 2/18/16

Notes: I thought your group did a good job selecting a topic and readings to go along with it. Even though
you took a suggestion from the board, you were able to make it different by focusing on personality traits
and people who are good at and do many things/career change over time. I think this second article,
especially, tried to break up stereotypes or common (mis)conceptions about careers and identity. The
activity went well, but perhaps it had us draw too much on stereotypes of those occupations. Toward the
end, I think your group realized that you needed to question and challenge these ideas, but the class
wasnt as willing to do that. I think, though, it was something that needed to happen, and perhaps if you
were to ever do something like this again, questioning our assumptions/stereotypes could have been built
into the conversation.
Grading Rubric:
Quality of inquiry question/topic
(10/10)

builds upon and extends our conversation into a

new direction.
*Google+ posts revealed that your
classmates thought deeply about the
questions you posed.

Quality of texts/materials and

their use in your session
(readings, WitD, etc.) (28/30)

utilizes multiple, complex, thought-provoking

and ambiguous texts/materials that challenge
thinking and feelings.
*Texts were strong, but their use in the
session was not as strong. We could have
spent more time talking about the TED talk
and discussing our ideas of
careers/changing careers/ multiple careers,
etc.

Facilitation and Refection Preparation and Design of Class Session

Perspective (10)
10/10

Depth of inquiry-based facilitation

(20)
18/20

relies on multiple perspectives within the topic.

*each article brought in new
information/perspectives on the subject.
Facilitated discussion prompted us to
share our perspectives and how they are
formed.

engages class in exploratory talk or activity

centered on topic and does not lead toward a
singular conclusion or answer.
*most of the conversation explored our
assumptions about occupations and
dispositions that are most needed.
Sometimes the conversation took
information as is rather than
critiquing it.

Delivery by group members (20)

20/20

uses multiple strategies to engage class with

ideas, texts, and questions. Group members
all have leading roles in parts of the
facilitation, and the flow of the session shows
understanding of how activities work
together.

Group Score: 86/90

*the fow was pretty consistent. Group

members asked questions when it was
getting quiet. Perhaps more interaction
with groups while we were working
would have spurred more conversation.

Refection, individually (10)

shows awareness of choices in design of group

discussion/activity and can connect this
design to understandings of inquiry, using
texts/questions as starting points, and writing
into new topics together.

10/10

Final Score: 96/100