CFG Protocols

Descriptive Review

Time: At least 40 minutes.
Roles: Presenter (brings a piece of work for review by the group); Facilitator (leads rounds with leading questions about the work).

Specifics

1. (5 minutes) The presenter gives a quick introduction to the piece of work, perhaps highlighting the major questions or problems with which they are struggling. They then ask the group members to tell them what each of them sees. They might be quite specific in telling the group what they want them to look for in the work (i.e. the underlying values and principles, the habits of the mind that are demonstrated, the bias or assumptions).
2. (5 minutes) The group asks clarifying questions of the presenters.
3. The facilitator begins the first round of description by posing the question: What do you see? or Describe the work physically. Or describe what you read as literally as possible.
   Reviewers respond in turn around the circle. A reviewer may pass. The facilitator takes notes and, at the end of the round, sums up what was heard, restating important themes and ideas that emerged from the description before going on to the next round.
4. The facilitator then frames each subsequent round with a question, calling at first for a fairly literal retelling of the work. Subsequent rounds are less literal and are more likely to move into assumptions, values, compromises, patterns, images, etc. The purpose for each round is built on the results or feedback from the previous round. A round may be repeated to obtain substantive responses.
5. Following the final restatement, participants are invited to offer suggestions or make recommendations to the presenter, and the presenter is invited share with the participants any new insights or thoughts they have had as a result of listening to the participants' "descriptions."
6. The facilitator leads a brief reflection on the process.

Guiding Questions

The questions selected to guide the Descriptive Review are critical to its success. When people are learning to do this type of review they seem to do best with questions that elicit literal description. Literal description questions are also important to use to set the stage for any Descriptive Review. Questions that include assumptions, identification of patterns, images, values, come later in the process. It is important that questions serve what is intended in reviewing the work. Questions that work well when reviewing student work may not work so well when reviewing curriculum design for example. Following are some suggested to help facilitators frame each round. It is a partial list and meant only as a starting point.

1. What do you see before you?
2. What do you see in this work?
3. What is being communicated by the student? Content? Process?
4. What skills/knowledge do you see in evidence?
5. What skills did the student use in order to do this work?
6. What did the teacher seem to expect the students to know or understand?
7. What did the teacher appear to value? 'Me student?
8. What were the teacher's expectations?
9. What 'in the work connects to students' real life?
10. What do we know about the student's thought process? The teacher's?
11. What about the work seems "finished?" This is somewhat evaluative.
12. Would you think this piece was a beginning or culminating piece of work? What evidence to you see for one or the other?
13. What evidence of authenticity do you see in this work?
14. What emotions are being communicated by the student?