Graduate Teacher Program

Publications:
GTP Handbook / The Tutor

GTP Handbook

Facilitating Discussion

R.G. Billingsley, Associate Professor
Department of English

Copyright ©2002, Graduate Teacher Program

Teachers are often urged to shift their classroom approach more toward discussion or to set aside specific periods for discussion. And yet they often find when they do so that the "discussion" turns into a painfully tedious activity with students who are forbiddingly silent and unresponsive or who give brief and wooden responses. Such "discussions" often result in the teacher's lecturing in much the same fashion he or she has done before, posing, as well as answering, a set of preselected questions.

How can we avoid such deadly activities in our own classrooms? What must we do to have discussions that are really lively and fruitful? It seems to me that it is not enough simply to learn a number of specific discussion techniques; we must also look at our fundamental convictions about teaching and learning. Discussion takes place within the larger framework of the instructor's overall pedagogical assumptions and is shaped by those assumptions. If they are inadequate, any attempt at conducting discussions will be correspondingly weakened. In this essay I will deal first with the issue of adequate preparation in terms of general assumptions about learning and teaching, then offer a specific definition of discussion as well as techniques that follow from the general assumptions articulated in Part I.

Part I. General Assumptions about Learning and Teaching

We know that teaching is a humane art. It is done with people. Yet a variety of observers continue to report that teaching is all too often centered on a specific curriculum, or lesson plan, examination, text book, or even that "holiest of grails," a specific subject rather than the living student sitting in the classroom. Teaching must first, foremost, and always remain focused on students and their growth. Thus the questions we may ask ourselves every day, the questions that should direct all of our activities are: Will this promote the growth of my students? Do I know what growth is? Do I know what kinds of growth I want? When we have very specific answers to these questions, it is much easier to select a textbook, design a syllabus, fashion an examination, and conduct a discussion effectively.

We may not all agree on exactly what growth means, nor is it necessary that we do. What is essential for us as individual teachers is that we seriously and continuously query ourselves on this issue, and that we measure not only the student's performance but our own by this criterion.

In my experience, the surest and most effective way to keep yourself aimed at the target of student growth is to remember one essential concept: Learning and education start with a question.

People Learn When They Have a Question They Want Answered. The question is the heart of the educational experience. It is the engine that drives the process of learning. All of us can recall those moments, either as students or teachers, when the classroom was transformed into a very exciting arena through intense student engagement with a compelling question. And when a living question that seems relevant to the students is not present, real education is not present. Things may get memorized and mechanically filed in notebooks, but the exciting and transforming activity that drew all of us to teaching is not taking place.

A compelling question that transforms the classroom is hard to anticipate. We know what questions are engaging for us, but we can never be sure about our students. We have to be sensitive to areas of student-teacher differences so that we can make appropriate adjustments. Also, we must be aware that our questions may satisfy a number of different growth objectives. Meridith Gall (Gall and Gall, 1976) lists four types of instructional objectives that can be pursued in discussion; subject-matter mastery, issue-orientation, moral development, and problem solving. When we are fully cognizant of our objectives, we can most effectively select the questions or issues that can engage our students.

Teaching Involves Overcoming a Paradox. It seems to me that by the very nature of the enterprise, teachers are caught in a difficult paradox that needs to be taken into account. Basically, the teaching performance rests on a paradox because first, the teacher must try to set high standards of performance so that students can achieve the maximum possible growth, which can be very intimidating to students. At the same time, it is necessary to create a comfortable environment that nurtures student self confidence. We have long suspected that anxiety has a negative effect on learning. The work of Sieber (1977) appears to confirm this suspicion. Anxiety seems specifically to impair attention on the ability to remember (Wittrock, 1978). All of us have seen students so frozen that they cannot relate facts we know they possess. They are so terrified they can hardly even tell you their names. Such students are not thinking about the subject; they are worrying about defending themselves. Clearly, for such as person a discussion period is a total loss.

So what is the teacher to do? How do you make great demands on students and simultaneously enhance their sense of security and comfort? Logically it seems impossible. But fortunately, as with so many other paradoxes, what might not seem possible in logic, is quite possible in fact. Witness parents who lovingly perform these two acts with their children day after day. We teachers must and can do the same thing. We can do it much more easily and more effectively if we are fully aware of the seemingly contradictory nature of our work. Still it requires great sensitivity on our parts to fulfill both functions without one canceling the other out. We must constantly push students toward higher levels of achievement while simultaneously providing a safe, encouraging, and supportive environment for them.

Remember the Gap Between What is Taught and What is Learned. When we spend a lot of time carefully designing a syllabus or preparing a particular lesson, it is easy to fall into the illusion that our effort is matched by a comparable amount of learning. After all I "covered" that material. I "taught" that last week. It is necessary to remind ourselves constantly that it doesn't matter what we taught. What counts is what students learned. In the gap between the two lie thousands of student dropouts and hundreds of thousands of bored students who have learned, at most, how to second-guess the instructor and write hastily memorized material on an exam paper.

Failure to remember the gap between what is taught and what is learned is particularly a problem for those instructors who feel that they are teaching "subject matter." "I teach subject matter, I don't teach students." It seems to me that it a false dichotomy, in any case. Subject matter takes on value as it is related to human lives. Each should animate the other. The point is to close the gap, to make a meaningful connection between subject and student, between what is taught and what is learned.

As we remember that what we taught may not have been learned, we are compelled to solicit different kinds of feedback so that we can adjust our teaching performance. In particular, one more vigilantly reads students' faces when lecturing or conducting discussion, in order to measure their intake. Those faces can provide fairly reliable guides to comprehension. We become more aware that their incomprehension may sometimes indicate our lack of clarity rather than their low intelligence.

We need constantly to ask our students. "Is that question clear?" Do you understand what I am asking you?" Anyone who has observed much teaching realizes that not only questions but also many statements made by teachers are totally incomprehensible, although, to the teacher, they are crystal clear. The more we think about the gap between teaching and learning, the more we realize that our performances often are not as coherent and clear as we would like. The students are trying, often unsuccessfully, to read us just as we must try in our questions and more formal examinations to read them. It is sobering to think how bright they would think we were if they judged us on our ability to communicate. Yet when we test them, that is how we judge them.

Thus, in the area of student testing, there is also often a gap that requires caution and humility on our part. For example, are we really discovering how little a student has learned, or are we simply looking at the inadequacy of our own instruments of evaluation? I don't think these gaps between what is taught and what is learned, or between what students reveal on a test and how much they actually know will ever be completely eliminated. However, we can diminish them by being continuously aware that they exist and by conscientiously working to reduce them. Perhaps of equal importance, we will inevitably be more circumspect and gentle in handling students as long as we are aware of the inherent limitations of our art.

Students Learn from Behavior. We like to think that we are conveying the techniques and contents of a particular discipline, such as literature or physics and, indeed, that may be our ostensible subject. But, in fact, what we are primarily teaching are our patterns of behavior. As Bandura (1976) and Eelen and D'Ydewalle (1976) have demonstrated, learning from observing behavior can be very extensive. Far more than many teachers realize, students may learn behavior modeled in front of them more completely than any particular content. Your teaching performance clearly conveys your sense of the discipline, the joy you have for learning in general and that subject in particular, your attitudes toward students, and your expectations, values, and views of the world. It is extraordinarily important to bear this in mind. The subject you teach cannot be separated from your performance in front of the students. Like it or not, you are teaching, in part, yourself. Thus it is essential to reflect on the ways in which your gestures, voice, chalkboard techniques, and entire mode of performing conveys ideas and values. It is by no means an exaggeration to say that, what they see is what they get.

Teacher behavior is especially crucial in discussion situations because they are contingent on a premise, usually unstated, of equality among participants. In trying to answer the question, "What are the necessary and sufficient logical conditions for saying that people are engaged in the discussion of something?" Bridges (1979) postulates:

They are putting forward more than one point of view upon a subject.

They are at least disposed to examine and to be responsive to the different points of view put forward.

They intend to develop their knowledge, understanding and/or judgment on the matter under discussion (p.16).

All three of these conditions demand that the discussion leader consistently demonstrate a belief in the equality and value of all participants in the group.

Concrete and Specific Examples Are Necessary. All disciplines that we teach are formed around a coherent core of ideas. These ideas are largely abstractions, and they often appear to be particularly recondite to beginning students. Both you and the student need the framework of abstractions that constitute the skeleton, so to speak, of the discipline. However, the students have an equally strong need for specific concrete examples to flesh out those abstractions in order to demonstrate how they work in real life, in their lives. If the learning presentation is going to engage the student fully it has to meet both the need for abstraction and the need for concretion.

You should always immediately tie any idea you present to a concrete example, preferably an example that can be received aurally, visually, and kinesthetically. I once saw a psychology teacher lecturing on the subject of tension. In order to make the subject more real, she held up her hand in front of the students and then slowly closed it into a fist. She asked them to do the same and then said, "Now squeeze down as hard as you can on that fist and hold it." After a wait of about ten seconds she said, "Continue to hold it, imagine that one more stressful thing comes into your life, generating even more tension...squeeze even more tightly." After another five-second wait the students were told to open their hands. The compressed fist provided a visual and kinesthetic experience of tension. The release gave the opposite experience of release and relaxation. It was obvious that the instructor's concepts about tension were more fully and experientially incorporated by the students. We need to look for similar specific examples to demonstrate the ideas that we introduce to our students. Soliciting such concrete personal examples from discussion participants is especially effective.

Students are Strengthened by Acceptance. This may be the most important concept in this essay. Ideally our students glean from us valuable information, useful analytical tools, and meaningful values. What we often do not take into consideration is a factor that underlies--and is more important than--what we teach. We must consciously strive to strengthen the student by helping to develop a positive self-image and an increasing sense of her capabilities.

Without the belief that she can achieve, the student is permanently disabled, no matter how extensively gifted or broadly educated she may be from an objective standpoint. All of her gifts go for naught if she does not really believe herself capable of using them. Teachers are obviously in a critical position to advance or retard self-esteem. Once we have accepted that principle, the most important thing we need to remember is this: all students are all right.

This means that we always accept students and we continually let them know that we do. This acceptance can be difficult to convey because our concern for academic growth requires that we be critical of learning performance. However, we can be both supportive and constructively critical as long as we remember that the students are not the narrow spectrum of the academic behavior being observed and graded.

The behavior that we grade is just a part of them. While we may not always find the behavior all right, they are always all right. We never cease to accept them as valued individuals. A "C" or "D" student is always regarded and treated as an "A" person. We must demonstrate to students our belief that they can achieve not only because they are gifted and have unknown talents, but, as people, they are inherently valuable.

This may seem obvious but, like many of our deeper held values, under the pressures of daily life, it can easily slip from our grasp.

Part II: Techniques for Facilitating Discussion

The six points developed in Part I are all aimed at increasing our awareness of how to provide a learning environment that stimulates the students' questioning process. The importance of students having questions that they sincerely want answered is probably nowhere more evident than in a discussion. Discussions really come alive when students want answers and when it is safe to explore possibilities, i.e., when there is no "right" answer that they must discover.

At this point, it becomes necessary to define briefly what is meant by discussion. Perhaps the best review of the literature on questioning and discussion is provided by J.T. Dillon. He makes it clear that it is important to discriminate between recitation where students 'recite' what they already know or are coming to know through the questioning and discussion in which teacher and students 'discuss' what they don't know" (1984, pp., 50-51). Further distinctions are offered by Gall who characterizes recitation as a playback of information from student to teacher and discussion as basically an interchange between students involving sophisticated thinking and the possibility of attitude changes (Gall and Gall, 1976, p. 168). The following remarks are based on the definitions of discussion offered above by Dillon and Gall.

A discussion is a group process. It is essentially a voyage of discovery undertaken by informed equals. Anytime you are working with more than one student you are engaged in a group process, but the dynamics of that process are quite different when you shift from a lecture to a discussion. A discussion is no longer a simple back-and-forth communication between teacher and student. With discussion, where the objective is to elicit a variety of points of view, the number of combinations of exchange are potentially infinite; part of your job as discussion leader is to enlarge the number of these possibilities. You are trying to maximize the sharing of ideas and experiences. You want to create as many different combinations of exchange as possible. How is this accomplished?

Build Comfort and Trust. People in groups will give to one another when they feel comfortable and trusting. This seems obvious, yet all too often teachers attempt to initiate discussion without consciously trying to create an atmosphere in which meaningful discussion is possible, i.e., an environment of comfort and trust.

George Prince (1970) finds it useful to assume that each participant in a group unconsciously perceives the gathering as a competition; if someone else wins, he will lose. To the extent that Prince is correct, your job is to demonstrate a win/win model. You must show that no one's ego will be damaged, that energy will be directed only toward solving the problem under discussion, and that not only does no one lose, but everyone wins. A number of specific practices can contribute to the establishment of a win/win atmosphere.

Have the students meet one another. Make sure that they learn each other's first and last names. If the group is larger than 10-12 have them meet 4-5 people in their immediate environment. Start to build a community of trusting friends in the classroom. In addition to names, ask them to learn home town, hobbies, and special interests of one another.

Go around the room and check to make sure that they have learned some of these things. Let them tell you about each other. If handled correctly this will initiate a number of friendships or at least more trusting, casual relationships. Additionally, this information can be very helpful to you as discussion leader. It can allow you to personalize questions in ways that makes them more meaningful and easier to handle for individual students.

Make a seating chart so that you can immediately address students by their first names. Find out if they have nicknames that they prefer.

Arrange the group in a circle. The circular format changes the dynamics of the group immediately, because it gives everyone access to everyone else. Above all, it de-emphasizes your role as the teacher; the students can start to assume responsibility by sharing the leadership of the group with the instructor. You are having a discussion precisely because you want them to practice assuming such responsibility and because you believe that all have something important to contribute. A circular arrangement tends to reinforce this idea. It prevents any single individual from automatically and continuously being the focal point. It is inherently democratic and participatory.

I have to remind myself constantly that I am trying to engage the students with one another, not with myself. I must remember to de-emphasize myself because the students need to practice thinking, too. Most of their academic lives they have been watching the teacher think. This is their chance to think in a friendly, yet analytical environment of equals. As much as possible, stay out of their way.

Get People to Listen. Often we think we are listening to others, when actually we are just waiting for them to finish so that we can get in our ideas. In his exceptionally lucid discussion of the conditions necessary for effective discussion, Bridges (1979, pp. 21-26) stresses openness as a vital element. We need to be sure that we are truly open and attentive to the other participants in the group. Real openness is especially characterized by the capacity to listen effectively. Good listening is essential to effective discussion; it makes genuine exchange and comparison possible and creates a sense of closeness and excitement about shared learning.

You can encourage good listening by frequently asking students who are poised to respond, first to paraphrase the remarks of the preceding speaker. They must not only paraphrase, but they must paraphrase to the satisfaction of that preceding speaker. Only when the first speaker is willing to say, "Yes, that is what I meant," does the second speaker get to make this point. This simple tactic can be very effective in terms of really engaging people with one another; it is particularly effective in developing precise and meaningful exchanges of ideas and feelings. You will come to appreciate this strategy when you see students continuing to discuss with one another even after class.

Because this is often a rather time-consuming technique, it is easiest to use in small groups. If the group meets frequently, students will quickly grow accustomed to habits of openness and close listening, and you will not need to request that they paraphrase one another very often.

Your emphasis on close listening can be somewhat intrusive, at least initially. But it is an essential part of your role, as discussion leader, to provide the framework that makes discussion possible. Your concern with facilitating the process of exchange rather than determining right and wrong answers will serve to reduce your position as a feared authority figure. In addition to your function listed above, you support the discussion process by:

Clearly and consistently articulating the values of decorum, openness, equality, and mutual respect.

When appropriate, orally clarifying and summarizing developing conflicts and ideas.

Using the blackboard or other audiovisual devices to help identify developing positions and ideas.

Give Them Some Tools. What are the differences between a bull session and a discussion? One of the main differences is that people in a discussion proceed in a way that allows them to explore a question effectively. This is where a good teacher can really be invaluable. In order for students to respond in perceptive and effective ways, they need some analytical tools and shared vocabulary. Either during previous class sessions or at the beginning of the discussion you should provide the necessary ideas and critical terms from your discipline that make precise and systematic analysis possible. Give them a set of tools and then make way for discovery.

In my own field of American literature, there are a number of critical concepts that can be given to students and that can be employed with reasonable effectiveness almost immediately. I may ask them to keep in mind certain formal categories such as symbols, irony, foreshadowing, plot conflicts, point of view, recurrent ideas, and details of characterization. Or I may offer definitions of specific literary models such as tragedies, comedies, or epics. With some literary works it is helpful to give students rudimentary explanations of archetypal or historical patterns. They often respond well to psychological models such as those offered by Carl Jung or Sigmund Freud. Freudian interpretations of Hamlet invariably elicit lively exchanges, which can be disciplined by the shared vocabulary and conceptual framework most of us recognize when we hear such terms as id, ego, libido, unconscious, Oedipus complex, etc.

The use of such discipline-specific concepts and vocabulary offers a boundary for the discussion but need not constrain it, so long as the leader makes it clear that the objective is honest exchange and discovery. Students remain free to respond to the subject, whatever it may be, in ways that seem relevant to them, while simultaneously using analytical tools to draw precise conclusions they can share with others.

Help Students Explore the Question. As indicated initially, the heart of the educational process is a question. Yet determining the question can be very difficult. Even though the desire to have a particular question answered usually provides the energy that drives learning and discussion, the way the question is explored is of critical importance. Questioning can actually be counterproductive. Dillon (1978) points out the potential danger of direct questioning in discussion. Such questioning can quickly turn the discussion into a session in which students feel constrained to come up with specific, "right" answers. He explains: "The rule of thumb during discussion is not to ask questions but to use various alternative techniques. The notion is that alternatives will foster discussion processes, whereas questions will foil discussion by turning it into a recitation" (1984, p.55). So the challenge becomes not only one of posing, or even better, eliciting a significant question, but also of keeping that question and related ones alive.

I find especially significant Dillon's report that discussions are kept alive at least as much with statements as with questions. He offers a list of seven alternatives to questioning that seem to stimulate discussion:

1. Make a declarative statement (for example, give an opinion).
2. Make a reflective restatement (give the sense of what the student has said).
3. Describe his or her state of mind ("I'm sorry, I'm not quite getting your point").
4. Invite the student to elaborate ("I'd like to hear more of your views on that").
5. Encourage the student to ask a question.
6. Encourage other students to ask a question.
7. Maintain deliberate, appreciative silence (until the student resumes or another enters into the discussion) (Dillon, 1984, p. 55)

In my experience the seven strategies listed above, when utilized in an environment of comfort and trust, are very effective. Point seven warrants particular attention because I think it is the most difficult for many teachers to follow. Once a provocative question is on the floor you have to be willing to wait a moment for a response. Often inexperienced and nervous discussion leaders never really give students a chance to reflect. They will often rush from one question to the next without pausing for as long as ten seconds between questions. The work of Swift and Gooding (1983) illustrates that when teachers wait for periods as short as 2-3 seconds after asking a question, the quality and quantity of student response improve markedly. Watch yourself to see if you are actually giving students time to think about the question. Ask yourself the following questions:

How comfortable is the group? Have I really worked at making them comfortable with me and with one another?

How secure is the person I am addressing? Is it necessary to ask a direct question or might I try some alternative approach?

What do I know about the person I am addressing? Is there anything in their background or interest to which I could relate the query?

Am I constantly scanning the faces of silent students to see if they are engaged and thus might comfortably enter the discussion if called upon?

After waiting an appropriate period of time without getting a response do I rephrase my statements or questions? Do I check with students to make sure my remarks or those of others who are speaking are clear? Frequently, lack of response simply reflects lack of comprehension. Teacher questions are sometimes posed from a perspective of extensive knowledge that assumes equal knowledge on the part of students. Make sure that the question is clear to them.

Be Willing to Trust the Process. Remember this is a discussion, i.e., it is a group activity. You have to be sensitive to where the group wants to go. Often your students will be 20 or more years younger than you are, so you will have to listen carefully to find a common ground on which you can meet. But you have a discussion only because you are sure there is some common ground and that group interaction is the source of significant insights. By respecting that, you can relax with the knowledge that the students' questions are important and that, with appropriate guidance, most of their conclusions will be valuable. Be willing to trust the process.

In specific terms, trusting the discussion process means that you are able to (1) allow "wrong or unexpected ideas on the floor. In my opinion the teacher should rarely say to a student "that's wrong;" (2) step back and don't lecture, except very judiciously. This is their opportunity to practice thinking--you have already had your turn; and (3) point them to the text (or appropriate course materials) and to their own experience for answers.

To elaborate on point one, in the exposed environment of small group discussion not allowing a "wrong" response can be very harmful to student security and self-esteem. Rather, one should say, "Well yes, that is certainly one perspective but is it true in a real situation such as..." Or "Could you explain that idea in further detail and give me a concrete example where it works that way." Or "Does that seem to be consistent with what we learned earlier? Could you show us how?" Erroneous or negative ideas should certainly be confronted but always with sensitivity for the student's sense of self-esteem and always with the awareness that you may not really be understanding what the student is saying. Ask for clarification. You may be dealing with a very perceptive but poorly expressed idea. Ideally you encourage other students to challenge and clarify all ideas which are submitted to the group whether they seem erroneous or extremely profound. One of the key advantages of a discussion is that most often the most memorable critique usually comes from one's peers, perhaps not the most precise or articulate, but the most memorable, the one that students will carry with them out of the classroom.

In allowing the group to go its own way you may find that it has departed dramatically from your course, your subject matter, your agenda. In my opinion you have to be willing, in the short run, to live with that. It is one of the risks entailed in a discussion. One valuable result that you can always achieve, no matter how far afield the discussion seems to go, is this: The trust and comfort essential to subsequent effective discussions can be firmly established. Of course, even though you strive to make your role a subtle one, it remains nevertheless a critical one. As discussion leader, you can steer the class back toward the most appropriate topics of discussion when you can do so without violating the healthy group dynamics discussed above.

It is important to remember the additional skills you are developing in students through the use of discussion, for these sessions are part of a total learning program. You will see not only a growing sense of trust and cooperation but also that students are learning how to help one another, which means that you will see them learning how to teach. Thus they experience the joy of sharing while also reaping the benefit that all teachers experience, the sense of mastery over a subject that comes through successfully teaching it to someone else.

Discussion is Greater than the Sum of Its Parts. As you practice facilitating discussion with regularity and a sense of confidence, you will discover that it provides a powerful opportunity to foster student enthusiasm and student growth. Discussion is active and participatory, and group members stimulating one another can produce a dynamic and rich environment. You will see students whom you previously thought of as dull and mediocre really blossom when given the opportunity to participate in a safe, supportive, and stimulating discussion.

As suggested above, part of the value of discussion rests in the advantage of utilizing the energy and intelligence of many minds rather than one. But conversely, successful discussion is enormously valuable because it fully engages the individual student, giving him or her the chance to select issues of personal interest and providing an arena in which contending ideas can be observed and engaged. And most importantly the discussion format fully respects the student by encouraging him to develop and articulate an independent judgment, certainly one of the highest goals of any educational system.

Back to Top

References

Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976.
Bridges, D. Education, Democracy and Discussion. Windsor, England: NFER, 1979.
Dillon, J.T. "Using Questions to Depress Student Thought." School Review. 1978: 87, 50-63.
Dillon, J.T. "Research on Questioning and Discussion." Educational Leadership. November,1984.
Ellen, P., and G. D'Ydewalle. "Producing or Observing Response-- Outcome Contingencies in a Two-Response Alternative Task. Psychologics Belgics. 1976:16, 61-71.
Gall, M.D., and Gall, J.P. "The Discussion Method," Psychology of Teaching Methods, (NSSE 75th Yearbook, Part 1). Edited by N. L. Gage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
Gooding, C.T., Swift, P.R., and Swift, J.N. "Improving and Encouraging Discussions in the Classroom." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Baltimore, Md. February 1983. (ERIC ED 229 338).
Price, G.M. The Practice of Creativity. New York: Harper & Row,
1970.
Sieber, J.E., Neil, H.F., Jr., & Tobias, S. Anxiety, Learning, and Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977.
Wittrock, M.C. "The Cognitive Movement in Instruction." Educational Psychologist. 1978:13, 15-30.