Today, the discussion about discussion was cut a bit short, so I thought I'd give a bit more information here (and share the documents from earlier in an online location). I will hit a few of the major points from earlier and sum up some of what I didn't address.
Reflection on a Discussion
To begin, let's go meta. Starting from the premise that our discussions today about COMM 107 were fruitful (if they weren't, let me know so we can make them better), how did that conversation unfold?
1) I posed the prompt to consider what you wanted from the OCP this semester.
2) In person-person dialogues, everyone generated their own list of ideas based on personal experiences, areas of concern, and needs. Then the group was reconvened using an attention-getting signal (clap! clap!).
3) A follow-up share-out question was posed to the entire room.
4) Random responders interacted. Conscientious of others' ideas, many prefaced their responses by segueing from what another person said. Interaction did not always need to be prompted--people either patiently jumped in during a lull or raised their hand to indicate an upcoming idea.
5) The conversation took twists and turns, with sidebar conversations emerging. These sidebars, of course, were important side-issues that merited conversation.
6) Redirects--e.g., Dr. W admitting he took the conversation off-course--allowed us to return to big-picture questions; the cycle repeated.
What went well?
- We arrived at clear outcomes and ideas for the future of the course. Through conversation, people were able to build relationships from idea to idea, allowing the OCP to better see where there are common areas of need across the course.
- The partner/small group dialogue allowed for even the shyer viewpoints to be involved in the discussion--even if broadcast through the more extroverted voices in the room.
- People interacted amicably and respectfully--unless you didn't feel that way, in which case... tell me!
What was still a bit off that I should be mindful of before I facilitate another discussion?
- I noticed that some people talked directly to myself, Steven, and Dr. Wolvin, instead of looking at the group--why was that? Did the format of the conversation truly facilitate interaction among the group members? How could we have better set that expectation for everyone?
- A few people raised their hands a bit timidly and ultimately never got to share because while the facilitators may have noticed, others in the room did not and jumped in over the interlocutors. Those ideas were not shared, and could've possibly been fruitful to the discussion. How might I reinforce hand-raising expectations in the classroom to ensure that views are all equally represented?
Hypothetical what-ifs (from a less pedagogically effective alternate universe):
- What if we hadn't given the brief opportunity for person/person collaboration before we reconvened full group? We would have probably gotten some good ideas, but certainly the potentials for generating discussion were limited. Most likely, the more talkative folks in the group would've comfortably shared responses, but a great any ideas from folks less-inclined to share (for whatever reason) would not have ever seen the light of day.
- What if a bunch of blank stares had been the reaction to my share-out question? What types of probative, follow-up questions might I have asked to get people engaged? Obviously, in this situation everyone's got something to share (because you're all proactive and want help!), but in the classroom that won't always be the case!
- What if someone in the room kept jumping in when it wasn't their turn, or somehow dominated the discussion? How might I reduce that person's influence on the overall course of the conversation without upsetting that person or devaluing their eagerness to participate?
- Let's say a sidebar conversation wasn't productive. How might I have veered it back without rudely cutting someone off? Let's say you're a self-conscious freshman in college and I cut you off to keep the conversation on track--how might I make sure I do this without making your views feel invalidated?
It's these hypotheticals that I want to concentrate on for the remainder of the post.
Planning Ahead for Discussion
Great discussions don't just happen. It is important to consider, in advance, the possible avenues a discussion could take and the outcomes the instructor wants from it. Planning needs to begin from an understanding of how a strong discussion unfolds. Using a bunch of flowchart features in Word, I did my best to capture this structure below:
- Anticipating potential student misunderstandings or reactions
- Plotting out the structure of the discussion (when will we split people into groups or partners to generate ideas for full discussion?)
- Considering potential probing questions that can drive the question ahead
- Setting some loose "boundaries" for the discussion: At what point will we say we've veered too far off-topic and redirect everyone?
- Considering outcomes: What student responses are we "looking for" (but don't be too specific on this because the last thing we want is to play a game of "guess what the teacher's thinking")
- Applications and examples: Where should we incorporate ethical conundrums or hypothetical "case studies" to get students to apply ideas under discussion?
Let's get Concrete:
Consider how I'm teaching the complexity of communication on Day I. [I wanted to talk about this in the teaching meeting, but I'll address it here instead.]
As noted in the previous post, I will prompt the discussion by showing an over-simplified communication model and asking what's wrong with it. Right off the bat, I set the stage for a provocative discussion by asking students to think critically about something in front of them (teenagers love saying what's wrong with things).
If students don't react the way I want them to right away, I'll get more specific. "Look at this chart. Is this how you consume information? If I turn on a TV and you sit there, are you just absorbing everything that comes at you? As I talk to you right now, are you just uncritically absorbing everything I say without questioning me? Are you giving me your fullest attention and can you repeat everything I'm saying back to you later? No? Okay--then what do we need to add to the chart?" This is key when there's a moment of silence--reframe the question such that students can more concretely understand what you're after.
Once reframed in this way, I'll be listening for students to provide answers dealing with context, noise, listener perception, the channel of communication, the expectations we have for that medium. Based on these, I can drive deeper with questions that...
Recontextualize: How does this apply in a conversation, on the Internet, etc.?
Push thinking: What is affecting your ability to listen right now?
Foster discussion: He says he'd add something going on with the speaker to the board. What do you think we should call that?
Yadda yadda. We don't know what students will actually say--that's what's great about discussion. But I do know that I ultimately want to drive them to understand that communication is contextual, that it is process-oriented, that the "medium is the message" (channel influences communication), that noise is ubiquitous, that communication cannot be reversed. From this, I can craft questions; and the mere act of writing some questions down mentally prepares me to lead a discussion whether I end up asking those exact questions or not.
What about during the discussion?
Other questions become relevant while the discussion is actually underway:
- How much participation from one student is too much? When do we need to touch base with another student to ensure a broader sampling of students is "getting it?"
- How can we shift course (or know to abandon ship) when we've lost momentum?
- How do we draw students into the discussion without embarrassing them (as we discussed earlier)?
- How can we pit one or more students against each other to create debate and complicate issues? (Generating argument was definitely not a goal of our OCP discussion earlier--but it often will be during class time when you want to challenge student thinking. How will you do that?)
I actually can't answer these for you, since they're so case-dependent. But they're questions to be considering. As a graduate student or instructor, you're likely so familiar with discussions at this point that you have an intuitive feeling for when a discussion has veered from where you want it to go. So, the only thing you need to think about now is: What might you say in these situations?
What do you think?
I am blabbing too much. Here's what I want in the comments:
- Any veterans have tips on how to better foster discussion in class that involves every student?
- Any incoming TAs have specific questions on how to better cultivate discussion?
Lets' get some discussion going below!
Excellent orientation today, folks!
Michael
No comments:
Post a Comment
While I have allowed open commenting from anyone in order to ensure that people can participate even without a Gmail account, please provide at least a first name rather than commenting anonymously.