Discussion-based classes: challenges & solutions.

Abstract

Although discussion-based classes can be an effective catalyst for upper-level students' higher-order thinking, class discussions are often a source of frustration for faculty and students. Five components of discussion classes (students, teacher, content, assessment, setting) are examined in light of instructor goals to (1) foster meaningful participation, (2) create a learning community, (3) encourage student reflection, (4) design assessments to encourage critical-thinking, and (5) bridge the gap between teaching and assessment.

Introduction

Contemporary research on teaching emphasizes the value of class discussion as a means of actively engaging students in the process of learning. The discussion method has been found to be an effective tool for increasing students' mastery of subject matter, problem-solving skills, and communication skills (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Gall & Gall, 1990; Garvin, 1991; McKeachie, 1999; Nilson, 1998). Although discussion-based classes can be a catalyst for developing students' higher-order thinking skills such as application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom, 1956), they are often a source of frustration for faculty and students.

A common complaint from faculty is that class discussions simply don't work: students don't participate, or their comments lack depth (McKeachie, 1999). In addressing the components of effective discussion-classes, there are five interrelated goals: (a) to stimulate meaningful student participation, (b) to create a learning community within the classroom, (c) to encourage student reflection on learning, (d) to design assignments and assessments to foster critical-thinking, and (e) to bridge the gap between teaching and testing.

Discussion is not the only effective way to teach, nor should a class be focused exclusively on discussion (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999). Instead, discussion is a potentially valuable tool that is sometimes ignored or abandoned because of disappointing results. A framework is offered for examining problems and solutions in classes when discussion has been attempted unsuccessfully, or when potential negative outcomes prevented trying discussion.

Components of Discussion-Based Classes

Students

Students enter a classroom with expectations formed through years of educational experience. Before a teacher can find a remedy for lack of participation, it is important to identify specific reasons why students are reluctant to speak. Many students have an educational history of "received knowledge" (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tamle, 1986), passively absorbing information from the teacher but being unable or unwilling to contribute, a learned behavior for which students may have been rewarded in the past, earning outstanding grades in classes that offered no opportunity or incentive for speaking.

In classes that do not encourage discussion, students often adopt the role of "stenographer," sometimes called "banking," where students make deposits, to be withdrawn on a future test. Active, directed effort from both students and faculty is necessary to overcome students' "longstanding habits of intellectual passivity" (Gray, 1993, p. 70). One of the challenges for students is moving from a "safe" role, passively accepting and deferring to others' opinions, to an active stance, articulating and supporting their own ideas (McKeachie, 1999; Wilkinson & Dubrow, 1991).

From a student's perspective, active learning is risky (Garvin, 1991). Fear of embarrassment is a compelling force behind student passivity (McKeachie, 1999). Given students' concerns, discussions are most likely to flourish in classrooms that convey value in the process of interaction between individuals with different perspectives as a way to explore and evaluate ideas (McKeachie, 1999).

Inadequate preparation is another common reason for lack of student participation. Students have not read the material, or have not processed it sufficiently to make meaningful comments (Connor-Greene 2000; Karp & Yoels 1976; Burchfield & Sappington 2000; Sappington, Kinsey, & Munsayac, 2002). Such students lack the vocabulary and grasp of concepts to contribute to class discussion in a substantive way; any comments they make are likely to remain superficial.

Students attempt to explain their non-participation with the statement, "I never talk in class." Describing oneself in such a way is comparable to explaining their failure to complete a term-paper assignment with: "I don't write papers." Oral communication is a learned academic skill. Class discussions provide a forum for students to learn to analyze and synthesize information, formulate compelling responses, and articulate ideas in contributing to discussion of complex ideas (Nonwell & Eison, 1991).

Occasionally, a students' resistance to speaking in class may reflect severe public speaking anxiety. In that case, the student may profit from a course in public speaking. Students whose extreme anxiety doesn't subside after taking a speech class may have a public speaking phobia or social anxiety, and might benefit from counseling usually available at campus counseling centers (Kelly & Keaten, 2000).

Teacher

Teaching a discussion class is more unpredictable than lecturing, requiring preparation, confidence, and a thorough grasp of the subject. In a lecture course, the professor controls the topic and scope of ideas and is likely to receive few questions or challenges. In contrast, as active participants, students may develop the confidence and competence to raise complex and unexpected questions. So not only is a lecture class "safer" for students, it is also safer for the teacher. On the other hand, the unpredictability and energy of a discussion class can enliven both teaching and learning, building a richer understanding of the topic.

Because "discussion" is an ambiguous term with widely differing implications, the teacher must communicate expectations to students regarding the degree of preparation and level of sophistication (Christensen, 1991). Otherwise, students may perceive casual, uninformed opinions, and anecdotal information to be as much a contribution to discussion as substantive comments.

The attitude of the teacher has been described as instrumental in shaping a successful discussion (VanDeWeghe, 2003). Teachers who display open-mindedness, enthusiasm, passion, humor, and hold high expectations while allowing students the opportunity to make and learn from mistakes appear to foster high quality discussion. In contrast, sarcasm inhibits discussion and enhances students' fear of public humiliation (Dossin, 2002). Teachers can reinforce and support student participation by writing comments on the board, correcting misinformation or incomplete ideas with dignity (e.g., "Tell us about the evidence you're using to support that idea; I reached a different conclusion"), and referring to students by name (Nunn, 1996).

Effective use of discussion requires sufficient "wait-time." Too often, teachers interpret silence as a sign that "nothing is happening" (Palmer, 1993; Brookfield & Preskill, 1999). If a question is challenging, it will take students time to formulate meaningful responses; a pause of as long as 30 seconds can stimulate thoughtful discussion (McKeachie, 1999). In a study of instructor's tolerance for silence, Rowe (1986) found that the average wait time was three to five seconds. There are several effective ways to deal with silence. Specific techniques include: (a) brief free-writes, followed by asking students to read responses, (b) small groups to discuss specific aspects of questions, (c) student journals of their reactions to the reading, then reading an excerpt, and (d) posing a question and asking individual students or small groups to choose a side and defend it (Johannessen, 2003; McKeown & Beck, 1999; Valde, 1997).

Content

One of the main challenges of a discussion class is insuring a common base of knowledge. Bloom's (1956) taxonomy places factual knowledge at the foundation, followed by comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. If students read and prepare prior to class, they will have mastered factual knowledge and comprehension, allowing class time to be used for higher-level cognitive skills, actively engaging the material. An effective discussion-based class is neither teacher-centered nor student-centered; it is subject-centered: the content is most important (Levy, 2001; Palmer, 1998). Constructing a content-centered class does not minimize the importance of either students or teachers; it simply emphasizes their mutually engaged efforts around the subject matter. The instructor should have strong knowledge of the subject matter, and acknowledge variations in levels of motivation, interest, and ability among students, as well as confidence in students to engage the material. Both content and format are important factors to consider when designing courses. Textbook and/or readings are often the cornerstone of a course and the foundation for class discussion (Burchfield & Sappington 2000; Connor-Greene 2000; Karp & Yoels 1976; Sappington, Kinsey, & Munsayac, 2002). While students recognize that readings are a source of information, they may complain that the reading material is dull or difficult.

Students who see course material as "too difficult" may make negative internal attributions, interpreting struggle as their own lack of ability, giving up too easily (Seligman, 1990). Presenting the material as challenging emphasizes the need for sustained effort and may reduce the likelihood that students will give up prematurely because of their perceived inability. One of the essential components of a discussion class is thought-provoking, challenging questions. If a question is too easy, students may feel awkward. Furthermore, people are most likely to become deeply engaged in an activity when it is sufficiently challenging to fully engage their skills (Csikszentimihalyi, 1997).

Questions most likely to foster discussion are those that stimulate higher-order thinking (Windschitl, 1999). An information-seeking (factual) question may reveal a student's knowledge of the material, but is unlikely to serve as a catalyst for further discussion.

Christansen (1991) described ten types of questions, including those most conducive to discussion, including open-ended, challenging, hypothetical, questions of extension, and questions of generalization.

Assessment

For students to become actively engaged, it must be clear that speaking in class is a behavior valued and rewarded in some tangible way. If a teacher verbally encourages discussion, but subsequent tests only include material from lectures or readings, students learn to ignore discussion as a waste of time and wait for what they perceive as the "real" content of the class: the material on which they will be tested (Bol & Strage, 1996; Crooks, 1988; Gottfried & Kyle, 1992).

According to Elton and Laurillard (1979, p. 100), "The quickest way to change student learning is to change the assessment system." Course assignments and assessments play a critical role in fostering discussion by increasing the likelihood that students have the foundation to make meaningful contributions. Students tend to delay their reading until just before their test (Connor-Greene, 2000). Daily quizzes and journals provide more immediate incentives and rewards than having several tests over the course of the semester. In addition to providing a consistent source of motivation and feedback to students, frequent quizzes and/or response papers also give the instructor valuable ongoing information concerning how well students understand the material. Daily quizzes provide an incentive to prepare for class, focus students' thinking, serve as stimulus for discussion, and foster increased analytical skills (Connor-Greene, 2000; Connor-Greene & Murdoch, 2000).

Response papers provide an opportunity for a written conversation with the instructor and a structured way for student interaction with the material in an integrative fashion. Variations of response papers include: (a) journals (e.g., provide one example from your experience that refutes or supports the author's stance), (b) issue stances (e.g., assign or ask students to pick a side and outline an effective argument from that perspective), (c) professional application (e.g., ask students to outline a workplace scenario that applies the information), and (d) debate preparation (e.g., research the topic and identify compelling points on each side).

Setting

The classroom setting and atmosphere can either inhibit or enhance the sense of a learning community. The instructor may have little control over the physical structure of the classroom, but small changes such as arranging chairs in a circle can enhance the learning community and facilitate interaction (Leonard, 1991). Questions to consider include: (a) What can be done to increase comfort (both physical and social) in the classroom? (b) Do students display the "elevator phenomenon" (avoiding eye contact and not speaking)? If so, what can be done to increase their interaction? (c) Is there a way to rearrange the room to encourage eye contact and interaction? and (d) What is the energy level of the class when the instructor enters?

It is difficult to make a transition from silence in the classroom to engagement in animated discussion. Methods that help students get to know each other, such as using name cards, may help the class feel connected and comfortable conversing. Making an overt effort to increase students' interactions with one another reinforces the idea of the classroom as a learning community (Palmer, 1998). Discussion classes are most successful when students interact with one another as well as with the teacher, rather than being a collection of student-teacher dyads. Questions to examine and improve the setting as it relates to a learning community include: (a) Do the students know their classmates' names and are they encouraged to address comments to each other? (b) Where is the instructor in the room? (c) Where is the board, and how can it become a community tool rather than solely the teacher's domain?

Summary

In Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy (1961) wrote, "...each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." The same may be said of problematic discussion classes; there are multiple factors that might account for what goes wrong. A critical step in remedying a problem is to diagnose it. By examining components critical to effective discussions (students, teacher, content, assessment, and setting) instructors may be better equipped to establish an environment for discussion. Frustrations may be remedied with tools and assessments (small group work, daily quizzes, and response papers) that link teaching and testing.

References

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Bloom, B.(Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1. Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

Bol, L. & Strage, A. (1996). The contradiction between teachers' instructional goals and their assessment practices in high-school biology courses. Science Education, 80, 145-163.

Bonwell, C. & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (No. 1). Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.

Bridges, D. (1990) The character of discussion: A focus on students. In William Wilen (Ed). Teaching and learning through discussion. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tool and techniques for democratic classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burchfield, C., & Sappington, J. (2000). Compliance with required reading assignments. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 58-60.

Christensen, C. (1991). Premises and practices of discussion teaching. In C. Roland Christensen, David Garvin, and Ann Sweet (Eds.), Education for judgment: The artistry of discussion leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Connor-Greene, P. (2000). Assessing and promoting student learning: Blurring the line between teaching and testing. Teaching of Psychology, 27(2), 84-88.

Connor-Greene, P. & Murdoch, J. (2000). Does writing matter? Assessing the impact of daily essay quizzes in enhancing student-learning. Language and Learning across the Disciplines, 4(1), 16-21.

Costa, A. (1990). Teacher bchaviors that promote discussion. In William Wilen (Ed). Teaching and learning through discussion. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

Crooks, T. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices of students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438-481.

Csikszentimihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

Dossin, M. (2002). Why won't they talk? College Teaching, 50(1), 3.

Elton, L., & Laurillard, D. (1979). Trends in research on student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 4, 87-102.

Gall, J. & Gall, M. (1990). Outcomes of the discussion method. In William Wilen (Ed). Teaching and learning through discussion. Springfield, 1L: Charles Thomas.

Garvin, D. (1991). Barriers and gateways to learning. In Roland Christensen, David Garvin, and Ann Sweet (Eds.), Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gottfried, S., & Kyle, W., Jr. (1992). Textbook use and the biology education desired state. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 35-49.

Gray, P. (1993). Engaging students' intellects: The immersion approach to critical thinking in psychology instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 20, 68-74.

Johannessen, L. (2003). Strategies for initiating authentic discussion. English Journal, 93, 73-79.

Karp, D. & Yoels, W. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meanings of student participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60,421-439.

Kelly, L., & Keaten, J. (2000). Communication Education, 49, 45-57.

Leonard, H. (1991). With open ears: Listening and the art of discussion leading. In Roland Christensen, David Garvin, and Ann Sweet (Eds.), Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Levy, J. (2001). Letters to a young teacher. College Teaching, 49(3), 114-118.

McKeachie, W. (1999). Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers (10th Edition). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

McKeown, M. & Beck, I. (1999). Getting the discussion started. Educational leadership, 57, 25-28.

Nilson, L. (1998). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Nonwell, C. & Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.

Nunn, C. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: Triangulating observational and survey results. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 243-266.

Palmer, P. (1993) To know as we are known. San Francisco: Harper.

Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rowe, M. (1986). Wait-time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43-50.

Sappington, J., Kinsey, K., & Munsayac, K. (2002). Two studies of reading-compliance among college-students. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 272-274.

Seligman, M. (1990). Learned optimism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Tolstoy, L. (1961). Anna Karenina. New York: Penguin Putnam.

Valde, G. (1997). Promoting student-participation and learning through the use of weekly-writing assignments. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 8, 67-76.

VanDeWeghe, R. (2003). Classroom discussion of literature. English Journal, 93, 87-91.

Wilkinson, J. & Dubrow, H. (1991). Encouraging independent thought. In Roland Christensen, David Garvin, and Ann Sweet (Eds.), Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Windschitl, M. (1999). Using small-group discussions in science lectures. College Teaching, 47(1), 23-27.

Powell, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Recreation and Leisure Studies; Connor-Greene, Ph.D. is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology