Public dialogue series as service-learning.

Abstract

This article explores the incorporation of a public dialogue series (PDS) as a service-learning component in a small group communication class. During a PDS, community members join small dialogue groups to discuss issues, learn about one another, and work towards a common goal; in this case, to strengthen community relationships in the wake of 9/11. Participation in the PDS proved to be beneficial for the students as they studied and practiced small group communication in an applied, democratic setting.

Introduction

Although employers recognize the importance of excellent group communication skills, students may not see the benefit of learning in teams and often complain about group work (Payne & Monk-Turner, 2006). To counteract this belief, we included a service-learning component in a small group communication course that not only reinforced the theory and skills discussed in class but also exposed students to a diverse array of individuals from the community.

The students participated in a community-wide public dialogue series (PDS), comprised of 150 participants from different backgrounds and viewpoints to discuss the topic, "Building Communities After 9/11." It was through small group dialogue, curricular structure, and facilitator encouragement that participants learned about one another as they worked towards solving problems in the community. Based on our experience, we believe that the PDS was an ideal way for students to examine and practice small group communication in an applied, democratic setting.

The Case of "Building Bridges after 9/11" A strong democracy is contingent upon informed, active citizens who can act on public judgment rather than public opinion. Daniel Yankelovich (1991) defines public judgment as an enlightened opinion formulated through dialogue, engagement, and the consideration of multiple perspectives. For Yankelovich, one of the best ways to promote democracy is to encourage public deliberation of controversial issues.

Jurgen Habermas (1989) offers a critical theory of public deliberation that served as a background and context for the work of the PDS. According to Habermas, a robust democracy is contingent upon the existence of a public sphere where citizens can participate in civic life and debate public issues. James Bohman (1996) defines public deliberation as a cooperative activity where individuals with competing opinions use the art of dialogue to resolve controversial problems. James Fishkin (1995) further explains that deliberation is a good way to engage citizens in governmental issues to reach a collective decision.

With this in mind, program coordinators from Colorado State University and the city of Fort Collins, Colorado organized a university-community organization committee consisting of faculty and administrators, community activists, and leaders of community-based organizations. After surveying several members of the community, we realized that people still wanted to talk about how the events surrounding 9/11 relate to current world affairs and the treatment of minorities in the community. Thus, the topic, "Building Strong Communities After 9/11," was intended to encourage dialogue on how residents should respond to the impending war in the Middle East. We turned to the Study Circles Resource Center, a non-profit organization committed to promoting dialogue in schools, communities and universities, to find a curriculum guide to help structure the small group dialogue sessions (i.e., the study circles). We chose "Facing the future: How should we move forward after September 11?" as a model for our PDS, with the early sessions focused on sharing experiences and reactions to 9/11, followed by discussions of what could be done to move forward into the future (Study Circle Resources Center, 2002). The culmination of the 6-week event was an action forum, where participants and community leaders joined together to solve the problems identified in the study circles.

In order to recruit a diverse group of participants, we placed newspaper advertisements inviting members of the community to participate, sent personal correspondence to members of local community groups, and mailed fliers to local schools, colleges and universities, and organizations. We recruited facilitators in a similar manner, relying more heavily on personal communication to help address any concerns the potential facilitators may have had.

Six weeks prior to the series kick-off, committee members held a 6-hour training session for those who volunteered to facilitate the 15 study circles. During the training, participants discussed and practiced communication strategies for the small group discussions that would encourage participants to find common ground (e.g., reflecting skills, question-asking techniques), understand multiple perspectives and, ultimately, take action steps toward making the community a better place to live. It also gave us an opportunity to see who could commit to the dialogue process versus those individuals who seemed to have an agenda of their own. In fact, we asked ten individuals to reconsider being facilitators, and instead voice their opinions as participants. Most of the people with whom we spoke agreed, leaving us with 30 dedicated facilitators (two per study circle) to guide the small group discussions.

Our experience with the PDS revealed the impact that study circles can have on students, community members, and potentially the community itself. Participants reported that they felt more connected to one another and to the community than they did prior to the series. One student said that he was "moved to tears" by what he heard in the study circle sessions, and decided to further increase his understanding of the problem so he could help decrease prejudice in the community. Participants also created several action plans designed to address the concerns raised during the dialogue series, such as finding a sister city in the Middle East or promoting an international film series, and shared these plans with decision-makers in the community to help insure their implementation.

Using a PDS as Service-Learning

In order to help instructors who want to incorporate a PDS in their course, we offer a 6-step guide similar to Pearce and Pearce's (2001) multi-step guide of how to start a school-wide dialogue program. In this section, we discuss how we implemented each step and evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts. At the conclusion of this section, we offer further advice to instructors based on our experience before, during, and after the PDS.

Step One

Getting Involved. Service-learning courses often require extra work on the part of the instructor. When incorporating a PDS into a class, this extra work includes getting involved with the planning and implementation of the event. We started planning for the PDS several months in advance, which helped us to troubleshoot potential problems that could arise in the class. For example, during committee discussions about scheduling of the study circle sessions, it was clear that we had to coordinate the schedules of nearly 200 individuals. As a result, we decided to create in-class groups based on the students' availability outside of class. Then, we placed groups into a study circle with similar scheduling parameters. Unfortunately, several of the students' schedules changed throughout the semester, thereby requiring two of the groups to be split into different study circles (i.e., two group members in one study circle, the other three members in another). While this division did not interfere with the students' assignments per se, it added additional scheduling challenges for group members to meet outside of class.

Step Two

Integrating the Objectives. The second step is to clearly integrate the service-learning experience into the course objectives. Our small group course had three goals.

First, students were to learn and practice appropriate communication skills in a small group setting. Because a PDS is based on small-group interaction and problem-solving, it offered the ideal way for students to utilize the skills they learned in class, such as effective problem-solving techniques, supportive communication behaviors, empathic listening skills, and collaborative conflict management strategies (Beebe & Masterson, 2003). For instance, students found that active listening helped them actually "hear" from people of the Muslim faith and understand the complexity of the current situation in Iraq. Students also found it frustrating to be faced with stereotypes of their own (e.g., "college students do not care about what is happening in the world around them"). Thus, they tried to dispel these notions so they would not interfere in the dialogue process. In these instances, involvement in the PDS encouraged students to respect differences and cope with difficult circumstances in the dialogue process (Pearce & Pearce, 2001).

Second, students were to recognize, apply, and critique theory and concepts relevant to small group interaction. Once again, the PDS provided an excellent way for students to evaluate small group theory in an applied setting. Indeed, one of the defining aspects of both small group communication and study circles is a shared common purpose or goal (Beebe & Masterson, 2003). One group observed that the facilitators in their study circle failed to clarify the goals of the sessions. As a result, the students felt that the discussions went off topic, and that the study circle participants were less committed to the meetings. This experience clearly demonstrated why having a clear and elevating goal is an essential part of successful group work.

Third, students were to utilize critical thinking skills through self-reflection and analysis. Through journaling, students critically examined their own communication behaviors in both the in-class groups and the study circles. One student, who prided herself as being an excellent listener, realized that her listening skills faltered when faced with opinions starkly different from her own. Another student recognized that her silence actually took away from the group's goal of achieving understanding. Because she had a different opinion from the rest of her study circle, she felt that her silence would keep harmony in the group. When the facilitators encouraged her to be more involved, she found that voicing her opinions increased her commitment to the group without causing harm to her study circle. Nearly all of the students revealed new insights about themselves and their communication through their experiences in the PDS.

Step Three

Creating the Assignments. Along with integrating the PDS with the course objectives, it is also critical to integrate the service-learning experience into the assignments. There were three assignments in the class that were related to the PDS.

First, students created a 5-minute presentation about study circles to persuade members of a particular group (e.g., farmers, high school students) to join the PDS. Ideally, the student groups would have given these presentations to their target audiences, but time constraints prevented this from happening. The groups also wrote a 5-page paper that described the demographic characteristics and social concerns of their target audiences and the process by which they developed the presentation in light of this information.

Second, students created a formal, 10 to 12-minute group presentation about the similarities and differences between their in-class group and the study circle, and lessons learned about small group communication. This project represented the culmination of their knowledge throughout the semester, requiring them to apply concepts such a group culture, leadership, decision-making, and communication competence to their experiences.

Third, students kept an individual reflection journal throughout the semester with an entry for each group meeting and study circle session. Although they received periodic feedback on their entries, the final, graded product was a 5-page paper where they discussed insights about small group interaction in general and their own communication behaviors in particular. After reviewing student comments about the class assignments, we learned that the experience with the PDS reinforced the concepts learned in class, but required a great deal of time outside of class. In hindsight, we should have modified the assignments to reflect the added time constraints placed on the groups by participating in the PDS.

Step Four

Pitching the PDS. Because "students who are motivated to learn will choose tasks that enhance their learning, will work hard at those tasks, and will persist in the face of difficulty in order to attain their goals" (Hoffer, 2002, p. 119), it is important that they see the rationale for including the PDS as a service-learning component in the class. At the onset, we identified several benefits they could gain from the experience, such as increased understanding of the issues surrounding 9/11 and a chance to make a difference in the community. In "selling" the service-learning component, we hoped to increase excitement for the project and motivate the students to get involved in their community. We also provided students the rationale behind the topic for the PDS. Although a survey of community members conducted in the planning stages indicated that 9/11 was a still topic of great interest, many students in the class felt disconnected from the topic, and therefore were unmotivated to participate. In addition, some students felt uncomfortable talking about their experiences with 9/11 or the war with Iraq, while others felt that the topic was out-dated. This was one area where more direct student involvement in the planning phase of the PDS could have prevented problems down the line.

Step Five

Incorporating the Experience. In addition to the course objectives and assignments, the service-learning component should also be incorporated into class discussion. Throughout the semester, the students were asked to connect their work in the PDS to theoretical and disciplinary topics in the class. For example, we examined the purpose of dialogue in small group discussion, and discussed when this method of communication would be appropriate (e.g., to bridge differences in conflict) and when it would not be the best choice (e.g., during a crisis where decisions need to be made on the spot). Students were also able to identify leadership qualities in the facilitators and individual group members, and could easily find examples of types of conflict and conflict management styles. By constantly referring to the PDS, the students saw the relevance of the PDS to the course and became active participants in the learning process.

Step Six

Eliciting Feedback. The last step is to elicit feedback from the students about their experience. At the start of every class, students were encouraged to air their concerns, frustrations, and emotions surrounding the PDS, and discuss problems they encountered. For instance, one student mentioned that her study circle did not take breaks during their two hour meetings. She felt that a five-minute break half way through the session would help her focus, and give members an opportunity to take care of any personal needs. As a class, we discussed some possible solutions to the problem so she could go to her study circle with the request. Even though her study circle group continued to skips breaks, she had a forum in the class to air her frustrations and gain support.

Advice for Instructors

In light of the problems and successes we encountered, we offer three final pieces of advice for instructors who wish to include a PDS into their course. First, take time to get involved with the project. Although time consuming, such involvement will help troubleshoot problems that could arise before, during, and after the event. Even if there is not a PDS occurring at the time a course is taught, initiating a PDS could become a class project with lasting implications for the students and their community. There are several good websites that outline step-by-step instructions for starting a PDS (e.g., http://www.studycircles.org/, http://www.publicdialogue.org/). Second, try to get the students involved in all phases of the PDS (i.e., planning, implementation, and assessment). In addition to being a valuable learning opportunity for students, they could help identify problems that might be overlooked by a planning committee and provide the assistance needed to carry out a successful event. Third, make the project an intrinsic part of the course. If students see that the PDS is intimately tied to course material, they will become more involved in classroom discussion and feel more ownership over their own learning experience.

Conclusion

Based on our experience and feedback from students, we believe that the PDS was an excellent way for students to practice and study small group communication in a "real world" setting. Students walked away with a deeper appreciation and understanding of themselves and members of their community. Students also felt they learned a great deal about small group communication through their work with the PDS, such as the importance of establishing ground rules for successful group interaction, the value of allowing all group members to have a voice in the decision-making process, and the power of facilitators to influence the course of the discussion (for better and for worse). With the information and resources offered in this article, we hope that we have contributed to the dialogue pertaining to service-learning and have offered a viable option for instructors interested in expanding their curriculum to include this method of learning.

References

Beebe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T. (2003). Communicating in small groups: Principles and practice (7th edition). New York: Longman.

Bohman, J (1996). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.

Fishkin, J (1995). The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Habermas, J (1989). Structural Transformation and the Public Sphere. Trans. T. Burger and F. Lawrence. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hoffer, B. (2002). Motivation in the classroom. In W. McKeachie (ed.), McKeachie's teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (p. 118-127). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Payne, B. K., & Monk-Turner, E. (2006). Students' perceptions of group projects: The role of race, age, and slacking. College Student Journal, 40, 132-139.

Pearce, K. A., & Pearce, W. B. (2001). The Public Dialogue Consortium's school-wise dialogue process: A communication approach to develop citizenship skills and enhance school climate. Communication Theory, 11, 105-123.

Study Circles Resource Center. Facing the future: How should we move forward after 9/11? (version 2.0). (2002, July 15). Retrieved January 30, 2003 from www.studycircles.org/pdf/multisess.pdf.

Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.

Katheryn C. Maguire, Cleveland State University, OH

Eric Fretz, University of Denver, CO

Katheryn C. Maguire, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of Communication. Eric Fretz, Ph.D., is the Director of the Center for Community Engagement and Service-Learning.