Journal Response to Discussion as a Way of Teaching, Stephen Brookfield
In my time as a student it seems like I have sat through
countless discussions where the only thing I really ever questioned was the
point of it all. The majority were so frivolous that even the tortuous
alliteration of Socratic seminar by my teacher began to elicited from me a
rather obvious twitch, reminiscent of the Pink Panther movie. Yet, even as a
high school student, I knew the value of classroom discussion because I had one
almost every day in the school cafeteria. I had many thoroughly enjoyable and
productive conversations in the school lunchroom that I imagine my teachers
would have died for in class. Despite knowing what I could gain, I chose to
remain part of the problem when in the classroom.
When I reached college, I learned how scary silence could
be. With the knowledge of my future career I finally asked myself: “what are
the requirements for a good discussion?” I came up with simplicity,
preparedness and comfort. It just has to be people talking, and they have to
have something to say, and they have to be able to say it. For the most part,
this article has provided me with a nice, indulgent, dose of affirmation. The
most important lesson I drew from this reading was need for preparation by the
instructor to help student feel safe enough to speak freely and focus.
Particularly with the use of ground rules in order to eliminate as much uncertainty
as possible. I quite liked the survey on page 24 simply asking students “what
would it take to engage you,” though it could benefit from a fill in the blank
section. Also, the Critical Incident Questionnaire is an excellent means of
judging success and laying further groundwork. Furthermore, I found the
categories for types of questions on pages 39-40 to be incredibly helpful for
when it is my responsibility to guide students through a discussion. I like to
think of them as cards to be played in a strategy game. The author’s definition
of a discussion really nailed-it, “disciplined & focused exploration of mutual
concerns but with no end point predetermined in advance.” The words
“disciplined and focused” really helped me realize the difference between a
devoted, meaningful, investigation of a “mutual concern” rather than the
meandering back and forth of a genial conversation. Though I would like to say
that I’ve had several dialogues I would call conversations, but acted like his
definition of a “discussion.”
What I didn’t understand was the need for game-playing. Activities
like the Conversation Roles and Hatful of Quotes seem unnecessary. I think a
much better way of getting them talking would be to figure out how you are
going to arrange the room/groups for the real deal and then talk about whatever
they want. Use the opportunity to get to know their interests and have genuine
conversation—build relationships. Also, work to draw out any reluctants and
show to them that it’s not the end of the word if they speak on a stage.
The “Discussion from Hell” is quite right, that just came
right out of nowhere. I don’t think there was really much Gary could do about
it—short of putting them in a time out.
Gary did his best to wrangle the few speakers back to the subject by asking for
other volunteers and redirecting Janet’s story. The five were simply too riled
up and made the tone way too antagonistic for any reluctant speakers to dare
get involved, especially over a subject such as race relations.
No comments:
Post a Comment