The Class Act February 1994The newsletter of the Searle Center for Teaching Excellence is published twice quarterly and distributed to all faculty members and is now available on WWW. February 1995: Table of Contents GROUP WORK AND THE DOUBLE CIRCLE: ENHANCING DISCUSSION IN THE MID-SIZED CLASS Editor's Note: The following article was written by Elisabeth Perry, who was Associate Professor of History at Vanderbilt when she wrote the article. She is the author of, among other works, Belle Moskovitz: Feminine Politics and the Exercise of Power in the Age of Alfred E. Smith, published in 1987 by Oxford University Press. We've all experienced dead discussion days. We throw out a provocative question. Silence reigns. We try another approach. More silence. "Anyone?" we plead. Perhaps one hand sneaks up and someone ventures a reply. The discussion limps on, one student replying to one question, another student to another. And so it goes. No discussion, just question and answer, with the same students doing the answering and the teacher doing most of the work. Why don't more students speak up? Mostly because they're too scared. They worry about appearing stupid, saying something obvious, or getting put down. Teachers can alleviate some fears by establishing a non-judgmental atmosphere in the classroom, making it clear that all views are welcome and finding something good to say about almost anything a student contributes. My own effort toward that goal begins in the first week of classes. In small-to mid-size classes, I ask students to pick a partner among students they do not know. If there's an odd number of students, I become a student's partner. The students must find out (in 5-10 minutes) enough about their partner to be able to introduce her or him to the rest of the class. They also have to find out why their partner signed up for the class. Certain answers are forbidden: the time the class meets, its role in fulfilling a requirement, etc. Even "because she's 'interested' in the topic" will not do. Why are you interested, I insist. The answers inform me about the semester's particular group of students. During the exchange, partners may not take notes. This forces them to listen carefully to one another. After I call time, the partners introduce each other. At the end, I can usually remember everyone's first name, a task that's easier than it looks. By the end of this exercise, I know a bit about everyone in my class, and each student knows at least one other student. The banter and conversation have also eased first-week tensions. The following class I start group work. This means setting up groups of four-to-five to discuss a set of questions as a prelude to a general class discussion. Since students who know one another tend to sit together, instead of pointing to a group of them and saying, "You five form a group," I ask the whole class to count off up to, say, six for a class of thirty. Then I put all the "one's" together, all the "two's," etc. When they have settled down, I give them some broad questions to discuss among themselves. "What is history?" "What sorts of evidence do historians use?" "Why do women tend to get left out of history?" Later in the term I give them questions on the primary sources or monographs they have read. With more advanced groups, I try to get them to identify the questions as well as work out the answers. This process tends to develop analytical skills. Once settled into their small groups, students burst into conversation. I wander from group to group, eavesdropping here, answering a question there, making suggestions to groups that seem stymied. Usually, a leader emerges in each group, someone who perhaps knows more about the topic or who has studied with me before. But in general I find that even the most shy, withdrawn student will contribute something. Having tried out an idea within the protected confines of the small group, these students will later speak up when the discussion becomes general. This can usually start about 15 to 20 minutes after the start of the group work. In the general discussion I ask the students to report on the answers they have worked out in the small groups. Since a big circle puts students in a mid-sized class too far from one another, I use a double circle. Here's how it works. I divide the class into two groups of equal size and ask one to form a circle inside the other. In the ensuing discussion, students in the inner circle have priority and may speak without raising their hands, as long as they are not disruptive; outer-circle students may participate but must raise their hands. I tend to make most of my eye contact with inner-circle students, but ask that no one sit behind me so that I can see everyone and call on outer-circle members who wish to speak. After half the discussion time is over, I ask the groups to switch positions, the outer circle becoming the inner. A prerequisite for such discussions is, of course, a classroom with movable chairs. I always ask for a classroom of that type when I submit my schedule. Also, early in the semester one often meets student resistance to the idea of moving from where they have carefully installed themselves. Teachers must not let this resistance deter them. There are other kinds of resistance as well. Many students love and ask for discussion; others prefer a more passive and thus anonymous learning environment. I tell students the first day what kind of teaching I favor and suggest they drop the class if their preferences lie elsewhere. Finally, all good discussions rely on the asking of good questions. It's wise to plan at least some of these in advance, thinking of approaches that will engage and stimulate student interest. Many professors run successful discussions without using any of the techniques I have described. More power to them! But I have found such techniques helpful to me, and many students tell me they find them helpful, too. Even if they resist them at the start, eventually they get used to them and accept them. Putting them into practice does take up considerable class time, however. But I would rather spend time laying the groundwork for a good discussion than face that handful of students willing to answer only a few of my questions. I still have "dead discussion days." Sometimes the reading is less conducive to discussion than I had predicted, or my questions flop. As a result of group work and the double circle, however, more of my class discussions have become thoughtful and even probing exchanges of ideas. Those experiences alone have made the effort more than worthwhile. Elisabeth I. Perry Go back to table of contents From Our Library New Acquisitions Banta, Trudy. Making A Difference: Outcomes of a Decade of Assessment in Higher Education. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publisher, 1993. SCFTE #2283 More than 90 percent of U.S. colleges and universities currently conduct or plan to conduct assessment activities. While assessment practices have been described in numerous books and journals, no one has yet attempted to report systematically on the outcomes of this decade of assessment activity. Are faculty teaching more effectively? The ultimate question has remained: Is assessment really making a difference? Based on a survey of assessment coordinators at 115 institutions widely known for their work in outcomes assessment, this book presents a comprehensive account of both the best practices and the important, and sometimes difficult, lessons learned in outcomes assessment. The book brings together detailed first person accounts by some of the most successful practitioners in the field to show how assessment findings have been used to improve programs, student services, and student learning. Bruffee, Kenneth A. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Knowledge has traditionally been understood as cognitive--we gain it by examining the world and taking in the facts. Kenneth Bruffee, Broeklundian Professor of English and director of the Scholars Program at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, offers a different model. His model tries to account for new ways of thinking about how we learn and do research. He proposes that Knowledge is "constructed through negotiation with others" in communities of knowledgeable peers. Bruffee begins by discussing the place of collaborative learning in higher education, explaining what it is, how it works, and why. He then examines the implications of the "kuhnian" understanding of knowledge on which his model of collaborative learning is based, explaining how "nonfoundational social constructionist thought" changes our understanding of education in general. Bruffee argues that changing college and university education depends first on changing how teachers think about knowledge, teaching, and learning. He describes the practical value of the activities encouraged by a collaborative approach--students working in consensus groups and research teams, tutoring peers, and helping each other with editing and revision. He conclues that this organized practice in working together on intellectual tasks is the best possible prepration for the real work, as students look beyond the authority of teachers, practice the craft of interdependence, and construct knowledge in the very way that academic disciplines and the professions do. Christensen, C. Roland, Ann Sweet, and David A. Garvin, eds. Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press 1991. SCFTE #1886 The use of discussion in teaching has the ability to stimulate learning. Through a skillful orchestration of questioning, listening, and response, it helps students to master course material and critical judgment skills in tandem. Education for Judgment gives practical advice on how to negotiate a "contract" for the conduct of the group, how to lead a discussion without stalling it, getting students to talk to each other, building participants to adopt new and thoughtful roles, the ethics involves in choosing material, how to encourage independent thinking, structuring technical material, how to evaluate student participation, and creating a sense of closure and accomplishment. Alaina Bookstein Go back to table of contents HomePage /Services/Facilities/Programs/Newsletter/Consultation/Library/TAs/Fellows/GrantsThis web site is always under construction. Send any
comments and suggestions to Kelly Burgess Mayer, Program Coordinator (kbmayer@nwu.edu). Kenneth R. Bain, Director bainkr@nwu.edu Revised October 25, 1996 |
