Discussion As A Way of Teaching
Discussion As A Way of Teaching
Discussion As A Way of Teaching
Stephen Brookfield
1. Why Discussions Fail 2. Discussion Ground Rules
19. Critical Debate 20. Case Study: “The Discussion from Hell”
25. Bibliography
CONTACT DETAILS
Stephen Brookfield, Mail # MOH 217, School of Education, University
of St. Thomas, 1000 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55403-2009, USA
Please contact Stephen (see contact details above) if you wish to use any
of these resources.
DIALOGUE – INTERSUBJECTIVE
UNDERSTANDING : PLACING
YOURSELF IN OTHERS’ SHOES TO SEE
THE WORLD AS THEY SEE IT
MUTUALITY – DEEPENING AND
CHANGING UNDERSTANDING BASED
ON WHAT WE LEARN FROM OTHERS
Aims …
To develop critical, informed understanding
To enhance self-critique
To foster appreciation for diverse views
To help people take informed action
UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
UNPREPARED STUDENTS
NO GROUND RULES
NO TEACHER MODELING
2. Think of the worst group discussions you've ever been involved in. What things
happened that made these conversations so unsatisfactory? Make a few notes on this by
yourself. 5 minutes
3. Take turns in talking about what made discussion groups work so well for you.
Listen for common themes shared experiences and features of conversation that you'd
like to see present in this group. 10 minutes.
4. Take turns in talking about what made discussion groups work so badly for you.
Listen for common themes shared experiences and features of group conversation that
you'd like to see avoided in this critical reflection group. 10 minutes.
5. For each of the characterstics of good discussion you agree on, try and suggest
three things a group could do to ensure, as much as possible, that these characteristics
were present. Be as specific and concrete as you can. For example, if you feel that good
conversation is cumulative and connected, with later themes building on and referring
back to earlier ones, you could propose a rule whereby every new comment made by a
participant is prefaced with an explanation as to how it relates to, or springs from, an
earlier comment. 10 minutes.
6. For each of the characterstics of bad discussion you agree on, try and suggest three
things a group could do to ensure, as much as possible, that these characteristics were
avoided. Be as specific and concrete as you can. For example, if you feel that bad
conversation happens when one person's voice dominates you could propose a rule
whereby no-one is allowed to follow a comment they have made with another comment
until at least three other people have spoken (unless another group member explicitly
invites the participant to say something else). 10 minutes.
7. Try and finish this exercise by drafting a charter for discussion that comprises
the specific ground rules that you agree on. If less than a two- thirds majority
support a particular rule I suggest that you agree to re-examine this rule after
no more than four meetings of the group. At that time, the group may decide
to drop or affirm the rule, or draft an additional one. 10 minutes.
In their work in co-operative learning Johnson, Johnson and Smith propose the T-Chart, a
technique that can be adapted well to help students develop ground rules for discussion.
The characteristic of discussion that students desire is written on the top of a large piece
of newsprint. Imagine that students say they want their discussions to be respectful.
Under the heading 'Respectful' the teacher divides the sheet in two, labeling one side
'Sounds Like' and the other side 'Looks Like'. Students and teachers then suggest items
that would fall under each column so that after a few minutes a list is available of how
students think respectful discussions look and sound.
Finally, you can use videos of discussion vignettes as a useful way to focus students'
attention on how they want their discussions to look. Here's the instructions for such an
exercise that you might give to students:-
(i) In your view which participants made the best, most helpful or most useful
contributions to the discussion ? Why were these contributions so worthwhile ?
(ii) In your view which participants made the worst, least helpful or least useful
contributions to the discussion ? Why were these contributions so irrelevant or
unproductive ?
(iii) What changes would you introduce to improve either of theses discussions ?
Now, compare your responses with the reactions of others in your group. Look
particularly for areas of agreement. Based on these, could you suggest any guidelines
that would ensure that helpful discussion behaviors are encouraged ?
When we reconvene we will see if your notes help us decide on the discussion
guidelines we want to follow in this course.
People can take their turns to speak by going round the circle in order or volunteering
at random. Although the latter arrangement sounds the most relaxed and informal the
opposite is often the case. The order of the circle removes from participants the stress of
having to decide whether or not they will try and jump in after another student has
finished speaking. Not having to decide this is one less thing to worry about. An
important benefit of using the circle of voices at the start of a discussion is that it prevents
the development early on of a pecking order of contributors. Introverted, shy members,
those whose experience has taught them to mistrust academe, or those who view
discussion as another thinly veiled opportunity for teachers to oppress or offend, will
often stay silent at the beginning of a course. The longer this silence endures, the harder
it is for these individuals to speak out. By way of contrast, in the circle of voices
everyone's voice is heard at least once at the start of the session.
After the circle of voices has been completed, and everyone has had the chance to say
their piece, then the discussion opens out into a more free flowing format. As this
happens a second ground rule comes into effect. Participants are only allowed to talk
about another person's ideas that have already been shared in the circle of voices. A
person cannot jump into the conversation by expanding on his own ideas, he can only talk
about his reactions to what someone else has said. The only exception to this ground rule
is if someone else asks him directly to expand on his ideas. This simple ground rule
prevents the tendency toward 'grandstanding' that sometimes afflicts a few articulate,
confident individuals.
Begin by going round the circle with each person contributing & no interruptions allowed
After this, move into open discussion, but remember your contributions can only be
about, or refer back to, something one of the other group members said in the opening
circle.
Specific Moves
Ask a question or make a comment that shows you are interested in what another person says
Ask a question or make a comment that encourages another person to elaborate on something
they have already said
Make a comment that underscores the link between two people's contributions
Use body language to show interest in what different speakers are saying
Make a specific comment indicating how you found another person's ideas interesting/useful.
Contribute something that builds on, or springs from, what someone else has said. Be
explicit about the way you are building on the other person's thoughts
Make a comment that at least partly paraphrases a point someone has already made
Make an summary observation that takes into account several people's contributions & that
touches on a recurring theme in the discussion
Ask a cause and effect question - for example, "can you explain why you think it's true that if
these things are in place such and such a thing will occur?"
When you think it's appropriate, ask the group for a moment's silence to slow the pace of
conversation and give you, and others, time to think
Find a way to express appreciation for the enlightenment you have gained from the
discussion. Be specific about what it was that helped you understand something better
Create space for someone who has not yet spoken to contribute to the conversation
Scrounger: The scrounger listens for helpful resources, suggestions, and tips that
participants have voiced as they discuss how to work through a problem or situation. She
keeps a record of these ideas that is read out before the session ends.
Devil's Advocate: This person listens carefully for any emerging consensus. When she
hears this she formulates and expresses a contrary view. This keeps group-think in check
and helps participants explore a range of alternative interpretations.
Theme Spotter: This participant identifies themes that arise during the discussion that
are left unexplored and that might form a focus for the next session.
Umpire: This person listens for judgmental comments that sound offensive, insulting and
demeaning, and that contradict ground rules for discussion generated by group members.
Textual Focuser: Whenever assertions are made that seem unconnected to the text being
discussed, this person asks the speaker to let the group know where the point is made.
Summarizer: This person has the responsibility to make summary observations that take
into account several people's contributions.
Appreciator: This person makes comments indicating how she found another person's
ideas interesting or useful.
Questioner: This person has the task of asking questions to draw out or extend what
others have said
Speculator: This person introduces new ideas, new interpretations and possible lines of
inquiry into the group e.g. “I wonder what would happen if …?”, “I wonder what (major
theorist) would say about ….?
Active Listener: This person tries to paraphrase others’ contributions to the conversation
(“So what I hear you saying is …”, “If I understand you correctly you’re suggesting that
…”)
The facilitator should make every attempt to model each of these roles early on in a series
of group meetings and let learners know that this is what she is doing.
One way through this dilemma is to make the mandated act of contributing
as stress free as possible. This is the purpose of the 'hatful of quotes'
exercise. Prior to a discussion of a text the leader types out sentences or
passages from the text onto separate slips of paper. In class she puts these
into a hat and asks students to draw one of these slips out of a hat. Students
are given a few minutes to think about their quote and then asked to read it
out and comment on it. The order of contribution is up to the students.
Those who feel more fearful about speaking go last and take more time to
think about what they want to say. Because the same five or six quotes are
used, students who go later will have heard their quote read out and
commented on by those who spoke earlier. So even if they have little to say
about their own interpretation of the quote, they can affirm, build on, or
contradict a comment a peer has already made on that quote. This exercise
is a good way to create a safe opportunity for everyone to speak. Those who
are diffident get to say something, thus building confidence for subsequent
contributions.
bell hooks Teaching to Transgress. New York: Routledge, 1994
Quotes to Affirm
Students form into small groups and each member takes a turn to propose a quote they
wish to affirm and the reasons for doing this. The quote does not have to be defended as
empirically true. Sometimes a participant will propose a quote because it confirms a
point of view she holds. Sometimes she feels the quote states the most important point in
the text. At other times the quote is affirmed because it is rhetorically rousing or
expressed so lyrically. When everyone in the small group has proposed a quote to affirm
the group then chooses one to report back to the larger class.
The two quotes chosen cannot be from the same person. Also, the person whose quote
is chosen should NOT be the person who speaks about it to the larger group. If the group
is unable to choose a quote then it reports to the larger group on its struggle.
Quotes to Challenge
The 'quote to challenge' activity follows the same procedure only this time students
choose a quote that they disagree with, find contradictory, believe to be inaccurate, or
consider reprehensible and immoral. Each person proposes their quote to the small group
and group members choose one to report back to the larger class.
Again, the two quotes chosen cannot be from the same person. Also, the person whose
quote is chosen should NOT be the person who speaks about it to the larger group. . If
the group is unable to choose a quote then it reports to the larger group on its struggle.
Speakers are not free, however, to say anything they want. They must incorporate into
their remarks some reference to the preceding speaker's message and then use this as a
springboard for their own comments. This doesn’t have to be an agreement – it can be
an expression of dissent from the previous opinion. The important thing is that the
previous person’s comments are the prompt for whatever is being said in circular
response. If the new speaker can find no point of connection to the previous speaker’s
comments then she can talk about the source of the confusion – a gap in experience or a
lack of knowledge about the language or ideas used. The optimal size for this exercise is
6-8 participants. Here's the instructions:
Choose a theme that the group wishes to discuss, form into a circle and ask for a
volunteer to start the discussion. This person speaks up to a minute or so about the theme
chosen. After the minute is up, the first discussant yields the floor and the person sitting
to the discussant's left speaks for a minute or so. The second discussant must show in her
contribution how what she is saying springs from, or is in response to, the comments of
the first discussant. After a minute or so, the second discussant stops speaking, and the
person to her left becomes the third discussant, and thus the discussion moves all the way
around the circle. To sum up:
After each discussant has had a turn to speak, the floor is opened for general
conversation, and the previous ground rules are no longer in force.
We are going to try something a little different today. It's called "snowballing"
and it gives you a chance to think and talk about issues in a variety of different
configurations. Please begin with some private, solitary reflection in which you gather
your thoughts about the questions at the bottom of this sheet. Jot down some notes if you
wish.
After about 1 minute of solitary thought join with one other person to continue the
dialogue. After about five minutes you and your partner should join another pair to
form a group of four. As the two pairs merge, each pair should recap the chief
difference that emerged, or a question they raised, in their conversation.
The quartets will continue the discussion for another 10 minutes and then they will merge
with other quartets to create octets - groups of 8. As the two quartets merge, each
quartet recaps the chief difference that emerged, or a question they raised, in their
conversation.
The discussion proceeds for 20 minutes this time and continues in 20 minute intervals until
the whole class is brought together at the end of the session.
------------------------------------
This exercise gets a lot of people talking to one another, while retaining much of
the value of small groups. It also contributes a festive quality to the class. People mill
about excitedly and greet each other warmly as they meet in new configurations. On the
other hand, snowballing can sometimes have a frenetic, disjointed feel.
In this activity, you will be working in small groups most of the time. I have
prepared some questions for you to consider in these groups, but don't follow them too
slavishly. Use them as a jumping off point for ideas you find especially worth exploring.
You will have 30 minutes in your groups to discuss these questions and to write your
answers to these on the newsprint provided.
You should appoint someone to be recorder but don't start writing immediately.
Take some time to let your responses emerge from the discussion. Covering all the
questions is not important, but you should begin to jot some ideas down on the newsprint
provided within 15 or 20 minutes of starting.
When the 30 minutes is up, post your newsprint sheets around the classroom and
tour the answers – ON YOUR OWN - recorded by other groups. Look especially for
common themes that stand out on the sheets and for possible contradictions that arise
within or between groups' responses. If possible, write your responses to others'
comments on the same sheet of newsprint containing the point you're addressing.
Finally, note any questions that were raised for you during the discussion on the
separate sheets of newsprint specially provided for this. We will bring the activity to a
close with a short debriefing in the large group.
-------------------------
Attractions of this activity are that it takes people out of groups for a while and
lets them act as relatively autonomous free agents. It also reminds people that
dialogue can work as a written as well as spoken exchange. On the other hand, it is
frequently difficult in the limited space and time allotted for students to explain fully the
meaning of the words and phrases on the newsprint. Still, is an interesting alternative way
to keep the conversation going.
We're going to do another small group activity, but this time you won't be staying in
one place for long. Each of you should join a group of about five participants at one of
the stations that have been established around the classroom. Together you will have the
responsibility of answering some questions by making comments on the newsprint
directly in front of your group. You will have 10 minutes to do this. When the 10 minutes
is up move with your group to a new station where you will continue your conversation
by responding to the comments left behind by the group that has just vacated that station.
Record the main points of your discussion at this station and then, after another 10
minutes, rotate to the next station, where you now have the comments of two other groups
to consider.
Again take 10 minutes to respond, and then move when the 10 minutes are up.
When every group has occupied each station, leaving remarks behind at all of them,
break out of your groups and read all of the newsprint comments. Add questions,
comments, or criticisms to these news sheets wherever you are inspired to do so.
Remember that each station will include comments from all groups, making orderliness a
challenge. Write as small and as legibly as you can, please!
------------------------------------------------------
Many students from working class backgrounds, female students, or students from
underrepresented ethnic groups will approach discussion sessions with a justifiable sense
of distrust. Their perception may be that success in academe is correlated with a glib
facility to spring confidently into speech at the earliest possible opportunity. What
follows is an example of a declaration to students that expresses the teacher’s tolerance of
silence and also informs students that participation in class discussion is entirely
voluntary and should never be used to curry favor with the instructor:
We believe in the power of this kind of early declaration because we’ve seen how
well it works. Students will often come up to us afterwards and say that by granting them
public permission not to say anything we actually emboldened them to speak. By
deliberately destroying the link between student speech and teacher approval we reduce
the pressure on students to look smart in front of us.
If the process is used a second and third time the facilitator does
not start off by sharing her view. However, she does start out
choosing who will be the first to speak.
E.H.F. Law The Wolf Shall Dwell with the Lamb: A Spirituality
for Leadership in a Multicultural Community. St Louis, MO:
Chalice Press, 1993 (pp. 79-88).
In a process of structured critical conversation I suggest that people think of playing one
of three possible roles - storyteller, detective or umpire.
The storyteller is the person who is willing to make herself the focus of critical
conversation by first describing some part of her practice or life experience.
The detectives are those in the group who help her come to a more fully informed
understanding of the assumptions and actions that frame her practice or experience.
The umpire is the group member who has agreed to monitor conversation with a view to
pointing out when people are talking to each other in a judgmental way.
All participants in the group play all three of these roles at different times. The idea is
that the behaviors associated with each role gradually become habitual.
The conversation opens with the person who is the storyteller describing as concretely
and specifically as possible an incident from her practice or life that for some reason is
lodged in her memory. This incident may be one that is recalled because it was
particularly fulfilling or because it was particularly frustrating. Most probably it is an
incident that leaves the teller somewhat puzzled by its layers and complexities. The
storyteller describes the incident in her own words and without any questions or
The detectives are trying to identify the explicit and implicit assumptions about practice
that they hear in the storyteller's tale. Some of these will be general assumptions about
what good practice looks like, some will be about how a good professional should
behave, and some will be about how to behave in the specific situation described. The
detectives are listening particularly for assumptions that pertain to how the storyteller
conceives of power dynamics, or assumptions that are hegemonic (i.e. that seem
admirable & useful to the storyteller but that actually work against her best interests &
support an inequitable situation).
The detectives are also asked to imagine themselves inside the heads of the other
characters in the story and to try to see the events through their eyes. If possible, the
detectives make mental or written notes about plausible alternative interpretations of the
story that fit the facts as they hear them, but that would come as a surprise to the
storyteller.
After the storyteller has finished speaking, the detectives are allowed to break their
silence to ask her any questions they have about the events she has just described. The
detectives are searching for any information that will help them uncover the assumptions
they think the storyteller holds. They are also looking for details not provided in the first
telling of the story that will help them re-live the events described through the eyes of the
other participants involved, thereby helping them to understand these events from the
different participants' perspectives.
One ground rule they must observe is that of requesting information, not giving
judgment. Their questions are asked only for the purpose of clarifying the details of what
happened. They must refrain from giving their opinions or suggestions, no matter how
helpful they feel these might be. Detectives should ask only 1 question at a time. They
should not give advice on how the storyteller should have acted. Keep laughter to a
minimum, you don’t know how it’s received.
As the storyteller hears the detectives' questions she tries to answer them as fully and
honestly as possible. She also has the opportunity to ask the detectives why they asked
the particular questions they put to her. The umpire points out to the detectives any
examples of judgmental questions that they ask, particularly those in which they imply
that they have seen a better way to respond to the situation than the way that's been
described. Examples of such questions would be those beginning "Did you really believe
that ...?", "Didn't you think to ...?", or "Do you mean to tell us that ...?"
3. The Detectives' Report the Assumptions they Hear in the Storyteller's Descriptions
(10 MINUTES)
When the incident has been fully described, and all the detectives' questions have been
answered, the conversation moves to the assumption hunting phase. Here the detectives
tell the storyteller, on the basis of her story and her response to their questions, what
assumptions they think she holds.
The umpire intervenes to point out to detectives when she thinks they are reporting
assumptions with a judgmental overlay.
The detectives now give alternative versions of the events that have been described,
based on their attempts to re-live the story through the eyes of the other participants
involved. These alternative interpretations must be plausible in that they are consistent
with the facts as they have been described by the storyteller. When appropriate,
detectives should point out how power or hegemony plays itself out in the different
interpretations they are giving.
The umpire points out those moments when a psychoanalytic second guessing is taking
place. This happens when the detectives start to preface their interpretations with
remarks like "you know, what you were really doing", or "what was really going on".
The detectives are to give these interpretations as descriptions, not judgments. They are
describing how others involved in the events might have viewed them, not saying
whether or not these perceptions are accurate. They should not give any advice here.
As the storyteller hears these alternative interpretations she is asked to let the detectives
have the floor so that they can state their case as fully as possible. After they have
Finally, the storyteller and detectives state what they have learned, what insights they
have realized, and what their reflection means for their future actions. Now the
detectives can give whatever advice they wish.
At each iteration of this exercise the roles change. As each new story is told each person
assumes a different role so that all play each of the roles at least once.
Although this is a heavily structured an artificial exercise, the intent is for these
dispositions to become so internalized that the ground rules and structure outlined above
become unnecessary.
At what moment in class this week did you feel most engaged with what was happening ?
At what moment in class this week did you feel most distanced from what was
happening?
What action that anyone (teacher or student) took in class this week did you find most
affirming or helpful ?
What action that anyone (teacher or student) took in class this week did you find most
puzzling or confusing ?
What about the class this week surprised you the most ? (This could be something about
your own reactions to what went on, or something that someone did, or anything else that
occurs to you).
It Shows Respect for Students' Voices and Experiences (opinions are taken seriously)
It Develops the Capacity for the Clear Communication of Ideas and Meaning (giving
examples, analogs, metaphors)
It Increases Breadth and Makes Students More Empathic to others' Views and Feelings
Propose the motion to participants. By a show of hands ask people either to volunteer to
work on a team that is preparing arguments to support the motion or to volunteer to work
on a team that is preparing arguments to oppose the motion.
Announce that all those who have prepared to work on the team to draft arguments to
support the motion will now comprise the team to draft arguments to oppose the motion.
Similarly, all those who have prepared to work on the team to draft arguments to oppose
the motion will now comprise the team to draft arguments to support the motion.
Conduct the debate. Each team chooses one person to present their arguments. After
initial presentations the teams reconvene to draft rebuttal arguments and choose one
person to present these.
Debrief the debate. Discuss with participants their experience of this exercise. Focus on
how it felt to argue against positions you were committed to. What new ways of thinking
about the issue were opened up? Did participants come to new understandings? Did they
change their positions on this issue at all?
1. What assumptions about the issue that you hold were clarified / confirmed for you
by the debate?
2. Which of your assumptions surprised you during the debate ? In other words,
were you made aware of assumptions you hold that you didn't know you had ?
3. How could you check out these new assumptions ? What sources of evidence
would you consult ?
5. In what ways, if any, were your existing assumptions challenged or changed by the
debate ?
“Discussion, the meat and drink of truly democratic pedagogy”. That was the thought in
Gary Lofthouse’s mind as he headed to the first class of the semester. Gary had been
teaching at Newark University for the past 5 years. NU was an inner city university that
prided itself on its commitment to adult students that the system had labeled as failures.
Although himself a White male, Gary believed his awareness of cultural and racial
diversity meant he could work well with students from a variety of backgrounds. His
commitment to diversity meant he was a strong advocate of discussion methods since to
him these treated adult students as the mature people they really were. Through
discussion people could express their voices and participate fully in the learning process.
To start the class Gary introduced himself and talked of the role critical thinking had
played in his own life. He gave a definition of critical thinking that focused on two
learning processes: (1) the uncovering and questioning of one’s assumptions, and (2) the
ability to view situations and ideas from different perspectives. After 20 minutes or so he
then introduced a couple of guests to the class. These were former students of his who
had initially been skeptical of the value of critical thinking, but who had subsequently
told Gary that learning this skill was one of the most important things that had happened
to them at Newark U. Gary asked these students to take no more than 5 minutes each to
talk about how they had felt the first night of the “Introduction to Critical Thinking” class
and what advice they would like to pass on to the new students. As his guests were
speaking Gary was careful to leave the room. He didn’t want the new students to feel he
had ‘prepped’ the former students to say only complimentary things about the course.
After 15 minutes Gary returned and wrapped up the first half of the class by taking
questions about the course syllabus and assignments. He handed out a sheet of
definitions of critical thinking drawn from different books on the topic and asked students
During the break Gary spent his time moving furniture so that the chairs were in a circle.
He wanted everyone to be able to see everyone else and to feel that they were in some
small way a part of a learning community. However, he knew enough of Michel
Foucault’s work to realize that just rearranging the chairs would not immediately put
everyone at ease. So, as the class reassembled he made a short speech about his
commitment to discussion but his awareness that this approach was not for everyone.
Consequently, he informed them, he would not assume that those who did not speak were
any less diligent or intelligent than those who did. He then asked for reactions to the list
of definitions he had handed out.
Immediately John, a White male in his 40’s spoke up. “Well it seems to me that the
definitions you’ve given come from quite a few different perspectives and traditions. I
can see some good old Logic 101 in there and the classical tradition that represents,
though when you think about it classic Greek philosophy actually has some overlap with
modern scientific methods, doesn’t it? And you know if Socrates had been alive today
you can be sure he would have been right there in cyberspace asking all kinds of good
questions about what effects the internet is having on our thinking patterns, and the
degree to which it encourages or inhibits public discourse. And speaking of discourse
that reminds me of Habermas and the way his whole theory of communication is based
on the ability to think critically – though he talks more about reason of course – which is
not surprising because Habermas looks to American pragmatism with Pierce and Dewey
and all, as much as he looks to Marx. Of course when Marx …”
Here Gary cut in. “Thanks John” he said glancing quickly at the nametag he’d asked all
students to wear the first night “perhaps we could hear from some other people?”
At this Janet spoke up. Janet was a White woman who was also the oldest student in the
class by several years. “Well I remember marching in the South in the civil rights
movement and at that time you had to do a hell of a lot of critical thinking if you wanted
to survive. I mean we had the State troopers beating us up, the local citizens cursing us
out, and very few local supports. I remember my husband Steve arguing with hotel clerks
who wouldn’t give us a room because we were communists. You know it’s funny when I
think back to that time I can remember some things so clearly – the smells of the food,
which to me, a good New York girl, was so exotic. I mean I never knew what grits were,
black-eyed peas, all those kinds of things. But you know the people who were on those
marches with us were wonderful human beings. They’d left their jobs, risked their lives,
subjected themselves to abuse, violence, hatred, yet they did it cos they knew it was the
right thing to do.”
Gary listened to this with interest, and respect. Janet had clearly lived a lot of American
history. There didn’t seem to be too much connection to critical thinking, but at least
people were talking. The other students seemed interested too in what Janet was saying.
“Thanks Janet” said Gary, “let’s bring some more people in. Anyone like to say which
definition of critical thinking worked best for them?”
John jumped in again. “Well, to me the definition given by Harvey Siegel makes sense.
Is he the one who wrote Educating Reason? Siegel is such a well-read guy, his breadth
of references is truly amazing. I really like the way he integrates philosophies drawn
from so many different intellectual traditions – pragmatism, constructivism, I can see
Dewey and even Vygotsky in there, there’s a dash of Perry’s forms of intellectual and
ethical development, you know the stage of informed commitment is it? It’s a pleasure to
read a definition, and a book, by someone who’s so well informed”
“That was one of the things I really appreciated about my husband when I first met him”
said Janet, “he seemed so erudite. I remember he always used to carry a stack of books
around with him. On our first date he told me he tried to learn a new word a day. He’s
always been one for self-improvement, has Steve, and I guess that was one of the things
that first attracted me to him. You know that first date was so romantic. He didn’t have
much money but he’d booked a table at a really expensive East side restaurant, it must
have cost him a week’s wages to pay for that evening. Though I remember thinking at
the time that he didn’t really need to do that, I’d have been just as happy if we’d bought
some food at a local deli and taken it into Central Park or something. That’s right, I
remember because it was a wonderful summer, the kind you live for in New York. You
know hot, but not horribly humid, so that the evening air was like wine. Of course the
city seemed a safer place in those days, I remember ….”
“Can we hear from some other people?” asked Gary. Let’s hear from someone who
hasn’t spoken yet “
There was a pause. Then Carol, a young White women spoke out.
“I disagree with you about the idea that people today are less socially active than they
used to be. What about the peace marches against the War in Iraq? Or the
demonstrations at conferences sponsored by the World Bank? There might not be as
much TV coverage of protest as their used to be – but that’s only the more reason to keep
at it. Because the media have been bought and sold we’ve got to get onto the streets to
get our story out, because, let’s face it, there’s no real free speech any more, just people
thinking what the media tell them to think. I think it’s my job to make a difference”
“Listen, if you want to talk about making a difference you should spend a lot more time
thinking of racial tension, not the World Bank.” Lorraine, a young African American
woman got into the conversation. “We’ve lived with the legacy of slavery for so long
now, it’s really been the defining feature of my community. No-one should ever forget
what my people have been through, or are going through right now.”
“I didn’t mean to claim a monopoly on oppression” replied Sonia ”but you know, there
are different kinds of oppression, Brown as well as Black”
“That’s right” agreed Carol “and as a woman I know plenty about oppression too. It’s
not just skin color that causes oppression. There’s real gender oppression here in this
country too. You know as a White women I can empathize with the kind of racism you
live with everyday.”
“You have no idea what you’re talking about” replied Lorraine, a catch in her voice. You
just play at being oppressed. I know what oppression really is”
“But just because I’m White doesn’t mean I can’t be an ally with you” pleaded Carol. “I
can draw on my own experiences to imagine what you’re going through”
“Look, I don’t want you in my boat” said Lorraine angrily. “You’ve got your own boat
so you can sail in that – leave me to mine”
Gary could see tears start in Carol’s eyes. He jumped quickly in. “Alright I don’t think
we need to get into hierarchies of oppression. Can we get back to critical thinking? Now
I know you all read the definitions I handed out over the break. Who would like to talk
about a definition that meant something to them?”
Silence descended. People seemed uncomfortable and their eyes were darting back and
forth between Carol’s and Lorraine’s faces. All except Janet’s.
“You know one of the things I loved about the early civil rights movement was the way
people – Black and White – were united in a common cause. I remember that Steve, my
husband, had as some of his best friends Black – I mean African American – men and
women. You know that was a wonderful time. People think the rainbow coalition began
with Jessie Jackson in the 80’s and 90’s, and he was with Dr King when he was
assassinated of course, but really the original rainbow coalition was in Mississippi in the
1960’s. You know one of the things that …”
“I wonder if we can link some of this to critical thinking” Gary said, somewhat
plaintively. “Let’s see now, what do you think were the different perspectives of the
Again, silence. Then John rejoined the conversation. “Well I think that Dr King’s
assumptions were drawn from theology and from a really eclectic blend of humanism,
Marxism, maybe a dash of Gandhi and his practice of non-violence. You know I think
that’s why Cornel West – one of the most profound intellectuals alive today, and African
American too – called Dr King an emblematic organic intellectual. Of course in using
that term he was drawing on Gramsci, who you probably know has been rediscovered in
Marxist scholarship since the 1970’s. In fact Stuart Hall – a Black, I mean British-
Caribbean cultural critic has really drawn on Gramsci in the same way West has done.
And another who has re-interpreted Gramsci for the modern era is Raymond Williams,
the Welsh cultural critic, who is another person that Cornel West frequently cites. Did I
tell you that ….”
“You said “African American too”. That Cornel West was brilliant and African
American too. What did you mean by that?”
“Well” said John “I was trying to point out that some of the most profound and original
critical thinkers today are Black. Right Gary?”
“I don’t need anyone to speak for me” said Lorraine, “I want to know why John was
surprised that someone could be smart and Black”
“Look I was just trying to acknowledge the many rich contributions African Americans
make to contemporary culture” John pleaded. “I was trying to help you”
“People are always trying to help us, why do you think that is?” a voice cut in
sarcastically. It was Robert, an African American man in his 30’s. “Do you think we
don’t know anything? That we need you to get by? Who gives you the right to judge
what we need?”
By now Gary was getting alarmed. The last thing he wanted on the first night of a new
course was a conversation about the racism some people felt was in the class. They
hardly knew one another, how could it have got this far so quickly?
“Well John might not have put it in just the way he wanted to” said Gary. “I think that
what he was saying was that White people often think intellectual life is the sole province
of Whites and they ignore the vibrant intellectual communities of color that tend to get
overlooked. Foucault would call them subjugated knowledges”
You know maybe we need a reflective pause here” said Gary. “Let’s just spend a couple
of minutes going back and looking at the definitions of critical thinking. Then put a plus
sign by the one you most agree with and a minus sign by the one you most disagree
with.”
The class fell silent and a few people picked up their list of definitions. As they did so,
Carol walked out and John came up to have a word with Gary. Gary motioned him to
stay in his seat and whispered to John that he’d take questions after class.
By the time the five minutes were up Gary realized that the end of the class was near and
that he needed to do the CIQ, a technique he’d picked up at a Teachers College
workshop. The CIQ (critical incident questionnaire) was a 5-question class evaluation
sheet that all students filled in anonymously once a week. The questions asked when
students were most engaged and distanced as learners, what actions were most helpful or
puzzling, and what surprised them about the class. Gary explained they were out of time
and that he’d like them to fill out the CIQ before leaving the class. He also promised
them he would report back to them at the start of next week’s class the kinds of things
they’d put down on the CIQ.
Gary couldn’t help looking at what people had written. Here’s a sample of their
responses.
16 mentioned what Gary guessed was John: Typical comments were: “Why does this guy
feel the need to show off so much?” “Some people are too impressed with themselves”
“The gentleman in the blue sweater seemed to think he was running the class”
12 mentioned what Gary guessed was Janet: Typical comments were: “This is a course
on critical thinking, not a life history course”, “There was too much time telling stories
and not enough on academics”, “Some people should realize we don’t need to know
every detail of their life”
10 mentioned what Gary guessed was himself : Typical comments were “I don’t see why
the professor was supporting John”, “I was surprised the professor shut down John so
quickly”, “The professor needs to keep a tighter rein on things, we got off track too
quickly”, “I didn’t like the way one student was disrespectful to Gary”.
3 mentioned race - “We missed a real opportunity here to deal with race, I hope we get
another”, “Why is it always race, race, race?” and “Why can’t we all just get along?”
Gary couldn’t decide if this was an ironic comment or a genuine lamentation.
2. AFTER YOU HAVE READ THE CASE STUDY PLEASE MAKE SOME NOTES
BY YOURSELF ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS (10 Minutes)
When you think it's appropriate, ask the group for a moment's
silence to slow the pace of conversation to give you, and others,
time to think
Ask a cause and effect question - for example, "can you explain
why you think it's true that if these things are in place such and
such a thing will occur?"
Assumptions Inventories
What's the decision we've just made ?
One of the best ways to enliven and deepen dialogue is through the skillful use of
questioning. Discussion leaders who seem to have a knack for keeping discussion going
tend to emphasize their role as questioner and inquirer. They frequently ask questions to
get more information from participants, to uncover the sources of participant opinions,
and to get clarification on those opinions. They also raise questions to underscore the
links between comments and to synthesize or sum up an entire conversation. Questioning
is also a practice that embodies respect. It demonstrates that we care enough about others’
thoughts to learn more about them through the questions we pose. Furthermore, one of
the indicators of a good discussion is the extent to which participants themselves learn to
practice the art of questioning. Below are some questions that help to sustain discussion:
Open-ended questions, especially those beginning with why and how, are more likely to
provoke students’ thinking and problem-solving abilities and make the fullest use of
discussion’s potential for expanding intellectual and emotional horizons. Of course, using
open questions obliges the facilitator to keep the discussion genuinely unrestricted. It is
neither fair nor appropriate to ask an open-ended question and then to expect participants
to furnish a pre-determined or preferred response. Open questions tend to look like this:
Once you have asked your questions, keep your own participation to a
minimum. In other words, learn to listen. Things to listen for include:
• Understanding the words spoken rather than thinking about what to say next
• Understanding the point being made before either approving or criticizing
• Notes of agreement as well as disagreement within the group
• Points that need clarifying or explaining
• Links to other content already presented or other comments already made
• Engagement, interest, and personal connection to the content
• Comments that extend or deepen the conversation
• The speaker’s level of confidence and the degree of support she or he may need
Christensen, C., Garvin, D., and Sweet, A. (eds.), Education for Judgment: The
Artistry of Discussion Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School, 1991
Van Ments, M. Active Talk: The Effective Use of Discussion in Learning. New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Wilen, W.W. (ed). Teaching and Learning through Discussion: The Theory,
Research and Practice of the Discussion Method. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas,
1990.