After reading the
selection from “Discussion as a Way of Teaching,” I thought that the arguments
regarding discussions as a means of classroom instruction were well-reasoned. I
did find it interesting that the authors consider a discussion to be an
exchange of views by people advocating for certain positions, yet the authors
make sure to differentiate between their ideal discussion and a debate intended
to win one side over. I thought this was an important distinction, particularly
within classroom environments because this viewpoint acknowledges that there
are differences of opinion that do not necessarily have to be overcome in order
to politely and respectfully converse about them.
Another point I thought
was intriguing was the section about providing rewards for discussion that were
beyond mere intrinsic value. In other words, the article advocated for
providing students with point-value rewards if discussion was a significant
portion of the class. The most rewarding and engaging discussions I had back in
high school were in a class that adopted many of the ideals outlined within
these two chapters of the handout, and those ideals included rewards. At the
end of class, students assessed their own participation in the discussion by
turning in a slip of paper that had a score of zero through two. If someone had
spoken up at least twice, they were to mark a two, a one if they talked once,
and a zero if they did not participate. While these points were pretty
insignificant on their own, this allowed students to decide whether they truly
wanted to enter the discussion. If a student didn’t feel well or didn’t
properly prepare for class, they could refrain from interjecting comments meant
only to acquire participation points because the point values were so low. At
the same time, however, if a student had done the reading and was paying
attention to the discussion, the participation points were too easy to pass up.
Overall, this seemed to work pretty well because it allowed everyone a chance
to speak up and to feel that they were rewarded adequately for their
participation.
On a side note (now
that I’ve completed the mandatory word count), I will say that I found this
article to have overused the term “democratic.” By this, I mean that the
article did not even offer a definition for “democratic discussion” until the fifteenth
page. Not to mention when the article referred to working in “democratic
classrooms” (8) or establishing “democratic trust” (21). I mean, what is “democratic
trust?” Is it trust that’s advocating for a system of government in which all
eligible citizens have an equal vote? Is a “democratic classroom” one where the
students get to vote on what they wish to learn? I understand that the authors
really meant “democratic discussion” as a discussion where everyone is treated
equally, fairly, respectfully, and so on and so forth, but the authors could
have done a far better of communicating what they intended if they had not
merely attached the adjective “democratic” to any item they felt should be
based upon equality.
Work Cited
Brookfield, Stephen, and Stephen Preskill. Discussion as
a Way of Teaching. 2005. Print.
