Discussion as a Way of Teaching

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.