Strategies to improve classroom discussion

Saba Fatma
Department of Management Studies
Manipal University
United Arab Emirates

Abstract
Classroom participation by students is very important for learning effectiveness.
However participation of all students in classroom discussion is not always there. This
can be attributed to several factors. This paper discusses the reasons for poor classroom
participation and discusses strategies to improve classroom discussion which ultimately
leads to effective learning and development of confidence and communication skills in
students. This paper also discusses the pitfalls that need to be taken care of by the
instructor.

Introduction
Stephen Brookfield, a distinguished professor, in the second edition of The Skillful
Teacher (2006) notes that skillful teachers, will do what "helps students learn ... adopt a
critically reflective stance towards their practice ... [and are] constant[ly] aware ... of how
students are experiencing their learning and perceiving teachers' actions" (2006). One
way to tackle this difficulty is to engage students in active discussion in situations where
their current understandings will be challenged and they can experiment with alternative
conceptualizations (McDermott, 1984; Halloun & Hestenes, 1985; Hake, 1998). Learning
environments that are dialogically rich—embodying teacher– student and/or student–
student dialogue—are known to develop critical thinking and deep conceptual
understanding in students (e.g. Reiter, 1994; deCorte, 1996; Matthews, 1996). Teaching
methods that are often recommended to improve the learning environment in college
courses include cooperative learning, adding inquiry-based activities to traditional
lectures, and engaging students in classroom discussions. Discussion in class is one of the
most common strategies promoting active learning. If the objectives of a course are to
promote long-term retention of information, to motivate students toward further learning,
to allow students to apply information in new settings, or to develop students' thinking
skills, then discussion is preferable to lecture (McKeachie et al. 1986). Research has
suggested, however, that to achieve these goals faculty must be knowledgeable of
alternative techniques and strategies for questioning and discussion (Hyman 1980) and
must create a supportive intellectual and emotional environment that encourages students
to take risks (Lowman 1984). Two questions often surround these efforts: 1) how can
these methods be used effectively in classrooms and 2) how do we know that they are
increasing student learning? The author made an observation in a class of 45 business
students for a period of two semesters whereby the reasons for low classroom
participation were identified and strategies were developed to increase involvement of
students. The following issues were identified from observation of students:
1. What is the role of instructor in generating and ensuring participation of everyone in
classroom discussion?
2. Why classroom discussion is more in certain courses?
3. Why some students want to share ideas but are not able to communicate them with
confidence?
4. Is student’s ability to share ideas is also affected by quality of their relationship with
instructors and peers?
5. Are contextual factors also important which include class size, gender difference and
specific instructor behavior?

Potential explanation of poor classroom performance

There are many reasons why students are not able to communicate and share their ideas
in the class. According to constructivism, knowledge does not exist external to the
learner. Rather, individual learners construct their own meanings based on their prior
experiences. Learning is a result of construction, collaboration, and negotiation within a
rich context in which learning is situated (Brown et al., 1989). Jonassen et al.(1995)
argued that the four major system attributes on which the design of constructivist learning
environments are based are context, construction of knowledge, collaboration and
conversation. Knowledge building results when learners interact with their peers,
collaborate, discuss their positions, form arguments, re-evaluate their initial positions,
and negotiate meaning. The teacher has become more of a coach on the side rather than
the main source for delivering information. There is a great deal of research showing that
these technology-supported discussion methods lead to improvements in students’
conceptual reasoning and exam performance (Crouch and Mazur, 2001; Dufresne et al,
1996). These findings are interpreted from a social constructivist perspective (Palinscar,
1998). The argument is that in-class discussion forces students to explain, analyze and
defend their answers to concept questions in the face of questioning by others with
different perspectives. This results in more robust and elaborate mental constructions of
concepts (Nicol and Boyle, 2003) for a more fine grained analysis of these processes).
Cornelius, Gray, and Constantinople (1990) have emphasized that student participation is
determined by multiple factors and, unless multiple factors are examined, the nature of
student-faculty interaction in the college classroom will most likely be misrepresented.
Reasons for poor classroom participation can be attributed to the following reasons:
1. Students have different attitudes and experiences. Students learn from their past
experiences and if the experience was not positive they do not show much involvement in
class discussion.

2. Initiative to involve everyone in class discussion by instructors is usually not there.

Involvement of the whole class has to be done methodologically and systematically.
However most instructors prefer to have one to one discussion in the class involving
very few students.

3. There are oppressive patterns operating in every society- patterns of classism, racism,
intellectualism etc. Many students from working class backgrounds, female students, or
students from under represented ethnic groups will approach discussion sessions with a
justifiable sense of distrust.( Brookefield 2006)

4. Quality of relationships with college community is another factor which influences the
students. College community relationship includes relationship of students with teachers,
administrators and with other students. These relationships are affected by personal
prejudices, cultural diversity and the societal oppressions.

5. The physical environment also plays a role in generating student interest and
involvement. Issues like seating arrangement, room temperature, lighting etc are also
very important.

6. In a research by the group of researchers (Cornelius et al., 1990), class size was found
to be one of the three significant variables affecting the type and amount of student-
faculty classroom interactions. Furthermore, Crawford and MacLeod (1990) reported that
class size affected all dimensions of the classroom climate examined in their study, with
greater rates of participation reported in smaller classes.

7. The discipline of the course has been found to be another contextual factor that
influences students' perceptions and participation. Constantinople et al. (1988) reported
higher student participation in arts and social science courses than in natural science
courses. True to the stereotype, the natural science classes tended more toward the lecture
format, whereas humanities classes tended more toward a discussion format, and the
social science disciplines had a more or less balanced distribution of the two formats.

Techniques to improve class discussion

Differences in the form of student participation are important, because certain types of
participation are expected to be more responsible for students' impressions of the
university classroom (e.g., more intrusive styles such as interrupting), to contribute more
to effective learning and positive experiences (e.g., length of exchange). Learning should
center on the idea of ‘interactive engagement’ (Hake, 1998) which emphasizes learner
activity and dialogue.In order to improve concept learning in the sciences, some higher
education researchers in the United States have used the developments in information and
communications technology to help support the management of interaction and
discussion in large classes. Using ‘Classroom Communication Systems’ (or classroom
feedback systems) the Physics Education Research Group (PERG) at the University of
Massachusetts (Dufresne et al., 1996) and researchers within the Galileo Project at
Harvard (Mazur, 1997; Crouch & Mazur, 2001) have modified the traditional lecture
format in science education. They have refocused teaching of core concepts in the
discipline using a sequence that involves cycles of short presentations followed by
concept questions (tests), immediate feedback and peer group and/or class-wide
discussion. Drawing on the work of both Mazur (1997) and Dufresne et al (1996) two
approaches to discussion sequences can be analyzed as follows:

Peer Instruction: Mazur Sequence Class-wide Discussion: Dufresne Sequence

1. Concept question posed. 1. Concept question posed

2. Individual Thinking: students given time 2. Peer Discussion: small groups discuss

3. Students provide individual responses to think individually (1-2 minutes)

4. Students receive feedback 3. Students provide individual responses.

5. Peer Discussion: students instructed to 4. Students receive feedback

display. convince their neighbors that they have the 5.Class-wide discussion: students explain the right
right answer. answer.

6. Retesting of same concept explanations of others

(facilitated by tutor)

7. Students provide individual responses

8. Students receive feedback – poll of

‘correct’ response

9. Lecturer summarizes and explains ‘correct’

response
However theses techniques are more useful for large classes and especially for science
stream where discussion purpose is mainly to understand theoretical concepts.

It is very important in subjects other than basic sciences especially humanities not only to
understand the concepts but to analyze the concepts situation wise. Hence for class size
which are not very large the following techniques are very useful:

1. Hatful of Quotes

Developed by Stephen Brookfield (2006) the purpose behind this technique is to make
the act of contributing to the class discussion stress free. 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
something 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.

2. Circular Response Discussions

Developed by Stephen Brookfield (2006) this is a technique in which 6-8 participants are
there. They are seated in a circular position in such a way that every participant can see
each other. In this one speaker initiates a discussion and than every participants takes a
minute to contribute to the discussion. When this is over discussion can continue
randomly but the speaker has who discussing the issue has to take cue from the preceding
speakers issue. The participant can choose to agree to it or disagree to it. If the participant
cannot join issue with the preceding speaker than gaps in knowledge or in language or
experience must be talked about to sort out the source of confusion. This technique helps
in promoting democratic discussion and focuses more on ideas than solely on
communication skills.

3. Snowballing

In this technique developed by Stephen Brookefield (2006) the topic is given to the
students to reflect individually and then every few minutes groups keep enlarging so that
at the end the whole class in convened into one large group. This process begins by
giving students one minute to reflect on the topic individually. Then the students have to
form a group of two where they discuss the topic and the main points of differences or
questions that emerged. After again 5 minutes students have to form quartets whereby
they again discuss differences or questions that emerged .this is formed by merging of
any two quartets Then after 10 minutes students form octets whereby the discussion
continues. This time they discuss the topic for twenty minutes .Finally this continues with
20 minutes interval after the whole class has formed one large group. This technique
promotes healthier class discussion, and improves camaraderie in the class.

4. Newsprint dialogues

In this techniques students work in groups as well as individually. Initially after the
allotment of the topic groups discuss the topic and summarize the points. Groups
summarize their points on large newsprint or chalkboard. Groups are provided large
newsprint or chalkboard to write their points within 15-20 minutes .These are then pasted
in the room after 30 minutes. Individual members are free to wander in the class to read
the comments and add responses. Since this is a written technique it brings clarity to the
discussion. This technique was developed by Stephen Brookfield (2006)

5. Rotating stations

In this technique developed by Stephen Brookfield (2006) small groups are formed and
10 minutes are allotted to discuss the topic Then every group is allotted 10 minutes to
write their comments analysis on a newsprint about the topic and hand .Than they are
asked to rotate whereby each group go newsprint of every group called stations and
writes their counter remark., analysis and comments responding to that groups
statements. This is rotated after every 10 minutes till all groups have covered all station.
Students are then asked to break from their groups read the statement further add any
comment required .Rotating stations encourages students to examine critically ideas that
originate outside their group. The safety and intimacy of small groups is retained, yet the
diversity of viewpoints experienced in whole class discussion is incorporated.

6. Speech Policy

Developed by Stephen Brookfield (2006) Speech policy is a technique used to encourage

introverted students to speak. In this the instructor gives the topics and then announces
that making contribution to the topic is purely voluntary. Prolonged periods of silence is
acceptable. Students should make contribution only if they want to .So this removes
unnecessary pressure on students to appear smart to the instructor by responding. This
encourages introverted students to speak.

8. Mutual Invitation
Developed by Eric Law (1993) mutual invitation is a technique designed to promote
egalitarian group talk (Brookfield, 2006). In this technique the instructor initiates the
discussion by sharing his/her views on the topic. Then students are invited to join issue or
comment on the statement then the instructor selects the next speaker till everyone has
given the contribution. If someone does not want to speak the statement is passed but the
student has to tell who the next speaker will be. The speaker cannot be interrupted. When
everyone has finished speaking one then open discussion starts whereby anyone can
speak. This method gives everyone an opportunity to speak and encourages students to
recommend students who have expertise in certain areas as students know each others
areas of interest better than the instructor facilitating quality discussion

Here are a few specific suggestions for improving class discussion.

1. Objective of discussion should be identified

Before having a class discussion the objective of the discussion must be identified.
This helps in streamlining the discussion process. Also main discussion questions and
issues and preparatory activities must be planned in advance. If a case study is to be
given students must be asked to read the relevant theory in advance before they come
to class. Class discussions must be planned in such a way that they fit into the course
as a whole. This means the contest of each discussion must be clear and interlinked
with the previous discussion. Students should summarize the points after each
discussion. Students must also summarize the issues that emerged in the discussion
and also questions that emerged. This must be inform of written paragraphs. Final
summary must always be written by the instructor on the board.

2. Participation of all students in a group must be encouraged.

Students should be given the topic before hand so that they come prepared with the
theory and background information. The discussion must begin with small groups as
participation in small groups is more. Later issues can be summarized by discussing it
with the whole class. Students must write down the points during the discussion as
writing brings clarity to the topic. Either all the groups must be given the same topic
or topics must be divided in such a way that each group gets a different topic but all
topics are sub parts of one main problem. Initially focus should be one quantity of

3. Students must feel encouraged to participate without fear of rejection.

The aim of class discussion should be that everyone makes a contribution not some
students acting as discussion monopolizers. Every good point must be acknowledged
with verbal and non verbal cues .For example: This is a very good point or this is a
new point of discussion, let us carry the discussion forward. The easiest issuers must
 be discussed first followed by detail analysis. Also incorrect information or wrong
answers must be corrected in such a way that that students are not scared in
participating again.

4. Right questioning strategies must be used.

After the questions have been given to students they must be given sufficient time
before the discussion actually begins. The question or issues of the discussion must
pertain to learning objectives. Types of questions can be inclusive of recall questions,
analysis question and application questions. Recall question aim to help students
recall the theory on which the discussion is based. This helps in revision. Analysis
question succeed recall question where students have to analyze the issue at hand
which is based on some already covered theory. Application question are a kind of
questions were theory has to be applied to a specific situation. This helps in
understanding and retention.

Pitfalls to avoid:

The instructor must never look for validation of his ideas. The students must be
encouraged to analyze the issue from all perspectives. Similar techniques must not be
used again and again as it makes the class discussion process monotonous. Same groups
must not be used repeatedly but regrouping must be frequently done so that students are
more involved and new ideas emerge.

References

1. Brookfield Stephen,2006 “The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and

Responsiveness in the Classroom” D. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley, Second Edition
297 pp.

2. Brown, JS Collins, Duguid, P (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning,
Educational Researcher,

3. Crouch, C.H. and Mazur, E. (2001), ‘Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and
results’, American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977

4. Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Leonard, W.J., Mestre, J.P. and Wenk, L. (1996),
‘Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning’, Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.

5. DeCorte, E. (1996) ,, New perspectives on learning and teaching in higher education,

in: A. Burgen (Ed.) Goals and Purposes of Higher Education (London, Jessica Kingsley).

6.Hake, R.R. (1998), ‘Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand

student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses’, American Journal
of Physics, 66, 64-74

7. Halloun I , & Hestenes. (1985) The initial knowledge state of college physics students,
American Journal of Physics, 53, pp. 1043–1055.

8. Hyman, Ronald T. 1980, Improving Discussion Leadership. New York: Columbia

Univ., Teachers College Press.

9. Jonassen D, Davidson A, Collins, M, Campbell, J and Haag, BB (1995).

“Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education”, The
American Journal of Distance Education, Vol 9, pp7–26.

10. Lowman Joseph, 1984. Mastering the Techniques of Teaching. San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass.

12. Matthews, R.S. (1996) Collaborative learning: creating knowledge with students, in:
R.J. Menges, M. Weimer &associates (Eds.) Teaching on Solid Ground (San Francisco,
CA, Jossey-Bass).

13. Mcdermott, L.C. (1984) Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics, Physics

today, 37(7), pp. 24–32.

14. McKeachie, Wilbert J., Paul R. Pintrich, Yi-Guang Lin, and David A.F. Smith. 1986.
Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom: A Review of the Research Literature.
Ann Arbor: Regents of the Univ. of Michigan. ED 314 999. 124 pp. MF-01; PC-05.

15. Palinscar, A.S. (1998), ‘Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning’,
Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375.

16. Nicol David and Boyle James and Association for Learning Technology Journal
(ALT-J), 2003, 11(3), pp 43-57.

17. Reiter, S.N. (1994). Teaching dialogically: its relationship to critical thinking in
college students, in: P.R. Pintrich, D.R. Brown & C.E. Weinstein (Eds) Student
Motivation, Cognition and Learning (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).