Robert Gray's CommentPress Site

I’ve used discussion in classes with over 70 students. There were 10 groups of about 7 students. Of course, the type of discussion depends on the size of class and you might not be able to follow up with everybody. That’s a problem if discussions should be assessed as recommended by the first text.

Forgot to write: So yes, I think there is an upper bound to *useful* discussions. As an extreme example, at many technical universities there are “math for engineers” lectures with several thousand students in multiple gigantic lecture halls. Discussions wouldn’t work in this context.

Not sure I understand this part. I do value democracy, but I’m unsure I care about this argument very much.

Natural scientists discuss their work all the time. No controversy here.

Perhaps this is a false dichotomy. Why can’t some of both perspectives inform one’s thinking and interpretation?

We need to move beyond evaluating contributions to online discussions in terms of word counts and admonitions against “I agree” responses. What are the characteristics of a substantive, thoughtful, response? Suggestions: A response deepens the discussion (but we need to articulate what “depth” means). A response that extends the discussion to a new dimension or application, adding breadth without distracting from the main topic (i.e., the new dimension must be germane; it must not be a tangent).

As a cognitive psychologist, I enjoy figuring out how to measure the “unmeasurable.”

So my question for Pam is: What are the hallmarks of a “transformational interaction?” I assume you recognize it when it happens, so what do you see?  What does it look like when it is happening? How do people who experience this type of interaction change? What do these people typically say about these experiences? What do observers say about these interactions?

While doing this, we need to be careful not to focus on one or two superficial characteristics and treat these as the whole thing. But 4 or 5 independent indicators might triangulate on the underlying concept. The measure won’t be perfect, but it can capture the sense of what we mean by the concept if the measures are selected carefully.

For me the value of well-run group discussions for student engagement and understanding outweighs the need for (to say it extremely) box-ticking my way through a syllabus.  Course descriptions always grow over time more easily than they shrink, and if I found myself in such a situation, I’d push for a review of the syllabus. I’d rather have students understand 3 topics well than 5 in a rush. The skills they pick up learning the 3 will help them get to the “missing” two with much less effort later.

They can work I think, as long as you have a tool such as menti to consolidate the groups’ answers:  have them discuss with each other solving the menti questions rather than each on their own.

This is a point I also struggle with. I’ve tried mentimeter free-form text bubbles in smaller settings they work really well, and I can pick out some answers, and discuss them in more detail. But when there’s hundreds of them flying past the screen, I’m stuck

This seems a weak counterargument. Like the text suggests, bunch up sessions, or spread out the discussion over time. Setup in one session, use the next one just for discussion, and do the wrapup at the beginning of session 3.

It’s important to distinguish “settled facts” from open questions here.

I think it’s a must to get across what the scientific consensus model is *now* very clearly, since so much else downstream depends on it. But in order to get there, it’s very productive to discuss how new results were established in discussion and debate *at the time*.
And of course, an explanation of _why_ something has become a settled fact, and all the different supporting evidence for it

I agree with the opinion that lecturing or using other teaching approaches are equally important as discussion in learning. As Marc mentioned, finding a good balance between all teaching methods without overdoing it unnecessarily is sometime hard to reach.

It’s a strong statement here between soft and hard sciences, and it’s walking on a tight rope to find the right equilibrium. A discussion about too simple or settled facts, and advanced research knowledge in natural science are not the same things. As teacher/researcher, I think it’s our responsibility to clearly establish the differences for not falling into unproductive discussions, and thus deriving away from the teaching objectives.

And when those accommodations include opportunities for students to make connections from those texts to their own internal dialogical interactions as well as to other texts, to other circumstances, other perspectives, and the larger texts of society, they will develop skills and understandings that allow them to explore their worlds in a much expanded sense.

Also impacted is the internal dialogue as a participant examines previously held views and, in conversation with new perspectives, opens himself or herself to shifting meaning.

As Peter Elbow might put it, sometimes we don’t know what we are thinking until we commit it to paper. Solidifying thinking through language requires turning the fog into particles.

I’m not sure I agree that all discussions reduce students to pinging. I believe that there are many instructors who use exploratory/dialogic discussion, and researchers who try to access those subtle and complex features of interaction in order to determine what kinds of social expression/presence are manifest in online interactions – not just interactivity.

What a beautiful expression: “willingly seduced by the nuances of the dialogue.” I think that defines the essence of a truly educated person – not just the teacher, but the student as well.

I think that discussion can be integrated into all kinds of teaching approaches! There is nothing to say you have to pick one or another. I think it’s also critical to persevere with discussion. Sometimes students are simply not used to it, but using something like the think-pair-share technique can provide a gentle introduction.

I found this linking of discussion with democracy to be fascinating and a perspective that I hadn’t considered.

This one is a tricky one for me. I like and support discussions but at the UiB, in my field, we just do not have sufficient teaching time to fully cover topics to a good depth level. So yes, I do feel that I might be forced out of covering basic stuff if we discuss a lot (and I include 2 extra lectures per course – as free and voluntary – to do group discussion/problem solving)

This one is not a very strong point in the piece and not much advice is given here besides the very obvious: edit and re-think based on your audience. Maybe we could discuss about how make book exercises/tests/experience to fit the classroom?

I do not agree with this. I believe some level of interaction is necessary and possible irrespective of the size of the class. Not all exercises will fit in large groups, but brief interactions, for example  a two minute think-pair-share between students sitting next to each other is possible also in larger classes and also keeps the students more active, as opposed to passively listening to a whole lecture.

Wrong attitude! But I can relate because of the amount of work it takes to prepare good discussions, but hopefully the more experienced I get the easier it becomes, as with all matters of teaching.

I wonder about the use of the term “drive” here to describe the way our pedagogical activity.  The very term is mechanical, either in the sense of actual mechanics or the Freudian sense.  In either case, the foundationalist assumptions–that there is something in you that compels your pedagogical style seems to contradict the content of the poem that suggests the motion of teaching is one of being willingly seduced by the nuances of the dialogue that emerges in your class.  Not coming from within you, but from the intra-action with the student(s).

I’ve always felt that interaction in students’ blogging works best when each student has their own blog and they (and I, with my teacher’s blog) are all equal, as peers. Comment threads like these seem to maintain hierarchy more than individual blogs – the main text has authority, much as a lecturer standing behind a podium does. I wonder whether the feeling of dialogue can be fully achieved with this kind of commenting? Perhaps?

As Ragnhild and Ingrid states nicely here, you will not get anywhere if you are not willing to learn and apply new things. It could be good to start off with short discussions or tasks in pairs or small groups and as we get more experience one can expand and let the discussions become a larger part of a course. At least this is they way I have introduced new things in my teaching (such as asynchronous work/modules in canvas and group projects) – Learn from the first experiences and improve for next time.

In the discussions I have made I have tried to make some cases that bring us into some issues I would like the students to be know about. Sometimes the cases become a bit weird (obviously constructed)  so I can introduce these aspects and “tick the boxes”. Other than that I think mittuib offers space for what is not covered in discussions.  

I have had some great colleagues join me in discussions with students, both from UiB, but also from NTNU, that has been a really great experience and I am not sure I would have dared to start with it without them.

I agree that two minute think-paire-share between two students is possible with even large groups. And by the sound it seems most students get engaged in the questions.  However, sometimes I find it difficult to both hear the students responses and finding a good way to immediately summarize and incorporate their answers and responses. I teach a course with 279 students and I think the feedback to me from their discussions is a bit challenging. It might work better if I bring in a co-lecturer to help facilitate this.

For me, this is an important point and a bit of a challenge, teaching chemistry to first year students in Aud 1 at Realfagbygget. I have previously tried to encourage discussions in dyads or small groups  there. The issue seem to be the noise level, that many don’t want to or feel comfortable discussing with the neighbor, and the same few students respond/give feedback afterwards. And that in these periods many of the other student stop paying attention. Some tools and tips for making this better would be appreciated.

Ignacio, I think you have a very important point here. How can we balance the teaching time available and the entire syllabus for a course, with discussions and problem solving? Can we leave more of the syllabus to the students as “self reading”, and spend more time on a narrower part of the syllabus…?

I agree with you, Mali. I also have faced the same problem with noise in discussion in my large first-year statistics classes. I think that another issue to consider here is how the fact that some of these large lectures in auditoriums need to be streamed (as it has been the case recently) affects participation in class discussions. I feel that students are much less engaged to speak up if the lecture is being recorded, and I fully understand them. It would be interesting to hear some tips on how to adapt discussions for settings like large-auditorium, streamed classes

I agree that when different methods are used within a course it is sometimes hard to convey that, e.g., attending the lecture or solving exercises is equally important as participating in the discussions. All the more as the latter are harder to evaluate. And one also has to acknowledge the fact that different students will always feel differently about discussions, no matter how much trust, engagement, etc. you build beforehand. So it would be nice to hear more on how to balance out these different teaching methods

This is a very important concept.

Luckily, I intuitively grasped the concept as early as 2006, when I launched my first online lectures on nuclear medicine:

http://radiowew.uib.no/undervisning/grunnkurs/nuk1/player.html

The presentation is essentially linear, reciting what constitutes “conventional wisdom” in the field. However, on selected slides (e. g. slide 22) I added footnotes to the manuscript where I pointed out instances of over-simplification to the student including references for further reading.

Try to say that sentence fast many times: “from the epicness of monologic pedagogy to the novelness of a dialogic curriculum”! Absolutely supporting the idea though!

I think in order for students to fully grasp the material, they need to have interaction with the material, other students, and with the instructor. By interacting with the material in different ways, students gain different perspectives and may encounter different ways to think about the material that they didn’t previously. It helps them feel engaged and a true part of the learning process.

I agree with you, Steve. The learning experiences that I’ve had in that past that have led to a shift in my thinking or way of doing something  are the experiences I remember the most.

That magical moment of transformational interaction–can it really be quantified, or nailed down–would/should you dissect the blackbird? We have certainly tried, but not with very good results so far. As an instructional designer, I realize the value of determining what promotes quality interaction with the goal of fostering it though, and agree we need a better language and structure for talking about productive interaction–must read on!

It’s hard to fault those who would pound interaction flat into interactivity in order to study it though–a little like cartographers who have to warp our world a little to represent it on paper. Unfortunately what probably IS lost in the pounding out IS the impact of the student’s role in interaction.

I love this ability to comment within the text and not just at the end of the post.

Jill, I love this way of thinking. I’ve struggled over time with ways to manage blogging and student control over, and engagement across, texts. The commenting this specific tool allows could be quite useful for asynchronous (or synchronous) group exploration of a common text. Any more thoughtful, probitive responses, or essay drafts that might emerge from this close engagement with the text, could become blog posts on a student’s individual blog. And then others could be invited to review and engage with that new text in the new space.

I see it as a sort of flow between and among blogs, and this tool would help readers become engaged participants in moments in the text.

I love that idea of “innuendo-ness,” and by default I’d say it’s more likely laden with negative connotations than positive. I’d image that, out of the box, innuendos are not beautiful, but rather references to deeper spots that, more often than not, can cause discomfort in the recipients (readers).

A student always has been “a co-writer of the meanings of learning” but importantly, by entering a dialogue between student and teacher, EACH gains insight into what the teacher thought was being learned and what the student actually learned.  That is, the student’s prior experiences have always influenced their learning and even their memorization of bulleted lists.  I know that what I thought I was teaching was not always what the student knew they learned.  This is particularly evident when the topic is controversial such as the existence of biological races or human evolution.   Opening a dialogue on such topics is critical, and allowing students to be experts on what the “know” about the popular conceptions of these topics is always a learning experience for me.

Rob, I believe you asked the wrong Dr. Vanguri to help with this post.  I’ll contribute to the technology review!

This is a great quote from Dwight and Garrison on the centralized mode of communication in the traditional classroom dynamic between the instructor and student.

I see the challenge of including discussions in a tight program, but I think we rather should think that it is always worth it, because:

1) It involves the students in their own learning. What we say is not what they learn, because they are not boxes that can be filled.

2) If they (the students) spend time on pre reading for the lesson, a discussion might be exactly what they need to understand better and make the text more actual for themselves and their own thinking

3) It makes sense coming to class when you are supposed to be active and not a passive doll.

I think that everything you do you must once to for the first time. We are all learning as long as we live, and we will also gain in doing things (teaching) in new ways.

It seems to me that the central challenges of having a shared learning experience – whether by using online tools or just by classroom participation – are ego and trust.  The monologic approach, especially as it may be central to the professor’s research area, can be tied very closely with the ego of the person doing the delivering.  The recipients may be very intelligent but less informed about the subject matter being delivered, but also less restricted in their thinking about that subject area.  Like any exchange of ideas, there may be a lot of chaff to wade through, but the pearls (to mix a metaphor) may be worth the wading.  It is tempting to shoot down ideas in a public forum, especially if they do not conform to the “accepted” political or academic norm in the setting they are delivered.  As an interested, committed, “intelligent” participant – do I trust that I will be able to be heard without judgement, or, if I am “forced” to participate by stint of a grade, will I purposely be reserved and circumspect – only contributing comments that I know are “safe”.

If the poem is looking to the beauty remaining in the consciousness of the person who is being affected, as it seems to me, perhaps all innuendoes have in them the beauty of the interactions that created them. This is not to say that the innuendoes might bring up un-beautiful things. For example, a discussion of world trade may, indirectly, bring up concerns about human slavery and/or trafficking. That does not take away from the interaction, but expands it.

As to “writerly” vs “readerly” texts, it seems that we have to expect that students will approach any text, including classroom teaching, as a “writerly” experience. It is the continuing dialogic, then, between teacher and student and course materials that results in quality teaching, the kind that allows students to appropriate course content to their own purposes.

One of the things we will talk about in the class meeting is how to say a lot of the same things you would normally say in a lecture but in the context of a discussion. Also, when a student says something good, it is very good to recognize and amplify what they have said so that the other students pay attention to it. And when a student says something that is not correct, it is important to not let it go. However, it is generally better to ask a follow-up question to get them to rethink what they’ve said rather than to just bang the gong and say they are wrong.

Preach it!

This is an example of a comment at the paragraph level. You will note that the paragraph in question is highlighted in red and that this comment is at the first level of the marginal conversation.  The next person to come along can also make a comment on that first level (i.e., speak directly to the paragraph) or reply to this comment.

This is a second comment on the paragraph at the “first level.”

This is a reply to the first comment, which creates a new conversation thread.  This is where the conversation becomes a dialogue between readers.

This is a reply to the reply.  You can see how this can become quite sophisticated.

And this can keep going…

and going…

The terms “writerly” and “dialogic” could use some explanation here.  French theorist, Roland Barthes, contended that the best measure of the quality of a literary work is its writerliness.  He said there are two kinds of texts, readerly texts and writerly texts, that readerly texts are those which have a limited number of possible interpretations and that writerly texts, the rarest and best texts, are those which make the process of reading a process of re- or co-writing of the text.

Russian theorist, Mikhail Bakhtin, defined the concept of dialogism as the quality of a text where multiple voices interplay with each other, where the text cannot be identified as having one clear voice or point of view.

Later in the essay, I mention “novelness.” This is another of Bakhtin’s concepts.  He differentiated between novel and epic texts in a way that somewhat parallels Barthes’s writerly and readerly texts, where epic texts have a clear voice or meaning but novels (and by this he is speaking about 20th-century novels) have a multitude of voices and possible interpretations.

It is also worth pointing out here that the comment box has a rich-text editor that allows you to use bold, italics, and underlining (although you should never use underlining if the text is not a link).  You can also add links like this one.

You can even embed videos..

Point taken, Jerry.

Sue, I miss you so…

If the innuendoes are all beautiful, then are the students really learning anything?  And does “the beauty of innuendoes” actually suggest that the innuendo itself must be beautiful? Might it be referring to innuendo-ness, both in itself and in its agency?

I am thinking that Claudia and Pam need to begin a dialogue that leads to synthesis of your opposing ideas about the function and practice of measurement.

Excellent point, Jill!  And that is one of the reasons why I don’t typically use this tool with texts like these.  I will often provide things that I’ve written for my students in this system just for consistency sake, but I don’t usually ask them, or at least require them, to comment.  However, it does allow them the opportunity to ask questions or share insights or raise objections if they wish.  My most common use of this tool is to put the literary texts (most commonly poems) that we are studying here, allowing them to discuss the work (and think critically about the work) before coming to class.

In fact, I seriously considered putting a poem here as well to give people an option of what to comment on, but I decided that would water down the comments.  Perhaps that was a bad decision…

One of the things I’ve come to realize about this writerly/dialogic angle that I’m proposing is that it’s not such a radical move in the end.  Students have been doing to this to some extent all along, and many professors have as well.  What I am calling for is a clearer intention and consciousness about what is going on and how, from both instructors and students.

Some of them will do this regardless of what their instructors do, but most of them will only do this if we enable them, if we show them how, if we openly provide them the opportunity over and over again…

Can you have authoritarian discourse in “dialogue” or even coexistence with personal, interpretive discourse?

Note: This WordPress site allows for threaded discussions in the margin of a text. Please make at least two comments as a response to some of these objections, preferably where you disagree (but not necessarily).

That transition of power from instructor to student might be the most dialogic exercise of all. As an instructor, I am constantly and willfully offering (begging) my students to embrace that power, accept it as their own and allow the dialogue to happen. From an applied arts perspective, particularly, that transition is often met with fear; I guess akin to swimming in the deep end for the first time. The ability to turn “mere ‘training’ toward true ‘education'” is acute and I find myself pursuing all sorts of random “tricks” to help disguise this power shift. Because, ultimately, I agree with the sentiment of this paragraph and the ideals of a “dialogic curriculum.”

I agree with this passage. It’s an old idea that we have, unfortunately, moved away from. In my experience, preparation for a flipped course is far and away more time consuming than it would be for a non-flipped course. Unlike the typical criticism that claims that creating videos etc for students to consume outside of class is the more difficult part, I feel that creating worthwhile experiences for class time is far more challenging.

This paragraph brings up an important element of dialogic teaching. The two-way interaction puts distinct responsibility on both parties to engage, and yet, I think that this isn’t behavior that most teachers and students are used to. In a lecture-based class, faculty need not worry about true interaction with students, nor do the students have to worry about anything more than looking like they’re paying attention. Though we may all agree that interactivity in the classroom is superior, that’s not to say that it’s something we’re all used to.

I disagree with this. I think, that if you prepare the discussion in a smart way you can through the discussion cover the material you want to.

However, I think preparing in that way is more time consuming than “just” preparing a traditional lecture. And, we, or at least I feel, that we do not have enough training to prepare discussions like this, which is why I feel fortunate to take this course.

“when spoken by a peer”. I often experience us having discussions in the classroom, and when students say “the right thing”, which would have been content in my lecture anyway, other students do not pay as much attention to that information as they would if it was on a slide and me saying it. How can we deal with this? Do we just need to be explicit explaining that what peers say “might” be relevant to write down? Then how do we distinguish things that are not exactly on point, or wrong, without calling the student out and saying “hey, that is wrong, and this what I now tell you is right”… That likely would discourage further discussion.

This statement indicates that natural science thinks they already know everything there is to know in the world, and this knowledge just needs to be conveyed to students. Interestingly though, research and new knowledge production still happens in those fields, as well as in the social sciences. Which means, that if you do not have discussions in natural science classes, you, in my now annoyed state of mind ;), think that students could never be part of the discussion held in research that comes up with new ideas and directions. That does not taste good to me…

Did the big names in natural science fields never discuss with each other and their professors when they were students? Was new natural science knowledge born solely inside natural scientists head without any discussion with the outside world? I think not.

I approach students in my class thinking they know things I do not. I, and research, can learn from them. So if I do not let them speak and discuss and try their wings in a safe space, I will never learn from them. I do not want to miss that opportunity. What a privilege it is to get to spend time every week with curious minds.

I’m going to go one step further and say that what lives on is what gets into a student’s practice–what is actually lived out in the day-to-day world.  Who was it who said that great literature rearranges the furniture of our minds?  Well, our minds direct our actions and interactions with the outside world.  The ultimate measure of the staying power of a text or a lesson is whether it alters (even a little) the way we actually live.

This is one of my favorite passages in poetry.  I have just heard the blackbird this morning–and I tried to whistle too. I thought there might be a response, but it has been ten minutes or more — and the air is filled with silence–like a classroom when no one says a thing.

What if “innuendoes” are not beautiful? What then might a teacher do?

What if there is no language? What is the listener isn’t listening — for how would the teacher know?  I see the master’s mouth moving.  I see his hand point to a word — but I am somewhere better than a classroom.  I am in New Orleans on an early September morning and beignets. The taste of sugar lingers on my tongue. This is an unteachable moment, n’est pas?

Can you say this as a poem? If so, I’ll listen.

Fly away blackbird, fly, fly away.  You know wind-thrusts, the color of the sky, shades of the rainbow. Where are the children? Teach them the lift of wings.

i have discovered the “after” — Wendell Berry’s The Way of Ignorance.  It is the way of the shovel — the spade.

I love this quote!

Great article. I agree with both you and Gurupreet. I always loved the John Maxwell quote, “Connection not correction”. Miss y’all!

Learned two new english words: inflections and innuendoes. Beautiful part of a poem, anyway.