Getting a discussion to work is much harder than most people think.
A key reason is that there are a multitude of responsibilities
one must discharge simultaneously, and on the fly. Is the content
on track? Are there any threads of the discussion that have been
left hanging? Are there any essential topics that have not been
covered yet? Are any people unduly dominating the discussion?
Is anyone being silenced by the rest of the class? Is there
broad participation? These are just a few of the considerations
one must keep in mind as a facilitator of a discussion. This
sheet of tips is intended to help you concentrate on the essentials.
First, remember that your job is to get others to engage
in discussion, not to provide the discussion yourselves. Keep
your own participation to a minimum. If you show the least willingness
to do the work for the rest of the group, they will let you do
so. You've probably been trained over the years to be eager to
give "the answer" when you know what it is, so it may
be very difficult to keep your knowledge to yourself. One way
that helps is to focus on asking questions. As you do
so, try not to have a set list of questions, as if your job were
to quiz the class. Instead, identify before class some of the objectives you wish the discussion to reach, then concentrate
on using your questions to help the discussion take its natural
course. Build outward from their starting points. Get the class
members to talk to each other, not to you, and to help each other
to articulate significant, competing positions.
Second, and this may be the hardest thing of all to master, do
not be afraid of silence. Especially when you ask your first
question, there is likely to be a lull before anyone volunteers
a response. This lull can be excruciating to an inexperienced
discussion facilitator. Do not panic. Someone will eventually
formulate a response to get you started. Remember that people
need time to settle into the topic and to respond thoughtfully.
One way to help them is to begin with tiny questions (e.g., "name
your favorite incident in the reading") rather than to ask
something cosmic (e.g., "what is the most important conclusion
we can draw from this reading assignment").
Third, try to keep the discussion focused primarily on the readings.
There will be a tendency for students to stray quickly to the
present, rather than discussing the past, and also to spout off
about what their own positions are on things, rather than building
outward from the positions taken by the assigned authors. If
people drift toward the present, simply ask them politely what
bearing their remarks have on the dead people we're discussing
that week. Doing so makes clear that references to the present
aren't prohibited, just as long as they're kept relevant to the
issues at hand. If students focus too much on their own opinions,
simply ask them if the position they're advocating is their own,
that of the author, or someone else's. That usually does the
trick.
Fourth, be especially cautious of the tendency to pronounce moral
verdicts. Many students will be strongly tempted to focus on
deciding which of the dead people we study was "right"
or "good". This will be particularly pronounced around
the issue of "greed". Our job isn't to decide if all
those dead people went to heaven or hell (or whatever the equivalent
is in your moral schema), but rather to assess causation. We
are here to assess significance. Try to elicit from the
class as many well-developed, competing causal interpretations
of the issues for the week as you can. By all means,
try also to prevent too much discussion about how entertaining
the readings are; it's a secondary issue.
Finally, devote some attention to breadth of coverage and breadth
of participation. It isn't necessary that we cover every possible
topic in the readings, and it isn't necessary for everyone to
speak during the discussion period, but do what you can to keep
us all from watching five people flog one topic to death for over
an hour.