Some differences and similarities between the public and classroom discussion processes stood out for me. For example, in the public discussion, it was very difficult to find common understanding of some of the key terms and concepts required for discussion. In the classroom discussion, student groups built common understanding of topic concepts more organically and seamlessly through assigned readings – readings they used to frame questions and possibilities. In contrast, participants in the public discussion, many of them who were not college students, found the written document on Genetic Technologies read prior to discussion “too abstract” or “difficult to understand”. In addition, many struggled to accurately understand certain concepts such as “genetic susceptibility” or interpreted terms participants used in unique ways, making building common discussion ground problematic – especially in comparison to how classroom discussion got going.

One big similarity between the public and student discussion groups was how empowered participants reported they felt from thinking about problems on a conceptual level. Participants in the public discussion really enjoyed talking to fellow citizens and even more liked listening to others’ perspectives. Nobody had ever asked for their opinion or ideas before, they said. I did hear this sentiment from students in the IF course I taught, but not as frequently or with such veracity. At the same time, I am not sure what some of the citizen discussion participants will DO with the ideas they generated, whereas I know that the discussion process that occurred in the course I instructed last semester was a life-changing event for a few students.

What I now know that I didn’t know before is how important the facilitator is to a good discussion, and that to learn how to facilitate, you have to facilitate. Facilitating a public discussion opened my eyes to the value and difficulty of facilitating a good discussion – whether it is in ‘public’ or in the classroom.

It all sort of came to a head at our last session when I just spent some time talking with the entire group about how I felt I was being too hard on them concerning their development of group communication skills, and that I was going to give them more responsibility for assessing their individual and group communication skills. In turn, students commented that they felt they were learning a lot but that learning communication skills to have deep and meaningful discussions was HARD. Students said they enjoyed the challenges of listening to different perspectives, accommodating different discussion styles, asking good questions, and considering ideas and interventions in a considered fashion. But, they said, they had had few opportunities to engage in this type or level of discussion, so it was taking them some time to get good at this. It was a good discussion, affirming for them that they were engaged in a difficult but highly enjoyable communication process, and confirming for me that communication/discussion/facilitation skill development is taking place among most students – for some at a very high level.

My experience teaching this course has shown me that students hunger for experiences where they get to practice good facilitation and rhetorical skills. What makes the development of these skills so meaningful for them, however, is that rather than practicing them in a vacuum, they are developing communication skills to engage in public deliberation of issues they care about. This, I think, is in large part why the process is hard but satisfying for them. A few weeks ago, I had lost sight of this connection, but then the students helped me see this.

I am glad that the course I selected for IF pedagogy – Community Psychology – seems to map well onto a discovery process, since concepts and principles that define the field are open to discussion and the skills students are learning as part of the course are useful for the practice of Community Psychology. I can imagine that if the course content I selected was more prescribed, or if I was using different reading assignments, I would have different concerns and dilemmas. I spent a lot of effort trying to design the course in a way that would allow students to do several things: 1) pursue a 3-stage IF process of developing questions, recognizing possibilities, and identifying consequences about community empowerment; 2) integrate concepts (from weekly assigned readings of primary sources); 3) develop group facilitation, note-taking, and discussion skills; and 4) apply discussion outcomes in tangible ways (students interview community advocates, research community organizations, complete reflection papers). In the first few weeks of class, students are supposed to develop questions (before moving on to possibilities and finally consequences) about community empowerment. Each week there is a “topic” for discussion which is informed by a set of readings that address related concepts. I am feeling pretty good about the potential of students to bring these elements together, although there are a lot of different things happening in the class, and I am getting a range of feedback from students about how they think it is going.

Regarding integration of content, what is different in this class from all others I have taught is that students are entirely responsible for connecting concepts from the readings with discussion content and their location in the IF process. Individual students and groups are finding their way, some better than others, with this responsibility. For the first few discussions, students were too focused on letting the concepts drive the discussion, on recording detailed notes, and on building agreement. Facilitators led discussion more than they facilitated and there was too much consensus and not enough question-asking. But every week, the facilitators and note-takers do a better job, and the quality of the discussions get better. I am also getting disparate feedback. A number of students tell me that this is the richest, most challenging experience they have ever had in college. They point out that they are making deep connections with concepts in the readings and their own experiences and they enjoy the group discovery process and the emotional bonds they are building with group members. They also see real value in learning how to work with others and hold each other responsible. At the same time, other students are bristling under or suffering from the imposed class structure. They point out that they don’t like how some group members don’t adequately prepare for discussion, or how others talk too much/talk too little. They want to bypass asking questions for posing possibilities and consequences. I am trying to encourage application of concepts, good group dynamics and proper use of the IF process in a number of ways. One way is having facilitators create a pre-facilitation outline (Laura’s brilliant idea!): the outline primes facilitators to aid discussants in applying concepts from the readings in discussion at appropriate times. Giving individual facilitators and groups feedback after each session (I complete evaluation forms for each of them), and having each group evaluate its own discussion process, also seems to be helping.

What I have observed is that the hardest thing for students to do in discussion is connecting their comments. But, when connections DO happen, a conversation occurs and students start to recognize different perspectives (transferal), incorporate concepts from the readings in ways that enrich the discussion (context setting), apply individual experiences (emotional acceptance), and produce more questions than answers (generalizing). So, I have been trying to give feedback to support these types of activities, emphasizing that this is a learning process and that they are all in this together.

As I stated before, I feel pretty good about the way the class is going. Nothing has gelled, but at least everything is moving forward. At the same time, I feel like I am juggling several balls in the air as I work with discussion groups – I have to encourage good group dynamics while supporting application of content in the midst of introducing them to a new process of learning.

I realize that I really am engaged in as much discovery as they are. We will see if my enthusiasm and anticipation hold up in the midst of this juggling act.

Part of how students will be assessed includes evaluating each facilitator’s pre-facilitation outline. The outline is supposed to include discussion goals, questions, and notation of key concepts (from the assigned readings) that might get raised. I prepared a pre-facilitation outline for my facilitation of the first week’s discussion, and at the end of the discussion I distributed it to all students as an example for what they should prepare in their role as facilitators. Students liked this a lot. Each facilitator will also complete a reflection paper, which will be graded.

I plan to observe small groups and provide feedback to individual facilitators and notetakers and to each group post-discussion the first few weeks. Students will also get feedback from their group members on their individual participation and the group discussion process each week by completing evaluation forms (which I created for this purpose) and sharing this information with their group. Each group must spend some time at the end of session discussing how to improve continuing discussion, but this information will not be used for grading.

I think using the IF discussion process will be a learning process for us all. While all students will be learning how to participate in and facilitate good discussions, I recognize that this is a developmental process – for some of us more than others on an individual level, and for all of us on the interactivity level.

For two weeks prior to small group formation, the entire class will participate in a simulation of the IF process, with the instructor (me) modeling facilitation and notetaking skills. I intend to also use these two weeks to observe individual student discussion styles (who talks a lot, who doesn’t), and which students hang together. My thinking is to use this information, along with gender, ethnicity, and age differences, for distributing these characteristics among groups as I place students into them. Hopefully, this will accentuate understanding and development of diversity of perspectives and discussion styles, important goals of the course.

In each group, members will take turns serving as facilitator and as notetaker. Facilitators are responsible for preparing a facilitation outline that includes discussion goals, questions to be asked, and ideas and concepts (from the week’s assigned readings) that could be useful in group discussion, and will complete a reflection paper on the facilitation experience. Notetakers are responsible for recording group discussion content and flow. Group participants are expected to have read assigned readings, actively participate in discussion, and share their own perspectives while practicing perspective-taking. Students – both individually and in groups – will be assigned points for their work in these tasks and thus held accountable. Students will also simultaneously complete assignments outside the classroom (in their communities) and bring that ‘knowledge’ into the discussions as well.

I am looking forward to seeing how students react to a course built entirely around small group discussion and field work.

Debra Swoboda