Several studies of instructional strategies and classroom interaction have concluded that students develop a greater affect for subjects taught via class discussion than by those taught strictly by lecture. Discussion allows students to formulate principles and applications
Chapter Three - 32
in their own words, giving a sense of ownership to course concepts. Discussion also provides teachers with prompt feedback on how students are processing information. A Stanford University study of technical skills necessary for effective teaching identified nine primary instructional skills, seven of which were related to classroom interaction: fluency in asking questions, reinforcing student participation, using probing questions, using questions that address higher level cognitive objectives, facility with divergent questions, appropriates use of a teacher nonverbal communication cues to reduce reliance on teacher talk, and using interaction techniques to reduce boredom and inattention.
As common as claims of desiring and encouraging class discussion are, many teachers find that getting students to talk is a difficult and frustrating task. Dreams of entering a classroom of bright and inquisitive students who bring with them thoughtful, probing questions related to assigned readings or previous class lectures are often dashed early in a semester -- or a career. "I'm always asking my students if they have any questions or comments," said one teacher, "but they just look at me. Nobody ever wants to talk." Why does this happen?
One of the problems teachers have in generating class discussion is their assuming that the students should be the initiators. Most students, however, do not come to class with questions or observations, at least those they wish to share. One of the keys to successful whole-class discussion is the teacher's ability to ask questions, not just to ask for them. Furthermore, the kind of question the teacher asks is central to her or his success in the role of moderator.
Closed questions, which have only one or a limited number of correct responses, are a good way of keeping students on their toes but rarely foster discussion. "What year did the Civil War begin?", "Can anyone explain how a rainbow is made?", or "How would knowledge of immediacy cues be useful in a sales position?" address knowledge, comprehension, and application learning objectives and invite students to become active participants in class but are looking for specific, correct answers.
Teachers need to be careful not to make answering such questions a threatening experience. Children with a high level of communication apprehension will often answer "I don't know" just to avoid being called on again, and any student will suffer some degree of embarrassment if put on the spot with a question he or she can't answer. For that reason, teachers should avoid calling on individual students who do not signal their willingness to participate. While calling only on those students who volunteer may limit interaction to the more extroverted students, the teacher should question her or his motives for insisting students answer questions when they do not what to. Is this important to the instructional
objectives for that unit, or is just another instance of the "Gotcha" game played by so many teachers?
Systems of questioning around a circle or down the rows are viewed with increasing terror by many students as their time "to look bad" approaches. All such systems are certain to accomplish is to reduce the cognitive learning of some students while, at the same time, generating negative affective learning. In any case, the teacher's response to wrong answers and her or his sensitive use of appropriate, helpful prompts (rather than just "I'm waiting" or "Go on") will go a long way toward establishing a nonthreatening environment in using closed questions.
With closed questions, the teacher remains the primary focus of the teacher-student interaction. It is the use of open questions that is most effective at shifting that focus to a genuine discussion atmosphere where the teacher steps back into a moderator's role. Open questions are particularly appropriate for getting at analysis, synthesis, and application objectives. They do not have right answers; although students may be challenged to defend their positions, they can never be wrong. At their best, they motivate discussions among students in which the teacher steps in only to draw closure or redirect the discussion's focus. Consider your response to the following questions:
Suppose you discover that your wonderful one-year-old child, because of a mix-up at the hospital, is not yours. Would you want to exchange the child to correct the mistake?
Would you rather be extremely successful professionally and have a tolerable but boring private life, or have an extremely exciting private life and only a tolerable and uninspiring professional life?
Would you accept twenty years of extraordinary happiness and fulfillment if it meant you would die at the end of the period?
For $100,000 would you go for three months without washing, brushing your teeth, or using deodorant? Assume you could not explain your reasons to anyone. (Stock, 1987)
While these might not be questions you would pose in your classroom, they illustrate the power of open questions in stimulating thought. A classroom adaptation might be: "What if
Chapter Three - 34
Romeo and Juliet had not been successful in killing themselves; they attempted suicide, but pulled through. What do you think would have happened to them?" Posing this question to a class of high school freshmen not only asks them to draw on what they know about Romeo and Juliet, their families, and other insights from the play they have read; it also invites them to draw on their own experiences with and attitudes about parent-child relationships, love, early marriage, suicide, and so forth.
Participation in classroom discussion can often be maximized by the use of "buzz groups," small groups of students who put their heads together to briefly discuss a question among themselves and then report their response to the class as a whole. With open questions, this technique allows an opportunity for more students to express their ideas in a finite amount of time. With closed questions, it takes the spotlight off individual students and encourages peer teaching. Most students are less apprehensive about communicating in a buzz group than they are in front of the class as a whole, and most groups are more confident about voicing a response that has been "test-driven" for peer response.
A final recommendation regarding the teacher’s role as a moderator concerns wait time. It is extremely common to observe teachers answering their own questions, usually because a student response is not immediately forthcoming. Students quickly learn this pattern and absolve themselves of any responsibility for participation. Questions are not perceived as "real questions." How many of us have not at one time or other heard a teacher monologue that goes something like this:
"OK, who read the chapter? Anyone? What was it about? The Civil War! Anyway what was that war about? It was about slavery, wasn't it? What do you think about slavery? Was it worth fighting a war over? I think it was. Does anyone disagree with me? Nobody does? Well then, what was the first battle in the Civil War? . . . ."
Many times students enter our classes having had a great deal of experience with nonparticipatory classroom norms, and with teachers whose questions are primarily rhetorical. We have to spend some time changing their expectancies, and we have to give them time to think. It is estimated that as many as 70 % of students at the college level never participate in class discussion. Is it because they were taught not to by teachers who did not wait long enough for responses . . . ?