Good morning all,
This was quite an interesting article. I
really liked how the authors broke down the 'dispositions' and then the
'benefits' in chapter 2. It really helped me to compartmentalize what to
look for in a healthy discussion.
Obviously working within the structures here at
EWU, we have had a number of professors proclaim the benefits of working within
discussion groups and collaborative learning in our classrooms. And while
I am wholeheartedly in favor of this, I found the author's interpretation of
this as primarily a higher education learning tool a bit odd. I will
(hopefully) implement much of what is voiced here in my classrooms, but would
have appreciated ways to help get the discussions going. As it is, I really
value what they were claiming that "discussion is a valuable and inspiring
means for revealing the diversity of opinion" (p.3).
Discussion is a great way to go over the materials required of a class,
but also to teach young people the respect and differing viewpoints that are
part of a democratic society. I
appreciated how they write that it is difficult to get some people to speak up
during a verbal discussion, but they did point out a number of ways for
teachers to add what the quieter students think/feel by having journal entries,
emails, individual/informal chats, etc. and sharing those views in a safe
environment so they don’t feel too exposed.
I feel it is much more difficult to accommodate discussion teaching
models in public secondary schools because of the constant need to accomplish
certain learning targets. While
university professors can allow the class to almost lead itself in a
discussion, asking questions or demanding evidence, I feel as if much of
secondary education demands that the class be taken in a certain
direction. The one exception to this may
be in our English classes where we can explore characters, plots, symbolism,
and other aspects that may not have concrete outcomes.
The dispositions are a great way to evaluate our teaching in
discussions. They provide a rubric that
we can set up the ground-rules for the classrooms and allows for students to
see what is expected of them. Then
chapter two gives us a rubric for evaluating how well the students are learning
the ideals for society, but at the end of the article it shows that unless the
teachers are confident in their ability to lead the discussion, that the
material may become convoluted and messy without much outcome for the student.s
