next »

[heybeerman]

I am teaching a grad (MA) class in history for the first time, and when writing the syllabus, after the readings list I blithely added the sentence, "You are expected to be prepared to lead discussion on the readings each week, and I can, at my discretion, ask you to do so at any time."

I still like this as a technique for encouraging thorough prep, and really do want them to take a role in leading discussion.  But I wonder if they have the tools to do this?  Our MA students are widely varied in their preparation and background, and I would hate to assign discussion leading to a student who HAS done the work but simply is lost about how to draw people into the readings.  This would make that student look foolish and, of course, tank the class session until I came in to "rescue."

Of course I'll model this for them as we go, and hadn't really planned to ask anyone to lead for a few weeks while we all get our feet wet, but any good suggestions for guiding them through this and developing this skill?  Any good written resources on this?  Does this in fact work, or is it a bad idea altogether?

Thanks!

[systeme_d_]

Give them a rubric that includes elements like:

Articulates author's argument correctly and completely
Identifies nuances of author's argument
Poses thoughtful, open-ended questions to the class
Guides discussion to important points

(I just made that up off the top of my head -- surely you can do better.)

Yesterday in class I modeled a presentation for a group of upper-level undergrads.  I also gave them copies of the rubric I will be using for their presentations.  I told them they could grade me, using that rubric, for their edification and amusement.  They loved it.

[mountainguy]

What Systeme_d said.

Additionally, it might be helpful to assign them to read an article or two about discussion pedagogy. Two articles I really like:

Frederick, Peter. "The Dreaded Discussion: Ten Ways to Start." College Teaching 29 (1981): 109-114.

Clarke, John H. "Designing Discussions as Group Inquiry." College Teaching 36 (1988): 140-143.

[polly_mer]

Upon rereading your post, I can see that my standard suggestion of one-on-one meetings prior to leading the discussion to check student preparation probably won't work.  Have you considered breaking the class into a set of very small groups so that the students can practice being leaders and then discuss the methods that are effective? 

There's nothing like knowing that you are next on the hot seat to make one pay attention to the metaissues like "Follow up questions are good.  Directly asking someone to make a rebuttal based on prior remarks from five minutes ago is good.  Acting as though I'm lecturing is bad.  Silence and time to think is good if only a minute goes by, but five minutes is too long."

I think you do have to have some prepping and set some structure in the class beyond just demonstrating good technique because taking notes and actually thinking about the process are very different things.

[wilbrish]

If I were in your class, I would prefer a sign-up sheet, with a few weeks to prepare, so it was not a last-minute thing...

[kohelet]

Good thread, heybeerman.  And thanks for the article suggestions, mountainguy--I'm emailing them to myself to look up later.  This is an issue I've thought about and experimented with a lot--ever since suffering through a half-semester's worth of AWFUL student-led discussions.  Heybeerman, I do like the element of surprise in assigning discussion leadership as a way to encourage good preparation.  I'm doing something similar this semester (I posted about it somewhere--a thread about "socratic circles").

Things I've tried with graduate students with some success:

* I've told them about the awful experience and asked them to talk about what makes for good discussion leadership.  Just getting all that out in the open helps.

* I've let students get in some practice by having them lead small group discussions using a discussion guide I've prepared.

* I once used Bloom's taxonomy as a way to think through the different types of questions that a discussion leader might ask--that one worked out very well.

* When discussion will be student-led, I usually assign a brief written assignment to the whole class requiring them to do some specific bit of analysis beforehand, usually something like "explain the key dilemma in this case in terms of theory A, and then explain the same dilemma in terms of theory B."  This gives everyone something to talk about.  Generally, I think making them prepare some kind of written response to whatever they're going to be discussing is a good idea--I haven't found that the "threat" of having to discuss a reading in class to be sufficient incentive.

* I got tired of having student discussion leaders ask intelligent-sounding questions that they, themselves, hadn't thought through.  They'd ask something like "Which theoretic framework best describes the behaviors of Mr. Smith in this case?" but have no ideas about how to answer that question.  No one would respond, and they'd just move on.  This happened repeatedly!  I institute the rule that if you ask a smart question, you have to be prepared to guide the discussion toward at least one plausible answer.

* I've required everyone to come to class with two or three good discussion questions already prepared.

* Obvious one, I guess:  I've graded students on their leadership and their participation in class discussions.  I have descriptions of what constitutes an A, B, etc., usually along the lines of the extent to which their leadership/participation demonstrates understanding of the content and contributes to their classmates' learning.  Incentives work.

[concordancia]

I usually have students prepare something in writing ahead of time. My grad students are usually assigned short essays because they also need the writing practice, but I have designed a class this semester where students are only required to bring in a printed discussion question with appropriate supporting material - basically they have to write down some of the pre-writing steps. Either way, the idea is that students have not only done the readings, but thought about discussion before they come to class. With some groups of students, that will be enough to get the discussion going.

If you assign written discussion questions, you can refine the assignment as the semester advances.

If you really want to be able to focus on helping individual students improve, I would suggest you assign them to lead discussion on certain days. If you assign say, 5 students per day, all of the students will get several chances throughout the semester.

[frolickingturtle]

I like student-lead discussion, but badly lead discussion is one of the worst imaginable hells on earth, and will take big nasty bites out of your otherwise stellar student evals.

Some ideas (caveat - I've always assigned students discussion periods ahead of time, but I sort of like your SURPRISE! idea.):
*Ask them to lead for a certain time period, shorter than an entire class - maybe start with a 10-15 minute discussion?
* Have student-lead discussion be regular part of the class, so it's not *really* a surprise when they're tapped.  Like, they know that every class period, the last 20 minutes are devoted to student-lead discussion, and, gosh, it's 4 weeks into the semester and they haven't been called on yet...
* I always ask the entire class, when I'm relying on student-lead discussions, to prepare beforehand, anything from a weekly summary/reflection paper to something as simple as three discussion questions. (And then I grade it - at least a P/F.)
* I don't think I've met a grad student, who, after their first few months of classes, couldn't lead a decent discussion.  Trial by fire, baby.

Good luck!

[heybeerman]

These are great ideas.  mountainguy, I'll take a look at those articles. 

In my own teaching, I find that leading discussion is a real skill, and I haven't always done it well.  So, hopefully those who are/will be profs or teachers will benefit from this exercise.

[herophilus]

Carleton College has a bunch of "how to" handouts for history courses, including one on how to lead a discussion.  The ones on how to read in the first place may be useful as preparation for leading the discussion
http://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/history/study/leaddiscussion/

Here's another example
http://www.anselm.edu/academic/history/hdubrulle/BritHist2/text/requirements/classdis.htm

Does it work?  A colleague does this in the sciences (including the surprise element as to who'll lead the discussion) and gets very good course reviews.  However, it seems that a high percentage of students drop within the first week or two.  The colleague attributes this to their general unwillingness to work hard and do the extensive and difficult required readings.  However, I suspect that many simply are uncomfortable with the format, both the discussion leading and the surprise.  I once took a course with this requirement myself, and know I'd never want to repeat the experience. 

[cogprof]

In my grad seminars, I've found it helpful to have each student write a "reaction paper" to the readings under discussion (1-3 pages, depending), and then to email a copy of their paper to the entire class (including me) by 4pm the day before the seminar meets. In this way, everyone has access to everyone else's critical thoughts on the readings, and this helps the leader get a sense for where discussion might profitably go. I also think that the peer pressure encourages better thought papers than I'd get if they came only to me.

I also ask the discussion leader to provide a very concise, spoken overview of the reading (sometimes 2 minutes; sometimes 5), and I time them and stop them dead in their tracks if they go over. With just a little practice they learn to do this pretty well, and I think it's a valuable skill.