In my class discussion forms a very important part of the learning process, and over the years I have incorporated a number of different methods and devices to ensure that discussions are relevant, on topic, effective and provide for accountability on the parts of the students.

The key components of any discussion in a classroom are:

• students' preparation of materials

• students' competence in the art of discussion

• teacher feedback on the discussion

Students' preparation of materials

The basis of any good discussion in a classroom is that students must have raw material to work with, and that material must be germane to the subject of the lesson. In order to ensure that this is the case, not only for the class as a whole but for each student individually, the following format is followed.

First a reading is assigned. Readings either relate to a topic under investigation (and so enhance its instruction) or they may actually replace formal instruction. For example rather than the teacher instructing students on a particular anthropological methodology such as the study of cultural institutions, the assigned reading may do that.

Second, students are advised, when the reading is assigned, that they will be given a quick quiz at the beginning of the next lesson, based on the reading. It is my custom to specify exactly what questions will be asked, which guides the students to focus on those parts of the reading that I consider to be seminal to an understanding of the material. My experience with high school freshmen is that may are unable to make that evaluation for themselves. So, in this example, I might advise them that, at the outset of the next class, they will be asked to write from memory what the five cultural institutions mentioned in the reading are, and to state very briefly what each includes.

They are also instructed to bring with them, written on a piece of paper, two open-ended questions derived from the readings. Typical freshmen questions from such a reading are, "Does every culture have all five institutions?" or, "Can one live without a culture?"

Students have been told that the results of these two exercises will be recorded and will be used in the partial determination of their grade.

Students' competence in the art of discussion

Students are instructed in the art of discussion using the Harkness discussion method. To this end the following handout is given to them, and gone over in class:

Classroom Discussions

Classroom discussions are a wonderful way of turning ideas encountered in a course into insights and understandings. Not only that: if you learn how to discuss things well you will have mastered a very important social skill that will stand you in good stead for the rest of your life. Few people are good at it instinctively, but anyone can get good at it with a little practice.

The particular method we will be using in class is modeled on that developed at Phillips Exeter Academy. Under this model it is the students who inspire and conduct the discussions, with the teacher having far less interaction than is normally the case.

Participants sit in a circle, choose the direction of he discussion, assume responsibility its conduct, keep it focused and on topic. They act as members of a team and work cooperatively in order to achieve success.

What is success? Success has been achieved when all members of the discussion group find that the subject has been illuminated for them, and that their insights have been made much deeper through hearing the thoughts and ideas of others, as well as by arguing or otherwise sharing their own thoughts.

Discussion skills are important, and generally they fall into a small number of categories: making statements, asking questions, clarifying ideas, inviting others to share thoughts, and citing authorities relevant to the discussion.

The things to avoid in discussions are non-participation on the one hand, to domination on the other. If you don't speak in a discussion then others cannot learn from you. And if you dominate a discussion you'll bore everyone to tears and prevent them from learning from one another, as well as preventing yourself from learning from them.

Evaluation

Your discussion will be graded and these grades will form a significant part of your participation grade for the course. Because a good discussion is the result of teamwork, the grade you receive will be a team grade. Here are the criteria for grades:

In an "A" discussion everyone has participated more or less equally, the pace of the discussion was fast enough to be interesting and even entertaining, but slow enough to ensure focus. That is, the discussion was not superficial nor "hyper." The text, if any, was cited during the discussion; all students were well prepared for it; when the discussion begins to bog down or get sidetracked that fact was recognized by the participants and changes were made; students have taken risks and worked hard to dig for deeper meanings than they began with. Students have asked each other for proof of their assertions from time to time, while also allowing gracefully for uneducated guessing, which is also an important part of meaningful discussions. This is the discussion that you wished wouldn't end, and you wanted to carry it on even after class.

In a "C'' discussion most people participated, but the discussion wandered, lost its focus or simply petered out. There was no great enthusiasm evident and little effort was made to reach new insights. This is the discussion that was pretty ho-hum, and when your parents ask you at dinner what you learned at school today you answer "Nothing," and you're telling the truth.

In an "F' discussion few people were even prepared and most made no effort to participate. This is the discussion during which you daydreamed or did your Latin homework.

There may be exceptions to the team grade. Certain individuals who bring special leadership or insights of particular brilliance may receive a higher grade, while others who are unprepared or uncooperative may receive a lower grade. But in general this is a team activity. So play like a team member. Come prepared, do your bit, and look out for your team mates. Don't hog the conversation and encourage others to join in.

The process of introducing the method takes only about twenty minutes. Part of this instruction, not covered in the handout, is this: how does one invite a quiet classmate to join into the conversation in a non-threatening way? Experience shows that, if one suddenly turns to a shy non-participant with the question, "What do you think, Marty?" Marty's mind will immediately go blank. So instead one "throws a slowball", building a train of thought into the question, and preceding the question with the name of the target, as in: "Marty, Julia has argued that culture is more a product of heredity than environment. What are your thoughts: heredity or environment?"

Teacher feedback on the discussion

While the discussion is underway, the teacher keeps track of each student's interactions with the others, using a method I have found to be simple to do and informative. I use a tally sheet. Students sit in a circle, and their names are written indicating their positions. I categorize each statement that they make as being a Question, an Answer to someone else's question, a Statement, an Invitation to another to participate, or, God forbid, an Overpowering of another talker, indicating a conversation hogger. These categorizations are sometimes fuzzy in their distinctions, but serve to record the following: In the course of any given conversation, did all contribute? Did anyone dominate? Over time, what has been the pattern of Eddy's contributions? Perhaps when we began he said nothing the first few times; then he began to respond to specific invitations; and then he began to volunteer questions or ideas. Knowing the pattern over time allows the teacher to make some judgments about the success of this model for any given student; it allows him or her to respond individually to a student unable or unwilling to participate for some reason, and it allows for accountability and assessment, charting growth and the development of risk-taking behaviors.

When the discussion is over - usually after about twenty minutes - I ask the students for their own evaluation of the discussion, then give my own. Within two or three lessons, they have a good idea how to "read" their discussions and grade them fairly. If there are persistent problems getting one or more students involved in discussions I will either talk to them outside of class, looking for non-threatening ways to help them in the process, or I'll slip a piece of paper to another student during the discussion, asking them to invite so-and-so to comment.

A typical class

A class run in this way would work roughly as follows:

Students arrive and immediately prepare for mini-quiz. Mini quiz administered in about three minutes. Students exchange papers, grade one another's, return papers to authors. Authors verify accuracy of the grading and hand papers in. Total time elapsed, five minutes.

Students then go to the board and write on it one of their two open-ended questions. They then submit those questions to the teacher who records them as having been done. Judgment about the sophistication or lack of it can be made if desired. Time elapsed, three minutes.

Harkness discussion then takes place for anywhere from fifteen to twenty minutes, longer if the topic is hot and the schedule permits.

The rest of the class, about twenty five minutes give or take a few, is then spent on whatever comes next, including the assignment of readings for tomorrow, and information about what will be on the quiz.

Problems

This method is difficult to do well with more than about fifteen students. I have done it with twenty, but it is very hard to demand universal participation with numbers that large.

Be careful to end discussions before they get boring. This requires some judgment on the teacher's part, but if classroom discussions drag on and on without any great interest being generated, students will quickly learn to hate them.

It is possible for a student to appear to be prepared for class, when in fact he or she isn't prepared at all. In my experience this sometimes does happen, but is detectable when the student hands in the two open-ended questions required. They either aren't there, or are a dead give-away.

After a period of doing this, perhaps eight to ten sessions, it may be desirable to stop evaluating the discussions in terms of assigning them letter grades. This disposes of the one truly artificial aspect of the discussion, and good discussions continue even in the absence of grading. However I still keep track of students individually.