We emphasize throughout this book that democratic discussion is open and fluid, building on the diverse experiences and interpretations of its participants. Although teachers have some responsibility for guiding the discussion, no one person controls its direction entirely. Consequently, good discussions are unpredictable and surprising. They reveal things about the discussants and the topics under examination that are illuminating and eye-opening. At the same time, however, because democratic discussions have a life of their own, they can falter and even expire quite unexpectedly.
Even when discussion gets off to a good start and seems to have momentum, a variety of circumstances can intervene to bring group talk to a grinding halt. Sometimes the teacher or one or two students assume too dominant a role. Sometimes the question or issue to be discussed just isn’t controversial enough. Often the pace seems too slow, or the process for exploring the question lacks variety. In other cases, the students may not be ready to explore a topic in a large group setting or for some reason have lost their enthusiasm for the subject. Although it is frequently difficult to pinpoint the reasons why attention is wandering or commitment to the subject is waning, action needs to be taken to reinvigorate the conversation when these things happen. Part of the secret of dealing with these situations lies in refusing to panic or to berate oneself for allowing things to get off track. Fortunately, it is often possible to revive discussion and regain the sense of “controlled spontaneity” (Welty, 1989, p. 47) characteristic of good conversation.
This is not to say, however, that we regard discussion as a panacea for turning bored, disinterested, or hostile students into enthusiastic advocates for learning. Neither do we believe that simply talking about problems leads inevitably to students’ deciding to take action to address pressing social concerns. As we argued in Chapters One and Two, discussions, in general, tend to increase motivation, promote engagement with difficult material, and give people appreciation for what they can learn from one another and for what can be accomplished as a group. But we want to acknowledge that we have both been responsible for classes where discussion failed miserably, inducing boredom, resentment, and confusion. We have no magic formula to guarantee success, just some ideas that have proved useful to rejuvenate conversations that seem to be stuck.
Sometimes a discussion can be considered successful even if the original intentions of the leader go unrealized. When participants learn that a problem is more complex than they had thought or when their appreciation for existing differences is deepened, these can be counted as significant accomplishments, even though they might be different from the teacher’s anticipated outcomes. We can say unequivocally, however, that discussion fails when participants avoid similar dialogical encounters in the future or when they lose interest in the topics under consideration. If part of the point is to keep conversation going, to stimulate people to keep talking in the future, then discussions that inhibit this desire must be regarded as counterproductive and miseducational.
The question remains, what conditions inhibit dialogue and what measures can be taken to overcome them? This chapter and the next will focus on a variety of procedures to keep discussion moving and propose ways to make discussion a process of continuous discovery and mutual enlightenment. Getting students to view problems from a variety of perspectives and helping them frame these problems more critically and creatively helps keep discussion fresh. How teachers maintain the pace of the discussion, how they use questioning and listening to engage students in probing subject matter, and how they group students for instruction all affect how the discussion proceeds and how motivated the students are to participate in similar discussions in the future.
To reiterate, an important focus of democratic discussion should be on getting as many people as possible deeply engaged in the conversation. Whatever the teacher says and does should facilitate and promote this level of engagement. As a number of commentators have pointed out, at the heart of sustaining an engaging discussion are the skills of questioning, listening, and responding (Christensen, 1991a, 1991b; Jacobson, 1984; Welty, 1989). Of the three, learning to question takes the most practice and skill (Freire, 1993; Bateman, 1990). Although it is certainly true that the kinds of questions one asks to begin a discussion set an important tone, it is equally true that subsequent questions asked by both the teacher and the students can provide a powerful impetus for sustaining discussion. Indeed, as Palmer (1998) has noted, how we ask questions can make the difference between a discussion that goes nowhere and one that turns into a “complex communal dialogue that bounces all around the room” (p. 134).
Once the discussion is moving along, several kinds of questions are particularly helpful in maintaining momentum.
These questions are asked when participants state an opinion that seems unconnected to what’s already been said or that someone else in the group thinks is erroneous, unsupported, or unjustified. The question should be asked as a simple request for more information, not as a challenge to the speaker’s intelligence. Here are some examples:
How do you know that?
What data is that claim based on?
What does the author say that supports your argument?
Where did you find that view expressed in the text?
What evidence would you give to someone who doubted your interpretation?
Clarifying questions give speakers the chance to expand on their ideas so that they are understood by others in the group. They should be an invitation to convey one’s meaning in the most complete sense possible. Here are some examples:
Can you put that another way?
What’s a good example of what you are talking about?
What do you mean by that?
Can you explain the term you just used?
Could you give a different illustration of your point?
Questions that are open-ended, particularly those beginning with how and why, are more likely to provoke the students’ thinking and problem-solving abilities and make the fullest use of discussion’s potential for expanding intellectual and emotional horizons. Of course, using open questions obliges the teacher to take such responses seriously and to keep the discussion genuinely unrestricted. It is neither fair nor appropriate to ask an open-ended question and then to hold students accountable for failing to furnish one’s preferred response. As Van Ments (1990) says, “The experienced teacher will accept the answer given to an open question and build on it” (p. 78). That is, as we all know, easier said than done.
Here are some examples of open questions:
Sauvage says that when facing moral crises, people who agonize don’t act, and people who act don’t agonize. What does he mean by this? (Follow-up question: Can you think of an example that is consistent with Sauvage’s maxim and another that conflicts with it?)
Racism pervaded American society throughout the twentieth century. What are some signs that things are as bad as ever? What are other signs that racism has abated significantly?
Why do you think many people devote their lives to education despite the often low pay and poor working conditions?
An effective discussion leader tries to create a dialogical community in which new insights emerge from prior contributions of group members. Linking or extension questions actively engage students in building on one another’s responses to questions. Here are some examples of such questions:
Is there any connection between what you’ve just said and what Rajiv was saying a moment ago?
How does your comment fit in with Neng’s earlier comment?
How does your observation relate to what the group decided last week?
Does your idea challenge or support what we seem to be saying?
How does that contribution add to what has already been said?
These kinds of questions tend to prompt student-to-student conversation and help students see that discussion is a collaborative enterprise in which the wisdom and experience of each participant contributes something important to the whole. Too often discussion degenerates into a gathering of isolated heads, each saying things that bear no relationship to other comments. The circular response exercise (see Chapter Four), which requires students to ground their comments in the words of the previous speaker, gives students practice in creating discussions that are developmental and cooperative. Skillfully employing linking questions can also help participants practice discussion as “a connected series of spoken ideas” (Leonard, 1991, p. 145).
Hypothetical questions ask students to consider how changing the circumstances of a case might alter the outcome. They require students to draw on their knowledge and experience to come up with plausible scenarios. Because such questions encourage highly creative responses, they can sometimes cause learners to veer off into unfamiliar and seemingly tangential realms. But with a group that is reluctant to take risks or that typically answers in a perfunctory, routinized manner, the hypothetical question can provoke flights of fancy that can take a group to a new level of engagement and understanding.
Here are some examples of hypothetical questions:
How might World War II have turned out if Hitler had not decided to attack the Soviet Union in 1941?
What might have happened to the career of Orson Welles if RKO Studios had not tampered with his second film, The Magnificent Ambersons?
In the video we just saw, how might the discussion have been different if the leader had refrained from lecturing the group?
If Shakespeare had intended Iago to be a tragic or more sympathetic figure, how might he have changed the narrative of Othello?
Questions that provoke students to explore cause-and-effect linkages are fundamental to developing critical thought. Questions that ask students to consider the relationship between class size and academic achievement or to consider why downtown parking fees double on days when there’s a game at the stadium encourage them to investigate conventional wisdom. Asking the class-size question might prompt other questions concerning the discussion method itself, for example:
What is likely to be the effect of raising the average class size from twenty to thirty on the ability of learners to conduct interesting and engaging discussions?
How might halving our class size affect our discussion?
Finally, one of the most valuable types of questions that teachers can ask invites students to summarize or synthesize what has been thought and said. These questions call on participants to identify important ideas and think about them in ways that will aid recall. For instance, the following questions are usually appropriate and illuminating:
What are the one or two most important ideas that emerged from this discussion?
What remains unresolved or contentious about this topic?
What do you understand better as a result of today’s discussion?
Based on our discussion today, what do we need to talk about next time if we’re to understand this issue better?
What key word or concept best captures our discussion today?
By skillfully mixing all the different kinds of questions outlined in this chapter, teachers can alter the pace and direction of conversation, keeping students alert and engaged. Although good teachers prepare questions beforehand to ensure variety and movement, they also readily change their plans as the actual discussion proceeds, abandoning prepared questions and formulating new ones on the spot.
James Dillon (1994) begins his discussion about teacher questions with the following unambiguous injunction: “Do not put questions to students during a discussion” (p. 78). He claims that when teachers start asking questions, discussion turns into recitation, which inhibits student deliberation and exchange. Instead, he says, teachers should find other means to stimulate participation and thought. Dillon allows only two exceptions to this: (1) the initiating question posed at the beginning of a discussion to orient the participants and set the boundaries for the conversation and (2) the “self-perplexing question” that the teacher may raise once or twice during the course of a discussion out of “genuine wonderment” (p. 79). As an alternative to asking questions, Dillon urges teachers to develop a broad repertoire of responses to student comments and questions. This repertoire includes statements, silences, and nonverbal signals of encouragement, all of which are designed to keep students talking to each other. (More information about some of these alternatives to teacher questions will be covered later in this chapter in the section headed “Responding.”)
Having referred to Dillon’s concerns about teacher questions, which we think have some merit, we hope it is also clear that we think this is an extreme position. There are many occasions—some of which we have already identified—when a question is an appropriate and effective way to keep the conversation going. Furthermore, teachers are curious people; their natural inclination to express puzzlement or to seek clarification or further information should not, in our view, be artificially suppressed.
It is a platitude (but nonetheless true) that listening continues to be the most undervalued and least understood aspect of discussion. Good teachers are artful listeners who don’t just remain quiet when their students are talking. Instead, they strain to hear both the explicit and the underlying meanings of their students’ contributions. This involves teachers in trying to understand the speaker’s point of view in the terms in which it is expressed and in judging how authoritatively or tentatively that view is being expressed. It also means judging when and how the speaker is willing to entertain challenges to the view advanced. Discussion leaders who listen carefully can weigh how well the students understand the subject and the degree to which their comments relate to and advance the ongoing discussion. Listening well also helps us know when it’s important to encourage contributions that neither advance understanding nor enhance continuity but nevertheless add something valuable.
Still, one of the most valuable benefits of good listening is that it increases continuity. When a comment seems unrelated to what has preceded it, the discussion leader will frequently ask for evidence of a connection or help the student clarify the link. But this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Even when a student takes the discussion off on what appears to be a tangent, the departure can become a productive move if it is a logical extension of the preceding exchanges. So discussion leaders need to use their listening and questioning skills to hold students accountable for making connections between their contributions and earlier points and helping the entire group see new links as the discussion grows increasingly complex.
Listening is useless without retention. Although all participants in a discussion have the responsibility to listen and remember at least some of the contributions, teachers have a special responsibility to try to retain virtually everything said. They must develop the ability to recall at appropriate times, and on behalf of the group, earlier comments that illuminate points made later in the discussion, thus ensuring a sense of continuity. If the conversation is experienced as evolving developmentally, this helps forge a more closely knit dialogic community. Listening in this way also obliges teachers to be self-effacing enough to allow their students to be at the center of classroom conversation. Palmer (1998) has written eloquently about this: “Attentive listening is never an easy task—it consumes psychic energy at a rate that tires and surprises me. But it is made easier when I am holding back my own authoritative impulses. When I suspend, for just a while, my inner chatter about what I am going to say next, I open room within myself to receive the external conversation” (p. 135).
Listening takes great effort, but as with many difficult skills, practice helps. Periodically, it makes sense to ask students to do some exercises that sharpen their listening skills and that add variety and a change of pace to democratic discussions. Three exercises we have found useful are described here.
In this exercise, students work in pairs and practice listening to each other with great intensity. Each person takes a turn as speaker and as listener. The speaker takes no more than five minutes to share something personal, but it’s the listener who has by far the more difficult role. This person must strain to hear everything the speaker says while actively demonstrating listening and understanding. Body language, head nodding, verbal interjections like “yes” and “uh-huh,” paraphrases of the speaker’s statements, and even repetitions of the speaker’s actual words all show the listener’s active involvement. Here are the instructions we give to students for this exercise:
Because listening is such an important part of successful discussion, you are going to engage in an active listening exercise to gain practice in attending closely to another person’s message. You will be paired with another person for about ten minutes. One of you will assume the role of the speaker, and the other will serve as the listener. The speaker will have no more than five minutes to talk about something personal; then we will reverse roles for another five minutes. Although the speaker’s words are important, the burden is on the listener to make this exercise successful. The listener doesn’t just passively receive the words of the speaker; she must attend carefully to their meaning. This means she uses every resource at her disposal to show that her first priority is witnessing and understanding the speaker’s words. Body language, eye contact, head nodding, paraphrasing of the speaker’s meaning, and echoing the actual words are all part of the active listening process.
If you are the listener, you may ask questions to get clarification on key points, but please ask them sparingly. This activity can feel a little awkward, especially when you’re just parroting another person’s words. Echoing is OK, but don’t take it to an extreme; try to keep your responses varied. Take this activity seriously, but try to enjoy it as well. Most of all, when it’s your turn to be the listener, devote every ounce of your attention to the speaker’s message. To listen this closely can be exhilarating and illuminating.
This exercise not only enhances communicative accuracy but also gives students valuable practice in empathizing with others and in simply accepting what is heard without imposing interpretations or making premature judgments. It follows closely the protocol for active listening developed by Gordon (1977) and others. As Palmer (1998) notes, it is sometimes tiring to listen to another person this attentively, but making the effort helps us catch the cues, shades of meaning, and emotions that we miss when not attending so carefully. This exercise is also a simple way to affirm others, to show them that what they say and think matters a great deal. Of course, paired listening is very different from discussion in large groups, where participants must attend to many diverse voices, but it is a useful first step in practicing the kind of respectful listening that supports all good discussion.
Palmer (1993, p. 98) reminds us of something that is easy to forget when the focus turns to the value of listening well. “There are really three parties to the conversation,” he says, “the teacher, the students, and the subject itself.” Of these three parties, the subject is the most frequently neglected, but it too has a voice that “we must strain to hear . . . beyond all our interpretations.” Although interpretive filtering is inevitable, Palmer advises that a text, a lecture, a film, or even a picture needs to be understood, at least initially, on its own terms. The tendency to jump to conclusions that fit personal experience or that address a currently pressing problem should be resisted to allow the relatively unfiltered message of the subject to come through.
One way to learn to listen to the subject is through an exercise similar to paired listening that puts the focus on the subject instead of another person. In this exercise, students “listen” to a text, film, or picture and try to paraphrase and echo as much of what they witness as possible. They try to “hear” the subject even if what they encounter at first seems quite incomprehensible. Here are the instructions:
You have done some active listening exercises that were intended to give you practice in comprehending what others are saying. Now I want you to try an exercise called “hearing the subject.” We sometimes read a text or view a film that is quickly dismissed because at first glance it doesn’t make much sense. But by giving that text or film another chance, by “listening” more closely to its meanings and forms of expression, we discover surprising and revealing dimensions to it.
Take about thirty minutes to witness one of the following: (1) a short scene from a twentieth-century existentialist play, Pirandello’s Six Characters in Search of an Author; (2) a twentieth-century abstract painting, Picasso’s Girl Before the Mirror; or (3) a brief surrealist film, Buñuel and Dalí’s Un chien andalou. Don’t be overwhelmed by the difficulties of making meaning out of the work you are perceiving; just listen to it as closely as you can. You might want to jot down some parts verbatim, paraphrase others, or recount images, shapes, colors, and textures. Please restrain the impulse to express emotion about the work being examined or to generate your own interpretation. Experience the work in as unmediated a fashion as possible—don’t try to make meaning out of it.
When the thirty minutes are up, join two other people who have been experiencing the same work. Share your perspectives on the experience of the work, but do this without any interpretational filters. What are the actual words, images, shapes, textures, and colors that were employed? Generate as full an account as you can. We will end by asking everyone to return to the large group and converse about this experience of listening to the subject with a high degree of intensity. How did it enhance or detract from your enjoyment? Did it help you make meaning of what you perceived?
The point here is simply to get students to experience texts and other media as directly as possible so that they take the time to listen deeply to what these materials are conveying, just as it has been suggested that students and teachers do with one another. This kind of exercise can teach students to attend sympathetically to even the most confusing or off-putting voices and to derive a certain level of understanding and meaning from them instead of dismissing them out of hand. There is no guarantee, however, that this activity will result in increased understanding. It may instead produce frustration and an increased intolerance for certain kinds of unorthodox or obscure messages. But the result could be an increased appreciation for the amount of effort and attention that must sometimes be devoted to making sense of experiences and ideas that are complex and multifaceted.
As useful as the foregoing exercises are, the most valuable listening practice occurs in discussion itself. We recommend that individual students occasionally be designated official listeners in discussion with the expectation that eventually all students will have the chance to assume this role at least once. As designated listeners, students do not contribute any ideas of their own. But in listening intently, they may ask occasional questions, check for understanding or clarification, or acknowledge comments with a brief word or a simple gesture. Their focus is entirely on the words and body language of the other participants. At the end of the conversation, they are expected to summarize the main ideas expressed and to comment on the participation levels of the various group members.
When assigning designated listeners, we ask students to do the following:
The first and perhaps most important thing to be said about responding to a comment in discussion is that this is never the sole responsibility of the instructor. One of the best ways for teachers to respond to others’ comments or questions is by remaining silent, thereby giving students the opportunity and space to respond to what their peers have to say. Nevertheless, how to respond to what individual students say so as to sustain discussion over the long haul is one of the most elusive and context-dependent skills discussion leaders can learn. By responding with silence, teachers can create an opportunity for collective reflection and give other students a chance to speak. Or they might respond with a question directed at the previous speaker or at the class as a whole. They can paraphrase what has just been said or request further information. They might offer a few words of praise for a brilliant insight. Or perhaps a few gentle words of criticism or clarification are called for because the last comment seemed to show little understanding of the issue at hand. Choosing the most appropriate response to a student’s comment depends on a variety of factors, including what you know about the student, your goals for the class, how deeply the group has so far probed the subject matter, what has been said by others, and the pace you want to maintain in the discussion.
Christensen (1991a, 1991b) offers excellent advice about the options available to teachers in responding to student comments. He suggests that there are two major courses of action: continuing teacher-to-student interaction by taking it upon oneself to query the student further or extending student-to-student interaction by leaving it to the other students to respond to the most recent set of remarks. Our preference is to focus on ways to extend student-to-student interaction, so we will not pursue the options available to the discussion leader who wants to prolong an interchange with a student. However, these options tend to complement what we have already said about teacher questions.
If you make the decision to extend student-to-student interaction, there are a variety of options available. One is to remain silent and to await responses from the other students. Another is to invite a student who you know has a contrasting view to present his or her ideas as a way of stimulating the whole group to confront conflicting perspectives. You might lead into this by saying, “I was talking to Karen during the break, and she had a very different view of how class size affects achievement because her definition of achievement is so different from Leroy’s. Karen, would you kindly talk about how your view differs from Leroy’s?”
A third option is to ask a question or raise an issue that is directly related to what was just said by a student. For example, if the student has made a claim about the effects of class size on academic achievement, you might ask the whole group, “What assumptions about achievement does this claim make? What if we defined achievement as one’s ability to participate in a discussion group? How might class size affect achievement then?”
Dillon (1994) suggests that leaders can respond to comments in ways that do not involve questioning. One choice is simply to make declarative statements that reflect one’s honest opinion. These statements may contrast with what students have said, or they may complement student comments. Discussion leaders can also restate concisely what they have heard for the benefit of the group. On other occasions they may want to ask for clarification about what has been said or to point out how a recent contribution has cleared up some earlier difficulties. Still another response is to restate what two or more students have said to get these students to examine their disagreements more closely.
Dillon also emphasizes that teachers should create conditions that encourage student questions. Leaders can ask questions that reveal the complexity of issues and praise students when they pose similar questions. They can comment specifically on how particular questions help the group probe the topic more deeply. Another approach is simply to invite all of the students to ask at the end of the session at least one question that the discussion has suggested to them. Still another option is to call on students to identify one question that remains unanswered about a topic to which the group has devoted a fair amount of study time. However this is done, discussion leaders should give a high priority to student questions.
Whatever course of action you take, it is a good idea to be as encouraging as possible when responding to student comments. Students take risks when they ask a question, volunteer an answer, introduce an argument, or venture a criticism, particularly if they don’t know what to expect of teachers or when they have limited experience as discussants. When teachers find ways to be hospitable and inviting, they lay the groundwork for good discussion later on. How much affirmation teachers should give students is an open question, one that continues to be sharply disputed. One extreme insists on “lavish affirmation” (Vella, 1995) as a response to all comments, regardless of their quality. The other, advocated by the Great Books Foundation (1991), advises discussion leaders to refrain from praise of any kind. Advocates of this view believe that the practice of affirming students leads to dependence on the instructor. In general, we lean toward affirmation, though to affirm every comment, regardless of its content or connection to the rest of the discussion, seems excessive. One way through this contradiction is to thank students routinely for the act of making a contribution but to differentiate those expressions from appreciative comments you make on the quality of a contribution.
Praise should be specific and concrete. Look at some examples of the kinds of affirmative responses we have found ourselves using in discussion. These responses tend not only to be concrete but also to foster continuity and momentum.
Your comment has made clear for me the dangers of overgeneralizing in this case.
Your contribution strikes me as a synthesis of the points made by Angel and Jade yesterday. It moves us to the next level of analysis.
I was trying to paraphrase what Trang said earlier, but you have helped me see that I omitted his most important point. Thanks for listening so closely.
“Methodological belief” is a good name for what we all have been talking about. I’m glad you found a label that works so well.
Another mode of responding is through silence. The tendency to answer students without hesitation is a hard one to unlearn. Silence is frequently viewed as a sign of resistance, poor pacing, or lack of interest. As we asserted in Chapter Four, however, silence can also be a constructive, positive aspect of discussion. Research indicates that students learn more in discussion when the teacher takes five to ten seconds before responding to what students say (Dillon, 1994, p. 90).
We believe that even more time, up to a full minute, can occasionally be used to model unhurried deliberation and to emphasize the importance of reflection. Structuring silence can give participants a chance to take the time needed to think through a new idea, make sense of it, and fit it into an existing mental schema. When teachers at least occasionally resist the frenetic give-and-take that passes for stimulating discussion and slow the pace to allow time for taking stock, they remind their students that group thinking and problem solving should be punctuated by moments of silence as much as by energetic outbursts.
Silence can also be a way of responding that shows respect. Sometimes words cannot express the depth of feeling we experience or the level of appreciation we want to communicate. One of the authors has for years regularly shown a very moving film called Weapons of the Spirit, about the residents of a small French village who risked their own lives by hiding thousands of Jews from the Nazis during World War II. He has learned that when the film ends, silence must be observed as a kind of wordless witnessing of their remarkably selfless actions. The two of us saw the film Schindler’s List together and could not speak for many minutes after the credits had finished rolling. Sometimes an exchange of ideas is so powerful or poignant that a silent expression of appreciation and respect is the only appropriate response.
Throughout this chapter we have emphasized the teacher’s responsibility to develop skills of questioning, listening, and responding. But students must become proficient in them too. Even if the teacher consistently displays these skills, there is no guarantee (though it is probably more likely) that students will ask questions of each other or try to build on others’ contributions. This exercise asks students to practice these skills in very specific ways. Here’s how it works.
Prepare one three-by-five-inch card for each member of the class. On each card, write a “conversational move” from the following list, and distribute the cards randomly among participants before a discussion session. Ask students to practice the move indicated on their card during the ensuing discussion. When the discussion is over, distribute the entire list of moves so that people can see the wide variety of ways in which questioning, listening, and responding can be practiced. Point out to students that virtually all of the moves listed are designed to strengthen connections among group members and to reinforce the notion that discussion is a collaborative process. Note as well that these are just a few suggestions from the wide range of moves that are possible in lively conversation. If there is time, ask participants to recap how they tried to make the conversational moves they were allocated.
Ask a question or make a comment that shows you are interested in what another person has said.
Ask a question or make a comment that encourages someone else to elaborate on something that person has said.
Make a comment that underscores the link between two people’s contributions. Make this link explicit in your comment.
Use body language (in a slightly exaggerated way) to show interest in what different speakers are saying.
Make a comment indicating that you found another person’s ideas interesting or useful. Be specific as to why this was the case.
Contribute something that builds on or springs from what someone else has said. Be explicit about the way you are building on the other person’s thoughts.
Make a comment that at least partly paraphrases a point someone has already made.
Make a summary observation that takes into account several people’s contributions and that touches on a recurring theme in the discussion.
Ask a cause-and-effect question—for example, “Can you explain why you think it’s true that if these things are in place, such and such a thing will occur?”
At an appropriate moment, ask the group for a minute’s silence to slow the pace of conversation and give you and others time to think.
Find a way to express appreciation for the enlightenment you have gained from the discussion. Try to be specific about what it was that helped you understand something better.
Disagree with someone in a respectful and constructive way.
Keeping a discussion going is a complex challenge. It entails leaving plenty of space for students to speak, giving them an opportunity to learn from others, and showing them that what they say has an impact on how their peers think. It involves asking questions that stimulate and provoke students to examine their own and others’ experiences and that establish an atmosphere for critical inquiry. Listening to students in an active and affirming manner is another crucial ingredient in sustaining discussion. Teachers who take time to listen carefully to students are more likely to keep discussions going in directions that are satisfying and fruitful for everyone. Furthermore, when teachers respond thoughtfully to students, they create a kind of conversational momentum and continuity that may lend new meaning and purpose to discussion.