THE DISCUSSION TEACHING METHOD:AN INTERACTIVE STRATEGY IN TERTIARY LEARNING

MRS. BRIDGET O.J. OMATSEYE ( P H . D )

Institute of EducationUniversity of Benin

I

The traditional known method of teaching in tertiary institutionsis the lecture tiiethod. In this method, the lecturer has a body ofknowledge to communicate to his students who are more or lesssilent participants. In effect, there is an obvious gulf or barrierbetween the lecturer and his students. However, the focus in thisarticle is to represent teaching in tertiary learning as one thatcould be mere interactive and cooperative with students andteachers as participants. Together, they share ideas, knowledgeand information. Significantly, this strategy creates a connectionbetween the students and the curriculum and provides opportu-nity tor open discussions with students (student to student) aswell as the teacher. This helps to stimulate imaginative and con-ceptual thinking, and sharpens logical reasoning among students.It is a design that makes students more active and participatorymembers of the teaching - leaming process, and not mere pas-sive recipients of knowledge.

My first experience as a Universityteacher may have started the way I wastaught. As a teacher-in-training I wastaught via the traditional lecture method.A situation where the lecturer as solo per-former communicated knowledge to hisstudents, who merely listened with raptattention. Between the lecturer and stu-dents there was an obvious gulf or barrier.As a student then, it was an ardous taskbeing a silent listener who could not ques-tion, argue or share knowledge throughdebates or conversations.

Having to go that route now as a uni-versity teacher. I did not feel toocomfortable doing what gave me so muchacademic pain in the past. I decided toadopt a totally different teaching strategy.I started by empathizing with my students.This changed my attitude. I discoveredthat with every passing day my beliefs andpractices about teaching changed. In my

quiet moments I renewed the aim of edu-cation and appreciated more, the need tomake meaning to my learners. I had to gomore interactive in my teaching strategies.I allowed myself to be drawn into a moreparticipatory world of learning, with hopesof making my teaching meaningful. Myfocus since then has centred on teaching,listening to students and together, discusslesson taught.

IntroductionThere have been debates over time to

establish whether teaching is a skill or anart. Some students believe in their teacher'sperformance as quite brilliant, others getmotivated and excited with the presenta-tion and teaching. For some others, theirteachers bore them making the lesson dry.hard and leaving them more confused. Allof these enthusiasms and opinions are even-tually translated into students' academic

87

88 / Education Vol. 128 No. 1

achievement. However, what is pertinentin teaching and learning is the ability toapply skills to the art of teaching with anaim to motivate the learners. A blend ofskills and art in teaching is also manifest-ed in clearly structure lessons and mannerof presentation. A teacher who can effec-tively do this is an active constructor oflearning, who can, and should transmitknowledge, but should allow students voic-es to be heard as contributing members ofclass. This is typical in a discussion class.The teacher teaches, asks questions, and indoing so, he hears his voice. But he doesnot stop at that. In hearing his own voice,he begins to appreciate the need to hearthe voices of those he teaches. This elic-its a more participatory teaching, whichcan stimulate imaginative and conceptualthinking amongst students. In this case,students in tertiary institutions who hadhitherto been used to the lecture teachingmethod, where they are, but, passive lis-teners.

The Interactive Nature of the DiscussionTeaching Method

Most teachers of tertiary institutionstend to be more comfortable with the lec-ture method of teaching. As a teachingmethod, lecturing in tertiary institutions isa tradition. The level of students' maturi-ty may be one of the reasons for using thismethod at that stage of learning. Howev-er in this article, the argument is for a moreinteractive teaching strategy that crossesall barriers and gulf peculiar with the lec-ture method. The focus here is thediscussion method. It is a teaching strat-egy in which the teacher brings studentsface to face as they engage in verbal inter-

change of ideas. The teacher in his inter-actions with his learners performs a varietyof roles. He is firstly a teacher whose busi-ness is to transmit knowledge, and in doingthis he specifies the objectives of his les-son and examines the needs andbackground of the students for relevanceof the topic and its suitability. Important-ly too, in applying the discussion strategyto the teaching-learning process, theteacher plays the role of a manager, guide,initiator, referee and a summarizer.

The discussion teaching method is adesign that provides opportunity for dis-cussion between teacher and students, andstudents to students. It is a strategy thatcentres on shared conversations, discus-sions, and exchange of ideas in class. Itgives opportunity for all to sit and listen,as well as talk and think, thus emphasiz-ing the process of "coming to know" asvaluable as "knowing the right answer".In other words, students in a discussionclass are not passive listeners neither is theteacher a sole performer. Students areallowed to develop critical thinking abili-ty, leam to evaluate ideas, concepts andprinciples, procedures and even pro-grammes and policies on tbe basis ofclearly set criteria. For instance, a studentwho participates in a discussion lessonlearns to support his views rationally, basedon facts, too. He appreciates the need toargue logically, define clearly - conceptsand terms, and examine critically - rules,principles and constructs. Such a studentlearns to develop value processing skills inrelation to changes that occur in his soci-ety.

Essentially too, the discussion strategyencourages cooperative team work

An Interactive Strategy / 89

between teacher and students and amongststudents. It emphasizes the need for all towork cooperatively while developing soci-etal relationships. Students see themselvesas contributory members of the group,instead of separate and odd. According toBennett (1995), such cooperative learningimproves both academic achievement andstudents' interpersonal relationship. Hegoes on to argue that in most cases all stu-dents (including high, average and lowachievers) tend to benefit from coopera-tive learning and team work. In the samevein, Johnson, Johnson and Holube (1988)have affirmed that such cooperative spiritin learning help students work together tocomplete a task successfully. This is a'soimportant in promoting students' inde-pendence.

Generally, in appraising the interactivenature of the discussion teaching method,that cooperative spirit of learning inherentis quite crucial. It emphasizes (students)individual and group accountability, withthe teacher giving the feedback. Also,through such shared learning studentsdevelop shared responsibilities for leader-ship functions. Significantly too,interaction in the discussion strategyencourages rational arguments and logi-cal reasoning. In doing this, the teacherhelps to develop in his learners skills inconflict management and listening. John-son and Johnson (1987) have alsosuggested that such interactions in theclassroom that promote cooperative learn-ing are successful strategy for reducingstereotyping and social rejection acrossdisability, race and gender lines. In otherwords, all see themselves as members ofa group as they participate in discussions.

listen to each other, resolve differences,make suggestions and critically examineissues for the benefit of all. As students for-mulate their own views in the act of giveand take, they also learn to resist the influ-ences of their personal prejudices,commitments, stereotypes; likes and dis-likes, at the same time continue to focusattention on the theme of problem at hand.

Besides its emphasis on a high level ofinteraction for possible cooperative learn-ing, the discussion method is quiteimportant in bringing about meaningfulincrease in students* achievement. Basi-cally, teaching strategies stem fromteacher's behaviour. This, in itself is fur-ther manifested in the teacher's effectiveuse of academic learning time. Sadker andSadker (1991) have argued that allocatingadequate time to academic content is notenough. It is the teacher's ability to effec-tively use allocated time in classroomteaching that is the real key to studentachievement. It is on this score that Berlin-er (1984) looks at academic time as threemajor parts. First is the allocated time.This, he describes as the amount of time ateacher schedules for a topic or subject.There is also the engaged time. This isactually that chunk of time in the whole ofthe engaged time that students spend inactive involvement listening to lessontaught, participation in class discussions,question sessions, writing etc. Good andBrophy (1994) have asserted that the morethe engaged time spent within the allocat-ed time, the better students' achievement.Finally, there is the academic learning timewhich Berliner (1984) simply describes as"engaged time with a high success rate".

Looking at the above within the con-

90/Education Vol. 128 No. 1

text of the discussion teaching method,even though this teaching strategy may beseen as a complex activity, it is quite engag-ing. Thus, a good teacher can exploit thatengaging nature of this method to theadvantage of his student as well as his ownteaching. Such a teacher could employ aninteractive discussion strategy, where he,as manager, guide and initiator createsopportunities for his students to partici-pate actively, not stand on the sideline asmere volunteers.

Ensuring Participation hy all in IheDiscussion Teaching Strategy

Just as the topic for discussion is impor-tant in this teaching strategy, so is theseating plan and arrangement of partici-pants clear definition of teacher's roles,precise determination of students' role, allwith an aim to ensuring academic achieve-ment. Generally, the emphasis on seatingarrangement in the teaching-learningprocess, is the need for students to partic-ipate actively. Sommer (1967) has further

identified direct visual contact betweenmembers of the participating group as thecritical variable that leads to increase incommunication and participation by stu-dents. This has implication for increasedlearning achievement. In the same vein,in a discussion class, the sitting arrange-ment, the frequency and depth of eyecontact are important variables that aredeterminants to students" level of partici-pation and learning. It is in line with thisthat the teacher should pay attention to thetype of communication network in whichstudents are organised for a discussionclass. Importantly, the communication pat-tern has its effect on the quality andfrequency counts of student participation,and by implication, the quality of learningthat occurs.

Generally, two major sitting patternshave been identified that can be adapted ina discussion class. They are the central-ized sitting arrangement and thedecentralized.

The centralized sitting network could

TEACHER

\ LThe Wheel Configuration

An Interactive Strategy / 91

take three forms namely the wheel con-figuration, the chain configuration and theY-pattern. In the wheel configuration theinteraction is such that the teacher takesthe position of the hub of the wheel. Theposition is also privilege to any studentwho wants to be moderator or discussant.The position of teacher or moderator at thehub is lo announce topics that would gen-erate discussion among participants, askfor and receive signals from participants.It is also his duty to examine and presentconclusions arrived at by all.

This sitting network can be quite idealin discussion sessions if effectively man-aged by the teacher. He can achieve this bybeing more interactive and cooperativewith his participants, thus, playing less adominant role as the 'hub of the wheel"without which the wheel cannot turn. Ineffect, he is seen to play a dominant rolewhen he receives signals, oral and non-verbal messages, offer solutions to

problems, resolves conflicts and sendsmessages down the various channels ofcommunications to participants. When heplays all such roles, he assumes a new pos-ture as lecturer, thus employs the lecturemethod which is less interactive with stu-dents as passive participants.

Another centralized sitting network isthe chain configuration. Here the teachertakes his place at the apex ofthe chain. Inhis position, inputs on discussions are fedback to him, he filters ideas, concepts andrules, and sends back to other participantsat the periphery. He also sends back deci-sions arrived at, corrects obvious fallaciesin arguments encountered, and profferssolutions to problems arrived at. Eventhough this sitting arrangement may makethe teacher seem like one in charge, and arepository of knowledge, an interactive dis-cussion method takes cognisance of theimportance of shared conversation and dis-cussion. Thus, whatever decisions are

Teacher

\

The Chain Configuration

92 / Education VoL 128 No. 1

\

s s

VTeacher

The Y-pattern

reached are indeed a joint effort of all par-ticipants. Such decisions are usuallyimpersonal, objective, outcome reasoningand logical arguments.

Finally is the letter "Y" patterned sit-ting arrangement. Taking a centralizedposition with two or three channels of com-munication, the teacher plays a role ofmeeting the needs of all participants. Hemoderates opposing views, filters ideas,gathers information from al, offers solu-tions, comment on decision etc. Hemanages discussion in such a way that noline of communication is at disadvantage.

Generally, the teacher or moderator inany of the centralized sitting network maybe seen to be in a vintage position and play-ing a dominant role. But in an interactivediscussion classroom, the teacher's dom-inant role is limited to serve otherparticipatory roles. He plays the initiator,manager, referee and summarizer. He canalways hover from one of these roles toanother. Significantly, the beauty of theinteractive centralized sitting arrangementlies in the high degree of participation andagreement, centrality and opportunity fora blend in verbal and non-verbal

The Decentralized Sitting Arrangement

S — Teacher S— S S — S — S —

An Interactive Strategy / 93

exchanges.The decentralized sitting arrangement

is also very effective for a discussion teach-ing strategy. This sitting position ischaracterized by an all channel networksitting position.

In a sitting arrangement of this nature,no one individual, not even the teacher isin a position to dominate discussion. Atopic is given and any student who isknowledgeable on it, or the teacher coulddirect or even dominate discussion. Theeffectiveness of this sitting arrangement isthat students can freely participate. Ideascan be exchanged by all, using eye contactsto receive and send a variety of signals.Like the centralized communication net-work, the decentralized also aims at aninteractive, discussion class session whereall participate with greater academic suc-cess.

One Final Line on the InteractiveDiscussion Strategy

The organisation of a discussion lessonis as important as the topic of discourse.The discussion lesson should be wellorganised to enable teacher analyse andevaluate issues raised.In a discussion lesson, the less theteacher talks, and with less interferencetoo, the more students participate.The teacher in managing and directinga discussion se.ssion, should watch outfor the logical drift of the discourse,and the relevance of points raised espe-cially as it relates to set objectivesIn the trend of discussion, it should beensured that all participants are carriedalong. Pauses at intervals by the teacheror student moderator, give other par-

ticipants time to be good listeners, think,digest thoughts and take down notesand salient points.

• Other ways of students' participationinclude an examination of teacher's sub-ject content, in relation to students'contributions, and evaluation of com-ments made.

• For a more active, participatory dis-cussion class, the teacher shouldacquaint himself with the names of hisstudents. This creates a more relaxedand friendly class.

• Time allotted to discussion class shouldbe eventually spread. Teacher shouldbe cautions not to rush any part of dis-cussion, especially the last part. Thereis the tendency for teachers to rushthrough the last part of discussion. Byso doing an otherwise beautiful sum-mary could be destroyed, and vitalinformation even distorted.

• A discussion class can be most com-plete, effective and interactive, if at theend of discussion, a separate session isset aside to summarise and evaluate con-tent and topic discussed. This could bedone in the same class session or sep-arate period(s),

• Finally, the teacher or student shouldalways prepare ahead, his content andtopic. This enables him to be logical inhis presentation and rational in his argu-ments, as he effortlessly drives homehis points.

ConclusionSo far, an attempt has been made in

explaining the concept of the discussionmethod of teaching. TTie interactive natureof this teaching strategy was also exam-

94 / Education Vol. 128 No. 1

ined and appraised. To further express thelevel of participation by all, in this teach-ing method, a brief analysis ofthe sittingarrangement network was made.

Basically, the main intent in this articleis lo articulate the discussion teachingmethod as one that is interactive, cooper-ative and participation by all. It is also ateaching strategy that could stimulate imag-inative and conceptual thinking amongststudents. Importantly, it is anticipated thata method of this nature will be appreciat-ed in tertiary institutions. It will be quiteexciting especially for students who arehitherto used to the traditional lecturemethod which is sometimes quite less inter-active.

REFERENCESBennett C.I. (1995), Comprehensive Multicultural

Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Berliner, D. (1984), "The Half-full Glass: AReview of Research on Teaching", in P. Hos-ferd (ed). Using What we Know aboutTeaching. Alexandria. VA; Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Good. T.L. and Brophy, J.E. (1994). Looking inClassrooms. New York: Harper Collins.

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson. R.T. (1987)."Research shows the benefit of adult coopera-tion". Educational Leadership 45(3)27-30.

Johnson, D.W. Johnson. R.T. and Holuber. E.J.(19911 Cooperation in the classroom. EUina.M.N.: Interaction Book Co.

Sadker. M.P. and Sadker. D.N. (1991), Teachers.Schools apd Society. New York; McGraw-HiU,Inc.

Sommer. R. (1967), "Classroom Ecology" Jour-nal of Applied Behavioural Science. 3,503-532.