Improving Classroom Discussion: A Rhetorical Approach

Classroom discussion, with its focus on active learning, critical thinking, and cooperative inquiry, is attractive in theory but often disappointing in practice. The following scenario, described by professor Mark Edmundson (1997), may sound familiar: "Teaching Wordsworth's 'Tintern Abbey,' you ask for comments. No one responds. So you call on Stephen. Stephen: 'The sound, this poem really flows.' You: 'Stephen seems interested in the music of the poem. We might extend his comment to ask if the poem's music coheres with its argument. Are they consistent? Or is there an emotional pain submerged here that's contrary to the poem's appealing melody?'" (p. 43). Edmundson suggests that this scenario might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it is not far off the mark. Despite our high hopes, discussions often flounder, marked by awkward silences, blank stares, and superficial comments. Is it any wonder that this pedagogical approach has earned the moniker "The Dreaded Discussion" (Frederick, 1981)?

In this article, I describe a project designed to take the dread out of discussion in a first-year interdisciplinary humanities course at Sewanee: The University of the South, a private liberal arts college in Tennessee. The Responsible Intellectual Discussion project, known as rid, was created in conjunction with the college's Eloquence Initiative, a speaking-across-the-curriculum effort in which I served as a consultant.¹ By virtue of its association with the speaking initiative, RID was informed not only by familiar literature on discussion methods (e.g., Brookfield & Preskill, 1999; Neff & Weimer, 1989; Rosmarin, 1987) but also by rhetorical theory and pedagogy, which gave the project a distinctive character. Although discussion is acknowledged to be one of many communication activities that might be part of speaking-intensive courses (Cronin, Grice, & Palmerton, 2000), detailed research on discussion projects is lacking. And while discussion has long been of interest to communication scholars (see, e.g., Keith, 2007), that interest has centered largely on democratic processes and small-group dynamics rather than on the rhetorical skills of individual participants. As Barnlund and Haiman (1959) explain, "The 'orator' is out of place on a committee" (p. 270).

The orator may perhaps be out of place in a discussion, but the orator's training is not, particularly if improved communication skills are among the desirable outcomes of discussion classes, as is the case in Sewanee's humanities program. Although the assumption may be that the experience of discussing in such classes is sufficient for improvement, research has yet to confirm that outcome, as noted by Gall and Gall (1990); they recommend that "rather than relying on experience alone .. .,teachers should also consider providing systematic training in the communication skills needed for discussion" (1990, p. 41). Morello (2000), writing about speaking-across-the-curriculum activities, agrees, noting a widely held belief in the speech communication field that students need to "be taught oral communication rather than just required to perform it" (p. 108). These contemporary observations echo ancient rhetorical precepts on the development of the skilled speaker. In the words of Isocrates, a fourth- century teacher of rhetoric, those who excel at speaking "must first have a natural talent for what they have chosen to do; then, they must be educated and gain knowledge of that particular subject; and third, they must practice" (Antidosis 186 [2000, 240]).

Informed by this principle, Sewanee's RID project placed particular emphasis on instruction, thereby shifting the perspective beyond "discussing to learn" to include, as well, "learning to discuss." Much of the existing discussion literature, including books on teaching (Davis, 1993; McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006) as well as articles and edited collections (e.g., Christensen, Garvin, & Sweet, 1991; Dallimore, Hertenstein, & Platt, 2004; Frederick, 1981; Huang, 2005), focuses on discussion as a pedagogical means, promoting good practice in areas such as questioning and managing classroom interaction. This project, in contrast, conceptualizes discussion as a communication end and, in so doing, points to a different set of strategies for improving discussion. In what follows, I describe those strategies, all of which are characteristic of public speaking pedagogy: (1) establishing and communicating criteria for evaluation, (2) instructing (with a...