Discussion protocols: In defense of a "script"

And some protocols I use in faculty development

Is “facilitating discussions” the most evergreen faculty teaching development topic? It is definitely up there, along with its many variants like “facilitating sensitive discussions,” “facilitating inclusive discussions,” and “facilitating effective discussions.” If a CTL has a collection of tips or guides on its website, then it almost certainly has one on discussions. There seems to be an assumption that discussions are (as a default) unstructured and spontaneously unfolding, and that those qualities introduce some equity and inclusion concerns. There are lots of suggestions to balance these concerns, like introducing “community norms or guidelines,” “provide thinking time,” “assign roles,” and “be considerate when putting students on the spot.”

Being honest about “discussions”

The word “discussion” tends to connote a type of openness, an exchange of ideas, or an organic flow from one topic to another. But, as Margaret Price helpfully notes in her book Mad at School,

“Although the notion of a classroom ‘discussion’ implies that it is open to all perspectives, this setting is in fact controlled by rigid expectations: students taking part in a ‘discussion’ are expected to demonstrate their knowledge of the topic at hand, raise relevant question, and establish themselves as significant, but not overly dominant, voices in a crowd of at least fifteen - and usually many more - other persons. Further complicating the transaction is the fact that different teachers have different expectations for the ‘script’ of a classroom discussion. One teacher might want straightforward paraphrasing of the reading; another might want provocative questions; yet another might want connections drawn between today’s material and last week’s. These expectations may or may not be communicated directly.”

I remember going over this paragraph three or four times in a row after I read it for the first time. I was struck by the open admission that classroom discussions are, in fact, often governed by rigid expectations. Many of us don’t want to see ourselves as having rigid expectations for classroom activities, and I think Price hints at the ways we can actually make participating in class more difficult if we shy away from naming our expectations outright. My own thought is that naming them allows us to also rethink how rigid they need to be!

Photo by Volodymyr Hryshchenko on Unsplash

A discussion protocol as a type of script

Even if expectations are not so narrow or fixed, many people will find it easier or more enjoyable to have a discussion if they know something about what the tone or basic agenda will be - as Price calls it, “the script.” I make extensive use of scripts, something common among Autistic people. Perhaps because of this personal experience (some might call it a bias) I often want to make space for people to participate in a discussion using some sort of script. Sometimes that could be as simple as writing down a response and then reading it out loud (a low-effort strategy that faculty developers often recommend!). I also like to use a concrete “discussion protocol” when I am teaching or facilitating. A discussion protocol is basically a more detailed structure and or script for a discussion. This idea is far from new, but I don’t often get a chance as a faculty developer to engage with discussion protocols in detail. There are many different discussion protocols available online that you can use or adapt. However, like any pedagogical feature, they require intentionality and frequent evaluation and troubleshooting. I do think that the protocol also needs to be responsive to the dynamics of the particular group you are working with. Most of the protocols I use were developed in response to some specific concern or observation. I thought today I would share a few of these examples.

1. “Share a teaching challenge” protocol

Some years back I was responsible for some once-weekly graduate student teaching seminars. These groups met for one semester and were structured around a theme such as “teaching foundations,” “inclusive teaching,” or “teaching and technology.” The seminar was designed as a sort of job-embedded experience, in which the participants were TAing or teaching a class and participating in the teaching seminar simultaneously. One of the activities we did was a “share a teaching challenge” activity, the purpose of which was to spark conversation about the issues that were going on in the participants’ classrooms, and experience the benefits of navigating teaching challenges in a supportive community.

The first time I led the seminar, I inherited a curriculum from a previous facilitator and implemented it as I received it, and it did not have any discussion protocol for this “teaching challenge” activity. I just let whoever volunteered share their challenge and then let the conversation unfold, which went OK until the three most talkative students had taken a turn and no one else wanted to volunteer. I remember a student saying, “I have a teaching challenge, but I’m not confident that I can explain it well enough that other people will understand it.” I eventually suggested a discussion protocol that included a round of “clarifying questions” only. This meant that after the initial teaching challenge was described, no one could provide advice until clarifying questions were all answered.

After we used this protocol for a few weeks, I saw that it had a few benefits. First, the participants were more willing to lead the discussion (share their teaching challenge) as the burden was not all on them to explain it - the other participants helped do this by asking the clarifying questions. Second, this intermediate step between sharing the challenge and providing advice made participation possible for more of the listeners. As I said in my original post on the protocol, “in a group of 10-15 participants, different people will process and be ready to respond to the teaching challenge at different speeds. Some participants may need more information from the speaker to provide feedback, but don’t get a chance to gather it before other participants jump in with feedback. This results in the discussion being dominated by those that process information quickly or those that feel comfortable giving feedback without as much context.” My main reflection on this experience is that having a protocol can support both the discussion “leader” (who is often the teacher) and the discussion “participants” (who are often the students, even though the roles in this situation were a little bit different). The protocol helped to distribute responsibility for the conversation and lessen the anxiety of participation.

2. Neurodiversity in the classroom case study activity

I recently visited a small liberal arts college to conduct a workshop on neurodiversity, and planned some case study activities as part of the program. I knew that many (if not most) of the faculty members in attendance would be accustomed to forming groups and “discussing” the case studies with minimal structure, but I did suggest a discussion protocol anyway. When I have worked with faculty groups in the past I’ve observed that many of the participants already know each other very well, and that there are long-standing relationships and hierarchies that can affect the dynamics of the learning experience. Another part of my reasoning in introducing the protocol was that both of the scenarios I had prepared for them to analyze dealt with group learning situations in which neurodiversity was present, and I do believe that the use of discussion protocol can be an inclusive strategy for group activities. Here is the protocol I offered:

1. One person can volunteer to read the case out loud.

2. Provide time for each person to read the case quietly to themselves and take notes.

3. Phase 1: One or two discussion questions are provided for each case. After reading and before discussing, go around your table and provide each person an opportunity to add one more question that came up for them while reading.

4. Phase 2: Provide each person an opportunity to share their ideas of how the characters could respond in the scenario. Going around the table could be a good way to make sure that everyone has a chance to speak.

5. For the large-group discussion at the end of the small-group activity, both spoken and text contributions will be solicited.

What I observed, and what some participants reported, is that the protocol was useful for gently directing participants to engage in this activity as a learning experience rather than just a casual conversation with colleagues. The structure of the protocol helped get them in the mindset of “the learner” and how it feels as a learner to be offered multiple ways to take in the same information and multiple ways to participate. Additionally this protocol provided a structured opportunity for anyone to help shape the direction of the conversation by adding their own questions to the activity. So, in addition to creating a useful structure for the conversation, this protocol also models some classroom possibilities. I share this particular experience because I think it could be an interesting thing for more faculty developers to try in their sessions.

As a last thought, I definitely have talked to faculty and students who find some discussion protocols overly prescriptive and rigid. I think this is a good opportunity to look into those feelings and figure out the right balance of structure and spontaneity for your particular learning community. A term Zaretta Hammond uses to describe such a balance is “free-flowing structure.”

I hope you enjoyed this “discussion,” and I am always open to feedback and or critiques. Please feel free to comment if you are logged into substack or contact me.