|
|
 |
|
|
|
"Shaping" Classroom Dialogue Through the Scored Discussion
|
|
| |
by Joseph A. Mayo
Gordon College
Barnesville, Georgia
|
|
| |
Introduction
Participation in class discussion is typically considered an integral component of successful pedagogy. Class discussion can stimulate cognitive growth as students exercise their abilities to listen actively and think critically (Dixon 2000). Most instructors, however, feel varying degrees of concern over the quantity and quality of classroom dialogue. Since I am not personally immune to such thoughts, in teaching 20 college undergraduates in the context of a special-topics colloquium on the historical foundations of psychology, I adopted a proactive stance to "shaping" classroom interaction through an incentive-based system blending discussion with assessment called the scored discussion (Mayo 2002, in press).
Instructional Methodology
Relying on the basic principles of Skinnerian operant conditioning, the scored discussion involves assigning students "credits" for positive contributions and "debits" for negative contributions to class discussion. As a means of both assessing student participation and establishing a cooperative learning environment conducive to sharing ideas among individuals with divergent views, I have found the scored discussion to be an effective heuristic tool.
Once I had informed my students in advance about the specific nature of positive and negative contributions to classroom dialogue, I assigned each student one point for (1) making a relevant comment, (2) presenting factual information, (3) taking a stand on an issue, (4) drawing a classmate into the discussion, and (5) asking a clarifying question. I also awarded two points for demonstrating critical thinking (e.g., providing applied illustrations, drawing analogies, interrelating viewpoints). Conversely, I subtracted one point each for (1) making an irrelevant comment, (2) distracting or interrupting others, (3) engaging in a personal attack, (4) monopolizing conversation, (5) refusing to speak when addressed, and (6) not paying attention. As advocated by Zola (1992), I constructed a rubric on which to record each student's points (see Appendix A). Modifying McGrath's (1998) use of an individual evaluation form, after tallying each student's points I distributed a summative scoring sheet to each student in the class period immediately following the previous in-class discussion (see Appendix B).
 Appendix A
Grading Criteria
Class participation counted as 10 percent toward each student's final course average. To receive a letter grade of A (90 to 100 percent) for participation in a given class discussion, a student had to earn 12 or more total points; B (80 to 89 percent), 8 to 11 points; C (70 to 79 percent), 4 to 7 points; D (60 to 69 percent), 1 to 3 points; and F (below 60 percent), 0 or negative points. In converting letter grades to numerical averages, I adapted Leach's (1992) general framework for conducting normative comparisons of student performance. I assigned a score of 100 percent to the highest average over 12 points, comparing other letter-grade A point totals to that score. I did the same in relating letter-grade B point totals to the high score of 89 percent in that grade category, letter-grade C point totals to the high score of 79 percent, and so on.
Learning Outcomes
Class discussions were lively and productive. In terms of quantity versus quality of participation, students demonstrated an understanding that effective thinking and communication of ideas counted more than simply speaking. Overall, students' remarks were indicative of conceptual comprehension and the ability to compare and contrast competing perspectives. Through probing questions and incisive comments, students shared their reflective analyses and critiqued the expressed views of their classmates. Moreover, students were consistently open to constructive criticism and respectful and tolerant of opinions that challenged their own.
With practice, class discussions progressed in a favorable direction. After the first two discussions, the frequency of irrelevant comments, distractions, interruptions, refusals to participate, and other negative behaviors diminished markedly. The mean negative-point total per student over the first two discussions was 1.7, whereas it dropped to 0.4 across the remaining discussions. In contrast, the incidence of positive contributions rose steadily with practice. The mean positive-point total per student over the first two discussions was 6.4, rising to 7.5 over the next four discussions and then to 8.8 across the last six discussions. Of particular interest, increasing demonstrations of critical thinking were linked directly to the steady ascent in positive-point awards to students. The occurrence of behaviors representative of critical thinking more than doubled from the low per-student average of 1.3 over the first two discussions to a high of 2.8 over the final six discussions.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Although the results of my investigations show that appreciable learning gains are available through use of the scored discussion, potential costs are associated with this instructional strategy. To begin, as with any teaching approach that veers considerably from conventional pedagogy, there are risks (e.g., fear of failure) concomitant with the scored discussion. In addition, logistics may become a problem when instructors implement the scored discussion in an overly mechanical fashion, focusing greater attention on the scoring process than on facilitating meaningful classroom dialogue. (Remember that the underlying goal is facilitation, not control of class discussion.) One way to possibly sidestep this logistical concern involves limiting the number of students who participate in the scored discussion. Frazier (1997) recommends five or six students as the optimal class configuration for using this method. My own classroom observations are consonant with Frazier's contention. In my historical foundations of psychology colloquium, I experienced preliminary difficulties in administering the scoring process with a class of 20 students engaged in spirited interaction with one another. In fact, in acclimating myself to use the scoring discussion throughout the natural ebb and flow of classroom dialogue, it took me the entire initial discussion to comfortably translate theory into practice. Accordingly, in employing the scored discussion, I suggest that instructors isolate small groups of students (perhaps in tandem with follow-up, whole-class discussion) and utilize the first class discussion as a "trial run" in preparation for subsequent, more formal applications of this technique.
After carefully balancing the pros and cons of the scored discussion in light of my own classroom findings, I have concluded that the instructional benefits outweigh the accompanying costs. Consequently, I urge other psychology teachers to weave the scored discussion into judiciously preselected fibers of the fabric of their classroom instruction.
References
Dixon, F. A. 2000. "The Discussion Examination: Making Assessment Match Instructional Strategy." Roeper Review 23 (2): 104-108. Retrieved May 24, 2004, from the World Wide Web: Academic Search Premier at EBSCOhost.
Frazier, C. H. 1997. "The Development of an Authentic Assessment Instrument: The Scored Discussion." English Journal 86: 37-40.
Leach, E. L. 1992. "An Alternative Form of Evaluation That Complies with NCTM's Standards." Mathematics Teacher 85: 628-632.
Mayo, J. A. 2002. "Dialogue as Constructivist Pedagogy: Probing the Minds of Psychology's Greatest Contributors." Journal of Constructivist Psychology 15 (4): 291-304.
Mayo, J. A. In press. "A Pilot Investigation of Repertory Grid as a Heuristic Tool in Historical Foundations of Psychology." Constructivism in the Human Sciences.
McGrath, K. L. 1998. "What Is the Score on Scored Discussions?" Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School 4 (1): 50-58.
Zola, J. 1992. "Middle and High School Scored Discussions." Social Education 56: 121-125.
Note
Portions of this article were derived from "Dialogue as Constructivist Pedagogy" by Joseph A. Mayo, as published in the Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 2002, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 291-304. Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis, Inc., www.routledge-ny.com.
This article originally appeared in the spring 2005 issue of the Psychology Teacher Network newsletter, published by the American Psychological Association. It is reprinted on AP Central through a collaboration agreement between the College Board and the APA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
