Response to "Discussion in a Democratic Society"

If we expect future Americans to take the responsibilities and privileges of living in a democratic society seriously, then we must present them with opportunities to see how democracy works in the real world. Before reading the first two chapters of Brookfield’s and Preskill's "Discussion in a Democratic Society," I had not considered the connection between democracy and classroom discussion. After the reading, I began to see group discussions as a conduit in which students can learn how to function in a world composed of a multitude of voices, each one coming from a different perspective. In America's democracy, the marketplace of voices is voluminous: some are lost in the shuffle, others tend to domineer others (see: cable news), and many more do not want to be heard at all. While all types of people are welcomed (even the cable-news crowd...), I believe an ideal democracy would encourage all voices to be heard in a manner that is conducive to growth and understanding, and respects compromise and diversity while not losing the strength that can come with personal and steadfast conviction. This is the ideal democracy and it is also the ideal classroom.

But the ideal democracy, like the ideal classroom, is impossible. Just as people can be kind, observant, respectful, and intelligent, they can also be obdurate, close-minded, and disrespectful. These problems are not glossed over by Preskill and Brookfield. The most helpful aspects of the chapters involved practical ideas to help cultivate the best possible environment for classroom discussions and combat the problems that often occur in such an activity. I have come to the conclusion that there are two major reasons why many classroom discussions do not live up to expectations: lack of preparation and lack of/too much involvement by the teacher. In my experience, teachers do not adequately prepare students for discussion, nor do they inform the students of why they are performing this activity. The second reason for failure is that teachers are not involved in the discussion, but stand off aloof and unconcerned, which mitigates the importance of the activity. If the students are prepared for the discussion and know what is expected of them, they will be more comfortable sharing their thoughts with the class. If the teacher is involved in the discussion, acting an intellectual peer as well as a moderator, the discussion will be given the weight and order that is needed.

One suggestion by Brookfield and Preskill is the removing (or a thinning) of the veneer that separates the teacher from the student during these discussions (and, presumably, for the entire class period). The trick is to keep your authority as a moderator, a teacher, and a grader-of-papers, while also letting students see "behind the curtain", so to speak, at the mechanisms behind the activities and assignments that they will be participating in. I think this aspect can be terrifying to a lot of teachers who may not have good reasons for how they conduct the classroom. But being honest with both yourself and your students allows you to receive the input and criticisms that can act as a catalyst for change and improvement, keep you honest and pragmatic, and help measure the efficacy of your teaching methods.

Both chapters provided a lot of information that I feel will be useful in developing a philosophy of teaching that, hopefully, can be put to use successfully in practical situations.