As mentioned previously, one goal of this course is to improve critical thinking skills and to give you more experience reading, analyzing and discussing scientific literature. To be scientifically literate, you need to be able to read, write and talk science.
One aspect of science that is not often discussed is that science is not done in a "vacuum". That is, there is a social context to much of it. Many times scientific research has effects on society and/or may be interpreted and used by members of society in a variety of ways.
LeVay's work (i.e. our first Journal Club article) is an example of scientific research that potentially has a variety of social implications. We will analyze the research similarly to how we would analyze any article but will then take it one step further, and consider it in a societal context. We will practice separating "objective" data from interpretations, and attempt to develop an understanding of the judgmental factors involved in our interpretations.
The questions which will arise generally have no single right answer. Consequently, a simple transfer of information from instructor to student is inadequate. Instead, our format will be that of discussion in small learning groups. Our goal will be to develop real understanding of the judgmental factors involved rather than to simply keep a notebook filled with facts and predigested conclusions.
For these learning groups to be effective, the communication in them must differ markedly from what is often called "discussion." The participation of the teacher will be minimal and the students will be helping each other learn. Moreover, the nature of student-to-student exchanges must be unusual in the following way:
"It is easy for a group of people to engage in talk but this does not mean that they are having a group discussion. A group discussion is not a debate. Neither is it a bull session. The purpose of a debate is to convince other people of the rightness of one's own position. 'Convincing' may even proceed without any real regard for accuracy, but only with a desire to win the argument irrespective of the merits of the position. A bull session, on the other hand, is a pleasant sort of pastime in which one seeks to regale the others by description or stories of things he knows or events which have happened to him...Good group discussions are neither to win an argument nor to amuse oneself. Its purpose is to help each member explore and discover personal meanings...through interaction with other people. Much of our everyday talk is made up of description in which we seek in one way or another to convey ideas to other people. It is usually concerned with what we know. A learning group discussion is far more tentative, even halting, in its progress, for it deals not with certainty but with search...listening to a group discussion, one is likely to hear such expressions as 'it seems to me', 'I think', 'I believe'...group discussion does not seek to convince. Rather, it deals with matters unsolved and seeks to help each member find meanings not existing before..." (A.W. Combs, The Professional Education of Teachers.)
Fruitful discussions do not just "happen". They are the result of concerned, cooperative effort on the part of all participants. Moreover, discussion that results in learning has very specific characteristics. In order to make our discussions as profitable as possible in this course, we will begin with a rather carefully structured set of ground rules. Following these rules may be a bit difficult at first, but give yourself a chance to get your bearings with them.
In any learning discussion, communication is the essential issue, and the type of communication in use at any particular moment depends on the nature of understanding of each participant with regard to the topic at hand.
Sometimes everyone understands a particular topic, in which case it need not be discussed. Sometimes nobody understands, in which case the group should consult the instructor or text (or else pass on if it is not a topic of particular importance or interest). More commonly, some understand a particular issue and others do not. When this is the situation, those who think they understand may find, while trying to explain, that they don't understand as well as they thought they did. And by the same token, those who thought they didn't understand, may-in the process of formulating their question and attempting to pinpoint their difficulty (i.e. thinking out loud)--perceive the answer to their own question. Note that the key element in these exchanges is expressing what you don't understand. All of the negative roles mentioned below interfere with this communication process.
There are two steps which together can appreciably increase the quality of learning (and the enjoyableness) of all group discussions. These are thoughtful preparation and organization of the discussion period. Unless (almost) every group member is well prepared the discussions will flounder. A "Critical Analysis of Scientific Journal Article" worksheet will be required for the reading assignment. This worksheet will help you prepare effectively for class and allow the instructor to ascertain that you have indeed done this. The worksheet is to be prepared before the discussion period and handed in at the end of that period. You will often want to add to these during the discussion; this is strongly encouraged but please use a different color of ink or lead. The discussion worksheets and the organization of the class period will both utilize almost the same sequence so that preparation of the worksheet will facilitate the organization of the discussion period.
Let's consider some of the things which can make discussions "fail" or "succeed". Many college seminars founder on rocks such as these. First, in a discussion, as in everyday life, participants play roles. Some roles are "positive" and contribute to the group, while others are "dysfunctional" or "negative" and interfere with the individual's and group's goal of learning.
There are a number of "negative" roles. For example, some individuals may sidetrack the discussion to their own areas of special knowledge, and attempt to redirect discussion away from other areas. Often the intent is to divert discussion from an area in which they feel shaky to ones in which they can shine. Similar to this is dominating behavior, when one or more participants consistently monopolize the discussion without giving others who may be less aggressive a chance to speak. Sometimes seminars consist of a series of monologues, each participant developing points, but failing to listen to others or responding to what others say. If some participants are particularly aggressive or competitive, they may even put-down the ideas of another person and may well intimidate others into silence, leaving their questions unanswered and their potentially valuable comments unheard. Interrupting is also disruptive and often intimidates or angers others. (It may sometimes be necessary, however, to stop domination.) If some participants are consistently silent, particularly if they are also inattentive or visibly uninvolved and withdrawn from the discussion, this often dampens the discussion as a whole, as more active participants feel a burden of excessive responsibility. Horsing around and joking can be valuable ways of releasing the tension that sometimes builds up in learning discussions, but carried too far irrelevant stories serve only to distract the group from the issues at hand. Making apologies for one's self, or one's preparation, or one's point of view can also be ways of avoiding the difficulties of the material under discussion, and participants should try to avoid introducing their questions and comments with lengthy monologues along these lines. These are just some of the kinds of behavior which can hinder learning, and the group as a whole must seek to control their occurrence by referring back to the ground rules.
Let's now consider the roles played by group members which are necessary and positive in their contribution to group process. For a group to work, for discussion to be fruitful, all of them must be performed by one or another member-but not always by the same member. Each participant should be performing most or all of the necessary roles at one time or another. We can think of these roles (or activities) as being of three types: roles which facilitate the tasks of discussing specific topics, roles which facilitate the overall tasks of the group, and roles which help maintain a cooperative and open atmosphere in the group.
Roles which contribute to the fruitful discussion of a particular topic include:
a) Initiating: breaking an initial or interim silence by introducing a possible topic for group consideration. The following roles (b-f) are often effectively utilized for initiating.
b) Asking for and giving information.
c) Asking for and giving reactions.
d) Restating, in your own words, another person's comment and giving examples. This gives feedback to the speaker that she has adequately communicated.
e) Comparing ideas. The purpose of the group discussion is to develop personal understanding. This calls for kicking ideas around, testing them, examining and comparing them. This is best accomplished when members are willing to express their own beliefs and feelings freely on the one hand, even when they are unsure about them, and to listen receptively and sympathetically to other people's ideas. In doing this it is valuable to state how you agree and disagree with each other and why.
f) Clarifying, synthesizing, and summarizing. When many ideas have been offered about a topic, the group may find itself in a complicated tangle. Sometimes either giving or asking for examples, and asking for or giving a summary can help clarify things. Clarifying the underlying issues, synthesizing and summarizing what has been said helps provide closure, a way of getting out of the tangle and on to the next topic or step. Recognizing when to move onto the next topic can be a key contribution to a good discussion.
Two roles essential to the process of group discussion are:
g) Gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is a kind of verbal traffic management. A person playing this role momentarily attempts to spread participation by encouraging those who have not recently spoken to share their thoughts and questions. Gatekeeping is also necessary when several people wish to speak at once. At such times, encouraging the less assertive members to continue first will often facilitate communication. Gatekeeping also helps the group move efficiently from one topic to the next and through the steps of the discussion outline.
h) Timekeeping. This is a special kind of gatekeeping sometimes best handled by choosing a timekeeper for the day's discussion. If the group is to keep within the time budget it has allowed itself, someone must be responsible for keeping track of the time and warning other members when the time allotted for discussion of a particular topic is nearly up.
Finally, there are roles that contribute to the overall climate of learning in the group. These include:
i) Encouraging. These are important in maintaining a relaxed and accepting atmosphere in which all members feel free to ask questions and respond to others. Be as sympathetic and understanding of other people's views as you can, and if you disagree, say so, but avoid doing so in a belligerent or threatening way. Encourage nonparticipants tactfully in such a way that they realize the sincerity of your interest in their views. Be careful to take time to compliment each other for especially good ideas, helpful explanations, and other positive contributions.
j) Listening. This is as essential a part of successful communication and learning as speaking, and is often neglected in everyday life. You can practice this by trying to formulate in your own mind or stating out loud the gist of what a previous speaker has been saying before adding your own contribution. This is what is involved in responding to other people and building common understandings--and what is lost when each participant simply waits his turn to speak his own mind. It is also the difference between simply participating and interacting.
k) Group tension-relieving. When discussions become deadly serious or disagreements become intense, or when frustration over following the steps gets too great, it is valuable if someone can cut through with a joke or diverting remark which can relax the group. Too much of this can be a way of avoiding the difficulties of the problems at hand, but in moderation it will help the group to continue more comfortably with their learning task.
In-class evaluation. You should reserve the last 5-10 minutes of the period for mutual evaluation. This is a most important activity for the success of the discussions. All members should be involved in assessing the group's success in covering the material and in diagnosing any difficulties which may have hindered it. If negative roles have been played, or the time budget has been ignored, or participants feel dissatisfied with the day's work for some other reason, this is the time to explore the reasons so that the dynamics can be improved next time. Again, this will require openness and tact on the part of all members, and a commitment to improving the process of communication.
Some things to consider;
Time. How might any problems in your allocation of time have been solved? How can you avoid having the same problems next time?
Roles. You should compliment each other on positive contributions to the group dynamics. What problems cropped up which hindered communication or learning? How might they be solved? Sometimes individual participants must be made aware of dysfunctional roles they are playing--this takes tact and strength on the part of everyone in the group, but it must be done if the discussion is to become or remain a valuable learning tool for all. Remember that monopolizing, domination, and withdrawal often mean that the group has a problem which each of the members can help solve by appropriate gatekeeping, questioning, and encouraging (or, in extreme cases only, with a sledgehammer).
Written by Jan Thornton. This handout was modified and extracted, much of it verbatim, from ones written by Dr. Craig Nelson and by Dr. Judith Hansen of Indiana University. Both of those versions rely heavily on ideas from William Faucett Hill, 1969, Learning Through Discussion, Sage Publications.