Members of The Question of =
God
course will find the following piece useful in preparing for our class
discussions
and for preparing case examples.
TEACHING AND LEARNING BY DISCUSSION
Dale C. Godby, PhD., ABPP, CGP
How
often in hearing a lecture or participating in a discussion is our thinking
really challenged or significantly developed? Not often enough, yet we continue =
to
attend lectures. Why do we do=
this?
Ann Applebaum (1972) in her provocative paper,
"On hearing, presenting and discussing scientific papers," sugges=
ts
the reasons range from the superficial to the unconscious and from the
infantile to the mature. On t=
he
more primitive level, she says we attend lectures to see the speaker (an
outsider) injured by one of us (the discussant). We may attend out of curio=
sity
or to see someone we have read for years in the flesh. We may go to see some
one we think badly of confirm our low opinion by doing a poor job. On a more
mature level we may go to learn or exchange views with a colleague to our
mutual enrichment. We go to pursue a journey that Whitehead (1933) calls the
adventure of ideas, and if we are wise we heed his admonition to: “se=
ek simplicity
and distrust it.” On the deepest of levels we go to participate in wh=
at
Adler refers to as the “Great Conversation”, which has occurred
across the millennia. A caref=
ul
reading of Applebaum’s article will offer=
you a
rich reward in that most of us have many lectures and discussions ahead. Discussion Leaders The
primary goal in our discussions is to learn from one another. In order to do this best we need to
create an atmosphere that promotes free discussion and facilitates "two
way talk". We are intere=
sted
in discussions that will promote an enlarged understanding of ideas and val=
ues
rather than discussions that simply increase our knowledge or develop our
skills. For a discussion to w=
ork
well, a group needs to develop something akin to a therapeutic alliance. For
our meetings to be successful, they are best considered as a discussion amo=
ng
equals with the leaders or moderators superior only in the sense that they =
have
done more reading and thinking on the issues at hand. Socrates provides a good example in
which he saw himself simply as the principal inquirer, "the first among
equals". As
lecturers and discussion leaders we will we will assume that the students h=
ave
read the assigned readings. We will carefully select and examine one articl=
e on
the topic for the week and raise a series of questions that will be used to
give direction to our discussion. Sometimes just one question will be enoug=
h;
sometimes three or four will be needed.&nb=
sp;
We will use questions that raise issues. The best questions are ones that o=
ccur
to after a thorough study of the article.&=
nbsp;
These questions are ones that we frequently can not adequately
answer. They should be questi=
ons
that will raise further questions when first answers are given. It is likely that the questions ra=
ised
by the moderator will lead the discussants to raise
Secondly, our discussion leaders will examine the answers given to the questions by trying to evoke the reasons for the answers and the implications they have. If the question being answered is not understood, the discussion leader may need to repeat the question in a number of different ways using a variety of concrete examples= to get the question clear.
Thirdly, our moderators will engage the participants in "two way talk" with one another when the views they have advanced appear to be in conflict. To perform the second and third ta= sks, the moderator must be as active in listening as in questioning. Adler says that from his long experience, this is the moderator’s most important obligation and the= one most difficult to discharge well. The energy required to listen to each participant is very tiring. A= dler says it is possible to give two or three good lectures (one way talk, teach= ing by telling) in one day, but he doubts if anyone has the energy to conduct m= ore than one good seminar in a day.
The purpose of our discussions will not be to reach conclusions about which we = all agree. Rather, it should leav= e us with an understanding of the questions to be answered and the problems to be solved. In the succession of discussions that we have planned, whatever understanding has been achieved = in the earlier meetings should be used in dealing with questions or issues rai= sed in later meetings. If this is what we hope for from our discussion leaders, what is necessary on the part of our discussion partici= pants.
Discussion Participants
The state of mind we bring to the meeting is of primary importance. First of all the participants need= to come prepared to discuss. To = do this well the article that is chosen by the discussion leader should be read TWO TIMES and you should raise some questions of your own as well as think about the questions that the leader has raised.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> All participants, including the moderator, should come with open minds and be prepared to change their mind= as a result of the discussion. We should be open to views that are new, neither stubbornly resistant nor passively submissive. Adler p= oints out the fact that although many educated people have had courses in reading, writing and speaking that few, if any, have ever had courses in listening.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> To listen and understand what our colleagues are saying will perhaps be our most difficult task. You might say that this shouldn't b= e that difficult for a group of therapists who have been trained to listen, but the type of listening most of us have been trained to do di= ffers markedly from the type that makes for good discussion. In fact, listening for unconscious meanings may at times interfere with what can make for good discussion.
The first rule to be followed is: do not agree or disagree until you are sure y= ou understand the position the other person is taking. "To disagree before you under= stand is impertinent. To agree is inane". To insure we understand one another before agreeing or disagreeing is often time consumi= ng and requires patience and persistence, but it is necessary if we seek to ha= ve a genuine meeting of minds.
Adler suggests that if you find yourself in genuine disagreement that you should = be able to explain the grounds of your disagreement by saying one of the follo= wing things. I will quote Adler directly:
"I think you hold th=
at
position because you are uninforme=
d
about certain facts or reasons that have a critical bearing on it".
"I think you hold th= at position because you are misinform= ed about matters that are critically relevant". Then be prepared to indicate the mistakes the other has made, which, if corrected, would lead the other to abandon the position taken.
"I think you are sufficiently well informed and have a firm grasp of the evidence and reasons that support your position, but you have drawn the wrong conclusions from y= our premises because you have made mis= takes in reasoning. You have ma= de fallacious inferences". = Then be ready to point out those logical errors, which if corrected, would bring= the other person to a different conclusion.
"I think you have ma= de none of the foregoing errors and that you have proceeded by sound reasoning from adequate grounds for the conclusion you have reached, but I also think that your thinking about the subject is incomplete. You should ha= ve gone further than you did and reached other conclusions that somewhat alter= or qualify the one you did reach". Then be able to point out what these other conclusions are and how t= hey alter or qualify the position taken by the person with whom you disagree. <= /p>
Let me finish by further = quoting what Adler says seminar teaching by questioning and discussion is not:
It is not a quiz session in which a teacher asks Yes or No questions and says = right or wrong to the answers.It is not a lecture in disguise in which the teacher asks questions and, after a brief pause or af= ter listening to one or two unsatisfactory responses, then proceeds to answer h= is own questions at length, thus in effect giving a lecture that is punctuated= by the questions asked.It is not a glorified "= ;bull session" in which everyone feels equally free to express opinions on t= he level of personal prejudices or to recount experiences that the narrator of them regards as highly significant of something or other.
None of = the foregoing counterfeits of the seminar provides the kind of learning that a seminar should afford when it is properly conducted by questions and answers and by the discussions of their significance.
REFERENCES
Adler, M. J. & Van Doren, C. =
(1972) How to read a book. (rev. ed.) & Schuster.
(Original work published 1940). Adler, M=
. J.
(1983). How to speak and listen.
Applebaum, A. (1972). On hearing, presenting and discussing scientific
&= nbsp; papers. = Bulletin of the M= enninger Clinic, 35, 546-550.
Bloom, H. (1999). How to read and why.
Tuck= ett, D. (1993) Some thoughts on the presentation and discussion of the clinical
<= /span>material of psychoanalysis. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 74, 1175-
<= /span>1189.
Whitehead, A. N. (1933). =
Adventure of ideas.
Presentation of Clinical Material
1= . = What model of listening and cure is the therapist working from.
2= . = Distinguish between: “What the patient said.”
3= . = “What the therapist felt.”
4= . = “What the therapist thought about this.”= ;
5= . = “What the therapist said.”
6= . = ”What the patient said after the therapist spoke.”
References<= /p>
Tuckett, D. (1993) Some thoughts on the presentation and discussion of the clinical
&nbs= p; material of psychoanalysis. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 74, 1175-
&nbs= p; 1189.
Wyman, H.M. & Rittenberg, S. (1992)Reflections on the written presentation of=
&nbs=
p; psychoanalytic clinical data: Necessary source and per=
ennial
problem. Journal of
Clinical Psychoanalysis, 1, 323-331.