By Dennis Adams, OSU College of Business
I often teach an Honors colloquium course on the role of commerce throughout history. Our in-class and online discussions cover some serious topics, such as slavery, colonialism, and the use of violence. At times I have struggled to get students to open up and share their thoughts. At other times, it seems as if all the students are carefully sticking to the same talking points. Occasionally, students share views that no one else wants to engage with.
In some rare, wonderful moments, students trust everyone in the room enough to truly work at understanding the topic—They ask awkward questions, make candid observations, keep their minds open, and do their best to understand the reality of a situation. I’ve come to think of these moments as authentic dialogue. I suspect that most teachers agree with me that this is higher education at its best, and that it is increasingly rare.
In my role as a Blended Learning Faculty Fellow with the Center for Teaching and Learning this year, I wanted to learn more about how to make authentic dialogue happen. My investigation started out as a search for the most effective techniques to use in the classroom. There are lots of techniques to choose from—So many, in fact, that I soon got overwhelmed. I had no framework to decide which technique would be appropriate for which audience, topic, medium, or amount of time. So I created one.
A suggested process for promoting authentic dialogue is illustrated in Figure 1. Briefly, the steps are to:
- Recognize the most likely obstacles to an authentic conversation, given the topic and participants.
- Inspire participants to overcome those obstacles with an appropriate call to action.
- Set ground rules that address those obstacles.
- Use low-stakes activities to prepare participants to overcome the obstacles.
- Structure the conversation in a way that helps participants avoid the obstacles.
- Require participants to reflect on the conversation, focusing on new understanding that was achieved.
The hypothesis behind this process is that focusing on the most likely obstacles is the key to success. The details within each step are a curation of various tools, definitions, and ideas from many sources, including those listed below. See the Authentic Dialogue Working Document for details.
Consider two examples of how a teacher might follow this process:
In the first case, the teacher has ample time to plan for a face-to-face course that will include dialogue on a series of related, contentious topics throughout the term. The teacher starts by polling the class about which obstacles they foresee, providing definitions of the terms in the list above. The poll indicates that students anticipate misunderstanding (defined as “Participants inaccurately or unfairly interpret a competing argument.”) to be the most likely obstacle to authentic conversation.
Based on that insight, the teacher seeks out a series of quotes and anecdotes that they introduce at the beginning of each class period, in an effort to inspire the students to put in the effort required to overcome misunderstandings. For instance, the teacher might share a quote from the Dalai Lama, “When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know. But if you listen, you may learn something new.”
Very early in the course, the students will have a voice in determining the ground rules for discussions. The teacher might bring some good suggestions, even insisting on one or more. In an explicit effort to foster understanding, the class might select the rule, “Everyone gets a do-over—a chance to clarify or modify our statements.”
Prior to the first discussion on a difficult topic the teacher might guide the students through a preparatory exercise. For instance, the teacher might lead a “moral foundations exchange,” in which students collectively identify and discuss the basis for their morality. This gives them an understanding of each other that carries over to their dialogue on serious topics.
For each of those dialogue sessions, the teacher chooses an appropriate format for the discussion. Based on the anticipated obstacle of misunderstanding, they might use the “paraphrase passport” technique. When using this technique, prior to sharing their own thoughts, students must accurately paraphrase the prior speaker’s comment.
Finally, the teacher builds in requirements to reflect on the discussions and their outcomes. For instance, they may use an “exit ticket” at the end of each class, in which students must write down their impressions of the discussion.
In the second case, a teacher has a one-time discussion on a difficult topic in their online course. With little time to prepare, they use their experience to anticipate what the most likely obstacles to authentic dialogue might be. Similarly, they choose the ground rules for the discussion. With no time for preparation, they simply choose the best technique available for his situation. In this case, they might opt to use the A.I.-moderated discussion tool called Sway or the argument-mapping online tool from Kialo.
However it is used, I hope that teachers will give this approach a try. I have found confidence in simply having any coherent approach to improving the quality of dialogue in my classes and plan to put it to the test soon.
References
Constructive Dialogue Institute | Fostering Constructive Dialogue
BridgeUSA – Youth movement to fight political division.
The Mill Institute Resource Hub
About the author: Dennis Adams is a Senior Instructor in the Oregon State University College of Business. He teaches in the Honors College, where he will be co-teaching a colloquium course on dialogue techniques in Fall of 2025. He has served as a Blended Learning Faculty Fellow with the CTL during the 2024-2025 academic year.
Leave a Reply