Dialogue v. Discussion
While it might seem like something to be overlooked, teacher talk in meetings is essential to evolving a group to a team. Garmston and Wellman (2009) state, "Developing a staff's capabilities for talking together professionally is no panacea, but it can represent one of the single most significant investments that faculties can make for student learning" (p.45). Without productive and effective talk, there will be no productive and effective action. Ineffective talk leads to no action taken by a group or action taken before it is fully deliberated.
According the Garmston and Wellman (45), there are to two types of talking:
Prior to facilitation of meetings, session designers should include and label each part of the agenda as what type of talk and the specific outcome associated with that topic. This promotes and engages the participants in knowing how to proceed in the given task.
According the Garmston and Wellman (45), there are to two types of talking:
- Dialogue (p. 46)
- Leads to collective meaning-making and the development of understanding
- Honors the social-emotional brain
- Builds connections and belonging
- Coherent sustauined effort and community building
- Discussion (46-47)
- Leads to decisions that stay made
- Conversations infused with critical thinking and careful consideration
- Shows respect for differing points of view
- Serves the group's and the school's vision, values, and goals
Prior to facilitation of meetings, session designers should include and label each part of the agenda as what type of talk and the specific outcome associated with that topic. This promotes and engages the participants in knowing how to proceed in the given task.
Dialogue
When breaking down the history and roots of the word, one can come to a simple working definition to apply to professional teams: Using words to work through things. When people often consider a working definition in the group setting, they often focus solely on the talking. Using words also happens in other facets other than talking. Participants must be able to think and listen effectively, almost equally as important as simply speaking. Safety is also an important aspect to dialogue. People listen and speak with those they feel the most comfortable with in any given setting. Dialogue focuses on the exploration of options and ideas before decisions need to be made. Garmston and Wellman (2009) state, "Dialogue creates an emotional and cognitive safety zone in which ideas flow for examination without judgment" (p. 48). This safety begins with individual metacognition of the dialogue process. The researchers continue, "Suspension is an essential internal skill in dialogue. To suspend judgment, group members temporarily set aside their own perceptions, feelings, and impulses and carefully monitor their internal experience" (p. 48). Effective team members put the group and its mission above their personal connections and conflicts. This does not mean there is not conflict, which will be discussed in a later page. Safety should not be confused with comfort as "a lack of comfort with discomfort weakens dialogue and undermines the learning possibilities in that moment" (p. 49).
The typical choices of dialogue boil down to two choices:
The typical choices of dialogue boil down to two choices:
- When to talk
- How to talk
Discussion
Discussion differs from dialogue and should be explicitly stated as separate from dialogue in planning and executing. Garmston and Wellman (2009) state, "It focuses on the parts and their relationships to one another: the causes, the effects, and the ripple effects of proposed actions and solutions" (p. 49). Discussion is the form of speaking and listening that structures the plan and decides on the plan. It takes a different approach to the use of language. Without structure, blends of dialogue and discussion reduce the effectiveness of the group and cause misconceptions in the mind of the participants. Garmston and Wellman (2009) provide more purpose to discussion: "Participants attempt to reach decisions through a variety of voting and consensus techniques" (p. 49).
There are 3 Main Elements to Skilled Discussions (Garmston & Wellman, 2009, p. 50)
Too often, discussions become swirls of conflict, mainly because participants either see discussion and debate, which means "to fight or beat down," or do not detach ideas from originator. Garmston and Wellman (2009) continue, "When meetings descend to the level of street debate rather than academic debate, we focus on beating down the ideas of others. Scoring points becomes the goal, and winning comes from intimidation and intonation as much as from--or more than--logic or reason" (p. 50). To do this, facilitators must utilize team norming and conflict instruction to assist participants in focusing the group's energy. Putting ideas on the table is one form of reducing the focus on debating. Participants must utilize a process of recommending a topic for discussion or solution to errors that focuses on the topic and not the person making the recommendation. Garmston and Wellman (2009) continue, "If ideas are 'owned' by individuals, then to cut the idea away is the same as cutting the person away" (p. 51). To prevent this, the group needs a skilled facilitator who has the tools in structuring and designing the growth of the group.
The authors (2009) also provide topics for tools to help develop group discussion:
Again, it must be explicit in the planning of sessions and as objectives that are conveyed to the participants.
There are 3 Main Elements to Skilled Discussions (Garmston & Wellman, 2009, p. 50)
- Clarity about decision-making processes and authority
- Knowledge of the boundaries of the topics open to the group's decision-making authority
- Standards for orderly decision-making meetings
Too often, discussions become swirls of conflict, mainly because participants either see discussion and debate, which means "to fight or beat down," or do not detach ideas from originator. Garmston and Wellman (2009) continue, "When meetings descend to the level of street debate rather than academic debate, we focus on beating down the ideas of others. Scoring points becomes the goal, and winning comes from intimidation and intonation as much as from--or more than--logic or reason" (p. 50). To do this, facilitators must utilize team norming and conflict instruction to assist participants in focusing the group's energy. Putting ideas on the table is one form of reducing the focus on debating. Participants must utilize a process of recommending a topic for discussion or solution to errors that focuses on the topic and not the person making the recommendation. Garmston and Wellman (2009) continue, "If ideas are 'owned' by individuals, then to cut the idea away is the same as cutting the person away" (p. 51). To prevent this, the group needs a skilled facilitator who has the tools in structuring and designing the growth of the group.
The authors (2009) also provide topics for tools to help develop group discussion:
- Generating ideas
- Organizing ideas
- Analyzing ideas
- Deciding among alternatives
Again, it must be explicit in the planning of sessions and as objectives that are conveyed to the participants.
Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (2009). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.