Resources for Faculty: Group Discussions
-------------------------
Primer
A discussion group is defined by its goal: to discuss. Note that “to discuss” is not the same
thing as “to debate,” although it is possible that some debating of ideas might occur during a
discussion. Note also that “to discuss” is not the same thing as “to resolve,”
although it is possible that a discussion group might come close to resolving a question that has been put
to it. A group that is asked to resolve an issue is really a task group. From a communication perspective,
task groups are different from discussion groups: the dynamics are different. However, there are many groups
that fall somewhere in between the two and, as a result, have characteristics of both. For the sake of this
primer, however, we’re going to assume that discussion groups represent a separable communication
situation.
The differences between debates and discussion groups and between task groups and discussion groups are
not academic niceties. Students need to know that, when asked to discuss an issue, they are not necessarily
being asked to engage in an adversarial situation. Discussion groups can be communities in which all members
are committed to exploring. Students also need to know that they are not necessarily being asked to come up
with an answer. If a discussion group comes up with multiple answers to a question, that’s fine. The
group has discussed. It wasn’t given the task of arriving at “the answer” or “an
answer.”
Individual Differences
Discussion group members need to be alert to how they may differ from each other. There are many ways in
which they might differ. Five are perhaps especially useful to note.
First, discussion group members may differ in their approach to group work. Those in the discipline of
communication who study groups have identified five different approaches. Some group members are very
procedural. It is as if these people have their focus primarily on how the group will proceed in discussing
an issue. These group members are similar to those who are very pragmatic in their approach. These people
want to focus on the matter at-hand. On the positive side, they will keep the group on-task; on the negative,
they may push the group toward resolution either prematurely or when a “neat” resolution isn't
possible. These people, basically, want to come up with an answer.
Some people enjoy discussing ideas: their approach is said to be conceptual. Others like to explore the
deeper issues that may lurk behind the matters under discussion. Their approach is said to be philosophical.
As one might imagine, there can be some tension between people who are either conceptual or philosophical
and people who are either procedural or pragmatic. The fifth approach focuses on the group’s
processes, not to keep them on-track, but to keep them going. This approach is said to be energizing.
One might think that this last approach is essential. Actually, all five approaches are important if not
essential. Yes, tension can emerge between people with different approaches to group work. However, a
discussion group can be weakened if any one of these approaches is lacking. The group can proceed, and the
group can succeed. However, the group might be better if all five approaches were represented.
Second, group members will differ in their needs. They all need inclusion, control, and affection;
however, they may need different levels. As far as inclusion is concerned, there may be group members who
are undersocial or oversocial as opposed to just plain social. As far as control is concerned, there may be
group members who are abdicratic or autocratic as opposed to democratic. As far as affection is concerned,
there may be group members who are underpersonal or overpersonal, as opposed to just plain personal. In
general, any of the extremes can cause problems in a discussion group. An oversocial person, for example,
might keep the group from staying on-task; an autocratic person, for example, might try to take charge of
the group and dictate to it. An overpersonal person, for example, might confess all of his/her problems that
are just tangentially connected to the matter at-hand and seek expressions of the group members’
concern.
Third, group members are likely to differ somewhat along gendered lines. Those gendered male tend to be
more instrumental in their approach to communicate. As a result, they see communication as a means to an end
and focus on (1) getting “the job” done and (2) obtaining or maintaining power. Those gendered
female, on the other hand, tend to be more focused on the relational dimension of communication and are, as
a result, more focused on creating or sustaining good interpersonal relationships among the group members.
This matter is not as simple as the “mars” and “venus” books make it out to be, but
there clearly is a difference in how communication is viewed based on gender.
Fourth, group members will have different personalities. The Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory is a
useful way to categorize personality types. The inventory offers one scores along four continua:
extroversion to introversion; sensing to intuitive; thinking to feeling; judging to perceiving. A person,
for example, might be “extroverted,” meaning that she/he would likely talk more and talk
enthusiastically; “sensing,” meaning that she/he thought sequentially and spoke
straightforwardly; “feeling,” meaning that she/he was friendly and sensitive; and
“judging,” meaning that she/he liked structure and made decisions quickly. This person might
find it difficult to work with someone who, for example, was “thinking” and
“perceiving,” a cool, business-like person who tended to delay decisions and was very tentative
in her/his views.
Some who study groups encourage teachers to administer the Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory and
assemble assign students to work together based on their personality types. That approach is too regulatory
for most. The key then becomes getting those who will work in a group to recognize that others in the group
may have very different personalities and, as a result, work in different ways. Once the existence of these
differences are recognized, then all group members have to both be tolerant and adapt.
Fifth, group members will have different communication styles. Group members may have one or more of the
following 10 styles: (1) animated; (2) attentive; (3) contentious; (4) dominant; (5) dramatic; (6) friendly;
(7) impression leaving; (8) open; (9) precise; and (10) relaxed. And there’s a instrument available
through the Speaking Center that enables students—or faculty—to determine on a 0-16 scale how
they rate in each style. Let's say, for example, that one scores high in (3) contentious and (9) precise.
Recognizing this style might lead one to moderate it a bit—as well as to try to add other styles to
the repertoire. Recognizing one's dominant styles will also lead to a general recognition that there are
multiple styles in the group and that, therefore, others involved in a discussion may not communicate as he
or she does.
“Bad” Discussion Group Behavior
A number of communication behaviors can significantly impede the work of a discussion group.
First, if any of the discussants enacts any of the following roles, there will likely be problems: a
blocker - i.e. someone who tries to prevent the discussion from moving forward; a dominator - i.e. someone
who either says too much or directs the group’s work too much; a recognition-seeker -i.e. one who
talks about his/her accomplishments or one who offers his/her ideas with the obvious expectation that they
will be applauded; a “confessor” - i.e. one who shares personal experiences or personal problems,
even ones related only tangentially to the topic under consideration; a “clown” - i.e. one who
jokes around so much that the group cannot discuss; and a withdrawer - i.e. one who sits back and does not
at all engage in the group’s activities. One might add to this list the role that in sexist small group
communication texts of old was called a playboy - i.e. one who was more interested in “picking
up” fellow group members than discussing.
Second, if any of the group members engages in non-verbal behavior that signals rejection, there will
likely be problems. Raising one’s eyes up or looking down can signal rejection, as can folding
one’s arms, tapping a pencil, or shuffling papers. These behaviors are, in addition, quite rude.
Third, a discussion can be impaired if any of those involved polarize any conflict that may emerge by
exaggerating the opposed positions. Conflicting ideas are normal in the course of a discussion, and a good
discussion profits from the conflict because it compels those on both sides to support what they are saying.
Exaggerating does not support an idea; rather, it tends to take an idea that might be supported by good
reasons and move it to a realm where it can only be supported by emotion-laden language.
Fourth, a discussion can be impaired if any of those involved practice “pseudo-listening.”
This behavior is one we’ve certainly seen in classrooms (and maybe even in faculty or committee
meetings). A “pseudo-listener” has figured out all of the non-verbal behavior that suggests
attentiveness, and she/he engages in them. However, there is little or no mental attending to the
group’s work. The person’s mind is on some other matter, even though the non-verbal signals
suggest engagement.
Fifth, a discussion can be impaired if any of those involved is overly aggressive. Dominic Infante and
C. J. Wigley have developed and tested an instrument (available in Speaking Center) that measures
“verbal aggressiveness.” It’s a twenty-item self-report questionnaire. You receive a score
from 20 to 100, with a score in excess of 58 suggesting that you are highly verbally aggressive and, thus, a
potential “problem” in a discussion group.
A few of these “bad” behaviors necessitate a detour here into a discussion of conflict. The
first point to make is that conflict can be good. However, when the conflict focuses on people, not ideas,
and when the conflict becomes charged with emotion, then it is no longer good. Discussants can prevent
turning conflict from good to bad by, first, monitoring and controlling their emotional displays and,
second, by using “I statements,” not “You statements.” Let’s say someone says
that those who live in the large cities of the Northeast tend to be rude and you’re from one of those
cities. A “you statement” would be “You’re prejudiced”; an “I
statement” would be “I’m offended by that comment.” In general, “I
statements” are less confrontational and, therefore, less likely to cause a conflict to escalate.
There are five strategies one might use in dealing with conflict. Some are better than others. Theorists
suggest that a group member’s behavioral inclinations result in a tendency to respond to conflict in
predictable ways. The two inclinations that are relevant are the tendency to be assertive and the tendency
to be cooperative. Those who are low in both practice avoidance; those who are low in cooperativeness but
high in assertiveness practice competition. Neither avoidance nor competition are especially good ways of
dealing with conflict. Those who are high in cooperativeness but low in assertiveness practice accommodation,
which is also not a good strategy because often the person using this strategy gives away too much. The two
better strategies are those practices by those moderate on both scales and those high on both scales. Those
who are moderate in cooperativeness and assertion practice compromise; those who are high in both practice
(if they let the cooperativeness dominate a bit) collaboration. Those group members inclined to the less
effective strategies should try to practice compromise and collaboration. Theorists suggest that they may
have to alter their measure of assertiveness and/or cooperativeness in order to practice the preferred
strategies for dealing with conflict.
“Good” Discussion Group Behavior
There are several behaviors discussants might learn and practice that would help a discussion group do
well.
First, discussants might practice paraphrasing. If they did so, they would occasionally put the ideas of
others into their own words. This technique allows the discussion to move forward with the assurance that
participants truly understand the ideas they are responding to. This technique is especially helpful when
the issues under discussion are controversial or are eliciting emotion-laden responses.
Second, discussants might practice using regulators effectively. Now - you might ask - what is a
regulator? These are non-verbal ways we have of signaling such matters as we’re finished speaking and
we want a turn speaking. For example, people signal the latter by leaning forward, nodding, establishing eye
contact with the person speaking or the person leading, and - of course - raising one’s hand. If these
regulators are used well, a group runs smoothly: there are few interruptions and few times when people speak
over each other. A smoothly-running group is more likely to produce ideas and then refine them than one that
jerks forward.
Paraphrasing and using regulators are, perhaps, small things those participating in a discussion group
might do. The third and fourth suggestions (below) deal with the larger picture - how the participants choose
to interact with each other.
The third suggestion deals with the interaction pattern. A task group (as opposed to a discussion group)
is likely to have a leader. As a result, many of the comments made by group members will be directed at that
leader. That leader, on the other hand, will tend to direct his/her comments to the group as a whole. A
discussion group will typically exhibit a different interaction pattern in which most group members’
comments will be directed to the group as a whole. Sometimes, two members may engage in a back-and-forth
exchange, with the rest of the group listening. That’s fine, but, in general, those exchanges should
be significantly fewer than comments addressed to the group as a whole. Side exchanges, where two members
will talk without the rest of the group listening, are inevitable in any group of human beings. However,
such exchanges should be minimal in both task groups and discussion groups, for, if they are too numerous,
they can cause the group as a whole to cease working productively.
The fourth suggestion deal with balancing the amount of talk a person engages in, how much of it is
task-oriented, and how much is social. Envision a graph with the x-axis being social talk and the y-axis
being task talk. On such a graph, envision four quadrants: high in both in upper right; low in both in lower
left; high task but low social in upper right; low task but high social in lower right. Now, represent each
group member with a circle, the circle’s size reflecting how much the person talks. Now, place these
circles in the quadrants. The ideal group will have all of its members in (or near) the high-high quadrant;
the ideal group will have none of its members represented by either very large or very small circles.
Such a diagram also can be used as a diagnostic tool. It can flag down not only imbalances in
participation among group members, but also group atmospheres that lack the necessary mix of task talk and
social talk.
The fifth and final suggestion concerns the roles group members might play. Those who study small groups
suggest that there are task roles, procedural roles, and emotional support roles, all of which must be
enacted if a group is to be successful. These roles may well be more important in a task group than in a
discussion group; nonetheless, they are important.
Task roles include the following: initiating discussion; seeking and providing information; seeking and
providing opinions; elaborating on someone else’s idea; clarifying someone else’s idea or where
the group is on a question; evaluating an idea; effecting a compromise among ideas; and summarizing where
the group is.
Procedural roles include regulating participation by keeping people from speaking too much and inviting
those not speaking to do so; keeping the group on-task; and recording the group’s ideas.
Emotional support roles include energizing the group; supporting those who participate, especially those
who are either reluctant or have espoused controversial positions; harmonizing the group when excessive
tension develops; and helping the group release tension through humor and other techniques.
Roles are not taken-on, one person to a role. Rather, a given person might take on several. And a role
might be shared. The key is for participants to know what roles they’re good at and, then, assume some
of those. Ideally, all roles will thus be enacted. Since discussion groups do not have to reach a specific
goal, they can proceed and be “successful” without all roles having been enacted. However, the
more roles unfilled, the more likely a discussion group is to produce only a few ideas.
Sample Assignments
Group discussions need to be closely tied to the content of courses if they are to be the speaking
to-learn activities they should be. Assignments tend to fall into two categories: 1) hypothetical cases
followed by a number of questions the group should ask about that situation; 2) questions tied to a
particular reading selection.
Several guidelines might well be kept in mind when crafting questions:
Questions should, if at all possible, be genuine—not ones for which there is a “right”
answer that students must search for.
The multiple answers that might be offered should be equally defensible and equally rich in implications.
Yes, the group may well decide that some answers, after discussion, are more defensible than others. But,
before the group reaches this point, the group should feel awash in genuine possibilities.
The multiple answers should also be rich in implications so that the discussion does not come to a
screeching halt after a few minutes.
Questions should interest students. What might be the subject of hours of debate among professional
sociologists/historians/chemists/etc. might well not be fascinating to undergraduates.
Questions should, if at all possible, be sequenced, so that question 1 leads to 2, etc. The discussion
then builds as opposed to have jerky transitions as they group reaches closure on 1 and then says,
“ok, let’s move on to #2.”
A Handout You Might Give Students
Discussion Groups
As a general principle, be aware that the members of a group are different. There are countless ways in
which they may be different. The following would seem to be particularly relevant to discussion groups:
- Different in Approach to Group Work - e.g. procedural vs. philosophical
- Different in Inclusion, Control, and Affection Needs
- Different in Gender - males more instrumental, females more relational in focus
- Different in Personality
- Different in Communication Style - e.g. dominant or relaxed or contentious or open
Also, be aware of Bad Group Behaviors:
- Blocking Discussion
- Dominating Discussion
- Seeking Recognition
- Offering Irrelevant Personal Disclosures
- Clowning Around
- Withdrawing from the Discussion
- Flirting
And, finally, be aware of Good Group Behaviors:
- Paraphrasing What Others Have Said
- Helping Regulate Discussion (to prevent domination and withdrawal)
- An Interaction Pattern Featuring Most Comments Being Made to the Group
- A “Good” Balance of Task
- Talk and Social
- Talk
- The Performance of Necessary Task Roles*
- The Performance of Necessary Procedural Roles**
- The Performance of Necessary Emotional Support Roles***
*-- Initiating, Information Seeking, Information Giving, Opinion Seeking, Opinion Giving, Elaborating,
Clarifying, Evaluating, Compromising, Summarizing
**-- Regulating Participation, Keeping Group Focused, Recording
***-- Energizing, Supporting, Harmonizing, Tension Releasing
Evaluation Advice and Instruments
Three diagnostic charts might be useful in assessing how effectively a discussion group is working.
(Copies are available in Speaking Center.)
The first charts the interaction pattern.
Draw a circle or rectangle to represents the table (or space) around which the group is working; then,
draw a circle (or whatever shape) for each group member.
Then, for each statement, draw an arrow from the speaker to the audience. If the audience is another
group member or two, it’s easy to draw the arrow. If the audience is the group as a whole, draw the
arrow so that it points either to the center or outside the group. Since arrows drawn to the center will
cross with arrows going from person-to-person, you’ll probably create a clearer diagram if you draw
the person-to-entire group arrows pointing outside the group. Visually, such a diagram send the
“wrong” message; however, as long as everybody knows what those outward-pointing arrows mean,
there shouldn’t be a problem.
As noted earlier, in a discussion group, the overwhelming majority of the arrows should be person-to-group
arrows.
The second charts the balance between task talk and social talk. It also charts the level of each
member’s contribution to the discussion.
Draw a diagram with intersecting x and y axes and, thus, four quadrants. The y axis measures the amount
of social talk, with 0 at the chart’s bottom, not at the axes’ intersections; the x axis
measures the amount of task talk, with 0 at the chart’s far left, not at the axes’
intersection.
Then, place on the chart circles for each participant with the size of the circle signaling how much that
person contributed. Thus, a participant who spoke a fair amount but almost always
about the task would have a moderate-size circle in the upper left quadrant; a participant who spoke a
little and almost always about social matters would have a small circle in the lower right quadrant; and a
participant who spoke a lot about both the task and social matters would have a BIG circle in the upper
right quadrant.
Ideally, the circles, although certainly not identical in size, would not be at either extreme. Ideally,
the circles should be in the upper right quadrant but almost hovering on the x axis, suggesting much task
talk and a good bit of social talk.
The third charts good and bad group behaviors.
List the behaviors down the right hand side of a page. Then create columns for each group participant.
Then, without being unduly concerned about methodology (since this is not a research task), put tick
marks on the appropriate line and in the appropriate column when you see an instance of a behavior.
The good behaviors are the following task, procedural, and social roles: initiating; information seeking,
information giving, opinion seeking, opinion giving, elaborating, clarifying, evaluating, compromising,
summarizing, regulating participation, keeping group focused, recording, energizing, supporting, harmonizing,
tension releasing.
The bad behaviors would be blocking discussion, dominating discussion, seeking recognition, sharing
irrelevant personal information, clowning-around, withdrawing from the discussion, and flirting.
After a discussion is over, you should be able to answer the following questions:
- Were all of the necessary good behaviors practiced by the group members as a whole?
- If not, which ones was the group deficient in?
- Were any good behaviors minimally present?
- Were the responsibilities shared fairly evenly among group members, or did some people do too much and
others too little?
- For each behavior, who seemed to be “the specialist”? (Keep in mind that a person is usually
good at many behaviors and will choose which ones to exhibit in a given group based on who else is in the
group and what these others seem to be good at. So, “the specialist” in summarizing in a group
you observe on Tuesday may become “the specialist” in initiating in a different group on
Thursday.)
- Were any bad behaviors exhibited? If so, by whom?
These questions should allow you to offer the group as a whole and the individuals in it useful
feedback.