Many of the lecture-based classes students take in college require a discussion section. Discussion sections give students the chance to further engage with material they receive in lecture. They can chat with their peers, ask their graduate student instructor questions or simply listen to the flow of conversation to retain course-related information.
Different Graduate Student Instructors employ different teaching styles within their discussion sections; some of those teaching styles, however, are more effective than others. When GSIs present themselves as peers rather than authority figures, they can more successfully engage students and foster an environment that emphasizes the importance of student voices and perspectives in their sections.
This semester, my roommate constantly complains about her psychology discussion section — and specifically, the GSI who runs it. She finds it difficult to engage because her GSI chooses to lecture, rather than respond to student questions or thoughts. Because discussion sections may not be everyone’s favorite aspect of their schedules, instructors should remember their audience consists of young-adult students — a mix of those who want to develop their knowledge of course content and others who just want to fulfill their requirements. Either way, discussion sections are meant to be student-centered, not an opportunity for the instructor to talk at the group.
This semester, one of my GSIs emphasized the importance of student participation in our discussion sections. Rather than taking a more authoritative approach, the GSI introduced herself as a peer. She reminded us that, despite our difference in experience levels, we all have important perspectives to share. As a result, she created a comfortable setting that maximizes participation in class-wide conversations. During our first meeting, the class developed a rubric together to determine what qualifies as good participation, which showed that she cared enough to incorporate our feedback in the section grading.
My POLSCI 101 GSI is a facilitator for the Engendering Respectful Communities workshop, run by the University of Michigan’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center. In her syllabus, she applied standards the ERC developed, writing, “Everyone is a teacher and a learner,” which effectively established both students and instructors as sources of knowledge in college. The GSI’s acknowledgment of a student’s potential to educate created an environment where students could feel even more comfortable sharing their perspectives.
In an interview with The Michigan Daily, Engineering senior Nicholas Stewart shared that he has had varied experiences in discussion sections during his years at the University. He ultimately favors discussion sections in which the GSI establishes themselves as peers to the students.
“I feel like if someone’s in a position of authority, it feels like you’re more likely to tune out or not engage because you don’t want your opinions to be judged,” Stewart said. “But people are more likely to open up if you feel like the instructors are on the same level as you.”
The desire for equal distribution of power in classroom settings likely stems from a larger pattern of American distrust in authority. Pew Research Center data shows that Americans generally lack trust in people who hold positions of power, ranging from congressmen to school administrators. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that this distrust can manifest in the classroom. How GSIs shape their environment greatly affects how much students benefit from the section.
Stewart also acknowledged the relationship between age groups and authority. Since age is a factor in determining someone as a peer, it’s important to consider when thinking about the power dynamics in a college discussion section.
“We are more or less in the same age group as the GSIs. It depends on whoever is running the discussion session to lead at the student’s level rather than at a higher position,” Stewart said.
Those who doubt the student-centered environment do so because of its potential to undermine the authority of the instructor. This comes from a common misunderstanding that a relaxed or comfortable setting means the instructor is too lenient or easygoing. However, trust in the instructor is an important element of student education. If an instructor undermines students, fails to recognize their unique learning needs or enforces strict policies that do not encourage open discussion, they risk losing that trust and the students’ attentions.
Modern American college classrooms typically follow a student-centered structure — meaning the students’ interests and accommodations are the instructor’s primary concern. In a classroom that adheres to this culture, active participation and an emphasis on student needs are valuable.
People often prefer to surround themselves with others like them. Psychologists provide a number of reasons for this tendency, such as validation, certainty and self-expansion. I think this is true in discussion sections as well: If students feel a GSI is not so different from them, they may feel more comfortable sharing their views. Overall, the newly produced dynamic could improve participation and enjoyment.
If students fail to find value in their discussion sections as they are, they should take initiative to shift power dynamics in the classroom. Or, at the very least, when it’s time for midterm student feedback, they can indicate on the forms if they dislike the structure of their discussion sections.
Instructors should emphasize that students can teach each other through discussion by sharing their experiences and interpretations of course content. But, as a student, if you don’t feel supported in this way, initiate conversations about how you wish the discussion would function and respectfully challenge the dynamics to ensure the section benefits your education.
Giselle Sesi is an Opinion Analyst who writes about the human condition. She can be reached at gigisesi@umich.edu.