Quotes to Affirm and Challenge

Discussions based on preassigned reading are some of the hardest to facilitate. Some participants only skim the reading; others ignore it entirely or come determined to talk only about one idea that captures their attention. When the conversation opens, it quickly becomes an exchange of generalizations and platitudes with claims attributed to the text that stand unchecked. This technique is intended to address these problems.

Purposes

• To ensure everyone reads the material beforehand
• To keep the discussion focused on the text
• To prevent inaccurate attributions
• To reveal similarities and differences in how people respond to a reading
• To highlight parts of the text that were most resonant or dissonant for readers

How It Works

• When participants are asked to read preassigned material they are each told to bring to the meeting one quote from the reading they wish to affirm and one they wish to challenge.
• The quote to affirm could be chosen because it's thought to be empirically accurate or it tallies with someone's experience. Maybe it represents the most important point or the kernel of the argument. Perhaps it's lyrically rousing or rhetorically powerful.
• The quote to challenge could be chosen because it's inaccurate or incomprehensible. Maybe it's contradicted by experience or advocating something reprehensible or immoral.
• When the meeting is convened people are put in small groups of five. Each person shares the quotes he or she has affirmed and challenged and the reasons they were chosen.
• After discussion the small group chooses one quote to affirm and one to challenge out of all the quotes proposed. Sometimes the quote is chosen because more than one person proposes it. Sometimes it's chosen because it provokes the most discussion or the reasoning behind one person's choice persuades other members. The two quotes must come from different members of the small group.
• The quotes are posted around the room on sheets of newsprint together with a summary of the reasons for the group's choices. A blank sheet is posted next to each poster.
• Participants are given markers and asked to wander the room individually and post their support for or objections to the quotes they read.
• The small groups then gather at their original posting to read and discuss the comments others have left. After a few minutes the whole group reconvenes to consider which quotes seem pivotal and which generated the most reaction.

When and Where It Works Well

1. Text-based discussions. This technique is obviously designed for situations in which participants have been assigned prereading beforehand and the discussion is intended to explore people's reactions.
2. When people are intimidated by reading large amounts of text. The requirement to choose only two quotes to talk about is much less daunting than being asked to respond to global questions such as “What reactions did the reading provoke?”
3. In academic settings. This is a good technique when instructors teach specific course content and wish to elicit the meanings students ascribe to a text.
4. Town hall meetings. This works for a task force meeting considering a new strategic plan, a town hall meeting reviewing the findings of an environmental impact study, or any group faced with a document that affects their operations.

What Users Appreciate

1. The diversity of responses. When a range of quotes are proposed, participants are often surprised to find out how people have read the same words differently.
2. Everyone participates. In the small-group stage, all members have the chance to propose and defend their quotes.
3. The discussion goes deeper into the text. In both the small and large groups, people constantly flick through the assigned text to read specific sentences and paragraphs.
4. The time spent reading the text beforehand is justified. People feel that time spent on the assigned reading has been worthwhile.

What to Watch Out For

1. Small groups are at loggerheads about which quotes to choose. In this case suggest that the two quotes chosen represent the different positions existing in the group.
2. Too great a diversity of quotes is proposed. Sometimes there seems to be no common ground or meeting point suggested by the range of different quotes posted around the room. But this in itself is revealing. It stops people from universalizing their own response to the reading and helps them understand that a variety of different positions are in the room.
3. Reasons not provided. Small groups often focus so much on the meaning of the quotes they've chosen that they neglect to document the reasons behind their choices. Remind them shortly before posting that these need to be included.

Questions Suited to This Technique

This focuses on responding to texts rather than raising questions.