...

How should dialogue be structured in a classroom? Let’s look at a specific feature of classroom dialogue, which is arguably the basic unit of a classroom discussion: an instance of individual input (in other words, “an utterance”). More specifically, “How long or short should an instance of individual input be?”

Obviously, I’m going to say that it should be on the shorter end. This is a not-so-veiled way of complaining.

I, of course, cannot say precisely how long it should be. Presumably, it should be as long as it needs to be and nothing more. Spelling out “needs to be” seems to be a function of the content of an utterance and the context of the utterance. So, the question or point it is responding to, where in a dialogue it is… spelling this out precisely is likely hopeless. However, I have two arguments that shorter is (typically) better.

First, as a general classroom norm for discussion-based courses, everyone should participate. And, preferably, on each topic. Utterances should therefore be shorter in order to allow for active participation in all aspects of the course.

This argument sounds nice, but it isn’t very swaying. Here’s three reasons why. It is perhaps not expected, nor desirable, that most students should input on all topics discussed in class. Next, perhaps this argument doesn’t establish enough (for my purposes). It doesn’t provide enough constraints to shorten utterances, as long diatribes are still permissible so long as everyone says something. Finally, there are stupid tricks to avoid this argument. For one, who says that we need to discuss many topics in the course (though one would think that with longer utterances come more points… empirical evidence seems to disagree). It is also consistent with this argument that everyone should talk faster. That, obviously, is not what I was looking for.

Here’s a better argument. Shorter utterances allow for more opportunities to respond, and therefore facilitate discussions. Call this the “surface area” argument. The analogy is with chemistry, although it is intuitive (and spelling it out seems to obfuscate it). A reaction occurs slower if not much of the substance necessary for a reaction is available due to being “hidden behind” the surface. By extending the surface area of a substance, more of it is available so that more of the reaction can occur. By talking less, there are more opportunities to “pass the torch” of the conversation. And I’d wager that there is something about dialogues that suggest that “passing the torch” is often better than not (within limits—we aren’t doing that “three-headed monster” acting game!). Therefore, keep your utterances short.

Adding to this, when a point in an utterance is buried between other points, it is naturally more difficult to “grab” at it. This can be for banal reasons (i.e., they talked some more and I forgot what I was going to say), and therefore stifling discussion; but there’s a more interesting point here. Good dialogues, and it appears that this is a necessary condition, involve few points (somewhat closely) related to one another which participants engage with and effectively build on. Have too many points, and the dialogue is unwieldy. Really, I am suggesting that there’s an art to “passing the torch”, and that “waving it around” too much is a bad way of passing it. Spelling this out precisely is difficult, but–again–there’s intuitive appeal here.