Journal of Academic Development and Education JADE Issue 11 Summer 2019 | Page 19

no imbalance when the first question was asked
by a woman and a large imbalance when the first
question was asked by a man’ (Carter, 21). Simply
ensuring that woman speaks first (through asking
students to write their responses down before
answering) can ensure all voices are heard equally
for the rest of the class.
In my own practice, I have had success with
implementing a ‘World Café’ to address a
classroom dynamic in which two very strong
students dominated discussion, and several
quieter students did not contribute at all. Juanita
Brown (2005) describes a World Café as ‘people
in small groups spread[ing] their insight to
larger groups, carrying the seed ideas for new
conversations, creative possibilities, and collective
action. This systemic process is embodied in self-
reinforcing, meaning-making networks that arise
through the interactions that conversation makes
possible’ (18). Several students are asked to
volunteer to serve as ‘scribes’ (recording groups’
discussion), while the remaining students are
broken into small groups. On the whole, quieter
students are happy to serve as scribe, a task which
on the surface appears to require less active
participation in discussion. The scribes are each
assigned a topic related to the week’s text; groups
circulate between the scribes, adding to the
record of the previous group’s discussion. Groups
were given seven minutes to discuss the first
topic, ten for the second, and twelve for the third.
Scribes were then given five minutes to organize
their thoughts before presenting the consensus of
the class on each topic.
This structure is particularly well-suited to hold
students’ attention, even across a two-hour
seminar. In a study of attention span, researchers
determined that students’ attention flagged in
‘ever-shortening cycles’, with lapses occurring
between 4.5 and 9 minutes apart (Bunce, 2010,
1442). Though some researchers suggest that
periods of inattention are essential to cognitive
processing (Immordino-Yang, 2012), teachers
obviously wish to hold attention during class.
Bunce has demonstrated that active learning
increases student attention span, and I believe
the Café model is well suited to keeping students
engaged as each cycle lasts for less than 15
minutes, with ‘rest’ in between in the form of
physical activity. Research has demonstrated that
physical activity in the classroom can improve
‘attention, learning, and memory’ (Fedewa,
2018, 153), with Sara Parker arguing that active
learning is not truly active until it includes physical
movement. She argues that incorporating physical
activity even in university classes ‘can enhance
student focus and reinvigorate student attention
by taking advantage of the cognitive benefits of
movement’ (Parker, 2018, 1). This allows students
to remain on task for longer than would be
possible in traditional open discussion.
The Café format has further benefits, in that it
allows instructors to direct discussion, often with
assessment in mind, without micromanaging.
Brown emphasizes the need to ‘set the context’
by clarifying ‘the purpose and broad parameters
within which the dialogue will unfold’ (40).
Suggesting ‘possible outcomes or success criteria’
(52) from the discussion helps students to
understand the relationship between the activity
and the module’s intended learning outcomes,
and can be used to establish the relationship
between the given Café topics and upcoming
assessment. In addition to suggesting possible
outcomes, asking the right questions is key to a
successful Café. Brown encourages Café hosts
to ‘explore questions that matter’ (40), and she
notes that ‘more open questions encourage a
more thoughtful response that opens the door to
further exploration and positive change’ (91). In
my first Café, I strove to avoid leading questions
article #1
19