Campusalam

• Skip to main content
• Skip to main navigation
• Skip to search
• Skip to navigation for this section

You can handle the questions and discussions differently to get different results.

Taking written questions only

Small slips of paper are distributed to the audience (perhaps as they come in, or placed on seats beforehand).
They are invited to write their questions, during the talk or in a short break afterwards.
Written questions are collected.
Speaker and chairperson select the questions.
Chairperson reads them out (or rephrases them) and the speaker answers

Pros:

- The short break needed allows for the speaker to catch their breath, audience to slip out to facilities
- It allows more shy people to get their questions in
- It allows the speaker to see the full range of interests and questions, and try to cover as many of them as time allows – good for everybody.
- Aggressive questions can be ignored, or rephrased by the Chairperson
- It reduces scope for hecklers and disrupters
- It prevents people pretending to ‘ask questions’ but really making their own speech

Cons:

- It requires more organisation and also a number of facilitators or stewards to distribute and collect the papers
- It seems more formal and distant; some attendees might resent it especially if they think it looks like censorship
- It takes more time between speech and question period

Use of small groups

You can combine the lecture format with small discussion groups by breaking into small groups after the speech. They can operate in different ways:

- They can discuss the topic freely
- They can confer to formulate a question that they put to the speaker
- They can discuss specific questions put by the speaker or event organisers
- They can report back in a plenary session if time allows
- They can use the ‘World Café’ model if time and venue permit
- They can write an ‘Elevator Speech’ or an ‘Elevator Question’ as an analytical response to the speaker

Pros:

- Allows maximum participation – even the more shy can contribute
- Gets people more engaged, less passive; makes them think and respond to the issue
- Reduces scope for the disrupters and exhibitionists – they won’t get the whole audiences’ attention. They may refuse to participate in a group, in which case they can be gently excluded
- ‘Normalises’ the extremes – groups have a way of sifting them out to reach a consensus
- Most people learn better this way: they are more likely to remember if they have discussed it and put it in their own words than if they have just listened (or not listened) passively

Cons:

- The seating arrangement must allow for it – fixed ‘theatre style’ seats are difficult
- Sometimes people want to be passive and resent doing group work
- Needs a good-quality audience – danger of falling into chatter
- Takes more organisation and chairing, and a risk of running over time
- You need to do something with the speaker in the meantime! Chat with him or her, let them relax, or they can join a group to listen