Such silences in the debate of a case...

Professor Ellet already said: discomfort is inevitable when we work with cases. Why is he right? Because it is a time in which we expose ourselves in front of a group, whether it is face-to-face or remote teaching.

It is for few the feeling that exposure does not generate discomfort. We are afraid of the comments, the judgment, our accent, our incomplete ideas, our point of view that can be refuted. As the professor says in his book (ELLET, 2007), in the end, we are afraid of looking "foolish". This combination of factors can lead to an environment in which no one participates, in which silence reigns.

One of the biggest nuisances in a classroom, at least from the point of view of the teacher who works with cases, is called silence.

The silence, which is worth gold for the moment of the more traditional expository class, terrifies those who propose a debate. Silence in response to the provocations of a case causes an uncomfortable emptiness, an abyss.

Let's imagine the scene: the teacher brings the context of the case, reveals the questions she thought thought-provoking, opens the floor to the class. And no hand goes up. No camera opens, no microphone is activated (for those who are in remote classes, you know what I'm talking about). Nobody wants to contribute, to bring an element of their reflection. Nobody. A deep silence takes over the room.

What to do in the face of this discomfort?

The teacher's first reaction is to fill the void immediately, and keep talking. Filling in all the spaces on behalf of those participants who don't want to take the risk. It is the most predictable solution, and one that should be used with extreme parsimony.

Another possible reaction is to go ahead and present your own analysis of the case. A way out that does not build knowledge collectively, it only follows with the responsibility of an exhibiting professor.

Another possibility is to call someone from the group, nominally, to start the hard task of being the first to speak. Maybe one, or two, maybe three until you have an environment in which people voluntarily propose to speak. Breaking the inertia can make a difference in groups and their herd effects (which currently apply to students who don't turn on their cameras because others don't).

One more possibility is to reformulate the question, to bring some new element in order to provoke interaction. A point that generates clearer divergences can make an opinion arise. Asking for an opinion against and another in favor can help start the debate. A question that promotes a clearer division between opinions and then builds on the possibility of interpretations.

There is still an option, which I use often, which is to promote what we call role playing - that is, inviting someone to put themselves in the shoes of a character in the case and say their opinion as if they were playing a role. This solution can increase creativity and help to "break the ice".

Finally, another possibility, and one that I consider difficult, although wise, is this: count to 10.

Sometimes, waiting for the discomfort to reach the participants is also sharing the responsibility. It is to remember that only part of that moment is up to the teacher. There is a co-responsibility that cannot be erased, not even by silence.