This document describes the technique of mapping discussion flow to evaluate interactions in training sessions. A discussion map visually depicts who is communicating with whom through arrows and annotations. Mapping for 10-15 minutes provides facilitators insight into: the balance of participant vs. facilitator contributions; which participants are dominating or not contributing; and instances of interruption. The maps can then be analyzed to determine if the discussion flow supports learning goals or presents risks. Used effectively, discussion mapping provides facilitators a valuable tool for self-evaluation and improvement.

1. Tool 62. Mapping Discussion Flow
Contributed by Nancy K. Gustafson, Ed.D
The interaction map explained here is a remarkably powerful tool for evaluating
interaction among and between trainer and learners, facilitator and participants, and in
other meeting situations such as managers and staff. I have used it with dramatic
results in helping new trainers work toward improvement in their presentation and
facilitation skills. (I also recommend it as an occasional exercise for experienced
trainers as well. Having someone map you as you lead a session may provide eye-
opening information about your own strengths and tendencies.) Important: It is difficult
and distracting, for both trainer and learners, for the trainer to try and lead a discussion
while drawing the map. Using this technique effectively requires a “third party
mapper”; that is, have a colleague map the session you are leading, or you serve as the
mapper for the manager wanting feedback on her effectiveness at leading meetings, and
so forth.
A picture is worth a thousand words. The best way to get feedback on our actions and
behaviors as facilitators is to see for ourselves what we look like in action. We can video
ourselves, yet that is often cumbersome and intimidating. Another way to visualize our
actions as facilitators is to draw a discussion map. This puts on paper the trail of
communication between facilitator and participants, and between participants.
Discussion is a powerful teaching strategy when the balance of conversation is
appropriate for the stage of learning. Viewing this picture allows the facilitator to
analyze and determine:
 Is the balance of communication between me, the facilitator, and participants
appropriate at this stage in the learning?
 Is the facilitator the hub of the conversation with questions/comments coming from
and being directed to the facilitator? Is this appropriate at this stage in the learning?
Or, should participants be discussing the learning with each other more of the time?
 Are all participants contributing at an appropriate level? Who is dominating the
conversation? Who has not contributed much or at all?

2.  Is any participant routinely interrupting another? Is any participant routinely being
interrupted?
To create a discussion map, take a piece of paper or flip chart paper and record the
room arrangement. Identify who is sitting where, including participants, facilitator,
guests – anyone who might speak. Then, as conversation begins, draw arrows to reflect
who is saying what to whom, and how:
 Draw an arrow from the facilitator to the middle of the room if a general
question/statement to the group at large is asked/said. Add tick marks to that
arrow for subsequent questions/comments.
 Draw an arrow from the facilitator to a specific participant if a question or
comment is directed to that individual rather than the group. Add tick marks for
subsequent comments.
 Draw an arrow from a participant to the middle of the room if a general
question/statement to the group at large is asked/said. Add tick marks for
subsequent comments.
 Draw an arrow from a participant to the facilitator if a question or comment is
directed to the facilitator rather than the group. Add tick marks for subsequent
comments.
 Draw an arrow from one participant to another if a question or comment is
directed from one participant to another participant.
 Indicate a statement that gets interrupted by placing a dash across the arrow,
making something like a “t.” This will let you know who is getting interrupted.
 Place a star, or some other mark, next to the individual who interrupted.
Mapping a discussion for only 10 or 15 minutes can help a facilitator “see” what the
communication flow looks like and determine its appropriateness. Looking at Discussion
Map A, it appears the discussion was:
 Predominantly facilitator-led
 Participant 8 talked most of the time
 Several participants made no comments (2,4,6,7,12,13,14)
 The facilitator cut off Participant 3 once
 Participants 10 and 11 had a conversation between themselves

3. The point of this analysis is to determine risks or limitations to learning. Is it
appropriate that the facilitator led the discussion? If it is early in the learning event, the
facilitator may be giving a brief lecture. If it is near the end of the learning event, it may
be more appropriate for the learners to be taking over the discussion. In that case, the
conversation would look more like Discussion Map B.
 Participants are talking more to each other than to the facilitator.
 Most likely, the facilitator was asking follow up questions to an individual or
group to keep the dialogue going
 Everyone is engaged in the conversation.
 No one appeared to dominate the conversation.
By drawing a discussion map, a facilitator can get a lot of good information about
the communication pattern occurring at any given time. The facilitator can then analyze
the map to determine if the discussion flow supports learning or of there are any risks to
learning.
Figure 4.1. Discussion map examples
From Bozarth, Jane. (2008). From Analysis to Evaluation: Tools, Tips & Techniques for Trainers.
San Francisco: Pfeiffer. All rights reserved.