One’s emotional state can be as much an aid as a barrier to actively listening to others. Especially in situations where a constant stream of breaking news and a range of competing claims about the correct interpretation of conflicts serve to inflame everyone’s emotional responses, it is important for instructors to take their own feelings seriously as they prepare to speak with groups. Before attempting to practice active listening, check in with your own emotional state and consider how this state might affect the way you receive the speech of others. The point of this self-monitoring is not to separate the cognitive from the emotional; nor is it to propose that it is possible to temporarily repress one’s feelings or viewpoints in the interest of adopting someone else’s. Rather, the point is to better observe and understand the ways knowledge and feeling are entangled in the lives of everyone—a fact that can make individuals selective about how (and to whom) they listen actively.

Demonstrate that you are focusing your attention on the speaker by turning your body toward them, sitting in an upright position with shoulders back, and using non-interruptive forms of engagement (e.g., nodding, affirmative murmurs, brief echoes of their own language). Avoid flipping through papers or books, checking your phone, or looking repeatedly around the room while a person is speaking.

While you as a listener try to maintain a posture of receptiveness, try to observe how the speaker is holding their own body. Do they have their arms crossed in front of their chest? Are they looking down or avoiding eye contact with others? This, alongside what they are saying, can indicate things about their emotional state that might lead you to change your approach to facilitating conversations. 

Interruptions are a common part of any dynamic conversation. But it can be helpful to distinguish between the different purposes and effects of interruptions. Some interruptions represent forms of communal participation in a conversation—such as snapping fingers, brief interjections that affirm or validate a speaker’s contribution, and so on. These sorts of interruptions are not a problem unless the group has made some agreement to limit their use. As a facilitator, though, you may find yourself tempted to use another type of interruption. For example, when a speaker makes a point that resonates with you, echoes someone else, or anticipates something you will bring up later, it is tempting to jump in, observe these points, and move the conversation to a new point. But in a context where a group is listening in order to understand each other, this latter type of interruption can suggest that a person’s contributions matter less when they illuminate the speaker’s perspective and more when they serve some other goal. (NB: interruption is appropriate when a speaker veers into using discriminatory and/or violent language or begins to violate norms that the group may have set in a community agreements exercise.)

It is common (especially in classrooms) for people to listen mainly to find the place where they can make their own contribution. Try to pause this orientation toward planning, which can impede one’s ability to listen fully to another person. When people start planning, they risk missing important information and context that speakers provide, such as their body language and the emotional core of their contribution.

Silence is necessary for absorption: do not be afraid to let it linger. Silence is also a tool that you can use to reflect on both the feelings the speaker expressed and the feelings you’re experiencing as a listener, both of which are important to understand as you prepare your next responses. After a beat has passed, demonstrate that you attended fully to what a person said by acting as a sort of mirror to their speech—reflecting any core points they made, identifying emotions you heard them expressing, summarizing their ideas, or paraphrasing parts of their speech that you want to hold on to. 

The exchange in a conversation can be deepened when speakers are invited to enlarge or reiterate their ideas. Open-ended questions are those that avoid “yes” or “no” responses, offer opportunities for the speaker to expand their ideas, and may reflect on their emotions or next steps (“How did that…?,” “Based on what you said, what might you…?”). Reflective questions are those that allow a speaker to check whether your interpretation aligns with their intent (“I believe I heard you say… Is that right?,” “Would it be accurate to say…?”). When asking reflective questions, anticipate that the speaker will correct your interpretation, and that this is a good thing, especially if it means they feel heard and understood. In any case, when asking follow-ups, be careful of both your tone and the number of questions you ask. While questions can be helpful, people might become less likely to speak if they sense that doing so will result in being treated like they are interviewing for a job or sitting on a witness stand. 

One of the actions that an instructor or facilitator can take when encouraging active listening is to identify repeating themes, emotions, values, and/or ideas that appear across speakers. But put that observation back to the group for their own collective processing. Avoid offering advice or imposing your solutions on what they should do or think next unless the group explicitly asks for it. 

Instructors who teach material that can generate intense disagreement and debate, as well as those who make space in their classrooms to talk about volatile, unfolding world events and crises, may also find it helpful to adopt a form of listening that practitioners of conflict transformation work call “looping.” The four steps of looping are:  

1. Listen for the “understory” of a contributor’s speech—that is, listen simultaneously to what a person says through their words, how they communicate this information through tone and body language, and any overarching values, ideas, or emotions they communicate. 
2. Paraphrase the speaker, not simply by repeating what they said, but by synthesizing what they said with the understory you heard (e.g., “I believe I heard you mention ____ twice when you were speaking, and I wonder if that means…,” or “When you mentioned ___, I could hear how much it frustrates you. It sounds like it’s difficult to…”). 
3. Ask them, with genuine curiosity, whether your paraphrase was accurate. If not, paraphrase them again based on any new information they provide until they confirm that they have been heard; if they confirm that you did hear them correctly, move on to step four. 
4. Invite them to tell you more in response to what you said in step two. 

Looping can prove effective at making people feel heard and understood, increasing trust, and slowing down volatile moments within groups. It may also be helpful to try practicing this in low-stakes settings first: for example, as an alternative to an ice breaker early in the semester, you might have students in a seminar use looping to interview each other and then ask them to introduce their partners to their colleagues.