“What thoughtful, intelligent people do with their brains is to mull over inconsistency. When two ideas are in conflict and you have to struggle to make sense of that conflict, that is when thinking starts.”
One of the many topics that a group of teachers and I messed with earlier this week was the idea of using debates in class. How can we set up activities during which kids support specific positions using evidence – which is good – without having the debate disintegrate into emotional arguing – which is bad?
Civil discourse. Evidence-based discussion. Consensus building. Solving problems together.
Yelling. Emotion-based arguments. Talk show pundits acting like children. Winners and losers. No solutions.
And you gotta know . . . as a former coach, much of my earlier life revolved around the concept of winners and losers. Of creating an environment that encouraged and supported winning.
But sports is not the same as historical thinking or working together to solve problems. The win at all cost attitude that exists is competitive sports is not the attitude that makes for successful compromise in a democracy – no matter what we witness in Congress or on cable talk shows.
The current Kansas social studies standards spell this out:
America’s greatness is reflected in its ability to innovate, analyze complex problems, ask cogent questions, assemble and evaluate critical data, and seek creative solutions, going beyond the recall of factual information. These are the skills of a democratic citizen, and failure to teach them threatens the future of the United States.
To be an American citizen requires developing a democratic mind – the intellectual ability to entertain contradictory or opposing ideas, hold tentative judgments, and make decisions based on facts supported by evidence. This critical thinking is essential to the study of many subjects, but is particularly important when studying history, civics, geography, and economics. None of us are born with this capability. Author Sam Wineburg describes this sort of critical thinking as an “un-natural act.” So it must be taught. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1824, “The qualifications for self- government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training.”
So we spent some time talking about and experiencing a variety of tools that support this idea of entertaining contradictory or opposing ideas, holding tentative judgments, and making decisions based on facts supported by evidence.
One of the things we discussed is called a Structured Academic Conversation. It’s been around a while but I first learned about it on the Stanford History Education Group’s Reading Like a History site. Several years ago, I shared a few thoughts on the strategy and I still like it as a tool to help kids learn to argue with evidence and to build consensus.
But I think that one of the teachers in group has come up with another strategy that looks pretty good too. Jon Bauer from the St. John metro area developed something that he calls a
Jon’s reasons for developing the activity are similar to what teachers talked about earlier this week:
And I love that he pulled Malcolm Gladwell into the discussion.
When two ideas are in conflict and you have to struggle to make sense of that conflict, that is when thinking starts.
Consensus Debate is similar to a Structured Academic Conversation but the last step is a little different. Jon creates three rounds. During the first round students have an assigned role. During the second, they get to choose a side and then during the third round the entire class has to create a consensus statement.
Jon suggests a few things for Consensus Debate to be successful:
- Start with a great question or statement
- Provide good evidence
- Don’t try to evaluate and grade the debate but instead become an active participant
I really like his suggestions for helping students ask better questions during the activity:
- Students Are Unclear:
- “Let me clarify what you said . . . “
- “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you said that . . .”
- Students Fail to Use Sources:
- “Can you back up that point with material from the sources?”
- Students Are Missing an Important Point:
- “Has anyone thought about . . .”
- “Have you considered that . . .”
The example Jon shared is on fracking. But he also talked about using the idea with 8th graders using the topic of Indian removal during the early 1800s. His question?
Did Jackson’s removal policies benefit Native Americans?
So like the Structured Academic Conversation, Jon’s Consensus Debate can focus on a wide variety of topics in all of the different content areas.
- The Electoral College should be eliminated.
- African Americans were not free after the Civil War.
- The minimum wage is too low.
- The Germany First policy during World War Two ensured massive casualties in the Pacific Theater that could have been prevented.
- The Renaissance could not have happened without the Reformation.
I’ve generated statements. But I think questions would work just as well.
- Should the Electoral College be eliminated?
- Were African Americans really free after the Civil War?
- Is the minimum wage too low?
- Could massive casualties in the Pacific Theater been prevented if the Allies had truly fought a two ocean war during World War Two?
- Would the Renaissance have happened without the Reformation?
Curious? Download Jon’s instructions and example. Remember that these are rough drafts as he continues to experiment with the idea. I’m sure he’d love to hear from others about what you like, questions you have, and suggestions for improvement. Be kind as you post those below in the comments.