Taking Sides® can also be used in your classroom as a tool to encourage student participation and class discussion. It is often not recognized by students that some questions have no "right" or "wrong" answers, merely more or less "considered" opinions. Those people whom we accept as "experts" might merely be giving their opinion on a certain issue, as might those of us with less background in a particular area. This makes the development of critical thinking skills even more important and increases the value of a well-articulated point of view. Students at the college level should be ready for discussing, questioning, and debating important and enduring issues.
 It should be noted that a number of instructional aids are already provided in the Taking Sides book itself. The introduction to each issue is designed to help students become interested in and find relevance in the different issues. The introductions generally are written to provide the necessary background information and to reduce the amount of time that must be devoted to laying the basis for each issue in lectures. In some instances, historical or scientific terms are defined so that they will be easily understood in the context of the selections themselves. Summary postscripts or challenge questions are provided for each issue as well as suggestions for further reading on that particular subject. This may prompt students to do further research and often can add an additional dimension to the debate.
Several major systems for discussion and formal debate have been devised for use with Taking Sides®. The information that follows is based on long-term experience at Purdue University and some of the material has been distilled from a detailed manual on teaching with a pro/con text approach that was created for instructors. The principles contained here are applicable to any of the disciplines covered by Taking Sides® volumes. A recommended format for a course that meets three times weekly is to have two formal lectures followed by one discussion session. Here we assume that the discussion sessions supplement the lectures. Included are methods of stimulating and structuring discussions and ways of grading classroom discussions (see Chapter 3: Evaluation and Grading).
Open Discussions
Although the use of opposing positions for discussion is as old as Socrates, the technique has not been a typical educational strategy in some course subjects. Usually, students have pens poised ready to collect "facts" rather than to learn of differing points of view. Consequently, you may wish to make a special effort to make clear to the students the function and objectives of the readings. In fact, an explanation of these objectives can itself be a worthwhile discussion of the role of facts, research, values, and conceptual approaches. The introductions to the Taking Sides® volumes can be particularly helpful in this regard. The function of the articles will depend upon you.
Setting Objectives
Course objectives will vary somewhat with the method or structure of discussion and the grading used. The following general objectives for students can thus be modified at your discretion:
- See the relationship between course concepts and controversial issues.
- Develop sensitivity to the issues that are relevant to the way you structure your life and the decisions you make.
- Use evidence to work toward a personal resolution of the issues.
- Clarify your own values.
- Learn about and from your fellow students.
Preparing Students for Discussion
Students typically receive little experience in intellectual discussion, especially in leading discussions as some of the methods suggested here demand. There are a number of general steps you can take to facilitate discussion and optimize the benefits received from the dialogue. Providing well-conceived objectives and grading criteria is an important start.
Perhaps as significant, however, is student preparation before the discussion. Such preparation consists of many steps. As mentioned earlier, quizzing students on the introduction to Taking Sides or having them identify the "conceptual framework" or "type of information" being used in the articles at hand is excellent preparation for enlightened discussion. Frequent reference to the issues in your lectures can also be very helpful. This permits students to see ties between the text and the upcoming discussion of the issues, and it promotes their application of the text information in the discussion.
If discussions are to be student-led or student-structured, a prediscussion meeting between you and the particular student participants can be of enormous benefit. The students' fears and anxieties can be allayed and you can determine what the participants' needs are (references, organization, etc.).
It should be emphasized that some formal structure is usually necessary for productive discussion. Freewheeling dialogue can open the instructor to charges that "we don't need a teacher or a class for that" or "this discussion has nothing to do with the text." A prediscussion meeting gives you, as the instructor, the opportunity to make a strong impact on the process and content while still allowing the class discussion to be student-owned.
Managing Time
Another important aspect of structured discussion for the instructor is time management. You need to formulate a timetable beforehand and keep strictly to it for the class period to be used effectively.
Time for the instructor should be allotted in all discussion formats at the beginning and end of the class hour. A five-minute lecture at the beginning of the hour can set the stage for discussion by establishing relationships between the text and the readings. Information important to the understanding of the issues may also be discussed. For instance, in introducing the intelligence issue, you may wish to refresh students' memories on the concepts of reliability and validity.
Five minutes reserved at the end of the discussion will give you an opportunity to provide feedback and closure to the discussion. You may begin by summarizing the main points of the discussion, again emphasizing their relevance to the students and the text. Because the discussion is often ended abruptly due to time constraints, this type of summarization lends some closure to the discussion. You may also wish to comment on the process of the dialogue. Positive aspects of the discussion can be singled out as exemplary. For example, "I thought `student X' clarified the points of agreement very well." Such feedback is not only valuable to the discussion participants, but it also has the benefit of shaping future discussions.
Panel Discussions
A panel discussion is a very flexible method of involving students in the Taking Sides issues. It can be used as a general didactic strategy for numerous discussions throughout the semester or as a one-shot implementation for a particular issue. It can involve as few as two and as many as ten students directly, and the entire class indirectly. Its use as a general style for conducting dialogues on several issues throughout the semester will be discussed here, as a one-shot implementation will then be self-evident. The following example describes a method that has worked well in introductory classes at Purdue.
Assigning Issues
After discussing the function and objectives, ask your students to read the introductory sections of all the issues in the book (or the issues you have preselected) and to make three ordered choices as to which they would prefer to discuss. You might even describe them briefly to stimulate interest. At the next class meeting, try to assign the students to one of their choices. Remember that as few as two and as many as ten students can handle a single issue. Class size and simple arithmetic should tell you how many would be ideal per issue. If no students are interested in a particular issue you can: a) drop the issue; b) "talk up" the issue and again ask for volunteers; or c) assign people arbitrarily.
In making the assignments, it is important to note which issues will be discussed first. Since these discussions will likely be held very soon, the students should know they will have to prepare quickly. Most students will not have participated in this type of discussion previously and will want to avoid being the first to do so. To encourage participation in the initial discussions, remind the students that doing them early means getting them out of the way. Explain to them that you will give special aid to the first participants, and perhaps even tell them that you will grade these participants less stringently.
With everyone assigned, the next step is to describe the panel discussion structure. The students assigned to each issue are split into two groups, those answering "yes" to the issue and those answering "no." Each group is to begin preparing now for a discussion on this issue sometime during the semester (or as indicated on your syllabus). They should not be told whether their position is "yes" or "no" until a week before their discussions are scheduled. However, they should have no difficulty studying until then because they will need to know the opposition's view as well as their own. Anyone not wishing to participate in this format, once it has been described, may do a paper on the issue as described earlier in this manual.
Structuring the Class Session
The panel discussion consists of four phases: position presentation, position clarification, free-form discussion, and audience response. The process of all of the phases is conducted by you, the moderator.
In the first phase, all participants make a short presentation of one aspect of their team position. The purpose of the first phase is twofold: to provide the audience (the rest of the class) with an introduction to the topic and a short statement of the issues involved, and to state positions for the benefit of either team so that the points at issue are clear. The length of each presentation will depend on the number of students on the panel and the time available (approximately a third of the class session for all of the presentations). The teams of panelists outline beforehand the main assertions they wish to make and split them among the team members for presentation. Participants from each team alternate presentations, the first presenter having the primary responsibility of introducing the issue in general. Team members should work together to coordinate their separate presentations.
Each presentation is prepared beforehand, though presenters should be encouraged to make references to previous (and future) presentations for continuity. The individual presentations should begin with a concise statement of the main points the presenter is attempting to assert. This should be followed by a brief summary of the evidence supporting the points, whether logical, empirical, experiential, or expert. One should not dwell, for instance, on the methods used to obtain empirical findings. Only the research conclusions are necessary at this point; the methods may be challenged later. The presentation should then end with a restatement of the primary assertions to again make clear the points being made.
The second phase of the panel discussion consists of a question and answer session between the teams. The purpose of this phase is to allow each side to clarify the other team's presentation (or position). Panelists should be instructed that only questions of clarification are appropriate at this juncture: rebuttal and discussion are not permitted. However, this phase does allow each team to begin pinning down the other team as to the specifics of their position. This phase is usually quite short, perhaps five minutes.
The third phase is a free-form discussion among panel participants. The first two phases will have warmed up the participants for this phase. Points, counterpoints, rebuttal, and general discussion are all appropriate at this juncture, but panelists should be instructed to deal with the main issues as they perceive them. In other words, students should begin the free-form phase with the primary points of disagreement. If argument of trivial points continues for an extended period, the moderator (instructor) simply asks that the participants proceed to another point (e.g., "I think we've exhausted this issue, let's go on to another"). Team members should probably have the main points (and their supporting evidence) they wish to discuss in the free-form phase prepared beforehand. They should also be taking notes during the presentations of the opposition's counterpoints. All team members should be both considerate and willing to dialogue. Any member not actively engaged in discussion can expect a reduced grade, though the quality of what is said, not the quantity, is most important. Approximately half of the total class period is used for this phase.
In the fourth phase, the audience simply puts questions and comments to the participants for response. It is important that questions be addressed to specific individuals. First names may be written above the panelists (on the chalkboard) for this purpose. Questions put to the entire group are usually handled by the most vocal member rather than by the member who made the pertinent comment. Some free-form dialogue should be permitted between the audience and panelists, but as many different comments and questions as possible should be encouraged.
Facilitating Discussion
You, as the moderator, should keep a somewhat low profile during this four-phase session. Sitting with the class usually works well. Avoid having the dialogue participants direct their remarks to you. Statements should be addressed either to fellow participants or to the audience. If, after this instruction, participants continue speaking to you, avoid eye contact with them by looking down. They will gradually direct their eyes elsewhere.
Take extensive notes of the session. (This will be perceived by many students as a rather striking reversal of roles.) Notes should be kept on each individual participant and on the general discussion, both for the purpose of grading and for general feedback.
Following the final phase of the session, provide feedback to the panelists. Most of this feedback should be positive and specific, in order to shape future discussions. Negative comments should be avoided but can be given as general criticism (if not aimed at an individual and preferably only after positive comments). Positive aspects of the discussion can always be found. The feedback period is also an appropriate time to correct any misinformation presented by the panelists. If the students prepare adequately, misinformation will be rare. However, it does happen on occasion and should be corrected immediately in a matter-of-fact manner.
It is very beneficial to meet with both teams just prior to the dialogue. Such a meeting can be very helpful in defining team positions, answering questions, and suggesting references. It is also quite important to review the process (the four phases) as well as the grading criteria. Avoid outlining each team's position if possible; otherwise the students will discuss what they feel you think is important rather than focus on their own thinking. Ask them questions on their own position instead. You might even begin in a "panel discussion" manner. ("If they say ____, what would you say?... But then you [the other team] could say ____," for example.) These preparatory sessions aid the students immensely and usually take no more of your time than typical lecture preparation.
Role-Playing
Students may be asked to play roles in which they simulate the positions of other people, or of themselves, in situations they may have encountered in the past or are likely to encounter in the future. Although it requires some skill on the part of the instructor, this mode has the greatest potential for demonstrating the relevance of textbook information to real-life experiences. It also provides practice in making important decisions and in developing action-oriented human relations skills.
Simulating Forced Decisions
We recommend that role-playing be used to simulate the forced decisions that characterize life. For example, a student might play the role of a physician or parent required to make important life decisions on the basis of the kind of information available in their text or in Taking Sides:
"Should my patient (or loved one) undergo electroconvulsive therapy to attempt a cure for depression?"
"As a working parent, should I place my child in day care?"
It has been said that the field of medicine is the art of making decisions on the basis of insufficient evidence. Role-playing can rapidly make it apparent to participants that this art is not unique to medicine.
The role-playing situation has the potential to help each student experience the distinction between possessing absolute truth and using available knowledge to make life decisions. In a well-played role there are no right or wrong answers, but there are the satisfaction of having made a personal decision and the development of confidence that an education can help personal growth.
Adding Variety to Role-Play Situations
Role-playing can be used in the classroom with any of a number of students, as the following discussion illustrates.
Small Groups Some situations lend themselves best to five or six actively involved participants. For example, a family group may be called upon to make a decision about another family member who has severe depression:
"Should Aunt Jenny undergo the electroconvulsive therapy recommended by her psychiatrist? Should she be placed on a drug treatment program instead, as recommended by a consultant? Should she do neither and continue a program of psychotherapy?"
It is useful with the small group to specify in advance a specific role to be played by each participant. For example: the psychiatrist; the consultant; Aunt Jenny's brother, Mike, who wants to follow the psychiatrist's advice; Mike's wife, who wants to follow the consultant's advice; Aunt Jenny; and other members of the family with advice of their own.
With this procedure, most of the class will act as observers. The participation may come after the role-players have made a decision, if time is set aside for analytic comments and discussion.
Small groups have the advantage of increasing the likelihood that the assigned participants will have prepared well. Often, nonparticipating students who might have found it difficult personally to role-play for the rest of the class to observe are eager to comment on decisions made by others. For them, this procedure provides good modeling for future role-playing.
Large Groups In order to engage all class members as participants, you can simulate a general meeting of activists, such as a PTA meeting, town meeting, or political convention. As instructor, you can then take an active leadership role, such as chairman of the board of education, school principal, PTA president, mayor, chairman of the council, political candidate, or party chair.
As in any large class procedure, it is tempting for many students to remain anonymous. Here are some methods you may use as leader of the meeting to elicit greater participation:
- Be as mobile within the meeting room as possible. Mentally mark off the room into four quarters. After each contribution, turn to a different quarter of the room expectantly. Be prepared for an occasional pregnant silence. Let it develop, unless there is need to clarify the last remark.
- Be as sensitive as possible to the need for an occasional question or statement from you to calm mounting anxieties or to explain or intensify someone's comment. Playing devil's advocate is often very productive, if done gracefully.
- Limit your own contribution to that of management. Give participants no hint of what you think concerning proper values or correct decisions. Students should always be convinced that the decisions are theirs to make.
Buzz Groups Instead of having some students serve as role-players in small groups while others observe, you can break up a large class into a number of small groups operating independently. This procedure has the advantage of keeping everyone actively involved, but it requires some safeguards to prevent confusion and individuals lapsing into silence:
- Utilize room space optimally. Each group must be tightly confined and as far as possible from other groups. Participants must speak quietly in order to avoid noise interference with other groups.
- Circulate quietly among the groups. Join in as consultant, when helpful, as long as it does not interfere with the role-playing. For example, you could play the consulting physician for the family deciding what to do for Aunt Jenny.
- Allow enough time toward the end of the class session for a preassigned spokesperson for each group to give a very brief report.
The buzz-group method has the primary advantage of requiring very little formal preparation on the part of the students. It is important that students read the articles in Taking Sides as well as any pertinent text materials, but no presentations or positions need be formulated beforehand. Most of the preparation, in fact, belongs to the instructor. Have the students bring all text and Taking Sides material to class with them.
The typical buzz-group technique is to split the class arbitrarily into small groups and assign each group an objective. This technique can be adapted to Taking Sides: by assigning point-counterpoints discussed in the issue as objectives, the number of such point-counterpoints to dictate the number and size of the groups. Usually a total of six or eight students in a group is optimal.
The general goal of all groups is to explain, support, and illustrate one or more point-counterpoints involved in the issue at hand. Each member of the group will have particular responsibilities toward this end. One way to distribute group responsibilities is as follows: One person is the introducer of the point-counterpoint; two people are the summarizers of each side of the point-counterpoint; two more people cite the support evidence for each side of the point-counterpoint; one other person illustrates the point-counterpoint; and two more people perform the function of fielding any questions pertinent to the point-counterpoint or presentations by the other group members. We suggest that each of the roles be more fully described in a handout for the students to read. Professor Brent Slife and Professor Joseph Rubinstein created the Role Description for Informal Debates featured in this site for their students at Purdue University.
(You may want to omit certain roles or combine them, depending on the group size. You may also wish to prepare an additional handout that helps each group member fulfill his or her role in relation to the specific objective.)
You may either give the groups a short period of time to decide who assumes each role or use a "count off" to arbitrarily distribute the roles--ones are introducers, twos are summarizers for the "yes," threes are summarizers for the "no," and so on. When the assignments are made and the role-description handouts are distributed, it would be helpful to describe the roles in more detail. Once you think students understand their responsibilities, assign a point-counterpoint (or set of point-counterpoints) and have them begin work on it. Ten minutes is usually all that is required for this type of buzz session. Your role at this time is to move from group to group to observe and assist where needed.
When all groups are ready, each member makes a very short presentation (perhaps 30 seconds, depending on the time available) with the exception of the fielders, who "field" one or two quick questions. You may wish to give some feedback to each group as they finish in order to shape future presentations and correct any misinformation. Students in the other groups should be encouraged to be attentive and ask questions. A pop quiz from your notes on the presentations usually ensures attention and participation.
Managing Time
Advance preparation will go a long way toward making each role-play session exciting and productive. Assuming that your class sessions are only 50 minutes long, allowing enough time for an end-of-session conclusion is likely to be your most serious problem.
Your students should be convinced in advance that role-playing is no joke, that there will always be a specific agenda, and that you will serve as timekeeper. Assure them in advance that once the role-playing session begins, there will be no breaking of roles. You, of course, must also resist the temptation. In general, breaking out of role wastes time. Assure students that you will be happy to answer any questions about the next role-playing session outside of class, but not during the actual session.
There should be no ambiguity about the decision to be made. The nature of the decision should cue students about the information they should gather and comprehend in advance. They should consider what alternative decisions can be made, discuss the alternatives in terms of information and personal values, and then decide. A reasonable agenda for each role-playing session might be as follows:
- (5 minutes) A quiz or mini-lecture concerning terms or concepts relating text materials to the current issue.
- (20 to 30 minutes) The actual role-played event.
- (10 minutes) For small groups: observer analysis and comment. For buzz groups: individual group reports.
- (5 minutes) Instructor summary and feedback. Some suggested comments:
"In preparation for this class you had decided to focus on..."
"Today you first considered the following information..."
"Then you proceeded to..."
"Some of you decided to..."
"While others among you..."
"The final consensus was to..."
"In general, I felt that you did an excellent job of taking all the variables we are familiar with into consideration and coming to grips with the decision."
"I felt that you faltered somewhat in considering some variables."
- Depending on your total course setup, you might need to allow some time to prepare for the next issue.
|
