|
|
|
 |
Other Lessons: Creating Strategies and Conditions for Civil
Discourse About Controversial Issues
Discussion Formats
In this section, I will describe and give examples of a variety of discussion
formats that a teacher might adopt to carry out any of the previous four
approaches in the classroom. These formats do not include textbook or
lecture-driven recitations but substantive conversation among students
with the direct or indirect guidance of the teacher. Newmann and Wehlage
(1993) assert that substantive conversation contains three features: (1)
considerable interaction that includes higher-order thinking about ideas;
(2) the sharing of ideas in exchanges not completely scripted or controlled
by the teacher; and (3) a dialogue that builds coherently on participants'
ideas to promote collective understanding. Conversation might occur in
such formats as teacher-directed large-group class discussions, small-group
discussions, debates, or role-playing. Although each format can be adapted
to all four approaches, for the purposes of this article, I will describe
how each format might be adapted to fit one approach.
Large-Group Class Discussion
This format can be pursued using the decision-making approach, particularly
when examining the alternatives and their consequences. Start the discussion
by asking each student to write out his or her understanding of the alternative
to be assessed (e.g., use of a demonstration bomb). Once the alternative
is clearly defined, poll the students on their position on the alternative
(good idea, bad idea, undecided). If disagreement exists, ask students
to share the good and bad consequences of the alternative and write them
on the board. Clarify the consequences when necessary. If class consensus
exists, write the consequences on the board to see if students favor the
alternative for the same reasons. Once the consequences are clarified,
begin to probe the reasoning behind each consequence, examining its logic,
identifying supportive evidence, and prioritizing its importance. End
the discussion by re-taking a poll on the worth of the alternative. Have
the results remained the same or changed? Why?
Small-Group Discussion
One form of small-group discussion often associated with the public issues
approach is the scored discussion (Oliver and Newmann, 1972; Zola, 1992;
Harris, 1995). In a scored discussion, the class is divided into small
groups ranging from five to eight students. Each group is asked to discuss
a public issue for about 25 minutes without interruption by the teacher
or students outside the group. Prior to the discussion, each group prepares
an agenda in which it identifies the factual, definitional, and moral
issues the members wish to address during the discussion. The group's
discussion and the contribution of each student are scored for substance
and procedure. The scorer gives points for positive features, such as
using evidence or inviting non-participants to share their ideas, and
subtracts points for negative features, such as dominating the conversation
or making personal attacks.
Debates
Although there are many debate forms, I have found two particularly effective
in the classroom. The first is formal, Oxford-style debate, which includes
opening speeches by students with opposing positions, interrogation and
defense of each side's argument, and rebuttal speeches. This format can
easily be integrated into one phase of the problem-solving approach. Students
might be asked to debate two different hypotheses about the problem being
investigated. For example, on the problem of the effect of slavery on
the black family, one group might support Stanley Elkin's hypothesis (1985)
that slavery turned the culturally uprooted African slaves into passive
and childlike Samboes, while a second might support Eugene Genovese's
hypothesis (1985) that slaves developed their own system of family and
cultural values within Southern society. The debate starts with the opening
arguments from each group and continues with interrogation by each group
of the other's position. During the interrogation, either group could
claim a "cream" if it detects (1) a serious factual error, (2)
stalling by the other side, (3) a contradiction, (4) the inability to
answer a main question, or (5) an effective counterpunch to a question.
The debate concludes with rebuttal speeches by each group. A third group
of judges scores the entire debate, including the assessment of the "creams"
and both sets of speeches, and decides which hypothesis has the most validity.
A second form of debate is advocate decision making in which students
debate a single position on a public issue (e.g., the United States should
deny most-favored-nation trade status to China). The activity begins by
clarifying the debate proposition and its context, and dividing the class
into three groups of equal size--advocates for the proposition, advocates
against the proposition, and decision makers. After the preparation of
reasons, evidence, and questions by all three groups, the class is further
divided into groups of three students, each containing an advocate for,
an advocate against, and a decision maker. The debate, moderated by the
decision maker, occurs in these small groups of three students each. The
activity ends with a full-class discussion in which students identify
value conflicts as well as the strongest arguments and evidence presented
in the debate.
Role-Playing
Shaftel and Shaftel (1967) describe role-playing as having students portray
other people. Students "step into someone else's shoes" as a
means to experience firsthand something that they might otherwise only
read or be told. They claim that one function of role-playing is "educating
for ethical behavior; more specifically, for individual integrity and
group responsibility" (1967,8). Role-playing, as explained by Shaftel
and Shaftel (1967), involves a sequence of steps: (1) "warming up"
the group or problem confrontation, (2) selecting the participants, (3)
preparing the audience to participate as observers, (4) setting the stage
or scenario, (5) enacting the role-play, and (6) debriefing the enactment.
Role-playing is a common practice used in the mock trials and public
hearings advocated by law-related educators (see McBee, Social Education,
Vol. 60, No. 1, 1996). It is also adaptable to the moral reasoning approach
in which groups role-play
moral dilemmas as a springboard to large-group debriefing of the reasoning
heard in the role-play. For example, I have designed a role-play based
on the story of Victoria Woodhull, the controversial nineteenth-century
feminist and journalist, found in Reasoning With Democratic Values
(Lockwood and Harris, 1985). Set in the home of Ms. Woodhull in 1872,
the role-play entails a conversation among Susan B. Anthony, the Reverend
Henry Ward Beecher, Colonel James Blood, and Woodhull about whether Woodhull
should print a story about the private marital indiscretions of Reverend
Beecher, a prominent supporter of women's rights' issues. Subsequent
debriefing often evolves into a discussion of whether the private lives
of public
figures should be publicized.
Classroom Climate
I mentioned at the beginning of the article that discourse about controversial
issues is a staple of talk radio and TV shows like those of Jenny Jones
and Ricki Lake. However, the climate in which controversy occurs on these
shows inflames and exacerbates conflict; it does not generate informed,
thoughtful deliberation. As these shows demonstrate, merely discussing
controversial issues is not sufficient to promote civic competence and
democratic attitudes. Much depends on the climate in which the discourse
occurs. In the classroom, the consequences for students of teaching about
controversy depend on the classroom conditions in which these approaches
and formats occur and the way they are managed by teachers and students
(Johnson and Johnson, 1979; Lusk and Weinberg, 1994; Hahn, 1991). In other
words, context and classroom climate are critical. What classroom conditions
and procedures are conducive to promoting civic competence? In this segment,
I will define these conditions and use them to examine more closely the
approaches and formats identified in the last two segments.
Back to the Top
|
 |
