Think, Talk, Justify- Encouraging Student Conversation

December had hit, and I was generally dissatisfied.  The end of the semester is always a time for general reflection, and to begin thinking of the new year ahead.  And I was dissatisfied.  I teach seniors in government, and I have long felt it my mission to help my students emerge from our time together prepared to engage as active citizens.  A key element of citizenship that I believe is severely lacking in all generations right now is the ability to engage in a productive conversation with someone, and not have both parties focus on trying to prove the other wrong.  Was I doing enough to encourage this kind of productive conversation in our croom?

Over winter break I rewrote nearly my entire government curriculum, with an emphasis on students engaging in reasoned and productive conversation, and thinking with a solution-oriented mind rather than one solely focused on the argument.  The areas of most significant change have come in the presence of more cultivated opportunities for discussion and in assessments.

Discussion has always been a presence in our class, but I wanted something more substantial, that not only allowed for the students to have a voice, but also encouraged the students to see the importance of having a substantiated opinion, as well as the importance of valuing multiple perspectives on an issue.  To this end, the SAC, or "Structured Academic Controversy", has been a valuable tool.  A SAC is generally defined as "a discussion that moves students beyond either/or debates to a more nuanced historical synthesis."  A fantastic, full explanation of a SAC is found here, but in essence the teacher should pick a topic that has current or historical pertinence, and then ask students to adopt a point of view that is substantiated with evidence.  As a teacher, the best part is the freedom that this format affords.

For our government class, I have used the following format to structure our discussion:

1. Start with an essential question tied both to what we are covering at the time, but that also connect to current events.  The first SAC we worked through, as we began talking about the foundations for the Constitution, asked students to respond to the following statement- “Freedom/Privacy is more important than Order/Security.”  Most recently students worked with the following- “What are appropriate regulations on guns? Some, none, all?  If some, which ones?  Whatever your small group’s answer, be ready to defend it.”
2. Determine how the students will work.  Since my classes are so large, and I want to make sure that every student has a chance to speak up, I generally start with small groups.  For the first prompt, I assigned each small group with a POV to research, and to prepare to discuss that view when we came together into a larger group.  They, of course, had ample time to discuss their own point of view as well.  For our discussion on gun regulation, students worked in small groups again, but this time I tasked the students with achieving a group consensus, which they then presented to the class.
3. Stress the three keys- Think, Talk, Justify!  I want the students to think deeply about these questions, and that includes consideration of perspectives different than their own.  I want the students to voice.  Our students have a remarkable voice, and they need to know that adults value their thoughts.  Finally, I want the students to back up their views with reasonable evidence beyond social media and family.

We discussed the gun regulation prompt the week immediately following the Parkland shooting, and to be honest, I was a little nervous about how it would go.  I knew going in that I had students who had strong feelings about guns, but I trusted them to be able to engage in reasonable discussion and consensus building.  And, as usual, they knocked it out of the park.  There is undeniable effort in structuring the discussion, providing possible sources, facilitating the conversation, etc. on the part of the teacher.  But the payoff is so worth it.  To see a group of 17 and 18-year-olds reach a consensus on the topic of gun regulation at a time when passions are high, and compromise seems far-fetched was truly inspiring to me.  

Our students have a voice, and that voice has value.  The real question will be- do we have ears to listen?