Presentation on discussion leading in course that deal with controversial issues,
Department of Political Science, Purdue University, May 7, 2015
My task today is to talk with you about leading effective classroom discussions,
especially discussions of controversial, difficult topics. I’m going to take this in 3
gulps, first addressing techniques for drawing all your students into a
conversation, even the shy, quiet, reserved ones, then turning to how to talk
about cultivating a culture of active participation and civility in the classroom, and
finally talking about reading reports and the role they can play in helping with the
first 2 aims, drawing everybody into the conversation and getting them to attend
to opposed positions and arguments about controversial issues.
1. How do we stimulate discussion or participation in our classes that moves
beyond calling on the “usual suspects” who know the material well, are
confident, gregarious types who will raise their hand most any time we call
on students to answer a question? It’s not hard to get them to talk; indeed,
the issue is sometimes how to get them to make space for quieter, shyer
students to make their voices heard. A few strategies for dealing with this:
a. Socratic method (I always use this approach do in my Women and
the Law course, POL 360). I establish a formulaic, predictable set of
questions that requires all students to have done the reading, know
it well, be able to talk about key facts that underpin the legal or
constitutional conflict under discussion, present the reasoning of the
majority, do the same for any dissenting or concurring opinions, then
move to higher order questions about the way the analysis works,
and how far it can be extended once we start tweaking particular
circumstances (In the Matter of Baby M or Johnson v. Calvert as an
example: surrogacy is OK, fine; but what if baby’s born with an open
spinal cord, or with Down’s Syndrome? What if the surrogate
mother is poor, finds the payment very hard to resist? What if we
develop a “breeder” culture?)
b. I often change up how I use Socratic method: get one student to
“channel” the majority, another the dissent, have them speak to one
another and address one another’s strongest arguments
c. Here’s what’s going on: we aim to move up the analytic chain: what
was the factual dispute about? What are the key legal arguments at
1
stake, and how does each side support their reasoning? How
extendable are those arguments, when do they start to seem
inadequate and why? What do you think the ruling in this case, or
this hypothetical case should be, and why?
2. Let your students know that you value active participation and that you
mean to establish a classroom where everyone’s ideas count and are heard.
I let them know that one of the big pedagogic goals of this class is to have
them become active, engaged thinkers who take a variety of positions and
arguments seriously, figure out how to listen and hear one another’s ideas
and positions, respond to them in a collegial manner (I underscore that it’s
normal and OK to disagree, but we do so in an atmosphere of searching for
more adequate thinking, approaches to problems that don’t have cut-anddried, single correct answers, that are fundamentally contested by citizens
who are clear thinking, in search of fair, just, workable solutions to vexing
issues. We don’t call others out, we don’t engage in ad hominem attacks,
we don’t sneer, we listen respectfully and then we respond with our
objections, critiques, counter arguments, etc). I tell my students early on “I
want you to talk with one another, not just with me; I want you to build on
the ongoing conversation that’s on the table on a particular day, not
engage in professor-centric point scoring’ behavior. Think of the seminar as
a dinner table, where conversations are multi-sided and sequential, and
where you wouldn’t dream of stepping on another diner’s line while they’re
still talking, or bringing up a brand new topic or idea without explaining
what it has to do with what’s already under discussion.”
a. Beyond Socratic Method: I often call on students (who raise their
hands to volunteer an answer), but if I find that a few people
dominate the conversation and others say nothing at all, I might
explicitly solicit responses from the “strong silent types,” which gives
the usual suspects the cue that they need to back off and create
conversational space for quieter students
b. Sometimes I use a little segue like “Well, don’t all talk at once!” when
I ask a question that no one is responding to, using a jocular, teasing
tone that still pushes them to answer.
c. I recommend taking a little longer pause than feels quite comfortable
(20 seconds seems like an eternity, but it’s not if you’ve asked them
2
to talk about something difficult, and they’re thinking about how to
respond).
d. I often give them a prompt, such as: “I’d like you to identify 3
passages that exemplify the argument that today’s author is making,
& be prepared to point them out to the rest of us & explain why you
think they’re key”; or “I want you to simply write for 3 minutes about
the issues and questions that today’s reading posed, reacting off the
top of your head & getting the juices flowing.”
e. Sometimes I will have students work in 2s and 3s for 5 minutes,
brainstorming or pursuing a specific task that can then be fed back
into the larger classroom discussion
f. Should participation count? Absolutely it should. If you’re teaching a
seminar style class, this is the lifeblood of how to get good
discussions going. Tell them it counts on your syllabus, and tell them
how you go about evaluating their participation. Participation is not
just showing up to class, though absence makes it impossible to
participate, and a certain threshold of just showing up is crucial, and
they should know that. I let them know that I keep tabs on who
talks, the quality of what they say, and that at the end of the
semester (and on the occasion of writing letters of recommendation)
I look at my records of how much/how good their participation was
in figuring out a score for their participation. It isn’t purely
subjective; I can quantify how they did on several particular
occasions when I called on them in POL 360, I can recall days when
they were brilliant in reframing a question or rebutting another
student’s argument. I always tell them their scores in time to speak
with me about how they did at the end of the semester, and I invite
them to check in with me any time during the semester they like
about how they’re doing on this crucial dimension of course
participation.
3. What about dealing with controversial issues? I don’t shy away from such
issues, but I think they need to be dealt with carefully. Examples: abortion;
affirmative action; surrogacy contracts; federal RFRA (the Hobby Lobby
case); date rape; animal cruelty and CAFOs; industrial agriculture and issues
3
related to food insecurity, obesity, respect for farmers’ expertise, respect
for approaches taken by ag economists, etc.
a. Civility is key
b. Invite them to play the devil’s advocate; indeed, require them to do
so, and explain that they will never hold their positions the same way
once they’ve had to take seriously the best arguments against them.
c. Cultivate spirited disagreement, but never let it become personal,
mean-spirited, or disrespectful. Let them know the emphasis is on
respect, the notion that reasonable people might well disagree about
issues such as these. Acknowledge that beliefs, values, political
commitments are often personal and quite deeply held, visceral, and
potentially divisive
d. I tell my students that my job is not to convert them to my set of
political values or perspective, but to make sure that they hold their
own perspectives intelligently, know that making a good argument
requires attending to counterarguments and positions that they
don’t always agree with.
e. Finally, consider using a version of the “purposeful reading report,”
which asks students to identify key arguments, identify the
perspective from which the author is writing (and who their audience
is), and to formulate one good, solid question that they would ask
the author if they could. I use such reports in conjunction with
readings that traverse a variety of ideological perspectives, and use
them as a way to get students used to taking on a variety of
perspectives, and identifying their perspective, value orientation,
audience, and persuasiveness. They work well for me: the students
read carefully, checking the reports is not too time consuming or
tedious for me, and the reports set up much more insightful and
useful discussions of contested issues.
4