Writing in Applied Ethics
Sari Kisilevsky
Lesson Plan on Identifying Conclusions (Theses)
Lesson Objectives: To teach students to identify a conclusion in a piece of philosophical writing, and to distinguish it from other parts of an argument. This will force students to begin to use the concepts of premises and conclusions in their attempt to extract the conclusion from a piece of writing. Having students put the conclusion in one sentence forces them to be precise in their writing, a key skill in philosophical argumentation and writing. This exercise also alerts students to the difficulty of reading and writing philosophy and the care that must go into it: What seems like a short and easy assignment on its face is actually very time-consuming and difficult. In-class discussion usually reveals the extent to which students still failed to grasp the main conclusion, and understand its full meaning.
Total Time: 75 minutes
Coursework Underway: This lesson can be done with any piece of argumentative writing (scholarly article, op-ed piece, etc.). This lesson ties in nicely with the Lesson Plan on Dialectic. It is worth explaining the connections between these in class.
Pre-Lesson Homework: Read assigned readings in advance of class. Have students state the author’s main conclusion in one sentence.
Sources:
Any piece of philosophical or argumentative writing
Gordon Harvey’s Brief Guide, Thesis
Sequence of Classroom Activities:
Introduce Harvey’s explanation of a thesis. Read the paragraph out loud and explain its key notions.
Explain how it relates to a conclusion of an argument. (It is also worth noting the connections between theses or conclusions, and dialectic or motive, for Harvey.)
Have a few students read out their suggested answers in class. Write some of their suggestions for the main conclusions on the board. Discuss similarities and differences between them: they can’t all be right. Discuss how they do or do not satisfy Harvey’s requirements for a thesis. (10 min)
Return to text. Have students locate where in the text the author states (or intimates) her main conclusion. Draw students’ attention to the author’s statement of her main conclusion. Emphasize clue words or phrases that signal the author’s intention to state her main point conclusion
(“therefore, I will conclude that...,” “I will argue for the conclusion that...,” etc.). (10 min)
Drawing on the readings, evaluate which best approximates the author’s main conclusion. As a class, construct a one-sentence conclusion that correctly states the author’s main conclusion. Note the importance and difficulty involved in being able to do this. (25 min)
What does the conclusion mean? Discuss scope and force of conclusion. Situate it with respect to stronger and weaker claims. Identify key terms and concepts stated in the conclusion and define them. Emphasize importance of being able to understand main point of an article. (25 min)
Follow-up: Have students compare these results with their own attempts, and note what they got right, and what they got wrong. Have students mark the ways in which their answers did or did not satisfy Harvey’s requirements for a thesis. (5 min) Can have them grade their attempt.

Writing in Applied Ethics
Sari Kisilevsky
Lesson Plan on Identifying Arguments
Lesson Objectives: To introduce students to the notion of an argument, and the key associated concepts. To begin to familiarize them with argumentative structure and reasoning. Use easy examples to make the idea as clear as possible.
Total time: 75 min
Coursework Underway: Can use the same readings as Lesson Plan on Identifying Conclusions.
Sources:
Any piece of philosophical or argumentative writing
Any introductory chapter on informal reasoning or critical thinking
Pre-Lesson Homework: Have students read chapter on informal reasoning. Have students return to readings from Lesson on Identifying Conclusions. In premise-conclusion structure (can be bullet points, but bullet points have to be written in full sentences), have students state the author’s main
argument for her conclusion.
Sequence of Classroom Activities:
Introduce students to the notion of an argument, and basic argument structures and concepts
(premise, conclusion, soundness, validity, moral premises & conclusions where appropriate, etc.).
Explain why they are central to thinking and Writing in Applied Ethics. Introduce the notion of an argument schema and explain how they differ from summaries. Provide a few sample toy arguments
(preferably from readings) and explain them. (15 min)
Write the author’s main conclusion on the board. (Can refer to previous class on conclusions.) Return to text. Direct students to author’s statement of his argument. Identify key words or phrases signaling the presentation of an argument (or a premise). Write main argument on board. Illustrate why this is the author’s main argument for the main conclusion identified last class. Show why the argument is valid. Explain the difference between validity and soundness; only validity has been established. Explain that if students disagree with an author’s conclusion, they must show either that the argument is invalid or that it is unsound (it is valid but one of the premises are false). This structures all debate in philosophy. Show how the argument in the text shares the same features
(premises, conclusions, validity, soundness) as the toy examples. (30 min)
Follow-up: Have students return to their first attempts, and correct them. Have students evaluate how they think they did. (5 min)
Turn to chapter on informal reasoning. Have students schematize the 2-3 sample arguments from the text, individually or in groups. (15 min)

Writing in Applied Ethics
Sari Kisilevsky
Lesson Plan on Structure
Lesson Objective: To help students “chunk” information, as presented in a text or in their own writing. To introduce students to the notion of a paper’s structure, so as to be able to distinguish the various elements of an article when reading it, and to be able to structure or organize their own papers when writing them.
Total Time: 75 min
Coursework Underway: Can use the same readings as Lesson on Identifying Conclusions and
Lesson on Identifying Arguments.
Sources:
Any piece of philosophical writing
Harvey’s Brief Guide, Structure
Pre-Lesson Homework: Pick a philosophical text. Have students draw the structure of the paper.
(Note that this is not the same thing as drawing the content of the paper!)
Sequence of Classroom Activities:
Read Harvey’s explanation of structure out loud and explain it. Give examples of the elements of the structure of a paper (introduction, conclusion, background, argument, anticipating and responding to objections, etc.).(5 min)
Ask a few (2-3) volunteers (or call on students) to come up to the board and draw their homework.
Discuss how it relates to the text. Discuss whether their drawings represent the structure or the content of the paper. Discuss whether they accurately represent the structure of the paper. (10 min)
Return to the text. Distinguish between the various stages of the paper (introduction, background information, motivating premises, anticipating and responding to counter-arguments, conclusion...).
Discuss the various roles of these different parts of the paper, and why they are there (and in the order presented). Draw the structure of the paper as a class. (40 min)
Follow-up: Have students return their homework, and evaluate which parts they got right and which need improvement. Have them correct their homework. (5 min)
Give students sample topics or thesis statements for papers. Have them draw the structure of how they would approach a paper on that topic. Have them explain how it satisfies Harvey’s explanation.
(15 min)

Writing in Applied Ethics
Sari Kisilevsky
Lesson Plan on Evaluating Arguments (Analysis)
Lesson Objectives: To introduce students to argumentative strategies, and methods of evaluating arguments. This lesson also reinforces the importance of developing arguments when advancing a conclusion.
Total Time: 75 min
Coursework Underway: Use the same readings as Lessons on Identifying Conclusions and
Identifying Arguments. This lesson should follow these two.
Sources:
Any piece of philosophical writing.
Harvey’s Brief Guide, Analysis
Pre-Lesson Homework: Have students return to the argument schema from Lesson on Identifying
Arguments. Ask them to identify the author’s strongest and weakest premises, and have them write one sentence explaining what makes them strong/weak. How can the author strengthen his argument?
Sequence of Classroom Activities:
Read Harvey’s explanation of an analysis out loud and explain it. Explain its relation to arguments and structure. Explain how it can be used in writing to evaluate an argument. (10 min)
Put author’s argument up on the board again. Consider each premise individually, and evaluate its convincingness. Ask why the author might think these things, and discuss possible reasons for holding these premises. Discuss the importance of understanding (and explaining) an author’s motivations when evaluating her argument. Discuss the importance of casting an author’s argument in its best light when evaluating it. (55 min)
Meta-teach 1: While evaluating the author’s argument together, take note of the strategies used by the author in advancing his argument, and by the class in evaluating it. Emphasize to students that they should use these strategies when constructing and evaluating arguments of their own.
Meta-teach 2: Keep track of the points raised during the discussion. Note what makes for a good objection. Does the point raised bear on the author’s conclusion? Did the author already think of it and respond to it? Are the concerns raised relevant to the author’s point?
Conclude: Evaluate the strength of the author’s conclusion, after undergoing rigorous analysis. Does it withstand scrutiny? Is it made stronger by it? (5 min)
Follow-up: Have students return to their homework. Have them evaluate the strength of the author’s conclusion in light of the objections they raised for her. (5 min)

Writing in Applied Ethics
Sari Kisilevsky
In-Class Writing Workshop
Lesson Objectives: To synthesize writing and technical philosophical skills from previous lessons and to do a “dry run” of an assignment.
Total Time: 75 min
Coursework Underway: Any upcoming assignment. This lesson is a good way to do a “dry run” of an assignment in class. Students should have been introduced to some of the key concepts in philosophical writing. Use the same readings that were used for these lessons. This lesson can also be broken down into components of writing (e.g., thesis, motive, structure, sources, evidence, etc.), and can be used to focus in these components individually. This lesson is most helpful if students bring drafts of their upcoming assignments to class.
Sources:
Any piece of philosophical writing.
Sequence of Classroom Activities:
Review the main requirements for the writing component(s) being workshopped (thesis, motive, structure, sources, evidence, etc.). It is helpful to refer to Gordon Harvey or Nuts and Bolts when discussing these. (5 min)
Hand out a checklist for these requirements. (These can just be the descriptions listed in Harvey’s
Brief Guide.) They should also have been included with the assignment, and it should draw on the overall learning goals of the assignment.
Have students write a draft or outline response to this assignment, making sure that they cover all the items in the checklist. This should not be too hard, since they will have covered the basic steps for its completion with respect to the assigned readings in the previous classes. Tell them to be specific.
They should write thesis statements, introductory paragraphs, have a structure for their paper, a schema of the author’s argument, and some points to raise in its evaluation. (15 min)
(If students have been assigned to bring in drafts of their formal writing assignments, this step can be skipped.)
Have them exchange drafts. Have the student evaluators write down how the (student) author fulfils each element of the assignment. (What is the student’s thesis statement? Argument structure? Does she identify the (professional) author’s conclusion? Her argument? Does she evaluate the
(professional) author’s argument? What is the dialectic of the student’s paper (where applicable)?
Have them write down one sentence about what the student did well in fulfilling this element, or what can be improved. (20 min) (35 minutes if skipping first step)
Reconvene class. Pick one student evaluator, and have her identify the student whose paper she is evaluating. Discuss her comments as a class. Make suggestions for how students’ can improve their papers, and what strong assignment would look like. (30 min)
Follow up: Have students return to their evaluations of each others’ work. Can their evaluations be improved? (5 min)
Have students return one another’s drafts with comments. Have them note the ways in which their drafts could be improved. (5 min)

Writing in Applied Ethics
Sari Kisilevsky
Lesson Plan on Dialectic (Motive)
Lesson Objectives: This is a crucial lesson. The introduction to students of dialectic, or motive, in writing shows students that philosophy, and argumentation generally, is not about taking a “side” in a debate, but rather about understanding the broad variety of competing factors that are at stake on a given question, and developing the ability to navigate and weigh them in a systematic manner. The aim of this lesson is to deepen students’ understanding of philosophical debate and argumentation, and to help them to develop subtle and nuanced positions of their own.
Total Time: 75 min
Coursework Underway:
Any (If Lesson Plan on Conclusions (Theses) has already been covered, then this lesson provides a good way to reinforce and deepen some of the main points of that lesson.)
Pre-Lesson Homework: Have students identify an author’s opponent (by reference to her conclusion) in the assigned readings. The readings can be the same as those assigned for a previous lesson.
Sources:
Any piece of philosophical writing
Harvey, Brief Guide, Motive
Sequence of Classroom Activities:
Read Harvey’s explanation of motive and explain it. Explain philosophical notion of dialectic, and how it relates to motive. Explain how an author’s motive relates to her thesis, or conclusion. (5 min)
Ask students to volunteer 2-3 candidates for the author’s opponent in the assigned text. (That is, have them volunteer candidate conclusions that the author is arguing against.) Evaluate these to see if the author really disagrees with them as stated. (15 min)
Return to text. Identify the author’s opponent(s): what conclusion(s) does the author aim to deny?
Note strategies for identifying the author’s opponents. (15 min)
Situate the author’s conclusion within a debate. Outline the various positions that participants may adopt. Explain how the author’s position relates to these. Explain the various factors involved in adopting a position in a debate, and how they relate. (25 min)
Follow-up: Have students return to their homework and correct it in light of the classroom discussion. (5 min)
Have students write down candidate alternative positions in the debate just mapped. (5 min)
Have one student volunteer her candidate position. Discuss as a class how it fits into the debate.
Reiterate notion of “taking a stand in a debate” or dialectic. (5 min)

Writing in Applied Ethics
Sari Kisilevsky
Lesson Plan on Case Studies & Introduction to Sources: Formulating and Researching a
Research Question (Library Visit)
Lesson Objectives: This lesson aims to teach students to deepen their moral understanding and critical thinking skills by applying abstract moral ideas from class to real-life circumstances. The point of this lesson is to teach students to engage critically with real-life situations, to formulate research questions, to develop a point of view, and to develop research skills that go beyond taking the first hit on an internet search and “applying” an author’s idea to a case. This class also aims to familiarize students with the library and with scholarly search tools.
Total Time: 75 min
Coursework Underway: Any research or case-study assignment
Pre-Lesson Homework:
Have students read Michael Harvey, The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing on Searches and The
Beginning. (Can also review Gordon Harvey on Thesis and Motive.)
Students should come prepared with a list of possible research topics and a preliminary list of possible sources of information on them.
Sources:
Any piece of philosophical writing in applied ethics
Michael Harvey, The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing: Searches, The Beginning
Sequence of Classroom Activities:
This lesson involves a library visit and should be taught in tandem with the organizer of the visit. The basics for this lesson should involve:
(a) Theses/Formulating a Research Question
Review Michael Harvey on The Beginning (and Gordon Harvey on Thesis and Motive). Discuss the thesis development and motive with relation to case studies in particular and the formulation of a research question. (10 min)
Have students return to their proposed research topics. Ask a student to volunteer her or his proposed research question. Discuss as a class how it does and does not satisfy the requirements discussed. Have students return to their proposed research questions. Have them refine their research questions in light of the discussion. (Note: students will likely need a computer and internet connection for this. They can work together, if needed.) (25 min)
(b) Use of Sources
Review Michael Harvey on Searches. Discuss the pros and cons of open versus closed internet searches. (Open searches can be useful for formulating a question, getting ideas. They are less useful for developing an idea or for evidence and analysis in a paper.) (5 min)
Introduce students to library databases. Explain when they are and are not helpful. (Note: This will likely be best left to the visit organizer.) (20 min)
Have students return to their research questions. Have them revise their research questions and preliminary list of sources in light of the lecture. Emphasize that these might continue to change as their research progresses. This is part of the normal process of writing and revision. (10 min)

Writing in Applied Ethics
Sari Kisilevsky
Lesson Plan on Citing Sources (Library Visit)
Lesson Objectives: This lesson introduces students to the basic use of sources in academic writing and citation conventions.
Total Time: 75 min
Coursework Underway: Any assignment that might involve research or citation. If they have them, students can bring in drafts of an assignment underway.
Sources: Michael Harvey, The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing, Plagiarism
Sequence of Classroom Activities:
This lesson involves a library visit, and it is best conducted by the organizer of the visit. The basics of the lesson should involve:
- the importance of citing sources
- the dangers of plagiarism and how to avoid it
- standard citation conventions (including citing different kinds of materials: scholarly sources, websites, newspaper articles…)
- which sources should be cited (try to avoid citing class lectures and informal conversations)
- how to cite (how to insert a footnote; where to insert them; footnotes vs endnotes, etc.)