STRUCTURED ACADEMIC CONTROVERSY: A STEP BY STEP PROCESS TO MEANINGFUL CLASSROOM DISCUSSION Stacy Drum, Striving Readers Katie Anderson, C&I, Social Studies

WORKING AGREEMENTS

STRATEGIES FROM MARCIA TATE As we are working today, look for the following strategies: Strategy 1: Brainstorming and Discussion Strategy 5: Graphic Organizers Strategy 13: Reciprocal Teaching and Cooperative Learning Strategy 20: Writing and Journals

DO YOUR CLASSROOM DISCUSSIONS LOOK LIKE THIS? OR THIS? OR THIS?

Student Engagement Democratizing the classroom Clear articulation of complicated ideas Listening carefully and intentionally Better content knowledge Dialoguing across differences Civic knowledge, skills, democratic values, participation BENEFITS OF DISCUSSION Nystrand (1997) and his colleagues measured the relationship between the amount of classroom discussion and student performance on knowledge exams and found a positive correlation. The “bottom line” for learning, they write, is “the extent to which instruction requires students to think, not just report someone else’s [the teacher’s] thinking. (Hess, 2011 )

DISCUSSION STRENGTHENS WRITING Prewrite (research and organize research) Draft (organizing and articulating a position) Discussion Revise (refine and incorporate new information) Edit, Submit

CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE DISCUSSION: THE NON - NEGOTIABLES Focus on an interpretable text, issue, idea, etc. Thorough preparation. Student driven. Teacher facilitated. Sufficient time spent on topic before going to another point. Whole group participation. Participants and facilitator ask authentic questions and refer to previous points made in the discussion. DIANA E. HESS, 2010

WHAT IS A SAC? Structured Small group Timed Precise, planned, systematic procedure Academic Text based arguments Reasoning based on claims and evidence Controversy Debatable question or topic Students take sides and work towards consensus Building capacity for discussion requires the use of multiple methods. Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) is a great entrance model.

SAC: GOALS FOR STUDENTS 1.To gain deep and nuanced understanding of an issue; 2.To make a reasoned argument based on text-based claims and evidence; 3.To find common ground within a controversial topic.

TEACHER PREPARATION OF SAC 1.Choose a historical question or policy issue that lends itself to contrasting viewpoints.  E: Was the Code of Hammurabi just?  M: Should America have declared war on Germany, 1917?  H: Was slavery the main cause of the Civil War? 2.Select one to three documents (primary or secondary sources) that define the argument.  See “Resources for Building a SAC” for suggested websites in your packet. 3. Consider:  Timing (initially, it will take longer for you and your students). Plan on using about two class periods for your initial SAC – make adjustments as needed  Modify time allotments according to the needs and experience level of your students  However, keep times shorter rather than longer to insure that students are staying on task  Grouping Strategies  Classroom Set Up  Quiet Signal/Timer

SCAFFOLDING & DIFFERENTIATING LIMIT number of documents 1-3 LIMIT number of documents 1-3 Use ACCOUNTABLE TALK prompts to foster positive “smart” student interaction FLIP FLOP the writing task: students write first to process the argument individually. (creates confidence) Rewrite following SAC FLIP FLOP the writing task: students write first to process the argument individually. (creates confidence) Rewrite following SAC VARY SOURCE TYPE: image, maps, charts, and text Have all “YES’s” and “NO’s” meet together prior to SAC to strengthen argument ANNOTATION: provide students with a directed process for annotation of their texts.

SAC STEPS  Organize students in groups of four. Split each group into two pairs.  Pairs read, study, and formulate arguments on opposing sides of the controversy.  Pairs organize their argument on their SAC Organizer.  Pairs take turns presenting their argument  The pair not speaking listens and takes notes on the other position.  Pairs take turns questioning and asking for clarification as necessary  Groups work together to synthesize arguments:  Groups build consensus on at least one major point.  Groups create questions identifying where they need more information.  Whole Class Debrief  Content Evaluation  Process Evaluation

“WHO WAS A MORE EFFECTIVE PRESIDENT: JFK OR LBJ?”

Was the Code of Hammurabi just? SAC QUESTION FOR TODAY

Assign sides in your larger group: A.Yes. Hammurabi’s Code was just. B. No. Hammurabi’s Code was not just. BREAK INTO GROUPS

THE SAC (TIMES ADJUSTED TO MEET OUR NEEDS TODAY) 5 minRead silently through the text. 3 minWith your partner outline the evidence for your position. 2 minMeet with other A’s/ B’s to share evidence and add to your own note taker. 1 minMove back to foursome and introduce yourselves. 3 minA’s share their position (claims, reasons, evidence). 2 min B’s demonstrate their knowledge of A’a position by repeating back claims, evidence, reasoning and asking for clarification as needed. 3 minB’s share their positions (claims, reasons, evidence). 2 min A’s demonstrates their knowledge of B’s position by repeating back claims, evidence, reasoning and asking for clarification as needed. 4 min Foursome openly discusses the issue. Your goal is to find consensus (something you can agree upon) and note any clarification you need or questions you now have. 4 minWhole Group Content Reflection: Share out ideas of consensus or sticky points 4 minWhole Group Process Reflection:

REFLECTION What do you like about this discussion strategy? Write down two or three different controversial topics within your content that you could implement within this discussion format. What type of writing assignment would you add? How is this related to writing? Why is the student reflection crucial to the SAC process? Which of Marcia Tate’s strategies did you notice? Where did you notice them?