Sipping our tea and coffee my teacher friend and I chatted about how our students need more access to high quality discussions and debates. I had recently wrapped up a physical barometer debate with my students, and in their written reflections of the learning experience, I noticed how several students thought the debate wasn’t fun because it was too structured and didn’t allow them to speak whenever they wanted. There were other students (the majority), however, who enjoyed the debate experience and offered reflection on how the structure helped them learn better to share their thoughts and opinions confidently and safely without fear of being attacked for their opinions. It also afforded them the opportunity to be up and moving.
The whole debate activity came about naturally. As I’ve written about before, students in my classes write daily in their journals to build habits of mind associated with disciplined writers. The journal topic for the day came from a recent tweet by the Prichard Committee’s Student Voice Team who had been in Frankfort speaking out about corporal punishment that still occurs in some of Kentucky’s public schools. I showed a screenshot of the tweet to my students and asked for their opinion on the topic. Most students in my classes were incredulous about the issue. Even those who thought paddling is okay, wondered how could it be true that in 2019 students are still punished by paddling?
Interestingly enough, my classes were almost equally split on the issue, with more boys thinking corporal punishment is an effective deterrent against breaking school rules and more girls finding it mentally, emotionally and physically harmful. However, not all boys agreed with paddling and not all girls disagreed with it. I honestly didn’t expect the class to be so equally divided nor did I plan to hold a physical barometer debate that day. But as you know, sometimes teachable moments just present themselves. We had been studying speeches and rhetorical appeals and techniques, so the debate went along with our overall lesson objectives. Because it happened so naturally, students were 100% authentically engaged throughout the debate.
Here’s how things went down for our physical barometer debate
Preparation
Students wrote individually in their own journals first, giving reasons to support their opinion on the topic. Then I had them congregate in two large groups (13 + people in each group) standing around two white boards at each end of the room, one group in the back, and the other group in the front. The goal was for them to state their claim and then list as many pieces of evidence as they could create, making sure they had at least one piece of evidence for each person in their group. They also had to think about what the other group might present as counterarguments. I set a timer and they began working, collaboratively and thoughtfully. I told them they had to keep each other on task, and they rose to the occasion, with the more extroverted students taking the lead and pulling in some of the introverts and with the natural leaders pulling in stragglers who really wanted to spy on the other group.
After the groups had time to develop reasons and evidence, they assigned each person in the group with a piece of that evidence to state when their turn arrived in the physical barometer debate. They also wrote an opening statement and determined who would deliver it, and finally, they selected the person to speak last, and that person had to be prepared to listen carefully and offer the final wrap up and rebuttal of the other team's ideas.
Connections to rhetorical techniques being studied
Because we've been analyzing various speeches for rhetorical techniques, I asked students to think about how they could use some of those techniques (Ethos, Pathos, Logos, Repetition, Parallelism, and Allusion) in their presentation of their evidence during the debate.
The actual debate
Students stood in two long lines, shoulder to shoulder facing the other team (with about 3 feet in between them). The first student from Team A stepped forward one step and stated her/his opening statement in favor of paddling in schools. Then the first student from Team B stepped forward one step and stated his/her opening statement against paddling in schools. After the first two stated their claim, they stepped back and the next two students from Team A and Team B stepped forward and presented the first piece of evidence, and we continued along down the line until every group member had an opportunity to speak. At this point, even the more reticent students were confident enough to speak, and the structure made it easier for them to participate. Only one person could talk at a time, and each team had to listen attentively to the other team's ideas.
Since Team B had 3 more members than Team A, some Team A members had to speak more than once before the final Team A and Team B members provided the rebuttal and wrap up.
Reflection following the debate
After the debate while students made their way back to their seats, I quickly typed up and projected on the screen reflection questions for students to provide written responses about their experience.
1) What did you think about the physical barometer debate?
2) How did your team do?
3) How did you effectively use rhetorical techniques in your debate?
4) What lingering comments do you have that you must mention?
What I thought worked
In typical NBCT analytical fashion, I spent time thinking about what worked and what didn't work in this lesson. Overall, I think the physical barometer debate worked really well, especially since we're working on scaffolding students oral speaking opportunities before they deliver full argumentative speeches later this month. The physical barometer debate provided another small step for reticent speakers. I also think the strategy allowed for students to listen carefully to one another, something that we all need more and more practice doing these days. I like that students had the opportunity to stand and move about the room. I like that the activity brought the class together even while they debated. There was sense of camaraderie among the students.
What I thought could be better
I would like to create success criteria for a physical barometer debate, so if we do this on the fly again in the future, I have the success criteria ready to share with students in advance. I might also have students work in smaller groups first, with each student having a role to play and then run two debates simultaneously so there could be more back and forth on rebuttals. Maybe I would do that? Maybe not. I'm always experimenting with new possibilities. What about you? How have you used physical barometer debates in your classrooms?
The whole debate activity came about naturally. As I’ve written about before, students in my classes write daily in their journals to build habits of mind associated with disciplined writers. The journal topic for the day came from a recent tweet by the Prichard Committee’s Student Voice Team who had been in Frankfort speaking out about corporal punishment that still occurs in some of Kentucky’s public schools. I showed a screenshot of the tweet to my students and asked for their opinion on the topic. Most students in my classes were incredulous about the issue. Even those who thought paddling is okay, wondered how could it be true that in 2019 students are still punished by paddling?
Interestingly enough, my classes were almost equally split on the issue, with more boys thinking corporal punishment is an effective deterrent against breaking school rules and more girls finding it mentally, emotionally and physically harmful. However, not all boys agreed with paddling and not all girls disagreed with it. I honestly didn’t expect the class to be so equally divided nor did I plan to hold a physical barometer debate that day. But as you know, sometimes teachable moments just present themselves. We had been studying speeches and rhetorical appeals and techniques, so the debate went along with our overall lesson objectives. Because it happened so naturally, students were 100% authentically engaged throughout the debate.
Here’s how things went down for our physical barometer debate
Preparation
Students wrote individually in their own journals first, giving reasons to support their opinion on the topic. Then I had them congregate in two large groups (13 + people in each group) standing around two white boards at each end of the room, one group in the back, and the other group in the front. The goal was for them to state their claim and then list as many pieces of evidence as they could create, making sure they had at least one piece of evidence for each person in their group. They also had to think about what the other group might present as counterarguments. I set a timer and they began working, collaboratively and thoughtfully. I told them they had to keep each other on task, and they rose to the occasion, with the more extroverted students taking the lead and pulling in some of the introverts and with the natural leaders pulling in stragglers who really wanted to spy on the other group.
After the groups had time to develop reasons and evidence, they assigned each person in the group with a piece of that evidence to state when their turn arrived in the physical barometer debate. They also wrote an opening statement and determined who would deliver it, and finally, they selected the person to speak last, and that person had to be prepared to listen carefully and offer the final wrap up and rebuttal of the other team's ideas.
Connections to rhetorical techniques being studied
Because we've been analyzing various speeches for rhetorical techniques, I asked students to think about how they could use some of those techniques (Ethos, Pathos, Logos, Repetition, Parallelism, and Allusion) in their presentation of their evidence during the debate.
The actual debate
Students stood in two long lines, shoulder to shoulder facing the other team (with about 3 feet in between them). The first student from Team A stepped forward one step and stated her/his opening statement in favor of paddling in schools. Then the first student from Team B stepped forward one step and stated his/her opening statement against paddling in schools. After the first two stated their claim, they stepped back and the next two students from Team A and Team B stepped forward and presented the first piece of evidence, and we continued along down the line until every group member had an opportunity to speak. At this point, even the more reticent students were confident enough to speak, and the structure made it easier for them to participate. Only one person could talk at a time, and each team had to listen attentively to the other team's ideas.
Since Team B had 3 more members than Team A, some Team A members had to speak more than once before the final Team A and Team B members provided the rebuttal and wrap up.
Reflection following the debate
After the debate while students made their way back to their seats, I quickly typed up and projected on the screen reflection questions for students to provide written responses about their experience.
1) What did you think about the physical barometer debate?
2) How did your team do?
3) How did you effectively use rhetorical techniques in your debate?
4) What lingering comments do you have that you must mention?
What I thought worked
In typical NBCT analytical fashion, I spent time thinking about what worked and what didn't work in this lesson. Overall, I think the physical barometer debate worked really well, especially since we're working on scaffolding students oral speaking opportunities before they deliver full argumentative speeches later this month. The physical barometer debate provided another small step for reticent speakers. I also think the strategy allowed for students to listen carefully to one another, something that we all need more and more practice doing these days. I like that students had the opportunity to stand and move about the room. I like that the activity brought the class together even while they debated. There was sense of camaraderie among the students.
What I thought could be better
I would like to create success criteria for a physical barometer debate, so if we do this on the fly again in the future, I have the success criteria ready to share with students in advance. I might also have students work in smaller groups first, with each student having a role to play and then run two debates simultaneously so there could be more back and forth on rebuttals. Maybe I would do that? Maybe not. I'm always experimenting with new possibilities. What about you? How have you used physical barometer debates in your classrooms?
