Up & Moving with a Physical Barometer Debate in the Classroom

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?

Introducing Principals to the Literacy Design Collaborative

This week I had my first opportunity to meet all the middle and high school principals in our district.  As the primary point of contact for a major literacy grant, it was important for these administrators to know who I am, and more importantly, to know about the ongoing professional learning experiences we are facilitating for their teachers.  Since we believe in modeling best practice, my colleagues and I decided to stage an argument about the content the principals would learn (In this situation, the content happened to be writing instruction and impact of writing programs in schools).  The argument was designed to set the context and engage the learners/readers in two articles with opposing view-points.  

I’m really happy to be back in the district working closely with teachers and schools, and for the most part it’s going well.  However, I do have one little issue.  My colleague and I don’t agree on the appropriate approach for writing instruction, so we need your help.  We are going to give you two different articles and ask you to help us decide an answer to this question—is it necessary to omit personal connection to produce good writing?  I don’t think it’s necessary to do so, but my colleague does.  Will you help us settle this argument by gleaning evidence from two texts?

My science colleague distributed The Writing Revolution, and I distributed In Defense of Freedom Writers but only after I talked about the power Manuel Scott’s presentation had on me a couple of weeks ago.   Then we gave each administrator a few text dependent questions to accompany both articles, set a timer for 20 minutes and then paced, re-read and watched as a room full of principals and associate principals read the two articles with their pens in hand.  Following the reading of the two articles, our social studies colleague continued the staged argument by telling the principals she didn’t agree with either of us—she was in the middle.  She then facilitated a fish bowl discussion to engage the principals in conversation around the two points of view conveyed in the two articles.  She charted ideas and the principals on the outside of the fishbowl recorded additional thoughts on sticky notes when it wasn’t their turn to talk.  A few struggled to keep quiet when they were on the outside of the fish bowl because they felt so strongly about what they had read.

These are the same conditions teachers are creating as they introduce a Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) task to students in science, social studies and English Language Arts.   Before we went into the rest of our presentation on LDC, we told the principals the argument had been staged, and they got it.  They understood we had set the context for learning more about the content.  Teachers in our district, across many districts in Kentucky, and in several other states in the United States are utilizing the LDC tools to implement the Common Core State Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical subjects.

We are using LDC because we see the importance of engaging students in meaningful and authentic reading and writing opportunities in every discipline.  Think about the response above--A few struggled to keep quiet when they were on the outside of the fish bowl because they felt so strongly about what they had read.   Exactly.  Imagine this happening in classrooms full of excited and engaged adolescents!

If you’ve been reading my blog for any length of time, you will know this is exactly why I left the state department to be closer to schools, closer to the teaching and learning that will make a difference in the lives of students.

Argument and Persuasion

“Mom, let me tell you three reasons why I should be allowed to have a TV in my bedroom.”  I guess my son thought the three reasons technique would work for every argument he constructed.  Not quite.

The topic of persuasion and argument has been on my mind for several months.  With the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 46 states of the United States, teachers across the country have been discussing ways of teaching students to argue and ways to cite specific evidence from text. 

Is there a formula or quick fix to teaching students to write arguments?  I’d like to argue there’s not.  To illustrate my point, let’s look at two pieces of writing written by my son for school assignments.

Piece #1 A persuasive letter to mom and dad.

In this particular piece of writing, the child did not have a clearly stated argument. He did, however, state that he wanted a dog. He clearly knew his audience as evident in the way he directed comments such as “mom it is spring now and we will go on more walks. Mom you say you need more exercise. Well here is your answer.” The child stated three reasons he wanted a dog and supported the reasons with emotional appeals to tug at the heart strings of mom and dad. His audience was authentic and his reason for writing was real to life, even as a school assignment. One key factor here is that he was offered a choice for his writing topic. His persuasive techniques worked; we adopted our first family dog last weekend.

The CCSS ask students to write arguments (opinions in grades K-5). The standards also call for students to write for short and extended time frames and for a range of audiences and purposes. Take a look at a segment of writing this same child wrote a few weeks ago. This time he wrote for a timed writing prompt at school; the prompt asked students to write to county leaders and present their opinion or argument about dogs being kept on leashes.

Piece #2 Letter to county leaders

Notice, specifically, the second paragraph of this formulaic piece of writing. The writing lacks idea development as the child's three reasons fall short of supporting his opinion about dogs being kept on leashes. The line most troubling to me was “the last thing is that the dog could kill a baby.” Where did he get this idea? Was it from hearing a report on the news?

Even as someone who has taught writing for well over a decade, I must admit that I struggle to help my child become a better writer. He doesn’t want lessons from mom, and he thinks my suggestions might contradict his teacher’s instruction. Accordingly, I will continue my quest to teach my two boys the power of effective argument by modeling effective argument myself and by requiring that they provide textual evidence to support the argument of having TVs in their rooms. (Secretly, I’m doubting they will find evidence to support this argument, and I’m okay with that.)

Renee

PS. I heard this NPR report on my way home from work a couple of weeks ago--check it out.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/03/144495483/why-a-teen-who-talks-back-may-have-a-bright-future?sc=fb&cc=fp Tweet