Grade Levels: 9-12
Description:
This class activity was developed in 1972 at James Madison Memorial High School in Madison, Wisconsin as a required social studies course for 11th grade to accomplish these goals:
- to more fully engage students in social studies
- to promote development of an individual's critical thinking skills
- to help pupils learn about democratic citizenship through discussion of current public policy issues.
Using the Harvard Public Issues conceptual framework, the course has the students focus on asking three specific types of questions (factual, definitional and value-oriented) to systematize their discussion of larger public policy questions.
During the semester the students spend the first three weeks learning and practicing the discussion model and then studying five major topics. Central to the class are "scored discussions" which are intended to be a forum to consider dimensions of and possible resolutions to controversial public policy issues selected by the teachers. These topics change from year to year because the instructors seek to select currently significant, local, state or national issues of a political, social or moral nature. ( National Issues Forum in the Classroom and Foreign Policy Association are resources for possible issue materials.)
Pupils learn about the general policy topic during each unit (e.g. physician-assisted suicide) and then use the scored discussions to apply their knowledge to a more specific issue (e.g. Should the state legislature legalize physician-assisted suicide?). Each student's development of discussion skills, particularly taking a position and defending it with cited evidence, is central to scored discussions and to the course's goals.
Assessment to show evidence of student achievement uses a variety of forms:
- scored discussion written worksheets
- oral performances during a scored discussion
- a combination essay/objective test for each unit
- individual and cooperative unit activities
- a semester-ending "advocacy speech" in which the student orally defends a pro or con position on a controversial public issue before the entire class. This advocacy speech is weighted heavily in the individual's final grade because the teacher's believe that this assessment indicates the student's level of critical thinking and discussion skills at the end of the course.
Performance Standards for Political Science and Citizenship from the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards for Social Studies:
C.12.1. Identify the sources, evaluate the justification and analyze the implications of certain rights and responsibilities of citizens.
C.12.3. Trace how legal interpretations of liberty, equality, justice and power, as identified in the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other United States Constitutional Amendments have changed and evolved over time.
C.12.8. Locate, organize, analyze and use information from various sources to understand an issue of public concern, take a position and communicate the position.
C.12.9. Identify and evaluate the means through which advocates influence public policy.
C.12.10. Identify ways people may participate effectively in community affairs and the political process.
C.12.11. Evaluate the ways in which public opinion can be used to influence and shape public policy.
In order to understand how this course tries to develop the critical thinking and discussion skills of students, read these sample lessons and the "scored discussion" student worksheet.
Sample lessons - Introductory Unit:
The "Issues and Values" lesson is designed to get the students, at the beginning of the course, to make an ethical judgment about a difficult situation, to orally present the decision and rationale to their classmates and to answer questions about and defend their judgment. This cooperative activity requires the students to engage in the critical thinking and discussion skills that are used throughout the entire semester. See Issues and Values
The "Six-Hat," (from the idea in SIX THINKING HATS by Edward deBono, revised in 1999, available from Little, Brown, Inc.) lesson is used in preparation for the practice "scored discussion" on gambling that takes place in the introductory unit.
The public issue revolves around material selected from the National Issues Forum in the Classroom entitled "Gambling: Is It a Problem?" This cooperative activity requires the students to engage in the critical thinking and discussion skills that are used throughout the entire semester as well as to prepare for the initial "scored discussion" of the course. See Six-Hat Lesson (to introduce the "Gambling" topic for the practice scored discussion)
Scored discussion worksheet:
During each course unit the students complete a scored discussion worksheet in preparation for their oral assessment on a particular public policy issue. This worksheet indicates the type of questions we require the pupils to consider while researching each topic as well as the oral skills. See Student Discussion Skills that we assess during the scored discussions. See also American Experience III Scored Discussion Sheet.
Issues and Values
Introduction: (Adapted from the introduction to ETHICS game instructions, 1971)
Ethics is very much a part of our daily experience. In a changing world, we are no longer content to let authority figures dictate our ideas of right and wrong. Instead, there is a need to find ways of judging these things for ourselves.
Ethics can be defined as a system of principles that deals with the values of human conduct. To say that a given action is morally good or bad is to make an ethical judgment. To distinguish the good or bad intentions behind the action is also an exercise in ethical judgment. Each of these situations involves an attempt to define right and wrong in ways that make sense to us. Citizens in society need to sharpen their moral perceptions to the point where they can make decisions that promote a sense of the "good for society".
In this activity you will be projected into situations that make you face difficult decisions. As individuals and as a group you will need to choose a course of action - defend it or modify it - and, finally, face the judgment of your peers. You will explore your own concepts of right and wrong and those of other individuals.
Instructions for the activity:
- Divide the class into four person teams. One team member will be responsible for the oral presentation of the group's decision on its assigned ethical situation, one team member will be responsible for answering the questions or criticisms of the group's position on its assigned ethical situation, one team member will be responsible for questioning or critiquing other group's presentations and one team member will be responsible for assigning an ethical score to other groups based upon the her/his team's recommendations.
- Assign each group one of the ethical situations to discuss and decide. Tell the team that the situation must be accepted exactly as given - without trying to add to it, subtract from it, or change it in any way. The group members should discuss the values that they believe are important to consider in making their decision. The individuals' set of ethics should be their guide. Handout the "value sheet" and suggest that this would be a source of typical values that are considered when evaluating public policy situations. In the group's presentation of its decision, the team member should refer to specific "values" that are crucial to deciding the "best" course of action. The group will have five to seven minutes to consider and decide what course of action to take and why.
- The presentation of each ethical situation will follow this pattern:
- An "advocate" will read the situation and action options, announce the group's choice of actions and the reasons/values which support the choice (2 minutes).
- The "questioners/critiquers" for each group will react to the group's choice and rationale (1 minute).
- The group will consult to determine answers/responses to the questioners/critiquers (1 minute).
- The "responder" will react to the questions/critiques and try to justify the group's final decision (1 minute).
- The group's grade on this activity will be determined by a combination of teacher score and class score.
- Each teacher should assign a score of from 1 to 10 for each group based upon the quality of the team's oral presentation by the "advocate" and "responder". A higher score should be given to a team that specifically refers to "values" in its presentation and that carefully and effectively explains the connection between the choice of action and the selected value(s).
- The team's "evaluator" should complete the score sheet and assign an "ethical quotient" for the other teams. Scoring is done on a scale ranging from 0 through 10 with 0 representing an absolute disapproval of the ethical decision that was made and 10 representing absolute agreement with the ethical decision that was made. A score of 5 is used when the "evaluator's" group is uncertain of its opinion or indifferent to the decision. A basic reason for the rating must also be given to justify the grade. In scoring, both the values citied and the reality of the decision must be considered. The "evaluator" must consider not only how ethical a decision is but also whether that decision would be made in "real" life. This is why it is important to listen carefully to the "advocate's" reasons for the decision. The "evaluator" should be convinced of the "rightness" of the decision as well as the "sincerity" of the group.
- Collect the score sheets and ethical situation sheets at the conclusion of class.
- Model of group score sheet:
Group Ethical Quotient
| Evaluator's Name |
Situation # |
EQ Score |
| |
1 |
|
| |
2 |
|
| |
3 |
|
| |
4 |
|
| |
5 |
|
| |
6 |
|
| |
7 |
|
Six-Hat Lesson to introduce the "Gambling" topic for the practice scored discussion
- Assign the gambling packet to be read by the students in the context of the public policy question, "Should the Wisconsin legislature legalize privately-owed gambling casinos?
- The day before this lesson break the class into five groups with each wearing real or imagined colored hats. The teacher wears the sixth (blue) hat symbolizing the control/direction that you have over the thinking process (consider using inexpensive colored party hats to spice up the proceedings). As the students walk into class give each one a slip of paper which has on it: a) the color of their hat and b) the focus he/she should take when reviewing the reading for a presentation in class the next day. The slips of paper should include the following information:
- White Hats: Your responsibility is to review the gambling reading tonight and select the facts that an individual should know in order to take a thoughtful position on the public policy issue. You will tell these facts to the class tomorrow.
- Red Hats: Your responsibility is to review the gambling reading tonight and select the emotions or feelings, yours or others, that are involved in taking a position on the public policy issue. You will tell these emotions and feelings to the class tomorrow.
- Yellow Hats: Your responsibility is to review the gambling reading tonight. Analyze the impact of gambling casinos on society and describe the logical, negative consequences of or the negative events that do or would occur if privately owned gambling casinos were legalized. You will tell these negative consequences or events to the class tomorrow.
- Black Hats: Your responsibility is to review the gambling reading tonight. Analyze the impact of gambling casinos on society and describe the logical, positive consequences of or the positive events that do or would occur if privately owned gambling casinos were legalized. You will tell these positive consequences or events to the class tomorrow.
- Green Hats: Your responsibility is to review the gambling reading tonight. Setting aside the facts and emotions connected to the public policy issue, you are to creatively think about the question. Try to think of different ways that an individual might look at this question or speculate about future consequences of legalized gambling. What are some ways to think of this problem that no one has ever thought of before? What are some possible future consequences of legalizing gambling? You will tell the class your thoughts tomorrow.
- At the beginning of class, if you are going to use them, give each student the proper colored party hat. Explain to the group that the purpose of this class is to begin looking at the gambling issue from a variety of perspectives. Have each group/individual tell the class the results of their reading the document from their perspective. At the conclusion of the period either a) have the class as a whole attempt to make some overall conclusions that might help each individual decide the public policy question for themselves or b) have each individual write a short paragraph in their notebooks which indicates how the reports from these different perspectives impacted on their thoughts about the public policy question.
- Some thoughts/themes that you might try to get into the day's lesson are:
- The distinction between "gaming" and "gambling" - focus on the connotations of the words and their relationship to Choices 1, 2, or 3
- The general history of gaming/gambling ("waves")
- 1612 - 1840 the impact on the colonies, colleges; connection to the government; impact of financial need
- 1860 - 1910 impact of the Civil War and connection to the government; impact of financial need
- 1931 - present role of the 1987 S.C. decision on Native American gaming and impetus to gambling's rise as entertainment
- Pivotal questions to be asked about gambling
- Should gambling be legalized? What are the public's attitudes toward gambling?
- What should be done to reduce compulsive gambling? What are the statistics on teen and adult compulsive gambling?
- Does gambling attract crime? What is the impact of crowds on crime?
- Does gambling help local economics? What is the impact of gambling on robust versus weak economies?
- What are the public's options in regard to gambling?
- Choice 1: gambling is an American past time which should not be excessively regulated; called gaming
- Choice 2: gambling can be dangerous and therefore it should be strictly controlled and regulated; called gambling
- Choice 3: gambling is a destructive force in society causing crime, corruption, and compulsive gambling; a threat to society's moral fiber; called gambling
Suggested comments that groups should make for the "six hat" lesson and order of presentation
- Red hats: emotions or feelings that are involved in taking a position on legalizing private casinos
- fun/enjoyment
- excitement/riskiness/sense of danger
- sense of freedom
- sense of competitiveness
- immorality
- apprehension/anxiety/fear
- quilt
- resignation
- ambivalence
- Yellow hats: logical, negative consequences or events to happen if private casinos are legal
- creates more compulsive gamblers
- promotes organized crime/increase crime rates
- encourages individuals to spend non-discretionary income therefore bankruptcies
- promotes social problems generally and undermines essential American values, i.e., work ethic
- steals business from legitimate retail and recreation outlets
- promotes political and governmental corruption
- Black hats: logical, positive consequences or events to happen if private casinos are legal
- promotes economic growth in communities, i.e., jobs
- crucial and popular way for non-profit organizations to raise revenue for needed projects
- valuable source of government revenue for public projects
- provides recreation for people's leisure time as "gaming" which animates sports, art, music and business
- helps Native Americans, the nation's more disadvantaged citizens
- Yellow hats: provide facts that an individual should know before he/she decides to legalize casinos
- What is the history of gambling in the United States?
- How many people gamble? What type of people gamble? How much is spent on gambling?
- Who are compulsive gamblers? How much/how many increase in compulsive gambling?
- How have casinos encouraged/discouraged irresponsible gambling?
- What is public opinion on the issue of legalizing/controlling private gambling casinos?
- How much has Native American gambling casinos grown? How has gambling revenue helped/harmed Native Americans?
- How much has casino gambling helped local economies i.e., job?
- How much is crime related to casino gambling? What type of crime is related to gambling?
- How does and how much does government revenue benefit from gambling?
- How does and how much does gambling help non-profit fundraising?
- How is casino gambling related to government corruption? How much corruption has gambling caused?
- How much and how do states currently regulate casino gambling?
- Green hats: provide alternative ways for an individual to look at casino gambling that people do not typically think about.
- What is the public policy question:
- What is an important definitional question for this discussion? (1):
What is a definition that answers this question? (1):
Using this definition, how would you answer the policy question? Why? (2):
- What is an important factual question for this discussion?
(1):
What are two quotations that provide expert opinion or objective information that answers this factual question?
Answer 1 (2):
Source (author, title of article, book, magazine or newspaper, date) (1):
Answer 2 (2):
Source (author, title of article, book, magazine or newspaper, date) (1):
- What is an important value issue for this discussion? (1):
What value supports a yes answer to this question? (1)
What value supports a noanswer to this question? (1):
I believe the YES NO value (circle one) is the most important. (1)
Why do you think that value is more important than the other value? (2):
- I SUPPORT / OPPOSE (circle one) the public policy question. (1)
What is the best argument you can give to support your position? (2):
What quotation provides expert opinion or objective information supporting this argument? (2):
Source (author, title of article, book, magazine or newspaper, date)? (1):
- What is the best argument an individual could make against your position? (1):
What quotation provides expert opinion or objective information supporting this argument? (2):
Source (author, title of article, book, magazine or newspaper, date)? (1):
Positive
- Making a relevant comment (1)
- Using a probing question to elicit more information or to get someone involved in the discussion (1)
- Using evidence to support a statement (1)
- Challenging the relevancy of a person's comment or use of evidence (1) or statement (2)
- Using evidence from personally gathered sources to support a statement (2)
- Summarizing the discussion (2)
- Recognizing a contradiction in someone's position (2)
- Making a stipulation (2)
- Making a concession (2)
- Making a clear transition to a relevant issue (3)
- Identifying and explaining a value conflict (3)
- Stating and explaining an appropriate analogy (3)
Negative
- Making an irrelevant comment (10
- Not paying attention (1)
- Interrupting another to prevent her/him from participating (2)
- Lack of or inappropriate use of evidence when making a factual statement (2)
- Monopolizing/dominating a discussion so as to prevent others from participating (3)
- Making a personal attack (4)
Name Hour
Overall evaluation:
- Scored discussion sheet (27)
- Personal discussion (18)
- Group discussion (5)
- Total Points (50)
Grade curve:
- A = 45 +
- B = 40 - 44
- C = 35 - 39
- D = 30 - 34
- F = 0 - 29
Contact: Michael George or phone 608/266-2364
For questions about this information, contact Beth E. Ratway (608) 266-2207
Last updated on 2/25/2008 1:42:52 PM
Home
About Us