Using Discussion Cards to Balance Philosophical Conversations

Classroom discussion is our bread and butter as philosophy teachers. Here we model productive disagreement and collaborative problem solving while wrestling with philosophical arguments. We send our students home to read and write and then gather them together in our classrooms to discuss.

As both an undergraduate and a graduate student, I received explicit instruction in reading and writing philosophy. I mastered these skills through lots of practice and frequent feedback. Philosophical discussion, on the other hand, is a skill that philosophy students are often expected to learn by osmosis. I can recall receiving no direct instruction or feedback as a student on my discussion abilities.  I was never asked to reflect on whether my individual contributions to discussion were helping or hurting our collective philosophical work.

From a teacher’s point of view, we all know the pain of a class discussion that isn’t going so well. Someone is talking too much, many are not talking at all, and a few are speaking on topics only very loosely related to the topic at hand.

How can we help our students learn to discuss with the same rigor as they learn to read and write? I have found the frequent use of “discussion cards” to be helpful in my classroom. I developed this technique in my 25-student introduction to philosophy course.

One of the skills that is most foreign to students as they enter the college classroom is the notion of bringing their voice into conversation with others. To help my students develop these skills in writing and speaking, I have been inspired by the templates developed by Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein in their book “They Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing”.  While the majority of the book is focused on writing, my discussion card technique was inspired by the templates they offer in their chapter “I Take Your Point: Entering Class Discussions”.

The Assignment

I begin by setting forth the collective goal of a philosophical discussion. I then discuss, in general, how individuals can contribute to a productive discussion. I then explain and model the basic conversation moves represented by the cards. Finally, I lay out the rules of the discussion “game”:

1. Each student receives 4 cards, one of each type. Each card names a philosophical move and includes some possible templates.
2. Students receive full participation points if they play at least 3 of their 4 cardsduring the course of the discussion.
3. Students who play only 2 cards may write a third “discussion move” on their 3^rdcard and hand it to me at the end of the discussion for partial participation points.
4. Every student must speak once before anyone can play a second card. After that, students can play their cards whenever they want.

How does a student “play” a card during discussion? In a seminar room where students are arranged in a circle or semicircle, I have students play their cards by tossing them into the center of the room. This is dramatic and fun and makes it all feel more game-like. I have found that this little element of physicality and silliness reduces a bit of stress and helps students notice which of their classmates they should be attending to for insights once the frequent talkers have used up their cards.

I have also had success color-coding the cards by move. Agree cards are green, disagree cards are red, and question cards are yellow, for example. I have the students hold up the card up they want to play instead of raising their hand. This helps me direct traffic by indicating whether I will be inviting a question, or a challenge, or a supporting point.

One might also have students lay out their cards in front of them on the desk and then remove the cards from the line-up when they play them.

It is helpful to run one’s first discussion with the cards, perhaps on the first day of class, on a topic that isn’t connected to a text. Using the moves when discussing texts can be a next step, as the students need to get comfortable with the moves themselves before adding the author of a text as another person participating in the conversation.

The Cards

AGREE/DISAGREE

• I really liked the point [name] made earlier when they said that ____. I agree because ____.
• I take your point, [name], that ______. Still, ______.

METACOMMENTARY

• Though [name] and [name] seem to be at odds about ______, they may actually not be that far apart.
• So far we have been talking about _____. But isn’t the real issue here _____?

QUESTION/ANSWER/CLARIFY

• I don’t understand what you mean by ________. Could you please clarify?

The range of moves represented on cards can, of course, be expanded. It has worked best for me to begin with just a few moves and then introduce new moves/cards throughout the course, as we learn together the different types of moves philosophers make. Dr. Rebecca Scott at Harper College has developed a poster of 16 discussion moves that she hangs in her classroom. The 16 moves include “reveal an unstated assumption”, “introduce a hypothetical scenario or thought experiment”, and “make a connection between the contributions of two different people.”

As you develop a set of cards that works well for you and your students, consider the level of the class and the previous exposure they have had to philosophical discussion. Whatever moves you use, they will need explaining and modeling from you before you put them into practice. You may choose to simply name the move on the card, as the poster does, or provide a template for how the student might actually word their intervention. Those templates can feel restrictive – students may want to make their move with their own language – but I have found them helpful especially during the first half of the semester in introductory classes. Many students struggle to find the language to bring their ideas into conversation with the ideas of others so the templates can help provide some modicum of safety in participating and help them begin to develop the use of more academic language.

Are the cards necessary? Perhaps hanging a poster in the classroom is sufficient. Then the moves are always present for all involved to reference easily. One advantage I have found to having physical cards is that it adds an element of gamification. Some students are motivated by needing to “play all their cards”, and the act of manipulating something physical can make one’s intervention into a verbal space feel more concrete. I see benefits to both approaches.

Outcomes

Formalizing the discussion in this way was a bit awkward at first. The frequent talkers got uncomfortable when their cards ran out and there were some awkward silences waiting for the more reticent students to speak. However, after a bit of practice, my students really got the hang of this, enjoyed the “game”, and reaped the benefits.

Using the cards slowed down the discussion and encouraged students to clarify the content and purpose of their comments. This made the overall discussion more productive, and provided more entry points for students who sometimes feel lost or uncertain in a faster paced, disorganized discussion. The templates on the cards also provided structure for students who needed additional help organizing their thoughts or speaking up.

There is a downside to this strategy. Slowing down and formalizing who speaks when can reduce the sense of freedom and spontaneity that comes in a good class discussion. Some students get frustrated by the fact that they have to wait their turn, or that they can only participate in prescribed ways. However, patiently working through this struggle as a class pays off in the end and can be managed by adjusting the rules depending on the group, expanding the available moves, and/or including a wild card or two in everyone’s deck.

Overall, using discussion cards has increased the sense of “being in this together” in my classroom and markedly improved equal participation among my students. It has increased the productivity and focus of class discussions and helped me better perceive which students might need individual help improving their discussion skills. Allowing students to participate in different ways has also helped them feel more comfortable contributing and managing their own discussions. More students are speaking more productively, they are listening to one another more effectively, and they are engaging one another’s ideas, rather than just directing their comments and questions to me.

Discussion Cards during a Pandemic

For those of us teaching online this semester, I imagine several ways to adapt this technique for online learning. In synchronous course meetings, one might have students create their own set of color-coded cards and then hold up a card when they want to speak.  Or, you might have them name the move they want to make in the chat. Instead of writing “Hand” to be called on, they might write “Agree” or “Question” as a way of signaling the specific intervention they want to make and waiting to be called on. In asynchronous discussion forums or via group annotation software, one might ask students to make a specific number of different moves in a given conversation. Similarly, in a socially-distant classroom, one might have students make their own set of color-coded cards that only they touch, but that they can hold up to signal the move they want to make.

Acknowledgements

After my presentation on this topic at the AAPT-APA Teaching Hub at the 2020 Eastern Division Meeting, I was introduced to the work of other scholars who are working on similar techniques. For example, see “Using Metacognition to Improve Classroom Discussions,” presented by Rebecca Scott (Harper College), Ann Cahill (Elon University), and Claire Lockard (Loyola University Chicago) at the AAPT-APA Teaching Hub at the 2020 Central Division Meeting.

Kaija Mortensen

Kaija Mortensen is Associate Professor and Chair of the Philosophy Department at Randolph College. Dr. Mortensen teaches logic, epistemology, and philosophy of mind, and has published articles on intuitions, experimental philosophy, and knowledge how. In addition, she coordinates an ethics bowl team, a small philosophy for children program, and Randolph College’s Life More Abundant first year seminar.