Discussing Controversial Issues:
Assessing Discussion

Whether and how discussion should be assessed is a controversial issue. Some teachers feel that assessing a discussion impinges on the discussion’s authenticity and reduces student ownership. Other teachers find that assessing students’ performance in discussion motivates students to use their skills and to prepare well.

However teachers feel about formal evaluation of discussion, there are benefits to spending time thinking about what success will look like and how growth will be encouraged. Students benefit when they receive constructive feedback about their discussion. Further, thinking about assessment/feedback forces teachers to consider seriously their goals and their criteria for success. In addition, thinking about criteria for success also prompts teachers to be sure that skills included in those criteria are taught to students. Finally, the need to observe students’ performance and the overall quality of the discussion can force teachers to take a less active role in the discussion. For many teachers, this is valuable, since over-dominance of the teacher is one reason that discussions fail.

Involving students in assessment is also productive. Providing time for students to reflect on the discussions and to evaluate their own and others’ participation helps them to internalize the criteria for success that you have established. Many teachers use the fishbowl strategy to engage students in assessment. In a fishbowl, students sit in two concentric circles. The students in the inner circle participate in the discussion, while the students in the outer circle observe and evaluate. Each student in the outer circle may be assigned to a specific student in the inner circle. Alternatively, students in the outer circle may be looking for particular aspects of the discussion. For example, one student might be assessing how many students participated in the discussion and the efforts that were made by discussants to draw non-participants into the conversation, while another student might be mapping how thoroughly the group explored ideas before moving to another topic or question. In either case, following the discussion, the observers provide feedback, either one-on-one or as a group. The two circles then change places, so that the observers become the discussants and vice versa.

Think about the goals you hope to achieve by engaging students in discussion of controversial issues. What indicators will tell you that you have achieved those goals? What hallmarks of successful discussion will you look for? Examine the two assessment tools below and think about how you might be able to adapt them to reflect your goals and criteria for success. (Note that both of these tools were developed to assess discussions in which students are using the public issues model.

Assessing Discussion of Public Issues: Performance Criteria
Substantive
Procedural


• Stating and identifying issues

• Using foundational knowledge

• Stipulating facts or definitions

• Arguing by analogy

• Supporting statements with explanation, reasons, or evidence

• Recognizing values or value conflicts

Positives

• Responding thoughtfully to the statements of others
• Challenging the accuracy, logic, relevance, or clarity of statements
• Summarizing points of agreement and disagreement
• Inviting contributions from others

Negatives

• Irrelevant, distracting statements
• Interrupting
• Monopolizing
• Personal attack


Assessing Discussion of Public Issues: Scoring Rubric

The overarching consideration in scoring is the degree to which a student’s contribution to the conversation clarifies the policy issue being considered and helps the group make progress toward resolution. Three elements of performance focus the assessment: whether or not the student has (a) presented accurate knowledge related to the policy issue, (b) employed skills for stating and pursuing related issues; and (c) engaged others in constructive dialogue. A student’s contribution to the conversation receives one of five scores:
Exemplary (5):
The student has accurately expressed foundational knowledge pertinent to an issue raised during the discussion, pursued an issue with an elaborated statement, and used stipulation, valuing, or analogy to advance the discussion. In addition, the student has engaged others in the discussion by inviting their comments or acknowledging their contributions. Further, the student has built upon a statement made by someone else or thoughtfully challenged the accuracy, clarity, relevance, or logic of a statement.

Effective (4):
The student has accurately expressed foundational knowledge pertinent to an issue raised during the discussion, pursued an issue with an elaborated statement and, in a civil manner, has built upon a statement made by someone else or thoughtfully challenged the accuracy, clarity, relevance, or logic, or a statement.

Adequate (3):
The student has accurately expressed foundational knowledge pertinent to an issue raised during the discussion and has pursued an issue by making a statement and elaborating the statement with an explanation, reasons, or evidence.

Minimal (2):
The student has stated a relevant factual, ethical, or definitional issue as a question or has accurately expressed foundational knowledge pertinent to an issue raised by someone else.

Unsatisfactory (1):
The student has failed to express any relevant foundational knowledge and has neither stated nor elaborated any issues.

Adapted from David E. Harris, “Assessing Discussion of Public Issues: A scoring Guide,” in Handbook on Teaching Social Issues, Ronald W. Evans, and David Warren Saxe, eds. (Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies).