Roundtables

                                                                     Roundtables 

This is the discussion format I used for three years teaching a junior and senior elective on international relations at Sage Hill School. I took the Harkness model of student-centered discussions and modified it to fit the needs of this course specifically. It was the most rewarding activity I have ever conducted in class, and many of my students told me it was the best part of the course for them.

Three objectives:
1. Compel students to think deeply about a question that has significant meaning for the world today. I asked compelling questions that present opportunities for students to study both past and current case studies. For example, Under what conditions should the United States go to war? To what extent is it appropriate to compromise civil liberties in the interest of national security? To what extent does radical Islam present a threat to the United States?
2. Compel students to own the discussion. I gave them plenty of time and resources to prepare their perspective and then turned the entire discussion over to them. Students sat in a large oval so everyone could see everyone else's face (standard format for every class). Half of the final grade was based on how the group as a whole performed, so there was an incentive to conduct the conversation well.
3. Compel students to develop a high level of awareness in a group conversation. Each Roundtable was considered the "test" of the conversation skills we spent the entire year discussing and practicing in day-to-day classes. The students reflected on each Roundtable the class afterwards, and I provided them with my own detailed observations on the process and evaluated them as a group on the process of the conversation.


Context:
A key objective of the course was the development of specific dialogue skills. I was explicit with the students that the class was designed to have adult conversations about adult topics and that I considered them equals in the process of investigating and answering tough questions. I attempted to make the experience one that as closely equated everyday life as possible, so from the first class, we discussed what makes a good conversation and why, and then we put those principles into practice every day. The toughest past was de-programming them from raising their hands when they had a question, but after about five weeks, they got used to it. The fundamental principle throughout the year was that they spoke to each other first and me second; the class was theirs, not mine. This daily practice was important in prepping them to effectively own the Roundtables when they came around.


Time frame:
1. 3 85-minute classes in the library to prepare. Students read and took notes on resources I had prepared (mostly magazine, journal and newspaper articles) that helped them develop a perspective on the question.
2. 80 minutes of an 85-minute period for the Roundtable itself. I gave them 3-4 minutes to get ready, I opened the conversation by asking the question and then I sat back, listened and observed. I did not speak for the next 80 minutes.
3. 20-30 minutes of the next 85-minute period to review the Roundtable. I solicited the students' reflections on how the conversation went and why, and I presented a written analysis of the conversation based on my observations.

Evaluation:
1. The process of the conversation: Students (as a group) were evaluated on the extent to which they effectively responded to each other's questions, posed questions, listen to each other's responses, deferred to each other when two or more spoke at the same time, noticed and acknowledged body language and invited those who had not yet spoken into the conversation. This was 50% of the (group) Roundtable grade.
2. The content of the conversation: Students (as a group) were evaluated on the extent to which they utilized the most important points of the sources they read to prepare for the Roundtable. This was 50% of the (group) Roundtable grade.
3. The Roundtable Paper: Students (individually) were evaluated on their ability to answer the question effectively in a paper they wrote on their own, due one week after the Roundtable. They were expected to use the Roundtable conversation as a means of helping them write the paper.

Final analysis:
The work these students did, during the Roundtables and in their papers, was the best work students have ever done in any classes I have ever taught. The greatest part of it was watching them develop as a team in each Roundtable, seeking not only to make great contributions to the conversation, but seeking to bring out great contributions from each other and holding each other accountable to the standards we had established for the group. It was amazing to watch teenagers talk non-stop for 80 minutes about a question of intellectual merit. They continually raised their own standard for performance, both in content and process,  throughout the year because they saw the value of a class that was organized around their own individual and collective growth and in which they drove the discussions.