The Thrashout

The Four Corners structure is great for debating issues where there are more than 2 clear choices. Perhaps you want students to decide on their level of agreement on an issue, or you want them to consider multiple causes behind a historical event. To implement a four corners thrashout, post labels in each of the four corners of the classroom defining the options from which students can choose. For example, if you want students to decide on their level of agreement, the four labels might be “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” Or say you want them to consider what was the biggest driver behind World War I, your labels would be the various causes of the war: “militarism,” “alliances,” “nationalism,” and “imperialism.” Once you have presented students with a debate question or statement, have them move to the corner which best matches their stance. Then allow the newly formed groups to discuss and prepare their arguments in defense of their position. Remind them that they need to bring in supporting evidence. After a few minutes of prep, start the debate, by allowing volunteers from each team to argue on behalf of their team. Try to get multiple students from each group to speak. Further, encourage students to change corners if they have been persuaded that one of the other options is better than their original choice.

Tag team debates work for both binary issues as well as multisided issues. One benefit of Tag Team is that it leads to wide-scale participation. To implement, present students with the debate question or statement, and allow them to form teams based on their position. Give the groups time to discuss and plan their arguments. Remind them that they need supporting evidence. When you are ready to commence the debate, have the various team stand, facing the opposing team(s). Rather than going back-and-forth, each team will present their case in full before moving on to the next team. Each team needs to nominate its first speaker, who will then step out in front of the group. That speaker will have one minute to make their case. Before their minute is up, they must tag another team member to speak next, and so forth. A team member who would like to speak can raise his or her hand to be tagged. No member can be tagged twice. You can either continue until all group members have spoken, or you can impose an overall time limit for each team.

This is more of a deliberation than a debate, the advantage of this approach is students really have an opportunity to listen and consider the position of those that feel different from them. It’s not about winning, but growing in their understanding. This structure works best for binary questions or statements (i.e., was America justified in going to war with Mexico?). Set up the classroom so there is an inner circle and an outer circle. Once students have decided their stance on the issue have all the students who are on one side of the issue take seats in the inner circle, and the students who hold the opposite position take seats in the outer circle. The inner circle is then given 5-10 minutes to discuss their position on the issue. They can explain why they hold this position with reasoning and evidence, and they can ask and answer each others questions. The goal is to really expand and clarify their position. During this time, the outer circle listens and takes notes. You may even want to prepare some type of note-taking guide. The goal for the outer circle is to have them really listen to what the opposing side has to say and to expand their own thinking on the issue. At the end of the designated time, have the two sides change seats from outer to inner circle and vice versa, then repeat the process.

This is a small group discussion, which gets all students speaking. It is more of a deliberation than a debate, and the end goal is for students to reach a consensus, or at very least, understand and be able to articulate the opposing side’s position. Students start by work in like-minded pairs to represent one side of an issue. Once the pairs have had a chance to prepare their position, they then come together with another pair who represent the opposing side. Now working in teams of four, one pair presents their thinking while the other pair listens. Next, the listening pairs is tasked with repeating back their understanding of what they just heard. They may also ask clarification questions. The first pair then has a chance to clarify and expand on their position. When the first team feels that the second team fully understands their standpoint, the second pair shares their position, and the process is repeated. Once both pairs have presented the team of four then puts their energy into trying to reach a consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, then the team clarifies where their difference lie.