PHIL 310 “Philosophy and Contemporary Life” is an introduction to ethics course designed for pre-health-sciences majors. In a single semester, we move through the basics of moral philosophy, but also through more advanced applications to relevant ethical issues in medicine. The pacing of the course must necessarily move quickly, and students who fall behind on the core tenets of a theory might well never catch up on that philosophy.

To remedy this, in addition to written reading-guides, and a list of key concepts that students fill out over the semester, I have created a series of explainer videos. I aim for consistency across videos: for example, I use the same graph to determine which trait or principle defined goodness for that philosophy, and then a map of the agent-action-patient model and how that particular philosophy understood it. Students can access these videos from our class webpage at an time, and I encourage them to view each one as we arrive at each new module—not only before the readings, but after as well. Access to pre-viewings or pre-readings make these complex readings more accessible, and enable students to move beyond simply recalling information and into more complex levels of thinking like analysis and synthesis.

We begin class with a Nearpod that asks the students to tell me anonymously, "Which terms, principles, or other concepts would you like to work together to better understand?" Through these technologies, we use classtime for conversation, discussion, debate, and refining rather than lecture.

Inspired by the work of Alfie Kohn, Elise Naramore, and Susan Blum, I use grades as a way to:

• Give students an opportunity to reflect on their learning process

• Evaluate their progress along the way to a degree of mastery appropriate for the course level and curriculum 

• Consider what they want to get from the course as students, as humans, and as future professionals (not merely professional goals)

• Focus on areas for growth

I also use a learning progression model, which approaches grades as a gradual progression. An "Emerging" rating on critical analysis in students' first essay in Introduction to Philosophy, for example, may be sufficient for a high mark, but it will not be sufficient for a final essay in an upper-division course.

To that end, when students turn in essays, they also turn in this self-grading rubric. We then meet to discuss their work and their self-evaluation, generally built around the questions:

• What are you particularly proud of in this essay? Why?

• What were you aiming to improve from your previous work (in my class or anywhere)? How did you go about working toward that?

• What was your process for writing this essay? What went well? What hiccups did you encounter?

• What parts of this essay would you change if you had the time and/or knowledge? Which of those do you want to work on in your next essay? Why?

From these questions, I guide them toward practices, techniques, and samples or readings to help them improve on the issues they identify—or that I point out to them, if they missed something crucial). We then agree upon a grade that seems satisfactory to them based on their self-evaluation. Sometimes, I may bump their grade up; rarely do I ever need to adjust down, as students tend to be harsh critics of themselves.

Over the length of the semester, students in my introductory philosophy course build a paper that integrates metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Along the way, we consider the construction of argumentative theses, explications of philosophical sources, and the construction of thought experiments. Students engage with one another's essays as sources to cultivate a sense of written argument and critical thinking as a cooperative, communal conversation.

While there are hard due-dates on the process work, the essay due-dates are flexible; all students need to do is email me the new date they would like to turn in their essay (within reason). Students can also rewrite their essays after they receive feedback from our grading conferences.

Thought experiments work best when students see the ideas play out for themselves. Welcome to "State of Nature," a cooperative/competitive game designed to teach students about Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and John Rawls's theories of social contract. The class has been transported to a deserted island, and needs to escape by gathering enough resources to build a boat. But the rules, like social contracts, are malleable and only enforceable through consent.

After a class period of gameplay, students write short reflections, then come together in the next class to discuss what they learned. The conversations have ranged from Egoism/Altruism, to the nature of duty, to the aspirations of Virtue ethics, all bound up in discussion of Veils of Ignorance, principles of difference, and the original position.