Learning Activities

Examples of learning activities that support the strategies in phase 2:

“Speech writing”: Students write a speech for someone who does not necessarily hold the same view points as they do. They research this view point. What would this person say, and why? What arguments would this person use? A variation of “Speech writing” is “Letter writing” where students write a letter as a historical figure/scientist/thinker/researcher to another historical figure (for example someone with an opposing opinion; judges and lawyers in historical cases, or letters between Darwin and Hawking). Other variations could include a twitter or email conversation.

Supports: Structuring interaction with other perspectives, dispelling illusion of explanatory depth

“Affective response”: Students think of and write down how a certain aspect of the material or learning process made them feel. This can be a response on many levels; focused on content (“I feel angry reading Hegel because his I think his thoughts are racist”), on metacognitive skills (“I feel worried because I don’t understand Hegel’s theory”) or collaborative processes (“I feel frustrated that I have to do this assignment on Hegel with someone whose approach is very different”).

Students do not necessarily have to share, but giving them a moment to focus on their affective response gives them the opportunity to examine what underlies their perspective.

Supports: Integrative conflict management

“Devil’s advocate”: Students roleplay in duo’s taking different viewpoints. This activity can be prompted by a triggering statement. Students take some time to research both viewpoints.

Supports: Dispelling illusion of explanatory depth, structuring interaction with other perspectives.

“Buzz duos”: Students explore each other’s viewpoint on a statement or dilemma. This activity can be used at the start of a lecture. At the end of the lecture students can be asked if, based on new insights and information received during the lecture, their viewpoints have been adjusted in some way. They can either discuss this with the same student as in the beginning of the lecture, or write it down individually.

Supports: Dispelling illusion of explanatory depth

“Predict, Observe, Explain”: This activity is especially useful in settings where students perform tests or experiments. Students are asked to predict what they think will happen, observe the actual experiment and explain the difference with the prediction: doing this in small collaborative groups has proven to increase students understanding and dispelling the illusion of explanatory depth (Cinici, Sözbilir, and Demir 2011).

Supports: Dispelling illusion of explanatory depth

“Pro/Con grids”: Students try to think of as much pros or cons to a statement, procedure, intervention they can think of, then swap with a neighbour and discuss each other’s grids, asking each other questions like “What did you think before making this grid? What do you think now? What specifically, if anything, changed your mind?”

Supports: Structuring interaction with other perspectives

“Speed date”: This activity can used in different scenarios where it is useful for students to acquaint themselves a lot of perspectives in a short timeframe. An example would be having students exchange their approaches to a math problem in duos. Like in speed dating, they have to finish explaining their solutions within a few minutes. After the allotted time, an alarm goes off, and students exchange partners. This process repeats itself a couple of times, allowing students to hear many approaches to the same problem. This exercise can also be used to exchange opinions on a statement, or personal experiences.

Supports: Structuring interaction with other perspectives, creating “in between” spaces for interaction

“Questions only”: Building upon the learning activity “From judgement to question”, this activity is a discussion where only questions are allowed (also called a Quescussion). Students correct each other when a statement is given by yelling out “statement”. Exploring a theme in this way will force students to refrain from judgement. This is especially useful for controversial subjects that can have a polarizing effect in groups.

Supports: Creating “in between” spaces for interaction

“Idea line up”: Students visually line up (they can also stand in a “U” shape, with the middle of the U being neutral and the ends the extremes) themselves according to their opinion on a statement, for example from “I agree fully” to “I don’t agree at all”, or “I have experienced this in some form”, or “I have never heard of this”. They then have the opportunity to have a dialogue with a student who is standing across the room from them.

Supports: Structuring interaction with other perspectives, creating “in between” spaces for interaction

“Debate”: Student groups get assigned a side in a debate that does not necessarily match with their own point of view. Together, they research their allotted side of the debate. This exercise can be preceded by having students creating a “Pro/Con grid”. When organising a debate, it can also be useful to go over the agreed ground rules for interaction again with the group.

Supports: Structuring interaction with other perspectives, dispelling the illusion of explanatory depth

“Rotating chair”: Contrary to what the name suggests, students actually stay in their seats during this discussion activity, making the exercise suitable for large groups. When a student wishes to participate in the discussion, they must raise their hand. The student who is speaking calls on the next speaker. It cannot be the same speaker as three turns before. The student who has been called upon briefly summarizes what the previous student has said before developing the idea further.

Supports: Structuring interaction with other perspectives