The Four Question Method
I recently ran across a post from earlier in the summer about using the Four Question method in discussion of controversial issues in class. Gary Shiffman and Jonathan Bassett propose that discussions should revolve around four central questions and should proceed in sequential order. It’s a fascinating construct taken from their book From Story to Judgment: The Four Question Method for Teaching and Learning Social Studies. The pair note that a majority of college students reports being reluctant to discuss at least one controversial topic with each other or in class. They contend that discussions often fail today because students are too quick to jump to the last step in the process–trying to prove what we think about a topic without establishing the nature of the controversy first. The authors caution that rushing to make judgments before properly defining the controversy leads to polarization and to unproductive discussions. Instructors can aid the process by clarifying what questions they’re asking and imposing a strict sequence of questions.
The four questions are 1) What happened? 2) What were they thinking? 3) Why then and there? and 4) What do we think about that? Answers to the first question often come in the form of a story. Having students tell a story about what happened forces them to agree on a set of facts without injecting opinion into the discussion at the outset. For historical incidents, facts are usually well-established but organizing them into a coherent narrative can be a challenge for some students. The next step requires students to discern what the historical actors were thinking y interpreting their actions. At this stage, opinions can begin to diverge as differences of opinion can arise at what the evidence means.
The third stage forces students to question why certain events happened at a given time period and explore differences in existence at the time. For example, why did American colonists revolt but Canadian ones did not? A catch phrase Shiffman and Bassett emphasize at this stage is “factors, not actors.” The analysis continues to be dispassionate, asking only why events occurred, not whether they should have. Finally, students are asked in stage four to add their own input. But the key is helping students understand each other not convincing one another of their positions.
Social studies is full of controversial subjects that can lead to classroom discussions that ether lead nowhere because students are ill-prepared to even start it or devolve into shouting matches. As teachers, we need to teach students how to create valid arguments and engage in productive discussions. This four-step process seems like an ideal way to lead discussions that help students understand historical controversies rather than engaging in empty rhetoric.
