Discussion structure

Topic: Should cities ban single-use plastics?

Audience: Grade 8 students (ages 13-14)

Duration: 50 minutes | Class size: 30 learners | Format: In-person | Assessment: Written argument paragraph

Learning goal: Learners will construct a reasoned position on a contested issue, using evidence and acknowledging opposing views.

Phase 1 – Individual thinking (0:00 – 0:08)

Learners read a one-page briefing sheet with three short perspectives: an environmental scientist, a small business owner, and a city councillor. They write their initial position (agree, disagree, or mixed) and two reasons. No discussion yet.

Phase 2 – Small group discussion (0:08 – 0:25)

Groups of 5. Each person shares their position in 60 seconds – no interruptions. After all five have spoken, the group identifies: one point most agreed on, one point that caused the most disagreement. Groups nominate a spokesperson before the timer starts.

Phase 3 – Full group sharing (0:25 – 0:40)

Spokesperson from each group shares their agreed point and disagreement point. Facilitator tracks on the board: two columns, “points of consensus” and “points of tension.” After all groups share, facilitator poses two synthesis questions to the full room.

Phase 4 – Individual written response (0:40 – 0:50)

Each learner writes one argument paragraph: a clear position, two supporting reasons, and one acknowledgement of a counterargument. Submitted at the end of class.

Discussion questions

• Who is most affected by a plastic ban – and does that change whether it is fair?
• Is inconvenience to individuals a good enough reason to allow environmental harm?
• If a ban hurts small businesses but helps the environment, how should a city weigh that trade-off?
• Can you hold a view on this issue without knowing the actual data on plastic pollution?
• What would change your mind?

Facilitator guidance

• During small groups: Circulate and listen. If a group has reached easy consensus in under 5 minutes, introduce a complication: “What would the small business owner say to that?”
• During full group sharing: Do not affirm positions as correct or incorrect – respond with “That’s one view – does anyone in the room see it differently?”
• When discussion drifts to anecdote: Redirect with “That’s an example – what principle does it point to?”
• Synthesis questions (0:38): “Looking at both columns on the board – what does the tension between them tell us about why this issue is genuinely hard?” and “Is there a position that could satisfy both columns partially?”

Participation strategy

• Individual writing in Phase 1 ensures every learner enters the group discussion with a position – removes the option of having nothing to say
• Timed 60-second shares in small groups prevent any one voice from dominating the small group phase
• Spokesperson role rotates – the person nominated cannot be the one who spoke most in the group
• Facilitator tracks which groups have not yet shared during full group phase and calls them explicitly

Synthesis plan

At 0:38, facilitator stops taking new points and turns to the board. Names two or three genuine tensions that emerged – not conclusions. Frames the written task as the learner’s own resolution of those tensions, not a summary of what the class said.

Assessment method

• Participation (observed): Facilitator notes which learners did not speak during full group sharing – follows up individually, not publicly
• Written paragraph: Assessed for three elements – a clear stated position, at least two reasons linked to the briefing sheet, and one genuine counterargument acknowledged (not dismissed)
• A paragraph that only restates one perspective from the briefing sheet without reasoning does not meet the standard

[…]