Abstract
Effective class discussions are often frustrated by dual challenges: lack of participation and poor quality of contribution. To address both challenges, we describe an experiential exercise for managing classroom discussion that is based on an adaptation of a classic creativity model. It motivates student participation by generating structured controversy while also enhancing the quality of their contribution by promoting perspective taking. Multiple instructors have used the exercise in a variety of undergraduate and graduate business courses, both face-to-face and online, to successfully increase both the quantity and quality of student participation in and contribution to class discussion. The exercise is suitable for any course in which class discussion is critical to learning goals.
Pedagogical scholarship frequently points to class discussion as an effective way to facilitate student learning, and the topic has spawned an abundant literature, including Stanfield (1997), Brookfield and Preskill (1999), and Baker et al. (2002). Bonwell and Eison (1991, p. iii) describe class discussion as a form of active learning that engages students by requiring them to participate in meaningful learning activities (“. . . more than just listen . . . they must read, write, discuss or be involved in solving problems”) and to think about what they are doing (“. . . engage in higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation”). Scholars link class discussion to a host of beneficial learning outcomes, including appreciation for diverse perspectives, collaboration, communication, critical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving (Murphy et al., 2009; Sibold et al., 2017). It is recommended as a means to help learners achieve higher levels of cognitive skills (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, 1956).
There can be significant obstacles to achieving effective class discussions. Poor quality of contribution has been blamed on deficient critical thinking, collaboration, and communication skills on the part of the students as well as inadequate facilitation skills on the part of the instructor. However, “. . . it is important to note that no peer-reviewed publication suggests that these [obstacles] should prohibit the use of discussion-based approaches” which can “. . . be mitigated by effective facilitation” (Sibold et al., 2017, p. 3).
In this article, we introduce the HatPack, an exercise designed to enhance class discussion of course materials that is readily adapted and scaled by instructors as well as engaging and core-competency building for students. The term “HatPack” comes from the variation of de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats creativity method used in the exercise (de Bono, 1999). When used alone, the term refers to the exercise. The term is also used to refer to specific elements of the exercise (e.g., HatPack team, HatPack presentation). While we have found that the use of the HatPack has spillover effects benefiting all discussions that can take place in a given class session (i.e., discussions taking place during lecture, in small group activities), the exercise described is focused on class discussion of required course materials.
In brief, HatPack teams (of up to six students) are assigned to hold a panel discussion on required course material(s) in front of the entire class, which has also been assigned the same material(s). Each member of the HatPack team is responsible for developing and advocating a unique perspective on the same course material(s) based on one of de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats. Following the HatPack team’s panel discussion, the entire class joins the discussion in a question and answer (Q&A) session. The exercise concludes with an instructor-led debrief.
Multiple instructors have used this exercise in the classroom for over 5 years to support discussions of required course materials (including articles, cases, and videos). It originated in a graduate-level Business and Society course and has been used in MBA and undergraduate management and marketing courses such as Business Foundations and Sustainable Tourism in both the United States and Europe. The exercise is easily adapted to serve as a prompt for threaded discussion in online asynchronous courses.
Conceptual Foundations
Structured academic controversy (SAC) is the basis of the HatPack. SAC is a teaching strategy in which students actively engage issues to identify and understand alternative views (Karlin & Ozogul, 2018). It is recommended as an effective way to prompt high-quality class discussion (Johnson & Johnson, 1993). Debate is a common form of SAC (Jacobs, 2010) as is the “devil’s advocate” approach (Davis, 2013). SAC involves a basic process in which participants (individually and/or in groups) develop and advocate specific positions on an issue and engage fellow participants holding alternative positions to generate shared appreciation for differing viewpoints on the same issue (Johnson et al., 1996; Steiner et al., 2008).
The controversy needed for the HatPack is generated through the use of a variation of de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats creativity model (de Bono, 1999). De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats model is used in business for creativity, problem-solving, and decision-making and in education for developing critical thinking skills (Kivunja, 2015). At the center of de Bono’s model are the eponymous “six thinking hats,” a metaphor where different hat colors represent distinct types of thinking intended to produce unique perspectives. Hat colors are listed in Column 1 of Table 1, and the types of thinking they represent are found in Column 2.
Hats, Perspectives, Developmental Questions, and Time Allotted in Panel Discussion.
Source. The perspective column is adapted directly from de Bono (1999). The questions column reflects adaptations from de Bono (1999) and Walker (n.d.). Another source for a more detailed set of questions and discussion prompts for each hat is Kivunja (2015).
Note. This table is incorporated into student instructions for both classroom and online versions of the exercise.
In addition to responsibility for representing its perspective, the blue hat has additional administrative responsibilities each time the HatPack is run. After getting the HatPack started by introducing the “real” issue(s) in the material (2 minutes), the blue hat quickly introduces the hats (team members and which hat they represent) (1 minute) and helps them manage their time. After all hats have shared their perspectives, the blue hat summarizes (2 minutes) and conducts a question and answer session both within the HatPack team and with the entire class (5 minutes).
De Bono originally recommended that the hats be used one at a time or sequentially either individually or by groups for the purpose of “getting [people in meetings] to think differently about the matter at hand” (de Bono, 1999, p. xi) as they engaged in consensus-building and problem-solving. In this exercise, however, the hats are used all at once for perspective taking. Our variation on the de Bono model generates rich discussion among students in which multiple viewpoints are openly shared and directly compared to produce an engaging environment for robust class discussion of course materials as viewpoints diverge and converge.
Perspective taking, the outcome sought from the variation of de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats used in the HatPack, is defined as the cognitive ability to take on a point of view different from your own (Longmire & Harrison, 2018). The concept originated in developmental psychology (Kegan, 1982; Kohlberg, 1969). It is considered a key skill for efficient social interaction (Cole & Millett, 2019).
Perspective taking occurs in the HatPack when students are assigned to develop and advocate specific points of view defined by de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats. These views are not only possibly different from the students’ own, but students are also exposed to alternative views (assigned to others) they might never have considered. Perspective taking leads to controversy in the best possible meaning of the term, described by Dearden (1981, p. 38) as an issue on which “contrary views can be held [. . .] without those views being contrary to reason.” All that is necessary for the controversy required to fuel this exercise is that individuals have the same information about an issue but interpret it differently or base their views on different subsets of the available information (Oulton et al., 2004).
Learning Objectives
By participating in the exercise, students will be able to:
Identify and describe alternative viewpoints on an issue
Develop and support a unique (to the student) perspective on an issue
Communicate a position on an issue about which others hold different and possibly contrary positions
Overview of Instructions for Conducting the Exercise
The exercise is a structured discussion of course materials (required readings, videos, or cases) that first involves a discussion among a subset of students in front of the other students and is later extended to include the entire class. It can be run once or multiple times in a class session or semester. The timing for each run depends on the size of the HatPack team. In each run, the HatPack team assigned to one or more of the required course materials holds a panel discussion in front of the other students in the class who are assigned the same materials. Under the direction of the HatPack team’s blue hat, each member of the team contributes their assigned perspective (one of de Bono’s thinking hats) on the course material(s) to the panel discussion. Following the panel, the discussion expands to the other students in the class in a Q&A session where they are invited to comment on the panel’s discussion or to ask questions of the panel or individual members of the HatPack. The exercise concludes with the instructor’s debrief.
Detailed guidelines for instructors (including timing) are contained in Appendix A. Appendix B is a sample handout of student instructions; it is also available as supplemental material, available online. Debriefing questions and commentary organized by exercise learning objectives are found in Appendix C. How to use the exercise for threaded discussions in synchronous online courses is the subject of Appendix D. An example of student responses to the exercise is shared in Appendix E.
Debriefing the HatPack
Debrief begins with the instructor addressing questions to students in the HatPack team about their individual and group experience in terms of the three learning objectives related specifically to the exercise. One or more of the following questions (depending on the time available and instructor preference) have been used successfully. Appendix C organizes these questions by learning objective and includes commentary on each question based on our experience.
Which hat best represents the perspective of the issue as originally presented in the materials?
Which hat’s perspective is the one you would not have considered on your own? Why?
Did your assigned hat reflect your personal beliefs / feelings / opinions about the issue at hand? If not, what did you find to be the greatest challenge in terms of developing your assigned perspective? Why?
As a result of this exercise, did you change your original perspective on the issue? How? Why?
For which of the hats would you find it most challenging to effectively communicate / advocate a position? Why?
Each member of your HatPack was assigned to represent a unique perspective on the same material. Did that ever cause conflict? If so, how did you and your group manage that conflict?
Next, debrief expands to the entire class and focuses on insights emerging from the exercise relevant to the learning objectives of the course topic represented by the course material(s) used in the exercise.
Conclusion
Research supports heightened student engagement from structured controversy learning activities (Bruen et al., 2016). Our experience is that increased student participation in class discussion results from the exercise because it clearly defines individual student roles, involves multiple opportunities to participate, and provides clear guidelines for acting out the individual student’s assigned role. In addition, our efforts to leverage the de Bono approach help students develop listening skills (Nancy, 2007) and are supportive of Ayim (1997) who argues that morally good language is (a) caring rather than indifferent to others, (b) cooperative rather than self-centered, (c) democratic rather than bullying and silencing of others, and (d) honest rather than devious or deceitful (pp. 98–100).
For those instructors frustrated in past efforts to manage quality class discussion, this exercise offers opportunities to simultaneously enhance the engagement and contribution of individual students to class discussion. At the same time, it provides students with practice in developing perspective taking skills critical for living and working together effectively in an increasingly diverse world.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-mtr-10.1177_23792981221110494 – Supplemental material for The HatPack: An Experiential Exercise for Enhancing Class Discussion Through Perspective Taking and Structured Controversy
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mtr-10.1177_23792981221110494 for The HatPack: An Experiential Exercise for Enhancing Class Discussion Through Perspective Taking and Structured Controversy by Dale Fodness and Greg Bell in Management Teaching Review
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
