Formatting adapted from Joyce et al.

(2015)

Deliberative Model of
Instruction and Communication
Opening Students Up to New Ideas

If Liberty and Equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in

democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the
government to the utmost.
--Aristotle1
Organizing Idea
Democratic societies are built upon the idea that the will of the people will be listened to
and acted upon. However, the will of the people should not abandon any minority opinions or
beliefs for the sake of the majority and neither should the reverse be true. True democratic
societies arrive at conclusions/decisions after a careful review, discussion, and deliberation of all
views and ideas for the purpose of arriving at the best outcome. Although deliberation originates
with politics, the process of deliberating can be used across many subjects so long as an issue can
be looked upon from many perspectives; however, deliberation works extremely well in English
and Social Studies classes. What are the benefits and limitations of deliberation? How can
instructors teach students to deliberate?

Scenario
A DEBATE TRANSFORMED
 A second year teacher wanted to motivate his Junior US History students to get involved
in politics and pay attention to the events occurring around them every day. Knowing the
community had varying beliefs on the subject of gun control legislation, he asked the students to
break up into two groups: those who opposed and those who supported gun control legislation.
Those who opposed legislation outnumbered those who supported legislation by 3 to 1. The
teacher put himself on the side of those who supported legislation due to their lacking in
numbers. Over the course of the debate, several students began to dominate the rest. On the side
opposed to legislation, one student became the voice of the entire group and brought forth all the
evidence to support her claims with very little help from her peers. Several of the members of her
group stopped paying attention completely and began playing iPad games. The students on the
supportive side began feeling that no matter what they brought up in terms of statistical evidence
they could not change the views of their peers who were hard set in their beliefs. The teacher,
recognizing these issues, began changing the nature of the interaction. He asked the students
what compromises they were willing to make so that each side felt they were being heard and
achieving their aims. From there, the students began discussing solutions instead of focusing on
the pros of their own argument and the cons of opposing arguments. The students who werent
paying attention started listening to the interactions of their peers and joined in the discussion. As
a group, they began to deliberate on how to solve the problems they faced2.

Scenario
ROLE PLAY: TEACHING DELIBERATION
During a government class, a veteran teacher was teaching his students about the
Constitution of the United States. The students read several passages about life in the late 1700s
in order to understand the mindset of the people who were present at the Constitutional
Convention. This information included explanations of race relations, geography, and how
personal background could affect beliefs. Then each student was assigned an individual who they
were to represent, taking on the beliefs of that person fully for the duration of the role play. They
were given a half sheet of paper with the persons main beliefs, background, and temperament to
help them better take on the character. The students began to reenact the Constitutional
Convention with each person participating in the discussion of how to address several major
issues that divided the nation such as representation in Congress, slavery, and state vs. federal

2
governmental rights. Students needed to come to a consensus in order to write a Constitution for
the newly founded republic. A few ground rules applied: all views are equal, all must participate,
and opinion and views must be supported with reason. Outcomes of the reenactment were less
important than the students role playing of a deliberative process. Throughout the role play,
students argued for beliefs they did not hold themselves providing reasons for why their views
should be considered as important as anyone elses views. These ideas of inclusion of all views,
equality of all participants, and reason were the foundation of the Constitutional Convention and
are the foundation of deliberation.3

Orientation to the Deliberative Model .

Deliberation and Debate: whats the difference?
Looking at the politics of the late 20th and early 21st century, one can easily see that the
American democratic system has become extremely polarized. However, according to John
Gastil (2008),Professor of Communication Arts and Political Science at Penn State University,
America has a long-standing tradition of debate and conflict, and its democratic political
philosophy and institution are primarily adversarial in nature. Nonetheless, even within the larger
genre of adversarial public discussion, we can distinguish between spirited, thoughtful debate
and petty, childish argument4. Debates on TV, in congress, in homes, and in classrooms can in
many aspects turn into shouting matches where participants become deaf to the points or
arguments made by others because they are talking at and not with one another.5 Classrooms
which teach argumentative communication tend to focus on proving oneself right while
limiting the possibility of transformative collaboration6. This type of interaction is not really
communication because neither person truly listens to the other, focusing instead on beating the
other persons argument. Because schools tend to focus on the argumentative form of
communication (e.g. debates and persuasive essays), student are unlikely to self-deliberate, as
evidenced in a study conducted by Schneiderhan with a group of college students asked to write
an essay about an issue facing campus7. In this study, the students focused on defending their
own position rather than weighing the options and selecting the best possible solution. This trend
introduces an opportunity for deliberation to show its effectiveness at opening people to new
ideas and understandings and, therefore, strengthen democratic systems.

3
 To fully understand deliberation one must first look at what it is not. This is best
explained by Avery:

Deliberation is not debate. In a debate, there are winners and losers; the goal, in fact, is to
win the debate through verbal sparring, characterized by the skillful and clever
arrangement of arguments and counterarguments. Participants present the best possible
case for their side, ignoring or diminishing the weaknesses in their own arguments and
the strengths of the opposing sides claims. The goal of civic deliberation, however, is not
to win. Instead, the goal is to arrive at the best possible solution to an issue through the
thoughtful consideration of alternatives. In deliberation, the group seeks to uncover the
best possible rationales for alternative positions8.

As Avery points out, deliberation focuses on arriving at the best solution. This solution comes
about after the careful review of all options, views, and reasons.9 Debate may occur during the
course of a deliberation, and that should not be avoided but should be focused toward crafting a
good solution. When deliberating, the focus is on mutually beneficial solutions and the
understanding of different views rather than winning. If participants begin to dominate in an
adversarial way, the other participants may shut down, and thus the democratic process is
negatively affected.10
Deliberation, unlike debate or other argumentative communication forms, increases the
likelihood that participants will change perspectives after looking at the other possibilities and
points of view.11 This happens because interlocutors are encouraged to investigate different
understandings and critically evaluate them for their effectiveness.12 Because the purpose is not
to win in a deliberation, the environment is less hostile and, therefore, more conducive to
evaluating ones own views and reasoning weighed against those of other members of the
deliberation and possibly changing ones own view.13 Additionally, when looking toward
solitary argumentation, such as an essay, individuals are less likely to discern the strengths and
weaknesses of their own and other arguments due to the fact that diverse people bring in
different perspectives or understandings all while challenging each others views in a
constructive way.14 This interaction with others in a non-hostile manner with the intention of
coming to a collective agreement allows for the best outcome for participants. Why this happens

4
in deliberation and not in debate lies in four core concepts: inclusion, equality, reason, and
validity. These core ideas will be discussed in further detail in the following section.

The Four Core: Principles of Deliberation

Inclusivity
What it Means
Democratic societies, like the United States, have changed over the last several hundred
years from homogeneous to heterogeneous societies. This heterogeneity developed out of the
mixtures or race, religion, national origin, social class, geography, and personal beliefs.
Deliberation aims to include all these different views and voices within the context of the larger
discussion. During a deliberation, even those views seen as undemocratic or wrong by the
majority or dominant culture need to be included.15 Instructors, therefore, need to encourage
students to share their beliefs no matter the instructors personal beliefs on the subject. When
students dismiss others views as stupid or wrong, they have fostered an unsafe and hostile
environment in which those with non-dominant or divergent views can no longer openly express
their ideas. This negatively affects the classroom environment and leads to disenfranchisement
and weaker sense of community.16 Educators must exercise caution with how they speak when
addressing minority or unpopular views. How a teacher reacts to hearing a different view can
perpetuate the dominant culture or beliefs and, in turn, dismiss the non-dominant view.17 This
can dramatically damage the student/teacher relationship.
Inclusion also means participation by all regardless of whether they are an expert or
barely informed. If deliberations only involve those who are experts or extremely well informed,
the deliberation will likely become homogeneous while the issues they discuss affect the larger
public and therefore warrant the inclusion of those affected by the outcome.18 This participation
is more than simply speaking. Participants in a deliberation have an obligation to understand and
ensure they are understood by the other participants. Additionally, members should attempt to
include those who may be shy because regardless of what they may bring to the deliberation, it is
important that their voice is heard.19

Problems to watch for:

5
Domineering and lack of participation: Deliberation aims to include all views. Because of this
intention, all members need to participate without one person dominating the entirety of the
conversation. In the case that two people feel the exact same and therefore feel no need to
participate, providing additional anecdotal or research information can act as a good substitute.
Dismissive language: There is a possibility that a minority view or opinion may not be socially
acceptable or be frowned upon by the majority and therefore is dismissed as not important
enough for inclusion in the discussion. This situation paints the minority opinion as inherently
wrong due to its lack of acceptance by the majority. Fostering a safe environment, therefore, is
key. Redirect dismissive language into a more constructive form. For example that idea is
dumb could be rephrased to I dont agree/understand. Can you explain more so I better
comprehend?

Equality
What it Means
When looking to equality in a deliberation, instructors need to keep in mind that all their
students voices are equal. Higher achieving students views are no more valid than those of
lower achieving students or the reverse. No one persons view holds any more weight due to
status, including the instructors. When an individual is given preferential treatment or their view
carries more weight due to status (e.g. teacher or expert in the field), they create a power
differential which causes the deliberation to lose validity. Hicks (2002) defines equality in
deliberation well, stating:

Equal consideration is defined here in communicative terms: all persons and their views
deserve an effective hearing, meaning that all deliberators should presume that each
stakeholder is making a unique, valued, and legitimate claim upon the time and resources
of the collective and, therefore, is deserving of a full hearing of any and all opinions,
objections, and requests. This does not mean that all opinions will be relevant, informed,
insightful, or actionable, but that judgments should always be situational and not attached
to any particular person or group before they speak. The failure to grant this presumption
displays a lack of respect, and indeed even a sort of contempt, for persons and groups
who have a legitimate right to have their views fully and equally considered.20

6
As Hicks explains, each person who participates in a deliberation should be considered equal in
view, and those views should be considered for that person and not the larger group. This view
goes toward reasons provided as well (reason to be discussed more later). Although decisions
made will ultimately be attached to reason, decisions made that go against someones ethical
beliefs and force them to accept them puts their views in unequal terms to those of others.
Therefore, decisions made should ideally be supportable by all.21
Problems to watch for
Power Differentials: As mentioned before, teachers can develop a power differential when
participating or facilitating a deliberation.22 The students view of the instructor will likely reflect
that the instructor has more training and experience, therefore creating a belief that the
instructors views should be given more credence than their own or fellow students. This is not
to say that the instructors views should not be looked at with the same respect that any other
view would recieve.23 Additionally, this same issue can occur with students who speak louder or
are high achievers. As an instructor, fostering the belief that all views can be heard and listened
to with equal weight can help avoid this problem.
Minority Views: Minority views can be easily viewed as lesser due to the lack of acceptance by
the majority. By not hearing or listening to such views, interlocutors say that the other view is
not equal to theirs and cause students who hold minority opinions to experience those same
feelings of disenfranchisement that they would experience if not included at all.
Scenario
Equality: opposing views in France
In France, a school issue arose as female Muslim students were not allowed to wear head
scarves because they represented a religious belief, and the state mandated a complete neutral
stance on religion. The issue was framed from many perspectives: religious freedom, sexual
subordination, and as personal identity separate from dominant French Culture. Each view has
merit and should be given equal credence rather than one being dominant and therefore given
special treatment.24 Camicia explains, The schools normative assumption was that the law
prohibiting religious symbols in schools rest in the communicatively reached self-understanding
of their national community.25 This belief by the French school placed themselves in a

7
dominant position, asserting that they were right because they were the majority. As instructors,
we should be wary of claiming dominance in such a way.

Reason
What it Means
Reason is important in deliberation for several reasons. First, the focus on reason causes the
decisions made to be of higher quality and to be more reasonable and rational. The more reasons
provided for a belief the more likely a person is to change their stance due to the evaluation of
their position against that of others.26 Secondly, it allows the participants to understand not
simply the view someone holds but also their reason for their belief. This reasoning does not
need to be anything that has been researched or studied. Including those lived and felt
experiences can provide a basis for reasoning the empirical research may not capture. Dialogue
cannot truly happen without these experiences being included.27 Thirdly, a focus on reason
allows people to make choices that are more in line with the needs of all rather than a focus upon
their own wants or needs.28 Though, these decisions should not cause someone to have to
abandon deeply felt beliefs or conviction as that would not be in line with equality.29

Problems to watch for

Religion can often be used to provide reason for a beliefs; however, the views of those who use
religion for validation should be given no more or no less weight than those based in any other
kind of reasoning. Religious reasoning should also not be used as validation for belittling or
removing the rights of any other person.30 Because religious beliefs are very personal and also
very deeply held, the use of religious reasoning should be included in deliberation when those
affected by the decision or participating in the deliberation have religious beliefs.

Validity
What it Means
The three previous core ideas combine to provide validity in the decision making process. Only
when views are included, treated equally, and reason is provided, can a decision be regarded as
valid or legitimate. Reason, however, is unique in terms of validity because of where the validity
of reason can originate.

8
Reason: Validity in reasoning can come from different sources and have different implications.
In a more homogeneous society those sources of validity can come from a common culture and
shared belief system. For multicultural liberal democracy, that common culture likely does not
exist. Therefore, validity stems from the process of deliberation and dialogue. As discussed
previously, the core ideas of inclusion, equality, and reason-giving ground the deliberation in an
agreed upon sense of public reason.31
Problems to watch for
Group Think: Group think is the concept that people within a group start to believe that their
discussion or decision is valid because they thought of it. This concept negates the idea of
inclusivity because if all members are in agreement at the beginning of the deliberation it is
unlikely that alternatives have been explored which lowers the validity of any decision made.32

Goals of Deliberation
Goals:
Deliberation has several goals: to increase the validity of decisions made, expose and
help people understand different points of view, and strengthen democracy. Within the context of
a school, exposure and understanding different views should be the main focus.
Process: For students, the process of deliberating and learning to communicate in a non-
hostile way should be most important. By focusing less on outcomes and more on process,
instructors open their students to reflection on the topic at hand, allowing for a truer deliberation
to occur.33 Instructors need to help students have this mindset and assist them in focusing on
practicing deliberation. A focus on outcomes will only produce anxiety for students who may
feel that the deliberative process takes a long time.
Exposure to Others: Schools constitute a near perfect place for students to practice
deliberation due to the diversity which exists. Students will likely be exposed to various ways of
life including different races, cultures, religious beliefs, and social groups.34 This exposure
alongside the core concepts of inclusivity and equality help students to focus less on their
individual desires and begin to think about the needs of others.35
Decisions: As mentioned in previous concepts, such as validity, the ultimate goal of a
deliberation is to reach the best solution for all members involved. Within schools this goal is
less likely to be achieved due in part to the limited access of students to the larger political
landscape. This does not mean, however, that students should not engage in a deliberation. When

9
reaching a decision, not all members of the deliberative body may fully agree and accept it. But
the fact that each members beliefs, ideas, and stories were heard will leave them with a more
positive feeling about the groups decision.36
Difficulties
Several issues can arise which make the goals of deliberation difficult to achieve. First,
the ideals of inclusivity, equality, reason, and validity may be difficult to achieve no matter how
much the environment fosters that type of thinking, especially since they are founded in
participants valuing those contributions of all members and giving each view equal access.37
Secondly, the wider public is not trained on this method of communication; and, for that reason,
additional instruction is needed to prepare students to deliberate.38

Preparing students to Deliberate

Establishing Ground Rules: Before students practice deliberating, establishing a set of ground
rules can help them to remain focused and congenial. The number one rule should be focused
around students working together toward a common goal and not trying to defeat one another in
verbal battleas discussed in the Deliberation and Debate Section. Additionally, Schneiderhan
creates several principles which help establish a communicative deliberation.

1. Participants should listen to one anotherfocusing on understanding.

2. Participants do just offer opinions, but rather provide reasonsreason can be opinions
when justified with why they have the opinion.
3. Conflict is okay.
4. Participants should find reasons they can accept.
5. Participants should be open to new proposals.
6. All participants should be included in the process. 39

These ground rules revolve around the concepts of inclusivity, equality, reason, and validity.
Each ground rule is important in keeping students centered on those deliberative ideals. The
instructor when acting as facilitator should enforce these ground rules.
Facilitators: The teachers role in a deliberation can be one of two: participant or facilitator.
Each carries its unique requirements and areas of caution. As a participant, an instructor can
bring in unique views on an issue and additional information. An instructor is also more able to

10
see things through different lenses and increase the diversity in thinking. The caution here is the
power imbalance that an instructor can bring to the deliberation.
When acting as a facilitator, teachers have the opportunity to help enforce deliberative
ideals like inclusivity, equality, and reason. This task becomes crucial when dismissive language
is used. The facilitator can then help the students to refocus their feelings in a constructive way.
Facilitation will be especially important with younger groups and those not experienced in
deliberative techniques.40 Instructors will need to use caution when facilitating as to not lead
students toward a pre-desired end.

The Model of Teaching .

Syntax
Steps41:

1. Identify, frame, and form issue

2. Create a solid information base
3. Prioritize the key values at stake
4. Identify and discuss a broad range of solutions
5. Weigh the pros, cons, and tradeoffs among solutions
6. Make the best decision possible
7. Debrief/evaluate the process

The Deliberative model has seven steps which sometime blend but always build upon one
another toward reaching the best solution. A deliberation can only occur when an issue truly
exists. This problem can be simple or complex, but a deliberation occurs when the issue brings
about serious differences in opinions.42 So, participants must first identify an issue and decide
why this is an issue. For example, the students may say that they feel the treatment of illegal
immigrants should change. It is important when framing the issue that outcomes are not
determined before discussion occurs.
The second step involves creating an information base. This information can be acquired
in several different ways. Students can first research the subject using the Group Investigation
model as detailed in Joyce (2015) or students can talk with one another about what they already
know to determine if a more extensive knowledge base is needed. Another option is for an

11
instructor to provide students with several pieces of information that would provide evidence for
a variety of perspectives. For example, a teacher could provide students with a newspaper article
from different sources (e.g. a liberal or conservative newspapers or from different geographical
regions) or articles from different news sites to see the different perspectives on an issue like gun
control or immigration.
For the third step, students have to look at values they hold and those values of other
deliberators. This step helps students to become familiar with those ideas which will influence
the deliberative process. For example, political values or religious values will affect how each
person views the issue they deliberate. This step takes the information provided earlier and
begins to synthesize the information into actionable pieces.
Fourthly, students begin brainstorming possible solutions to the actionable pieces they
discussed earlier. This step necessitates the same level of inclusivity, equality, and reason
required for the establishment of the knowledge base and the evaluation of values.
After identifying possible solutions, students begin to evaluate the effectiveness of each
idea, weighing the pros, cons, and tradeoffs. During this phase students are not required to stick
to any one idea but can continue to refine the solutions. As they weigh the different ideas, they
can take the best parts of a variety of ideas and combine them toward a new idea. By doing this,
students begin to develop the best solution.
Once students have completed a thorough discussion of all possible solutions and
weighed the pros, cons, and tradeoffs, they can choose what they feel will be the best solution for
the issue they framed. At this point, participants can implement the proposed solution, contact
their local/state/federal representatives to speak about their ideas, or bring their solution to a
larger body of deliberators.
Finally, deliberators along with any facilitators they had can reflect on the process and
decisions made. Some sample reflective questions are:

Were we effective in including all points of view?

Did we actively try to include all members?
Were any of the participants seen as unequal? How can that be addressed?
What, if anything, has changed since we implemented our solution?
Are there other possible solutions that we missed in our original discussion?
What went well?
12
 What could we improve on in the future?
Did I come out with a different view than I entered the deliberation?

The inclusion of reflection upon the deliberative process helps students to focus on the ideals of
deliberation so they can continue to think in a way that is less focused on being right and more
focused on solutions to very real problems.

Social System
The deliberation model encourages students to engage with one another in communication and
collaboration. How much students interact can be modified to meet the needs of the students or
the teacher. The same goes for the level of structure. For example, in a Structured Academic
Controversy (SAC)to be discussed further laterstudents work within small groups to
practice deliberation. SAC is very structured and has steps that can be followed more rigidly,
allowing not only for structure but for introductory practice. If an instructor has used deliberation
many times before, they can allow for students to drive the process with very little input from
them.

Principles of Reaction
The teachers task within the deliberation is determined by the experience of the students at
deliberating. More experienced students will need less instructor involvement whereas less
experienced deliberators can benefit from the instructor acting as a facilitator. Each step of the
deliberation model can be done completely by the students if properly trained in the deliberative
model. SACs, as mentioned, can act as a good starting point for both less experienced instructors
and students. Additionally, instructors should model constructive behaviors like not judging
opinions or people but asking for reason and explanation. Instructors should assist their students
through the deliberative model by encouraging them to follow the ground rules, modeling
understanding and acceptance, and creating a safe learning environment and academic
community.

Support System
SAC activities can act as a support tool for instructors when preparing their students to
deliberate. By using a SAC, instructors can guide in a regimented way how their students go

13
about discussing a topic. This support helps younger or less experienced groups. Due to the
student orientation of the model, little instructor support is needed with experienced groups.

Structured Academic Controversy (SAC).

SAC help students to practice deliberative actions in a structured manner, as the name implies.
The steps parallel that of the deliberative model but have a more lockstep approach. During the
course of the SAC, students will analyze different sides of a question while evaluating the pros
and cons of each. Student are put into small groups of around 4 in order to discuss a topic
relevant to curriculum or to their personal lives. A SAC is performed in the following steps:
1. A problem or question is posed.
2. Students read a set of opposing arguments addressing the issue.
3. Students are assigned a position to take: pro or con (can be done in 1s and 2s).
4. Students find evidence from the texts to support their position.
5. Students discuss their argument with other students.
6. Students switch positions.
7. Students then discuss their new position.
8. Students try to reach a consensus on the merits of the arguments presented.
9. Students and facilitators debrief on the process.43

Looking back to the syntax of deliberation, the SAC replicates framing the issue, creating a
knowledge base, discussing the issue, making a decision, and debriefing. Debriefing is especially
important in the SAC model to see what the varying groups decided or if they even achieved a
consensus. These debriefings can be a very insightful tool to gauge students reactions and
abilities with deliberation.44 SACs provide teachers an opportunity to address controversial
issues in a way that allows them to keep control of their classrooms while helping students to
practice the deliberative model in a prearranged way.45

Evaluating Deliberation
Instructors very well know that evaluation of student performance is necessary to better adapt
lessons to the needs of students. Evaluation of a deliberative experience is no different; however,
instructors must exercise caution when assigning scores to students during a deliberation. Many
of the goals of deliberation should not be measured in terms of points. For example, assigning

14
points based upon how often someone participates will encourage students to dominate one
another in order to achieve more points. Scoring a student based upon if they provided sound
reasoning will likely hurt low achieving students who may not be able to provide reasons. As
mentioned previously, the process of deliberation is more important than the outcomes. Overall,
the evaluation of deliberation should be focused upon growth of the student and self-reflection.46
Deliberation has many positive outcomes and skills that are developed. If a teacher wanted to
find a measurable scale of a students growth, they can use a pre-assessment aimed at the
evaluation of developed skills: ability to provide reason, problem solve, or think from other
points of view. If teachers participate in the deliberation, additional cautions should be made due
to the power imbalance that exists when teachers have the ability to affect a students grade.

Instructional and Nurturant Effects

Instructional: Students throughout the deliberative model develop and refine several instructional
skills which will benefit them in their other courses and academic endeavors. For example,
students study or research a topic prior to discussing it during the second stage of deliberation.
This strengthens their knowledge base on a topic. They also learn specific communicative skills
like the deliberative method of communicating alongside social skills due to the reliance on
others during a deliberation: analyzation of problems, evaluation of complex issues and
competing evidence, and evidence-driven thinking.47 In a study conducted with students after
deliberating, students explained that they felt more knowledgeable about the issues they faced,
felt they could better explain their opinions, and felt more confident talking about controversial
issues with their peers.48 These finding show the benefits of practicing deliberation in schools.

Nurturant: Along with the academic skills developed, students will also develop skills which will
certainly help them academically but will generally be more helpful in everyday interactions.
Because deliberation focuses on providing reasons for beliefs, students are exposed to different
points of view and the reasoning behind those points of view. This exposure also promotes
empathy and understanding for other people. All of which help students become more well-
rounded individuals and more likely to feel that they can impact their community.

15
Moving Beyond the Classroom .
Deliberation should not stop once the class bell rings or when school ends for the day. One of the
goals of deliberation is to teach students political efficacy and to solve practical problems49. With
this idea in mind, instructors can help show their students that the discussion does not have to
stay in the classroom. A student wrote of deliberation, stating, It is far too easy to sit in a
classroom and discuss social justice issues and come away with a feeling of having accomplished
something...[But] there is a problem if what was discussed remains trapped in the
room[moving] no further than the conversation itself.50

16
Summary .
Deliberative Model
Syntax
1. Problem identification, forming and framing
2. Create a solid information base
3. Prioritize the key values at stake
4. Identify and discuss a broad range of solution
5. Weigh the pros, cons, and tradeoffs among solution
6. Make the best decision possible
7. Debrief/evaluate the process.

Social System
This model can be structured or loose depending upon the needs of the teacher or the students.
SACs provide both teachers and students with additional structure to assist in the acquisition of
deliberative communication skills.
Principles of Reaction
Instructors can act as facilitators with less experienced groups to help them stay focused on the
task at hand and not judge student responses.
Support System
The level of support needed for deliberation depends upon student experience. Students can run
each step of deliberation themselves if properly trained. If necessary, instructors can use the SAC
technique to help students through the model.

17
Notes

1. Gastil (2008, p. 3).

2. This is a story from my own experiences teaching US History to high school juniors.
3. This story comes from observing and participating in a constitutional convention activity
designed by my cooperating teacher during my student teaching. This also represents an
example of Role Playing as outlined by Joyce (2015, Ch.XX).
4. Gastil (2008, p. 131).
5. Lake (2015, p. 9) quoting E.M. Van Bueran.
6. Ibid.
7. Schneiderhan (2008, p.19).
8. Avery (2010, p. 12).
9. Cole (2013, p. 3) referencing work by Gastil and Black (2007).
10. Ibid., p. 1
11. Schneiderhan (2008, p 2) explains this idea when discussing the results of his study in
which three types of groups were developed for a study about what makes deliberation
effective. These groups were essay groups (the control), a discussion groups, and a
deliberative groups. In the essay groups Schneiderhan explains that deliberation causes
one to think less about oneself and therefore is more likely to change their position.
12. Asen (2015, p. 168).
13. Ibid., p. 150.
14. Ibid., p. 143.
15. Camicia (2010, p. 17).
16. Hannay (1989, p. 352).
17. Camicia, (2010, p.3).
18. Asen (2015, p. 108).
19. Schneiderhan (2008, p. 160).
20. Hicks (2002, p. 230).
21. Ibid., p. 241.
22. Asen (2015, p. 68).
23. Ibid., p. 111.
24. Camicia (2010, pp. 2-3) explains the story in more detail.

18
25. Ibid., p.5.
26. Schneiderhan (2008, p. 16).
27. Lake (2015, p.10) in reference to an Israeli teacher speaking of communication and
community within the classroom.
28. Hicks (2002, p.245).
29. Ibid., p. 241
30. Asen (2015, p. 68).
31. Camicia (2010, pp.6-7, 9. 15).
32. Gastil (2008, pp. 141-42).
33. Hannay (1991, p. 346) speaks of an example using adults who were members of a
curriculum development committee who were concerned about the product and therefore
could not spend as much time reflecting. A facilitator calmed the members down and
helped them to focus on the process over the product.
34. Englund (2011, p. 245).
35. Ibid., p.241.
36. Avery (2010, p. 12).
37. These ideas are discussed both by Avery (2010, p.12) and Gastil (2008, p. 9)
38. In Dedrick (2008, pp. 235-264) the process of teaching a group of college students in
outlined and the issues they encounter due to the lack of training for the wider public to
include their peers who were not taught the same as they were.
39. Schneiderhan (2008, p. 8).
40. Hannay (1991, pp340-357) explains the ways in which administrators can help to
facilitate deliberation between teachers on curriculum development, but its concepts of
facilitators helping the process can be applied to a teacher-student level.
41. These steps are drawn from the work of Gastil (2008) and Hannay (1989 p. 189). In
Gastil the model of establishing a deliberation appears many times. Steps 2-6 are taken
from this framework for an example one can consult p. 20.
42. Avery (2010, p.11).
43. Ibid., 14
44. Dedrick (2008, p. 244).

19
45. Avery (2010, p. 18) citing McNeil (1986) Contradictions of control: School structure and
school knowledge
46. Hannay (1989, pp.193-294) explains how student development and growth through
deliberation can be measured.
47. Hicks (2002, p. 232).
48. Avery (2010, p. 16).
49. Hannay (1989, p. 188).
50. Lake (2015, p.16).

Additional Resources for SAC are available at www.sheg.stanford.edu for history classes.

20
 References

Asen, R. (2015). Democracy, deliberation, and education. University Park, PA: Penn State

University Press.

Avery, P. G. (2010). Deliberation as a core part of teacher education and civics classrooms.

Enseanza de las ciencias socials, 11-21.

Camicia, S. P. (2010). Deliberation of Controversial Public School Curriculum: Developing

Processes and Outcomes that Increase Legitimacy and Social Justice. Journal of Public

Deliberation, 6. Retrieved from www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol6/iss2/art7

Cole, H. J. (2013) "Teaching, Practicing, and Performing Deliberative Democracy in the

Classroom," Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 9: Iss. 2, Article 10. Available at:

http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss2/art10

Dedrick, J. R., Grattan, L., Dienstfrey, H., & Alfaro, C. (2008). Contexts for Deliberation:

Experimenting with Democracy in the Classroom, Campus, and in the Community. In

Deliberation & the work of higher education: Innovations for the classroom, the

campus, and the community (pp. 235-264). Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press.

DiCamillo, L., & Pace, J. L. (2010). Preparing citizens for multicultural democracy in a U.S.

history class. The High School Journal, 93(2), 69-82.

Englund, T. (2011). The Potential of Education for Creating Mutual Trust: Schools as sites for

deliberation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 236-248.

Gastil, J. (2008). Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21
Hannay, L. M. (1989). Deliberative Curriculum Theory: A call for action. McGill Journal of

Education, 187-201. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from

http://mje.mcgill.ca/index.php/MJE/article/viewFile/7865/5794

Hannay, L. M., & Seller, W. (1991). The Curriculum Leadership Role in Facilitating Curriculum

Deliberation. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 340-357. Retrieved March 13,

2016, from ascd.asia/ASCD/pdf/journals/jcs/jcs_1991summer_hannay.pdf

Hicks, D. (2002). The Promise(s) of Deliberative Democracy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(2),

223-260. doi:10.1353/rap.2002.0030

Joyce, B. R., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2015). Group Investigation. In Models of teaching (9th

ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Pearson.

Joyce, B. R., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2015). Role Playing. In Models of teaching (9th ed.).

Indianapolis, IN: Pearson.

Lake, D. (2015). Community Building in the Classroom: Teaching Democratic Thinking through

Practicing Democratic Thinking. Faculty Peer Reviewed Articles. Paper 1.

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/lib_articles/1

Schneiderhan, E., & Khan, S. (2008). Reasons and Inclusion: The Foundation of Deliberation.

Sociological Theory, 1-24.

22