A GUIDE FOR K-12 EDUCATORS TO HELP CREATE THE NEXT GENERATION of CRITICAL THINKERS

This guide will help K-12 teachers, educators, and parents use Spectrum Street Epistemology (SSE).*

Spectrum Street Epistemology is a free, civil, question-based way to help participants think through ideas and have conversations across divides. Based in dialogue, SSE can help students learn to think clearly and critically by understanding how people form beliefs, the evidence that supports those beliefs, and how ideas can be respectfully challenged and refined through discourse. SSE encourages intellectual humility, rigorous questioning, and reflective thinking.

The first section of this document explains preparatory work and materials, the second details a step-by-step breakdown of how to facilitate SSE sessions, the third offers additional suggestions and variations, and the final section breaks down suggested SSE practices by grade level. 

PREPARATORY WORK and MATERIALS

In a classroom setting, the facilitator can either place lines of tape on the floor or write vertical lines on the board. The facilitator is creating a Likert scale, with seven lines in total: “Strongly Agree,” “Agree,” “Slightly Agree,” “Neutral,” “Slightly Disagree,” “Disagree,” and “Strongly Disagree”. The lines should be equidistant from each other. Alternatively, the facilitator can place tape horizontally on the floor in a horseshoe formation, with those on Strongly Disagree and Strongly Agree facing each other.

The only materials needed are tape or chalk and a flat surface. If playing SSE outside on a sidewalk or on the grass and no materials are available, we recommend using sticks in place of tape.

SSE STEP-BY-STEP

1) Invite three participants to stand on the neural line. SSE can also work with fewer or more participants, but three participants is ideal as each person should have sufficient time to speak and have their claims engaged. 

2) Ask participants to stand on the neutral line while the facilitator explains the rules: “There are two rules to the game. The first is do not move until I say ‘Move’. The reason is that we don’t want anyone to influence where others move. The second rule is that you don’t have to move, but if you choose to move you must move one full line. In other words, you cannot have one foot on one line and one on another or move to the corner of a line. You must move one full line or not at all. Again, you are free to move anytime, provided you move one full line.”

3) Read the claim. Ideally the claim would be written down so that the facilitator and the participants could refer to it. 

4) Count down from five and then say, “Move”.

At this juncture one of two things could happen. Either someone could stand on Strongly Agree and someone on Strongly Disagree, or not. In 4a we will explain what to do when participants stand on both Strongly lines and then we will explain how to proceed when this does not occur.

4a) If participants occupy the extremes, at this juncture or at any other point in the exercise, have students on each Strongly line write down the best reason (only one reason) they have for standing on the line on which they are standing. Make sure nobody can see what they have written. Once they are finished writing, invite the participant on the other Strongly line to guess the what the other person has written. In other words, why do they think the person standing on the other Strongly line is standing there?

If the guesser guesses incorrectly, then ask the participant whose reason they attempted to guess if the reason provided was better than what they wrote. For example, if the claim is, “Transwomen should be allowed to participate in women’s sports,” and the person on the Strongly Disagree line guesses that the best reason the person standing on the Strongly Agree line has for standing there is that, “There is no physical difference between transwomen and women and thus there’s no performance advantage,” then ask the person on the Strongly Agree line if that is their reason. If they say no, then ask if that reason is better than the reason they wrote down. If the guesser guesses the reason correctly, then give the other participant an opportunity to guess and engage in the same line of questioning, that is, “Is that reason better than what you wrote?” Allow each participant to guess the other’s reasoning three times, alternating between each participant with every subsequent guess. Once participants have guessed three times, then ask players to reveal their response.

If there are more than two people playing SSE, then the facilitator can ask the other participants if they found the reasons given persuasive enough to move one or more lines in either direction. If so, they are free to move. If not, ask them why the reasoning was not persuasive.

4b) Ask participants why they are standing on the line they are on. The facilitator should ask clarifying questions to make sure she understands their reasoning. (If the facilitator does not understand participant’s reasoning, then it is unlikely either that other participants or classroom members will understand.)

5) Select a participant and ask if she or he understands the reasons the other participant offered for why they are standing on that particular line.  If they say “no,” then ask the reason giver to explain their reasoning. If they say “yes,” then ask them to repeat back to the reason giver what they think the reason is for why they are standing on the line on which they are standing. Once participants have given their reasons, the facilitator needs to ask them if they think the reasons given align with the line on which they are standing.

From our previous example, if the claim is, “Transwomen should be allowed to participate in women’s sports,” and the reason given is, “Transwomen should be treated as natal women even though there is a minor performance difference between transwomen and natal women,” then ask if that reason is a good enough reason for standing where they are. For example, a facilitator could ask, “How does that reason justify standing on the line on which you’re standing? Why not stand one line to the [right or left]?”

After the facilitator understands the participants’ reasons, the exercise should be reset to the reason given. For example, restate the new claim, “Transwomen should be treated as natal women even though there is a minor performance difference between transwomen and natal women,” count down from five, and then say “Move”.

Depending on time constraints, SSE should frequently recenter claims on participants’ reasoning. There is no fixed rule for how often this should occur, but in general resetting the exercise to new reasons may help students focus as the exercise may feel “fresh” while offering more opportunity to focus on reasons that inform participants’ beliefs.

6) An important part of SSE is asking the question, “What would it take to change your mind?  Specifically, what would it take you to move one line to the left or right?” (Assuming, of course, they are not standing on Strongly Agree or Strongly Disagree, in which case they could only move one position.) This question can be asked at any time and should be framed not in terms of a radical change in one’s position, that is from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, but rather what would it take for a participant to move just one line, for example, if they are on the Slightly Agree to move to Agree or Neutral?

At this point in the exercise the facilitator has many options, they can: explore whether the conditions for moving a line are reasonable and/or sufficient, either move to a preselected claim or ask participants if they have a claim they would like to explore, or end the exercise.

7) Conclude the exercise by thanking students and asking if they have any final questions.

ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS and VARIATIONS

The following four suggestions can be implemented to add variation to SSE exercises.

1) If participants stand on the outer two lines, that is the Agree or Strongly dis/agree line, ask them to walk to the opposite corresponding line and defend that position.

2) Have a student facilitate the exercise. Once students have seen the exercise a few times, they should have basic knowledge of how to facilitate SSE. Teachers can also assign this paper and tell students to refer to it if they have questions.

3) At the end of the exercise it may be helpful to the facilitator to ask participants, “What line do you think I would be standing on for [insert claim].” The ideal is for students to either have no idea about the facilitator’s opinion or that they choose an opposite line.

4) If possible, have other teachers, administrators, classroom guests, or even the teacher engage in the exercise. Guests coupled with a student facilitator adds a new layer of engagement and offers an opportunity for prosocial modeling.

CURRICULUM INTEGRATION

Grades K-2: Introduction to Inquiry and Evidence

• Objective: Introduce basic concepts of questioning and evidence.
• Activities:
  • Question of the Day: Present simple, age-appropriate questions and encourage students to discuss their answers and why they think those answers are correct.
    • Repeat what you thought you heard back to the students.
    • Ask students what it would take to change their mind about an answer that they thought was correct.
  • Story Analysis: Read stories with moral or factual dilemmas. Discuss what the characters believed and the evidence for their beliefs.
  • Show and Tell: Have students bring items or stories to share and discuss how they know what they are sharing is accurate.

Grades 3-5: Building Critical Thinking Skills

• Objective: Develop basic critical thinking and questioning skills.
• Activities:
  • Conversations: Organize conversations on familiar topics where students present evidence for their positions and consider opposing viewpoints.
    • Frequently have students swap sides and argue for conclusions they do not hold
  • Evidence-Based Projects: Have students research a topic, present their findings, and explain the evidence that supports their conclusions.
    • Have students explain what evidence or reason they would have to hear that would change their mind.
  • Perspective-Taking Exercises: Discuss different viewpoints on a topic and explore the evidence that supports each perspective.
    • Have students explain why they think the evidence is legitimate and why others should accept that evidence as legitimate.

Grades 6-8: Advanced Inquiry and Reflection

• Objective: Deepen understanding of how beliefs are formed and challenged.
• Activities:
  • Socratic Seminars: Facilitate discussions where students ask and answer questions about a text or topic, focusing on the evidence and reasoning behind different viewpoints.
    • Frequently ask students if they can think of counterexamples to their arguments.
  • Critical Thinking Journals: Encourage students to keep journals where they reflect on their beliefs, the evidence supporting them, and how they might change their views based on new information. What exactly would that new information look like?
  • Case Studies: Analyze real-world scenarios where beliefs or practices were questioned and changed based on evidence. Ask if that change in beliefs was justified and have students defend their responses.

Grades 9-10: Introduction to Epistemological Concepts

• Objective: Explore epistemological concepts and their application.
• Activities:
  • Philosophical Discussions: Introduce students to basic epistemological concepts like justification, truth, and belief. Use discussions and readings to explore these ideas. Suggested dialogue: Plato’s Theaetetus.
  • Research Projects: Assign projects where students must research a topic, evaluate different sources, and present a well-supported pro and con arguments. As a bonus, have students provide counterarguments to their counterarguments.
  • Ethics in Belief: Discuss the ethical implications of holding and challenging beliefs, focusing on how to do so respectfully and thoughtfully.

Grades 11-12: Advanced Epistemological Analysis

• Objective: Apply epistemological principles to complex issues.
• Activities:
  • In-Depth Conversations: Organize structured conversations on complex social, political, moral, or philosophical issues, emphasizing the evaluation of evidence and reasoning.
  • Epistemological Essays: Have students write essays exploring topics like the nature of knowledge, the role of evidence in belief formation, and how to effectively challenge one’s own beliefs.
  • Critical Reflection: Encourage students to engage in reflective practices that involve questioning their own beliefs and understanding how these beliefs impact their interactions with others.

By incorporating Spectrum Street Epistemology into school curricula, educators can help students develop essential critical thinking skills, speak across divides, foster intellectual humility, and promote a reflective and reasoned approach to understanding the world and engaging with others.

This has been directly sourced from Peter Boghossian and Reid Nicewonder’s peer-reviewed articles in February 2025’s “Gesprächsleitfaden zur Spectrum Street Epistemology” (“Spectrum Street Epistemology—A Primer”). Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Philosophie und Ethik ZDPE (Magazine for Didactics of Philosophy and Ethics)