---
name: discussion-questions
description: |
  Creates Socratic seminar question sets across Bloom's taxonomy levels with facilitation notes for educators. Produces a complete discussion guide with opening, core, and closing questions plus facilitation strategies -- not a list of generic discussion prompts.
  Use when an educator asks to create discussion questions, design a Socratic seminar, prepare seminar questions, or build a discussion-based lesson.
  Do NOT use for assessment questions (use `assessment-design`), for student self-study questions (use `active-recall-practice`), or for full lesson plan creation (use `lesson-plan-design`).
license: Apache-2.0
metadata:
  author: foundry-skills
  version: "1.0.0"
  tags: "teaching lesson-plan step-by-step guide"
  category: "education"
  subcategory: "teaching"
  depends: ""
  disclaimer: "none"
  difficulty: "intermediate"
---
# Discussion Questions

## When to Use

Use this skill when any of the following triggers appear:

- An educator explicitly asks to create discussion questions, seminar questions, or a discussion guide for a specific text, topic, film, case study, or primary source
- A teacher wants to design a Socratic seminar -- including inner/outer circle fishbowl, structured academic controversy (SAC), philosophical chairs, or Paideia seminar formats
- An instructor needs a complete facilitation guide with sequenced questions at multiple cognitive levels, not just a flat list of prompts
- A user mentions discussion formats by name: fishbowl, think-pair-share, Socratic questioning, Harkness table, Paideia, structured academic controversy, or four corners
- A user wants to build participation equity strategies alongside questions -- managing dominant voices, drawing out quiet students, or scaffolding for diverse learners
- A curriculum developer or instructional coach wants a model discussion guide to share with a teaching team as a planning artifact
- A teacher preparing to facilitate a difficult, controversial, or emotionally charged topic wants structured facilitation support, not just question prompts

**Do NOT use when:**
- The user wants test, quiz, or exam questions -- use `assessment-design` instead, which handles summative and formative assessment item writing
- The user wants self-study review questions a student can use alone -- use `active-recall-practice` instead, which generates retrieval practice questions
- The user wants a full lesson plan where discussion is one component among several activities -- use `lesson-plan-design` instead, which sequences discussion within a larger instructional arc
- The user wants a rubric for evaluating written arguments or essays -- use `rubric-design` instead
- The user wants to build a student-facing study guide -- discussion questions in this skill are teacher-facing facilitation tools, not student handouts
- The user is asking about discussion board design for an online course with asynchronous written responses as the primary mode -- this skill can adapt for that context but is optimized for synchronous dialogue

---

## Process

### Step 1: Gather Specific Context Before Writing a Single Question

Never generate questions from a vague prompt. Collect the following information -- ask if any is missing:

- **Content:** What is the exact text, reading, case study, film, or topic? If a text, which edition, chapters, or pages are in scope? If a topic, what specific angle (e.g., "the ethics of CRISPR," not just "genetics")?
- **Grade level and course:** A 10th grade English class and a college-level philosophy seminar require completely different cognitive demands, vocabulary, and scaffolding even on the same text
- **Discussion format:** Socratic seminar (whole circle or inner/outer fishbowl), Harkness table (collaborative, student-led), structured academic controversy (two-team debate structure), philosophical chairs (physical positioning on a spectrum), or think-pair-share (small group with report-out)
- **Duration:** Critical for calibrating question count. A 20-minute discussion needs 5-7 questions total; a 50-minute seminar can sustain 10-14 with facilitation moves between each
- **Learning objectives:** What do you want students to be able to do or think differently about by the end of this discussion? Objectives shape which Bloom's levels to emphasize
- **Student preparation:** Have students read/viewed the source material in advance? Will they have the text in front of them? Have they annotated? This determines whether opening questions can assume shared knowledge
- **Classroom context:** Any students with IEPs or 504s that affect verbal participation? English language learners who need sentence frames? High-stakes emotional content that needs pre-framing?

If the educator provides topic and grade level but omits format and duration, default to whole-class Socratic seminar and ask for time. Never write questions without knowing the content.

---

### Step 2: Map Questions to Bloom's Taxonomy with Intentional Sequencing

The question arc is not simply "easy to hard." It follows a specific pedagogical structure:

**Opening Phase -- Remember and Understand (15-20% of total time)**
- 2-3 questions that establish a shared knowledge floor
- Every student must be able to answer; no student should feel excluded
- Purpose: identify comprehension gaps before analysis begins, activate prior knowledge, build psychological safety to speak
- Example pattern: "What happened?" then "What did you notice?" then "What word/image/moment stayed with you?"
- Avoid: asking for interpretation this early -- a student who answers incorrectly at the opening can derail confidence for the rest of the discussion

**Core Phase -- Apply, Analyze, and Evaluate (60-70% of total time)**
- 4-8 questions depending on duration; never more than 8 even in a 90-minute block
- Each question should require evidence-based reasoning, not just opinion
- Sequence matters: move from "What does this mean?" (Apply) to "Why does this pattern exist?" (Analyze) to "How should we judge this?" (Evaluate)
- Build in at least one comparison question (two characters, two time periods, two interpretations) -- comparison is the most reliable tool for deepening analysis
- Build in at least one "devil's advocate" question that forces students to steelman a position they disagree with
- Avoid: clustering 3 analytical questions in a row without a facilitation move -- students fatigue without structured processing time

**Closing Phase -- Evaluate and Create (15-20% of total time)**
- 2-3 questions that require synthesis, position-taking, or transfer to a new context
- At least one closing question should connect the discussion content to something beyond the immediate text -- a contemporary parallel, a personal ethical dilemma, a policy question
- The final question should be generative: either what question students are left with, or what they would do differently knowing what they now know
- Avoid: ending with a question that opens a new substantive debate -- the final question should close cognitive loops, not open them

**Bloom's Distribution Target:**
- 1-2 questions at Remember/Understand (opening)
- 2-3 questions at Apply/Analyze (core)
- 2-3 questions at Analyze/Evaluate (core)
- 1-2 questions at Evaluate/Create (closing)
- Never write a question set with zero Evaluate-level questions

---

### Step 3: Write Each Question with Precision

Question construction quality determines discussion quality. Apply these technical standards to every question:

**Syntactic rules:**
- Questions must be open-ended -- never answerable with yes/no
- Avoid embedded sub-questions ("How does X happen and why does Y occur and what does this mean?") -- one question per prompt, save sub-questions for follow-up probes
- Use the content's specific terminology -- reference character names, specific events, specific terminology from the text
- Keep the stem concise -- the question itself should be 1-2 sentences; complexity comes from the thinking required, not from sentence length

**Cognitive demand rules:**
- Apply-level questions begin with: "How does X work in this context?" / "What would happen if...?" / "How does this connect to...?"
- Analyze-level questions begin with: "What pattern do you see in...?" / "How does [X] contribute to [Y]?" / "What is the relationship between...?" / "Why might the author/filmmaker/policymaker have chosen...?"
- Evaluate-level questions begin with: "To what extent...?" / "Is [X] justified? What evidence supports your position?" / "Which interpretation is more convincing and why?"
- Create-level questions begin with: "If you were...what would you change?" / "What new argument could you make using this evidence?" / "How would you redesign...?"

**Follow-up probe construction:**
Every core question needs exactly 2-3 follow-up probes prepared in advance. These are not backup questions -- they are precision instruments:
- A **deepening probe** pulls abstraction toward evidence: "Where in the text do you see that?"
- A **widening probe** opens other interpretations: "Does anyone read that differently?"
- A **transfer probe** connects to prior knowledge or broader context: "Where have we seen this pattern before?"
- A **Socratic probe** tests the logic of a claim: "If that's true, then what would we expect to see in [related scenario]?"

---

### Step 4: Write Facilitation Notes for Every Question

The facilitation notes are the difference between a question list and a discussion guide. Write them with the assumption that a teacher picking this up for the first time could run the discussion.

For every question, provide:

**Purpose (1 sentence):** What this question is designed to elicit -- not just the topic, but the cognitive move. "Forces students to distinguish between Atticus's legal strategy and his moral convictions" is useful. "Discusses the trial" is not.

**Expected responses (2-4 bullet points):** Anticipate the most likely directions students will go. Include the "easy" correct answer, the sophisticated correct answer, and at least one plausible misconception or oversimplification. This prepares the teacher to recognize partial understanding and probe further rather than accepting the first good answer.

**Follow-up probes (2-3, labeled by type):** See Step 3 above. Number them so the teacher knows the order to deploy them.

**If discussion stalls (1-2 specific strategies):** Every question needs a "rescue" plan. Options include: read a short passage aloud and ask students to respond to it directly; use a polling move ("raise your hand if..."); assign 90 seconds of silent individual writing before re-opening discussion; call on a specific outer-circle observer in a fishbowl; or lower the abstraction ("Before we answer the big question, let's just describe what's happening on page 12").

**Connection to next question (1 sentence):** How does this question's resolution set up the next question? This is how the teacher creates narrative flow rather than a series of disconnected prompts.

---

### Step 5: Build the Facilitation Toolkit

The toolkit is a separate section from the questions -- it addresses mechanics, not content. It must include:

**Talk Moves (provide 6-8 with purpose notes for each):**
Talk moves are specific verbal moves a teacher makes to deepen, redirect, or redistribute discussion. They are not generic encouragements. Standard evidence-based talk moves from the academic literature include:
- "Can you say more about that?" -- elicits elaboration from a surface-level answer
- "What's your evidence?" -- redirects claim-making toward text
- "Who can add to what [name] said?" -- builds on contributions without endorsing or correcting
- "So you're saying... Is that right?" -- revoicing: teacher paraphrases to confirm and elevate
- "Who sees it differently?" -- invites counter-argument after a strong claim
- "What would someone who disagrees say?" -- forces steelmanning
- "Is there a different way to interpret that?" -- opens multiple readings
- "What question does that raise for you?" -- shifts ownership from teacher to student

**Participation Equity Strategies:**
- Dominant speakers: Establish a "2-contribution wait" norm (students who have spoken twice wait for 3 others before speaking again). Use a quiet signal (hand signal or note) rather than public correction. In fishbowl format, rotate inner/outer circles on a timer.
- Quiet students: Use think-pair-share before whole-group questions -- it gives every student something to say before the group hears it. Use "cold calling with support" (ask a question, give 30 seconds of think time, then call on someone who hasn't spoken -- do not cold call without think time). Use the outer circle observation role in fishbowl: observers report what they heard rather than contributing new ideas.
- Mixed confidence levels: Post sentence starters on the board: "I notice that...", "I'm not sure, but...", "I want to build on what [name] said...", "I see it differently because..."

**Managing Difficult Moments (at minimum address these 4):**
1. A student makes a factually incorrect claim -- never directly contradict; redirect to evidence: "Let's check that against the text. Can anyone find the passage that speaks to this?"
2. A student makes a harmful or biased statement -- separate claim from person; redirect to analysis: "Let's look at what the text shows us about how this community operates."
3. Discussion stalls completely -- never fill silence with your own answer; wait 7 seconds, then use a structural move (quick write, turn and talk, or read aloud)
4. Discussion goes off-topic productively -- acknowledge the connection, note it on the board as a "parking lot" idea, return the group to the text

---

### Step 6: Write the Assessment Guidance

Discussion assessment requires a participation rubric, not a correctness rubric. The rubric must assess the quality of thinking demonstrated, not whether the student was right.

**Key indicators to assess (use 4-5 maximum for a rubric -- beyond that it becomes unmanageable):**
1. Use of textual evidence: Does the student ground claims in specific passages?
2. Building on peers: Does the student explicitly respond to or extend what another student said?
3. Analytical depth: Does the student offer interpretation beyond summary?
4. Questioning: Does the student raise a genuine question that opens new thinking?
5. Perspective-taking: Does the student acknowledge or engage with an opposing interpretation?

**Assessment formats by context:**
- 35-50 minute seminar: Teacher observation tally (3-5 indicators, checkmarks per student contribution)
- Ongoing Socratic seminar program: Cumulative rubric scored across 3-4 seminars for a grade
- Student self-assessment: Provide a 5-minute reflection protocol at the end of discussion (one moment they contributed well, one thing they want to add, one question still unanswered)
- Fishbowl format: Outer circle students complete a structured observation protocol for a specific inner-circle student, assessing 2-3 indicators

**Never assess discussion participation on:**
- Number of times spoken (penalizes quality over quantity)
- Whether the student agreed with the class consensus
- Length of contributions

---

### Step 7: Format and Final Review

Before delivering the guide, verify:

- Every question references the specific content (character name, event, term, page reference) -- no generic questions
- At least 3 different Bloom's levels are represented
- Every core question has 2-3 follow-up probes
- No yes/no questions anywhere in the set
- The timing allocations add up to the stated discussion duration
- Opening questions are answerable by a student who read carefully but is not confident
- Closing questions require synthesis and could not be answered without the preceding discussion
- The facilitation toolkit includes at least one strategy for dominant speakers and one for quiet students
- Assessment rubric has 4-5 indicators with distinct performance descriptors at 3 levels

---

## Output Format

```
## Discussion Guide: [Topic -- specific enough to identify the exact text/content/chapter]

**Subject:** [Subject area]
**Grade/Level:** [Specific grade or course level]
**Format:** [Socratic seminar / Harkness table / fishbowl / philosophical chairs / structured academic controversy / think-pair-share]
**Duration:** [Total minutes with phase breakdown, e.g., 45 min: 8 opening / 27 core / 10 closing]
**Source Material:** [Full citation: title, author, chapter/section, edition if relevant]
**Learning Objectives:** By the end of this discussion, students will be able to:
  1. [Specific cognitive goal tied to content]
  2. [Specific cognitive goal tied to content]
**Prerequisites:** [What students must have done before discussion begins]

---

### Discussion Norms
Post these before discussion begins and refer to them when redirecting students.
1. Ground your claim: When you make an argument, point to the text.
2. Address ideas: Respond to what was said, not who said it.
3. Build the conversation: Connect your comment to the previous speaker's idea.
4. [Add any format-specific norm, e.g., "Inner circle speaks; outer circle observes and takes notes."]

---

### Pre-Discussion Check (2-3 min)
[Optional but recommended for text-based seminars]
- Quick annotation check or entry question to confirm student preparation
- Specific prompt: [e.g., "Write one sentence: What is the central conflict in this chapter?"]

---

### Opening Questions ([X] min)

**Q1 [Remember]:** [Question text -- must reference specific content, not generic]
- *Purpose:* [What cognitive work this question does]
- *Expected responses:*
  - [Likely response 1 -- basic comprehension]
  - [Likely response 2 -- more textured comprehension]
  - [Common misreading or gap to watch for]
- *Follow-up probe:* [Specific deepening question if response is shallow]
- *Connection to Q2:* [One sentence bridging move]

**Q2 [Understand]:** [Question text]
- *Purpose:* [What cognitive work this question does]
- *Expected responses:*
  - [Likely response 1]
  - [Likely response 2]
- *Follow-up probe:* [Specific deepening question]
- *Connection to Q3:* [One sentence bridging move]

---

### Core Questions ([X] min)

**Q3 [Apply]:** [Question text]
- *Bloom's level:* Apply
- *Purpose:* [What this question forces students to do cognitively]
- *Expected responses:*
  - [Sophisticated response]
  - [Surface-level response]
  - [Plausible misconception]
- *Follow-up probes:*
  - [Deepening probe -- label type]
  - [Widening probe -- label type]
  - [Transfer probe -- label type]
- *If discussion stalls:* [Specific structural rescue strategy]
- *Connection to Q4:* [Bridging sentence]

**Q4 [Analyze]:** [Question text]
- *Bloom's level:* Analyze
- *Purpose:* [What this question forces students to do cognitively]
- *Expected responses:*
  - [Sophisticated response]
  - [Surface-level response]
  - [Plausible misconception]
- *Follow-up probes:*
  - [Deepening probe]
  - [Widening probe]
  - [Socratic probe]
- *If discussion stalls:* [Specific structural rescue strategy]
- *Connection to Q5:* [Bridging sentence]

**Q5 [Analyze/Evaluate]:** [Question text]
- *Bloom's level:* Analyze / Evaluate
- *Purpose:* [What this question forces students to do cognitively]
- *Expected responses:*
  - [Multiple legitimate interpretations -- list 2-3]
  - [Oversimplification to redirect]
- *Follow-up probes:*
  - [Deepening probe]
  - [Devil's advocate probe: "What would someone who disagrees say?"]
  - [Transfer probe]
- *If discussion stalls:* [Structural rescue]
- *Connection to Q6:* [Bridging sentence]

**Q6 [Evaluate]:** [Question text -- comparison or judgment question]
- *Bloom's level:* Evaluate
- *Purpose:* [Judgment-making; requires weighing evidence for competing interpretations]
- *Expected responses:*
  - [Position A with supporting reasoning]
  - [Position B with supporting reasoning]
  - [Nuanced "both/and" response to elevate]
- *Follow-up probes:*
  - [Deepening probe]
  - [Steelmanning probe]
  - [Evidence check probe]
- *If discussion stalls:* [Polling move or quick-write strategy]
- *Connection to closing:* [How this sets up synthesis]

---

### Closing Questions ([X] min)

**Q7 [Evaluate/Create]:** [Synthesis question connecting content to larger theme or contemporary context]
- *Purpose:* [What broader thinking this synthesizes]
- *Expected responses:*
  - [Thematic synthesis response]
  - [Personal connection response]
  - [Unexpected but valid direction]
- *Follow-up probe:* [One question only -- time is limited here]
- *Connection:* [How this connects to the next lesson, unit theme, or broader curriculum]

**Q8 [Create]:** [Generative closing question -- what question are you left with, or what would you do differently?]
- *Purpose:* Transfers ownership of inquiry to students; assesses what threads remain live
- *Expected responses:* [Range of questions students might raise -- helps teacher plan next lesson]
- *Note:* Do not open new substantive debate here. Acknowledge responses and note on board for next class.

---

### Facilitation Toolkit

**Talk Moves:**
| Move | Prompt | When to Use |
|------|--------|-------------|
| Revoicing | "So what you're saying is... Did I get that right?" | Student's point is strong but unclear; elevate it by paraphrasing |
| Evidence redirect | "Where in the text do you see that?" | Claim made without specific support |
| Counter-invite | "Who sees it differently?" | After a strong claim dominates; open the floor |
| Elaboration | "Can you say more about that?" | Surface-level response that has more depth available |
| Building | "Who can add to what [name] said?" | Redistribute participation; build on a strong contribution |
| Steelmanning | "What would someone who disagrees say?" | Force engagement with opposing view |
| Wait time | [7 seconds of silence -- do not fill it] | After any question; silence is processing, not failure |
| Parking lot | "That's an important connection -- let me write it here and we'll return to it." | Off-topic but valuable thread; don't discard or chase |

**Managing Participation:**
- *Dominant speakers:* After 2 contributions, use a hand signal (not public correction) to indicate "yield the floor." Announce the norm at the start: "Our goal is that everyone speaks at least once before anyone speaks a third time."
- *Quiet students:* Use structured think time (90 seconds of silent writing) before re-opening. In fishbowl: quiet students in the outer circle write a response they will share in debrief. Cold call only after think time has been given.
- *Mixed proficiency:* Post sentence starters: "I notice that...", "The text says..., which suggests...", "I want to build on what [name] said because...", "I see it differently because..."

**Handling Difficult Moments:**
- *Factually incorrect claim:* Do not correct directly. "Let's check that against the text -- can someone find a passage that addresses this?" If no one corrects it, read the passage yourself and ask what students make of it.
- *Harmful or biased statement:* Separate claim from person. "That's one interpretation that some people hold -- what does the text itself show us about how this operated?" Redirect from personal opinion to evidence.
- *Complete silence after 7 seconds:* Lower the abstraction. "Before we answer the big question, let's just describe what's happening in [specific scene]. [Name], what do you see there?"
- *Productive tangent:* Write it in the parking lot. "This is worth exploring. Let me note it here. For now, let's return to [specific question] -- [bridging move]."

---

### Assessment

**Observation Tally (Teacher Use During Discussion):**
Place student names across the top of a grid. Checkmark each contribution. Add a symbol for quality: E = evidence used, B = built on peer, Q = raised a question, P = perspective shift.

| Indicator | Exceeds (4) | Meets (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|-----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|
| Textual Evidence | Cites specific passage by location; analyzes language choices and their effect | References the text generally; makes connection between evidence and claim | Mentions text but does not connect it directly to claim | Makes claims without any reference to text |
| Building on Peers | Explicitly extends, challenges, or synthesizes a peer's idea with new evidence | Responds to peer ("I agree/disagree because...") with reasoning | Acknowledges peer but does not develop the connection | Speaks only independently; no peer references |
| Analytical Depth | Offers multiple interpretations; names complexity or contradiction; considers author's choices | Provides one interpretation with clear reasoning beyond plot summary | Offers a supported opinion; does not move beyond surface analysis | Summarizes without interpretation |
| Questioning | Raises a genuine question that reframes the discussion or opens a new thread | Asks a relevant clarifying question | Asks for factual confirmation already in the text | Does not raise questions |
| Perspective-Taking | Names and engages substantively with a view they disagree with | Acknowledges another interpretation exists | Identifies disagreement without engaging with it | Presents only own view as the only view |

**Student Self-Assessment (5 min at close):**
Provide this prompt on a slip of paper or verbally:
1. One specific contribution I made that moved the discussion forward: ___
2. One idea someone else said that changed or added to my thinking: ___
3. One question I still have: ___
```

---

## Rules

1. **Never write a question set with fewer than 3 distinct Bloom's taxonomy levels represented.** A discussion that stays at Remember and Understand is recitation, not discussion. A discussion that jumps straight to Evaluate without establishing shared understanding collapses into unsupported opinion-sharing.

2. **Opening questions must be answerable by any student who engaged with the material in good faith.** If a student who read carefully but is not confident cannot answer Q1, the discussion has already failed to include the full class. Test each opening question against this standard before including it.

3. **Every core question must require evidence -- not opinion.** "Do you think Atticus was brave?" is an opinion question. "Is Atticus's behavior better characterized as courage or obligation? What textual evidence supports your reading?" is an evidence question. Rewrite every question that a student could answer entirely from personal feeling without referencing the content.

4. **Never write a compound question as a primary question.** "Why does the author use this structure and what effect does it have and how does that connect to the theme?" is three questions. The follow-up probes exist to pull the second and third questions out after students answer the first. Compound questions in the primary position confuse students about what to address.

5. **Question count must match the allocated time.** Use this calibration rule: each core question, with facilitation, typically runs 4-6 minutes. Opening questions run 2-3 minutes each. Closing questions run 3-4 minutes each. A 35-minute discussion supports 7-9 questions total. A 20-minute discussion supports 5-6 questions. Never write 12 questions for a 30-minute discussion -- questions will be rushed or skipped, breaking the sequencing logic.

6. **Always write follow-up probes as complete questions, not as topics.** "Evidence" is not a follow-up probe. "Where in the text do you find support for that interpretation?" is a follow-up probe. The facilitator must be able to say it aloud verbatim without constructing it under pressure.

7. **The closing question must not open a new substantive debate.** If the final question introduces a new idea that requires extensive discussion to answer, the guide has a design flaw. Closing questions synthesize -- they draw the threads together, they do not introduce a new thread.

8. **All questions must reference the specific content.** "What motivates this character?" is a generic template. "What motivates Atticus to take Tom Robinson's case when he knows the likely outcome?" is a specific discussion question. Generic questions produce generic discussion.

9. **Never include a rubric indicator for number of times spoken.** Assessing participation frequency rather than quality is the most common assessment mistake in discussion facilitation. It rewards performance over thinking, and it disadvantages students with language processing differences, ELL students, and students with anxiety.

10. **Always include a stall strategy for every core question.** Teachers under pressure default to answering their own questions when students go silent. The stall strategy must be concrete and structural -- a specific passage to read aloud, a polling move, a quick-write prompt, or a lowered-abstraction reframe -- so the teacher has a tool to use before the impulse to fill the silence wins.

11. **Questions about sensitive topics must include a sensitivity note directly on the question, not in a separate section.** A teacher running a seminar does not have time to cross-reference sections. If Q4 addresses racial violence, the sensitivity framing belongs directly in Q4's facilitation notes, immediately visible.

12. **The discussion guide is a teacher document, not a student handout.** Write with the teacher as the audience. Include the facilitation purpose, expected responses, and management strategies that a student should never see in advance. If the user asks to convert it to a student-facing document, that is a separate task.

---

## Edge Cases

### Controversial or Politically Charged Topics
When the discussion content involves topics where students hold strong personal, political, or identity-based views (immigration, gun policy, race, abortion, religion in public life), apply these modifications:

- Add a **framing statement** at the top of the guide: a 2-3 sentence script the teacher reads aloud before discussion begins that names the controversy, establishes the intellectual purpose, and explicitly separates evidence-based discussion from personal advocacy
- Replace "what do you think?" questions with "what does the evidence suggest?" questions -- this is not about suppressing students' views, it is about teaching students to argue from evidence rather than from identity
- Add a **"landing" norm**: before the discussion ends, all students should be able to articulate the strongest version of at least one view they did not hold coming in
- Include a "temperature check" instruction at the midpoint: "If voices are rising or students appear distressed, pause and acknowledge: 'This topic carries real weight. Let's take 60 seconds to write individually before we continue.'"
- If the topic involves historical atrocity or ongoing trauma (Holocaust, slavery, genocide, police violence), add a specific content warning script and a debrief protocol at the end

### English Language Learners and Mixed-Proficiency Classes
Do not reduce cognitive demand -- reduce linguistic barrier:

- Provide sentence starters on a visible anchor chart organized by discussion move: to agree ("I agree with [name] because the text shows..."), to disagree ("I see it differently because..."), to clarify ("What I hear [name] saying is..."), to question ("I'm not sure I understand why...")
- Use structured pair talk before every core question -- ELL students need to rehearse ideas in a low-stakes context before the whole group hears them
- Pre-teach 3-5 key disciplinary vocabulary terms before the discussion begins; include these in the guide with brief definitions
- Allow students to reference notes or annotated texts during discussion -- ELL students who read in two languages often process meaning more slowly
- In the assessment rubric, note that "analytical depth" should be assessed on the quality of reasoning, not on grammatical complexity of delivery

### Fully Asynchronous Online Discussion
Synchronous facilitation tools do not transfer directly. Apply these structural changes:

- Replace single questions with a 3-part prompt structure per question: (1) a claim students must make, (2) a specific piece of evidence they must cite, (3) a connection they must make to a peer's post
- Specify response parameters: original posts 150-250 words, peer responses 75-100 words, minimum 2 peer responses per student
- Replace the facilitation toolkit with moderation guidelines: when to prompt for evidence, when to introduce a counter-perspective as a reply, when to synthesize threads in a mid-week instructor post
- The "closing question" becomes a synthesis reflection due after all discussion has closed, not in real time
- Assessment rubric adapts: "building on peers" becomes "directly quotes and responds to a peer's post with page numbers"

### Very Young Students (K-3)
The Socratic seminar format does not work for early elementary. Adapt as follows:

- Use **turn-and-talk** (partner discussion) as the primary structure -- no whole-class open discussion
- Limit total questions to 4-5; use only Remember, Understand, and early Apply levels
- Use physical discussion tokens (each student has 2 tokens to spend; place one on the table each time they speak) to manage participation and make equity visual
- Replace written facilitation notes with a list of sentence stems the teacher models aloud: "I think... because...", "I see...", "I wonder..."
- Replace the assessment rubric with a simple observation checklist: Did the student speak at least once? Did the student use a sentence starter? Did the student listen when peers spoke?
- Use visual anchors: display an image, object, or short video clip as the "text" for discussion -- primary sources with pictures work better than dense prose

### Text-Based Seminar When Students Are Underprepared
When there is evidence at the start of discussion that many students have not read or do not remember the text:

- Do not proceed with core questions as written -- a discussion based on a text most students don't know becomes a performance by 3-4 students
- Spend the first 8-10 minutes on a structured read-aloud of a key passage (300-500 words) that anchors the core questions; ask students to annotate as they hear it
- Replace the comprehension-based opening questions with immediate analysis of the passage heard: "What surprised you?" / "What questions does this raise?"
- Compress the question set: drop 2-3 core questions to maintain depth over breadth with reduced material
- After class, note to the teacher: pre-reading accountability structures (entrance ticket, annotation check, brief reading quiz before discussion begins) should precede future seminars

### Fishbowl (Inner/Outer Circle) Format
This format requires specific structural adjustments not needed in whole-class discussion:

- Specify inner circle composition (4-6 students) and rotation schedule (every 10-12 minutes)
- Write separate role instructions for the outer circle: observers complete a structured note-taking protocol (what evidence was used, what questions were raised, what was left unaddressed)
- The outer circle debrief is its own facilitation moment -- include 2-3 debrief questions the teacher uses when rotating circles ("What pattern did the inner circle develop? What question would you have asked?")
- Opening questions must be answered by the full group before fishbowl begins -- use the opening phase as a whole-class warm-up, then move to fishbowl for core questions only
- Assessment must cover both inner (verbal contribution) and outer (written observation) performance with equal weight

### Harkness Table Format
Harkness discussion is student-led -- the teacher sits outside the circle and does not intervene. This requires:

- Giving students the questions in advance as preparation prompts, not surprises -- the teacher is not present to manage transitions
- Including a student facilitation guide (separate from the teacher guide) with 3-4 norms the student facilitator uses to manage the conversation
- Replacing teacher facilitation notes with student preparation prompts: "Before the seminar, find 2 pieces of evidence for this question and write 1 question you want to ask the group"
- Assessment shifts heavily toward self-assessment and peer assessment -- include a post-seminar peer feedback form with 2-3 specific criteria

---

## Example

**Input:** "I need discussion questions for a 9th grade world history class doing a Socratic seminar on the causes of World War I. 45-minute seminar. Students have read a 3-page excerpt on the alliance system, nationalism, and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. They have the reading in front of them."

---

## Discussion Guide: Causes of World War I -- Alliance Systems, Nationalism, and the July Crisis

**Subject:** World History / Global Studies
**Grade/Level:** 9th Grade
**Format:** Socratic seminar (whole class circle, teacher as facilitator)
**Duration:** 45 minutes -- 8 min opening / 27 min core / 10 min closing
**Source Material:** Excerpt on the Alliance System, Nationalism, and the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand (3 pages, distributed prior to class)
**Learning Objectives:** By the end of this discussion, students will be able to:
1. Explain how the alliance system transformed a regional conflict into a global war
2. Distinguish between proximate cause (the assassination) and underlying causes (nationalism, militarism, imperial rivalry)
3. Evaluate the degree of responsibility different European powers bear for the outbreak of war
**Prerequisites:** Students have read the 3-page excerpt and have the text in front of them. Students have prior knowledge of European empires and map of 1914 alliance blocs.

---

### Discussion Norms
Post these on the board before class begins.
1. **Ground your claim:** When you make an argument, reference the reading. Say "The text says on paragraph 3..." or "According to the reading..."
2. **Respond to ideas:** When you agree or disagree, name the idea, not the person. "That interpretation suggests... but I'd add..."
3. **Build or challenge:** Connect your contribution to the previous speaker before introducing your own point.
4. **Speak to the circle:** Direct your comments to the group, not just to the teacher.

---

### Pre-Discussion Check (2 min)
Ask students to write one sentence on a card before discussion begins: "In one sentence: What is the single most important cause of World War I according to this reading?"
- Collect cards. Skim quickly. If most students name only the assassination, you know the opening questions need to draw out deeper causes before you move to core analysis.
- If 4+ students left the card blank or wrote "I don't know," use the stall strategy for Q1 immediately.

---

### Opening Questions (8 min)

**Q1 [Remember]:** According to the reading, what were the main alliances in Europe in 1914, and which countries were on each side?
- *Purpose:* Establish a shared factual foundation for the entire discussion; identify students who did not complete the reading before analysis begins. This question also maps the geopolitical stakes students will need to reason about in Q4 and Q5.
- *Expected responses:*
  - Basic: Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy) and Triple Entente (France, Russia, Britain) -- most students will have this
  - More detailed: Some students will note Italy's late switch; some will name the Ottoman Empire's eventual alignment
  - Gap to watch: Students who say "Germany vs. France" without naming the full alliance structure -- they will need Q1's follow-up before they can analyze the cascade effect in Q4
- *Follow-up probe:* "The reading describes these alliances as a kind of 'chain.' What does that metaphor mean? What does a chain do when you pull one link?"
- *Connection to Q2:* The alliances explain how war spread; nationalism explains why conflict was possible in the first place. Q2 shifts from structure to motive.

**Q2 [Understand]:** The reading uses the word "nationalism" several times. Based on the reading, what does nationalism mean in this context, and why does the author describe it as a destabilizing force?
- *Purpose:* Distinguish nationalism as a concept from its effects; ensure students can use the term analytically before they encounter it in core questions. "Destabilizing" is the key word -- push students to explain what it destabilizes and why.
- *Expected responses:*
  - Surface: "It means being proud of your country"
  - Deeper: "It means some groups -- like Slavic peoples in Austria-Hungary -- wanted their own independent states, which threatened the empire's unity"
  - Gap to watch: Students who confuse nationalism with patriotism -- nationalism here carries a separatist, territorial dimension; patriotism does not
- *Follow-up probe:* "The reading distinguishes between nationalism within existing empires and nationalism across national borders. Why does that distinction matter for understanding 1914?"
- *Connection to Q3:* Now that students understand the two structural conditions (alliances and nationalism), Q3 asks them to apply both to a specific event.

---

### Core Questions (27 min)

**Q3 [Apply]:** On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo. Using the reading, explain how this single event in Bosnia triggered a war involving countries as far apart as Britain and Serbia within six weeks.
- *Bloom's level:* Apply
- *Purpose:* Forces students to trace the causal chain from proximate trigger to global war -- this is the central historical reasoning task and requires applying both concepts from the opening phase
- *Expected responses:*
  - Sophisticated: "Austria-Hungary used the assassination as a pretext to issue the July Ultimatum to Serbia, knowing Germany would back them. Russia mobilized to protect Serbia, which triggered Germany's war plan (the Schlieffen Plan), which brought France and Belgium into the conflict, which brought Britain in through the treaty obligation to protect Belgian neutrality."
  - Surface: "Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia and declared war, which pulled everyone in because of the alliances."
  - Plausible misconception: "The assassination directly started the war" -- students often collapse the 6-week July Crisis into one moment; push for the intermediate steps
- *Follow-up probes:*
  - **Deepening:** "Walk us through the sequence step by step. What happened first? What triggered each next step? Use the reading to check your sequence."
  - **Widening:** "The reading describes the assassination as the 'spark.' If alliances and nationalism were the 'fuel,' could a different spark have started the same fire? What does that suggest about who bears responsibility?"
  - **Transfer:** "We've seen domino effects in other historical events we've studied. Is the alliance system a diplomatic tool or a diplomatic trap? What's the difference?"
- *If discussion stalls:* Draw the alliance chain on the board as a diagram while saying: "Let me map what the reading describes. Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia. Paragraph 2 tells us what happens next -- [name], can you read that paragraph aloud?" Then re-ask: "What does the reading say happened after Russia mobilized?"
- *Connection to Q4:* Students have traced the chain. Q4 asks them to examine whether any country could have broken the chain -- and chose not to.

**Q4 [Analyze]:** The reading argues that every major power had moments in the July Crisis when it could have stopped the escalation. Why didn't they? What does the reading suggest about the priorities each country was protecting?
- *Bloom's level:* Analyze
- *Purpose:* Moves students from "how did this happen" to "why did decision-makers choose this path" -- the key shift from event description to historical interpretation. Forces students to examine motive, not just sequence.
- *Expected responses:*
  - Sophisticated: "Germany saw war as a short-term opportunity (the Schlieffen Plan assumed a 6-week victory); Austria-Hungary wanted to crush Serbian nationalism before it spread to their Slavic populations; Russia could not afford to let a Slavic ally fall without losing credibility as a great power -- each was protecting something they valued more than peace."
  - Surface: "They all wanted power."
  - Oversimplification to redirect: Students who say "the leaders were stupid or reckless" -- redirect from character judgment to structural analysis: "The reading suggests the leaders understood the risks. Given that, what does it tell us that they proceeded anyway?"
- *Follow-up probes:*
  - **Deepening:** "The reading mentions that Germany gave Austria-Hungary a 'blank check' of support. Why would Germany do that, and what did they expect the result to be?"
  - **Widening:** "Was any country in a position to stop the escalation without enormous cost? What would stopping have required each country to sacrifice?"
  - **Socratic:** "If each country was protecting a legitimate national interest, does that make the war inevitable? Or does 'inevitable' let decision-makers off the hook?"
- *If discussion stalls:* "Let's focus on one country. The reading describes Germany's role in paragraphs 2 and 3. [Name], what does the reading say Germany did, and what do you think Germany was trying to protect?" Repeat for a second country before reopening the broad question.
- *Connection to Q5:* Students have analyzed individual country motives. Q5 zooms out to examine the system itself.

**Q5 [Analyze]:** The reading argues that the alliance system, designed to keep peace through a "balance of power," actually made the war more catastrophic once it started. How can a system designed for peace produce the opposite result?
- *Bloom's level:* Analyze
- *Purpose:* Introduces a structural paradox -- this is one of the most important conceptual insights in modern history and requires students to think beyond linear causation to systemic effects. This question has no single "right" answer.
- *Expected responses:*
  - Sophisticated: "Alliances were deterrents -- the logic was that no one would attack if it meant fighting everyone. But deterrence only works if the threat is credible. Once one country called the bluff, all the others had to respond or lose credibility as allies in the future. The system removed the option to stay neutral."
  - Alternative interpretation: "The alliances actually concentrated the conflict -- without them, Austria-Hungary and Serbia might have fought a regional war that stayed regional."
  - Misconception: Students who say "alliances are always bad" -- push back: "The NATO alliance has kept peace in Europe for 70 years. What's different about 1914 alliances?"
- *Follow-up probes:*
  - **Deepening:** "The reading uses the word 'credibility' when describing why Russia had to mobilize. What does credibility mean in international relations? Why would credibility be more important than caution in a crisis?"
  - **Devil's advocate:** "Some historians argue that without the alliance system, World War I would have been a small regional conflict and 10 million people would have lived. Others argue alliances prevented dozens of smaller wars before 1914. Which interpretation does the reading support? Which do you find more convincing?"
  - **Transfer:** "Can you think of any current international alliance or security arrangement that might have a similar structure -- where a commitment designed to prevent conflict could accelerate one?"
- *If discussion stalls:* "Let's make it concrete. In paragraph 4, the reading describes what happened after Russia began mobilizing. [Read the passage aloud.] What was Germany's response, and what does it tell us about how the alliance system constrained choices?"
- *Connection to Q6:* Students have analyzed the system. Q6 asks them to make a judgment: given what they know, who bears the most responsibility?

**Q6 [Evaluate]:** Historians have debated for over a century which country bears the most responsibility for starting World War I. Germany? Austria-Hungary? Russia? All of them equally? Based on the reading, which argument do you find most compelling, and what evidence supports it?
- *Bloom's level:* Evaluate
- *Purpose:* Requires students to weigh competing historical interpretations against evidence -- the most demanding analytical move in historical thinking. Also prepares students for the essay question format they will encounter in AP and IB assessments.
- *Expected responses:*
  - Position 1 (Fritz Fischer thesis, implied in reading): Germany bears primary responsibility -- it encouraged Austria-Hungary's aggression and had prepared militarily for a continental war
  - Position 2: Austria-Hungary bears primary responsibility -- the July Ultimatum was designed to be rejected; the assassination was a pretext, not a genuine grievance
  - Position 3: Shared responsibility -- the alliance system made every power complicit; no single country "started" it, the system started it
  - Nuanced "both/and" response: "Germany is most responsible for how bad the war became, while Austria-Hungary is most responsible for the initial escalation."
- *Follow-up probes:*
  - **Deepening:** "The reading says Germany issued a 'blank check' to Austria-Hungary before the July Ultimatum. What does that action tell us about German intentions -- and how does it affect your assignment of responsibility?"
  - **Steelmanning:** "If you've argued for Germany, what's the strongest argument for Austria-Hungary? If you've argued for Austria-Hungary, what's the strongest argument for Germany? Who here can make the best case for the position they disagree with?"
  - **Evidence check:** "Your position depends on the reading characterizing [X] as deliberate rather than reactive. Can you point to the specific passage that supports that reading?"
- *If discussion stalls:* Poll the room physically: "Raise your hand if you think Germany bears primary responsibility. Austria-Hungary. Shared. Now -- I want to hear one person from each group make the evidence-based case. [Name], you raised your hand for Germany. What does the reading say that leads you there?"
- *Connection to closing:* Students have taken positions. Q7 asks them to step back from the specific assignment of blame and consider what this episode reveals about how wars start.

---

### Closing Questions (10 min)

**Q7 [Evaluate/Create]:** The reading describes a world where nationalism, militarism, and interlocking alliances made a single assassination in a Balkan city explode into a global war. What conditions made that possible -- and do any of those conditions exist in the world today?
- *Purpose:* Transfers the historical analysis to a contemporary context -- the highest-level synthesis move. This is not an invitation to debate current events; it is an exercise in applying historical patterns to evaluate present conditions.
- *Expected responses:*
  - Historical synthesis: "Nationalism, military preparedness, and alliance commitments all amplified a small conflict into a global one. The conditions that made this possible were: empires under pressure from ethnic minorities, military plans that had no 'pause' button, and leaders who valued credibility over caution."
  - Contemporary connection: Students may reference NATO Article 5 as a modern alliance trigger; regional conflicts in the Middle East or Asia with great power involvement; nuclear deterrence as a modern "balance of power"
  - Unexpected but valid: Students who question whether the parallel holds -- "But today there are international institutions (UN, WTO) that didn't exist in 1914 -- does that change the calculus?"
- *Follow-up probe:* "The reading ends by calling World War I 'the war no one wanted and everyone caused.' Does that description hold up based on our discussion? Or did at least one party want it?"
- *Connection:* This discussion links to the upcoming unit on the interwar period and the question of whether the Treaty of Versailles' blame assignment onto Germany was historically justified -- a question students are now prepared to engage with.

**Q8 [Create]:** We've been discussing the causes of World War I for 45 minutes. What is one question about this topic that our discussion raised but didn't answer -- a question you want to keep thinking about?
- *Purpose:* Transfers intellectual ownership to students; assesses which interpretive threads remain live and what students are genuinely curious about. The teacher's responses to this question shape the next lesson's framing.
- *Expected responses:* "Could anything
