1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,914
Welcome to the show - Colin, I wanna start
with a sentence that would have saved me
2
00:00:03,981 --> 00:00:10,072
about eight thousand awkward silences in
middle school ELA: in a lot of classrooms,
3
00:00:10,092 --> 00:00:14,710
the real goal is not getting THE answer,
it's making student thinking visible.
4
00:00:14,950 --> 00:00:21,664
That's Chris Luzniak in Cult of Pedagogy,
March 15, 2026, and when I read
5
00:00:21,728 --> 00:00:26,141
that I had this very specific teacher
reaction of, oh...
6
00:00:26,194 --> 00:00:29,422
so that's why my prettiest questions
sometimes die on the carpet.
7
00:00:30,400 --> 00:00:35,043
Yes - and the useful shock in that March
15th piece is that he doesn't mean "lower
8
00:00:35,063 --> 00:00:35,963
the bar."
9
00:00:36,110 --> 00:00:38,079
He means change the task.
10
00:00:38,209 --> 00:00:42,723
Instead of "Solve for x," where there is
one correct destination,
11
00:00:42,823 --> 00:00:46,562
ask, "What should be the FIRST step in
solving for x?"
12
00:00:46,786 --> 00:00:52,237
Same content, same equation, but now
students have to reveal process.
13
00:00:52,437 --> 00:00:58,412
And process is where misunderstanding
lives - which is annoyingly inconvenient,
14
00:00:58,452 --> 00:01:00,574
but educationally quite important.
15
00:01:01,000 --> 00:01:04,519
Wait - "first step" is the part I think
teachers can use TOMORROW.
16
00:01:04,619 --> 00:01:10,127
Because if I ask, "What's x," my same
three kids are halfway out of their seats.
17
00:01:10,367 --> 00:01:13,241
If I ask, "What should be the first step?"
18
00:01:13,461 --> 00:01:19,726
now a kid can say, "Distribute first,"
another can say, "Combine like terms first"
19
00:01:19,886 --> 00:01:24,279
if that's available, and suddenly we're
not doing speed dating with the answer key.
20
00:01:25,239 --> 00:01:25,879
Exactly.
21
00:01:25,999 --> 00:01:28,440
The tyranny of the fast hand goes away a
bit.
22
00:01:28,584 --> 00:01:32,759
When there's one answer, participation
often means retrieving the teacher's
23
00:01:32,807 --> 00:01:34,833
preferred response as quickly as possible.
24
00:01:34,993 --> 00:01:40,187
When the question is debatable - and
debatable is the key word - every student can
25
00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:42,105
enter with a claim and a warrant.
26
00:01:42,265 --> 00:01:47,224
Not merely "I think this," but "I think
this BECAUSE..."
27
00:01:47,244 --> 00:01:49,458
And that "because" is the whole game.
28
00:01:50,212 --> 00:01:54,316
In third period, that's the difference
between a fake discussion and a real one.
29
00:01:54,583 --> 00:01:57,677
If I ask, "What theme is in this story?"
30
00:01:57,853 --> 00:02:00,953
kids are scanning my face like I'm a game
show host.
31
00:02:01,093 --> 00:02:05,594
But if I ask, "Which character took the
BIGGEST risk, and why?"
32
00:02:05,754 --> 00:02:07,275
now I've got options.
33
00:02:07,495 --> 00:02:10,319
One kid says the obvious protagonist.
34
00:02:10,419 --> 00:02:14,401
Another says the side character who told
the truth and lost her friends.
35
00:02:14,801 --> 00:02:19,917
A third says, no, actually the parent took
the biggest risk because adults had more
36
00:02:19,944 --> 00:02:20,558
to lose.
37
00:02:20,731 --> 00:02:25,835
Those are not random opinions - those are
defensible answers with receipts.
38
00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:28,398
And I like your phrase there - "with
receipts."
39
00:02:28,468 --> 00:02:32,320
Because the discussion stops being about
guessing the teacher's favorite response
40
00:02:32,420 --> 00:02:33,999
and becomes about evidence.
41
00:02:34,179 --> 00:02:36,719
Luzniak ties this to debate for a reason.
42
00:02:36,932 --> 00:02:41,344
He cites the National Speech and Debate
Association showing students with debate
43
00:02:41,402 --> 00:02:47,025
experience post higher SAT math and
reading scores, and stronger graduation rates.
44
00:02:47,245 --> 00:02:52,706
Now, we should be careful - debate
experience is not a magic wand and correlation
45
00:02:52,806 --> 00:02:55,747
isn't causation - but it's a serious clue.
46
00:02:56,007 --> 00:03:00,223
Arguing from evidence appears to
strengthen thinking across subjects,
47
00:03:00,271 --> 00:03:01,343
including maths.
48
00:03:02,120 --> 00:03:07,115
I appreciate the "not a magic wand,"
because teacher internet loves a magic wand.
49
00:03:07,295 --> 00:03:13,917
But the NSDA piece - higher SAT math AND
reading, plus graduation rates - that gets
50
00:03:13,970 --> 00:03:14,716
my attention.
51
00:03:14,832 --> 00:03:16,792
Especially the math part.
52
00:03:16,882 --> 00:03:21,597
Because people hear "debate" and think
English class, social studies,
53
00:03:21,704 --> 00:03:24,076
maybe mock trial with blazers...
54
00:03:24,092 --> 00:03:25,676
they do not think algebra.
55
00:03:26,000 --> 00:03:29,044
[responds quickly] Right, and the SAT math
bit is the memorable token for me too.
56
00:03:29,257 --> 00:03:32,957
If students who practice claims and
warrants score higher in maths,
57
00:03:32,989 --> 00:03:36,224
that suggests argument is not just
decorative language work.
58
00:03:36,277 --> 00:03:41,421
It may be supporting reasoning itself:
selecting criteria, comparing methods,
59
00:03:41,469 --> 00:03:42,617
justifying steps.
60
00:03:42,830 --> 00:03:47,821
In other words, the thing we often call
"show your work" can be made verbal before
61
00:03:47,874 --> 00:03:49,019
it's written symbolically.
62
00:03:50,000 --> 00:03:53,279
And honestly, that tracks with what
happens in a real classroom.
63
00:03:53,459 --> 00:03:56,961
The kid who can't blurt the final answer
can often tell you,
64
00:03:57,793 --> 00:04:00,560
"I think we should start here because this
part is confusing me,"
65
00:04:00,693 --> 00:04:02,077
which is gold.
66
00:04:02,173 --> 00:04:03,440
That's usable.
67
00:04:03,600 --> 00:04:04,720
I can teach from that.
68
00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:09,443
I cannot teach from twenty-six kids
staring at me while Jason has the right answer
69
00:04:09,510 --> 00:04:09,925
again.
70
00:04:10,399 --> 00:04:11,041
Poor Jason.
71
00:04:11,153 --> 00:04:14,002
Very efficient, educationally unhelpful
Jason.
72
00:04:14,162 --> 00:04:17,610
But yes - making thinking visible gives
you something to respond to.
73
00:04:17,890 --> 00:04:22,323
A wrong final answer with a strong warrant
is often more instructive than a correct
74
00:04:22,380 --> 00:04:23,675
answer produced at speed.
75
00:04:23,942 --> 00:04:28,161
It tells you what the student sees, what
rule they're reaching for,
76
00:04:28,188 --> 00:04:30,079
where the misconception bends the road.
77
00:04:31,000 --> 00:04:33,725
So the tension here is actually kind of
delicious.
78
00:04:33,865 --> 00:04:39,398
The question that feels most rigorous -
one exact correct answer - can produce the
79
00:04:39,451 --> 00:04:40,674
least visible thinking.
80
00:04:40,854 --> 00:04:44,745
And the question that feels a little
messier, a little more debatable,
81
00:04:44,845 --> 00:04:49,542
can give you way MORE rigor because now
kids have to support what they're saying.
82
00:04:49,734 --> 00:04:52,659
That's the part I'd want teachers to hear
clearly.
83
00:04:53,068 --> 00:04:55,396
So let's make this concrete enough to use
tomorrow.
84
00:04:55,476 --> 00:04:56,914
The routine is very simple.
85
00:04:57,074 --> 00:05:01,544
Take any question from tomorrow's lesson
and rewrite it with a superlative or
86
00:05:01,597 --> 00:05:07,623
judgment word: best, worst, biggest,
smallest, most, least,
87
00:05:07,669 --> 00:05:09,945
should, coolest, weirdest.
88
00:05:10,073 --> 00:05:14,506
Then check one thing - are there at least
TWO defensible answers?
89
00:05:14,693 --> 00:05:18,190
If not, it's still a quiz item wearing a
fake moustache.
90
00:05:19,678 --> 00:05:24,512
"A quiz item wearing a fake moustache" is
going directly into my teacher notebook.
91
00:05:24,632 --> 00:05:25,512
But yes.
92
00:05:25,552 --> 00:05:26,432
That's the test.
93
00:05:26,632 --> 00:05:28,113
Not "Is it fun?"
94
00:05:28,273 --> 00:05:30,113
Not "Will kids talk?"
95
00:05:30,300 --> 00:05:33,713
It's "Are there at least two defensible
answers?"
96
00:05:34,060 --> 00:05:37,318
So instead of "What happened in chapter
six?"
97
00:05:37,411 --> 00:05:42,351
maybe it's "Which decision in chapter six
was the WORST, and why?"
98
00:05:42,491 --> 00:05:48,508
Instead of "Identify the conflict," maybe
"Which conflict matters MOST to the
99
00:05:48,577 --> 00:05:49,071
ending?"
100
00:05:50,000 --> 00:05:54,889
Then put the sentence frame on the board
exactly as Luzniak recommends: "My claim is
101
00:05:54,996 --> 00:05:56,971
___, my warrant is ___."
102
00:05:57,011 --> 00:05:58,806
I like that he keeps it so stripped down.
103
00:05:59,046 --> 00:06:01,050
"Claim" is the answer you're advancing.
104
00:06:01,250 --> 00:06:05,361
"Warrant" is the reason that connects your
answer to the evidence or principle.
105
00:06:05,681 --> 00:06:09,196
If students don't know the word warrant,
all right, teach it.
106
00:06:09,356 --> 00:06:10,915
It's a useful word.
107
00:06:11,035 --> 00:06:14,723
It means, essentially, "why should anyone
buy what you're saying?"
108
00:06:15,000 --> 00:06:17,880
And middle schoolers actually love that
once it clicks.
109
00:06:17,990 --> 00:06:22,837
Because "my warrant is" sounds a little
lawyer-y, a little dramatic.
110
00:06:23,862 --> 00:06:26,915
They enjoy anything that lets them sound
like tiny attorneys.
111
00:06:27,115 --> 00:06:31,871
The exact timing matters too: give them 90
seconds - ninety,
112
00:06:31,971 --> 00:06:35,878
not ten minutes - to write a claim and
warrant on an index card.
113
00:06:36,038 --> 00:06:40,515
That short writing burst is huge, because
it gives the quieter kids somewhere to
114
00:06:40,582 --> 00:06:43,555
start before the talky kids oxygenate the
whole room.
115
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:45,759
Ninety seconds is such a good number.
116
00:06:45,871 --> 00:06:48,797
Long enough to commit, short enough to
prevent drift.
117
00:06:48,925 --> 00:06:52,189
Then cold call three students to stand and
share.
118
00:06:52,299 --> 00:06:57,590
And I know "cold call" can make people
tense, so to be precise: the index card
119
00:06:57,647 --> 00:06:58,628
lowers the threat.
120
00:06:58,788 --> 00:07:01,348
You're not asking them to improvise from
nothing.
121
00:07:01,488 --> 00:07:05,906
You're asking them to read or paraphrase a
thought they have already written.
122
00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:08,400
Yes - that's an important distinction.
123
00:07:08,576 --> 00:07:11,834
Cold calling without a write is just
public roulette.
124
00:07:12,026 --> 00:07:16,312
Cold calling after a 90-second write is
accountability with support.
125
00:07:16,532 --> 00:07:21,512
And then comes my favorite part: one peer
has to agree, build,
126
00:07:21,565 --> 00:07:23,749
or push back using the SAME frame.
127
00:07:24,309 --> 00:07:25,668
"My claim is..."
128
00:07:26,108 --> 00:07:28,387
"my warrant is..."
129
00:07:28,414 --> 00:07:30,148
So now the warrant can't hide.
130
00:07:30,308 --> 00:07:33,513
The reason behind the claim becomes the
actual lesson.
131
00:07:34,142 --> 00:07:35,125
Let me try to say that back.
132
00:07:35,245 --> 00:07:38,245
The routine is not really about generating
more opinions.
133
00:07:38,378 --> 00:07:40,564
It's about forcing reasons into the room.
134
00:07:40,664 --> 00:07:46,075
Because when a peer says, "I push back -
my claim is reaction B is more efficient,
135
00:07:46,102 --> 00:07:50,076
my warrant is it produces more desired
product with less waste,"
136
00:07:50,136 --> 00:07:53,674
now we've exposed the criterion: what
counts as efficient?
137
00:07:54,000 --> 00:07:54,717
Exactly.
138
00:07:54,877 --> 00:07:56,800
And "what counts as efficient?"
139
00:07:56,853 --> 00:07:59,201
is way richer than "what's the product?"
140
00:07:59,291 --> 00:08:01,922
because now you're naming the standard
you're using.
141
00:08:02,130 --> 00:08:04,811
That's where this works beautifully in
your world.
142
00:08:05,024 --> 00:08:09,207
In chemistry, "Which reaction is the MOST
efficient?"
143
00:08:09,234 --> 00:08:10,728
is a whole conversation.
144
00:08:10,904 --> 00:08:16,890
Kids have to justify efficiency - yield,
waste, maybe energy depending on the lesson
145
00:08:17,170 --> 00:08:20,650
- instead of just reciting an equation
like a human flash card.
146
00:08:21,271 --> 00:08:23,160
Yes, that's the chemistry version in one
line.
147
00:08:23,480 --> 00:08:24,679
"What is the product?"
148
00:08:24,725 --> 00:08:25,924
checks recall.
149
00:08:25,987 --> 00:08:27,408
Useful sometimes, of course.
150
00:08:27,548 --> 00:08:29,806
But "Which reaction is the most
efficient?"
151
00:08:29,850 --> 00:08:30,921
requires criteria.
152
00:08:31,028 --> 00:08:34,284
Students must say what they mean by
efficient and defend it.
153
00:08:34,504 --> 00:08:40,442
One might prioritize highest yield,
another lowest waste, another the fewest steps.
154
00:08:40,682 --> 00:08:45,170
If two answers are defensible, now we're
discussing chemical reasoning rather than
155
00:08:45,235 --> 00:08:46,924
ceremonial answer retrieval.
156
00:08:47,000 --> 00:08:51,476
"Ceremonial answer retrieval" - oof, that
one stings because it's true.
157
00:08:51,676 --> 00:08:55,713
And look, not every question in a lesson
needs to be debatable.
158
00:08:55,833 --> 00:09:00,989
Sometimes kids do need to know the
formula, the date, the vocabulary word.
159
00:09:01,129 --> 00:09:05,458
But when what you actually want is
thinking, don't ask a question built for
160
00:09:05,511 --> 00:09:06,095
guessing.
161
00:09:06,223 --> 00:09:07,693
That's the little trap.
162
00:09:08,000 --> 00:09:11,597
Last practical shortcut, because teachers
do not have infinite time: you can
163
00:09:11,641 --> 00:09:13,442
absolutely use AI for the rewrite.
164
00:09:13,602 --> 00:09:18,960
Ask ChatGPT, Claude, MagicSchool, or Brisk
to rewrite five standard lesson questions
165
00:09:19,013 --> 00:09:23,267
as debatable questions and generate one
student-friendly claim-and-warrant example
166
00:09:23,307 --> 00:09:23,907
for each.
167
00:09:24,019 --> 00:09:27,262
That's a sensible use of the tool - not
replacing your judgment,
168
00:09:27,310 --> 00:09:28,711
just speeding up the conversion.
169
00:09:29,318 --> 00:09:29,482
Yeah.
170
00:09:29,582 --> 00:09:33,727
Let the robot give you five rough drafts;
you bring the teacher brain that knows
171
00:09:33,743 --> 00:09:38,677
your kids, your content, and which
question is secretly still a quiz item in a fake
172
00:09:38,717 --> 00:09:39,477
moustache.
173
00:09:39,797 --> 00:09:45,004
If one tiny change gets more than Jason
talking tomorrow, that's a pretty good 90
174
00:09:45,074 --> 00:09:45,644
seconds.
175
00:09:45,804 --> 00:09:47,084
See you next time.
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,914
Welcome to the show - Colin, I wanna start
with a sentence that would have saved me
2
00:00:03,981 --> 00:00:10,072
about eight thousand awkward silences in
middle school ELA: in a lot of classrooms,
3
00:00:10,092 --> 00:00:14,710
the real goal is not getting THE answer,
it's making student thinking visible.
4
00:00:14,950 --> 00:00:21,664
That's Chris Luzniak in Cult of Pedagogy,
March 15, 2026, and when I read
5
00:00:21,728 --> 00:00:26,141
that I had this very specific teacher
reaction of, oh...
6
00:00:26,194 --> 00:00:29,422
so that's why my prettiest questions
sometimes die on the carpet.
7
00:00:30,400 --> 00:00:35,043
Yes - and the useful shock in that March
15th piece is that he doesn't mean "lower
8
00:00:35,063 --> 00:00:35,963
the bar."
9
00:00:36,110 --> 00:00:38,079
He means change the task.
10
00:00:38,209 --> 00:00:42,723
Instead of "Solve for x," where there is
one correct destination,
11
00:00:42,823 --> 00:00:46,562
ask, "What should be the FIRST step in
solving for x?"
12
00:00:46,786 --> 00:00:52,237
Same content, same equation, but now
students have to reveal process.
13
00:00:52,437 --> 00:00:58,412
And process is where misunderstanding
lives - which is annoyingly inconvenient,
14
00:00:58,452 --> 00:01:00,574
but educationally quite important.
15
00:01:01,000 --> 00:01:04,519
Wait - "first step" is the part I think
teachers can use TOMORROW.
16
00:01:04,619 --> 00:01:10,127
Because if I ask, "What's x," my same
three kids are halfway out of their seats.
17
00:01:10,367 --> 00:01:13,241
If I ask, "What should be the first step?"
18
00:01:13,461 --> 00:01:19,726
now a kid can say, "Distribute first,"
another can say, "Combine like terms first"
19
00:01:19,886 --> 00:01:24,279
if that's available, and suddenly we're
not doing speed dating with the answer key.
20
00:01:25,239 --> 00:01:25,879
Exactly.
21
00:01:25,999 --> 00:01:28,440
The tyranny of the fast hand goes away a
bit.
22
00:01:28,584 --> 00:01:32,759
When there's one answer, participation
often means retrieving the teacher's
23
00:01:32,807 --> 00:01:34,833
preferred response as quickly as possible.
24
00:01:34,993 --> 00:01:40,187
When the question is debatable - and
debatable is the key word - every student can
25
00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:42,105
enter with a claim and a warrant.
26
00:01:42,265 --> 00:01:47,224
Not merely "I think this," but "I think
this BECAUSE..."
27
00:01:47,244 --> 00:01:49,458
And that "because" is the whole game.
28
00:01:50,212 --> 00:01:54,316
In third period, that's the difference
between a fake discussion and a real one.
29
00:01:54,583 --> 00:01:57,677
If I ask, "What theme is in this story?"
30
00:01:57,853 --> 00:02:00,953
kids are scanning my face like I'm a game
show host.
31
00:02:01,093 --> 00:02:05,594
But if I ask, "Which character took the
BIGGEST risk, and why?"
32
00:02:05,754 --> 00:02:07,275
now I've got options.
33
00:02:07,495 --> 00:02:10,319
One kid says the obvious protagonist.
34
00:02:10,419 --> 00:02:14,401
Another says the side character who told
the truth and lost her friends.
35
00:02:14,801 --> 00:02:19,917
A third says, no, actually the parent took
the biggest risk because adults had more
36
00:02:19,944 --> 00:02:20,558
to lose.
37
00:02:20,731 --> 00:02:25,835
Those are not random opinions - those are
defensible answers with receipts.
38
00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:28,398
And I like your phrase there - "with
receipts."
39
00:02:28,468 --> 00:02:32,320
Because the discussion stops being about
guessing the teacher's favorite response
40
00:02:32,420 --> 00:02:33,999
and becomes about evidence.
41
00:02:34,179 --> 00:02:36,719
Luzniak ties this to debate for a reason.
42
00:02:36,932 --> 00:02:41,344
He cites the National Speech and Debate
Association showing students with debate
43
00:02:41,402 --> 00:02:47,025
experience post higher SAT math and
reading scores, and stronger graduation rates.
44
00:02:47,245 --> 00:02:52,706
Now, we should be careful - debate
experience is not a magic wand and correlation
45
00:02:52,806 --> 00:02:55,747
isn't causation - but it's a serious clue.
46
00:02:56,007 --> 00:03:00,223
Arguing from evidence appears to
strengthen thinking across subjects,
47
00:03:00,271 --> 00:03:01,343
including maths.
48
00:03:02,120 --> 00:03:07,115
I appreciate the "not a magic wand,"
because teacher internet loves a magic wand.
49
00:03:07,295 --> 00:03:13,917
But the NSDA piece - higher SAT math AND
reading, plus graduation rates - that gets
50
00:03:13,970 --> 00:03:14,716
my attention.
51
00:03:14,832 --> 00:03:16,792
Especially the math part.
52
00:03:16,882 --> 00:03:21,597
Because people hear "debate" and think
English class, social studies,
53
00:03:21,704 --> 00:03:24,076
maybe mock trial with blazers...
54
00:03:24,092 --> 00:03:25,676
they do not think algebra.
55
00:03:26,000 --> 00:03:29,044
[responds quickly] Right, and the SAT math
bit is the memorable token for me too.
56
00:03:29,257 --> 00:03:32,957
If students who practice claims and
warrants score higher in maths,
57
00:03:32,989 --> 00:03:36,224
that suggests argument is not just
decorative language work.
58
00:03:36,277 --> 00:03:41,421
It may be supporting reasoning itself:
selecting criteria, comparing methods,
59
00:03:41,469 --> 00:03:42,617
justifying steps.
60
00:03:42,830 --> 00:03:47,821
In other words, the thing we often call
"show your work" can be made verbal before
61
00:03:47,874 --> 00:03:49,019
it's written symbolically.
62
00:03:50,000 --> 00:03:53,279
And honestly, that tracks with what
happens in a real classroom.
63
00:03:53,459 --> 00:03:56,961
The kid who can't blurt the final answer
can often tell you,
64
00:03:57,793 --> 00:04:00,560
"I think we should start here because this
part is confusing me,"
65
00:04:00,693 --> 00:04:02,077
which is gold.
66
00:04:02,173 --> 00:04:03,440
That's usable.
67
00:04:03,600 --> 00:04:04,720
I can teach from that.
68
00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:09,443
I cannot teach from twenty-six kids
staring at me while Jason has the right answer
69
00:04:09,510 --> 00:04:09,925
again.
70
00:04:10,399 --> 00:04:11,041
Poor Jason.
71
00:04:11,153 --> 00:04:14,002
Very efficient, educationally unhelpful
Jason.
72
00:04:14,162 --> 00:04:17,610
But yes - making thinking visible gives
you something to respond to.
73
00:04:17,890 --> 00:04:22,323
A wrong final answer with a strong warrant
is often more instructive than a correct
74
00:04:22,380 --> 00:04:23,675
answer produced at speed.
75
00:04:23,942 --> 00:04:28,161
It tells you what the student sees, what
rule they're reaching for,
76
00:04:28,188 --> 00:04:30,079
where the misconception bends the road.
77
00:04:31,000 --> 00:04:33,725
So the tension here is actually kind of
delicious.
78
00:04:33,865 --> 00:04:39,398
The question that feels most rigorous -
one exact correct answer - can produce the
79
00:04:39,451 --> 00:04:40,674
least visible thinking.
80
00:04:40,854 --> 00:04:44,745
And the question that feels a little
messier, a little more debatable,
81
00:04:44,845 --> 00:04:49,542
can give you way MORE rigor because now
kids have to support what they're saying.
82
00:04:49,734 --> 00:04:52,659
That's the part I'd want teachers to hear
clearly.
83
00:04:53,068 --> 00:04:55,396
So let's make this concrete enough to use
tomorrow.
84
00:04:55,476 --> 00:04:56,914
The routine is very simple.
85
00:04:57,074 --> 00:05:01,544
Take any question from tomorrow's lesson
and rewrite it with a superlative or
86
00:05:01,597 --> 00:05:07,623
judgment word: best, worst, biggest,
smallest, most, least,
87
00:05:07,669 --> 00:05:09,945
should, coolest, weirdest.
88
00:05:10,073 --> 00:05:14,506
Then check one thing - are there at least
TWO defensible answers?
89
00:05:14,693 --> 00:05:18,190
If not, it's still a quiz item wearing a
fake moustache.
90
00:05:19,678 --> 00:05:24,512
"A quiz item wearing a fake moustache" is
going directly into my teacher notebook.
91
00:05:24,632 --> 00:05:25,512
But yes.
92
00:05:25,552 --> 00:05:26,432
That's the test.
93
00:05:26,632 --> 00:05:28,113
Not "Is it fun?"
94
00:05:28,273 --> 00:05:30,113
Not "Will kids talk?"
95
00:05:30,300 --> 00:05:33,713
It's "Are there at least two defensible
answers?"
96
00:05:34,060 --> 00:05:37,318
So instead of "What happened in chapter
six?"
97
00:05:37,411 --> 00:05:42,351
maybe it's "Which decision in chapter six
was the WORST, and why?"
98
00:05:42,491 --> 00:05:48,508
Instead of "Identify the conflict," maybe
"Which conflict matters MOST to the
99
00:05:48,577 --> 00:05:49,071
ending?"
100
00:05:50,000 --> 00:05:54,889
Then put the sentence frame on the board
exactly as Luzniak recommends: "My claim is
101
00:05:54,996 --> 00:05:56,971
___, my warrant is ___."
102
00:05:57,011 --> 00:05:58,806
I like that he keeps it so stripped down.
103
00:05:59,046 --> 00:06:01,050
"Claim" is the answer you're advancing.
104
00:06:01,250 --> 00:06:05,361
"Warrant" is the reason that connects your
answer to the evidence or principle.
105
00:06:05,681 --> 00:06:09,196
If students don't know the word warrant,
all right, teach it.
106
00:06:09,356 --> 00:06:10,915
It's a useful word.
107
00:06:11,035 --> 00:06:14,723
It means, essentially, "why should anyone
buy what you're saying?"
108
00:06:15,000 --> 00:06:17,880
And middle schoolers actually love that
once it clicks.
109
00:06:17,990 --> 00:06:22,837
Because "my warrant is" sounds a little
lawyer-y, a little dramatic.
110
00:06:23,862 --> 00:06:26,915
They enjoy anything that lets them sound
like tiny attorneys.
111
00:06:27,115 --> 00:06:31,871
The exact timing matters too: give them 90
seconds - ninety,
112
00:06:31,971 --> 00:06:35,878
not ten minutes - to write a claim and
warrant on an index card.
113
00:06:36,038 --> 00:06:40,515
That short writing burst is huge, because
it gives the quieter kids somewhere to
114
00:06:40,582 --> 00:06:43,555
start before the talky kids oxygenate the
whole room.
115
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:45,759
Ninety seconds is such a good number.
116
00:06:45,871 --> 00:06:48,797
Long enough to commit, short enough to
prevent drift.
117
00:06:48,925 --> 00:06:52,189
Then cold call three students to stand and
share.
118
00:06:52,299 --> 00:06:57,590
And I know "cold call" can make people
tense, so to be precise: the index card
119
00:06:57,647 --> 00:06:58,628
lowers the threat.
120
00:06:58,788 --> 00:07:01,348
You're not asking them to improvise from
nothing.
121
00:07:01,488 --> 00:07:05,906
You're asking them to read or paraphrase a
thought they have already written.
122
00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:08,400
Yes - that's an important distinction.
123
00:07:08,576 --> 00:07:11,834
Cold calling without a write is just
public roulette.
124
00:07:12,026 --> 00:07:16,312
Cold calling after a 90-second write is
accountability with support.
125
00:07:16,532 --> 00:07:21,512
And then comes my favorite part: one peer
has to agree, build,
126
00:07:21,565 --> 00:07:23,749
or push back using the SAME frame.
127
00:07:24,309 --> 00:07:25,668
"My claim is..."
128
00:07:26,108 --> 00:07:28,387
"my warrant is..."
129
00:07:28,414 --> 00:07:30,148
So now the warrant can't hide.
130
00:07:30,308 --> 00:07:33,513
The reason behind the claim becomes the
actual lesson.
131
00:07:34,142 --> 00:07:35,125
Let me try to say that back.
132
00:07:35,245 --> 00:07:38,245
The routine is not really about generating
more opinions.
133
00:07:38,378 --> 00:07:40,564
It's about forcing reasons into the room.
134
00:07:40,664 --> 00:07:46,075
Because when a peer says, "I push back -
my claim is reaction B is more efficient,
135
00:07:46,102 --> 00:07:50,076
my warrant is it produces more desired
product with less waste,"
136
00:07:50,136 --> 00:07:53,674
now we've exposed the criterion: what
counts as efficient?
137
00:07:54,000 --> 00:07:54,717
Exactly.
138
00:07:54,877 --> 00:07:56,800
And "what counts as efficient?"
139
00:07:56,853 --> 00:07:59,201
is way richer than "what's the product?"
140
00:07:59,291 --> 00:08:01,922
because now you're naming the standard
you're using.
141
00:08:02,130 --> 00:08:04,811
That's where this works beautifully in
your world.
142
00:08:05,024 --> 00:08:09,207
In chemistry, "Which reaction is the MOST
efficient?"
143
00:08:09,234 --> 00:08:10,728
is a whole conversation.
144
00:08:10,904 --> 00:08:16,890
Kids have to justify efficiency - yield,
waste, maybe energy depending on the lesson
145
00:08:17,170 --> 00:08:20,650
- instead of just reciting an equation
like a human flash card.
146
00:08:21,271 --> 00:08:23,160
Yes, that's the chemistry version in one
line.
147
00:08:23,480 --> 00:08:24,679
"What is the product?"
148
00:08:24,725 --> 00:08:25,924
checks recall.
149
00:08:25,987 --> 00:08:27,408
Useful sometimes, of course.
150
00:08:27,548 --> 00:08:29,806
But "Which reaction is the most
efficient?"
151
00:08:29,850 --> 00:08:30,921
requires criteria.
152
00:08:31,028 --> 00:08:34,284
Students must say what they mean by
efficient and defend it.
153
00:08:34,504 --> 00:08:40,442
One might prioritize highest yield,
another lowest waste, another the fewest steps.
154
00:08:40,682 --> 00:08:45,170
If two answers are defensible, now we're
discussing chemical reasoning rather than
155
00:08:45,235 --> 00:08:46,924
ceremonial answer retrieval.
156
00:08:47,000 --> 00:08:51,476
"Ceremonial answer retrieval" - oof, that
one stings because it's true.
157
00:08:51,676 --> 00:08:55,713
And look, not every question in a lesson
needs to be debatable.
158
00:08:55,833 --> 00:09:00,989
Sometimes kids do need to know the
formula, the date, the vocabulary word.
159
00:09:01,129 --> 00:09:05,458
But when what you actually want is
thinking, don't ask a question built for
160
00:09:05,511 --> 00:09:06,095
guessing.
161
00:09:06,223 --> 00:09:07,693
That's the little trap.
162
00:09:08,000 --> 00:09:11,597
Last practical shortcut, because teachers
do not have infinite time: you can
163
00:09:11,641 --> 00:09:13,442
absolutely use AI for the rewrite.
164
00:09:13,602 --> 00:09:18,960
Ask ChatGPT, Claude, MagicSchool, or Brisk
to rewrite five standard lesson questions
165
00:09:19,013 --> 00:09:23,267
as debatable questions and generate one
student-friendly claim-and-warrant example
166
00:09:23,307 --> 00:09:23,907
for each.
167
00:09:24,019 --> 00:09:27,262
That's a sensible use of the tool - not
replacing your judgment,
168
00:09:27,310 --> 00:09:28,711
just speeding up the conversion.
169
00:09:29,318 --> 00:09:29,482
Yeah.
170
00:09:29,582 --> 00:09:33,727
Let the robot give you five rough drafts;
you bring the teacher brain that knows
171
00:09:33,743 --> 00:09:38,677
your kids, your content, and which
question is secretly still a quiz item in a fake
172
00:09:38,717 --> 00:09:39,477
moustache.
173
00:09:39,797 --> 00:09:45,004
If one tiny change gets more than Jason
talking tomorrow, that's a pretty good 90
174
00:09:45,074 --> 00:09:45,644
seconds.
175
00:09:45,804 --> 00:09:47,084
See you next time.
