Exercise Plans
for the Classroom

Break the class into small groups. Have one student in each group read the discussions out loud, then ask the others for feedback. Together, the group decides who is most logical and why.

Assign one student to be "the reporter" — they'll share the group's verdict with the whole class.

Give groups 10 minutes to work through the discussions. Then open the floor group by group to hear their conclusions and see whether the class agrees.

Collect students' written responses at the end of the Who's Thinking? activity. Before the next class, identify the most sophisticated or well-reasoned answers.

Read these out loud to the group — anonymously or with permission — to model what strong critical thinking looks like in writing.

Ask students to write down three reasons for either their favorite way to get to school or their favorite hobby. They should write freely — no polish required — just whatever first comes to mind.

Then students open the Be Precise tool and revisit each reason one at a time. For each, they ask:

• Is this reason subjective (based on personal feeling or preference) or objective (based on a verifiable fact or measurable claim)?
• If it's subjective, how could it be rewritten to make it more specific and testable?
• If it's already objective, is it precise enough — or is it still vague in ways that matter?

After working through the tool, students revise their three reasons and share the before-and-after with a partner. Open the floor for a few volunteers to share a reason that surprised them.

Ask the class: Why are listening and compassion central to critical thinking? Let the room sit with that question for a moment before opening discussion.

Guide students toward these key insights — or let them discover them through conversation:

• People rarely say everything they think all at once, especially on the spot. Listening opens space for them to share more fully — and more of their reasoning to emerge.
• It's worth assuming that most people have more than one reason for a claim. Giving them time to share often reveals depth that a quick response would cut off.
• Careful listening sometimes leads someone to a source or reference they haven't mentioned yet. Asking a simple, curious question — "Is there anything you've read on this?" — can open that up.
• When questions are asked with genuine compassion and curiosity, people often realize on their own that their reasons are thin — and become more open to hearing yours. Pressure closes people; curiosity opens them.

Close with a short reflection: ask each student to write one sentence about a time when being truly listened to changed how they thought or felt about something.

After students complete the Write Your Own section of the Toulmin Map tool, have them find a classmate who chose the same topic.

Pairs share their claim, reasons, and warrants with each other — and also describe what the AI said back to them in response.

Follow up with a full-class discussion: Did people with the same topic end up with very different maps? What does that tell us about argument structure?

Turn the classroom into a living argument. Give each student one of four colored cards:

• Green — Claim: the position to be defended
• Blue — Reason: why the claim is true
• Orange — Warrant: the principle linking reason to claim
• Grey — Rebuttal: a counterargument

The student with the Green card proposes a claim (or you can pre-write one). The other students must think of reasons, warrants, and a rebuttal; they then physically arrange themselves to match a real Toulmin Map. Alternatively, you pre-write all cards and ask students to arrange themselves without being told who is who.

Before opening the tool, ask students to complete an honest self-audit of their own information environment. This works best as a written individual reflection, so students feel free to be candid.

Students respond in writing to three prompts:

• A) Where do I get my news? List every website, app, platform, podcast, or TV source you visited or listened to in the past week. Be specific: "social media" is not an answer; name the platforms and the accounts.
• B) Who do I actually disagree with? Of the people you follow or interact with regularly on social media, roughly what percentage hold views that you regularly disagree with: less than 10%? Between 10–25%? More than 25%? Be honest: people whose posts actually challenge your existing views.
• C) Have I actively sought the other side? In the past month, how many times have you deliberately looked up an opposing viewpoint on an issue you care about — or asked an AI tool whether recent research contradicts your position? Write the actual number, not an estimate.

After completing the audit, students open the Burst Your Bubble tool individually and work through all three bubbles. At the end, they return to their audit and write one sentence: What does your audit tell you about which bubble you're most at risk of falling into?

Pair students up. Each pair should visit the tool and read the research summaries out loud to each other. Have them discuss.

At the end of the tool, the pair reaches the collaborative strategy page. Together, they write down four specific, personal strategies for avoiding tribalistic thinking in their own lives. Strategies should be concrete commitments with a clear what and how.

When they're done, each pair prints two documents:

• The Research References PDF — the six peer-reviewed article summaries covering information silos, echo chambers, and confirmation bias. Students keep this as a reference sheet for the unit.
• The 5 Strategies PDF — their completed commitment sheet. Both names go at the top.

Collect the strategy sheets at the end of class for attendance, or return them at the next session for students to reflect on how they're doing. The research sheet is theirs to keep.

Ask students to share a real-life story from their own lives that is similar in structure to "The Neighbor's Wall" or "Family Reunion" scenarios from the tool — a genuine conflict or disagreement they've experienced.

In pairs or small groups, students identify:

• What actually happened
• Which stasis step they got "stuck on" during the conversation
• What they might do differently if they could go back

Two options: have students share the answers they submitted in the Stasis Stepper quiz and discuss any disagreements, or complete the quiz as a class together in real time. Project it at the front and debating each answer before moving on.

Either approach surfaces where students interpret the stasis steps differently — and that disagreement is exactly the point.

Create six groups and assign two groups each to Ethos, Pathos, and Bios. Split the room in two — three groups per side. Give each side a different scenario:

Each side compiles one unified approach from their three groups, then presents to the class.

Ask students to think of a time when someone gave them good reasons but they had a hard time accepting them. What was holding them back?

Students identify and share (only what they're comfortable sharing) whether the barrier was:

• A lack of Ethos — they didn't trust or respect the person
• A lack of Pathos — the appeal didn't connect emotionally
• Their own Bios — personal history, experience, or habits in the way

Instructors: share your own story first. It sets the tone and gives students permission to be honest.

Print and distribute the complex instruction sheet below (attach your image file for instructors to print). Ask students to read through it carefully.

Then pose two questions for individual or group reflection:

• Which type of cognitive load does this sheet tap into — intrinsic, extraneous, or germane?
• Suggest three specific ways the instructions could be redesigned to reduce that load.

Share ideas across the class and build a running list of redesign strategies on the board.

Break into groups. Each group generates two or three personal examples of times they experienced cognitive dissonance — moments when two beliefs, or a belief and a behavior, clashed.

For each story, the group discusses:

• What the conflict felt like in the moment
• How (or whether) they resolved the dissonance
• What they did to ease the tension — rationalization, change of behavior, avoidance?

Instructors: share your own example first to model the depth of reflection you're looking for.

Before students open ThinkBot, write this list on the board:

• Hasty Generalization
• Weak Analogy
• False Dilemma
• Tu Quoque
• Ad Hominem
• Ad Populum
• …and any additional fallacies or biases from the tool

As students interact with ThinkBot, they race to the board and check off any fallacy or bias they receive. The first student — or the group that checks off three first — wins a prize.

Note: ThinkBot mixes in fallacies and cognitive biases, so students need to be both fast and a little lucky!

Walk students through ThinkBot as a class — projecting it on screen. When the session is over, each student shares one example ThinkBot gave them that they found most interesting or surprising.

Then the follow-up: ask each student to develop and share their own original example of one of the same fallacies or biases — drawn from real life, media, or their own experience.

Students take 5–7 minutes to browse a news site or informational website of their choice and find one chart or graph. It can be on any topic — politics, health, sports, science, economics. The only rule: it has to be real and publicly available.

Once they've found their chart, students evaluate it against all six criteria from the Data Detective tool:

• Does it cite a source with a verifiable reference?
• Does it state a sample size and date range (where relevant)?
• Are all axes, units, and data series clearly labeled?
• Are the dimensions proportional — does the visual accurately represent the numbers?
• Do the colors avoid bias — or do they steer you toward a conclusion before you've read anything?
• Does any stated conclusion match what the data actually shows, without overstating or implying causation from correlation?

Students write a brief evaluation — one or two sentences per criterion — then share their chart and findings with the class. Encourage them to display the chart on their screen or project it if possible.

Students conduct a live in-class survey. Each student goes around the room and collects responses to a single question. Use suggested prompt below or make your own:

After collecting responses, students create a chart that accurately represents their data. They may draw it by hand or use their computer — both are valid. The chart must include:

• A clear, descriptive title
• Labeled axes or categories with units where applicable
• A Y-axis starting at zero so bar heights are proportional
• The sample size (how many classmates were surveyed) and the date
• Neutral colors that don't editorialize toward one result
• A one-sentence conclusion that matches the data — no overstatements

Students share their charts with the class. If two students surveyed overlapping people, compare their charts — do they look the same? Differences make for rich discussion.