Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: 79cbd61cb400ff103c3558890aa6f5c8fdad523c78b24eea9e69feefb9642165

# Critical Thinking in Discussions

Small groups discuss a shared text while using the four-part CLUE framework to track sources, arguments, evidence, and conclusions in real time. Participants take individual reflective notes during discussion pauses to analyze how claims are constructed.

**Time:** 60 minutes. 60 minutes matches the original six-step sequence of 10-minute blocks from the source.
**People:** 4 to 24. Small groups of 4 to 6 participants. If group count leaves an awkward remainder (such as 7 participants), create groups of 3 or 7, or assign spare participants as dedicated active listeners/timekeepers. Entire room reconvenes for final debrief.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Analyze peers' spoken claims, underlying evidence, and argumentative assumptions in real time without halting group dialogue.
**Use it when:** Use during deliberative forums, policy seminars, or working groups where participants need to evaluate the substance of arguments instead of relying on rhetoric or gut reaction.
**Skip it when:** Skip when a group has unresolved personal conflict, lacks a common discussion stimulus, or needs open-ended emotional debriefing rather than analytical argument critique.

## Materials and tools

- One printed CLUE worksheet per participant (or digital document equivalent)
- One copy per participant of a selected shared stimulus resource (article, short brief, or transcript)
- Pens or pencils for in-person groups
- Omnidirectional microphone(s) for hybrid room setups

## Before participants arrive

1. Select and distribute a common short reading, case scenario, or policy brief before the session.
2. Print copies of the CLUE Worksheet for every attendee.
3. Arrange room furniture into clusters seating 4 to 6 people each.

## Say this to open

Today we will discuss our shared reading while running an analytical check on our conversation. We will use the CLUE framework: Consider the source, Lay out arguments, Uncover evidence, and Evaluate conclusions. As you talk in your small groups, we will pause every ten minutes so you can review worksheet prompts and record how claims are supported. Your notes are your personal record to sharpen your listening.

## How to run it

### 1. Explore topic and initial reactions (10 minutes)

Participants assemble into groups of 4 to 6. If the room has an awkward count such as 7, form one group of 3 and one of 4, or allow a single group of 7. Read the opening script. Prompt each group to discuss their initial positions on the stimulus text: What is your position on this topic, and how does the resource support or challenge it? Everyone speaks once before anyone takes a second turn.

### 2. Consider the source (C) (10 minutes)

Pause the group. Introduce 'C' (Consider the source). Instruct participants to review the prompts on their worksheet: What authority or evidence base does each speaker bring? Are people citing external data, personal experience, or unbacked general statements? Allow 2 minutes for silent prompt review and initial note-taking, then resume small-group discussion for 8 minutes while participants log notes in the 'C' section.

### 3. Lay out arguments (L) (10 minutes)

Pause the discussion. Direct participants to 'L' (Lay out arguments). Instruct them to review the prompts identifying core positions, underlying values, and unstated assumptions. Allow 2 minutes for silent review, then resume small-group discussion for 8 minutes. Participants capture explicit quotes or paraphrased points in the 'L' section.

### 4. Uncover evidence (U) (10 minutes)

Pause the conversation. Direct participants to 'U' (Uncover evidence). Ask them to inspect what makes specific contributions persuasive: Does the speaker present concrete proof or reasoning? Allow 2 minutes for silent review, then resume discussion for 8 minutes while participants write observations in the 'U' section.

### 5. Evaluate conclusions (E) (10 minutes)

Call time on open debate. Give groups 6 minutes for every person to state one closing perspective without interruption. For the remaining 4 minutes, participants write individually in the 'E' section: Did the group find common ground, did divisions persist, and did their own thinking shift?

### 6. Debrief full room (10 minutes)

Gather all participants back to a single circle or gallery. Facilitate a reflective review using the debrief prompts. Limit plenary comments to 4 or 5 brief contributions across different tables to protect time.


## Debrief questions

- Which section of the CLUE worksheet was easiest to track while listening, and which was hardest?
- What pattern did you notice about the balance between personal anecdotes and external citations?
- How can you ask a clarifying question in real-world dialogue without sounding confrontational?

**Finished output:** Completed individual CLUE worksheets capturing analyzed sources, arguments, evidence, and conclusions from the peer dialogue.

## Remote

Use breakout rooms with 4 to 6 people each. Share the stimulus text and an editable digital copy of the CLUE Worksheet in advance. Post the specific prompts in the chat at each 10-minute interval before reopening discussion. Keep the plenary debrief in the main room using hand raises or text chat.

## Hybrid

Seat in-person participants in pods with an omnidirectional microphone or assign remote participants into their own separate virtual breakout room. All participants write on the same digital worksheet template. During the final debrief, alternate evenly between in-room speakers and online mic un-mutes.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may keep their written worksheets entirely private and decline to share personal reflections during debrief.
- Audio or video versions of the stimulus text should accompany written text when possible.
- Participants who prefer written processing may contribute to their small group using a shared chat pad or shared notes page.

## If the session gets stuck

**Discussion turns into a heated debate about personal opinions rather than an analysis of the claims.**

Intervene and remind participants to identify whether assertions rely on personal experience, external data, or unsupported general claims as framed in the worksheet.

**Participants struggle to complete their worksheet while simultaneously speaking.**

Remind participants that worksheet entries can be brief bullet points or quick keywords rather than complete sentences.


## Terms used here

- CLUE: An analytical framework: Consider the source, Lay out arguments, Uncover evidence, and Evaluate conclusions.
- Anecdotal Evidence: Evidence based on personal observation or individual stories rather than systematic research or verified data.

## Participant material: CLUE Worksheet

CLUE WORKSHEET: CRITICAL THINKING IN DISCUSSIONS

C - CONSIDER THE SOURCE
- How are participants contributing? (Citing external data, relying on personal experience, or making unsupported general claims?)
- What authority or expertise does the speaker have on this subject?
- What potential interest, slant, or agenda might be present?
Notes:

L - LAY OUT THE ARGUMENTS
- What is the primary claim or position being argued?
- What unstated assumptions about the world lie beneath this argument?
- What core values are driving this stance?
Notes:

U - UNCOVER THE EVIDENCE
- Which arguments are most convincing so far, and why?
- What specific evidence, examples, or logical connections are provided to substantiate the claims?
Notes:

E - EVALUATE THE CONCLUSION
- Did the conversation uncover shared common ground or clear points of division?
- What factors drove the disagreement?
- Has your original position shifted or remained the same? Why?
Notes:

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in the Collaborative Discussion Project catalog, which references Barbour and Streb's 'Clued in to Politics' (CQ Press, 2014) and materials by Jessica Friedrichs.

Retained the 6-step structure, 10-minute increments, and core CLUE questions observed in the Collaborative Discussion Project materials. Added concrete facilitation protocols, group size balancing rules for odd counts, specific speaker turns, an explicit hybrid management strategy, and printable worksheet text.

[Collaborative Discussion Project](https://www.collaborativediscussionproject.com/items-1/31criticalthinkingindiscussions)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/1-critical-thinking-in-discussions/