Page 278 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 278
What Do We Know about the World?
dents, 88.9 % declared competitive debate better than standard lectures
for gaining an understanding of the various positions on issues, and fur-
thermore, 77.5 % of them thought that they learned more than if they
had attended a normal class. These results were corroborated by Han
Vo and Richard Morris’s survey (1996). Three out of four students in Vo
and Morris’s economy course considered debate helpful in understand-
ing the course material and in developing a more realistic idea of the
economy. In addition, the same outcome was recently reported by So-
phia Scott for a Science, Technology and Society course (2008).
Debating as a method for learning has been adopted in many disci-
plines, including economics (Vo and Morris, 1996), business adminis-
tration (Combs and Bourne, 1994), psychology (Moeller, 1985; O’Kon
and Sutz, 2005), sociology (Scott, 2008), philosophy (Nicolli and Cat-
tani, 2008), geography (Estaville, 2001), chemistry (Streitberger, 1988),
statistics (Shatz, 1985), and nutrition (Magnus, 2000), only to mention a
few. However, few of the research studies mentioned involved statistical
analysis, and even for those that did (Combs and Bourne, 1994; Scott,
2008; Vo and Morris, 1996), the investigation was limited to students’
perceptions. In conclusion, without doubting these outcomes, it seems
appropriate to ask whether the data needs to be confirmed through oth-
er evidence and research methods. Indeed, multiple choice testing, which
was used in the survey of Green and Klug (1990), and mixed methods re-
search, like that conducted by Duffin (2006), led to the conclusion that
classrooms that make heavy use of debate have greater improvement
with respect to students’ understanding of the material than other class-
es, as well as the conclusion that competitive debate itself, adopted direct-
ly as an assessment tool in schools, might help the scientific community
to strengthen its results.
Critical thinking and argumentation skills are the other bene-
fits of debate that are often stressed. Semlak and Shields (1977), using
judges’ reports, revealed how students with debate training had signif-
icantly higher scores in analysis than students with only public speak-
ing training. Furthermore, Colbert (1995), in considering the objections
of Hill (1993) and indirectly those of Greenstreet (1993), proved with
a meta-analysis that debaters score better than non-debaters in critical
thinking. In addition, Colbert argued that the Watson-Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), the questionnaire adopted by the sur-
veys he reviewed, was one of the best tools developed thus far for criti-
cal thinking, in spite of its flaws (Ennis, 1958; 2009). In conclusion, Col-
dents, 88.9 % declared competitive debate better than standard lectures
for gaining an understanding of the various positions on issues, and fur-
thermore, 77.5 % of them thought that they learned more than if they
had attended a normal class. These results were corroborated by Han
Vo and Richard Morris’s survey (1996). Three out of four students in Vo
and Morris’s economy course considered debate helpful in understand-
ing the course material and in developing a more realistic idea of the
economy. In addition, the same outcome was recently reported by So-
phia Scott for a Science, Technology and Society course (2008).
Debating as a method for learning has been adopted in many disci-
plines, including economics (Vo and Morris, 1996), business adminis-
tration (Combs and Bourne, 1994), psychology (Moeller, 1985; O’Kon
and Sutz, 2005), sociology (Scott, 2008), philosophy (Nicolli and Cat-
tani, 2008), geography (Estaville, 2001), chemistry (Streitberger, 1988),
statistics (Shatz, 1985), and nutrition (Magnus, 2000), only to mention a
few. However, few of the research studies mentioned involved statistical
analysis, and even for those that did (Combs and Bourne, 1994; Scott,
2008; Vo and Morris, 1996), the investigation was limited to students’
perceptions. In conclusion, without doubting these outcomes, it seems
appropriate to ask whether the data needs to be confirmed through oth-
er evidence and research methods. Indeed, multiple choice testing, which
was used in the survey of Green and Klug (1990), and mixed methods re-
search, like that conducted by Duffin (2006), led to the conclusion that
classrooms that make heavy use of debate have greater improvement
with respect to students’ understanding of the material than other class-
es, as well as the conclusion that competitive debate itself, adopted direct-
ly as an assessment tool in schools, might help the scientific community
to strengthen its results.
Critical thinking and argumentation skills are the other bene-
fits of debate that are often stressed. Semlak and Shields (1977), using
judges’ reports, revealed how students with debate training had signif-
icantly higher scores in analysis than students with only public speak-
ing training. Furthermore, Colbert (1995), in considering the objections
of Hill (1993) and indirectly those of Greenstreet (1993), proved with
a meta-analysis that debaters score better than non-debaters in critical
thinking. In addition, Colbert argued that the Watson-Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), the questionnaire adopted by the sur-
veys he reviewed, was one of the best tools developed thus far for criti-
cal thinking, in spite of its flaws (Ennis, 1958; 2009). In conclusion, Col-
