Page 279 - 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. 279
debate as an educational tool:
is polarization a debate side effect? 279
bert, as Korcok did (1997), tried to promote cooperation among scholars
for methodologically more valid surveys.
Improvements in critical thinking and argumentation skills were
also confirmed by another exhaustive meta-analysis. After having re-
viewed 17 empirical research studies on communication, Allen et al.
(1999) concluded that “regardless of the specific measure used to assess
critical thinking, the type of design employed, or the specific type of
communication skills training taught, critical thinking improved as a
result of training in communication skills. […] Participation in forensic
demonstrated the largest improvement in critical thinking score wheth-
er considering longitudinal or cross-sectional designs” (ibidem: 27).
Recently, an Italian pre- and post- text analysis study has been done
(Turchi et al., 2008) and critical thinking improvement has continued
to be investigated, even if considering the perception only of both teach-
ers (cf. Martens, 2007) and students (Scott, 2008), and in addition, crit-
ical thinking in the classroom setting is still actively promoted (Oros,
2007). Nonetheless, more empirical surveys on the relationship between
debate and critical thinking are necessary to transcend the meta-analy-
ses conducted by Colbert (1995), Korcok (1997), and Allen et al. (1999)
(cf. Bellon, 2000; Broda-Bahm, 2002).
In conclusion, improvement of verbal and non-verbal communica-
tion is the last impact of debate on students we consider in this brief re-
view. The study of Semlak and Shields (1977), previously presented, ex-
plains the situation best: not only do debaters score better in analysis,
but also they perform better than public speaking students in organiza-
tion and communication of the message. Furthermore, according to the
research by Williams, McGee, and Worth (2001), as well as by Little-
field (2001), students perceive the improved ability to speak and commu-
nicate as the most common benefit of debate. This same outcome also
emerged from a broader survey (Inoue and Nakano, 2004) that provid-
ed an intercultural point of view.
2. Polarization as a Debate “Side Effect”
Among the several debate impacts on students some are considered
highly negative. Polarization is one of them. Polarization means moving
in the direction of the initial tendency or attitude (Petty and Wegener,
1998) strengthening the original position (Sears et al., 1964) or becom-
ing more entrenched in it (Lord et al., 1979). Polarization seems to be
linked to bias assimilation or confirmation bias (ibid.), i.e. the inclina-
tion to give weight only to evidence that is consistent with the hypothe-
is polarization a debate side effect? 279
bert, as Korcok did (1997), tried to promote cooperation among scholars
for methodologically more valid surveys.
Improvements in critical thinking and argumentation skills were
also confirmed by another exhaustive meta-analysis. After having re-
viewed 17 empirical research studies on communication, Allen et al.
(1999) concluded that “regardless of the specific measure used to assess
critical thinking, the type of design employed, or the specific type of
communication skills training taught, critical thinking improved as a
result of training in communication skills. […] Participation in forensic
demonstrated the largest improvement in critical thinking score wheth-
er considering longitudinal or cross-sectional designs” (ibidem: 27).
Recently, an Italian pre- and post- text analysis study has been done
(Turchi et al., 2008) and critical thinking improvement has continued
to be investigated, even if considering the perception only of both teach-
ers (cf. Martens, 2007) and students (Scott, 2008), and in addition, crit-
ical thinking in the classroom setting is still actively promoted (Oros,
2007). Nonetheless, more empirical surveys on the relationship between
debate and critical thinking are necessary to transcend the meta-analy-
ses conducted by Colbert (1995), Korcok (1997), and Allen et al. (1999)
(cf. Bellon, 2000; Broda-Bahm, 2002).
In conclusion, improvement of verbal and non-verbal communica-
tion is the last impact of debate on students we consider in this brief re-
view. The study of Semlak and Shields (1977), previously presented, ex-
plains the situation best: not only do debaters score better in analysis,
but also they perform better than public speaking students in organiza-
tion and communication of the message. Furthermore, according to the
research by Williams, McGee, and Worth (2001), as well as by Little-
field (2001), students perceive the improved ability to speak and commu-
nicate as the most common benefit of debate. This same outcome also
emerged from a broader survey (Inoue and Nakano, 2004) that provid-
ed an intercultural point of view.
2. Polarization as a Debate “Side Effect”
Among the several debate impacts on students some are considered
highly negative. Polarization is one of them. Polarization means moving
in the direction of the initial tendency or attitude (Petty and Wegener,
1998) strengthening the original position (Sears et al., 1964) or becom-
ing more entrenched in it (Lord et al., 1979). Polarization seems to be
linked to bias assimilation or confirmation bias (ibid.), i.e. the inclina-
tion to give weight only to evidence that is consistent with the hypothe-
