Use of Debates in the Classroom to Enhance Critical Thinking Skills

1. Use of Debates in the Classroom to Enhance Critical Thinking Skills Robert Gervey Mary O'Connor Drout Chia-Chiang Wang Department of Rehabilitation Psychology & Special Education University of Wisconsin-Madison

2. Critical Thinking: Defined • A reasoned, purposive reflexive approach to problem solving (Rudd, 2007) • A skeptical approach used to make decisions, solve problems, and master concepts (Mason, 2007)

3. Critical Thinkers: Increased Demand • The 21st century workplace demands increased critical thinking skills from its workforce • Example • Rehabilitation Counseling Field- • Increasing number of ethical dilemmas • Competing agendas from different stakeholders • Evidence-Based Practice necessitates more critical, evaluative skills

4. Why use debates for training critical thinking? • Critical thinking classrooms feature an abundance of evaluative questions and active learning (Browne & Freeman, 2000) • The debate technique incorporates controversy in the classroom that: • fosters increased interest • supports reasoned judgment, and • promotes consideration of multiple perspectives

5. Study Setting • RP&SE 500 • Foundations of Rehabilitation Counseling • An entry-level course in the Master’s program for rehabilitation counselors. It teaches: • Legislative history of profession • Trends in societal attitudes and behaviors toward individuals with disabilities • Ethical issues of the profession • Vocational rehabilitation systems and practices • Roles and functions of rehabilitation counselor

6. 2007 Class size 31 Degree BA- 26 MS- 5 Gender M- 26 F- 5 Prior experience in debates 16 (52%) 2008 Class size 27 Degree BA- 22 MS- 5 Gender M- 22 F- 5 Prior experience in debates 12 (44%) Samples

7. Teaching Methods • Class has been structured for past several years as a: • Hybrid in-class/web-based course • Mix of guest speakers, didactic presentations, small group discussions and five in-class debates

8. Debate Topics • Is RC history an inevitable story of progress and improvement? (week 2) • Has the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) been successful? (week 3) • Should a person who makes bad life choices be eligible for limited federal-state vocational rehabilitation funding? (week 4) • Should the feeding tube have been removed from Terri Schiavo? (week 7) • Should sheltered workshops be closed? (week 11)

9. Grouping Procedure • Developed 4 teams so as to create small groups of 6-8 students to collaborate in 5 class debates • Each team: 5 presenters & 1-3 judges • Randomly assigned students to groups • Group membership • (2007) switched by debates • (2008) remained constant throughout semester

10. Structure of Debates • Debates were administered in two separate classrooms led by the Instructor or the TA • Individual teams rotated so that each team had the opportunity to debate each other team and also be evaluated equally by the TA and Instructor • Each team member had 5 minutes to present their initial argument and 2 minutes for rebuttal • Instructor/TA and 1 or 2 members of each team served as judges for the debate

11. Debate Preparation • Week prior to each class debate • On-line threaded group discussion was mandated during which time students were to expected to plan, critique and refine their arguments for the upcoming in-class debate. Students needed to: • Post early and often • Comment on others postings • Edit/modify their arguments based on comments from others • Submit written argument document in dropbox prior to debate (2008 only)

13. Instructor/TA Monitoring & Prompts • Instructor and TA comments made within the threaded discussions to prompt, probe and direct participation and guide argument formation and to provide constructive feedback about specific types of collaborative group work activity evidenced by group members

14. Performance Evaluation • Verbal Performance • Instructor/TA ratings of individual in-class debate arguments [0-2 scale] (10-15 minute per student) • Written Performance • Instructor/TA ratings of individual debate argument submitted to Learn@UW Dropbox prior to debate [0-2 scale] (1-2 pages in length) • Participation • Number/Percentage of Postings within Group Threaded Discussion • Number/Percentage of Postings Read • Timeliness of Postings (Latency of Response)

15. Evaluations • Course evaluation • Students completed pre-post in-class course evaluation • Class evaluation • 2007-weekly, conducted in the next week after each class • 2008-only in debate classes, conducted right after debating

16. Pre- survey, 2008

17. Mock Debate Exercise

18. Results

19. Like Participating in Debates?

20. Added Learning and Mastery?

21. Preferred Lecture than Debate?

22. Appreciating Complexity of Issues?

23. Willing to listen to conflicting perspectives?

24. Appropriate to use a debate?

25. Post Survey Results: Debate vs. Non-debate classes (2007)

26. Debate classes Non-debate classes Changes in Personal Position: Debate vs. Non-debate classes (2007) Note. N = respondents. n1 = number of students who disagreed the position assigned. n2 = number of students who disagreed the position assigned changed position.

27. Class of 2007 Class of 2008 Changes in Personal Positions:Comparison of 2007 and 2008 Note. N = respondents. n1 = number of students who disagreed with assigned position. n2 = # of students who disagreed with assigned position and later changed position.

28. Level of Comfort

29. Level of Satisfaction

30. Which debate was “least helpful”?(collected in 2008)

31. Discussion • Benefits of Debates in Classroom • Decreases student aversion to debates • Increases challenge • Increases appreciation for diverse thinking • Downsides of Debates • Does not necessarily result in greater learning • Increases discomfort in students

32. Discussion (cont.) • Possible explanations for the decrease in effectiveness of debate in 2008 class • TA effect (different TA’s) • The impact of collaborative group work approach added to class of 2008 • Cohort difference • Reliability of rating instruments

33. Future Research Questions • Is debate the best medium for teaching critical thinking in the classroom? • What are the mechanisms involved in a person’s changing their position or opinion?

34. Limitation • Small samples • Applied research has multiple confounds • Missing data • Possible response set biases or influences • No students’ background variables • Anonymous data collection does not allow case level repeated measures analysis • Indirect measurement of critical thinking

35. Questions?? Comments Suggestions