Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A traditional debate format, in which a small group of students is given the task of presenting arguments for or against a particular issue, can promote pro and con dualism that is both incomplete and counter to developing a sociological imagination. In this article, the authors describe their efforts to avoid this kind of dualism through the development and implementation of a set of stakeholder meetings. They first examine the rationale for developing this method and then describe a particular classroom application of this type of debate. Next, the authors describe their assessment of the exercise both independent of and relative to traditional debates. They conclude by identifying some potential difficulties and make suggestions about the transferability to other academic settings.

Keywords

stakeholders debates different perspectives arguments presentations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bloom, Benjamin

, ed. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: Longman.

Bonwell, Charles

and

James Eison.

1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Budesheim, Thomas

and

Arlene Lundquist.

2000. ‘‘Consider the Opposite: Opening Minds Through In-class Debates on Course-related Controversies.’’ Teaching of Psychology26(2):106-10.

Carini, Robert

George Kuh

, and

Steven Klein.

1994. ‘‘Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages.’’ Research in Higher Education47(1):1-32.

Combs, Howard

and

S. Graham Bourne.

1994. ‘‘The Renaissance of Educational Debate: Results of a Five-year Study of the Use of Debate in Business Education.’’Journal on Excellence in College Teaching5(1):57-67.

Crone, James

1997. ‘‘Using Panel Debates to Increase Student Involvement in the Introductory Sociology Class.’’ Teaching Sociology25(3):214-18.

Dundes, Lauren.

2001. ‘‘Small Group Debates: Fostering Critical Thinking in Oral Presentations with Maximal Class Involvement. ’’ Teaching Sociology29(2):237- 43.

Goffman, Erving.

1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Green, Charles

and

Hadley Klug.

1990. ‘‘Teaching Critical Thinking and Writing through Debates: An Experimental Evaluation.’’ Teaching Sociology18(4):462-71.

10.

Guilford, J.P.

1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

11.

Hopkins, Gary.

2003. ‘‘Four Corner Debate.’’ Retrieved June 26, 2008 (http://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/03/lp304-04.shtml).

12.

Kennedy, Ruth.

2007. ‘‘In-class Debates: Fertile Ground for Active Learning and the Cultivation of Critical Thinking and Oral Communication Skills .’’ International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education19(2):183-90.

13.

Lewin, Lewis

and

James Wakefield.

1983. ‘‘Teaching Psychology through an Instructor-debate Format.’’ Teaching of Psychology10(2):115-16.

14.

Middendorf, Joan

and

Alan Kalish.

1997. ‘‘The ‘Change-up’ in Lectures.’’ Retrieved June 6, 2008 (http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~SCPP/pdfs/spruceup03.pdf).

15.

Noll, James W.

2003. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Educational Issues. 12th ed. Guilford, CT : McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.

16.

Osborne, Anne.

2005. ‘‘Debate and Student Development in the History Classroom.’’ New Directions for Teaching and Learning2005(103):39-50.

17.

Prince, Michael.

2004. ‘‘Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research.’’ Journal of Engineering Education93(3):223-31.

18.

Tumposky, Nancy.

2004. ‘‘The Debate Debate.’’ Clearing House78(2):52-55.

Stakeholder Meetings as a Means of Engaging Student Learning of Complex Social Problems

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References