Abstract
Keywords
Experiential learning has long been recognized as educationally beneficial, particularly in professional training programs (Chamane et al., 2019; Digby & Pinchin, 2019; Lee et al., 2020; Poore et al., 2014; Steele, 2023). While there is a rich experiential learning theory literature detailing best practices in diverse learning environments, including social work, there is limited research on the applicability of experiential learning theory and methods to large classroom contexts.
This article uses experiential learning theory to analyze the authors’ experiences of hosting electoral candidate debates in a large policy course for in-person and online students. We examine our experiences and those of students to respond to the question, “How might electoral candidate debates provide an experiential learning opportunity in large classes?” We argue that candidate debates, with limitations, are a unique method for achieving the student benefits of experiential learning in large classrooms.
The article starts with a review of the experiential learning theory that frames our analysis, followed by a review of the literature on experiential learning in social work and in large classes. The methods section includes the background to the course, an overview of the debates and the methods used to carry out this research. We then present and discuss findings, detailing how electoral debates can work as experiential learning activities, and how well they respect experiential learning principles. We conclude with implications for theory and practice, and suggestions for future research.
Literature Review
Experiential Learning Theory
This study examines in-class electoral debates through the lens of experiential learning theory developed by Kolb and Kolb (2005), while also recognizing the limitations thereof. Kolb and Kolb (2005), referencing the work of developmental and learning theorists such as Lewin, Piaget, Jung, Freire, and Rogers, identify six common elements of learning that center experiences. First, learning is a process that requires student engagement and is enhanced by feedback on the effectiveness of student efforts. Second, all learning is relearning: knowledge acquisition draws out personal beliefs, tests these convictions, and integrates these fine-tuned ideas. Third, learning requires some measure of conflict: through the learning process, discordance may arise compelling movement between reflection, action, feeling, and thinking. Next, learning is a holistic process that, in addition to cognition requires “feeling, perceiving and behaving” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005, p. 194). Fifth, learning flows between individuals and their educational environments; educational circumstances challenge historical understandings and meaning-making, and learners consider their experiences against introduced novel concepts. Sixth, and finally, learning is knowledge creation by all present rather than transmission from instructor to student.
Kolb (1984, 2014) conceptualizes the process of experiential learning as a four-mode learning “cycle.” This includes (a) participating openly and fully in a concrete learning situation (concrete experience [CE]), (b) considering and reflecting on the experience from multiple perspectives (reflective observation [RO]), (c) forming more broadly applicable abstract notions that are integrated into logical theories (active conceptualization [AC]), and (d) finally, using these new ideas to make decisions and testing through new experiences (active experimentation [AE]) (Kolb, 1984, p. 30). The way in which learners work through these stages is shaped by personal characteristics and experiences, as well as the learning environment (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Thus, to achieve optimal learning for all students, educational approaches must address each of the four learning modalities (Kolb, 2014).
While Seaman et al. (2017) maintain that Kolb's (1984) oft-cited model is the “clearest expression” of experiential learning theory, critics do problematize its tenets. Miettinen (2000), for example, maintains that Kolb's model is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of source materials and thus lacks an empirical and theoretical foundation (see also Coffield et al., 2004). Others argue that Kolb's theory effaces the sociohistorical contexts of learning and education (Bell, 1993; Seaman et al., 2017). Morris (2020) further argues that Kolbian models lack clarity, particularly regarding the nature of a CE. Based on his thematic analyses, Morris (2020) proposed a revised experiential learning model that required contextually rich CEs; critical reflective observation, contextual-specific abstract conceptualization, and pragmatic active experimentation.
Experiential Learning in Practice
Nevertheless, Kolb-inspired experiential learning has been recognized and widely adopted within postsecondary curricula ranging from classroom experiences to extended study abroad programs (Coker et al., 2017; Heinrich & Green, 2020; Stirling et al., 2017). Advocates cite pedagogical research pointing to the educational benefits of deeper learning from long-term experiences, as well as the scholastic value of a wide breadth of experiential learning experiences (Coker et al., 2017; Rocha, 2000). Roberts (2018) further suggests that institutional uptake of experiential learning is related to (a) employer preference for graduates with “real-world” skills developed during field education/service learning, (b) the good public relations built by community-based learning, and (c) students using prospective experiential learning opportunities to differentiate among tertiary educational institutions in a crowded market.
Faculty members place high value on positive student outcomes of experiential learning activities, including students’ enhanced skills in critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and collaboration (Wurdinger & Allison, 2017). They see student engagement as a construct comprised of the interactions between motivation, feelings, and perception (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020). This increased student engagement is intimately linked to higher levels of student learning (Kong, 2021; Wang et al., 2021).
However, instructors also report barriers to experiential learning, including the amount of time, effort, and money necessary for planning and implementation, particularly for place-based and service learning. Experiential learning can also detract from covering requisite material, and it can be difficult to ensure continued student engagement in activities, particularly in large classes (Bonnycastle & Bonnycastle, 2015; Mantai & Huber, 2021; Wurdinger & Allison, 2017).
Experiential Learning in Social Work
The authors’ discipline—social work—has long included various forms of what is now known as experiential learning, reflecting Kolbian principles. In social work courses, written reflective work is ubiquitous. Cabiati and Folgheraiter (2019), for example, describe how undergraduate students were asked to identify a personal change goal and work towards it during a course. The authors found that students acquired important lessons about how much empathy and support is needed for individuals to make a change: understanding that is essential for working with people receiving social work services (Cabiati & Folgheraiter, 2019). Vinjamuri et al. (2017) found that graduate students who reflected on research proposal development were able to connect and critically reflect on feelings and experiences, working through tensions to improve their abilities as researchers.
Experiential learning is also common in social work classrooms that connect learning to the community. Ferrer et al. (2020) described how students who created podcasts that linked social work theory with local community work appreciated the opportunity to generate knowledge and amplify community members’ voices. At the same time, community partners noted students’ development of transferable social work skills (Ferrer et al., 2020). Bonnycastle and Bonnycastle (2015) describe a community-based participatory research project with a homeless community. This project enabled students to uncover and explore their biases in relation to, and develop empathy for, the underhoused, increase their community-based research skills, and better understand the diverse, intersectional, and structural factors contributing to homelessness (Bonnycastle & Bonnycastle, 2015). Similarly, BSW students completing community-based participatory research, as reported by Venema et al. (2015), developed an improved ability to link research skills to professional social work practice.
Most importantly, field education is social work's “signature pedagogy”; a compulsory, essential, and foundational component of its practical education (Blitz et al., 2016; Canadian Association of Social Work Education [CASWE], 2022a; Olson-Morrison et al., 2019). Different forms of learning in early years of the program allow social work students to integrate theory and practice while solidifying social work practice skills and knowledge. This learning is consolidated through the fully immersive experience of work in community placement settings, with opportunities for reflection, conceptualization, and application of their learning supported by field supervisors (Bogo & Sewell, 2022; CASWE, 2022b; Garthwait, 2016; Morley & Dunstan, 2013; Wayne et al., 2010).
Each of these examples includes different levels of a concrete experience (such as working for personal change), reflective observation (through, e.g., writing reflective diaries), active conceptualization (such as generating knowledge with community members) as well as active experimentation (e.g., applying what has been learned later in the placement). However, what also connects these examples of experiential learning in social work is the relatively low student–teacher ratio, given the work that goes into supporting students individually through the activities. Experiential learning in large social work classes is much less documented.
Experiential Learning in the Large Classroom
Thus, much of social work's experiential learning literature focuses on clinical, community, or research skills course content and learning settings with relatively low student–teacher ratios. For research examining experiential learning activities in large classes, we turn primarily to other disciplines. Here, we see increased challenges when scaling up experiential learning principles to the large classroom.
Outside of the social sciences, Donovan and Hood (2020) described an interdisciplinary exercise involving 150 business and music students who collaborated on a performance. Zapalska and Brozik, (2020) organized a team-based auction market simulation in a large hospitality and tourism class. In each of these projects, researchers held that effectively designed and delivered experiential activities lead to increased student engagement which, in turn, improves skills building and knowledge retention.
More relevant to policy learning, large class activities labeled as experiential have tended towards simulations; the topic of 40 papers between 2005 and 2013 in a single journal (Baranowski & Weir, 2015). For example, in a study by Battaglini et al. (2019), the authors facilitated detailed congressional simulations with 300 students. A smaller number of papers have reported on engagement in real-life policy experiences. These include Bennion (2006), who involved students directly in voter mobilization; Kumler and Whittaker (2020), who analyzed the learning of students who watched debates outside of class, and Boeckelman et al. (2008), who worked with students to organize an out-of-class congressional candidate debate.
While studies generally report benefits for learning and the ease of scaling of simulations to large classes (Baranowski & Weir, 2015), it is not clear how fully these reflect experiential learning principles such as the contextually rich concrete experience. The studies that do incorporate concrete real-life experiences also found benefits for student engagement, learning, and political participation, but face added barriers in organization and implementation. This points to the tension in providing meaningful experiences in a context of ever-increasing class sizes (Archer & Miller, 2011; Lund Dean & Wright, 2017). With this paper, looking at an experience that is relatively easy to bring into the classroom and scale to large class sizes, we contribute to addressing this gap in the literature.
Method
Course Background
Carleton University is in Canada's national capital. The university is in an urban federal riding known for high-voter turnout and active political engagement (Britneff, 2019). The course's instructor (third author) and a School of Social Work colleague (first author) organized, hosted, and facilitated the debates. At the time of both debates, the second author was a Carleton Master of Social Work (MSW) student and Teaching Assistant for the courses.
The debates were hosted in “Introduction to Social Welfare,” a mandatory course for incoming BSW students and elective for nonsocial work students, with over 300 students each semester. Students either attended classes in-person or watched filmed broadcasts of the classes online. Most students were local (though not necessarily in the university's electoral riding/ward), with a small number of distance learners nationally and internationally.
Key course learning objectives included a basic knowledge of Canadian welfare state institutions and policies. The course emphasized critical analysis of discriminatory outcomes fostered by systemic inequalities including (among others) racism, colonialism, classism, and heteronormativity. Given the diversity of enrolled students, active learning exercises appropriate to large classes were integrated wherever possible such as small-group and full-class discussions. Assessments included the formative reflections that were used as the data source for this study, as well as a summative final exam, policy analysis paper, and creative piece advocating for a change recommended in the paper.
Municipal and federal elections during two course offerings provided rare opportunities to bring to life political, social welfare, and social work discussions, allowing instructors to connect students to the political process within the context of guided learning experiences. Given election timing, and to allow for preparatory work in class, both debates were held during class five of a 12-week semester. Every electoral candidate registered in the constituency that included campus was invited. All five candidates attended the municipal election debate, where candidates are independent. Five of the 10 invited candidates attended the federal debate, with parties represented ranging from the Communist to the Libertarian party.
The instructors chose the open-ended discussion prompts from among a pool of questions submitted by students. Indigeneity- and climate change-related queries ranked highly among student interests, so the instructors privileged these topics: further questions were chosen to reflect course learning outcomes. Students with chosen questions could ask their question in-person or via video, or have the moderator read it for them. Debate organizers decided against taking debate audience questions and comments in real time, to give in-person and online students equal opportunity to participate while still affording some opportunity to use their queries to further learning objectives. Following feedback from the first (municipal) debate, time was reserved in the class after the second (federal) debate for a debrief, to consolidate learning (for a further discussion of debate organization, see Martin et al., 2022)
Debate Organization
The debates were organized to maximize student learning but were contingent on how election days fall within the semester: too early and first year students would not have had enough time to learn foundational concepts. With hopes of assuring as much representation on the political spectrum as possible, email invitations to participate detailing audience size (hundreds) and composition (mostly young, diverse) were sent to each registered candidate. Organizing the municipal debate was relatively easy (no party affiliations) while the federal debate organization required more back and forth communications with candidates and several deciding not to attend. Absent candidates were offered opportunities to have an opening statement read by the moderator on their behalf.
Both debates followed the same basic format as follows: (a) candidates offered opening statements; this was followed by (b) questions to candidates (including individual response time and time to debate); and (c) closing statements. Candidates drew lots on arrival to determine seat order, thus setting the sequence for opening statements. A screen above and behind the election hopefuls showed the finalized seating order with candidate names and party affiliations (as they were seated). The screen was also used to show (in writing) candidate questions as they were being asked and project those student questions submitted by video. With a nod to fairness and transparency, the organizers used a random number generator to predetermine the response order. The moderator had a full script of the program including the questions, candidate response order, and timing reminders. In addition to the moderator, a timekeeper and person responsible for technology proved essential.
Participants and Data
This paper draws on the reflections of the teaching/research team, as well as student data. One of the course assessments required students to reflect on multiple classes of their choice. Specifically, for each of five classes, students were asked to write four short responses reflecting on (a) a moment in class that engaged them, (b) a moment that confused them, (c) a connection between class and the readings for the week, and (d) an outstanding question they had following the class. Reflections could be related to class content, delivery, or design. Each response was worth 1 point each (4 points per class) for a total of 20% of the final grade. By the date of each debate, most students had already submitted and received constructive feedback on at least one reflective assignment.
Inspired by and building on Brookfield's (2006) use of Critical Incident Questionnaires (p. 42), this assignment was designed to serve several purposes. It was a formative assessment designed to assist students’ work toward summative assessments that included a policy analysis paper and an examination, thus encouraging students to keep up with the material (Ash et al., 2005). The design of the questions explicitly encouraged students to critically reflect on their experiences as learners and their individual reactions to course content and thus, honing their skills for the deeper reflection they would encounter later in the social work program. Finally, as detailed in Brookfield (2006), it enabled the teaching team to identify what was working in the course, as well as common questions and areas of confusion that needed to be revisited and addressed.
After receiving institutional REB approval, researchers asked students who had submitted reflective assignments, or provided unsolicited feedback on the classes in question, for permission to analyze their reflections. The e-mailed invitation to participate was sent after course end: eight months after the federal debate which was also 20 months after the municipal event. Of the 207 students who had completed debate-related reflection, or who had submitted unsolicited debate feedback, 73 students provided consent to include their work. This included three unsolicited messages regarding the candidate debates.
The reflections were well-suited to a qualitative research project due to their open-ended nature, and deliberate design that required students to combine thoughts and feelings (Bennion et al., 2020). These data allowed for analysis of multiple types of learning including content and emotional learning, as well as affective change, and responses to class design (Heinrich & Green, 2020).
The authors downloaded anonymized student reflections into spreadsheets for coding and thematic analysis using NVivo. Student reflections were iteratively analyzed through an inductive process of decontextualization to assign codes. Recontextualization then considered patterns within the assigned codes, identifying recurring themes and reconstituting these themes relative to the datum analyzed and their interrelationships (See Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). This was then considered in the cultural and historical contexts detailed by students.
By privileging a better understanding of the potential and constraints of in-class processes, this study adopts a constructionist approach; exploring how student identities, knowledge, and valuation of subject matter influences learning and querying the social organization impacts of educational activities (Wortham & Jackson, 2008). The experiential learning events and research process were in keeping with the central characteristics of constructionism described by providing modeling opportunities (student agency is increased by challenging and honing learning concepts); prioritizing accessibility to learning processes (increasing student agency by offering opportunities model); layering learning principles (deepening student knowledge through increased problem complexity); and “tapping into youth culture” (by seeking to engage learner agendas and priorities) (Noss & Clayson, 2015, p. 287). While this paper's theoretical framework draws heavily on Kolb's (1984, 2014; See also Kolb & Kolb, 2005) experiential learning framework, it also recognizes recent research by incorporating more holistic thinking about the learning experience and contextual issues (Bennion et al., 2020).
Findings
In the following sections, we answer our question “How might electoral candidate debates provide an experiential learning opportunity for large classes?” Our study results draw on themes evident throughout student reflections, organized primarily around Kolb's (1984, 2014; See also Kolb & Kolb, 2005,) experiential learning framework. However, we acknowledge recent critiques by integrating contextual issues and thinking of the learning experience more holistically (Bennion et al., 2020; Morris, 2020; Seaman et al., 2017). Responses are identified by the specific class to which the student is referring; the municipal debate (Municipal), the federal debate (Federal) or the debrief in the class following the federal debate (Federal debrief). To protect the integrity of the data, reflections are presented exactly as written, including capitalizations, Canadian spelling, and errors.
Concrete Experience
Many students talked in their reflections about the unique CE that the debates had provided. Indeed, the instructors had carefully organized these in-class debates to provide the same, if not more, levels of participation for the average student attendee than at public electoral debates in the community. For example, students were strongly encouraged to submit questions in advance, encouraging them to think carefully about current electoral issues in preparation. Students particularly appreciated this centering of student-generated questions that reflected their interests and concerns, describing them as “thought-provoking, intelligent and address[ing] many social policies that are at the forefront of politics today” (Municipal). One student, speaking to the advantage of having students pose the questions directly, described how “it was inspiring to see our youth getting involved by speaking up and asking questions about the issues that arise in our society” (Federal).
Knowing that they would be discussing the debates and/or writing reflections on debates later also encouraged active reflective engagement in the debate while it was in progress. Watching the debate in-person allowed them to make observations that they may not have had otherwise. For example, several students commented on how their experience at a full debate in-person, was different to watching snippets on the news, “I never seen a full debate in my life. […] This has made me really interested in debates and I plan to watch more in the future” (Federal). Another student described observing details that would not have been apparent through either a TV debate or by seeing excerpts, “While I had previously watched debates on television during federal and provincial elections, I had never sat firsthand. While I very much enjoyed listening to their responses, I also found their body language, mannerisms, composure, and how they interacted with each other prior to the debate very interesting” (Municipal).
Reflective Observation
Given the nature of the assignment, RO was clear throughout the data, with students critically reflecting on both the way candidates presented themselves and what they said. For example, critical reflection enabled students to identify how, “[t]he candidates seemed to sometimes answer questions without providing an actual answer and so for some of the questions I sat in my seat trying to piece together what their solutions to a problem was. One example was when the topic of indigenous issues came up, everyone basically said that they agree that something needs to be done but most didn’t provide an action plan.” (Municipal)
Students also reflected on interactions between candidates and how different this was from dominant portrayals in mainstream media. This included negative interactions, “I have only seen short clips on the news or from people have posted. It really intreating to see how confident they all were and how they answered all the question. It was also funny to see them openly speak poorly of each other.” (Federal). Others reflected on levels of cooperation, “THERE WAS ONE PORTION OF THE DEBATE THAT STOOD OUT TO ME BECAUSE OF THE COLLABORATION. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN GREEN PARTY MEMBER ANGELA KELLER-HERBOG AND NDP MEMBER EMILIE TAMAN HAD ME MOST ENGAGED BECAUSE THEY SEEMED TO BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF EACH OTHER, DESPITE THEIR BEING ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF WHAT SEEMS TO BE A VERY COMPETITIVE ELECTION.” (Federal).
Students made multiple connections with course content, speaking about how the debates brought course content to life, “I found it to be quite interesting how the topics we have learnt in class were being answered and brought into politics. I was thoroughly engaged because it was a way to see what we are learning being applied into real life situations” (Municipal). For certain students, this clearly increased engagement in course learning, “My level of understanding about Canadian politics and ideologies in general has deepened greatly this week! I find I am also thinking more critically about this upcoming election more than I ever have before. It feels good to be this engaged and I am so excited for the rest of this course” (Federal debrief)
Active Conceptualization
Using the experience of attending the debate to develop broader conceptualizations was particularly clear during the debrief session following the federal debate, where particular attention was paid to making connections between debate responses and course concepts. One participant connected housing insecurity with class content on social assistance rates, [E]ven if each party's projected number of new housing units come to pass (1,000,000 new units promised from the Communist party, 500,000 from the NDP), individuals and families who rely on social assistance are already so far under the poverty line that the new housing will likely be out of reach as well. Looking at [the class reading] it is shocking to see the discrepancy between the welfare income coming in, and the LICO poverty line (Federal debrief).
Having student-led topics also encouraged students to apply the debate content to their own lives and futures, “[One candidate] had a really strong statement about the solution to our polluted planet. It caught my attention because it must do a lot about my future and my future children's lives.” (Federal)
The debrief session included a lively discussion about the attitudes of politicians towards students, as summarized by one participant, “An individual during the [debrief] discussion said that some candidates were patronizing which I agreed with because some candidates were treating the class as 18-year old's that never voted before whereas there were candidates that treated the class with adults and not first timers” (Federal). Similarly, several students developed theories about certain candidates chose not to attend, “It was also interesting to see what parties did not show up, which showed me how little these parties valued the youth vote, more specifically University students” (Federal). At the same time, there was an appreciation for the space this created for other candidates, “There isn’t much publicity for certain parties, so for someone new to voting (like myself), finding information on the views of them all can be difficult if you don’t know what you’re looking for” (Federal).
Debate content also challenged students’ previously held beliefs. This emerged, for example, in encouraging students to reflect more on the treatment of Indigenous Peoples, adjusting their views of Canada as a “nice” country. One student explained how, “I start to question the world's perception of Canada. Canada is known to be the nicest country in the world. However, the country is failing to live up to its expectations through its many decisions” (Federal).
Active Experimentation
The nature of the debate activity provided limited space for AE in the moment. However, reflections suggested that this would be something that students would be engaging with in the future. This ranged from students newly recognizing their power as voters, “I am given the important power of choosing the party that will lead Canada positively” (Federal), to more specific pledges related to voting, They've encouraged me to thoroughly research each party as they've made me aware of the significance of every vote, and they have also motivated me to speak up when I hear friends use the excuse of not voting due to feeling like it does not make a difference (Federal).
Further, the instructor observed AE in relation to new course content over the course of the semester. On multiple occasions, students explicitly and implicitly referred to their learning from the debates as they applied the ideas to new concepts and discussions that were coming up in class. For example, as the class discussed different policy areas, they were able to use their consolidated knowledge from the debates to identify the ideologies underpinning different policies.
Discussion and Implications
This article explores the potential role of candidate debates as an experiential learning method for large social policy classes. We have written elsewhere about how the debates helped to support learning in relation to social policy and social justice (Woodside et al., 2023). With this article, we contribute to existing experiential learning literature, illustrating that in-class candidate debates are appropriate activities that reflect both foundational common elements of learning as well as the full cycle of experiential learning theory (Kolb, 2014; Kolb & Kolb, 2005).
Common Elements of Learning
Hosting candidate debates in large policy classes reflected all six of the foundational learning propositions detailed by Kolb and Kolb (2005). First, student learning was encouraged via feedback on the effectiveness of their efforts. This was offered through the processes of debate question selection, comments on written submissions, and in-situ during the post federal election debrief and subsequent classes. Second, relearning was evident as students built on previous knowledge from both personal experience and the course (e.g., on poverty and colonization) to develop more finely tuned ideas. Third, some measure of conflict and inner tension was evident as debate content caused many students to question their beliefs about candidates and their opinions of Canada, because of the input provided by the party candidates and their peers.
Evidence of the fourth proposition of learning, that it is a holistic process, emerged in how the reflections, along with demonstrating thinking and reflection, referenced feelings of anger, surprise, disappointment and excitement, and spoke about future actions. We saw the fifth, that learning is an interaction between individuals and their environment, in learners looking at their own past and future experiences in a new light following the debate. Finally, both the reflective writing, where students thought about the experience individually, and the debrief, where students and the instructor collaboratively reviewed the content in the context of the course, were examples of knowledge creation.
The Experiential Learning Cycle
We propose that in-class electoral debates exemplify experiential learning theory as described by Kolb and Kolb (2005). Each of the debate events was a CE. Next, RO opportunities were exemplified in student debate attendance, and the written reflections. Much student writing also reflected active conceptualization in their attempts to link debate content to broader social questions and course concepts. Finally, active experimentation was evident in the post-event debrief as well as future activity mentioned by students.
One might question, as the authors did, whether participating as an audience member still qualified as a Kolbian CE (Kolb, 2014; Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Extending the learning opportunities beyond the event, we maintain that in addition to candidate debates meeting the criteria of the Kolbian model, they meet Morris’ (2020) raised bar. The debates were CEs that were as, if not more, contextually rich as public electoral debates. They fostered contextual-specific abstract conceptualization through their focus on real-world problems (as all debates do) relevant to the municipal or federal context of each debate. Finally, critical reflective observation, required by the debrief and assignment components, led to later pragmatic active experimentation.
Nevertheless, we identified two main avenues by which we could have increased engagement in the CE of the debate, at least for some students. First, the process by which questions were chosen could have been democratized. For example, individual student questions could have been polled, with only the most popular questions being posed to candidates. However, we ultimately offer that the instructor's role as an arbiter was important here in ensuring best possible educational outcomes. By covering a range of content and centering diverse voices, the diverse student body could see themselves represented.
Second, we might have allowed for audience questions. From experience, we, again believe that this could have caused complications. For example, this could have been monopolized by the voices of those of students with the confidence to speak, or already limited time could be lost to polemic statements rather than questions, or irrelevant questions that contribute to audience frustration and disengagement. Our decision to limit these aspects of engagement typical of publicly held candidate debate, in our desire to meet educational goals around content and diversity, appeared to be supported by on students’ reflections.
We saw the preparation of students and debrief as providing the foundations upon which the debate could deliberately foster critical thinking skills (Heinrich et al., 2015); exposure to new ideas in the context of the debate encouraged students to challenge their beliefs and biases. Perhaps the most important lesson learned for future iterations would therefore be the pedagogic utility of individual and group reflection activities pre and postdebate. In addition to their reflective writing, the federal debate demonstrated the utility of holding a collective debrief session in the following class, where students can query and process their learning and collectively create new learning. Indeed, knowledge inspired by the debate experience was a large contributor to student learning for the rest of the course.
As in Heinrich and Green (2020), we found the debriefing session the most effective in its combination of small and large group discussion. AE could be further developed with activities in the debrief session that encourage application of new learning. For example, one exercise poses a student question that was not asked in the debate itself and asks students to apply their learning from the debate to consider how different candidates may have answered. Alternatively, a “mock debate” could involve students representing different parties to argue positions on social policy proposals based on their in-class learning and research.
Experiential Learning in the Large Classroom
Comparing our experiences to the barriers to experiential learning cited in the literature, we noted areas of overlap and divergence. While time was certainly a constraint (90-min limit), in the case of a debate, financing was not. The debates were hosted within the usual parameters of a regular class and no payment was required for participants. The passive delivery of the debate itself reflected the real-life experience of public debates, with increased participation through student questions, reflection, and discussion of application to their lives as voters, making it ideal for a large class context with a high student–teacher ratio (for further discussion, see Martin et al., 2022).
The very nature of debates necessitates the need for “instructional flexibility” as described by Heinrich and Green (2020), as instructors cannot anticipate or control all content that will arise and must play multiple roles including facilitator (of both the debate and of learning), guide, and lecturer. Advance preparation on, for example, electoral processes is helpful, while the debrief as highly useful for addressing outstanding student confusion, especially given the varying levels of advanced knowledge with which students enter a large classroom.
Participating in a candidate debate therefore offers an opportunity for a different type of learning activity, a form of experiential learning that can be brought right into the large classroom, and a way to build on the breadth of experience described by Coker et al. (2017) as beneficial. It bridges the space between those experiences “outside” the classroom, to which the literature has often, perhaps erroneously, limited discussion of experiential learning, and the idea of the lecture as experiential learning (Blenkinsop et al., 2016).
Limitations
Though still valid and valuable, organizing these in-class electoral debates was initially an educational, not research, endeavor. This project was, thus, limited by the design of the original assignment. While the student reflections were relatively low stakes, the authors acknowledge that reflections, particularly those originally submitted as assessments, could have been affected by student social desirability bias. While we can examine reflections for evidence of the stages of experiential learning in individual students, such a project cannot provide an objective measure of content learning—a common problem in evaluation of experiential learning (Bennion et al., 2020). Finally, in the time between the courses ending and sending out the invitations to participate, some upper years students may have graduated.
Each of the three unsolicited messages was effusively positive. However, we caution against comparisons to the reflections; given the reflective exercise instructions specifically asked for both negative and positive responses to class content and the comparatively low number of messages to the instructor.
We concede that richer data might have been collected had we designed a research project to run concurrent with the learning process. In the future, a more systematically designed research study would be useful to reengage the question. This could be expanded to include graduate students and explore the nuances between learning at different levels and according to other student participant metrics (e.g., prior level of political participation; pre-course knowledge).
Conclusions
With mandated field placements being an integral part of the curriculum, social work students are well acquainted with experiential learning activities. Yet, much of extant experiential learning and related research has focused on preparing students, in small classes, for the workplace. Our aim was to use this activity as an example of experiential learning that can help to prepare students for the civic participation so essential to ethical social work practice.
The debates are an example of innovation in a part of the curriculum that, due to the level, size, and topic, is traditionally less able to provide experiential learning. While it is not feasible to scale up all experiential learning activities to the size and format of the class in question, running an electoral debate and combining this with a debrief and other postdebate exercises enables transformation of an in-class event with many students into experiential learning. While hosting required a great deal of front-end organization, the richness of the event provided a great deal of content that could be used for later learning.
As Coker et al. (2017) argue, regardless of depth or breadth, well-designed experiential learning activities are always beneficial. We do not maintain that a 90-min event could ever match the depth of learning possible in a months-long opportunity in other parts of the social work curriculum. We do contend that activities such as in-class candidate debates contribute to the variety and breadth of student learning experiences in a way that reflects the guiding principles of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984, 2014; See also Kolb & Kolb, 2005), providing important opportunities to support large numbers of early year students in achieving core learning outcomes and increasing civic engagement.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was completed with funding provided by the School of Social Work.
