|
Critical Thinking in Every Class
Debate Across the Curriculum (DAC) is DKC’s most novel approach for bringing the educational benefits of debate to more students. DAC uses debate to teach students core subject areas. Debate makes learning a game in which knowledge leads to competitive success. This motivates students to read, analyze and formulate arguments over their schoolwork. While many educational methods rely on the memorization facts, DAC is a unified method for critical thinking that forces students to personalize, apply and evaluate information. In addition, all students gain experience with public speaking, research and organization.
DAC can be used in all school subjects. In history, students may debate about the most significant cause of the Revolutionary War or which right protected by the Bill of Rights is the most important. In science students can debate about the best solutions to global warming or the ethics of bioengineering. Students could debate about the cost effectiveness of renewable energy in math class. Art students could clash over which type of whether impressionism or modern art will have the most lasting imprint on humanity. The possibilities are endless.
The critical thinking skills taught by DAC are of special importance in the Information Age, where opinion can easily be disguised as fact. All students should be prepared to evaluate the vast amounts information they will be bombarded with each day as adults. Critical thinking skills help people make better, more informed decisions.
DEBATE-Kansas City’s Pilot Project
DKC is currently completing a pilot project with sixth grade students using DAC at University Academy (UA). The pilot program began in July 2006 with the selection of a group a teachers UA (one from each core subject area) to use debate in one sixth grade class. Three other classes at UA did not use debate, creating a control group. DKC, in conjunction with Dr. Alfred Snider, a foremost national expert on DAC, trained the teachers to use DAC through curriculum and on-site support. Every student performed one two-on-two debates in each subject. DKC is currently in the process of collecting data and evaluating the pilot project.
Researched Justification
The research below will cite evidence and studies that prove the need for and effectiveness of Debate Across the Curriculum. This research review has been divided into three broad categories that display the need for Debate Across the Curriculum:
1. The Problem- The United States educational system is failing to teach its students to critically analyze and solve problems. In other words, we are not teaching our students how to think, causing a systematic failure to learn.
2. The Cause- The United States education system still places a primary focus on memorization instead of critical thinking in all content areas. Students are not active learners and teachers are not prepared to engage or empower students.
3. The Solution- Debate Across the Curriculum is the best way to empower students and teach critical thinking skills. Students will become active learners, improving their skills across the board.
1. The Problem- The United States educational system is failing to teach its students to
critically analyze and solve problems. In other words, we are not teaching our students
how to think, causing systematic failure to learn.
- Critical thinking is known to be the most important skill a student can learn, yet half of all students in the United States do not posses basic critical thinking skills.
Baker, Tonya, Delmoncio and Janine. Masters Dissertations at Saint Xavier University 1999 (12/02) “Enhancing Critical Thinking in High School English and Theatre Arts”
Critical thinking is being judged as the most important characteristic of successful individuals in the nest century (Gibson, 1995). This has brought critical thinking into the forefront of educational reform and has caused educators to focus on teaching students critical thinking skills. ….Results acquired form testing 8th grade, 10th grade, and undergraduate university students on the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Levels X and Z substantiated Norris’ statement by revealing that the level of critical thinking is not very high at any level of schooling (Norris).
- The current lack of critical thinking is displayed in our student’s inability to find and analyze research. With the dawn of the information age the problem is even more significant.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship January 2005 (v.31 140-5) “Developing Information Literacy and Research Skills in Introductory Psychology; A Case Study”
The eagerness with which students initially approach psychology and other social science courses soon abates when they confront the topic of research methods. Concepts such as "operational definition," "literature search," and even "journal article" often produce glazed looks of indifference. Within research methods, library instruction receives an even less enthusiastic response. At a time when rapid expansion of information resources and computer technology makes it essential for citizens to be information literate, it is mostly librarians who have urged that information-retrieval skills be incorporated into college courses.(n1) Like many social science faculty members who teach introductory level courses, we too until recently have largely ignored calls for course-related instruction in library usage(n2) and online information retrieval.(n3)
- The failure to empower urban youth as they learn continues to plague our education system.
Dr. Ede Warner University of Louisville Dr. Jon Bruschke, California State
University, Fullerton Paper presented at the 2001 Western States Communication Association convention in Coer d’Alene, Idaho. “GONE ON DEBATING:” COMPETITIVE ACADEMIC DEBATE AS A TOOL OF EMPOWERMENT FOR URBAN AMERICA
Improving urban education may require more than traditional programs designed to raise test scores. Urban youth are not so much underachievers as they are marginalized and excluded from society. A current assumption is that if urban youths could just absorb the content (what has traditionally been called the “curriculum”) of their classes, they will have the skills they need to thrive in society. This paper takes a different view. Marginalized students certainly need basic academic skills, but the content of their education must focus always on enriching ways of including students in society; it must emphasize ways to give students not just the tools of the academy, but also the tools of empowerment.
2. The Cause- The United States education system still places a primary focus on
memorization instead of critical thinking. Students are not active learners and teachers
are not prepared to engage or empower students.
- Teachers spend the vast majority of their instructional time on memorization of factual material, which undermines student’s abilities to think for themselves.
Baker, Tonya, Delmoncio and Janine. Dissertations 1999 (12/02) “Enhancing Critical Thinking in High School English and Theatre Arts”
To begin, students need to realize that the goal of education is “thinking”. Too many times, students just recite information garnered from a reading selection and repeat this same material back to instructors. In Thackers’s research (1990), he found most teachers devote 75-85 percent of the instructional to the memorization of factual information (p.30). Yet, the research suggests that this practice undermines the goal of having students learn to gather, question, analyze, synthesize, and formulate ideas and opinions.
- Memorization based teaching methods do not constitute effective learning.
Joe Bellon, Georgia State University Argumentation & Advocacy, Winter 2000, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161-175. RESEARCH-BASED JUSTIFICATION FOR DEBATE ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
Research on cognition suggests that learning involves the active construction of knowledge. Teachers and texts can provide information that is useful for constructing new knowledge, but the mere memorization of this information does not constitute effective learning. Studies show that information that is merely memorized will remain inert even though it is relevant in new situations (192).
- Few U.S. teachers are prepared to teach critical thinking skills
Baker, Tonya, Delmoncio and Janine. Dissertations 1999 (12/02) “Enhancing Critical Thinking in High School English and Theatre Arts”
There is also research that focuses its attention on the teacher’s role of instituting critical thinking in the classroom. Evidence suggests that few teachers are successfully implementing critical thinking into the classroom.
- Debate, one of the best approaches to teach critical thinking, is not being incorporated into classroom curriculum. This has left the education community divided on the best methods for teaching critical thinking skills
Joe Bellon, Georgia State University Argumentation & Advocacy, Winter 2000, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161-175. RESEARCH-BASED JUSTIFICATION FOR DEBATE ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
One of Fine's only criticisms of the New York Urban Debate League is that it does not incorporate debate into the regular high school curriculum. She recommends "exploring vehicles to better integrate after-school debate activities into the daily work of schools" (9) and "investigating interdisciplinary connections" (75). Indeed, some research suggests that the ubiquity of debate-intensive instruction in DAC programs can remedy the cognitive disjunction that has been created by the diversification of the curriculum. If we do not find a consistent way to teach critical thinking, Maiorana contends, we will "fractionalize the education profession, driving members of the profession apart in diverse quests to have teachers plant critical skills in students, as though the urge to ask questions were not innate in every human mind" (9). As one of the most effective methods of improving critical thinking skills, debate-intensive instruction is thus recommended because it will be incorporated across the curriculum, not in spite of that fact.
3. The Solution- Debate Across the Curriculum is the best way to empower students and
teach critical thinking skills. Students will become active learners, improving their skills
across the board.
- Existing studies show that Debate Across the Curriculum will improve critical thinking skills.
Joe Bellon, Georgia State University Argumentation & Advocacy, Winter 2000, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161-175. RESEARCH-BASED JUSTIFICATION FOR DEBATE ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
The existing academic literature makes a powerful case for debate across the curriculum. Debate training improves communication competence and critical thinking, and the existing research in educational psychology gives us every reason to expect that these benefits will only increase as debate pedagogy is implemented across the curriculum. Properly formulated, DAC programs incorporate the best aspects of communication across the curriculum and critical thinking across the curriculum.
- Debate develops empowered learners
Dr. Ede Warner University of Louisville Dr. Jon Bruschke, California State University, Fullerton Paper presented at the 2001 Western States Communication Association convention in Coer d’Alene, Idaho. “GONE ON DEBATING:” COMPETITIVE ACADEMIC DEBATE AS A TOOL OF EMPOWERMENT FOR URBAN AMERICA
There are two powerful benefits to the performance-oriented nature of debate. First, there is strong reason to believe that students develop and grow much faster when they are actually engaged in the subject they are supposed to be internalizing as opposed to simply being exposed to the writing and lecturing of others (Friere, 1993). The learning cycle is complete when students are taught how to do something and then get the chance to do it for themselves. Second, the very nature of the event empowers students by putting them in charge of their own fates. Rather than relying strictly on the authority figure of the teacher to direct the learning, the students are depending on themselves and each other.
- Students with debate skills have increased their grades 10-15 percent
U.S. News & World Report June 17, 2002 ”League of their own”
These aren't just the overachievers. "We're not looking for the best or the brightest child; we're looking for the one that struggles academically," says police Officer Angelo Brooks, the coach of Baltimore's Walbrook team. His students use the tools of debate in other classes: flowing (a charting style used in policy debate), shorthand, careful listening. On average, their grades have gone up 10 to 15 points.
- Debate Across the Curriculum will improve student learning over any course content
Joe Bellon, Georgia State University Argumentation & Advocacy, Winter 2000, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161-175. RESEARCH-BASED JUSTIFICATION FOR DEBATE ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
Many scientists, for example, discuss the importance of learning "the scientific method," but most undergraduates do not get the chance to explore their own understanding of this method's assumptions in an active way. The lab setting often teaches student how, but not why. DAC allows students to enhance their own understanding of scientific practices by requiring them to explain and justify their studies in an interactive and intellectually challenging way. Similarly, DAC offers math students the chance to translate their understanding of abstract formulas and theorems into the ability to resolve real-world problems. Debating about social controversies whose resolution requires precise mathematical calculation not only sharpens math skills, it helps students understand why math competence is so important. Foreign language students would also benefit from DAC. Debate is, after all, a structured and challenging form of oral interaction, requiring students to understand the argumentative patterns of other cultures and to use high-level conversation skills. Maloy decries the general dearth of opportunities for students to learn argumentation skills, since those deprived in this way "lack a form of reasoning that is essential to conceptual understanding in many subject matters" (8). We can expect that the benefits of debate will increase as the activity is incorporated into more and more classrooms. Most of the research on debate involves participation in a competitive, extra-curricular environment. However, Cronin, assessing the impact of an actual DAC program, concludes:
Students appear to enjoy participating in debate in their courses and rate such activities highly. They report that their courses are improved due to the incorporation of debate as a teaching/learning activity and feel that debate should be used again in these courses. Students perceive that debating major course topics helps them learn more and helps improve their oral communication skills (12-13).
- Students have reported that debate across the curriculum increased their learning for three overwhelming reasons
Jean Goodwin “ Students' Perspectives on Debate Exercises in Content Area Classes” Communication Education, Vol. 52, No.2, April 2003, pp. 157-163
The great majority of students (79%), however, focused on how the debates had encouraged or indeed "forced" them to better learn course content. Three broad themes emerged in these discussions. First, students thought that the need to debate motivated them to engage the course content deeply. "By having debates at the end of every week," one student commented, "we would be thinking about the material all week long." Others echoed this view; debates encouraged students to go "much deeper into the issues," to "really delve into the topic more," and "to take a deep, detailed, and extensive view of the readings." This meant not only that everyone would do the homework, "more importantly, for the most part, everyone enjoys doing the homework." Second, students thought that the debates, or (as above) the debates in conjunction with the group work, exposed them to a wide range of viewpoints and thus helped them engage the course content broadly. Some students reported that this broad engagement happened as they listened to the different sides during a debate. By the end, one said, "I'd often changed my mind several times AND had been forced to think about things I hadn't considered." Others explained that they had to grapple with alternative views as part of preparing for debate, in order to be able to meet the opposing arguments. For example: The info that we would need to know would have to be that of both sides. This enforces us to not be so close-minded about things. Having knowledge about both sides also made our point much stronger, because we knew how to counterstrike when asked questions. Still others reported that "it helped me think about things from a different perspective" in particular "if I was debating [on] a side that I didn't agree with." Finally, students thought that the debates allowed them to engage the course content personally. As one student admitted, "The debates helped me by forcing me to take a stance on something and create argument(s) to support it. Had I not been forced to do this, I probably would have taken a more passive role in the class." Other students echoed this view, noting the "personal involvement" that debates promoted, which allowed students "to become intimately involved with the material" and to "learn for him/herself." Further, since students were encouraged to draw support for their arguments not only from the readings but from their personal experiences, the debates also helped them "relate rhetoric to other areas of life," and made what "we learned in class feel more applicable to our own lives."
- A study of research preparation instruction showed that teaching effective research skills in preparation for debate significantly improves student research skills and confidence
The Journal of Academic Librarianship January 2005 (v.31 140-5) Developing Information Literacy and Research Skills in Introductory Psychology; A Case Study
The purpose of this assessment was to determine whether students developed online information-retrieval skills as a consequence of doing an out-of-class library project, which included only a minimal level of in-class instruction. Fig. 1 shows the number of students in the instructional and control groups each group who received high, average, and low grades on the performance outcome assessment measure. The librarian evaluator, who did not know which group the students were in, assigned significantly higher grades to instructional group students who had carried out the online search assignment (M = 2.11, SD = 0.85) than to students in the control group (M = 1.5, SD = 0.77), t(206) = 5.31, P < 0.001. Fig. 1 shows that more students in the control group received a low grade (1) than a high grade (3), and that of the students receiving a high grade, a large majority had done the library project. A chi-square test revealed that that these differences were statistically significant, %²(df = 2, N = 208) = 26.08, P < 0.001.
To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students, we first conducted a multivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings, looking jointly at the effect of instruction/no instruction and debate topic (death penalty/attack Iraq). There were no effects of debate topic, F(df = 13, 186) < 1, ns, indicating that it did not matter which topic students had been assigned. However, there was a significant difference overall between responses of instructional and control group students, F(13, 186) = 3.56, P < 0.001, a finding which allowed us to follow up with t tests of statistical significance on the individual rating scales.
As Table 1 reveals, students in the Instructional group were significantly more confident in their ability to access information and less likely to feel that they needed help to do so. They also rated the literacy evaluation task as less difficult than did students in the control group. These findings clearly indicate greater self-efficacy for online searching among students who participated in the library research project. It is noteworthy that even though there was no difference between the groups in prior debate experience, those who did the class library project felt significantly more confident of winning the debate. These results constitute strong support for the effectiveness of the project on students' self-efficacy for online searching in the academic databases. There was an unintended effect, however: After doing the library project, instructional group students also felt more confident than the other students in their ability to get good information from Yahoo and Google. It may be that the library research experience increased self-efficacy for any searching, not just in academic databases.
- Debate across the curriculum reduces violence by teaching students to resolve conflicts positively
Joe Bellon, Georgia State University Argumentation & Advocacy, Winter 2000, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161-175. RESEARCH-BASED JUSTIFICATION FOR DEBATE ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
Finally, the literature linking increased debate participation with decreased violence points toward DAC benefits for teachers. Giving students the opportunity to become competent in argumentation makes them less likely to attack other students' self concepts. In the classroom setting, this dynamic tends to create more numerous and productive interactions between students, even when they are not debating. A central theme in the violence-reduction research is that activities like debate help students learn to resolve conflicts positively. Teachers who are part of a DAC program will find their students more able to deal with intellectual confrontation without resorting to verbal aggression.
|