View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Student Debates in Policy Courses: Promoting Policy Practice Skills and Knowledge through Active Learning.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Student Debates in Policy Courses: Promoting Policy Practice Skills and Knowledge through Active Learning.
Language: English
Authors: Keller, Thomas E., Whittaker, James K., Burke, Tracey K.
Source: Journal of Social Work Education. Spr-Sum 2001 37(2):343-355.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2001
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Speeches/Meeting Papers
Descriptors: Debate, Instructional Effectiveness, Public Policy, Social Work, Student Attitudes, Teaching Methods
ISSN: 1043-7797
Abstract: Evaluated using student debates in a graduate-level child welfare policy course. When students debated, they demonstrated greater increases in self-reported knowledge of course topics than when they observed debates or learned through standard instruction. Most reported satisfaction with debates, reported that participation improved their policy skills and knowledge, and rated the educational value as higher than traditional assignments. (EV)
Notes: Earlier version presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education (San Francisco, CA, 1999).
Journal Code: CIJFEB2002
Entry Date: 2002
Accession Number: EJ631117
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFD-rfKMhCQYo0Jl4vfFolpAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDO7qA_rwgHz6PtRzCwIBEICBmb6b-a-AP6eYg5bQx1YBmj98tU8PJrThbSfGhuI_kyYjqny6lhvclKqzeA2-SpapZTOTU7uKqcgRSBj-bbGzXAvJV_5HwXH4JU8-eE0n4EgNUNWNdDVmPQbzaWJb-y9S53E5qb6VRNRAyKvQCUkDqCCs5E1BpRk29I6yO32_t5T7mmmAPdOp7xxHGBIxcOuVD5KdVvd3xSz1vg==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0004516000;SWE01MAR.01;2001Jun27.16:55;v5.4</anid> <title id="AN0004516000-1">STUDENT DEBATES IN POLICY COURSES: PROMOTING POLICY PRACTICE SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE THROUGH ACTIVE LEARNING </title> <p>This article examines the use of student debates to promote substantive knowledge and policy practice skills. The authors present a pedagogical rationale for student debates, describe the incorporation of debates into a child welfare policy course, and report the results of an evaluation. Students demonstrated significantly greater increases in self-reported knowledge of course topics when they participated in debates than when they observed debates or learned through standard forms of instruction. The majority of students reported satisfaction with the debates, reported that participation improved their policy skills and knowledge, and rated the educational value of debates higher than traditional assignments. </p> <p>SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE a professional responsibility to shape social policy and legislation (National Association of Social Workers, 1996). In recent decades, the concept of policy practice has encouraged social workers to consider the ways in which their work can be advanced through active participation in the policy arena (Jansson, 1984, 1994; Wyers, 1991). The emergence of the policy practice framework has focused greater attention on the competencies required for social workers to influence social policy and placed greater emphasis on preparing social work students for policy intervention (Dear & Patti, 1981; Jansson, 1984, 1994; Mahaffey & Hanks, 1982; McInnis-Dittrich, 1994). The curriculum standards of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) require the teaching of knowledge and skills in the political process (CSWE, 1994). With this formal expectation of policy education in schools of social work, the best instructional methods must be employed to ensure students acquire the requisite policy practice skills and perspectives. </p> <p>The authors believe that structured student debates have great potential for promoting competence in policy practice and in-depth knowledge of substantive topics relevant to social policy. Like other interactive assignments designed to more closely resemble "real-world" activities, issue-oriented debates actively engage students in course content. Debates also allow students to develop and exercise skills that may translate to political activities, such as testifying before legislative committees. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, debates may help to stimulate critical thinking by shaking students free from established opinions and helping them to appreciate the complexities involved in policy dilemmas. </p> <p>This article provides a pedagogical rationale for using debates to enhance student learning and skills development, a concrete description of how debates have been incorporated into a policy course, and an evaluation of learning outcomes and student satisfaction with the debates. </p> <hd id="AN0004516000-2"> Relationships between Policy Practice Skills, Critical Thinking, and Learning </hd> <p>Policy practice encompasses social workers' "efforts to influence the development, enactment, implementation, or assessment of social policies" (Jansson, 1994, p. 8). Effective policy practice involves analytic activities, such as defining issues, gathering data, conducting research, identifying and prioritizing policy options, and creating policy proposals (Jansson, 1994). It also involves persuasive activities intended to influence opinions and outcomes, such as discussing and debating issues, organizing coalitions and task forces, and providing testimony. According to Jansson (1984, pp. 57-58), social workers rely upon five fundamental skills when pursuing policy practice activities: </p> <ulist> <item> value-clarification skills for identifying and assessing the underlying values inherent in policy positions; </item> <item> conceptual skills for identifying and evaluating the relative merits of different policy options; </item> <item> interactional skills for interpreting the values and positions of others and conveying one's own point of view in a convincing manner; </item> <item> political skills for developing coalitions and developing effective strategies; and </item> <item> position-taking skills for recommending, advocating, and defending a particular policy. </item> </ulist> <p>These policy practice skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill, 1997). The central activities of critical thinking are identifying and challenging underlying assumptions, exploring alternative ways of thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period of questioning, analysis, and reflection (Brookfield, 1987). Significant parallels exist with the policy-making process--identifying the values underlying policy choices, recognizing and evaluating multiple alternatives, and taking a position and advocating for its adoption. Developing policy practice skills seems to share much in common with developing capacities for critical thinking. </p> <p>R.W. Paul (as cited in Gambrill, 1997) states that critical thinkers acknowledge the </p> <ct id="AN0004516000-3"> imperative to argue from opposing points of view and to seek to identify weakness and limitations in one's own position. Critical thinkers are aware that there are many legitimate points of view, each of which (when thought through) may yield some level of insight. (p. 126)</ct> <p>John Dewey, the philosopher and educational reformer, suggested that the initial advance in the development of reflective thought occurs in the transition from holding fixed, static ideas to an attitude of doubt and questioning engendered by exposure to alternative views in social discourse (Baker, 1955, pp. 36-40). Doubt, confusion, and conflict resulting from discussion of diverse perspectives "force comparison, selection, and reformulation of ideas and meanings" (Baker, 1955, p. 45). Subsequent educational theorists have contended that learning requires openness to divergent ideas in combination with the ability to synthesize disparate views into a purposeful resolution (Kolb, 1984; Perry, 1970). On the one hand, clinging to the certainty of one's beliefs risks dogmatism, rigidity, and the inability to learn from new experiences. On the other hand, if one's opinion is altered by every new experience, the result is insecurity, paralysis, and the inability to take effective action. The educator's role is to help students develop the capacity to incorporate new and sometimes conflicting ideas and experiences into a coherent cognitive framework. Kolb suggests that, "if the education process begins by bringing out the learner's beliefs and theories, examining and testing them, and then integrating the new, more refined ideas in the person's belief systems, the learning process will be facilitated" (p. 28). </p> <p>The authors believe that involving students in substantive debates challenges them to learn and grow in the fashion described by Dewey and Kolb. Participation in a debate stimulates clarification and critical evaluation of the evidence, logic, and values underlying one's own policy position. In addition, to debate effectively students must understand and accurately evaluate the opposing perspective. The ensuing tension between two distinct but legitimate views is designed to yield a reevaluation and reconstruction of knowledge and beliefs pertaining to the issue. </p> <hd id="AN0004516000-4">Debates and Active Learning</hd> <p>Dewey theorized that learning and reflective thinking are based on active engagement with a specific problem or issue (Baker, 1955; Dewey, 1939). This principle underlies contemporary and widely held notions that students learn more effectively by actively analyzing, discussing, and applying content in meaningful ways rather than passively absorbing information through a lecture (Bean, 1996; Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Lewis & Williams, 1994; Meyers & Jones, 1993). Experiential education immerses students in an experience so that they may learn by doing. </p> <p>Experiential learning, in the form of the practicum placement, is a key element in social work education. However, few social work students enroll in political or policy oriented practica. In a survey of 161 CSWE-accredited programs (131 BSW, 30 MSW), Wolk and colleagues (1996) found that less than half offered practica in government relations (BSW=20%, MSW=47%) and even fewer had placements in policy advocacy/development (BSW=15%, MSW=33%). Moreover, programs typically reported only one or two students participating in these types of placements, with the largest representation at a single school being 9 out of 250 MSW students (Wolk et al., 1996). Because few students receive policy-related field education, introducing students to policy relevant skills and experiences via active learning exercises in the classroom assumes greater importance. </p> <p>Bonwell and Eison (1991) describe the general characteristics of active learning in the classroom: </p> <ulist> <item> Students are involved in more than listening. </item> <item> Less emphasis is placed on transmitting information and more on developing students' skills. </item> <item> Students are involved in higher-order thinking (analysis, synthesis, evaluation). </item> <item> Students are engaged in activities. </item> <item> Greater emphasis is placed on students' exploration of their own attitudes and values. (p. 2) </item> </ulist> <p>Experiential learning in the classroom may involve case studies, role plays, debates, simulations, or other activities that allow students to make connections among theory, knowledge, and experience (Lewis & Williams, 1994). These active learning strategies encourage students to think on their feet, to question their own values and responses to situations, and to consider new ways of thinking in contexts which they may experience more intensely and, consequently, may remember longer (Meyers & Jones, 1993). </p> <hd id="AN0004516000-5">Educational Effectiveness of Debates</hd> <p>Since its origins in classical times, academic debate has been recognized as one of the best methods of learning and applying the attributes of critical thinking (Freeley, 1996). Recent empirical studies of students participating in competitive interschool forensics societies illustrate the link between debating and proficiency in critical thinking. Colbert (1987) found that students involved in intercollegiate debating for one year showed a larger pretest to posttest gain on a critical thinking test than a nondebating control group. Likewise, Shinn (1995) discovered that, after statistically controlling for intelligence, high school students who engaged in two years of competitive debating exhibited higher levels of critical thinking than a comparison group of nondebaters. </p> <p>Debates have been recommended as a strategy to engage students in active learning in the classroom (Bean, 1996; Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Schroeder & Ebert, 1983). The use of in-class debates has been reported in subjects as diverse as sociology and dentistry (Huryn, 1986; Scannapieco, 1997). Nevertheless, a search of the literature revealed no reference to student debates within social work education, despite evidence that debates have been assigned in some social work courses (Zlotnik, Rome,& DePanfilis, 1998). Furthermore, the authors discovered only two studies, both by Combs and Bourne (1989, 1994), which provide empirical evidence of the value of debates in a classroom context. In their initial report, Combs and Bourne (1989) presented findings on the use of debates in two upper level business courses with a combined enrollment of 59 students. Nearly 80% of the students (n=47) believed the debates provided them with a better understanding of both sides of the issues than a standard lecture format would have. Likewise, 66% (n=39) felt they had learned more than if the course material had been presented in a lecture. Another important finding was that students' confidence in their public speaking skills increased following the debates. In general, there was satisfaction with the debates. At the beginning of the course only 57% of the students (n=35) looked forward to the upcoming debates, but by the end of the course 85% (n=50) stated that they enjoyed the debates, and 71% (n=42) wished debates were used in other courses. Combs and Bourne (1994) extended their initial study to cover a five-year period with a combined sample of over 500 students. The results were even stronger in favor of using debates, perhaps reflecting improvement in the instructors' application of the debate format over time. </p> <hd id="AN0004516000-6">Incorporating Debates into a Policy Course</hd> <p>A practical example of how structured debates can be employed in a social work course is drawn from the authors' recent experience in "Child and Family Policy and Services," a required course for second year MSW students in the Children, Youth and Families concentration at the University of Washington. Taught in the autumn of 1997, the course had an enrollment of 44 students and met weekly for three hours during a 10-week quarter. </p> <p>The course focused on the children and families to whom social work has made an enduring commitment--those receiving publicly funded services. Content included the analysis of historical trends in service provision modalities, major child welfare reform movements, the social values expressed through policy, and the implications of policy for social work practice. Topical sessions addressed a representative sample of services from across the child welfare continuum (e.g., in-home services, foster family care, group care) as well as a section on child poverty. Each session attempted to illustrate the interplay of policy, practice, and empirical research in a specific service context. A full outline is available from the second author, the primary instructor for the course. </p> <p>With the extremely tight schedule of the quarter system, it was crucial to lay the groundwork for the debates as soon as possible. Early in the first session students were exposed to policy dilemmas that would recur throughout the course. In a small group exercise, students discussed conflicting perspectives on a particular issue. These included: child protection versus family preservation, providing universal services versus providing categorical services, and allocating resources for prevention versus allocating them for treatment. This exercise was followed by a review of the syllabus and the introduction of structured debates as a major assignment for the course. In the introduction of the debate assignment the sense of competitiveness inherent in debates was downplayed. Students were cautioned against identifying individuals with the positions they took for the sake of the exercise. In addition, it was emphasized that there would be no formal judging or voting to determine which teams had "won" their debates. </p> <p>The introduction also covered the following information regarding the debates: </p> <ulist> <item> Students had already been sorted alphabetically into 4 teams of 11 students each. </item> <item> Each team would participate in two of the four debates to be held during the quarter. </item> <item> Each student was expected to play a primary role in one debate for his or her team. </item> <item> Teams would have in-class time during class sessions two through four to prepare for the debates, and the debates would take place during class sessions five through eight. </item> <item> Debate topics would be selected by the class from the text Controversial Issues in Child Welfare (Gambrill & Stein, 1994). This book features 20 debates between experts in the field of child welfare. </item> <item> The debates would be conducted according to the following format: </item> <ct id="AN0004516000-7"> Pro position 5 minutes Rebuttal 3 minutes Con position 5 minutes Rebuttal 3 minutes teams question each other 5 minutes/team Open questions (audience) 10 minutes Closing statements 3 minutes/team</ct> </ulist> <p>The remainder of the first session was devoted to selecting debate topics. The instructors briefly described the salient points for each debate in the Gambrill and Stein text. Each student was allowed to vote for two choices. The four topics selected were: Should interracial adoption be permitted? Are intensive family preservation services effective? Is poverty a key contributor to child maltreatment? Should foster parents be given first preference in adoption of their foster children? </p> <p>During the second class session, each team discussed the four topics and indicated which it preferred to debate. Each team was able to have its favored topic for one debate. Teams also had been assigned second or third priority topics for their second debate. Pro and con positions were determined by a coin toss, with the requirement that each team had a pro and a con. Teams quickly divided into smaller groups of five or six students to concentrate on one topic or the other. Prior to the first debate, teams had class time to share information, to develop strategies, to apportion tasks and responsibilities, and to practice their presentations. Instructors used this time to offer suggestions and provide citations to relevant literature. Students were encouraged to also meet and work outside of class. Most teams divided the labor by designating one person to present the leading position, one to do the rebuttal, one to ask questions of the other team, one to respond to questions, and so forth. </p> <p>The actual debates were lively and informative. Audience enthusiasm was reflected by eager and incisive questioning during the open question period. The debaters were held to the structured format. Time was monitored closely with a stopwatch. After each debate, a debriefing session enabled each participant in the debate to reflect on the experience and add any additional comments or suggestions. In some cases, this opportunity generated further debate-like exchanges between team members or between the audience and team members. Sometimes students admitted that they personally sided with the opposing team's position. Others stated that they had originally favored the other team's position but had reconsidered their opinions after investigating and arguing the alternative. Several expressed frustration that the debates polarized an issue when there actually was a fair measure of agreement between the two teams. These students wanted to take the next step toward resolving the issue and finding a workable consensus. Another frequent frustration was the fact that each side could find research to support its position. In other words, research alone was not providing a clear and convincing direction for addressing these particular issues. In the debriefing sessions students also commented on what it was like to be in the debates. These comments were generally positive, except for those noting the common anxieties associated with public speaking. </p> <hd id="AN0004516000-8">Method</hd> <p>The authors investigated whether the debates enhanced student learning by conducting a pretest/posttest analysis of change in students' self-reported knowledge of the substantive issues covered by the course. The pretest and posttest surveys also elicited student opinions regarding the educational value of debates. During the course, individual students could have been exposed to material in three ways: participating in the debate on a topic, observing the debate on a topic, or learning about topics through traditional course instruction (i.e., lectures, readings, discussion). </p> <p>The authors hypothesized that from pretest to posttest: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) students would report increased knowledge about each topic assessed in the evaluation, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) students would report gains in knowledge from observing debates similar to gains reported for topics introduced through traditional instruction, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) students would report greater increases in knowledge for topics they debated than for topics introduced through traditional instruction, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) students would report greater increases in knowledge for debated topics when they participated in the debate rather than simply observing it. </p> <hd1 id="AN0004516000-9"> Study Participants and Data Collection Procedures </hd1> <p>The study population consisted of the 44 second-year MSW students enrolled in the Child Welfare Policy and Services course offered in autumn, 1997. Students participated in the study voluntarily and anonymously. To protect the confidentiality of participants, no identifying information was requested on the survey instruments, so demographic data regarding actual respondents are unavailable. The pretest survey was distributed for students to complete and return during the second class session, prior to the assignment of debate teams and topics. The pretest was completed by 42 students (95%). To link the pretest survey and posttest survey, the students were asked to designate a five-digit code of their choice on the survey form and were encouraged to note the code on the course syllabus or some other place where they would be able to retrieve it at the end of the term. The posttest survey was distributed and completed during the last class session, a week after the last debate had been held. There were 31 respondents to the posttest (70% response). In addition to all of the questions contained on the pretest, the posttest survey asked students to indicate which topic they debated and to give their impressions of the debates as a class assignment. Students also were instructed to record their five-digit codes on the posttest. Unfortunately, the codes for nine respondents did not match any of those on the pretest, so these cases were lost for the pretest/posttest analysis. As a result, repeated pretest/posttest measures were available for 22 students (50% response). Analysis of all pretest items revealed no statistically significant differences between students with matching pretest/posttest data and those not included in the analysis. </p> <hd1 id="AN0004516000-10"> Measures </hd1> <p>At pretest, respondents rated their knowledge on each of nine child welfare policy issue areas using a 4-point scale (1=not very knowledgeable, 4=very knowledgeable). In addition to the four debate topics, the nine policy issue areas included regular course content (e.g., permanency planning, out-of-home care services, policy analysis frameworks, child poverty). Other items asked for respondents' opinions of the effectiveness of debates and traditional term papers as learning formats, and whether they had participated in structured debates before. The posttest included all pretest items and additional questions regarding satisfaction with the debates. Students rated how much participating in debates or observing debates contributed to their knowledge (1 = not at all, 5 = a lot), how debates compared to other types of assignments (1 = much worse, 5 = much better), whether debates enhanced their skills and interests in advocacy and political action, and whether debates should be used as an assignment. In addition, students were invited to share both positive and negative comments about the debates and suggestions for improving them. </p> <hd1 id="AN0004516000-11"> Analytic Strategy </hd1> <p>Data reflecting students' opinions about the debates as a learning format were summarized and reported as descriptive statistics. Responses to the open-ended questions were evaluated, and salient themes were identified. Several comments are quoted below as examples of the feedback provided. The change from pretest to posttest in students' self-reported knowledge on course topics was used to test the hypotheses about student learning. Due to the interval-level measure of knowledge, the small sample size, and the non-normal distribution of scores, nonparametric statistics were used for the analysis. The first hypothesis, that students would report increases in knowledge during the course, was examined with a Wilcoxon matched-pairs rank test on each topic. To test the other hypotheses, three scores were computed for each student based on differences in knowledge ratings between pretest and posttest: the average change across the five topics introduced through traditional instruction, the average change across the three debate topics that were observed, and the change for the one topic debated. Next, within-subjects comparisons based on the mode of learning were conducted with the Wilcoxon matched-pairs rank test. The fourth hypothesis, that debaters would have greater increases in knowledge than observers, also was investigated with a between-subjects analysis using the Mann-Whitney test to compare knowledge ratings between groups (debaters versus observers). </p> <hd id="AN0004516000-12">Results</hd> <hd1 id="AN0004516000-13"> Gains in Self-Reported Knowledge </hd1> <p>Hypothesis 1. Student ratings of knowledge improved from pretest to posttest for each topic, and a series of Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests analyzing changes for all students (n = 22) revealed the increases were statistically significant for every topic except "out-of-home care for children" (Table 1). Using intensive family preservation services as an example, 18 students indicated a greater level of knowledge at posttest, three reported no change, and one student indicated a decline in knowledge. Corresponding to the trend in topic scores, the three mode of learning scores derived by averaging across topics according to mode of learning demonstrated statistically significant increases from pretest to posttest (Table 1). </p> <hd1 id="AN0004516000-14"> Comparison of Self-Reported Knowledge Gains by Mode of Learning. </hd1> <p>Hypothesis 2. Changes in self-reported knowledge associated with observing a debate were no different than changes in self-reported knowledge for topics presented through traditional instruction (z = 0.03, p = .97). Half of the students (n = 11) reported larger average increases in knowledge on observed debate topics, and the other half reported larger average gains on topics covered through traditional instruction. </p> <p>Hypothesis 3. Increases in knowledge ratings associated with debating a specific topic were significantly greater than increases in knowledge ratings for topics presented through traditional instruction (z = 3.54, p < .001). For the majority of students (n = 17), the gain in reported knowledge on their debated topic was greater than their average gain on topics covered in traditional fashion (lower for four students, equal for one student). </p> <p>Hypothesis 4. Increases in self-reported knowledge associated with debating a specific topic were significantly greater than increases in self-rated knowledge associated with observing debate topics (z = 3.45, p < .01). Again, the majority of students (n = 17) demonstrated a greater gain in reported knowledge on the topic which they debated than their average gain on topics which they observed (lower for one student, equal for four students). To further illustrate the differential effect of participation in a debate, a between-subjects comparison was conducted on a specific debate topic. The topic of intensive family preservation services was selected for this analysis due to the distribution of students with corresponding pretest/posttest responses who participated in that debate (9 of the 22 individuals with matched pre/post data debated intensive family preservation services). A Mann-Whitney test indicated that gains in self-reported knowledge of intensive family preservation services were significantly greater for debaters than for observers (z = 2.95, p < .01). To determine whether both groups showed gains in knowledge on this topic, a Wilcoxon test was conducted for each group separately. The increase in self-reported knowledge was statistically significant for both debaters (n = 9, z = 2.75, p < .01) and observers (n = 13, z = 2.49, p < .05). </p> <hd1 id="AN0004516000-15"> Opinions of Debates </hd1> <p>On the posttest survey, students expressed favorable attitudes about their participation in the debates and endorsed them as an effective learning format. Responses to questions about the debates are summarized below with percentages based on the number of valid cases. One case had systematic missing data because the student failed to notice the last page of questions, and other items had occasional omitted responses. </p> <p>Students reported that observing other teams contributed to knowledge of the topics debated by their classmates (n = 30; not at all = 0%; a little = 0%; some = 37%; quite a bit = 43%; a lot=20%). As expected, actually participating in a debate was rated even higher in terms of contributing to knowledge of the debated topic (n = 30; not at all = 0%; a little = 0%; some = 17%; quite a bit = 30%; a lot = 53%). </p> <p>A clear majority (n = 23, 82%) were glad that the debates had been a class assignment, and a similar percentage (n = 24, 83%) recommended using debates in the future. Over half of the posttest respondents (n = 16, 53%) indicated that participation in the debates helped to develop their interest in advocacy, lobbying, or speaking to policy makers. An even larger percentage(n=20, 69%) thought that participation in the debates had helped to develop their skills for advocacy and political activity. </p> <p>The majority of students (n = 19, 63%) rated the educational value of debates as better or much better than typical written assignments; only 13% (n = 4) considered debates worse or much worse and 23% (n = 7) indicated no difference. Likewise, compared to other types of oral presentations assigned in previous classes, 70% of the students (n = 21) rated the educational value of debates better or much better (n = 3, 10% worse or much worse; n = 6, 20% no difference). </p> <hd1 id="AN0004516000-16"> Analysis of Comments </hd1> <p>Approximately two thirds of the respondents (n = 19, 63%) made a positive comment about the debates, while fewer than half (n = 13, 43%) noted something negative. All those who gave a negative comment also provided a positive comment or indicated they were glad debates had been assigned. Several students (n = 10, 33%) made suggestions for improving the debates. Four themes emerged from the positive comments provided by the students. </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>) Many comments attested to the value of the debates as a learning experience (n = 7). </p> <ulist> <item> I enjoy doing them. It's a good learning experience. </item> <item> Great intellectual exercise. </item> </ulist> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>) Other comments noted that the debates were interesting and informative (n = 4). </p> <ulist> <item> Besides learning in the preparation stage, I also enjoyed seeing different people pick up on different aspects of the topics and provide great insights from their first hand experiences. </item> <item> I learned a lot from listening about the other topics as well as mine. </item> </ulist> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>) Several students reflected on how the debates had resulted in a deeper understanding of both sides of the issue, especially when they had to advocate a position that might have been contrary to their own opinions (n = 6). </p> <ulist> <item> Forces us to think the opposite perspectives. Helped me to get a more educated viewpoint. Helped me to re-examine my value system. </item> <item> I finally decided to switch my thinking cap around and convince myself that maybe my previous conviction was based on one-sided information, that there might be some truth to the other beliefs. To my surprise, I was amazed how quickly my stand and attitude changed. </item> <item> Working on opposite side of my personal viewpoint was a very positive learning experience. </item> <item> I learned both sides of the topic in depth. Able to articulate opposing sides. Interesting experience. </item> </ulist> <p>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>) Finally, some comments indicated the debates were effective in engaging students in the course (n = 4). </p> <ulist> <item> Creative, different. Contributed an entirely different energy level to class. </item> <item> Stimulating--forced my obligation to advocate. </item> </ulist> <p>The negative comments were more difficult to characterize in terms of consistent themes. Several focused on logistical details related to how the debates were conducted (e.g., more time for questions, groups need to be smaller) or the difficulties associated with working on a group project (e.g., hard to meet as a team due to differing schedules). The variety of negative comments is reflected by those presented below. </p> <ulist> <item> Research was divided among members--I did not feel that I had a complete grasp of all information. </item> <item> Not focused on developing critical thought. Far too much emphasis on form. Boring, predictable. </item> <item> Polarized people's thinking. </item> <item> Because our debate team was so large we split up the reading, which left holes in my general knowledge. For me the anxiety of doing the debate overshadowed my learning experience. I was always worried about how I would perform, which made it difficult to concentrate and learn about my topic. I couldn't retain the information very well. I find I learn less in large group projects. There are always a couple of domineering, controlling people who have to run the show, and it requires too much energy to fight them. </item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0004516000-17">Discussion</hd> <p>The results of the surveys suggest that debates have value as an active learning strategy to enhance student learning. On survey questions and in written comments, students expressed satisfaction with the debates. The majority of students were pleased with the debates as a class assignment. Most indicated that participation in the debates raised the level of their policy skills and knowledge. In addition, the educational value of debates was rated as higher than more traditional assignments. It should be noted, however, that a desire to report favorably on class experiences may have influenced reported satisfaction with the debates (i.e., acquiescence bias). </p> <p>Student comments supported the view that debates promote critical thinking by encouraging serious consideration of both sides of a policy issue. Comments also indicated that the active learning approach had generated more classroom interest and energy than usual. On the other hand, some comments noted how the debates might have detracted from a positive learning experience. </p> <p>All four hypotheses regarding changes in student-rated knowledge were supported by the analysis. Students reported statistically significant increases in knowledge on topics covered during the course--a result which is reassuring for the instructors. Gains in self-reported knowledge from simply observing debates were equivalent to gains based on traditional forms of instruction. Observing a debate appears comparable to acquiring information through a class lecture or discussion. By contrast, debate participation generated significantly greater increases in self-reported knowledge than were obtained by observing debates or by learning through traditional forms of instruction. This result, which is consistent with the principles of experiential learning, suggests the educational advantage of using debates to engage students in learning. </p> <p>The findings are noteworthy considering the use of conservative nonparametric statistics on a small sample. However, the results should be interpreted somewhat cautiously due to certain study limitations. First, the dependent variable was self-reported and highly subjective in nature. The study did not contain objective measures of knowledge, and the findings pertain only to students' self-perceptions of their knowledge regarding particular topics. Second, although attrition from pretest to posttest was not associated with the pretest measures, differential attrition related to unmeasured factors, including objective knowledge of the topics, is a potential source of bias. Third, the assumption of independence among cases may be questionable given that students worked closely as members of debate teams. Finally, other plausible explanations for the general increase in knowledge over time, besides taking the class, cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, the differential improvement in self-rated knowledge in favor of debaters would still be a credible finding, and this was a main objective of the analysis. </p> <hd id="AN0004516000-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>The purposes of this article were to examine the potential of student debates for fostering the development of policy practice knowledge and skills, to demonstrate that debates can be effectively incorporated as an in-class assignment in a policy course, and to report findings on the educational value and level of student satisfaction with debates. Based on a review of the literature, the authors' experience conducting debates in a course, and the subsequent evaluation of those debates, the authors believe the development of policy practice skills and the acquisition of substantive knowledge can be advanced through structured student debates in policy-oriented courses. The authors think debates on important policy questions have numerous benefits: prompting students to deal with values and assumptions, encouraging them to investigate and analyze competing alternatives, compelling them to advocate a particular position, and motivating them to articulate a point of view in a persuasive manner. We think engaging in these analytic and persuasive activities promotes greater knowledge by stimulating active participation in the learning process. </p> <p>However, the use of debates in a classroom setting is not without certain drawbacks. Schroeder and Ebert (1983) noted several limitations which were also encountered in this experience. First, staging debates presents logistical challenges for the instructor. These administrative concerns include creating teams, selecting topics, determining the debate format, and scheduling. Second, the amount of time devoted to the specific topic of a debate can detract from covering a wider scope of course material. Third, although debating encourages the examination of issues from two opposing positions, many policy dilemmas can be approached from several angles. A structured debate does not necessarily foster a multidimensional examination of policy options. Fourth, as in most group projects, some debate team members may have contributed more to the effort than others. Finally, the competitive aspects of debating may polarize the issue. </p> <p>For those interested in using debates as an instructional technique, the importance of thorough advance planning with respect to the mechanics of conducting the debates must be stressed. Flexibility to make adjustments during the process is equally important. Special attention should be given to debriefing sessions after debates to discuss perceptions of the debate experience, areas of common agreement, and possibilities for policy compromise and consensus. The integration of opposing views into a coherent and purposeful course of action is a central feature of the theoretical framework presented earlier, and students expressed a need for more resolution and closure. For example, one student suggested, "I think it would be more effective to do an active brainstorming/planning session for identifying solutions/alternatives following the debates." </p> <p>The final word on debates should come from students themselves. In the debriefing session immediately following a debate, one student stated, "I thought the debate was good because it forced me to articulate the position, and that is something we will need to do to be advocates." Another student described how her opinion of debating changed, "When I first heard about this assignment, I really questioned its value. I thought it would be a waste of class time. But I learned so much about family preservation services. I learned more than I ever would have any other way." </p> <p>The paper on which this article is based was completed as part of the first author's teaching practicum in the doctoral program at the University of Washington School of Social Work. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1999 Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education in San Francisco, CA. The authors wish to express their appreciation for the participation of the students enrolled in the course. </p> <p>Journal of Social Work Education Vol. 37, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 2001). (C) by the Council on Social Work Education, Inc. All rights reserved. </p> <hd id="AN0004516000-19">Table 1. Mean Pretest and Posttest Ratings of Knowledge (N = 22)</hd> <ct id="AN0004516000-20"> Legend for Chart: A - Pretest knowledge rating[a] Mean (SD) B - Posttest knowledge rating[a] Mean (SD) C - Wilcoxon test of within-subjects knowledge change: z D - Wilcoxon test of within-subjects knowledge change: d A B C D Topics Traditional instruction topics Permancy planning 2.00 (.93) 3.05 (.72) 3.27 .001 Research issues for child/family policy 2.18 (.85) 3.00 (.69) 2.88 .004 Out-of-home care for children 2.50 (.91) 3.05 (.79) 1.79 .074 Policy analysis frameworks 1.64 (.79) 2.86 (.83) 3.57 .000 Child poverty 2.55 (.74) 3.32 (.57) 2.99 .003 Debated topics Poverty and child maltreatment 2.59 (.73) 3.32 (.48) 2.76 .006 Adoption by foster parents 1.73 (.88) 3.09 (.75) 3.78 .000 Interracial adoption 1.90 (.70) 2.95 (.67) 2.84 .005 Intensive family preservation services 2.36 (.66) 3.59 (.59) 3.67 .000 Mode of learning[b] Traditional instruction 2.17 (.58) 3.05 (.51) 3.72 .000 Observed debate 2.14 (.63) 3.02 (.46) 3.42 .001 Participated in debate[c] 2.18 (.66) 3.86 (.35) 4.06 .000</ct> <p>a Scale: 1=not very knowledgeable, 2=somewhat knowledgeable, 3=fairly knowledgeable, 4=very knowledgeable. </p> <p>b Individual student scores derived by averaging across topics--five traditional topics, three observed debate topics, and one debated topic. </p> <p>c Increase for participated in debate significantly greater than gain for traditional instruction (z = 3.54, p < .001) or gain for observed debate (z = 3.45, p < .01). </p> <hd id="AN0004516000-21">REFERENCES</hd> <p>Baker, M. C. (1955). Foundations of John Dewey's educational theory. New York: Kings Crown Press. </p> <p>Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. </p> <p>Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Series 20:1. Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass </p> <p>Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. </p> <p>Colbert, K. R. (1987). The effects of CEDA and NDT debate training on critical thinking ability. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 21, 194-201. </p> <p>Combs, H. W., & Bourne, S. G. (1989). The impact of marketing debates on oral communication skills. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 52(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>), 21-25. </p> <p>Combs, H. W., & Bourne, S. G. (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 Teaching, 5(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>), 57-67. </p> <p>Council on Social Work Education (1994). Handbook of accreditation standards and procedures (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. </p> <p>Dear, R. B., & Patti, R. J. (1981). Legislative advocacy: Seven effective tactics. Social Work, 26, 289-296. </p> <p>Dewey, J. (1939). Experience and education. New York: MacMillan. </p> <p>Freeley, A. J. (1996). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. </p> <p>Gambrill, E. (1997). Social work practice: A critical thinker's guide. New York: Oxford University Press. </p> <p>Gambrill, E., & Stein, T. J. (1994). Controversial issues in child welfare. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. </p> <p>Huryn, J. S. (1986). Debating as a teaching technique. Teaching Sociology, 14, 266-269. </p> <p>Jansson, B. S. (1984). Theory and practice of social welfare policy: Analysis, processes, and current issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. </p> <p>Jansson, B. S. (1994). Social welfare policy: From theory to policy practice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. </p> <p>Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. </p> <p>Lewis, L. H., & Williams, C. J. (1994). Experiential learning: past and present. In L. Jackson, & R. S. Caffarella (Eds.). Experiential learning: A new approach. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 62, (pp. 5-16) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. </p> <p>Mahaffey, M. & Hanks, J. W. (Eds.). (1982). Practical politics and political responsibility. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers. </p> <p>McInnis-Dittrich, K. (1994). Integrating social welfare policy and social work practice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. </p> <p>Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. </p> <p>National Association of Social Workers. (1996). NASW Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: Author. </p> <p>Paul, R. W. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. </p> <p>Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. </p> <p>Scannapieco, F. A. (1997). Formal debate: An active learning strategy. Journal of Dental Education, 61, 955-961. </p> <p>Schroeder, H., & Ebert, D. G. (1983). Debates as a business and society teaching technique. Journal of Business Education, 58, 266-269. </p> <p>Shinn, S. B. (1995). Effects of high school debating on critical thinking ability. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. </p> <p>Wolk, J. L., Pray, J. E., Weismiller, T., & Dempsey, D. (1996). Political practica: Educating social work students for policy-making. Journal of Social Work Education, 32, 91-100. </p> <p>Wyers, N. L. (1991). Policy practice in social work: Models and issues. Journal of Social Work Education, 27, 241-250. </p> <p>Zlotnik, J. L., Harris S. R., & DePanfilis, D. (Eds.). (1998). Educating for child welfare practice: A compendium of exemplary syllabi. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education. </p> <p>Accepted: 10/99. </p> <aug> <p>By Thomas E. Keller </p> <p></p> <p>Thomas E. Keller is assistant professor, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago </p> <p>Address correspondence to: Thomas E. Keller, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, 969 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637; email: tkeller@uchicago.edu </p> <p>James K. Whittaker is professo </p> <p>Tracey K. Burke is a doctoral student, School of Social Work, University of Washington. </p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib1" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib3" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib4" firstref="ref4"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ631117
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Student Debates in Policy Courses: Promoting Policy Practice Skills and Knowledge through Active Learning.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Keller%2C+Thomas+E%2E%22">Keller, Thomas E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Whittaker%2C+James+K%2E%22">Whittaker, James K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burke%2C+Tracey+K%2E%22">Burke, Tracey K.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Social+Work+Education%22"><i>Journal of Social Work Education</i></searchLink>. Spr-Sum 2001 37(2):343-355.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2001
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Speeches/Meeting Papers
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Debate%22">Debate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Policy%22">Public Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Work%22">Social Work</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1043-7797
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Evaluated using student debates in a graduate-level child welfare policy course. When students debated, they demonstrated greater increases in self-reported knowledge of course topics than when they observed debates or learned through standard instruction. Most reported satisfaction with debates, reported that participation improved their policy skills and knowledge, and rated the educational value as higher than traditional assignments. (EV)
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: Earlier version presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education (San Francisco, CA, 1999).
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: Journal Code
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JC" term="%22CIJFEB2002%22">CIJFEB2002</searchLink>
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2002
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ631117
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ631117
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 343
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Debate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Work
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Student Debates in Policy Courses: Promoting Policy Practice Skills and Knowledge through Active Learning.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Keller, Thomas E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Whittaker, James K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burke, Tracey K.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2001
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1043-7797
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Social Work Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1