One of the methods which can be used effectively for tutorial/seminar sessions within the domain of Humanities and possibly selectively within the Sciences is the Debate as a teaching/learning tool. This vehicle can be used to ‘manipulate’ students into engaging in conducting comprehensive research into the topic, gathering supporting evidence, collaborative learning, delegation of tasks, improving communication skills, and developing leadership and team-skills all at one go.

A debate has been described as a form of argument which “has strict rules of conduct and quite sophisticated arguing techniques” (ACT Debating Union, 1996). It must have a topic that has scope for argument; in other words, there must be at least two sides to the topic. Thus, one could not usefully hold a debate on propositions that would stand up well scientifically. All topics for a debate should begin with the word “That” and the team that has been assigned to agree with the topic is called the “proposition” while the team that is on the other side is called the “opposition”. When organising a debate, it is important to select a topic that is appropriate to the age, background and discipline of your students.

Being a property law teacher, if I want students to gain an understanding of the liability of professionals in the construction industry, I may phrase the topic as follows: “That consultants engaged in the building process should not be rendered liable where defects in buildings have not caused injury”. A philosophy/political science course may question the role of Government with this topic: “That Government exists to prevent tyranny of the majority”. The educationist may want to kick start his class with: “That Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives is no longer relevant in the knowledge-based economy”. It is clear from the above examples that the topic chosen should be controversial and juxtaposed provocatively so as to incite the participants to be ready to cross swords verbally.

It is usual to identify three or four speakers for each team. I prefer to have four speakers per team so that there is wider participation. Thus, in a tutorial group of 15–20 students, about half of them are already going to be actively participating in the debate. It is better to draw lots to select the speakers so that the vocal students are not automatically chosen. To ‘mobilise’ the rest of the group for the debate, hence optimising participation among the group, the teacher can assign tasks for the members of the group so that each one is involved in some way or another (e.g. conducting research into the topic to provide support for the speakers).

Each speaker should be advised on his/her well-defined role in the debate. For example, the first speakers must explain in clear terms what the topic means to their respective teams. The second speaker would re-affirm the proposition’s line and proceed to rebut the opposition’s first speaker. And so the debate proceeds with speakers having to make their points within the given time. Speakers will be assessed on their content and the validity of the facts or evidence used to support their arguments.

It is far more important to utilise the vehicle of the debate, rather than to be bogged down by adhering slavishly to the strict rules such as the order in which individual speakers make their points and rebuttals or the accurate use of debate terminology such as “value justification” and “value criteria”. You can also persuade your colleagues to sit in and be adjudicators at the debate. Students will be driven to perform better to an external audience. It is also a good gesture to offer a token prize to the winning team and the best speaker.

And now for the snag: only one team can win! This is true, but where there has been proper planning by the teacher, each member of the tutorial group would have had a part to play in the debate, either directly or indirectly, and thereby come away with something of value. At the end of the day, a larger majority of students would have obtained a better grasp of the topic and learnt more and better than by traditional teaching/learning methods such as passively listening to the teacher’s 50-minute lecture/drone or writing a 2000-word essay on the topic concerned. It is a form of experiential learning which they will remember well.

 

Ace. (1994). The Crash-Course Guide to Lincoln-Douglas Debate. TogaLD. http://www.geocities.com/togald/ldguide.html .

ACT Debating Union Inc. (27 May 1996). Basic Debating Skills. http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html .