Academic Debate in Formal Education; Why Bother?

Questions like “Is nuclear power safe?” or “What costs will people pay higher if cheap cars are in the market?” endorse the need for critical attitude development. However, the need to build critical attitude through academic debate in formal education system yields controversies. Many educators believe that critical attitude is the natural process of people growing older and the direct result of people’s exposures to education (Greenstreet R., 1993; pg. 22). The imposition of debate in formal schools and universities as means to build critical attitude will just be additional burdens for both teachers and students. However, studies on the benefit of academic debate upon students and teachers prove to give significant difference of critical attitude between those who are engaged in debate and those who are not. Debate compulsory course in the University of Alberta-Canada, Science and Education Program Studies in 2003, for example, has helped the students and teachers to not only being critical about science theories and science related discoveries, but also to be more responsible on the application of science in the society (M. Gunn, Thelma et al, 2008, pg.168). The university stakeholders claimed that the incorporation of debate course has helped their graduates and lecturers to not only acquire higher level of intelligence but also to be ethically responsible of technology and science application offered to the world (M. Gunn, Thelma et al, 2008, pg. 175). Chien-Hui Yang, a PhD researcher from Singapore Nanyang Technological University (2012), further emphasized that 80.4% of teachers agreed that debate help them to make connections between the subject matter and the real life experience, and Munakata’s (2010) study proved that students engaged in debate are encouraged to be active participants in their fields. This paper, therefore, presents further reasoning on why debate in formal education system is essential and what skills can students and teachers / lecturers acquire if debate is mandatorily applied in their curriculum.
Academic debate attempts to be defined as a school or college activity where students engage in debate on two opposing sides. The students on each side try to persuade a judge or panel of judges to support their side of an issue (The Dictionary of Forensics 3.0a, 2009, pg.5). There are certain rules and regulation applied during the course of a debate, including time allocation per speaker, objections’ and rebuttals’ manners, relevancy of arguments, and so on. While the rule is set firmly for every discipline of studies, the topics in debate accommodate the wide range of field of studies to allow wide participation of students and teachers from various academic disciplines.

Firstly, it could be argued that critical attitude is already the direct result of exposure to education and part of the natural process of growing up of age (Greenstreet R., 1993). Vygostky (1978, 1986, 1987) further classified critical attitude as experiences that someone or group of people gain collectively, and as experience that someone acquires individually, which both can create and alter somebody’s logical schemata. Relying on these theories, many argued that the higher the level of somebody's education, their mental and physical age, the more they are exposed to the need of thinking and behaving critically. This is because people with higher education and more mature mental and physical age meet more various opportunities of life-related questions. In addition, as part of the natural process of critical thinking development, human start to develop abstract thinking by the age of 11 and continue to develop. (Piaget J.,1970). However, significant difference is found on the study between the non-debating societies and the debating societies. As a result, teachers and students who are engaged in academic debating activities are less reliance on given textbooks and lectures, but more on synthesizing original and objective ideas. This is due to the fact that these students and teachers/lecturers need to prepare themselves with background reading on variety of views to consider as objective and more valid arguments before a debate. And this background reading allows students and teachers to avoid bias and personal beliefs which can dictate the objective arguments.

Secondly, it was argued elsewhere that academic debate is not essential for every student. Students who study natural science do not need debating skills, as they may lack the need for dissenting opinions. This group of natural science students claims that scientific theories and findings are based on scientific and reliable method. Therefore, there is very little room to debate upon a scientific research. However, natural science is as dynamic as social science following human development needs. Similar to any academic field, natural science is not absolute. Newton’s theory of relativity, for example, is in contrast with Einstein’s. Old astronomers used to believe that the world was flat before Christopher Columbus’ sail around the world, when he returned to the same spot where he started it, indicating that the globe is round. In addition to these, natural science must prioritize the creation of foundation for proficient and ethical consumers of scientific change. Human can always offer new technology for example, but the technology must consider appropriateness within societal context to become sustainable. Thus, debate is equally essential for both natural science studies and social science studies. Another opposing view to rebut upon the opinion that natural science students do not need academic debate is that all academic disciplines require students to maintain theories they adopt as reference at various levels of use. Thelma M. Gunn, Lance M. Grigg, and Guy A. Pomahac (2008), professors in bioethical sciences at University of Lethbridge, maintained that “science curriculum now emphasizes the importance of learner's metacognitive awareness by attending to declarative (i.e what), procedural (i.e how) and conditional knowledge (i.e when)". Therefore, there are always layers of scientific research can be debated upon before they actually be shared as the ‘latest’ finding.

Additional opposing proponents of debate in formal education states that critical attitude development has been integrated in the existing subjects. This group argues that the status quo subjects already require students to expose theories in balance of opinion. However, the opposition proponents negate the fact that a non-mandatory approach as provided by the current status quo of formal education subjects fail to respond to the development of a critical attitude. Examinations using questions taken from source of text / information (content-based instructions) are more easily be found than questions which require students to have analysis before the answer (inquiry-based instructions). The majority of teachers, university lecturers and students opt for rote and reproductive learning styles, simply because they find rote and reproductive learning a lot easier to hold. In addition to this, when debate is not applied as a mandatory approach, teachers, lecturers and students do not make efforts to apply the debate. They do not see any additional rewards imposing debate in classroom, because the debate non mandatory initiatives will not be taken as academic credit. As a result, Omelicheva (2005) studied 130 online syllabi for undergraduate political science courses and found that only three incorporated debate, despite the universities’ suggestions about imposing debate in class rooms.

Finally, debate proponents’ reason on why we need to apply academic debate is that debate provides hands-on tools to practice critical skills. A debater can comfortably express dissenting ideas in an academic atmosphere, as he finds certain rules and regulation are set which people must obey during the course of a debate. The rules and regulations set include managing emotion when paraphrasing opinions, arguing a claim, objecting to logic, etc. In addition, academic debate facilitates two ways of interaction that enables everybody to participate, because debate regulates the domination of opinions expressed during the course of its conduction. Although failure to balance domination of opinions can always occur in the hand of a weak facilitator, however, debaters can easily find common ground as a more valid reference. This is due the nature of every intelligence proves that “rational argumentation is the absolute result of critical thinking which every intelligence nurtures” claimed Patterson and Zarefsky (1993). They further emphasized that “the development of arguments... encourages critical thinking because it consistently demands the questioning, examining and restructuring of knowledge according to the laws of validity and warrant."

In summary, imposing academic debate in formal education system is not an additional burden for both teachers/lecturers and students. Critical attitude as offered in an academic debate practice is implementable to all disciplines and contexts with hands-on tools and experiences. The stimulation to analyze, synthesize and therefore view perspectives in valid and warrant reasoning is a definite result of a debate activity. This in both immediate and long term will create a long lasting critical attitude among students. Moreover, studies across the globe have been widely conducted and consistently yielded significant difference between debaters and non-debaters, in terms of their critical attitude and positive contribution to the society. Thus, why not bother?


References
Hall, Dawn, BS, MPT, PhD, 2011. Debate: Innovative Teaching to Enhance Critical Thinking and Communication Skills in Healthcare Professionals. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Science and Practice, Vol. 9, No. 3, pg. 1 – 8

Hanson, Jim et al, 2009. Dictionary of Forensics 3.0a, West Coast Publishing

Greenstreet, Robert, 1993. Academic Debate and Critical Thinking: A Look at the Evidence. National Forensic Journal, XI (Summer 1993), pg. 13 – 28

Gunn, Thelma M., Lance M. Grigg and Guy A. Pomahac, 2008. Critical thinking in Science Education: Can Bioethica Issues and Questioning Strategies Increase Scientific Understandings?. Journal of Education Thought, Vol. 42, pg. 165-183

Warner, Ede Dr. and Dr. Jon Bruschke “Gone on Debating:” Competitive Academic Debate as a Tool of Empowerment for Urban America.

Yang, Chien-Hui, PhD and Enniati Rusli, M.Ed, 2012. Using Debate as a Pedagogical Tool in Enhancing Pre-Service Teachers’ Learning and Critical Thinking. Journal of International Education Rsearch, Volume 8, Number 2, pg. 135 – 144