Copyright © 2009 The Author

The power of (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,

Singapore and Washington DC)

in-class debates Vol 10(3): 225–236

DOI: 10.1177/1469787409343186
ARTICLE

RUTH R. KENNEDY Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, USA

A B S T R A C T The students in three sections of a class rated their

knowledge and identified their view before and after each of five in-
class debates. The degree of self-reported knowledge was significantly
different after four of the five debates. Between 31% and 58% of
participants changed their views after participating in or observing
each debate. Some changed their opinion even when they defended
the side consistent with their original view. Despite their fears of
participating in a debate, prior to the first debate, approximately 75%
of the participants stated that they would consider using debate as an
instructional strategy, and after the debates, this increased to about
85%. In both instances, males were more likely to respond positively
than were females.
KEYWORDS: acti ve learni n g , i n -class deb at es, kno w led g e,
o pinions

Debate: its role and value

Debate, the process of considering multiple viewpoints and arriving at a
judgment, goes back over 4000 years to the Egyptians (2080 BC), and
debating as a teaching strategy dates back over 2400 years to Protagorus
(481–411 BC), the ‘father of debate’, in Athens (Snider and Schnurer,
2002). Despite its history as a teaching strategy, in modern times, debates
in the university setting have typically been restricted to students who
are on competitive debate teams (Bellon, 2000). However, research has
shown that debates can be successfully used in a variety of disciplines
including dentistry, economics, history, marketing, nursing, psychology,
sociology, and social work (Budesheim and Lundquist, 2000; Dundes,
2001; Garrett et al., 1996; Keller et al., 2001; Musselman, 2004; Roy and
Macchiette, 2005; Scannapeico, 1997; Vo and Morris, 2006).
Students learn more effectively by actively analyzing, discussing, and
applying content in meaningful ways, rather than by passively absorbing
information (Bonwell and Eison, 1991). Students learn best when
applying what they are learning, and instructors need to use a variety of

225
ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 10(3)

instructional strategies, since students learn in different ways (Meyers and

Jones, 1993). Student engagement is related to critical thinking and grade
point average, particularly for students with lower Scholastic Aptitude Test
scores (Carini et al., 2006). In-class debates cultivate the active engagement
of students, placing the responsibility of comprehension on the shoulders
of the students, and the students’ approach dramatically changes from a
passive approach to an active one (Snider and Schnurer, 2002). ‘Students
place a higher value on learning by participating than on learning by being
lectured at and receiving information passively’ (Berdine, 1987: 8).
In addition to promoting active engagement and mastery of the content,
debates afford many benefits. Because debates require listeners and partici-
pants to evaluate competing choices (Freeley and Steinberg, 2005), they
follow the call for activities that develop critical thinking skills by moving
up Bloom’s Taxonomy (Elliot, 1993; Gorman et al., 1981; Jugdev et al.,
2004). The lower-order thinking skills of knowledge, comprehension, and
application focus on rote learning or what students should think, whereas the
higher-order thinking skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation focus on
how to think. ‘The short-term objective of acquiring knowledge should be
tempered with the long-term goal of training the mind to think analytically
and critically’ (Vo and Morris, 2006: 16).
Because there is more information now than ever before, and the pace
of change will likely continue to be rapid, educators must focus less on
teaching facts and more on teaching students how to use information. In
the past, vocations were often passed on from generation to generation, but
now most individuals have several different careers in their lifetime (Snider
and Schnurer, 2002). If educators only focus on content, the information
taught might not be useful if one changes careers. However, if we focus
on critical thinking skills, these will be useful no matter how many times
individuals change careers. Although debate certainly requires the mastery
of content, it also demands the mastery of critical thinking skills such as
defining the problem, assessing the credibility of sources, identifying and
challenging assumptions, recognizing inconsistencies, and prioritizing the
relevance and salience of various points within the overall argument, which
can be applied to new information and changing situations. Therefore,
instructional strategies such as debate are better suited to the development
of students’ higher-order thinking skills than are traditional instructional
strategies such as lecture (Roy and Macchiette, 2005).
In addition to critical thinking skills, debates also demand the devel-
opment of oral communication skills, which are vital for success in most
careers (Combs and Bourne, 1994). ‘Debate involves not only determining
what to say but how to say it’ (Roy and Macchiette, 2005: 265). Surveys

226
 KENNEDY: THE POWER OF IN-CLASS DEBATES

of business leaders reveal the perception that college graduates do not

possess adequate oral communication skills. Alumni also have identified
practice in oral presentations as the most prominent gap in their educa-
tional experience (Dundes, 2001). ‘Except for students majoring in com-
munication, most undergraduates take at most one course emphasizing
oral communication skills; therefore most non-speech majors have little
or no opportunity to refine and reinforce their oral communication
skills’ (Cronin and Glenn, 1991: 356). Embedding oral communication
exercises in various courses across the curriculum increases the students’
oral communication skills as well as their learning of the discipline-specific
subject matter (Steinfatt, 1986). Debating also opens opportunities for the
development of empathy. Debate is one way to minimize instructor bias as
support for both sides of an issue will be expressed (Schroeder and Ebert,
1983). Further, when students defend a position they oppose, they must
at least temporarily transcend their own bias. By learning about both sides
of a controversial topic, students are more open-minded and better able to
see another person’s viewpoint (Berdine, 1987).
Although many articles describing the benefits of debates as an instruc-
tional strategy have been published over the last three decades, very
few of these discuss research studies conducted on in-class debates. The
students in these courses were studying to become teachers. Studies on
the use of in-class debates conducted in teacher education classes have
not been previously published. The present study focused on students’
attitudes toward debates as Combs and Bourne (1994) did in their five-
year study of educational debate in a fourth-year marketing class as well as
on the self-reported knowledge of students before and after participating
in debates as Keller et al. (2001) and Gregory and Holloway (2005) did
in their studies in social work courses. The present study also focused on
the effect that debating had on the students’ opinions regarding the issues
being debated. Previous studies have revealed that a vast majority of those
who debated a side inconsistent with their initial opinion changed their
views to coincide with the position debated whereas a vast majority of
those who argued a side consistent with their initial opinion maintained
that attitude (Budesheim and Lundquist, 2000; Green and Klug, 1990).

Methods
The 87 participants in this study (77 female, 88.5%; 10 male, 11.5%)
included all of the students enrolled in three sections of a course at a rural
Mid-Atlantic state university. After signing informed consent forms, the
participants were given a 13-item survey prior to the first debate, a 5-item
survey after the second debate, a 2-item survey after the fourth debate,

227
ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 10(3)

and an 11-item survey after the fifth debate. A number, from 1 to 87,
was located on each copy of the first survey, and the participants then
wrote that same number on their subsequent surveys. Many of the survey
questions were patterned after the ones used in Keller et al.’s (2001) study
on student debates.
On the first survey, the participants identified their gender, year in
school, whether they had participated in a debate prior to this class, whether
they had ever been on a competitive debate team, and whether they would
consider using debate as an instructional strategy. They also described their
feelings as they anticipated participating in a debate in this course and
assessed their current knowledge of the opposing views for each of the five
topics to be debated as either ‘not very knowledgeable’, ‘somewhat knowl-
edgeable’, or ‘very knowledgeable’. Finally, the participants identified their
current support of the first two debate propositions as either ‘yes’, ‘no’, or
‘neutral’.
On the second survey, which was given after the first two debates
were held, the participants again identified their view on the first two
debate propositions, as well as identifying their views on the last three
debate propositions. On the third survey, which was given twice, once
after the third debate and once after the fourth debate, the participants
again identified their view on the third and fourth debate propositions.
On the final survey, which was given after the fifth debate was held,
the participants indicated whether they would consider using debates
with their students, rated their knowledge on the five debate topics, and
identified their view on the fifth debate proposition. Additionally, the
participants used a rating scale of ‘not at all’, ‘a little’, ‘some’, and ‘a lot’
to evaluate the extent to which they felt that observing and participating in
debates contributed to their knowledge and whether they felt that debates
should be used in this class in future semesters. Finally, the participants
described what they did and did not like about participating in a debate.
Twelve students in each of the three classes participated in each of the five
debates. Six students in each of the three classes participated as ‘antagonists’
in each debate; three students defended each side of the proposition. Each
team presented an opening argument, rebuttal to the other side’s opening
argument, and closing argument, as well as answered questions posed by
members of the ‘audience’. The students were assessed on their use of the
literature to support their arguments; whether their presentation was clear,
orderly, and convincing; whether they used examples, facts, and reasons
to support their view; and whether they gave effective counter-arguments
to the arguments made by the other debate team. Five students in each
of the three classes participated as ‘questioners’ in each debate. These

228
 KENNEDY: THE POWER OF IN-CLASS DEBATES

students were asked to bring four thought-provoking questions to class –

two for each side. They asked one or two of their questions orally and
submitted all four questions to the instructor for a grade. One student in
each of the three classes performed the role of ‘conciliator’ in each debate.
This student was asked to present a thoughtful compromise or alternative
position prior to the closing arguments. Each student participated as an
antagonist in one debate and as a questioner or conciliator in one other
debate. Each debate lasted about 20 minutes.
Independent samples t-tests were used to compare the means of males
and females, as well as those who had and had not participated in a debate
prior to taking this course. Paired samples t-tests were used to compare the
means of participants before and after the debates.

Results
Given how anxious the students in this class appeared to be prior to
the first debate, the instructor assumed that very few had previously
participated in a debate. Therefore, it was not anticipated that 47 (54%)
would report previous debate participation. That only one (1.1%) had
been on a competitive debate team was not surprising. Despite their fears,
prior to the first debate, 65 of the participants (74.7%) indicated that they
would consider having their students participate in a debate, 21 (24.1%)
would not, and one (1.1%) wrote ‘don’t know’, instead of selecting ‘yes’
or ‘no’. The males were more likely to respond ‘yes’ than the females
were (t (85) = −5.367, p < 0.001). After participating in the debate,
72 participants (85.7%) indicated they would consider having their
students participate in a debate and 12 (14.3%) would not, which was a
significant difference (t (81) = 2.293, p < 0.05). The males were again
more likely to indicate that they might use debate as a teaching strategy
than were the females (t (82) = −3.764, p < 0.001).
When asked to describe their feelings prior to the first debate, 51 (58.6%)
of the 87 participants indicated they were ‘nervous’. ‘I get nervous about
them because public speaking in front of my peers is hard for me.’
‘Worried about the questions that we are going to be asked.’ ‘Excited but
also nervous because it is a grade.’ ‘Anxious and nervous that I will not
be able to contest the arguments made by the opposite debate side.’ ‘I am
a little nervous about doing this debate. I am not very good at thinking
on my feet quickly. I am also not good at arguing.’ ‘I do not like to speak
out loud or be in front of the class. Especially in front of people I do
not know.’ Finally, ‘I would probably say nervousness and excitement.
I would be nervous, because one never knows what the other side is going

229
ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 10(3)

to come up with or what may happen. This is the same reason for the
excitement.’
An independent worker analyzed the participants’ descriptions of their
feelings. Of the participants, 14 (16.1%) had a positive outlook prior to
the first debate. Some felt that it would be a ‘good change to the regular
class routines’. For example, ‘I think that the debates will be a good
change of pace and an interesting way for us to learn the information;
getting involved in a lesson is a good way to help some people absorb the
material.’ Others felt it would be a good way to learn about both sides
of an issue. For example, ‘I think it is a good way to share information
and learn both sides to an issue in education without reading from a
textbook’ and ‘I think it is a good way for students to research and learn
about a topic, and I think it will help us understand the opposing views of
education today that as teachers we will encounter.’ Another student felt
it would help her form an opinion on an issue that she was currently ‘on
the fence about’.
After the fifth debate, the participants were asked to describe what they
did and/or did not like about participating in a debate. In this study, the
participants were allowed to pick which debate they would participate in
several weeks ahead of time, but they drew cards to determine which side
they would be representing only one week ahead of time. Both before and
after the debates, several participants stated they would like to have picked
which side they would defend, as they did not like representing a side that
they did not support. In contrast, one student said after the debates, ‘I liked
how we did not choose what side we were until a class before the debate.
It caused us to do research on both sides of our debate. It gave us an idea
what to say in the rebuttal.’
Many of the participants expressed discomfort with speaking in public
and, at the conclusion of the debates, one stated, ‘I personally would
rather write a persuasive paper on it. I have a hard time speaking in front
of my peers.’ Others said, ‘I personally do not like speaking in front of the
class, but I do think being a part of the debate allowed me to gain a lot
of knowledge on the topic I was debating’ and ‘Did not like the anxiety
of talking in front of everyone. Did like how much I learned about each
particular topic.’
Many participants spoke favorably of the debates. ‘I like it because it
is a different way to earn points besides just being tested. Some people
don’t do as well on tests as they would like.’ ‘I like the debates because I
feel I learned a lot more than taking notes or reading a textbook.’ ‘It was
a different way of learning the material, which I liked. Also I learned a lot
more in my debate than I did before.’ ‘It made us actively think about our
230
 KENNEDY: THE POWER OF IN-CLASS DEBATES

topic and others’ topic.’ ‘I like how we researched one in depth and then
debated and then researched one more generally so that we could create
questions, so we learned about two prior to class.’ Finally, ‘I liked the
learning process; it is that everybody was involved and got something out
of it. I know I did.’
The participants also made a number of comments regarding the devel-
opment of empathy. ‘I learned a lot and got to hear other people’s views
on subject matters.’ ‘I think that debates are a great way to see both sides of
a topic at once’ and ‘learn how to consider others’ points of views’. ‘What
I liked about participating in the debate was, it was eye opening. I got to
see and understand both sides of the topic.’ Finally, ‘I thought it was an
interesting way to present the information and made me look at the two
sides of an argument that I might not have otherwise.’
After the fifth debate, the participants also were asked whether they
would recommend that debates be used in this class in future semesters. Of
the participants, 13 (16.7%) said ‘a little’, 35 (44.9%) indicated ‘some’,
and 30 (38.5%) said ‘a lot’. None of the participants selected ‘not at all’.
As seen in Table 1, when the participants were asked to rate their knowl-
edge of the key issues surrounding each topic prior to the debates, the
most popular response was ‘somewhat knowledgeable’ for all five topics
(48.3% to 74.8%). The second debate proposition was the only topic in
which more than 10% of the participants selected ‘very knowledgeable’
(31%). The participants appeared to be the least knowledgeable about the
fourth debate proposition, as it was the only topic in which more than
20% of the participants selected ‘not very knowledgeable’ (46%).
When the participants were asked to rate their knowledge of the key
issues after the debates, the most popular response remained ‘somewhat
knowledgeable’ for three of the five topics. In reference to the third and
fifth propositions, the most popular response was ‘very knowledgeable’.

Table 1 Participants’ perceptions of their knowledge of each topic

(percentage)

Before After

Not very Somewhat Very Not very Somewhat Very

1st** 17.2 74.7 8.0 11.8 51.8 36.4

2nd 12.6 56.3 31.0 4.7 55.3 40.0
3rd*** 18.4 72.4 9.2 5.9 44.7 49.4
4th*** 46.0 48.3 5.7 14.1 50.6 35.3
5th*** 17.2 74.8 8.0 2.4 43.5 54.1
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

231
ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 10(3)

Although, prior to the debates, less than 10% of the participants identified
themselves as ‘very knowledgeable’ about four of the five topics, after the
debates, 35% to 54% of the participants selected ‘very knowledgeable’ for
all five topics. Additionally, after three of the five debates less than 6% of
the participants selected ‘not very knowledgeable’. The participants still
felt the least knowledgeable about the fourth debate proposition; however,
the percentage who rated themselves ‘not very knowledgeable’ dropped
from 46% to 14%.
There was a significant difference between how the students assessed
their knowledge before and after the first (t (82) = −2.971, p < 0.01),
third (t (82) –5.915, p < 0.001), fourth (t (82) = −7.175, p < 0.001),
and fifth (t (82) –8.449, p < 0.001) debates. Additionally, there was a
significant positive correlation in how the students rated their knowledge
before and after the fourth debate (0.316, p < 0.01).
After the fifth debate, the participants were asked the extent to which
they believed observing and participating in the debates contributed to
their knowledge of the topics. Of the participants, 7 (8.2%) indicated
that observing contributed ‘a little’, 41 (48.2%) said ‘some’, and 37
(43.6%) indicated ‘a lot’. Additionally, 13 participants (16.7%) said
that participating contributed ‘some’ and 65 (83.3%) indicated ‘a lot’;
none of the participants selected ‘not at all’ or ‘a little’ for this item. The
participants indicated that participating contributed more than observing.
A significant positive (0.448, p < 0.001) correlation was found between
the responses to these two items, and the difference was significant (t (84)
–7.999, p < 0.001). Additionally, participants who had participated in a
debate prior to this course were less likely to respond that participating
in these debates contributed ‘a lot’ than those who had never participated
in a debate before, and the difference was significant (t (83) = −2.505,
p < 0.05).
As seen in Table 2, there was a significant difference in participants’
opinions on the issues before and after the first (t (84) = −0.294,
p < 0.001), second (t (84) = −0.200, p < 0.05), third (t (79) −0.350,
p < 0.001), and fourth (t (79) −0.500, p < 0.001) debates. There also was
a significant positive correlation between the responses before and after
the second (0.349, p < 0.001) and third (0.441, p < 0.001) debates. After
the fifth debate, the differences between the opinions of the males and
females was significant (t (79) 2.255, p < 0.05). The males were more
likely to disagree with the proposition than were the females. Between
30.6% and 57.5% of the participants changed their opinion after each of
the five debates.

232
 KENNEDY: THE POWER OF IN-CLASS DEBATES

Table 2 Participants’ views on each debate proposition (percentage)

Before After

Agree Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Neutral

1st*** 71.3 3.4 25.4 71.8 3.4 25.3

2nd* 46.0 5.7 48.3 42.4 17.6 40.0
3rd*** 48.8 21.4 29.8 37.3 41.4 19.3
4th*** 65.5 4.8 29.8 50.6 32.5 16.9
5th 66.7 4.8 28.6 79.5 5.1 15.4
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Discussion
The difference in self-assessed knowledge before and after the debates
was significantly different in four of the five debates. This is in keeping
with Keller et al. (2001), who reported that their participants’ responses
revealed significant increases for all four topics debated in a social work
class. Additionally, the participants in the present study, as well as those
in the Keller et al. study, reported greater gains in knowledge through
participating in rather than observing debates. In contrast, participants in
another study reported that observing was as beneficial as participating
(Moeller, 1985).
Although some propositions were worded to support a minority position,
when asked to identify their view on each topic prior to the debates, the
most popular response was ‘yes’ (i.e. in favour of the debate proposition)
for four of the five topics, and for the first, fourth, and fifth debates, more
than 65% of the participants agreed with the proposition. The exception
was the second debate, for which 48.3% of the participants were neutral.
The least popular response in all five instances was ‘no’. In four of the five
topics, less than 5% of the participants expressed disagreement with the
proposition. The exception was the third debate, for which 21.4% of the
participants disagreed.
When asked to identify their view on each topic after each debate, ‘yes’
was still the most popular response for four of the five debate propositions.
For three of the debates, the percentage who indicated that they agreed
with the proposition before and after the debate differed by more than
5%. In two instances, the percentage who agreed decreased. After the
third debate, only 37% supported the proposition, compared with 48.8%
before the debate, and after the fourth debate, only 51% supported the
proposition, compared with 66% before the debate. In contrast, prior to
the fifth debate, 67% supported the proposition, compared with 80% after

233
ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 10(3)

the debate. The percentage who disagreed with the proposition remained
relatively unchanged after the first and fifth debates. However, after the
second, third, and fourth debates, the percentage who disagreed increased
by between 12% and 28%. The percentage who were neutral after the
debates decreased by between 8% and 13%, with the exception of the first
debate, in which the percentage remained unchanged.
As seen in Table 3, an analysis of whether the students’ views changed
after participating as an antagonist in a debate revealed that 3.7% switched
to the opposing view from the side they had defended, 21.3% switched
to the view they had defended, 8.0% changed to ‘neutral’ after defending
the view inconsistent with their original opinions, and 1.3% changed to
‘neutral’ after defending the view consistent with their original opinion. In
another study, 73% of those who argued for a position inconsistent with
their initial attitude changed their position, and 88% of those who argued
for a position consistent with their initial attitude did not change their
position (Budesheim and Lundquist, 2000). In the present study, 37.3%
of the participants changed their opinion after participating in a debate.
This included participants who defended views consistent and inconsistent
with their original opinions. Some participants changed their opinion even
when they defended the side consistent with their original view.
The students in this course believed that participating in and observing
in-class debates greatly enhanced their knowledge of the issues surrounding
the five debate topics. After participation in the debates, a higher
percentage of participants indicated that they would consider using
debates as an instructional strategy, compared with the percentage who
felt this way prior to the debates being held. Finally, the debates enabled
students to become familiar with the arguments for each side of each issue,
and this led as many as 57.5% of the participants to change their view at
the conclusion of the debate.

Table 3 How antagonists’ views changed (percentage)

Negative Affirmative

Yes to Neutral to Yes to Neutral to Neutral to Yes to Yes to

Neutral Yes No No Yes No Neutral

1st 0 5.9 5.9 0 0 0 0

2nd 0 6.3 0 12.5 0 0 0
3rd 0 0 12.5 6.3 6.3 12.5 12.5
4th 11.1 5.6 16.7 0 0 0 0
5th 11.1 0 5.6 11.1 11.1 0 0

234
 KENNEDY: THE POWER OF IN-CLASS DEBATES

Limitations and future research

The validity and reliability of the results of this research could have
been improved if an objective assessment had been used to measure the
students’ knowledge before and after each of the debates rather than
relying on the students’ self-assessment of their knowledge. Also, the
majority (88.5%) of the participants was female, and the results might
have differed in a population with a more balanced male to female ratio.
Similarly, the participants were prospective teachers, and this might
influence the general applicability of the results to other types of student.
Given the small sample size and the focus on a single discipline, future
research could include participants from a variety of disciplines, which
would hopefully lead to a more equal gender and age distribution and
could establish what effect, if any, the discipline, gender, or age of the
students has upon the effectiveness of this instructional strategy. Future
studies might also focus on whether the majority of students seem inclined
to agree with propositions, regardless of whether they are worded to
represent the majority or minority viewpoint, as they did in this study.
In many courses the class size would make it impossible for every
student to participate in at least one debate. Some instructors require
all of their students to prepare for every debate and then randomly
select participants shortly before the debate (Schroeder and Ebert, 1983;
Temple, 1997). Additionally, debate formats which include a greater
number of participants than the format used in this study would enable
debates to be used in at least somewhat larger classes. In classes with a
suitable enrollment, in-class debates are a powerful instructional strategy
that can be effectively used in a wide variety of disciplines.

References
BELLON, J. (2000) ‘A Research Based Justification for Debate Across the
Curriculum’, Argumentation and Advocacy 36(3): 161–73.
BERDINE, R. (1987) ‘Increasing Student Involvement in the Learning Process
Through Debate on Controversial Topics’, Journal of Marketing Education 9(3): 6–8.
BONWELL, C. & EI SON, J. (1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom.
Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass.
BUDESHEIM, T. & LUNDQUIST, A. (2000) ‘Consider the Opposite: Opening Minds
Through In-Class Debates on Course-Related Controversies’, Teaching of Psychology
26(2): 106–10.
CARINI, R., KUH, G. & KLEIN, S. (2006) ‘Student Engagement and Student Learning:
Testing the Linkages’, Research in Higher Education 47(1): 1–32.
COMBS, H. & BOURNE, S. (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(1): 57–67.
CRONIN, M. & GLENN, P. (1991) ‘Oral Communication Across the Curriculum in
Higher Education: The State of the Art’, Communication Education 40(4): 356–67.

235
ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 10(3)

DUNDES, L. (2001) ‘Small Group Debates: Fostering Critical Thinking in Oral

Presentations with Maximal Class Involvement’, Teaching Sociology 29(2): 237–43.
ELLIOT, L. (1993) ‘Using Debates to Teach the Psychology of Women’, Teaching of
Psychology 20(1): 35–38.
FREELEY, A. & STEINBERG, D. (2005) Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned
Decision Making, 11th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
GARRETT, M., SCHOENER, L. & HOOD, L. (1996) ‘Debate as a Teaching Strategy to
Improve Verbal Communication and Critical Thinking Skills’, Nurse Educator 21(4),
37–40.
GORMAN, M., LAW, A. & LINDEGREN, T. (1981) ‘Making Students Take a Stand:
Active Learning in Introductory Psychology’, Teaching of Psychology 8(3): 164–6.
GREEN, C. & KLUG, H. (1990). ‘Teaching Critical Thinking and Writing Through
Debates: An Experimental Evaluation’, Teaching Sociology 18(4), 462–71.
GREGORY, M. & HOLLOWAY, M. (2005). ‘The Debate as a Pedagogic Tool in Social
Policy for Social Work Students’, Social Work Education 24(6): 617–37.
JUGDEV, K., MARKOWSKI, C. & MENGEL, T. (2004) ‘Using the Debate as a Teaching
Tool in the Online Classroom’, Online Cl@ssroom 1(10): 4–6.
KELLER, T., WHITTAKER, J. & BURKE, T. (2001) ‘Student Debates in Policy Courses:
Promoting Policy Practice Skills and Knowledge Through Active Learning’, Journal
of Social Work 37(2): 343–55.
MEYERS, C. & JONES, T. (1993) Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MOELLER, T. (1985) ‘Using Classroom Debates in Teaching Developmental
Psychology’, Teaching of Psychology 12(4): 207–09.
MUSSELMAN, E. (2004) ‘Using Structured Debate to Achieve Autonomous Student
Discussion’, The History Teacher 37(3): 335–48.
ROY, A. & MACCHIETTE, B. (2005) ‘Debating the Issues: A Tool for Augmenting
Critical Thinking Skills of Marketing Students’, Journal of Marketing Education 27(3):
264–76.
SCANNAPEI CO, F. (1997) ‘Formal Debate: An Active Learning Strategy’, Journal of
Dental Education 61: 995–6.
SCHROEDER, H. & EBERT, D. (1983) ‘Debates as a Business and Society Teaching
Technique’, Journal of Business Education 58: 266–9.
SNIDER, A. & SCHNURER, M. (2002) Many Sides: Debate Across the Curriculum. New York:
International Debate Education Association.
STEINFATT, T. (1986) ‘Communication Across the Curriculum’, Communication
Quarterly 3(4): 460–70.
TEMPLE, M. (1997) ‘Using Debate to Develop Health Literacy’, Journal of School Health
67(3), 116–17.
VO, H. & MORRIS, R. (2006) ‘Debate as a Tool in Teaching Economics: Rationale,
Technique, and Some Evidence’, Journal of Education for Business 81(6): 315–20.

Biographical note
RUTH KENNEDY is an Associate Professor of Early Childhood and Elementary
Education at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. Her research interests and
publications primarily focus on teacher education.
Address: Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, 400 East Second Street, Bloomsburg,
PA 17815 USA. [Email: rkennedy@bloomu.edu]

236
Copyright of Active Learning in Higher Education is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.