Critical Thinking and Speaking--Debates

So, as I have mentioned in some of my other posts about teaching in China, my second year I was given a couple of new courses.  Cross Cultural Reading, which I discussed earlier in the this blog, and the other course was called Critical Thinking and Speaking.

This was not really explained to me in great depth, but I was told that it was supposed to focus on improving critical thinking and both offer more opportunity for oral speaking and also improve their oral speaking skills.  So it was kind of like Oral Speaking through Critical Thinking.  Or vice-versa.

As I have also mentioned, the teachers were not given a great deal of direction (or limitations) in how to go about teaching these courses, and since this was my second year, I was sort of excited (rather than terrified) to be designing these courses with only minimal direction.

I decided to focus the course around argumentative speaking and writing.  I cut the course in half, with the first half of the year focusing on debates (which is what I am going to expand upon in this post) and the second half of the year focusing on argumentative speeches (both writing them and delivering them).   Having never really taught or participated in a formal debate, I spent my summer doing some research into how best to approach teaching debate.

During my first class, after we went over the syllabus and my expectations, we brainstormed some controversial topics, both in China and in the rest of the world.  We came up with a list that included the one child policy, drunk driving, mandatory morning exercise for college students, cell phone usage in schools, mandatory dorm inspections, having English majors take every class in English, dating in college, school uniforms, working while in school, online shopping, and the use of social networking to name only a few.

I received a less than enthusiastic response to the idea of debates, but in class I didn't really think anything of it--my students do not particularly like projects that single them out in front of other students and ask them to speak (I think very few people actually enjoy this).  However, later that night I received a phone call from my professor (who got me this teaching job) telling me that she had received several emails from the students, each of them very nervous about doing debates.  We talked for a while to see if we could figure out the root of this problem.  It turns out they had another class in the previous year that featured debates and they were very frustrated by this class.  They did not succeed in this class, and they were afraid of failing at debates again, especially if debates made up half their grade for the course.  However,  I assured her (and my students during our next class) that I would be very explicit in explaining how our debates would be carried out, what my students would need to do to succeed, and how I would be grading them.   This seemed to calm my students down, however I could tell they were still a little apprehensive.

I used this website in my research on how to construct a debate.  I separated the class into groups of three.  Each week, two groups would debate against each other over one of our pre-approved topics (and a couple I threw in there to mix things up bit).  The groups debating and the topic given to them would be assigned by me the week earlier--both groups would have a full week to research, prepare, and practice for their debate.  The class would determine the winner by determining which group provided the best and most compelling argument--well presented, logical, back by fact/examples, and persuasive.

Of course, I didn't just throw them into this.  We spent a whole class doing "practice:"debates.  We began by looking at the different kinds of information in each argument--the claims, the examples, and the persuasive language.  Claims being your argument.  For example:  "The one child policy is bad because it leaves all the financial burdens for caring for ones parents on the shoulders of one individual."   This is a good claim because it clearly tells the positive or negative (in this case, negative) and lists a concrete reason why one-child is bad.  The examples to support this claim would be specific data from credible sources that support the financial burden of the one child policy on only children.  A possible example of a specific, fact-based example could be

" In China, the percentage of the population over the age of 65 years was 5 percent in 1982 and now stands at 7.5 percent but is expected to rise to more than 15 percent by 2025.28 Although these figures are lower than those in most industrialized countries (especially Japan, where the proportion of people over the age of 65 years is 20 percent), a lack of adequate pension coverage in China means that financial dependence on offspring is still necessary for approximately 70 percent of elderly people" (Zhu, Wei Xing,, M.P.H, Lu Li, M.D., and Therese Hesketh, Ph.D. "The New England Journal of Medicine." The Effect of China's One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years — NEJM. New England Journal of Medicine, 15 Sept. 2005. Web. 03 Mar. 2014.)

The student would then back it up with a few more similar examples relating to financial burden on children and the One Child Policy.  It is also important to remind them to only make one claim at a time.  So if they are talking about the financial burden, do not also talk about female infanticide, and do not provide any examples that do not specifically relate to the financial burden of the one-child policy.  One claim (or argumentative point) per person, backed up with examples.   The final part of the debate is using persuasive language.  This is a mix of how you present the data in the claim and examples as well as providing personal or anecdotal examples.  For example, after the hard (factual) evidence, you can encourage your students to say something like this: "Imagine being barely 30 years old, starting your family, still working your way up in your career, paying of debt from school, and trying to make ends meet while also finding yourself caring for your retired parents.  How will you manage?!"

Our practice debates were on fairly common topics, and I provided short readings so they could give concrete examples during their practicing without having to waste too  much of our limited class time on research.  We  made claims together, searched out facts, and practiced using persuasive language in whole group and small group.

When the debates began, the first person of the group launches their opening argument.   I usually began with the affirmative side, the side that was in favor, or defending, whatever our particular argument for that day was. So, for example, if the topic for that day was the One Child Policy, the people in favor of the policy would list their first claim backed up by fact-based examples and anecdotal evidence.  Next, the group who disagrees with the argument , or the negative team, lists their first claim and supportive evidence. So the person speaking would only mention one claim (or point in their argument) per turn, with evidence.  When one team is speaking, the other team is taking notes.  When two people from each team have spoken (both groups have introduced their two most compelling claims with evidence), I give them 5-7 minutes to compare notes and formulate their rebuttal.  Each group is then allowed a rebuttal, where they defend their position by providing counterarguments to the claims the opposite team had introduced.  When both groups have moved through all three parts of this debate, the teams leave the classroom, and the rest of the class then determines the winner, with the teacher as tie breaker.

So this is a visual I provided for my students on how the debates were going to look each time.  I have found with any student, but especially EFL students, it is good to provide visuals when possible.  This also helped me keep myself organized. 

I also created a rubric for assessing each group as they debated.  This would help our class determine the winner of the debate, especially if the debate was close.  These were collected and used as a participation grade.  Students were graded on individual contributions /performances in their in-class debates, as well as how they worked as a group--did each member's argument flow from on member to another?   Did it feel as if they worked together or just did their parts individually and wing it? Did each team's rebuttal address the points made by the opposing team and provide compelling (and fact-based) counterarguments?  On an individual basis: were their debates logical and fluid (claim, examples, persuasive language) and focused?  Each team debated once during the first half of the semester and their midterms were debates.  Throughout the semester, we worked on body language during a performance, persuasive language, and how to make our argument stronger.  In retrospect, I could probably have spent an entire semester on this, perfecting their debate skills.

While some of my students retained a steadfast dislike of debates, most of them grew to understand and tolerate them, with a handful of them actually enjoying it.  All of them improved the ability to craft an argument in a formal debate, and improved their critical thinking skills.   Debates take a long time to set up if you want to maximize student learning and really learn debates.  We didn't start actually doing the official debates until the fourth class--the first three classes were all "how to" classes, and throughout the remainder of the semester we learned ways to improve our debates for our midterms.  I think modeling exactly what I expected of them, and being very clear about my expectations eased some of their anxieties about debate.  I actually had a lot of fun teaching debates, and what we learned in terms of formulating an argument for a debate segued nicely into the second half of the semester: argumentative speeches.  We also began turning debates into argumentative speeches in the first half of the semester, after each debate.  We would learn about the purpose, how to craft introductions, theses, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Not only do debates improve critical thinking, but it also improves authentic oral language--students cannot fully memorize responses to a debate; the other team might throw out an unexpected response, and they will have to craft a spontaneous response, using their knowledge of English rather than relying on memorization. During the rebuttal, they have to synthesize what they have learned from the opposite team in order to create a logical rebuttal that addresses the opposite teams initial claims (arguments).  They should, having researched the topic, have some knowledge of the counterargument, they cannot fully prepare for what the other team is going to discuss,and they must craft this language in the 5 minutes they are given to prepare the rebuttal.  I have found that many times Chinese students seem to rely heavily on memorization, and this forced them to rely on it somewhat less.  I found it a good way to begin a class on argumentative speeches, but admit that the whole course probably could have centered around debate.  In a later post I will talk about the speeches we wrote and delivered.