Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:54:31.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Debate and Deliberation in Democratic Education

from Part Three - Key Topics and Concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2023

By
Jane Lo  and
Paula McAvoy
Edited by
Julian Culp ,
Johannes Drerup  and
Douglas Yacek
Julian Culp
Affiliation:
The American University of Paris, France
Johannes Drerup
Affiliation:
Universität Dortmund
Douglas Yacek
Affiliation:
Universität Dortmund
Get access

Summary

Debate and deliberation are two commonly promoted strategies for democratic education. Both strategies are designed to unearth different points of view and then engage in reason-giving and argumentation; in other words, they help students to recognize pluralism. When done well, both also model inquiry and deepen understanding about the issues being investigated. In this chapter, we discuss the theoretical justification for each and show how the adversarial aspect of debate engages a different set of democratic skills than the more collaborative approach of deliberation. These differences require teachers to make judgments about how best to use these strategies in the classroom. We conclude by addressing some critiques of these strategies and discuss how alternative discussion designs might overcome some of the limitations of deliberation and debate.

Keywords

deliberationdebateclassroom discussiondemocratic educationpluralism
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Democratic Education , pp. 298 - 310
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Avery, P. G., Levy, S. A., & Simmons, A. M. M. (2014). Secondary students and the deliberation of public issues. PS – Political Science and Politics, 47(4), 849–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096514001164.Google Scholar
Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bessette, J. (1980). Deliberative democracy: The majority principle in Republican government. In Goldwin, R. A. & Schambra, W. A., eds., How democratic is the constitution? Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 102–16.Google Scholar
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED336049.Google Scholar
Brennan Center for Justice. (2019, November 19). New voting restrictions in America. Available at: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/new-voting-restrictions-america.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. (1979). Education, democracy and discussion. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Carnegie Corporation of New York, CIRCLE. (2003). The civic mission of schools. Available at: https://www.carnegie.org/publications/the-civic-mission-of-schools.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Hamlin, A. P. & Pettit, P., eds., The good polity: Normative analysis of the state. New Jersey: Blackwell, pp. 17–34.Google Scholar
Colbert, K., & Biggers, T. (1985). Why should we support debate? Journal of the American Forensic Association, 21(4), 237–40.Google Scholar
Colburn, C. W. (1972). Strategies for educational debate. Holbrook: Holbrook Press.Google Scholar
Davis, K. A., Zorwick, M. L. W., Roland, J., & Wade, M. M. (2016). Using debate in the classroom: Encouraging critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ehninger, D., & Brockriede, W. (1978). Decision by debate. 2nd ed., New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Ford, K. (Ed.) (2017). Facilitating change through intergroup dialogue. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fournier-Sylvester, N. (2013). Daring to debate: Strategies for teaching controversial issues in the classroom. College Quarterly, 16(3). Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1018000.Google Scholar
Garrett, M., Schoener, L., & Hood, L. (1996). Debate: A teaching strategy to improve verbal communication and critical-thinking skills. Nurse Educator, 21(4), 37–40.Google Scholar
Gervey, R., Drout, M. O., & Wang, C.-C. (2009). Debate in the classroom: An evaluation of a critical thinking teaching technique within a rehabilitation counseling course. Rehabilitation Education, 23(1), 61–73. doi: doi.org/10.1891/088970109805059209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, M. (2020). From deliberation to counter-narration: Toward a critical pedagogy for democratic citizenship. Theory & Research in Social Education, 48(3), 431–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingold, J. (2013) Building an evidence-based practice of action civics: The current state of assessments and recommendation for the future. (CIRCLE Working Paper #78). Available at: https://civicyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/WP_78_Gingold.pdf.Google Scholar
Gruner, C. R., Iluseman, R. C., & Luck, J. I. (1971). Debating ability, critical thinking ability, and authoritarianism. Speaker and Gavel, 8(3), 63–65.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (original work published 1962).Google Scholar
Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2015). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huseman, R., Ware, G., & Gruner, C. (1972). Critical thinking, reflective thinking, and the ability to organize ideas: A multi-variate approach. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 9(4), 261–65.Google Scholar
Jagger, S. (2013). Affective learning and the classroom debate. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(1), 38–50. doi: doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.746515.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979 ). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 51–69. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1169926.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.T. (1985). Classroom conflict: Controversy versus debate in learning groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 237–56. doi: doi.org/10.3102/00028312022002237.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2011). Constructive controversy. In Christie, D. J., ed., The encyclopedia of peace psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 246–51. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470672532.wbepp062/abstract.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Smith, K. A., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education (1996). Academic controversy: Enriching college instruction through intellectual conflict. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 25, (3). Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University.Google Scholar
Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2013). Do discussion, debate, and dimulations boost NAEP civics performance? CIRCLE Facts Sheet. Available at: extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.miciviced.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F10%2Fcircle_naepbechtelfactsheetapril30.final_.pdf&chunk=true.Google Scholar
Kohlmeier, J., & Saye, J. (2019). Examining the relationship between teachers’ discussion facilitation and their students’ reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 47(2), 176–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Kruger, A. (1968). Counterpoint: Debates about debate., Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
Laden, A. S. (2012). Reasoning: A social picture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, C. D., White, G., & Dong, D. (Eds.) (2021). Executive summary. Educating for civic reasoning and discourse. Committee on Civic Reasoning and Discourse: National Academy of Education. Available at: https://3e0hjncy0c1gzjht1dopq44b-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/NAEd-Educating-for-Civic-Reasoning-and-Discourse-Exec-Summary.pdf.Google Scholar
Levine, P. (2018). Deliberation or simulated deliberation? Democracy and Education, 26(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Levy, B., Babb-Guerra, A., Batt, L. M., & Owczarek, W. (2019). Can education reduce political polarization? Fostering open-minded political engagement during the legislative semester. Teachers College Record, 121(5), 1–40.Google Scholar
Lo, J. C. (2015). Developing participation through simulations: A multi-level analysis of situational interest on students’ commitment to vote. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 39(4), 243–54.Google Scholar
Lo, J. C. (2017). Empowering young people through conflict and conciliation: Attending to the political and agonism in democratic education. Democracy and Education, 25(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Lo, J. C. (Ed.) (2022). Making classroom discussions work: Methods for quality dialogue in the social studies. Columbia, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McAvoy, P. & McAvoy, G. E. (2021). Can debate and deliberation reduce partisan divisions? Evidence from a study of high school students. Peabody Journal of Education, 96(3), 275–84. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2021.1942706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, W. E. (1967). Creative and critical thinking. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–58.Google Scholar
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) (2013). The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History. Available at: https://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/c3/C3-Framework-for-Social-Studies.pdf.Google Scholar
Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–98.Google Scholar
Parker, W. C., & Hess, D. (2001). Teaching with and for discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 273–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisman, A. (2015). Entering the historical problem space: Whole-class text-based discussion in history class. Teachers College Record, 117(2), 1–44.Google Scholar
Reisman, A., Cipparone, P., Jay, L., Monte-Sano, C., Kavanagh, S. S., McGrew, S., & Fogo, B. (2019). Evidence of emergent practice: Teacher candidates facilitating historical discussions in their field placements. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80, 145–56.Google Scholar
Ruitenberg, C. W. (2009). Educating political adversaries: Chantal Mouffe and radical citizenship education. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 28(3), 269–81. doi: doi.org/10.1007/s11217-008-9122-2.Google Scholar
Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–76.Google Scholar
Seech, Z. (1984). Philosophical Chairs: A format for classroom discussion. Teaching Philosophy, 7(1), 37–41.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1998. The argument culture: Stopping America’s war of words. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Tessier, J. T. (2010). Classroom debate format. College Teaching, 57(3), 144–52. doi: doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.57.3.144-152.Google Scholar
Tumposky, N. R. (2004). The debate debate. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78(2), 52–6. doi: doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.78.2.52-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press on demand.Google Scholar
Zare, P., & Othman, M. (2013). Classroom debate as a systematic teaching/learning approach. World Applied Sciences Journal, 28, 1506–13. doi: doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.28.11.1809.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×