Debate
This page describes an implementation of an assessment method by a lecturer or group of lecturers. The content of the page is the result of an interview conducted through the RAFT project in DIT in the 2013-14 Academic Year.
[Return to Assessment Homepage]
Lecturer and Contact Details
Programme and year on which assessment was offered
Description
This is a work in progress. The idea is that a number of topics are selected that are relevant to the subject material, beyond the scope of lectures. Students are assigned to groups and then told which side of the debate they are on. Some sides/opinions are more popular but, like a lawyer, the idea is to present the best case/argument possible, independent of their own beliefs.
A debate is then held in class, teams of 4/5, with the whole class observing (15-20 mins per topic). Structure is the students present their cases, then there is time allowed for rebuttal. There is no Q&A from the class.
Students are judged on presentations, some marks for speaking but also on handouts which must be provided (& correctly referenced). This mark is about the research carried out, based on academic grounds i.e. quality of argument and research. All points must be supported but do not have to be unbiased.
Individuals attend all debates and review debates. They must state their position before, summary of debate and judgement following the debate.
Marking is independent of winning or losing.
An alternative offline version could be run (if class time not an option) where the debate is held externally and the results are presented only. This could be achieved through videos/forums etc.
Why did you use this assessment?
This fits into the nature of the course. It is very broad (real world/real politics). It encourages the students to find information external to class.
It deals with ambiguous/uncertain/fuzzy knowledge. Students are forced to take a side and argue but also to choose within individual elements. This method is engaging for lecturer and students. Topics change based on current events.
Why did you change to this form of assessment?
This method is more interactive and engaging. For larger classes poster presentations are more suited (less class time taken). The adversarial aspect encourages students to “ferret” out all of the information (rebuttal marks provided). This encourages students to rely on non traditional resources i.e. not the text book. It also encourages research methods development as they must check their sources.
How do you give feedback to students?
Immediate informal feedback is given at the end of the debate. The written submission is then marked separately.
What have you found are the advantages of using this form of assessment?
- Presentation feedback is instantaneous
- Self awareness of performance
- Every student is encourages to learn from others work (attend and report)
What have you found are the dis-advantages of using this form of assessment?
- Time to mark written submission
- Classroom time for very large classes (30 students = 3 hrs). Would suggest offline version would be more time efficient.
If another lecturer was using this assessment method would you have any tips for them?
- Think carefully about group size (<30 students)
- Pick topics carefully (student selection not great)
- Lawyer role beneficial.
- Make sure individual element (mechanism for individual contribution encouraged),
- Avoid more technical topics.
- Resist all attempts by students to think for them! You MUST remain impartial.
Do you have any feedback from students about this assessment?
- Very positive feedback from students.
- Developing own arguments.
- Participation.
- Interesting and enjoyable.
Additional Comments
- Very good results, very positive, useful learning occurs.
- Compared to traditional presentations: better learning and engagement.
