Deborah’s debates in the Conservation Biology module allow all students to engage and participate without the pressure of having to be involved in public speaking. The participants work in groups to co-create the materials, which builds a sense of belonging.

Teaching area

Seminars

Course

Core Ecology and Conservation module, Level 5. Around 80 on the module, in two large seminar groups of 40 students. Mostly white UK students.

Description

This was my first year running the module. The previous module convener had included debates on contentious topics; however, I was not given details on how they were run. I decided to run structured debates in 50 minutes rather than a general discussion. Due to the limited time available on the day, the students were given some articles to read in advance and asked to prepare for both sides of the argument before attending the session. They were encouraged to research the topics fully and to build their argument with evidence from the readings.

I originally intended to have two debates running simultaneously. But only around half of the cohort attended; I believe this can be partly explained by the timing of the sessions, one seminar was at 9:00 and the second one was just after lunch. However, it is possible that the idea of a debate put some students off coming. I split each seminar group into three groups: one for the motion, another against the motion and a third group of judges (three or five participants, depending on the numbers). The third group’s tasks were to ask each group probing questions, decide on the winners and justify their decision. To ensure the students that came felt comfortable speaking, the debates were entirely student led. I acted as a moderator to encourage participation and make sure the rules were followed.

The debate activity

One debate focused on the relevance of zoos. The motion was that zoos play an essential role in conservation. Another debate was that the reintroduction of species plays an essential role in restoring biodiversity. We followed this format.

The teams had to decide who was going to speak. I made it flexible how many speakers to select (one or more), encouraging the students to think about what would work best during the debate. There was no pressure to speak, to ensure only those that felt comfortable speaking in a group setting would take this role. Those who were not speaking were called the bench members; they had the job of listening carefully to their opponents and writing down points for their team to use in the next round. They also had to feed points to their speaker if they got stuck.

I made it clear to the whole cohort that speaking in front of a group was a challenging thing to do, acknowledging the effort of those that volunteered, and asked group members to support each other and not to heckle their opponents.

Roles for all

Considering that some students are shy and don’t like to speak in front of their group, I also created an option to use a Padlet (online tool), where students could write notes for building their arguments. I told them they needed to ensure that someone in their group would check the Padlet and share the comments out loud.

I adapted the rules as we went along. At first, I grouped the students to argue against what they believed. Then I let them arrange themselves as they wanted. The morning group responded well to arguing the opposing viewpoint and enjoyed it. The afternoon group struggled with this, so I allowed them to argue what they believed in. The students didn’t always have strong opinions, so in those cases, I let them decide which group to join and moved them around if there were too many in one group. It worked out well. Every student had a role, and the groups didn’t need moderating. I changed the groups each time so the students could work with different people and to give all those who wanted to be on the panel the chance to do so.

The debate activity was not assessed, but the topics were all linked to lecture content and aided understanding. Conservation is a very emotive subject, with some divisive topics that can lead to strong opinions. It is important that the students develop the ability to understand multiple viewpoints and the importance of evidence when asserting points. The debates were an interactive way to get the students to formulate arguments based on evidence, regardless of their personal opinions, and as such provided an important learning experience. Those who attended engaged well.

Outcomes

Co-creation with students

The students had opinions on most of the issues we covered, and the debates provided an opportunity to discuss the topics without being graded on performance. The participants took charge of developing the content; I was merely the facilitator. They developed their skills as they went along, becoming better at listening to each other and gathering points to feed to the speakers. By the third debate, if someone was stumbling, their group members fed them the information and encouraged them to speak. The students’ arguments had an impact on their peers. I always ran ‘before and after’ polls to see if students changed their mind after the debate and showed the results in the next lecture. The students who were engaged in the debates were more likely to shift their opinion, demonstrating peer learning.

Team-based learning and group work

Working in groups built the students’ sense of belonging and reduced social isolation.

Student engagement

A core set of students within each seminar group came to each debate, while a few joined a later one. I provided materials on Padlet for those who did not attend the debate so they would not miss out on content, and students did use them.

Comments

Students said they had enjoyed the opportunity to discuss contentious subjects and that even though initially they found it uncomfortable, they liked having to argue an opposing viewpoint. They found the use of Padlet inclusive. It catered for different learning styles, allowing people who prefer to write rather than speak to take part. I received emails from shy students who appreciated that they had a role although they didn’t want to speak. Although there were no negative comments, some students said they needed more help forming the arguments.

Reflection

I explained in the lectures that there was no pressure to speak in debates, but maybe I didn’t communicate this effectively. Next time I will make it clearer that non-speaking roles are available.

In feedback, some students said they would like more time to prepare for the debate. Next time, we’ll have a short workshop before the first debate and then the following sessions will be pure debate.