Advertisement

Toward a Resolution for Teacher-Student Conflict: Crafting Spaces of Rigorous Freedom with Classroom Debate

  • Dmitri Seals
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter investigates how teachers might turn the apparent contradiction between the rise of standards-based measures of accountability and the desire for humanizing, empowering education into a generative debate. In the face of the enduring power of the standards movement, debate enables teachers and students to function as intellectuals and meet required benchmarks on their own terms. Youth develop high-level academic skills through participation in an activity where accountability comes mainly from peers rather than adults, much less from an official document. The chapter explores how such conflicts over the goals and content of education might result in a new harmony between academic accountability and intellectual self-determination.

References

  1. Anderson, S., & Mezuk, B. (2012). Participating in a policy debate program and academic achievement among at-risk adolescents in an urban public school district: 1997–2007. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1225–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, S., & Mezuk, B. (2015). Positive youth development and participation in an urban debate league: Results from Chicago Public Schools, 1997–2007. The Journal of Negro Education, 84(3), 362–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arens, A. K., & Morin, A. J. (2016). Relations between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’ educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 800–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asad, A. L., & Bell, M. C. (2014). Winning to learn, learning to win: Evaluative frames and practices in urban debate. Qualitative Sociology, 37(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-013-9269-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balf, T. (2014, March 6). The story behind the SAT overhaul. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/magazine/the-story-behind-the-sat-overhaul.html
  6. Bartanen, M. D., & Littlefield, R. S. (2015). Competitive speech and debate: How play influenced American educational practice. American Journal of Play, 7(2), 155–173.Google Scholar
  7. Belanger, A., & Stein, S. (2012). Closing the academic divide through debate. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Retrieved December 16, 2016, from https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/communities-and-banking/2013/spring/closing-the-academic-divide-through-debate.aspx
  8. Bellon, J. (2000). A research-based justification for debate across the curriculum. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36(3), 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bickmore, K., & Parker, C. (2014). Constructive conflict talk in classrooms: Divergent approaches to addressing divergent perspectives. Theory & Research in Social Education, 42(3), 291–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2014.901199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (2010). Sociology is a martial art: Political writings by Pierre Bourdieu (G. Sapiro, Ed.). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  11. Carter, P. L. (2003). “Black” cultural capital, status positioning, and schooling conflicts for low-income African American youth. Social Problems, 50(1), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.1.136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). English language arts standards. Retrieved April 11, 2017, from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/
  13. Cridland-Hughes, S. (2016). The Atlanta Urban Debate League: Exploring the making of a critical literacy space. American Educational History Journal, 43(1/2), 41–57.Google Scholar
  14. DeStigter, T. (2015). On the ascendance of argument: A critique of the assumptions of academe’s dominant form. Research in the Teaching of English, 50(1), 11–34.Google Scholar
  15. Doody, O., & Condon, M. (2012). Increasing student involvement and learning through using debate as an assessment. Nurse Education in Practice, 12(4), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2012.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fine, G. A. (2001). Gifted tongues: High school debate and adolescent culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goodwin, J. (2003). Students’ perspectives on debate exercises in content area classes. Communication Education, 52(2), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520302466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon, M. (2009). The misuses and effective uses of constructivist teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 15(6), 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600903357058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenberg, M., Brown, J., & Abenavoli, R. (2016). Teacher stress and health. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2016/07/teacher-stress-and-health.html
  20. Hanna, D. R. (2014). Using guided debates to teach current issues. Journal of Nursing Education, 53(6), 352–355. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20140512-04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hemmings, A. (2000). High school democratic dialogues: Possibilities for praxis. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hills, T. (2007). Is constructivism risky? Social anxiety, classroom participation, competitive game play and constructivist preferences in teacher development. Teacher Development, 11(3), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530701644615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Houppert, K. (2007, August 26). Finding their voices. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101715.html
  24. Jacobs, G. (2010). Academic controversy: A cooperative way to debate. Intercultural Education, 21(3), 291–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675981003771033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2010). Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentive discourse. Discourse Processes, 48(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638531003653344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McIntosh, J., & Milam, M. (2016). Competitive debate as competency-based learning: Civic engagement and next-generation assessment in the era of the common core learning standards. Communication Education, 65(4), 420–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1203007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mezuk, B. (2009). Urban debate and high school educational outcomes for African American males: The case of the Chicago Debate League. The Journal of Negro Education, 78(3), 290–304.Google Scholar
  29. Mezuk, B., Bondarenko, I., Smith, S., & Tucker, E. (2011). Impact of participating in a policy debate program on academic achievement: Evidence from the Chicago Urban Debate League. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(9), 622–635.Google Scholar
  30. Miller, J. (2006). Cross-X: The amazing true story of how the most unlikely team from the most unlikely of places overcame staggering obstacles at home and at school to … community on race, power, and education. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  31. Piaget, J. (1936/1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: W W Norton.Google Scholar
  32. Reed, I. (1988). Writin’ is fightin’: Thirty-seven years of boxing on paper. New York/Toronto, ON: Atheneum/Collier Macmillan Canada.Google Scholar
  33. Sass, D. A., Seal, A. K., & Martin, N. K. (2011). Predicting teacher retention using stress and support variables. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Snider, A., Schnurer, M., & Snider, A. (2002). Many sides: Debate across the curriculum. New York: International Debate Education Association.Google Scholar
  35. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thompson, K. (2014). Team’s strategy using the n-word unsettles some in the collegiate debate community. Retrieved January 8, 2017, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/11/09/teams-strategy-unsettles-some-in-the-collegiate-debate-community/
  37. Von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). Radical constructivism and teaching. Prospects, 31(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03220058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vygostsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Warner, E. (2003). Go homers, makeovers or takeovers? A privilege analysis of debate as a gaming simulation. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 24, 65–80.Google Scholar
  40. Warner, E., & Bruschke, J. (2001). Gone on debating. Competitive Academic Debate as a Tool of Empowerment. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 22, 1–21.Google Scholar
  41. Whiteley, G. (2007). Resolved. Los Angeles, CA: One Potato Productions.Google Scholar
  42. Winkler, C. K., Fortner, C. K., & Baugh-Harris, S. (2013). Overcoming educational challenges to women living in at-risk communities through urban debate. Forum on Public Policy Online, 2013(1).Google Scholar
  43. Woodard, R., & Kline, S. (2016). Lessons from sociocultural writing research for implementing the Common Core State Standards. The Reading Teacher, 70(2), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yang, C.-H., & Rusli, E. (2012). Using debate as a pedagogical tool in enhancing pre-service teachers’ learning and critical thinking. Journal of International Education Research, 8(2), 135.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dmitri Seals
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations