Engaging with Expert Debates on Science and Society to Develop Critical Thinking

HPCS20024 Debating Science in Society is a level two subject in the History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) Major. The subject, originally developed by Professor Michael Arnold and now coordinated by Professor Fiona Fidler, attracts about thirty students, taking them through a range of controversial topics concerning the intersection of science and society. Each lecture is organised in a form of a debate where two experts present their competing points of view on the week’s topic. The wide variety of topics, ranging from Artificial Intelligence, biodiversity, nuclear energy to the nature of trust in science itself, keeps students interested throughout the semester.

While a student debate is a common active learning strategy, appreciated for its engagement and enjoyment value (Omelicheva and Avdeyeva 2008), Debating Science in Society puts students in a different role. Instead of debating, students adjudicate the debates of experts in the tutorials that follow directly after the lecture-debates. This approach focuses on the development of students’ critical thinking. By engaging in and critically examining two opposing but equally well-informed perspectives on the same topic, students become skilled at identifying strong reasoning and spotting flaws in argumentative logic.

The debate format of the lectures also promotes immediate engagement. Given the tutorial task of analysing the debaters’ key arguments and identifying flaws in their logic, students are compelled to listen carefully and ask questions after the experts’ presentations. To that end, being engaged in the lecture not only helps students to make their minds up on the debate question, but also directly supports their tutorial participation and assessment work. To keep students invested, each lecture starts by polling them on the debate motion. This poll is repeated at the end of the debate, with the results of both the pre- and post-poll revealed then for students to see how many of them changed their minds over the course of the debate.

In the video below, the Subject Coordinator, Prof Fiona Fidler, and an HPS student, Oli, share their reflections on how the subject works and how the subject structure supports the development of critical thinking. In particular, Prof Fidler highlights that the subject gives students a script to respectfully disagree with the debaters’ points of view and highlight the errors in their arguments, while Oli notes that this subject fosters critical thinking in getting students to interrogate two well-informed viewpoints on the same topic.

The back-to-back scheduling of lectures and tutorials makes it convenient for students to attend the lecture. But the main appeal is the careful design of the subject, which highlights the importance of attending the lecture and paying attention to the debate by listening for errors of commission and omission. Assignments are also integrally connected to what happens in the lectures. This type of localised assessment design, combined with both oral and written components, strengthens assessment integrity (Mulder, Baik and Ryan 2023).

At the beginning of the semester, students choose one of the debates on which they would like to present in class. These individual presentations constitute one of the assessment tasks and occur in the tutorial that immediately follows their chosen debate. Presenting on the debate they just listened to can be daunting for students, but since they are all in the same position, they support each other by actively engaging in one another’s presentations. The written assessment tasks also give students a choice of which debates to examine more closely drawing on the analytical skills they continue to rehearse and practise in tutorials throughout the semester. The ability to exercise these skills and demonstrate the understanding of epistemological, methodological and empirical foundations guiding the differences in the debaters’ points of view align clearly with the subject’s intended learning outcomes.

In addition to supporting engagement and achievement of the learning outcomes, this approach to assessment also allows students some flexibility in choosing when their assignments are due. Prof Fidler notes that as much as this is a benefit for students, it also means that her marking workload is evenly distributed across the semester.

To orientate students in this subject and its unconventional delivery format, the first two weeks are dedicated to explaining how the subject works and running a practice debate that explores the value of debates and whether a rational debate can change minds. These initial weeks provide students with the necessary context and familiarise them with the structure of the subject, the relationship between lectures and tutorials, and give them a chance to practise examining different points of view.

In the video below, Prof Fiona Fidler and HPS students, Rachelle, Isabel and Oli, discuss the main reasons for the effectiveness of the subject’s design.

References

Mulder, R., Baik, C. and Ryan T. (2023). Rethinking Assessment in Response to AI. Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education.

Omelicheva M.Y. and Avdeyeva O. (2008). Teaching with Lecture or Debate? Testing the Effectiveness of Traditional versus Active Learning Methods of Instruction. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(3), 603-607.