For further details see: http://creativecommons.org/

---

>>back to Development of Course Scenarios     

 

The first run of the Debating course was conducted spring 2009 between April and May. A second trial was done in in January 2010.

 

All documentation such as correspondence, the course blog, course instructions, videos and pictures are to be found in the Debating course repository.

 

Debating Course: Iteration 1  

Background to course concept Overview/Summary Requirement and Recommendations Learning Goals Storyboard Reward Models Technical initiation Lesson 1 – Introductory meeting Lesson 2 – Theoretical session on rhetoric Lesson 3 – Working in groups Lessons 4-5 – Working in groups independently Lesson 6 – Final Debate Evaluation of Students Overall Reflections Adaptations

 

Background to course concept

The course concept arose from a perceived need to include further spoken elements into distance academic proficiency courses such as ‘academic writing’ and ‘composition classes’. We also wanted to give the students a chance to use their English skills in an authentic setting where they would be communicating with peers who did not speak their native tongue. The course trials thus constituted telecollaborations between different universities under the Avalon framework, resulting in mixed student groups from different academic and national backgrounds.

The course addresses two distinct types of professional discourse:

1. The discourse of collaboration where the students have to negotiate their ideas and come up with a common end product. 
2. The discourse of public, formal presentation 

 

Overview/Summary

This course constitutes a collaborative exercise based on the principle of the competitive public debate. The idea is that the students should learn the basic principles of rhetoric and public speaking, while at the same time partaking in an engaging activity. In our trials, we have brought students from different language backgrounds together in Second Life, where they have grouped themselves into mixed teams in order to prepare their debates for or against a particular topic. The course consisted of four distinct phases:

1. Social initiation where the students got to know each other and grouped themselves into mixed nationality groups;
2. A theoretical background phase during which the students were initiated to some of the basic principles of public speaking
3. A collaborative phase where students work in smaller groups in order to prepare their arguments for or against a particular topic.
4. A public presentation phase, where the students partake in a public competitive debate and where they are judged by their peers.  

 

Requirement and Recommendations

 

Level: B2-C1

 

Recommended size of group: 16 or smaller

 

Target audience: Typically university students with an interest in academic presentation or academic writing

 

Number of meetings: 6-8

 

SL environment requirements: An open environment with plenty of space so that students can group themselves and be outside the hearing range of others is recommended for the initial phases of the course. For the final debate, some form of auditorium is needed where the students making their presentations can face the audience and where there is also access to a white board for displaying pictures.

 

SL objects needed:

• ·      A Youtube streamer (but can also be worked around by students watching the videos outside SL)
• ·      An SL white board where pictures (JPEG format for example) can be uploaded during the final debate
• ·      A polling tool

 

Other tools:

Some form of 2D online space where the course description and course information can be communicated. In trial 1, a blog was used to communicate with the course participants on a continual basis. In trial 2, we used an LMS (WebCT) for this purpose.

 

Skype is also needed as an initial point of contact before the students gain access to SL.

 

Learning Goals

 

• ·      Social
• ·      Technical/tools
• ·      Academic

 

Storyboard

 

The idea is that teams of debaters prepare arguments for or against a particular motion and then present these at a public debate where they compete against an opposing team. For example, a motion may constitute a statement such as “Nuclear power is the best solution for a carbon free energy alternative”, and one team would then argue in favour of the statement, while the other team argues against. Apart from the presenting of arguments, the debate also contains a question session where each team member has the chance to present a question or a comment to the opposing team.

The winner of the debate is either coined by the audience or by a panel of judges. 

 

Public competitive debate is a popular activity in many colleges and schools and has been dramatized in films such as the Great Debaters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co2FzGDYSc4&feature=fvsr

 

Reward Models

If successful, the reward of winning the debate can work as a factor of motivation for the students. Obviously one can designate prices to the winning team in form of SL objects or more concrete prices (a book for example). It is important to emphasise the group aspect here. No one individual should really be pointed out, but it is rather the group effort that is judged. If you are running the concept for a longer time with a greater number of students it is also possible to make the competitive element into a knock-out league where you can, for example, have quarterfinals, semifinals and a grand final, for example. This would, however, require far more lesson slots than the course format described below. Also note that although the competitive element may add a fun touch to the course, it should not be exaggerated. 

 

Technical initiation

Students are contacted individually via e-mail and are given instructional material (see http://avalonlearning.pbworks.com/Introductory-Multimedia-kit-for-learners ). A time is then set when they can to meet an instructor or technician in SL in order to check that sound, chat and basic movements function as they should. In those cases students had problems in creating their SL accounts and/or entering SL, the instructor can contact the student via Skype in order to give real time support. The technical initiation can take anything from a few minutes to 30 minutes depending of the difficulties encountered. Also note that students who are already experienced SL users may not need to go through this phase. Also note that the model described above applies to distance students who are not physically present on campus.

 

Lesson 1 – Introductory meeting

Summary:

• ·      Gathering
• ·      Sound check
• ·      Introducing each other
• ·      Dividing into groups and allocating group headquarters
• ·      Further socializing in smaller groups
• ·      Final end gathering for summing up and reflections

A time and place and place in SL is communicated for the initial meeting. Here it is important to take potential time differences into account since students may be located in different time zones. Make sure you indicate what time zone you are referring to. The location is easiest communicated via a SLurl (A Second Life URL): http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/AVALON%20Learning/9/236/58

 

A large open space is recommended for the initial meeting. Beginners in SL often have problems moving through doors and passages and a large open space also means that it is less likely that avatars will get lost.

 

The first activity consists of a sound check where you make sure that everyone can hear what is being said and that everyone can be heard. After this, students should be given a chance to introduce themselves.

 

The main activity then consists of creating group and deciding on which groups are defending and opposing which motions. Note, that the motion statements are best worked out prior to the meeting on the basis of suggestions from students, so that they reflect the students’ specific areas of interest. After this, each group is also designated a headquarter on the island which they can call their own. On Avalon island, for example we have the sound proofed beach huts that can be used for this purpose.

 

A note of reflection here is that although dividing students into groups sounds like quite a simple procedure, it can prove to be quite a complex procedure. The students often have problems in identifying each other and to remember the SL names. Further they often forget which groups they belong. Using friendship exchanges here helps, and visual cues such as giving groups t-shirts of different colours is another alternative that helps team members to identify each other visually.

 

Once the groups have been created they should be given a chance to further get to know each other in their respective headquarters. Finally we recommend a gathering at the initial meeting area for summing up, reflections and a brief description of what is to happen at the next meeting.

 

 

Lesson 2 – Theoretical session on rhetoric

Summary:

• ·      Gathering and sound checking
• ·      Brief introduction to basic principles of rhetoric
• ·      Watching videos on the basic principles of rhetoric
• ·      Watching examples of speeches and trying to pick out examples of the concepts
• ·      Group discussions at headquarters
• ·      Final gathering and summing up

 

This session constitutes the theoretical part of the course. As always, make sure you communicate a place and time for the meeting. For this session you will need a space with a Youtube player.

 

First make a sound check to make sure that everyone can hear and be heard. This is also a good occasion to check if anyone is absent.

 

Then give a very brief basic introduction of the principles of rhetoric. This can obviously be complemented with material in a learning management system. Basic key words here include kinds of appeal in speeches such as logos, pathos and ethos. Other basic principles include the structure of a speech: how you open a speech, how you structure the ideas, and how you close a speech. The following videos are useful:

 

On kinds of appeal in speech: Logos, pathos and ethos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOHvNuWp2p4&feature=related

 

On openings of a speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0czX-soerE

 

On closings in a speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkhE1CCLrzo&feature=PlayList&p=AD70BBB8D9EA0062&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

 

After having gone through the basic principles, example videos are used to illustrate how professional public speakers apply these principles in their speeches. Watch the examples and then ask each student to try to point to parts of the speeches which illustrate the principles that have been discussed previously. We used two videos for this purpose in our trials but obviously any well-structured speech will do:

 

Examples:

A short speech by Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONM7148cTyc&feature=channel

 

Thatcher responding to critique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

 

Finally sum up, leave room for reflections and inform the students about the next meeting.

 

Lesson 3 – Working in groups

Summary

• ·      Gathering and sound checking
• ·      Working in groups
• ·      Final gathering and summing up

 

For this meeting students basically work in groups at their headquarters with trying to work out the content and the structure of their speeches. Prior to the session, we also provided the students with a list of resources on their topics:

http://dooku.miun.se/mats.deutschmann/Avalon/Debating%20in%20SL/page_08.htm

 

First make a sound check to make sure that everyone can hear and be heard. This is also a good occasion to check if anyone is absent. After this, instruct the students of the exact framework for their final debate speech: how long each member will be allowed to speak and how questions will be addressed. In our trials we gave each speaker a maximum of 2 minutes and since each team consisted of 3 members this meant that each team roughly took up 10 minutes, including question time.

 

The groups then work on their own in their respective headquarters. As a teacher you can move from group to group in order to help out with any problems or answer questions.

 

Finally gather the group, sum up, leave room for reflections and inform the students about the next meeting.

 

Lessons 4-5 – Working in groups independently

The students are asked to meet for more sessions in order to organize their speeches. Here, however, it is up to the students to organize time and place for themselves. The idea is that they work autonomously here and leave organizational matters to the students themselves. They can obviously meet as many times as they need to.

 

 

Lesson 6 – Final Debate

Summary

• ·      Gathering and sound checking
• ·      Going through procedures
• ·      Debating
• ·      Team question time
• ·      General question time
• ·      Voting
• ·      Evaluating and reflecting

 

This session constitutes the grand finale of the course: the actual debate. You will need an area with a white boards where images can be displayed and preferably an auditoriumlike environment where the audience can sit facing the speaker.

 

Gathering and sound-checking is of particular for this session as each member needs to be present and sound has to work. After this clearly instruct the teams of the procedures.

 

After this, the actual debating starts. Each speaker has been encouraged to send in one slide prior to the event which is displayed on the white board. The slide summarizes the main keywords and can also contain an image related to the topic. In our trials there were four teams of three students and two motions that were debated. In other words there were two separate debates each with one team defending and one team opposing a topic. Team 1 (for the motion) was given 2 minutes per speaker followed by a question time where the opposing team could address one question to each member of the team (6 mins + 4 mins = 10 mins). The procedure was then followed by Team 2 (against the motion) and after both teams had presented their arguments there was a brief question time where the audience could ask a limited number of questions. The audience was made up of the other students and guests invited by the teachers and the students alike.

 

After this, the audience vote on what they consider to be the best performance. For this purpose a polling tool is used. The polling tool allows members of the audience to vote anonymously and displays the results in form of differently coloured bars. A simpler way of doing this is to ask the audience to send their votes to the teacher via private IMs. The entire procedure is then repeated for the next motion.

 

Time set aside for final reflection is recommended here. This is an opportunity to talk about the experiences in a more relaxed setting: what worked, what did not? How did the speakers experience the debate? What difficulties were encountered? And so on. Alternatively one can schedule a separate session for this purpose.

 

Evaluation of Students

Most obviously, the performance in final debate can be part of the examination but it is important to clarify exactly what is looked at. This should include content as well as structure and performance. Important, however is that not only the end product is examined. A very important part of the course is the collaboration between the students in producing the final speech and this is more difficult to examine. A reflective portfolio documenting the process can however be used for this purpose.

 

Examination also depends on the specific course aims of the individual student groups. In our trials, for example, the students partook in the Debating course as an activity of very different course frameworks including online teacher training, academic writing, composition classes and academic proficiency courses. Each group was thus examined differently depending on the general learning goals of program they were attending.

 

Overall Reflections

One of the biggest challenges with this type of telecollaborative project is finding a framework that is relevant to each of the participating student groups. In our trials, for example, we tried to come up with topics that would be of relevance to all the groups’ specific interests. We also had to acknowledge the fact that the debating activity had to fit into different course frameworks and thus had to be examined differently depending on the student group. For example, the teacher trainees were encouraged to write a reflective paper on the learning experience as such, while the students attending the academic writing course were asked to produce a paper summarizing the different points made for or against the motions in the form of a discursive essay.

 

Another important point to be aware of here is that students from different cultural/institutional settings may have different academic/learning cultures. This may pose a challenge in the mixed groups performing the collaborative activity.

The following video, which was presented at NOKOBIT 2010 in Trondheim gives a summary of some of the challenges and how they were met:

 

 

 

Adaptations

The course concept can easily be adapted for more limited or extended course frameworks. In one reiteration, for example, we adapted the course to a much more limited time span in what we called a Speaker’s corner event. Here students simply met for one event and presented their speeches on an individual basis to a mixed audience who also evaluated their performances on a graded scale (private IMs sent to the teacher). Questions and comments were still posed by the audience but the main collaborative element was lost in this short version of the course. For longer course structures, one could envisage running a debating league, with several debates by each team. One could also expand the concept to include competitions between a number of different institutes.

 

---

 

 

>>back to Development of Course Scenarios

---

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

 Second Life © is a registered trademark of LindenLab coorp., San Francisco. Other mentioned trademarks are respected properties of their owners.