Feature Article
Examining our own beliefs
George Jacobs
Cooperative controversy in the ELT classroom? George Jacobs describes how such a technique might be used…
“The recipe for perpetual ignorance is:
be satisfied with your opinions and
content with your knowledge.” – Elbert
Hubbard (1856 – 1915)
It is easy to stay with the same beliefs,
to seek out people and information
which reinforce those beliefs. This
happens particularly easily as many
beliefs collocate with networks or
paradigms of other reinforcing beliefs,
e.g., the student-centred learning /
communicative language teaching
paradigm. Second language teachers
who believe in the use of cooperative
learning very likely also believe in
other student-centred practices, such
as project work, self-directed learning,
and peer- and self-assessment. In
contrast, such teachers would avoid
taking up much of class time by
lecturing or asking students to copy
texts. In the wider society, a similar
reinforcing pattern can be recognised
on political and socio-cultural issues.
However, history has shown that it
may be wise to sometime reconsider
our paradigms and individual beliefs,
to be open to new information and
new experiences. As Maley (in Maley &
Peachy, 2017, p. i) noted, “isms
become prisons.” To avoid such
incarceration, we might, at the very
least, want to understand the origins
of and the logic behind beliefs contrary
to our own. Perhaps, if everyone at
least understands each other, we can
more easily co-exist even when we
disagree.
The current article highlights a
cooperative learning technique, known
by various names including Academic
Controversy, Cooperative Controversy,
and Structured Academic Controversy
(Jacobs, 2010; Johnson et al., 1996).
This technique provides a novel way to
discuss and gain insights into differing
beliefs. The article begins with the
steps in the technique, followed by
variations and suggestions for adapting
the technique for second language
students. The literature on cooperative
learning, a.k.a., collaborative learning,
will also be a rich source of such
suggestions.
The cooperative controversy technique
The basic steps in the Cooperative
Controversy technique are as follows:
(Timing of the steps will vary with the
class and the topic. Students may need
FUTURITY – IATEFL Global Issues Special Interest Group e-zine – issue #05
less time when they are familiar with
the topic and with the Cooperative
Controversy technique).
Before beginning, the class selects a
controversial topic to discuss. It could
be a national or international
controversy, such as whether prices of
plant foods should be subsidised in
order to encourage greater
consumption, or a topic specific to the
class, such as whether group grading
should be used on the projects the
class will be doing next month.
Step 1 – Preparation
Students form groups of four which
are divided into pairs. Each pair is
assigned a position on the controversy,
e.g., one pair is assigned to argue in
favour of subsidising plant food prices
and the other will argue against. The
two pairs will have time to separately
prepare the points they will use in
support of their assigned belief. The
pairs also divide the points among
themselves, so that each of the
students has an approximately equal
amount of talking time.
“history has shown
that it may be wise to
sometime reconsider
our paradigms and
individual beliefs, to
be open to new
information and new
experiences”
Step 2 – Debate
Each of the foursome presents the
points they and their partner
developed in support of their assigned
belief. The other pair listen and take
notes; they do not object.
Step 3 – Rebuttal
The pairs discuss rebuttal points to be
made in response to the other pair’s
presentation. They must maintain their
assigned belief in this step. When
everyone is ready, the foursome go
around in a circle to present rebuttal
points. After everyone has had a
chance to speak, anyone can speak in
any order.
Step 4 – Change positions - preparation
This is one of the two steps in which
Cooperative Controversy differs from a
standard debate. Students now change
their assigned belief. Those who
previously argued in favour of
subsidising prices of plant food now
prepare to argue against and vice
versa.
Step 5 – Changed positions - debate
The foursome members now take
turns to present points in favour of
their new assigned position. This is a
repeat of Step 2.
Step 6 – Changed positions – rebuttal
Adhering to their changed positions,
the pairs discuss rebuttal points to be
made in response to the other pair’s
presentation. When everyone is ready,
the foursome go around in a circle to
present rebuttal points. After everyone
has had a chance to speak, anyone can
speak in any order in support of their
new assigned belief. This is a repeat of
Step 3.
Step 7 – Everyone’s real view
This is the second step in the
Cooperative Controversy technique
that differs from a standard debate.
Here, students no longer have an
assigned position on the topic chosen
by the class; they are no longer part of
a pair. Instead, each member of the
foursome argues for their own
individual belief on the topic. The
belief could coincide with one of the
two assigned views, or it could be
different. For example, a student might
believe that instead of spending
money to subsidise plant foods,
animal-based foods should be taxed or
funds should be spent to educate
people about the benefits of plant-
based foods and how to prepare such
foods.
Variations
Sometimes, students will object that
Steps 4-6 are boring, because they are
just repeating what the other pair said
in Steps 2-4. One way to address this is
to challenge students to think of new
arguments or new ways of stating
arguments, including using visuals,
such as mind-maps. Another way to
address this is to have one pair in each
foursome change places with a pair in
another foursome. For instance, all the
pairs who argued for the proposition
could switch places with another pair
10
who supported that position. They
would still change their assigned
position, but they would not be
presenting to the same pair.
Another variation has to do with the
topic. If it is difficult for the entire class
to agree on the same topic, each
foursome can choose their own topic.
They also need to decide on two
assigned beliefs for their topic.
Similarly, students can first choose
topics, and then foursomes can be
chosen based on interest in a
particular topic. If every group has a
different topic, switching pairs at Step
4, as discussed in the previous
paragraph, will more difficult.
Suggestions
Second language learners may have
difficulties speaking cogently on a
range of topics. To address this,
students will need more time to
prepare. Teachers and peers can
suggest materials that will aid that
preparation. Also, when forming
foursomes and twosomes, it might be
useful to mix students based on
current proficiency in the target
language. Translanguaging might also
be appropriate.
Cooperative Controversy presents
opportunities for students to practice
the attitudes and language strategies
that go with disagreeing politely about
beliefs. The Russian proverb, “Enemies
will agree, but friends will disagree”
might be useful here. The idea behind
FUTURITY – IATEFL Global Issues Special Interest Group e-zine – issue #05
the proverb is that enemies will not
disagree, because they are happy if we
have the wrong belief. In contrast,
friends want us to the right; so, they
will attempt to correct us in we are in
error. Phrases to use when disagreeing
politely include, “Thanks for stating
your opinion, but I’m afraid I slightly
disagree” or “You made a good point.
Here’s an alternative to consider”.
Students often enjoy practicing
disagreements.
Conclusion
Having beliefs and taking action in
support of those beliefs can make the
world a better place. After all, what
good are beliefs if no action is taken to
transform them into reality? At the
same time, we should remain open to
questioning our beliefs and engaging in
sincere dialogue with people who hold
differing beliefs. As actor and science
educator Alan Alda (deGrasse Tyson &
Alda, 2017) stated, “You are not really
listening unless you are willing to be
changed by the other person”.
***
deGrasse Tyson, N., & Alda, A. (2017).
Science and communication: Alan Alda in
communication with Neil deGrasse Tyson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syIb
73RQqVU
Jacobs, G. M. (2010). Academic Controversy:
A cooperative way to debate. Intercultural
Education, 21(3), 291-296.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio
n/249003945_Academic_Controversy_A_
cooperative_way_to_debate
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A.
(1996). Academic Controversy: Enriching
college instruction through intellectual
conflict. Washington, DC: The George
Washington University, Graduate School
of Education, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report, 25(3).
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED40982
9.pdf
Maley, A., & Peachy, N. (2017). Integrating
global issues in the creative English
language classroom: With reference to the
United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals. British Council.
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/t
eacheng/files/PUB_29200_Creativity_UN_
SDG_v4S_WEB.pdf
George M. Jacobs has long lived in Singapore
where he teaches a wide range of students
and topics, as well as campaigning in support
of his belief in alternative protein foods.
Many of his many publications are available
at georgejacobs.net. Recently, George has
begun teaching memoir writing.
george.jacobs@gmail.com
11