This article was downloaded by: [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield]

On: 05 October 2014, At: 08:29

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for Business

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Debate as a Tool in Teaching Economics: Rationale,

Technique, and Some Evidence
a a
Han X. Vo & Richard L. Morris
a
Winthrop University, Rock Hill, South Carolina
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Han X. Vo & Richard L. Morris (2006) Debate as a Tool in Teaching Economics: Rationale, Technique, and
Some Evidence, Journal of Education for Business, 81:6, 315-320, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.81.6.315-320

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.6.315-320

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Debate as a Tool in Teaching Economics:
Rationale, Technique, and Some Evidence
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 08:29 05 October 2014
HAN X. VO
RICHARD L. MORRIS
WINTHROP UNIVERSITY
ROCK HILL, SOUTH CAROLINA
ABSTRACT. The debate format as dis-
cussed here is built around the theory that
the teacher can increase the benefits of the
traditional lecture format by using debate as
a complementary tool and by fully integrat-
ing the two formats. The aim of the
authors’ integrative approach runs on two
levels: one is to make debate a streamlined,
integral part of course activities and the
other is to promote both short-term learning
and long-term goals of cultivating critical
thinking and an inquisitive mind. Some evi-
dence from the survey tends to substantiate
the authors’ expectations about short-term
goals. Students found the debate format
helpful in their learning and understanding
of course material, improving comprehen-
sion of economic problems and issues, and
reported that it enabled them see the rele-
vance of economics. Their assessments of
long-term objectives, although broadly
favorable, were less consistent.
Copyright © 2006 Heldref Publications
D ebating has become an increasing-
ly accepted teaching tool in a
rather broad range of academic disci-
plines, including, for example, psychol-
ogy, social work, sociology, and science.
However, judging by published sources,
teachers of economics have appeared to
be slow by comparison in embracing the
debate technique. It should be noted that
our attempt at searching for the use of
the debate technique in the literature
produced only one comparable citation
for economics (Pernecky, 1997), while
the bulk of the literature is spread across
a number of disciplines, notably in psy-
chology, social work, social policy, sci-
ence, and education. In a collection of
articles in a recent book dealing with
how to teach economics to undergradu-
ates, there is not one paper that includes
debating as a pedagogical technique
(Becker & Watts, 1998). A rather exten-
sive survey of innovative teaching meth-
ods in undergraduate economics made
no mention of the debating tool (Becker
& Watts, 1995). This is a rather surpris-
ing development because, as a strongly
analytical—and often controversial—
subject, economics should provide an
ideal ground for applying the debate
technique.
Although the bulk of articles on
debate in teaching have tended to
emphasize procedural issues (e.g.,
Estaville, 1988; Frank, 1998; Huryn,
1986; Magnus, 2000; Pernecky, 1997;
Schroeder & Ebert, 1983; Simonneaux,
2002; Temple, 1997), we went further
by examining conceptual issues and
offering some fresh empirical evidence
apart from the procedures. In addition,
we argue that integration of the debate
tool into the entire teaching agenda is an
essential element in maximizing the
benefits of the technique. In short, we
attempted to address the following
questions: (a) What is the rationale or
theory behind our format? (b) How does
our format work? and (c) What have the
students told us?
Rationale and Philosophy
As is well-known, debating as a
teaching tool has an honorable tradition.
In pre-Christian Athens, the Sophists,
Protagoras, and Aristotle, were among
the masters who pioneered the use of
the debating method in teaching stu-
dents. A common denominator among
great teachers, including the aforemen-
tioned, is the recognition that the value
of the debate element in the educational
process also emanates from the premise
that teaching (focusing on the transmis-
sion of knowledge) and educating
(focusing on the transmission of long-
term skills and attitude) are two sides of
the same coin. To the extent that stimu-
lating critical thinking on the part of the
learner is an essential part of the mind-
cultivating process, debating definitely
July/August 2006 315
 has a role to play in collegiate educa-
tion. According to the great mathemati-
cian and philosopher Bertrand Russell,
education that involves making students
think about issues rather than accept
ideas requires less instruction and more
discussion (Egner & Denonn, 1961).
Debate as a teaching tool has an
essential role to play in our pedagogical
philosophy. Briefly, our philosophy is
based on the premise that a college or
university is a place where students
should be given the opportunity to learn
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 08:29 05 October 2014
new subject matter and to sharpen their
critical ability. The short-term objective
of acquiring knowledge should be tem-
pered with the long-term goal of train-
ing the mind to think analytically and
critically. In short, according to our
view, college students should be
exposed to a classroom environment
that nurtures their sense of inquisitive-
ness and a discriminating attitude that
will last well beyond their college days.
Any steps taken in that direction for the
students are worth contemplating. The
introductory economics courses that we
taught have given us an excellent envi-
ronment in which to use our philosophy.
As a brief overview of our format, the
process starts with individual research,
followed by teamwork, and culminates
in competition between teams. In the
process, all the students in our classes
are actively involved. In an issue-loaded
subject such as economics, some mix-
ture of interaction and deliberation
among group members and debate
between groups can reinforce learning
and understanding of subject matter. Our
format contributes to reiterative learning
in three phases. First, it starts with indi-
vidual research and writing; second, it is
repeated during intragroup deliberation;
and third, it then continues through the
time of the debate itself, when ideas or
viewpoints are questioned or repudiated.
The Role of Debate in the
Literature
Active Versus Passive Learning
There is much in the contemporary
theoretical and empirical literature that
supports the role of debates in peda-
gogy. Debating is a form of active learn-
ing, and there is a strong theoretical
316 Journal of Education for Business
foundation for active learning. Dewey
(1939) and Baker (1955) were among
the early writers to argue that active stu-
dent engagement with a subject pro-
vides an effective venue for starting to
learn how to explore and think. In this
context, active learning is an effective
step toward moving students away from
the passive mode as recipients of infor-
mation or knowledge (Beans, 1996;
Lewis & Williams, 1994; Meyers &
Jones, 1993). Involvement and partici-
pation provide opportunities for direct
engagement with the issues or materials
under consideration. Methodical obser-
vations suggest that debate proves to be
a helpful method in creating such a par-
ticipatory environment (e.g., Green &
Klug, 1990). In the debate process, par-
ticipation is achieved at three levels: (a)
when students are required to be a part
of debating teams, (b) when they act as
judges and timekeepers, and (c) when
they engage in debate and discussions
(Elliot, 1993). There is evidence that
debate generates lively postdebate dis-
cussion (Green & Klug, 1990). One
favorable outcome of class participation
is that it enables students to actively
engage the material (Mayer, 1986). To
the extent that debating encourages stu-
dent involvement, it can contribute to
the excitement factor in learning. The
result of involvement is to make stu-
dents feel that they have a stake in the
issue, which leads to a more serious
study effort and a better understanding
of course material (Huryn, 1986).
In an empirical study on the effects of
debate in policy courses, Keller, Whit-
taker, and Burke (2001) found evidence
that debates effectively generated
greater student interest in the course and
that students found debating exercises
intellectually stimulating. This sense of
intellectual excitement and its energiz-
ing effects on the class and audience
were also confirmed in similar studies
(Beck, 1999; Estaville, 1988). In addi-
tion, debates provide opportunities for
cooperative learning and students usual-
ly work better cooperatively than indi-
vidually (Green & Klug, 1990).
The Role of Conflict
As ardent advocates of the construc-
tive controversy format in teaching,
Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (2000)
argued that intellectual conflict can
serve as the foundation of an effective
teaching technique because it engages
and involves the students, whose atten-
tion may otherwise “drift off to other
things” (p. 30). Johnson and colleagues’
constructive controversy format is, in
effect, a condensed version of the full-
blown debate format that we espouse. In
essence, their constructive controversy
format involves division of the class into
groups of four students. There are two
opposing teams (one pro and one con) in
each group. The teams are responsible
for research and report on a topic or
issues. The teams will eventually switch
sides and the instructor acts as supervi-
sor and facilitator of research for each
team. Finally, the teams are asked to
synthesize their positions. By actively
participating in debate and discussions,
the “individuals develop and shape their
own knowledge” (Johnson et al., p. 32).
This is the essence of active learning as
opposed to the passive or static trans-
mission of knowledge or wisdom.
Critical Thinking
Since the times of antiquity, debate as
a teaching tool has been based on the
premise that it enhances critical facul-
ties. Such an outcome comes from three
major sources. First, debaters examine
the facts and information to find out
what makes an issue unintelligible or
controversial. Second, debaters attempt
to pull ideas together, and third, they
offer evaluations and recommendations.
The well-known components of higher
order thinking are analysis, synthesis,
and evaluation (Keller et al., 2001).
There is evidence from sociology sub-
stantiating the value of debating in pro-
moting critical thinking (Crone, 1997;
Huryn, 1986). Debating was also found
to improve critical thinking in writing
classes (Green & Klug, 1990), in science
subjects (Moody-Corbett, 1996), and in
economics (Pernecky, 1997).
Creativity and Learning Skills
However, class debates go beyond
honing analytical and critical skills.
Debate can promote creativity insofar
that it teaches learners how to approach
issues, to frame questions correctly, to
 select and apply the right principle or
theory for a particular economic issue,
and to select the appropriate business
and economic information. The latter
has been recognized as a benefit for
unconventional methods in teaching
economics (Carlson & Schodt, 1995;
Siegfried et al., 1991). One history pro-
fessor reported that debates help open
up new vistas, that witnessing students’
debates is like “watching students
stretch their intellectual wings” (Mus-
selman, 2004, p. 347).
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 08:29 05 October 2014
Implementation
In a nutshell, our debating procedure
consists of the following activities: (a)
selecting an appropriate debate topic at
the beginning of the school term, (b)
dividing the class into debating teams,
(c) assigning a debate topic to all the
debating teams, (d) requiring each team
member (i.e., each student) to work sep-
arately to investigate the debate topic and
write a short paper (based on a specific
outline), (e) asking members of each
team to work together to come up with
the best arguments and support for their
team’s position, and (f) letting the oppos-
ing teams debate at the end of the school
term. The first three steps are decided
very early in the semester to allow maxi-
mum time for preparation. Once the
debate topic is chosen with some student
input, each class member is given a com-
prehensive handout spelling out all the
necessary information such as objectives,
schedule, procedure, duties, and faculty
expectations. The guidelines also include
an outline of major debating points to
guide team members in their research
and deliberations. This outline also
shows team members how to proceed
during the debate.
Each debating team has a team
leader, elected by team members early
in the semester to coordinate efforts and
serve as the group’s liaison with the
instructor. In addition to the short
research paper required of every team
member, the team leader is also respon-
sible for a summary of all the papers in
the team. This summary serves as a
“position” paper to be used during the
debate, and the leader gets credit for the
additional work. Intensive teamwork
takes place when team members meet
periodically to discuss progress and
work on strategy. Regarding the
research paper, the students are remind-
ed of the importance of applying course
material, especially principles and theo-
ry, to analyzing the debate issue. The
debate itself, which takes up one class
period, has four phases: the introducto-
ry phase, the deliberation and argumen-
tation phase, the resolution phase, and
the roundup or conclusion phase. Dur-
ing the debate, the instructor acts main-
ly as moderator and facilitator. The final
course grade is a weighted average of
the debate score and the other standard
scores (e.g., exams, quizzes, homework
assignments). The debate score is a sim-
ple average of the individual research
paper and team performance during the
debate. Each team receives a perfor-
mance score that will apply equally to
each team member. The main criteria
for judging the debate performance are
(a) quality of arguments, (b) creative
use of course material, and (c) ability to
articulate ideas. In short, the debate
involves both individual and collective
effort on the part of students, and the
instructor needs to monitor and assist
them from start to finish.
Selection of a good topic can be a
challenging task itself. The criteria for a
good topic include such attributes as rel-
evance to course material, social and
economic significance, timeliness, and
analytical interests. As a rule, a debate
topic is always related to course materi-
al, touching on a number of chapters of
the textbook and lectures. Very often,
our debate topic is inspired by a nation-
al or international debate. Briefly, for the
past 20 years of implementation, our
class debates have covered a rather wide
range of topics bearing on sensitive and
controversial issues such as farm subsi-
dies, antitrust policy, fiscal and mone-
tary policies, the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and trade
deficits with Japan and China. As the
national debates and regional concerns
(e.g., unemployment, outsourcing) have
continued to evolve, so have our debate
topics. In recent years, however, our
debates have tended to center on contro-
versies surrounding global issues and
trade relations. The most important
problem is not about which topic to
debate but rather how well students
understand the main points of contention
and issues involved. Students are also
reminded to look into social ramifica-
tions and policy issues. Therefore, we
always pay special attention to these
kinds of problems early in the semester.
Expectations and Hypotheses
Inspired by the reviewed literature
and our conceptual framework, we
formed two major sets of expectations
concerning student assessment of our
debate format, one relating to short-
term objectives and the other to long-
term objectives. Concerning the short-
term, our hypothesis was that the
students would find the debating experi-
ence to be associated with the attributes
of active learning and preparation and
participation in the debate would pro-
vide a challenging environment for
learning. We ultimately believed that the
short-term effects would result in stu-
dents feeling that the debating format
helped them learn course material bet-
ter. We expected the debating experi-
ence to help students with their compre-
hension and knowledge of the subject
matter. Concerning long-term impacts,
we hypothesized that the students would
find the debate helpful for improving
critical and analytical thinking and
research and expository skills. Finally,
we hoped that the students would feel
that the format enriched their collegiate
educational experience.
METHOD
Student assessment consisted of a
10-statement survey distributed to the
three sections of economics principles
at the end of the spring 2002 semester.
One section of macroeconomics (n =
31 students) and two microeconomics
sections (n = 66 students) participated
in the survey. Students responded to
the questionnaire using a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = some-
what disagree, 3 = neither agree nor
disagree, 4 = somewhat agree and 5 =
strongly agree). Table 1 lists the state-
ments and the percentages in each class
who either disagreed or agreed with the
statements. We calculated the percent-
age of those who disagreed with a
statement by dividing the number of
July/August 2006 317
 TABLE 1. Students’ Responses to Questionnaire on Class Debate

Course
Macroeconomic Microeconomic
Principles, n = 31 Principles, n = 66 Total, N = 97
% % % % % %
Statement Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree

1. The debate adds to my learning and understanding of this

economics course. 7 83** 17 66** 14 71**
2. Generally speaking, the debate is helpful for my
understanding of economic problems and issues. 7 90** 12 69** 11 76**
3. The debate makes this economics course more interesting
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 08:29 05 October 2014

and exciting. 7 79** 32 37 24 50

4. The debate makes me see the real-world relevance of this
course better. 14 83** 9 72** 11 76**
5. The debate may help me get a better grade in this course. 7 83** 6 75** 6 78**
6. The debate may not help me get a better grade, but it
helps me learn more about economics. 38 34 22 37 27 36
7. The debate helps me improve my research and
paper-writing skills. 14 69* 20 46 18 53
8. The debate teaches me to think more critically. 10 72** 12 55 12 61*
9. The debate helps me learn how to analyze a real-world
issue and how to draw meaningful conclusions. 10 79** 8 69** 9 72**
10. The debate makes my educational experience at Winthrop
University fuller and richer. 10 52 31 32 24 38

*p < .05. **p < .01.

students who either somewhat or
strongly disagreed by the total number
of responses. A similar method applied
on the agreement side. We designed the
statements to measure student assess-
ments of short-term and long-term
effects of debating in class. The first
six statements referred to short-term
objectives, ranging from student learn-
ing and comprehension to earning bet-
ter grades. The last four statements
focused on long-term objectives such
as research, critical thinking ability,
and analysis of real-world situations.
For each of the statements, we con-
ducted a simple test of proportion
using the following hypotheses: H0: π
= .5 and H1: π > .5, where π is the true
proportion of those expressing agree-
ment with the statement. Table 1 shows
those statements that were significant
at the .05 level and those that were sig-
nificant at the .01 level.
RESULTS
Short-Term Impact
The evidence fundamentally lent sup-
port to most of our hypotheses regarding
short-term outcomes. Of the statements
measuring short-term effects (1–5) only
Statement 3, “The debate makes this
economics course more interesting and
exciting,” was not significant at either
level for the combined sample (i.e., all
the surveyed sections). Statements 1, 2,
4, and 5 were significant at both the .05
and .01 levels (see Table 1). Approxi-
mately three out of four students felt that
the debate format added to their under-
standing and learning of economics
(Statements 1 and 2). In addition, 76%
of students felt that the debates helped
them appreciate the real-world signifi-
cance of economics (Statement 4). How-
ever, contrary to our expectation, only
50% of the combined sections felt that
the debates made their courses more
interesting and exciting (Statement 3)
and 24% did not feel that way. Seventy-
nine percent of students in the macro
class agreed with the statement, and this
was significant at the .01 level. Howev-
er, this could easily be a statistical anom-
aly because the percentage of students in
the two micro sections who agreed with
the statement was well below half. Stu-
dents generally found debating challeng-
ing to their critical thinking, but chal-
lenging and exciting may mean two dif-
ferent things. This finding appears to
reflect the profession’s mainstream
thinking, alluded to in the introduction,
that it may not be realistic to assume that
the majority of students find economic
principles courses exciting. Does this
result mean that debating can never
make economics more exciting for a
class? Not necessarily. Some classes
may find that debating makes learning
economics more interesting. The posi-
tive responses to Statements 1, 2, and 4
are particularly encouraging when com-
pared with Statement 5, “The debate
may help me get a better grade in this
course.” Assuming that the typical
undergraduate’s primary goal in a course
is to make as high a grade as possible,
consistent with constraints on study time
and effort, and if the debate did in fact
help most grades, then the highly posi-
tive response to this statement can be
considered a benchmark for comparison
for the other statements. Seventy-eight
percent of students in both courses
expressed agreement with this state-
ment. In comparison, 76% of students
agreed with Statements 2 and 4 (see
Table 1). Although the agreement with

318 Journal of Education for Business

 Statement 1 was lower (71%) than was
the agreement with Statement 5, the dif-
ference was not significant. We conduct-
ed a test on the difference between pro-
portions and yielded a p of .16. Looking
at the proportion of those who either
somewhat or strongly agreed, there was
clearly more enthusiasm in the respons-
es to Statement 5 than to Statement 1,
but that was to be expected.
Long-Term Impact
The empirical support for our
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 08:29 05 October 2014
hypotheses concerning long-term objec-
tives was less consistent. The students
showed a strong positive perception on
one parameter but milder on others. For
example, only 53% of all students felt
the debates helped them in their
research and writing skills (Statement
7), and this was not significant at either
level. However, 69% of the macroeco-
nomic class agreed that the debate was
helpful in this respect, and this was sig-
nificant at the .01 level. Regarding
another long-term effect, 61% of the
total felt that the debate experience
enhanced critical-thinking skills (State-
ment 8). Although this was significant at
the .05 level, the majority of agreement
came from the macro class (72%).
Although a majority in the micro class-
es (55%) agreed with Statement 8, this
agreement was not significant at either
level. The most encouraging response
came in regard to Statement 9. Seventy-
two percent of the students felt they had
learned something about analyzing real-
world situations (again significant at the
.01 level). Finally, only a minority
(38%) felt their educational experience
had been made richer and fuller (State-
ment 10) by the debates.
Statement 6 does not appear in the
analysis above. Only 36% of students
agreed with the statement, much less
than for most others, making it seem
that the typical student does not agree
with the statement that the debate “helps
me learn more about economics.” How-
ever, it may be that most students are, in
fact, expressing disagreement with the
preceding clause in that statement, “The
debate may not help me get a better
grade,” so we are reluctant to attach any
significance to this response.
Overall, there was a good deal of
agreement between the macro students
and micro students if one takes into
account sampling error. For example,
66% of the micro students agreed with
Statement 1, that the debates helped
them understand economics better, and
83% of the macro students agreed. Both
percentages were significant at the .01
level, as were the combined sections. In
most cases of this nature, the agreement
was substantially higher (and significant
at the .05 level in Statements 2, 7, 8 and
10; significant at the .01 level in State-
ment 3) in the smaller macro section
than in the micro classes. Perhaps this
class was more enthusiastic about
debating than were the micro students.
However, these differences could easily
be attributed to a larger sampling error
affecting the smaller group.
DISCUSSION
Theoretical discussions and empirical
evidence in the literature tend to sub-
stantiate our favorable view about and
practical experience with the debate
technique. Based on informal student
feedback and surveys, our experience
tells us that, overall, debate is a worth-
while exercise for the students in eco-
nomics. The students generally perform
rather well in terms of research and pre-
sentation. For the most part, they try to
succeed in responding to the challenge
posed by the controversy. They show a
reasonably good appreciation of the
debate issues and the relevance of theo-
ry. In addition to perceived benefits
such as comprehension of material and
application of theory, promotion of crit-
ical thinking and ability to articulate
ideas, our format appears to provide a
refreshing experience and a welcome
break from the routine. Our class debate
has consistently brought about an
unusual degree of excitement and
involvement on the part of students.
The enthusiastic short-term assess-
ments by students suggest that debate
can be a valuable teaching tool. It seems
reasonable to draw the same conclusion
for a number of other business disci-
plines, such as management and mar-
keting. The encouraging results of our
debate format and its potentially wider
applicability have prompted us to share
our experience with the profession.
However, we are not sure that we have
seen empirical works specifically
designed to measure learning outcomes
of debate used as a supplementary tool.
In any case, such an endeavor would fall
outside the scope of this article. The
results of the survey reported here can
only reflect student assessment of the
perceived benefits of formal debate in
teaching economics; it is not meant to
provide an objective, quantitative mea-
sure of student learning or performance.
Finally, regarding the integration
issue, an important objective of our
debate format, we can reasonably con-
clude that an integrative approach to
debate is not only desirable but also pos-
sible. To us, genuine integration runs on
two levels: one is about structure and
organization and the other is synthesis of
short- and long-term goals of collegiate
education. We have found that a good
debate topic combined with careful plan-
ning can help make the debate fit well
into the traditional lecture format. Good
implementation can turn a debate into an
integral, if natural, part of lecture-based
teaching. On the synthesis issue, despite
students’ mixed feelings about some cat-
egories of long-term impacts (e.g., pro-
moting writing skills, enriching educa-
tional experience), we felt that there was
no conflict between short- and long-term
goals. As long as a substantial number of
students—albeit not a statistically signif-
icant majority—felt positive about these
long-term effects, it seemed fair to con-
clude that, from the standpoint of student
perceptions at least, promotion of short-
term learning can be consistent with the
pursuit of long-term goals. A majority of
our students felt positive about the salu-
tary effect of debate on critical thinking,
a truly worthy long-term goal. In short, if
a teaching tool is capable of promoting
learning and acquisition of knowledge
effectively as our students have told us, it
can conceivably play a positive role in
the enhancement of their overall educa-
tional experience, viewed in both short-
and long-terms.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Han X. Vo, Associate
Professor of Economics, Winthrop Universi-
ty, 209 Thurmond Building, Rock Hill, SC
29733.
E-mail: voh@winthrop.edu
July/August 2006 319
 REFERENCES
Baker, M. C. (1955). Foundations of John
Dewey’s education theory. New York: Kings
Crown Press.
Beans, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: The profes-
sor’s guide to integrating writing, critical think-
ing, and active learning in the classroom. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beck, C. R. (1999). Francine, Kerplunk, and the
Golden Nugget: Conducting mock trials and
debates in the classroom. The Social Studies,
90(2), 78–84.
Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (1995). Teaching
tools: Teaching methods in undergraduate
economics. Economic Inquiry, 33, 692–701.
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 08:29 05 October 2014
Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (Eds.). (1998). Teach-
ing economics to undergraduates: Alternative
to chalk and talk. Cheltenham, England:
Edward Elgar.
Carlson, J., & Schodt, D. (1995). Beyond the lec-
ture: Case teaching and the learning of eco-
nomic theory. Journal of Economic Education,
26, 17–28.
Crone, J. A. (1997). Using panel debates to
increase student involvement in the introducto-
ry sociology class. Teaching Sociology, 25,
214–218.
Dewey, J. (1939). Experience and education. New
York: Macmillan.
Egner, R. E., & Denonn, L. E. (Eds.). (1961). The
320 Journal of Education for Business
basic writings of Bertrand Russell 1903–1959.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Elliot, L. B. (1993). Using debates to teach psy-
chology for women. Teaching of Psychology,
20(1), 35–38.
Estaville, L. E. (1988). Debate: A teaching strategy
for geography. Journal of Geography, 87(1), 2–4.
Frank, B. (1998). Making economics exciting by
constructing a quasi-debate: The Samuelson-
Minasian controversy. Journal of Economic
Education, 29, 41–46.
Green, C. S., & Klug, H. G. (1990). Teaching crit-
ical thinking and writing through debates: An
experimental evaluation. Teaching Sociology,
18, 462–471.
Huryn, J. S. (1986). Debating as a teaching tech-
nique. Teaching Sociology, 14, 266–269.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A.
(2000). Constructive controversy: The educa-
tive power of intellectual conflict. Change
32(1), 28–38.
Keller, T. E., Whittaker, J. K., & Burke, T. K.
(2001). Student debates in policy courses: Pro-
moting practice skills and knowledge through
active learning. Journal of Social Work Educa-
tion, 37, 343–351.
Lewis, L., & Williams, C. J. (1994). Experiential
learning: Past and present. In L. Jackson & R.
S. Caffarella (Eds.), Experiential learning: A
new approach. New Directions for Adults and
Continuing Education (No. 62, pp. 5–16). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Magnus, M. H. (2000). Using debate to teach food
aid. The American Journal of Physiology, 32,
119–121.
Mayer, J. (1986). Teaching critical awareness in
an introductory course. Teaching Sociology, 14,
249–256.
Meyers, G. & Jones, T.B. (1993). Promoting
active learning: Strategy for the college class-
room. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moody-Corbett, F. (1996). Debate: A tool for
teaching graduate students. Journal of Physiol-
ogy, 271(3), 45–48.
Musselman, E. G. (2004). Using structured debate
to achieve autonomous student discussion. The
History Teacher, 37, 335–349.
Pernecky, M. (1997). Debate for the economics
class—and others. College Teaching, 45,
136–139.
Schroeder, H., & Ebert, D. G. (1983). Debates as
a business and society teaching technique.
Journal of Business Education, 58, 266–269.
Siegfried, J. J., Barlett, R., Hanson, W. L., Kelly,
A. C., McCloskey, D. N., & Tietenberg, T. H.
(1991). The status and prospects of the eco-
nomics major. Journal of Economic Education,
22, 197–224.
Simonneaux, L. (2002). Analysis of classroom
debating strategies in the field of biotechnology.
Journal of Biological Education, 37(1), 9–12.
Temple, M. A. (1997). Using debate to develop
health literacy. Journal of School Health, 67,
116–118.