debate leaming programfor cultivating critical thinking

Japan Society for Educational Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSocietyfor Educational Technology

"anslation Educ, nchnoLRes., 33, 167-178,2010

Debate Leaming Programfor Cultivating Critical Thinking Atritudes*

Saizo AoyAGI*i, Hirotake IsHii"i, Hiroshi SmMoDA'i, Yuto ITAMi'i"2, Hiroshi ToMIE'3"4,

Kinya KITAGAwpL'3"5 and Satoshi KAwaLHARA'3 '"t

Graduate Sbhool ofEnetgy Slrience, 1<yoto Uhiversi(y )bshido Honmaehi. Sady,o-ku, 1<yoto, 606-8501 k\7an

"'

Pnesen4 7laras instruments JopanLimited 6-24-i, ?Vlshishiiu'uku, Shinjuku, 7bkyo, l60-8366 Japan'

'3

Zeze High SbhooL 2-11-L Zeze, Otscr, Shiga, 520-08i5 Jt\)an '

'`Present

Shiga Pre12ictural Boant ojCEducation, 4-1-1. 1<yomachi, Otsu, Shiga, 520-8577JLu)an '

'SPresent,

Mbrtyama High School, 3-l2-34, Mbrlyama, Shiga, 524-O022 Japan

Received for publicatton, May 25, 2010

Debate learning is known as an effective method for cultivating critica] thinking learning, However, debate learning requires much time for application in an actual classroom, This report describes a critical thinking program that includes debate learning with an internet-based debate support system. The proposed program was applied during periods of integrated learhing in the

first semester of 2008 with 428 third grade students of a Japanese high school. Its capability of

cuttjvating critical thinking attitudes was evaluated, Results show that partieipantsl critical

thinking attitudes of objectivity and good faith were improved, but improvement of inquiry consciousness (inquisitiveness) was s]ight. '

Kky worzis : critical thinking attitudes, debate, information and communication teehnology,

integrated study

1. INTRODUCTION

Critical thinking ability is regarded as an

important educational goal in school education.

Critical thinking, primarily logical thinking, is used

when people listen to others' speeches, and when

reading texts or when discussing and expressing

their opinions. Nevertheless, it is not a synonym

for logical thinking but a package of skills and

attitudes related to thinking that is used forevaluation and solution of various dhi]y problems(Michita 2001a),

Critical thinking encompasses "generation

of

hypotheses, perspectives, questions, solutions and

plans" fbr problem-solving, reflective thinking fbrintentional review of ene's own inference process(Kusumi 1996, Ennis 1987), and open-minded

thinking based on appropriate criteria or grounds(Miyamoto et aL 1996). Considering these studies,

critical thinking is defined fbr this study as

"reasonable reflective thinking that is focusecl on

deciding what to believe or do" (Eniss 1987).

Glaser (1941) pointed out that critical thinking

attitudes are a necessary ability of critieal thinking

'This paper was originaLly published in ulon, f Educ,

7lechnoL, Xiol.33, No.4, pp.411-422 (2010)

in adclition to knowledge and skills of logical

pursuit and reasoning. Existing.･Feports of the

related literature describe that ･critical

thinking

includes emotional aspects, such 'as

attitudes or

dispositions, and cognitive aspects, such as skills

and knowledge (e.g, Eniss 1987). Spontaneous or

autonomous critical thinking is impossible without

emotional aspects of critical thinking even if

cognitive aspects of critical thinking have been

learned. Consequently, cultivation of both aspectsof critical thinking is important.

'Hirayama

(2004) pointed out that Japanesestudies of emotional aspects of critical thinking

have focused on critical thinking attitudes (e.g.,Hirayama and Kusumi 2004) and an orientation

toward critical thinking (e.g. Hirooka et al 2000).Fer this study, critical//thinki'ng,attitudes are

defined as a tendency' toward･learning ancl

application of cognitive aspects ot' critical thinking,

They･iriclude conscious tendeneies to use critical

thinking such as orientation toward critical

thinkiing, and unconscious teridencies such as

critical thinking habits. ,･･

ln additlon, the japanese//,government hasintroduced integrated learning" into elementary

schools, junior high schools, and high schools

since 2002, with the aim of "cultivating

a qualityand an ability to learn and think independently by

167




168

and for oneseiC autonomously determine and solve

problems," and "learning

how to learn or think,

cultivate creative and spontaneous attitudes

toward problem solving and other pursuits, and

enable a person to think independently of a way to

live" eapanese Ministry of Edueation 1999).Higuchi (2003) and Sano et al (1999) pointed outthat critical thinking education would contribute

to the aim of integrated learning. Turuda and

Yukura (2007a) also described that critical

thinking education in integrated learning is an

important task, Nevertheless, it is also noted that

few education aetivities exist for critical thinkingeducation ancl development and practice of

educational programs for cultivating critical

thinking attitudes are demanded.

The purposes of this study are the proposal,

application, and evaluation of a debate-learning

program fbr cultivating critical thinking attitudes.

The proposed method targets Japanese high school

students and uses a period for integrated study,

2, CRITICALTHINKINGMTITUDES AND DEBATE LEA RN ING

Cognitive psychological reports have describedthat people tend to have biased and selfish

thought, and tend to have difficulty in critical

thinking (Miyamoto et aL 1996), Nevertheless,listening to others' thoughts promotes objective

reflection of one's own thoughts, which supports

critical thinking even if individual thought is biased.Existing studies have supported that critical

thinking attitudes include aspects of listening to

others' thoughts (e.g., Hirooka et aZ 2000,Hirayarna and Kusumi 2004), An improvement of

an aspect of listening to others' thoughts of

critical thinking attitudes requires an actual

experience in discussion with many participants,Debate learning is therefore a discussion activity

that contributes to improvement of aspects of

critical thinking attitudes.

According to Matsumoto (1996), debate isdefined as

"a

communication form: in this form,speakers of two teams are aElocated to a pro side

and con side in re}ation to a theme. They discussthe theme, aiming at making a listener understand

the superiority of one's own tearn based on

objective evidence". It requires the logical

persuasion of participants. Therefbre, it is

regarded as an effeetive method for learninglogical thinking and public speaking skills and hasbeen practiced as debate learning in educational

eontexts (Iwasaki 2002, Suzuki 2006).

S. Ao\AGI et aL

Debate learning has the fbllowing characteristics.

First, it can be understood as a kind of discussion

game. This characteristic produces a natural

situation of critical thinking toward others'

thought. Second, participants can be allocated to

a team that is opposite to their originai position or

bias in relation to a theme. Debate participantsmust consider both sides of a theme and project tt J

and anticipate the opponents counterarguments,

which contributes to the objective reflection of

one's own thinking. However, it might be difficultfbr ,beginners or those who are not experts of

debate. Participation in support of the opposite

position will cuttivate the objective reflection of

one's own thinking. Moreover, discussion within a

limited time and fixed form, such as that of

argument, eounter-argument, and rebuttal, will

promote formatjon of opinions and logical thinking.

All charaeteristics described above woulcl

promote participants' critical thinking experiences

and contribute to cultivation of eritical thinking

attitucles, [n Japan, Kamata (2004) assessed the

cultivation of cognitive aspects of critical thinking

through debate. However, few studies haveassessed the emotional aspects of critical thinking

in Japan. Tsuruda and Yukura (2007b) reported

that students who participated spontaneously indebate learning had strong critical thinking

attitudes, However, it is possible that students

who originally had strong critieal thinking attitudes

participated in debate learning, and that the

learning itself is not the cause of the strong

attitudes. Cultivation of critical thinking attitudes

through debate learning should be evaluated

quantitatively for introduction into school

education in a more proactive manner.

Additienally, debate learning has presented

problems in its application in actual classroom

education up to now. All students should

participate in debate learning from the viewpoint

of equality 'of

educational occasion, Nevertheless,at a'maxiMum, only about eight participants can

join in one debate learning group. A typical

Japanese high school c}assroom has about 40students. Therefore, several debate learningimplementations must be done simultaneously or

sequentially. However, each debate learningexperience needs one teacher as a judge becauseJapanese students usually have no experience at

debate and cannot serve as a judge, However, the

number ofteachers is limited. Moreover, the time

allocated to integrated learning is Iimited: a mode

providing a shorter time of debate ]earningexperiences is clesired.




Debate Learning Program for Cu]tivating Critical Thinking Attitudes

Finally, debate learnjng allocates participants to

two mutually opposed sides, Often, students are

afraid that opposition will damage humanrelationships in a classroom even if the debate iscast as a discussion game, This fear inhibitseritical statements and thinking about opponents.

3, PROPOSALOFALEARNINGPROGRAM

This chapter describes a learning program fbr

cultivating Japanese high school students' criticai

thinking abilities. It includes 13 hr debate learning,

3.1. 0vei'viewoftheProgram

The proposed program consists of 13 hr forapplication during 14 weeks of a semester of'

Japanese high school ("Hour, or hr" means school

hour. One "heur"

is assumed as 50 min), Each

participant in the proposed program uses a

personal computer (PC) connected to the internet.

The number of the participants is not fixed;

however, anonymity prevails in debate learning ifmany students participate. Moreover, becausedebate learning is text-based, participants' typingabilities should not differ greatly, A social psychological study indicated that

human attitudes toward an action or an object are

coincident to actual action if cultivated through

real experience (Fazio 1987). Results of another

study also indicated that education related to

thinking needs not only one-sided instruction of

knowledge about a way of thinking but also

practice of thinking using that knowledge(Ruggiero 1988). Consequently, the experience of

critical thinking using knowledge with it isexpected to be effective fbr cultivating critical

thinking attitudes. Participants must learnknowledge about that before this mode of

eultivation of critical thinking attitudes,

Considering these facts, the proposed programcontains four learning phases presented in Fig. 1.

First, the text-reading phase providesfundamental knowledge; the critical thinking

practice phase provides an exercise of skills. Next,the research and presentation phase is conductedto exercise critical thinking, argumentation, ancl

information gathering. FinaTly, the debate-learning

phase cultivates critical thinking attitudes,

3.2. IiburProgramPhases

In (1) the text reading phase, participants learncritical thinking knowledge through reading a

textbook. "Kuritikaru

Sinkaron" (Michita et aZ

1999) is ehosen as the textbook because its

169

(1)Textreading4hr

(2)Criticalthinkingpractice1hr

(3)ResearchandPresentation4hr

(4)DebateI.earning4hr

Fig. 1. F[ow ofthe progrttm.

contents are comprehensible fbr high school

stuclents and its eontents are not too much fbr thefbur hours of this phase. Dealing with dailysituations requiring critical thinking with a

four-frame cartoon, it attracts students' interest, (2) The critical thinking practiee phase exercises

partieipants' critical thinking skills with exercise

papers. The exercise papers have target texts of

critical thinking and some guidance, Participants

think critically about the text, fbllow its guidance(e.g.

`fdo

not use ambiguous words" or "avoid

reasoning errors"), and write down their thoughts,

(3) In the research and presentation phase, they

conduct research, infbrmation gathering, and

argumentation exercises. Their meunings are

exercises of skills of critic'al thinking and

cultivating an appropriate attitude by listening to

others] thoughts. In the first 2 hr of this phase,they look for and choose a theme of critical

thinking in the internet er library. Then they wrap

up their own thoughts related to the theme. In thenext hour, they are divided into five-member

groups, Thereafter, they present and discuss theirthoughts about their themes in each group. Finally,each group chooses a member who will presenttheir thoughts to the whole classreom.

(4)During the debate-learning phase, they

conduct debate learning tbr critical thinking

practice and cultivation of appropriate attitudes,

Although the practice is expected to affect

cultivation of critical thinking skills, the main

objective of this phase is cultivation of critieal

thinking attitudes, During this phase, a debatesupport system is used as a solution to the

problem that debate learning requires many judgesto secure all students' participation. Detaiis of

the debate support system are described in 3.3.The first 2 hr of this phase are periods for

.research of given theme and preparation of

argumentation, The subsequent 2 hr are best

arranged as a continuous 2 hr period becausedebate learning usually requires more than 50 min.




170 S. AOYAGI et aL

3.3, DebateSupportSystem

The debate support system is an internet-basedenvironment fbr debate iearning developed byTerado et aZ (2005). Each participant of debatelearning uses one PC connected to the internet,Each belongs to a group of fbur members and

discusses a theme, Numbers of groups and

partieipants who can diseuss an issuesimultaneously are limited only by the available

equipment (e.g, number of PCs).

Figure 2 shows the flow of debate tearning withthe system. Arrows from

"lst

argument" to"counter

argument" show that "counter

arguments"

are inputted against the "lst

argument". Similarly,an arrow from the

"counter

argument" to"rebuttal"

and an ttrrovL, from "rebuttal"

to "2nd

counter argument" mean that the latterstatements are inputtedi against the formerstatement. First, participants input their own

opinion from their original position toward a giventheme in

"Inputting opinion". Second, participants

input a logical proposition with objeetive evidence

from their given posiLion toward the san]e theme

in the "lst

argument". A teacher or supervisor

must set the position allocation in advance at the

system control paneE. Next, participants criticize

or ask questions about the opponent partieipants'argumentation during "eounter

arguments" and

answer the opponent participants' counter

arguments during a "rebuttal",

Moreover,

participants can ask questions or criticize the

opponent participants' rebutta] again in "2nd

counter argument". The main discussion part of

The pros side The eons side

lstargument lstargument

Counterargument Counterargument

Rebuttal Rebuttal

2ndcounterargument2ndcounterargument

Fig. 2. Debate procedure using the educational debate system.

debate learning is from "argumentation"

to the"2nd

counter argument". Finally, purticipants

input their own opinion from their original position

toward the theme in "Inputting

opinion" forselFreflection of their own opinion change

through a debate learning experience, and input

some impressions or comments in C`Comments

ttnd

impressions". Figure 3 presents a screenshot of

the "counter

argument" in the system.

Debate tearning using the system presents some

important characteristics that are expected tocontribute to cultivation of critical thinking ability

in addition to the function that enables numerous

participants to join in a discussion. Usual debatelearning has a con team and a pro team; each team

member is responsible for one statement such as"`argumentation"

or "counter

argument". Incontrast, debate using the system conducts pluralone-to-one debates in parallel, For example, ifthe con team and the pro team each has two

participants, then con side participants counter

two individual pro side participants and participatein two one-to-one debates simultaneously. Onedebate has four statements for occasions fbr a

partieipant, as shown in Fig. 2. Therefbre, debatewith the sysLem has more statement opportunities

than a conventionally conducted debate, Moreover,a single participant must make all statements,

Theretbre, each participant is compelled to think.

Next, the statements are displayed on a PCmonitor when purticipants' input statements

counter the opponent's statements. Thischaracteristic allows participants to analyze

opponents' sLatemenLs more easily, Moreover,

participants can easity revise or elaborate their

own statement logical}y because all statements are

text-based.

Fig. 3. Screenshot of the counter argument step ofthe

debate leurning system,




Debate Learning Program for

This system provides anonymity. Participants,known solely by their ID numbers, do not worry

about human relations in the classroom, which

promotes active statements and critical thinking,

Debates with the system have no judge. This

chttracteristic constitutes an important merit

because it obviates the need for human resources

serving as judges, However, because the logic of

discussion is not evaluated by a judge, a pressurefactor that promotes participants' logicaldiscussion is lacking. For that reason, bad debatessuch as emotional battles of words are more likelyto occur. To avoid bad debates, the proposed

program teaches them in the text-reading phaseand the critical thinking practice phase what

logieal thinking should be and emphasizes the

necessity of logical discussion in clebaLe before thedebate-learning phase.

Moreover, the system interlace promotes logicalthinking. For example, the input forms of opinions,

arguments, and evidence are separated, which

makes participants understand that an argument

needs evidence ancl that it reqnires support and

that logical thinking based evidence will be

promoted.

3.4. fumitiarity ofa 77ieme andParticipation with

an CPposite Position

Familiarity of a given theme in debate learningand whether students participate in debate with

their original position to a given theme or with

opposite position (participation with opposite

position) are expected to affect cultivation of

critical thinking attitucles,

Higuehi (2003) pointed out that problemsincluding some elements of reality are suitable forcultivation of critical thinking ability because such

problems are easy to understand and easy to

imagine for participants. According to that report,

a familiar theme is expected to be suitable indebate learning fbr cultivating critical thinking

attitudes, IIowever, participants might have their

own position or opinion. This existing position or

opinion might disturb open-minded thinking, which

is related to criLical thinking.

Participants can participate in a debate with a

team that opposes their original opinion te a theme.

As described above, participation with an opposite

position will boost their objective reflection of their

o-n thinking (Iwasaki 2002). Nevertheless,

participation with an opposite position will eause

cognitive dissonance, which might cause difficulty

in debate and critical thinking.

Consequently, two conditions of familiarity of a

Cu]tivating Criticai 'i'hinking

Attitudes 171

given theme and participation with an opposite

position have both benefits and shortcomings indebate learning that cannot be resolved now. It is

necessary to reveal which condition is appropriatefor cuitivatioll ofcritical thinking attitudes through

application in a rea] educational context for

quantitative evaluation,

4. APPLICAI]IONOFTHEPROGRAM

The proposed program was appliecl duringperiods of integrated learning in the first semesterof 2008 with 428 third year students of a Japanesehigh school. The application flow, described in3.1., is presenLed in Fig, 1, Teachers who were incharge of each class supervised all phases of the

proposed program. The debate-learning phase was

also supervised by at least one uuthor, who

attended to answer questions about the debatesupport system,

Some environmental theTnes were used for

praetice during debate learning. Table 1 presents a

lisL of the themes discussed during debate learning,

4.1. ProgramEvaluationMizthod

Four phases of the proposed program presentedin Fig, 1 were intended to cultivate critical thinking

attitudes; their skills were also slated to becultivated. Nevertheless, because the proposed

program's originality depends on the

debate-learning phase, evaluation of cu]tivation of

critical thinking is set as the primary purpose of this

eva}uation during its application. Next, according to

discussion presented in 3.4,, the secondary purpose

is to reveal (A) the familiarity ofa given theme in

debate learning and (B) conditions under which

students participate in debates with their original

position to a given theme, as appropriate forcultivating critical thinking attitudes.

The research anci presentation phase is

expected to be effective to cultivate crltical

thinklng attitudes, as described in 3.2.Consequently, if critical thinking attitudes are

measured only betbre and after the

debate-Iearning phase and if the effeets at the

debate-learning phase and the research and

presentation phase are mixed, then it will bemisunderstood as an effect of only the

debate-learning phase or just past over.

A critical thinking attitude questionnairedeseribed below was therefbre administered by the

authors and a teacher in charge of each class in thisapplication (cl) before presentation in the researchand presentatien phase (pre-presentation), (c2) at




172

Table 1. Themes used during debate learning

S. AOYAGI et aL

related to objective and

'Japan must introduce a

'beverage container

deposit system.'The

Japanese government must introcluce an

envlronment tax,'Japan

must introduee daylight savings time.

'The Japanese government must prohibit

installation of automatic vending machines and

remove existing automatie vending maehines.'Use

of plastic bottles must be prohibited in Japan.'Japan

must promote introduction of cars thut

use gasoline blended with bio-ethanol,'Japan

must prohibit convenience stores tbom staying open late at night,'Colleetion and recycling of plastic bottles must be halted in Japan.

the beginning of the debate-learning phase

(pre-debate), and (c3) at the end of the

debate-learning phase (post-debate). The (c2)pre-debate questionnaire was administered

approximately one week after the (cl)pre-presentation questionnaire, and the (e3)post-debate questionnaire was administered about

two weeks after (c2) pre-debate questionnaire. Thepre-presentation questionnaire was administered

long before the presentation in some classes, butanswers of these classes are regarded equally to

those ofthe pre-presentation questionnaire.

The evaluation of this application employed the

Japanese critical orientation scale (Hirooka et at

2000), which was originated by D'Angelo (1971),translated by N{iyamoto et aX (1996), ancl analyzed

statistically by Hirooka ct nl (2000> as a critical

thinking attitudes questionnaire. Hirooka et al

(2000) identified three factors ot' critical thinking

attitudes, and the items of questionnaire

measuring one ofthese t'actors, This questionnaire

has 30 items that measure respondents' action

tendency, orientation, or critical thinking ability

by selrevaluation using a seven-point scale (from"not

agree at all" to "cornpletely

agree"). Onestudy fbund that this scale inc]udes self-evaluationof an action tendency or critical thinking ability,

and that these are inappropriate as a scale fororientation (Hirayama 2004), However, because

this study's definition of critical thinking attitudes

includes related unconscious tendencies such as

habiLs describcd in chapter 1, Hirooka's scale issuitable in this application.

The critical thinking attitudes questionnaire hasthree factors: objeetivity, good faith, and

inquisitiveness. Objectivity consists of items

causal thinking, such as "I

can eonstruct a logical discussion" or "I

giveweight to facts and evidence rather than social

obligations and human feelings when I decide".Good faith consists of items related to faithfu1attitude and respect for other opinions, such as

"I

try to understand opinions different from mine".

Inquisitiveness consists efitems related to inquiry,

persistence, and euriosity in thinking, such as "T

try several ways when a solution cannot work". Asdescribed in chapter 2, debate learning ischaracterized by logical discussion with objective

evidence. Therefore, items thaL measure objectivity

are expected to increase. Furthermore, debate

learning promotes listening to other people'sopinions. Consequently, debate learning was

expected to improve respect for other opinions:

answers ot' the items that measure good faith wereexpected to rise, However, inquisitiveness is a

factor related to creativity or orientation toward a

challenge. Improvement of the inquisitivenesscharacteristie requires experience of creative

praetice or challenge assuming that critical thinking

attitudes improves concomitant]y with criticai

thinking experience. Debate tearning necessitates

building a conclusion fbllewing a logical form basedon certain evidence, and does not need creativity

or new challenges. Therefbre, answers related to

inquisitiveness will not rise.

During the debate-learning phase, participantswere divided into groups with fbur or threemembers, Grouping procedures were the fo11owing:First, a questionnaire was conducted simultaneously

as a pre-debate questionnaire, which presents eight

themes for debate learning shown in Table 1.Respondents answer whether each theme is familiaror not, and whether they agree with each theme or

not. Next, they were divided into tbur conditions

before debate leaming: famthlar themq otiginal

post'tr'on; fbl7]thhr theore, opposite postb'an; not

fdmihhr theme arvigina7 positian; and not thmi))lar

theme opposhe postir'an. The groups fundamentallyconsist ofmembers under the same condition.

4.2. ResultsandDiscussion

The valid responses were 287 because there

were fbrms that lack responses to some items, Inaddition, answers of some groups whose eonditions

of (A) familiarity of a theme and (B) participationwith opposite posiLion toward themes are not

homogeneous because of adjustment ibr absentees.

Table 2 presents the number of valid responses of

four conditions of (A) familiarity of a theme and

(B) participation with opposite position toward




Debate Learning Program for

Table 2, Number of responses of four conditions of

familiarity and position toward themes

Cultivating Critical Thinking Attitudes 173

Table 3, Average and standard deviation of factor scores

of' critical thinking disposition seale

FamiliarthemeNot familiar theme

Pre- Pre-presentation clebatePost-debate

Original

posltlonOpposite

position

85

67

**

71

64Objectivity 43

Good faith 35.

Inquisitiveness 31

A.5 (8)44.7 (7,4) 46.5 (8

**

themes.

Before analysis, results of questionnaires were

translated to points ("not agree at all" is one point,"completely

agree" is seven points). This point was

originally an ordinal scale, psychological study

however sees summation of lnterval scale as an

orclinal scale (e,g, Toyoda 2002), This study

regards each item's points as existing on an ordinal

sea]e and the summation of each item as on an

interval scale, Moreover, an item of critical thinking

attitudes had a misprinting: 29 items were analyzed.

4.2.1, AnalysisofFkectorPoints

First, summations of points ofitems that measure

objectivity, good faith, and inquisitiveness were

calculated as factor peints of three factors of

critical thinking attitudes, The range of factor

points of objectivity was 11-77 points. tn adclition,that of good faith was 8-56, whereas that of

inquisitiveness was 7-49. Table 3 shows the

average and standard deviation of faetor points ofpre-presentation, pre-debate, and post-debate

questionnaires of critieal thinking attitudes.

Average points jncreased as the program

progressed.

Next, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)and Scheffe's pair comparison were conducted Lo

reveal cuttivation of three factors of critieal

thinking attitudes through the proposed program,The results of significance assessment are

presented in Table 3. ANOVA Tables of these

analyses are shown in Tables 4-6, One-wayANOVA results $howed that the factor points of

objectivity (p<O.Ol), good faith (p<O,Ol), and

inquisitiveness (p<O,05) significantly increasedthrough the proposed program. Results of

Scheffe's paired comparison showed that factor

points of objectivity and good faith were increased

between three pairs of questionnaire timings

(p<O.05), although that of inquisitiveness was not

significantly improved (p>O.05), except tbr (cl)pre-presentation and (c3) post-debate (p<O.05).The results are coincident with expectations that

objectivity and good faith would improve and that

inquisitiveness would not improve by debate

p m - -

3 (4.6) 36.1 (5.9) 37,3 (6 *

"(5.4) 31.4(5.4) 31.7(5

.8)

,5)

,5)

*: p<O,05,

**: p<O.Ol

t /t

Table 4. ANOVA tuble ofthe factor point ofobjectivity

Source ss df MSFpsubjectmeasurement

timeerror (AS)

46079.5 286 161,O

1278.4 2 639,2 34,8 O.OO

10520.3 572 18.4total 57878.1 860

Table 5. ANOVA table ofthe factor point of good faith

Source ss-df MSFpsubjectmeasurement

tlmeerror (AS)

17075.1 286 59.7

601,5 2 300.7 15.5 O.OO

11063.0 572 19.3

total 28739.7 860

THble 6. ANOVA table of the faetor point of inquiring mjnd

Source ss df MSFpsubjectmeasurement

timeerror (AS)

20367a7 286

60.6 2

5176.1 572

71.230.l

3.3 O.04

9.0total 25604.3 860

learning, as described in 4.1. However, the whole

program improved inquisitiveness, contrary to

expectatlons.

4.2.2. Analysisofltems

In this section, each items' answers wM beanalyzed. Figures 4-6 show numbers of respondents

who answerecl each point, 1-5, in the (el)pre-presentation, (c2) pre-debate, and (c3)post-debate of objectivity, good faith, and

inquisitiveness. Numbers of answers greater than 6

points increased and quantities of answers of lessthan 2 points decreased as the program progressed.

Next, Freedman test and Scheffe]s paircomparison of each pair of three questionnaire




174 S. AOYAGI et aL

timings, (cl) pre-presentation, (c2) pre-debate,

and (c3) post-debate were conducted to reveal

cultivation of three factors of criticat thinking

attitudes through the proposod program, The

results of significance assessment are presented inTable 7 (item numbers correspond to Figs. 4-6).Freedman test results of 7 of 11 iterns that

measure objectivity, 4 of 9 items Lhat measure

good faith ancl 1 of 7 items that measure

inquisitiveness were significant at the 1% or 5%significance level,

As described in 4.1., the change of critical

thinking attitudes through the researeh and

presentation phase possibly atTectcd that through

the debate-learning phase, [t is also possible that

participants' original attitude of critical thinking

affects critical thinking attitudes' change duringthe proposed program. Consequently, Spearman]srank-corre]ation coefficient between results of

(cl) pre-presentation, <c2-cl> improvement of

results of (c2) pre-debate compared to (cl)pre-presentation, and <c3-c2> improvement of

results of (c3) post-debate compared to (c2)pre-clebate of all items were calculated, Results of

(cl) pre-presentation and <c2-cl> improvement of

resu]ts of (c2) pre-debate cempared to (cl)pre-presentation of all items showed negative and

significant correlations (p<O,1), Next, <c2-cl>improvement ot' results of (c2) pre-debate

compared to (cl) pre-presentation have negative

significant correlations and <c3-c2> improvement

of results of (c3) post-debate eompared to (c2)pre-debate of all items also have significant

correlation (p<0,1). The range of correlations of

(cl) to <c2-cl> is from mO.32 to -O.57. Range ofcorrelations of <c2-cl> to <c3-c2> is from

-O,30

and -O.49,

Therefore, middle-strength negative

correlations exist, Moreover, resu]ts of (cl)pre-presentation and <c3-c2> improvement of

results of (c3) post-debate compared to (c2)pre-debate of nine items show a significant

correlation (p<O.5). The range of correlations isfr'om ntO,20 to O.02, To conc]ude, critieal thinking

attitudes thaL were originally high were not

improved through the proposed program to a great

degree, These results can be interpreted as ceiling -

effects that might arise because the questionnaireis only a seven-point scale and average answers of

some questionnaire items were originally high levelat (cl) pre-presentation questionnaire and (c2)pre-debate questionnaire.

Next, each item will be analyzed. First, item No.3, item No, 5, item No. 7, and item No. 12, whichmeasure objectivity and No, 10, No. 14, and No. 23,

Itemnu[nber ti[ning

*1 *2

O% 50% 100%

ll mfi2 -3 -4 emS pm6 ee7

*1]itemnumberscorrespondtetable7.

*2:(cl)pre-presentation,(c2)premdebateand

(c3)post-dcbate

Fig. 4. Summary ofanswered points of'items

whieh measures objectivity,

which measure good laiLh, were not signMcantiy

improved. Because abilities related to objectivity

and good faith are used in debate Iearning, these

results are not consistent with expectations. In

particular, it is interesting that one similar item ot'a pttir rose significantty and another did not, such

as item No, 2 and item No. 6 and item No. 14 anditem No. 26. To conclude, these were atTected byceiling effects.

Table 8 shows quuntities of significanLly

improved items whose mode value of answered

point ot' critical thinking attitudes questionnaire

was less than 4 and items whose mode value was 5and greater than 5 in (cl) pre-presentation. In

total, 12 items that were not significantly

improved and mode values of8 items among them

are greater than 5 or equal to 5. Therefbre,

original]y high items could not be improved, whichcan be a reason why some items' results of

Freedman tests were not significant.

NeverLheless, even if' the ceiling eff'ects are




eonsidered, theavoid biased cietermination.

- was not

improved significantly are inexp]icable, Theresu]t is difficult to in'terpret because item No.16,

"I

try to understand an opinion differentfrom my epinion." and item Ne. 26, which are

simi]ar te item No. 23, were signlficantly

improVed. However, this is presumed to be truebecause debate learning requires a kind of

biased detefiRination to address the opponent's

logic aggressiveiy to win in debate as a game,Perhaps for this reason, it was net improved

significantly. In fact, debate is not a game of

talking down to the opponent participants' logicbut a game of persuading a judge. Therefore,biased determination cannot bring v{ctory. This

promotion ef biased tieterminatien suggests a

disadvantage of debate learning with the debatesuppert system, whiclt is characterized byhaving no judge. Moreover, the results of palr comparison ineach pair of three questionnaire timings, (cl)pre-presentation, (c2) pre-debate, and (c3)post-debate show that some items whi ¢ hmeasure objectivity significantly improved only

between (cl) pre--presentation and (e2)pre-debate; other item$ signifigftntiy improvedonly between <c2) pre-debate and (c3>post-ciebate. The items which improvedsignificantly only between (cl) pre-presentationand (c2) pre-debate are item Nos. 15, 18, and

19, They attach importance to evidence and

grounds. The' items which significantly improved

only between (c2) pre-debate and (c3)post-debate ineluete ltems related te levei

iudgment such as item No. 2, those abeut

logical diseussiofi such as item No, 17, and

those about evidence and grounds such as itemNo. 6. 'l'herefore, the research and presentation

phase were unable to cultivate attitudes related

to level judgment or logical discussion. Thecombination of the research and presentation

phase and the debate-learning phase were

finallv able to cultivate these attitudes. ' Next, item No, 8 and item No. 25significantly improved; they gontributed the

significant improvement of inquisitiveness' lactor

points. In partlcular, item No. 25 refers to

grounds: improvement reflected use of grounds inthe debate-learning phase and the research and

presentation phase. However, item No. 8 isrelated to problem-solving, and the themes of

debate learning refor to some so]utions of social

problems. This item improved, presumab}y because

Debate Learning Program fot' Cultivating Critieal Thinking

Itemreason why item No. 23

-"I .

number timing

Att'it.udes' 175

O% SO% 100% -1 re 2 -3 -4 me 5 im' 6 me 7 *1:itemnurnberseorresFx)ndtotable7.

*Z:(cl)prc-presentation,(c2)pre-debateand

(c3)postLdebate

Fig. 5. Suinmary ofnnswered points of items

-,hieh measures good faith.

ILemnumber timing

*1 *2

O% 50% 100% -1 ma2 "3 -4 -5 fi;･6 va7

*1: item numhers corresponcl to tahle 7, *2: (cl)pre-presentation, (c2)pre-debatc and

<c3>post-debate

Fig, 6. Summary of answered points of' itefns wltich mcasuFesinquisitiveness.

of deep reflection about the themes presented indebate learning. {tem No, 28 and item No, 29 were

not improved signifieantly, although mode values of

answers of these it,ems were fewer than 4 points,Consequently, low improvement of more than half of

items that measure inquisitiveness reflected the

program]s charactem'stics,

The proposed progra.rr] slgnificant}y, improved




176 S, AOyAGl et al.

Table 7, Significunce assessment of pair comparison ofeach pair of

three qvestiunnaire timings of a critical thinking aLtitude questionnaire

T,:s= Puirsoftimings(4)gg7P

TextefitemsResults(3)(cl)and(c2)

(cl)and(c3)<c2)and(c3)

2Idonotdecideanythinginexeitedconclition,andreasonwithanimpassiveattitude.

** cl<<c3e2<<c3

3Ieonsidergoodandbadaspectsofproblems,

5IdonotbelieveanythingwithoutaLleastsemesuspicion.

6Itrytogatherallevidencethatisbothfavorableandcontrarytomyposition.

** c]<<e3c2<<c3

7Icandistinguishthingsthatarerelatedtoaproblemfromunre]atedthings. cl<c3oL"'.s=･s･.a.12SgivewejghttofautsandevidenceratherthansocialobLigationsand

humttnfeelingswhenIdecide,c2<c3

15Ipersistentlyfixonwhetherclearevidenceexistsernot. **cl<<c2cl<<c3

17Icanconstructalogicaldiscussion. * cl<<c3c2<c3

18Icheekei,eryt'uctandpieeeofevidencethat1canthinkof, **cl<<c2cl<<c3

19Ibehttvebasedongrounds. **cl<<c2cl<<e3

21Ireudbooksandhaveadetailedknowledgeofseveralfields. ** cl<<c3c2<<c3

4Idonotholdadogmaticandpersistentattitude. ** cl<<c3c2<c3

10Icanrespcctothers'opinions.

14[cuncomprorniseit'needed.

16ILrytounderstandanopiniondiffercntfrornmyopinion. ** cl<<c3e2<<c3oooagl"tr20Iacceptgoodassertion.gorsolutionsofothers.

cl<<c3

221avoidconformingtomyowntastewhen1decide. **cl<c2cl<<c3c2<<c3

23Iavoidbiaseddetermination.

26IsupportacorrectpositionevenifitisopposiLemyposition. **cl<<e2el<<c3c2<c3

30Iamawarethatmythoughtisanythingmorethanaposition.

1IquestionsomethingthatnoonecareSabout,

8ILrytosoLveprobLemsashardasIcan, *cl<<c3

11Iliketotryanythingnew,

fnE.E･･Z's:m

24Itryseveralwayswhenag.olutioncannotwork.

25Ipursueotherpossibilitiesifanassertionhasonlyweakevidence. cl<c2cl<c3

28Icontinuetopursueananswerevenifotherpeeplegiveup.

29IfollowthroughwithsomethingthntIdecide.

91donothesitatetodeeidewhenneeded. **cl<<e3c2<<c3zgo131trytoconsidernoton]yoneortwopositions,buteverypesition.

*cl<<c3c2<c3

27Jdonotmakeaconelusionderiveddirectlyfromevideneeandavoidleapsoflogic.

** cl<c3c2<<c3

(1) x<y: yis signit'icantly higher than x (p<O.05), x<<y: vis significantly higher than x(p<O,O1),

(2) Item No, 20 hus an error in its text ("assertion" was replaced by "subjectlve")

and was removed from analyses,

(3) The Freedman test results. <4) Result of Scheffe's pair comparisnn ( (cl) pre-presentaLion, (c2) pre"debate, and (c3) post"debate).

the factor points of items reflecting objectivity expectatjon,

and good faith. Although some items did not fbllowthe expectation described in 4.1., a]most a]] were 4.2.3. Analysis of7Vietnefumiliarity andCipposite

explained after ceiling effects were considered. Positions

Only one item measuring inquisitiveness was Three-way ANOVA of three factor points of

improved significantly, which supported the critical thinking attitudes questionnaire was

NII-Electronic Mbrary




Debate Learning Program for Cultivating Critical Thin

calculated to examine the effect on cultivation of

critical thinking attitudes of (A) famMarity of a

theme in debate learning and (B) participation withan opposite position. The considered factors were

(A) familiarity of a theme, (B) participation with

opposite position, and (C) questionnaire timings

((c2) pre-debate and (c3) post-debate). TheANOVA tables are presented as Tables 9-11. Nofactor showed a significant interaction.

Next, the answered point of each item was

analyzed using three-way ANOVA with (A)familiarlty of a theme, (B) participation with the

opposite position, and (C) questionnaire timings.No nonparametrie method exists that

corresponded to three-way ANOVA. Therefore,three-way ANOVA was conducted after the

answered point of each item was translated to a

normal score (Nakamae 2000), Results show that

item No, 5, which measures objectivity, only has asignificant interaction between (C) questionnairetimings, in particular (c2) pre-debate between (c3)post-debate, and (A) familiarity of a theme

(p<O.05). In additien, sirnple main effect analysis

of these two lactors -(A) and (C)- showed that

effects of (A) familiarity of a theme on (c2)

pre-debate and (C) questionnaire timings on (bl)familiar theme were significant (p<O.05). Table 12

portrays an ANOVA table of this analysis,

Nevertheless, the answered point of item No. 5 of

(b2) not familiar theme was higher than (bl)familiar therne at (c2) pre-debate. Furthermore,the (bl) familiar theme showed great improvementthrough debate learning; a difference of answered

point between (bl) familiar theme and (b2) not

familiar theme was decreasecl.

Consequently, no significant difference was

found of cuEttvatien ef crittcal thinking attitudes

between two conditions of (A) familiarity ofthemesin clebate learning. The increase of item No. 5 ot'

(bl) familiar theme was greater than that of (b2)the not familiar theme, However, differences were

found between (bl) and (b2) at (c2) pre-debate.Consequently, it cannot be said that (A) familiarityofa theme affected the increase of the answered

point of item No. 5.

The effect of (B) -whether given position to a

theme is opposite to one's original position- was

Table S. Summary ofmode value of questionnaire

answer at (cl) pre-presentation and results of Freedman test

king Attitudes 177

also not significant, Based on results ofthis study,

(A) familiarity ofa theme ancl (B) participation withopposite position are presumed to affect few

participants or exerted only a slight effect.

5. CONCLUSION

In this study, a program fbr cultivating critical

thinking attitudes with debate learning was

proposed and applied for high school education.

Results confirmed that the cultivation of critical

thinking attitudes through the proposed program,

except for inquisitiveness. In fact, inquisitiveness

Table 9, ANOVA table of the factor point of objectivity

with three factors

(familiarity, opposite position, and questionnaire timings)

Source ss dfMSFp

(A) familiarity (B) position (A) (B> interactionresidual (A) (B) (C) timings (A) (C) interaction CB) (C) interaction (A) (B) (C) interactionresidual (A) (B) (C>

837.9

263.7

O.131521.6

431.5

22.4

28.9

3,O

5372.0

1

1

1283

1

1

1

1283

837.9263,7

O,1111.4･131.5

22.4

28.9

3.0

19,O

82o

2312o

O.O07

O.13

O.98

o.oo0.28O,22O.69

Tuble 10, ANOVA table ofthe faetor point ofgood faith wiLh three factors

Cfamiliarity, opposite pesition, and questionnaire timings)

Source ss dfMSFp

(A) lamiliarity

(B) position (A) (B) interactionresidual (A) (B) (C)timings <A) (C) interaction (B) (C) interaction (A) (B) (C) interactionresidual (A) (B) (C)

253.8

172.2

o.o18114.7

208,1

8.5

4.3

O.3

3593.1

1

1

1283

1

1

]

1283

253,8172.2

o.o 64.0208.1

8.5

a.3

O.3

12,7

4.02.7o.o

16.4

O.7

O.3

o.o

O.047

O.10

O.99

o.ooO.41O.56O.88

Tzble 11. ANOVA tabte ofthe factor point ofinquiring

mind with three factors

(familiarity, opposite position, and questionnaire timings)

Source

n.s.

ss dfMSFp

significant

below 4above/equal to 57

items8 items

11 items 4 items

(A) familiarity (B) position (A) (B) interactionresidual (A) (B) (C) timings (A) (C) interuction (B) (C) interaetion (A) (B) (C) interactionresiduaL <A) <B) (C>

78.4

22,9

289,414207,7

10.6

2,O

O,1

15.1

2368.5

1

1

]283

1

1

1

1283

78,4

22.9289.4

50.2

10.6

2.0

O.1

15,1

8,4

1,6O.55.8

1.3O.2o.o1,8

O.21O.50O.02

O.26O.62O.91O.18




178

Tab]e 12,(familiarity

S. AoyAGI et aL

ANOVA table of item No. 5 with three t'actors IWASAKI, M.

, opposite position, and quesLionnaire timings) Mezasumono.

Sourco ss df MSFp

<A) fami]iarity <B) position (A) (B) interactionrosidua[ (A) <B) (C) timings (A) (C) interaetion (B) (C) interaction (A) (B) (C) interactionresiduaKA) (B) (C)

1.4

o.o

o,o173.9

O.2 O.6 1,3

O.1

83,6

1

1

1283

2 2 2

2566

1.4o.oo.oO.6O.1O,3O,6o,oO.l2.3 O.13

O.O O,84

O,O O.98

O,6 O.52

2.1 O.12

4.3 O.Ol

O.3 O.72

is expected to be cultivttted by programs of

another type that require creativity of participants,

For that goal, a new program should be developed

in the future,

Familiarity of a theme in debate learning and

whether a given positjon to a theme is opposite

one's own original position have no effect,

statistically speaking, on cultivaLion of critical

thinking attitudes. Consequently, consideration of

these conditions in the proposed program isunnecessary,

REFERENCES

D'ANGELO, E, (1971) 7ho 7bachi)]g of'Critical 7)hinking. B,R. Gruner, AmsterdamENIss, R.II, (1987) A 7hxononly of' aiticel 71bth?kihg Piispositibns and Abiibke'es. Teaehing thinking skills:

Theory and practice, W,H. Freeman and Co., N.Y.,

pp.9-26I'Azlo, R,ll. and ZANpt'A, M.P, (1978) On the Predictive

Validity of Attitudes: The Role of Direct Experience and Cunfidence. fourveal offlorsonahtr, 46(2) : 228- 243GT.,xsER,

E,M. (1941) .4n IZ\petiment i)i 7]be Pei.elQpment of' dir'tical 7)5ihimg. CoLumbia University Prcss, N.Y.HIGucHI, N. (2003) Sougougakushuu ni Okeru

Hihnnnteki Shikou Ginou -Tanngenn

Kaihatsu no

Zenntei to site-, ilYssho DEigeku .gihntrkakubu Kbnnkyuu twou, 1 : 59-71 (En Japanese)HIRAYAM.A, R. (2004) A Review of the Measurement of

CriLical Thinking Disposition and ,ALbilities. Kvoto [,'hiveisity Rbseat'ch studi'es i?) Etrucntion, 50 :

290-302 (in Japanese)HIMYAMA, R. and KusuMt,

'I'. (2004) EtTect of Critieal

Thinking Disposition om lnterpretation ol'

ControveFsia] Issues: Evaluating Evidences und

Drawing Conclusions. Jopfinese ,foumitl ofEUucfftibnal

Rsychology, 52 (2) : 186-198 (in Japanese)H[RooKix, S., Oc;AwA, K. and MoToyosHI, T. (2000) A Exploratory Study ofMeasurement of

"the Orientation

toward Critical Thinking"'. iW7b Pnilrxiku Kyountu Ghkubu Kennilywti IifZpvu a'CFouiku KagekLti, 51: 161-173 (in Japanese)

(2002) Kuritikaru Sinnkinngu No

Kyoto C･OJiversity 7letsugfiku

Konfilyuusitsu KZyou Rvspectus, 5 : 12-27 (in Japanese)Japanese Ministry of Education (1999) Course of Study

ofHigh Schoo], http:11-"NTw.mext.go,jpfb-menu!shuppan/sonotaf9903 Olf03122603,htm (ncccssed 2009.4,6) (in Japanese)KAMATA, H. (2004) Kyoushoku Kamoku"Shakai Kouminnka Shidouhou" ni Mirareru Dibe-to Jugyou no Eikyou

-Hihanteki Sikou Nouryoku no Kouka Sokutei

no Kokeromi-. Daigeku KFouiku, Kyuushuu Daigziku Dafpa?u A)ouiku sevita-, 1O : 41-58 <in Japanese)Kv･suMl, T. (1996) K]??oteki' SZ"tonn to hihai]nteki' suou, iNO]7nehi S)hnagaA/u 5)kou. University of Tokyo Press,

Tokyo, Chapter 2. (in Japanese)MATSuMoTo (1996) Atnma wo ff7taeru Dideeto iNYuuman.

Koudansha, Tokyo (in Japanese)MICHITA, Y. (2001a) Various Coneepts of Critical

Thinkingi What Do 1'hey '1'hink

It Is?. Budetl?i of

Cbllege oflkfucation [,hiverst'ty of the Rvukyus, 59 :

109-127 (in Japanese)MlcHTTA, Y. (2001b) Critical Thinking of University Students in Reading Non-Academic Materials: ALtiLude and iXbiLity Differences in Relatien to

Academic I.evel and Major. 7he kmpanese .ibL"r?al of'

EUucationa/1{v.chology, 49 : 41-49 (in Japanese)MIcrHITA, Y., MlyAMo'ro, H. und ,ALKITsul, R. (1999) lkZJiit?karu 5?bnkfi- 1lonfi. Kitaohji Shobo, Kyoto (in Japanese)M[YAMOTO, Il., MIC}IITA, Y., TANIGUCHI, T., KIKLCHI, S., ZECHMEISTER, E.B. and JlloNsoN, J,E, (1996) diiticaf 7]bi)ikihg Kitaohji Shebou, Kyoto (in Japanese)NAKAMAE, M. (2000) Study of the ReLiability of Visual Evuluation by Lhe Ranking Method: Analysis of

OFdina] Sca]e and PsychologicaL Sca]ing Using the

Normalized-runk Approuch. ,Mhonn i[loushasenn

Gbbtu dekkniZlasshil 56 (5) : 725-730 (in Japanese)RUGGIERo, V.R. (1988) 7baahbzg 7]binimg across the

drnv'culam, Harper & Row, N,Y.SANO, Y,, ARATA, S., SIBANo, A. and YosHIDA, K. C1999) SbLrgoutaki' na Gakushuu no Z)kann to

Abbngtmn KbiSeil Kouyou Shobou, Kyoto (in Japanese)SLZUKL, K., OOI, K. and TiXKEMAE, H. (2006) Kurnhatv 5)bkhge to Kyowhu Athonn no Kvoiuku "o Shikoutsku Slett'u. Sekai Sisou Sha, Kyoto (in Japanese)TERADo, M., SHIMoDA, H., SEK[yAN{.A, T., TOMI･1･,X, K. and YosHIK,xwix, H. (2005) DevelopmenL of Lhe debate

supporL system and inLroduction to energy and

environmental edueation, Hiimun inieLlhce Sympostim eO05: 773-778 (in Japanese)TOI'ADA, H. (2002) Kbumaku h7mnnou Monn

-.,Nlrutunonn flen. Asakura Shotenn, Tokyo (in

Japanese)TURUDA, M. and YLJKURA, M, (2007a) Critica] Thinking

Disposition and Assertiveness of High School Students in Japan. Bulletin of' the Educational Reseurch and

Deve]epment, Flaculty of Ellucntion KZtgoshi)pa (yhi'vengicp; 17 : 235-245 (in Japanese)TuRuDA, M. and YuKuRA, M. (2007b) Koukousei no Eigo

Dibe-Lo KaLsuduu ga IIihannteki Sikou Taido Oyobi Assa-shenn Sukiru ni Oyobosu Eikyou. fapanese A,s,socihtion of tJliucational RgFT]hoiagy Sbukoi ilonnbtu]nshuu, 49 : 481 (in Japanese)

debate leaming programfor cultivating critical thinking

Documents