Last semester I decided to have students participate in in-class debates instead of having final presentations and it was fantastic. I know of a few other teachers doing this and reporting that this works really well. This is especially true when the variety of possible topics is limited (resulting in mind-numbingly tedious presentation days) and when time is limited (presentations often take three or four classes and debates can be done in two).

The only problem with debating is that the students' presentation grades are a little more difficult to tally. There are lots of approaches to evaluating students based on collective performance. I'm posting this to share my approach.

I've attached the format and rules that I handed out in class and the score sheets that the adjudicators used to evaluate the debators.

This is a challenging but fun alternative to presentations.

OVERVIEW:
To accommodate the rhe309 class, consisting of around 20 students, we had two debates that took place on two different days. The teams were a little large but the students adapted well. In my class the two debate topics were bilingual education policy and English-only legislation. (There was overlap but it worked in our favor.)

Students work in groups on the days leading up to the debates so they become familiar with all the arguments of the controversies. They also get to know the strengths and weaknesses of their team members. (And they end up working on their diplomacy skills.)

FORMAT:
Team A: One student makes an opening statement.
Team B: One student responds to opening statement.
Team B: Responds to question asked by adjudicators.
Team A: Offers rebuttal.
Team A: Responds to question asked by adjudicators.
Team B: Offers rebuttal.
Team B: Makes closing statement.
Team A: Responds to closing statement.

Adjudicators are given about a minute to decide which question they'll ask following each rebuttal.

Teams are given two minutes following each question and each response to a question to regroup and strategize. Very important.

TEAMS:
I divided the class in two to work on the two different debate topics. Then I split those groups into two groups (pro and con). I had them submit requests for which teams they wanted to be on, specifying first and second preferences. (Many students write that they have no preference, so this helps.)

The teams that aren’t debating become the adjudicators for the other topic and score the other teams. In fact, the presentation grades are based on their judgments.

SCORING AND GRADING:
The grade that the team gets is the grade that each team member receives as his or her presentation grade. The pressure is on.

The adjudicators’ judgments and scoring directly determine the grade. Originally I was just going to take them into consideration, but in the end they were so tough and so thoughtful that it just made sense to include their judgments in the grading. Their comments were also useful because you can’t catch everything during the debates.

I used the Toronto Debating Society page as a guide to rules, scoring, and general reference (http://www.debating.ca). (Go to Education: Adjudication Guide Reference.) They have a detailed page if you’re not familiar with debating rules.

I adapted their score sheet into something that would work for teams of 4 or 5 (see attachments).

Each student speaks once. The teams decide who makes the opening statement, the closing statement, answers questions or makes rebuttals. After having worked together to prepare, this is where knowing each other’s strengths and weaknesses comes in handy. Each student can receive as high as 25 points.

The totals for each team are tallied. The averages of the adjudicators’ scores are tallied. Teams of 5 can score a total 150; teams of 4 can score a total of 125 (add 25 to bring the possible total up to 150 to even things out between debate topics).

DEBATE QUESTIONS:
To even out the playing field and to make sure that only material that students had seen was covered I had each team email me possible debate questions in advance. I sorted through them, tweaked them a little, and then gave them to the adjudicators to select and ask the questions. As the debate proceeded adjudicators had to tweak questions somewhat. It was challenging but it kept the adjudicators on their toes and it gave them more responsibility than just being an audience. You’ll also note from the score sheet that participation as adjudicator is also considered in the tally (as high as 15 possible points).

If anyone else tries this, let me know how it works out for you. Or if you have suggestions or alternatives, post those too.