Debate & Dialectical Thinking in University Students

Innovations in Education and Teaching International
ISSN: 1470-3297 (Print) 1470-3300 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20
Debate: A new approach for improving the
dialectical thinking of university students
Xiaoshan Li, Zaichao Han, Jianping Fu, Yun Mei & Jianping Liu
To cite this article: Xiaoshan Li, Zaichao Han, Jianping Fu, Yun Mei & Jianping Liu (2019):
Debate: A new approach for improving the dialectical thinking of university students, Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2019.1640123
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1640123
Published online: 16 Jul 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riie20
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1640123
Debate: A new approach for improving the dialectical
thinking of university students
Xiaoshan Lia,b, Zaichao Hanc, Jianping Fuc, Yun Meid and Jianping Liua,b
a
School of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China; bCenter of mental health education
and research, School of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China; cCollege of Life Science,
Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China; dSchool of Geography and Environment, Jiangxi Normal
University, Nanchang, China
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
Although dialectical thinking plays an important role in daily life,
this ability among adults, including university students, is not
always well developed. The present study used three experimental designs to explore efficient ways to promote university students’ dialectical thinking ability. The results showed that
university students’ dialectical thinking ability can be improved
after receiving instruction according to specific teaching practices. The debate approach was a more interesting and efficient
teaching method for cultivating dialectical thinking ability than
the lecture approach. These findings broaden and deepen our
understanding about the development of dialectical thinking
ability and suggests that debate can be used as an alternative
way, in many university courses or training projects, to improve
students’ dialectical thinking ability.
Debate teaching approach;
dialectical thinking; lecture
teaching approach
Introduction
Dialectical thinking is a cognitive process and epistemological method for grappling with
contradictions (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). It holds that everything is changeable and interrelated
and tolerates contradiction (e.g. ‘good’ and ‘bad’ can exist in the same object or event) (Bai,
2015). Dialectical thinking ability is one of many thinking faculties and plays an important role
in daily life. For example, it has been found to be beneficial for interpreting contradictions
around the world (Lomas & Ivtzan, 2015) and promoting individual social adaptation (e.g. Wu
& Lin, 2005). Bai (2015) also found that leaders with high dialectical thinking scores promote
employee creativity and in-role performance by encouraging team members to produce
a wider set of diverse ideas and more thoughtful solutions to solve their problems. However,
research has shown that the dialectical thinking ability of adults, including university students,
is not well-developed (e.g. Basseches, 2005; Cheng, 2009; Zhang, Gao, & Hua, 2011) and less
attention is paid to how to cultivate this ability. In response to this issue, two questions should
be answered. The first is whether dialectical thinking can be improved by pedagogical
practices at the university course level. Secondly, if dialectical thinking can be improved by
CONTACT Jianping Fu
[email protected]
Number 99, ZiYang Road, Nanchang 330022, China
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
College of Life Science, Jiangxi Normal University,
2
X. LI ET AL.
the implementation of certain pedagogical practices, which teaching approach most efficiently improves individual thinking ability?
As ‘thinking ability’ denotes a cognitive faculty, it can be improved through daily
learning activities, and there is substantial evidence showing that students can become
better thinkers by appropriate instruction (e.g. Arrue, Unanue, & Merida, 2017; Danielson,
Preast, Bender, & Hassall, 2014; Halpern, 1998). Therefore, there is a reason to believe
that the dialectical thinking ability of university students can be improved through the
implementation of appropriate teaching practices in university courses.
Lecture and debate are two main teaching approaches for cultivating individual thinking
ability (Arrue et al., 2017). The ‘lecture approach’ refers to a teaching-learning strategy in which
a teacher demonstrates the knowledge or skills that are to be learned through formal in-class
presentations or occasional interaction (e.g. Students were asked to answer the clicker
questions in a predominantly lecture-based context) (Danielson et al., 2014). In a lecture
class, the key element is the teacher. The ‘debate approach’ refers to a teaching-learning
strategy that presupposes an established position (either pro or con) on an issue, assertion,
proposition, or solution to a problem (Arrue et al., 2017). As a key method by which students
learn in a debate-style class, dialogue is proved to be beneficial to promote students’ thinking
ability (Kuhn & Crowell, 2011; Walton, 1989). Therefore, we tend to believe that debate is
a more efficient teaching approach for cultivating university students’ dialectical thinking
ability than lecture for the following reasons. First, unlike most lecture classes, which focus on
content knowledge (Halpern, 1998), debate classes tend to focus on transferability of thinking
skills (e.g. to ‘win’ the debate using logical expression), which can contribute to the development of an individual’s cognitive faculties, including dialectical thinking. Second, teachers in
lecture-style classes engage students through formal in-class presentations or occasional
interaction. However, the teachers, as well as most adults, are biased in their interpretations
of the objective world around them based on prior beliefs (Hilbert, 2012). Such bias might
serve as a barrier to students’ dialectical thinking ability development in a lecture class setting.
However, this issue can be solved in a debate class due to the participants’ complementary
knowledge regarding complex social issues (Li, Zhou, Zhao, Zhang, & Zhang, 2015). Third,
students in a debate class have more opportunities than those in a lecture class to advocate
their opinions while simultaneously acknowledging the opposition’s arguments (Arrue et al.,
2017); both of these skills are beneficial to the development of dialectical thinking ability.
Accordingly, in this study, the following hypotheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Debate can improve students’ dialectical thinking ability.
Hypothesis 2: Debate-based class is more effective than lecture-based class in cultivating
university students’ dialectical thinking ability.
Three studies were used to test the above hypotheses. Study 1 aimed to determine
whether students tended to think more ‘dialectically’ after receiving instruction according to
a specific teaching practice (e.g. debate). Studies 2 and 3 aimed to test the efficiency of
different teaching approaches for cultivating individual dialectical thinking ability using two
different measurement indices of dialectical thinking. With the approval of the Ethical
Review Board of the Jiangxi Normal University, all three studies were undertaken after
participants had given formal consent.
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL
3
Study 1
Participants and procedure
Participants included 48 undergraduates (40 women and 8 men; age: M = 19.2, SD = .36)
who were taking part in the ‘positive psychology’ curriculum at Jiangxi Normal
University. Most were first- or second-year students. At the beginning of the semester,
students were evenly divided into 12 groups with designated debate topics (e.g. the
‘against’ or ‘for’ position for six debate topics) and engaged in a debate during the last
few weeks of the semester. The six debate topics were as follows: ‘Be tactful in life’,
‘Forgiveness is a panacea for a healthy society’, ‘If we love her/him, we ought to do
favours for her/him unconditionally’, ‘Life needs to be well planned’, ‘We need charity’,
and ‘Cooperation is more conductive to our learning than competition’. Participants
were asked to offer their views on the topics before and after the debates. All items in
the present study were scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘Strongly
Disagree’ (1) to ‘Strongly Agree’ (7). All participants completed their participation in the
study and none were excluded.
The analytic method
One important characteristic of dialectical thinking is the so-called ‘doctrine of the mean’,
in which people tend to offer his/her view to the issue moderately rather than in either
extreme (e.g. strongly agree or disagree) (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). In present study, point 4
in 7-point Likert scale means a moderate response to an issue. Therefore, students’
dialectical thinking ability was measured according to the pre/post-mid distance, which
was computed using the following formula: pre/post-mid distance = |pretest/post-test
scores – 4|. The paired-sample t-test was used to examine the difference between pre- and
post-mid distances.
Results
Table 1 shows that students had lower post-mid distance scores than the pre-mid
distance scores for all debate topics, except T1 and T2 (ps. < .05), indicating that
students tended to think dialectically after receiving instruction according to a specific
pedagogical approach (e.g. debate), which supported Hypothesis 1.
Table 1. The changes of students’ view on debate issues before and after debate.
The students’ view on debate issues (M ± SD)
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
Pre-mid distance
1.44 ± 1.07
1.71 ± .99
1.69 ± .99
1.56 ± .94
1.65 ± .86
1.63 ± .84
Post-mid distance
1.17 ± .81
1.38 ± 1.00
1.25 ± 1.0
1.21 ± .99
1.25 ± .81
1.27 ± .87
t
1.83
1.70
2.60**
2.15*
2.67**
2.23*
Cohen’d
.26
.25
.38
.31
.38
.32
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01. T1 = ‘Be tactful in life’, T2 = ‘forgiveness is a panacea for health society’, T3 = ‘if
we love her/him, we ought to do favor for her/him unconditionally’, T4 = ‘life need well plan’, T5 = ‘we
need charity’, T6 = ‘cooperation is more conductive to our learning than competition’.
4
X. LI ET AL.
The results of Study 1 showed that university students tended to think dialectically
after receiving instruction according to specific teaching practices, but the efficacy of the
different teaching approaches for cultivating this thinking ability was still unknown.
Therefore, we designed two additional studies (Study 2 and Study 3) to investigate the
effects of the different teaching approaches (debate vs. lecture) on an individual’s
dialectical thinking ability.
Study 2
Participants
Against the backdrop of university curriculum reform in China, implementation of
new teaching approaches was encouraged. Students enrolled in two ‘happiness
psychology’ classes at Jiangxi Normal University were chosen as the sample for this
study. The first class consisted of 62 first-year students (28 females) majoring in
Mathematics and Information Science; they were designated to the ‘lecture class’
group of the study. The second class consisted of 65 first-year students (27 females)
majoring in Electronic Information Science; they were designated to the ‘debate
class’ group of the study. No significant difference according to gender was found
for the two classes (χ2 = .24, p > .05). Two students in the lecture class and one in
the debate class were excluded from the study because of their prior debate
experience. In total, the data from 60 students in the lecture class and 64 students
in the debate class were used in the following analysis.
Research materials
Dialectical thinking in this study was measured by the Zhong-Yong Thinking Style
Scale, which was compiled by Chiu (2000) based on the characteristics of dialectical
thinking (e.g. integration, mean tendency) and adapted by Wu and Lin (2005). It
consists of three sub-scales: diversification (i.e. considering things carefully from different aspects), integrity (i.e. integrating one’s perspectives with others’), and harmony
(i.e. acting in a manner that maintains interpersonal harmony). The scale has been
proved to have good reliability and validity in predicting individual dialectical thinking
ability in a Chinese sample (Zhang et al., 2011). Each item is scored on a 7-point Likerttype scale ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ (1) to ‘Strongly Agree’ (7). In the current
study, the Cronbach’s α of the three subscales ranged from .69 to .73, and the
Cronbach’s α of the entire scale was .84.
Interestingness/usefulness of curriculum was measured by the item ‘I find this curriculum very interesting/useful’, and scored using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
‘Strongly Disagree’ (1) to ‘Strongly Agree’ (5).
Research procedure
At the beginning and end of the semester, students from both the debate and
lecture classes were asked to complete the dialectical thinking questionnaires.
Students from both classes were also asked to report their views on the usefulness
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL
5
and interestingness of this curriculum and their experiences with debate outside the
class at the end of the semester. To gain a better understanding of the impact of the
two teaching approaches on individual dialectical thinking ability, teachers’ characteristics and course contents were considered in the experimental design. Two male
psychology teachers, whom a teaching evaluation team at the beginning of the
semester had rated as average for ‘personal charm’ and ‘teaching ability’, were
selected and, respectively, assigned to lead the lecture and debate classes.
Regarding course contents, the ‘happy psychology’ teaching team designed
a ‘tight’ curriculum to ensure that students in both classes would learn the same
contents at the same teaching pace. That is, teachers in both classes instructed the
students on the theory and practice of happiness during the first 10 weeks of the
semester and the ‘six humanistic topics’ (i.e. love, plan, cooperation, forgiveness,
charity, and interpersonal relations) in the last six weeks. The only difference was that
the debate teaching approach was used in the debate class to learn the six humanistic topics through the six debate topics listed in Study 1, while the lecture
teaching approach was used in the lecture class for the last six weeks. In the lecture
class, students learned relative knowledge about the six humanistic topics (i.e.
concepts or related theories) through the teacher’s formal in-class presentations or
occasional interactions.
The analytic method
We hypothesised that first-year students in both classes would show no significant
difference in dialectical thinking ability due to their similar learning experience before
entering university. However, we also hypothesised that, after practising these skills, the
students in the debate class would be more likely to think dialectically at the end of the
semester. Thus, we expected there to be an interaction between teaching approaches
and measuring times. To test this, multivariate repeated measures (ANOVA method)
were used to examine the effect of measuring times (pre-test vs. post-test) and teaching
approaches (debate vs. lecture) on students’ dialectical thinking ability.
Results
The means and standard deviations calculated for these analyses are presented in Table 2.
The ANOVA results showed that students in the debate class scored high on the subscales and that their overall score signalling dialectical thinking ability was higher than
that of their peers in the lecture class.
Diversification analysis
The results of the diversification analysis showed that both the main effect of the
teaching approaches (F[1, 122] = 3.17, p = .08, partial eta2 = .03) and the interaction
‘teaching approaches × measuring times’ (F[1, 122] = 2.76, p = .09, partial eta2 = .02)
were marginally significant. The independent-samples t-test showed that, at the beginning of the semester (t[122] = 1.26, p > .1), there was no difference in the means of the
diversification scores between the debate class (M = 5.03) and lecture class (M = 4.87).
6
X. LI ET AL.
Table 2. Means and standard deviations of dependent measures in lecture and debate class
condition at the beginning and end of the semester.
At the beginning of the semester M(SD)
Measure
Diversification
Integrity
Harmony
Total score
Lecture
4.87(.72)
5.23(.66)
5.01(.66)
5.05(.52)
Debate
5.03(.69)
5.18(.53)
5.17(.63)
5.13(.45)
At the end of the semester M(SD)
Lecture
5.09(.91)
5.28(.88)
5.1(.87)
5.17(.72)
Debate
5.4(.78)
5.48(.63)
5.53(.69)
5.47(.55)
However, at the end of the semester (t[122] = 2.05, p = .04), students in the debate class
exhibited a higher mean score in diversification (M = 5.4) than their peers in the lecture
class (M = 5.09).
Integrity analysis
The results of the integrity analysis showed no main effect in terms of teaching approach
(F[1, 122] = .40, p > .1). However, the predicted ‘teaching approaches × measuring times’
interaction was significant (F[1, 122] = 9.44, p = .003, partial eta2 = .07). The paired-samples
t-test showed that students in the lecture class exhibited no difference in integrity scores
at the beginning (M = 5.23) or the end of the semester (M = 5.28), t(59) = .75, p > .1.
However, students in the debate class exhibited higher integrity scores at the end of the
semester (M = 5.48) than they did at the beginning ([M = 5.18], t[63] = 5.27, p < .001).
Harmony analysis
The results of the harmony analysis showed that the main effect of the teaching method
(F[1, 122] = 6.01, p = .01, partial eta2 = .05) and the predicted ‘teaching approaches ×
measuring times’ interaction was found to be significant, (F[1, 122] = 8.63, p = .004, partial
eta2 = .07). The independent-samples t-test showed that there was no difference in the
harmony score between the debate class (M = 5.17) and the lecture class (M = 5.01) at the
beginning of the semester (t[122] = 1.41, p > .1). However, students in the debate class
showed higher scores for harmony (M = 5.53) than those in the lecture class (M = 5.1) at
the end of the semester (t[122] = 3.05, p < .01).
Analysis of the overall score for dialectical thinking
The results for the overall score signalling dialectical thinking showed that the main
effect of the teaching approaches was marginally significant (F[1, 122] = 3.85, p = .052,
partial eta2 = .04); however, the predicted ‘teaching approaches × measuring times
interaction’ was found to be significant (F[1, 122] = 15.08, p = .000, partial eta2 = .11).
The independent-samples t-test showed that there was no difference in the overall
scores signifying dialectical thinking ability between the debate class (M = 5.13) and
the lecture class (M = 5.05) at the beginning of the semester (t[122] = .89, p > .1);
however, students in the debate class demonstrated a higher overall score for dialectical thinking ability (M = 5.47) than those in the lecture class (M = 5.17) at the end of
the semester (t[122] = 2.64, p < .01).
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL
7
Study 3
Participants and research materials
Many proverbs, particularly those regarding the particular condition of human wisdom,
are full of contradiction; therefore, they are often used as experimental material when
assessing an individual’s dialectical thinking ability (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Thus, the
edited proverb, ‘Love me, love all of mine unconditionally’ was used as experimental
material to measure dialectical thinking in the present study. This proverb was modified
from two proverbs, ‘love me, love my dog’ and ‘demonstrate love and care unconditionally’ (Holloman & Yates, 2013). Five psychology graduate students were invited to
write down their feeling about this edited proverb, and they all agreed that the proverb
inherently contained a contradiction.
The same sample that took part in Study 2 participated in Study 3. Three students were
excluded on account of their prior experience with debate, and another student was
excluded because he did not fully complete the questionnaire. Data from a total of 60
students from the lecture class and 63 from the debate class were utilised in the following
analysis. Instruction in the lecture and debate classes followed the same syllabus and
procedure as Study 2, except that all participants were asked to write down their views
on a particular issue rather than respond to the dialectical thinking scale. At the end of the
semester, all participants were asked to write down their views of the edited proverb.
Students’ responses were then coded as either ‘dialectical’ or ‘non-dialectical’.
The analytic method
Careful consideration of a matter according to its different aspects and tolerance of
contradiction are the most important characteristics of dialectical thinking (Wu & Lin,
2005). To analyse participants’ responses, a coding method (Peng & Nisbett, 1999) was
used to distinguish ‘dialectical’ from ‘non-dialectical’ responses. A ‘dialectical response’
was defined as one that (a) addressed the issue from both contradicting sides and (b)
attempted to reconcile the conflict by compromising. In the present study, one dialectical response written by a student was as follows: ‘the belief that “love all of mine
unconditionally” is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it has a positive relation with
the person’s mental health through acceptance of their imperfections; on the other
hand, people who are too insistent on accepting their imperfection (e.g. bad habits or
dangerous behaviours) will hurt themselves or people around them and are easily
regarded as arrogant and selfish men/women. So, it is worth it to have this belief only
if it doesn’t have a conflict with a social form’.
Non-dialectical responses generally argued exclusively for one side or the other.
Examples of non-dialectical responses written in this study are as follows: ‘I agree with
this belief due to its positive relation to high life satisfaction’, or ‘I disagree with the
belief that people who are too insistent on accepting imperfection (e.g. bad habits or
dangerous behaviours) will hurt themselves or people around them and are easily
regarded as arrogant and selfish men/women’.
Students’ responses were coded as ‘dialectical’ or ‘non-dialectical’ by two coders with an
inter-coder reliability of .94 as indicated by the Pearson correlation. Regarding responses
8
X. LI ET AL.
where the two coders diverged in their opinion about the student’s degree of dialectical
thinking, the two coders discussed the student’s view until a consensus was reached. To
reduce the effect of rater bias, a double-blind experimental design was used.
Results
Figure 1 shows that students in both the lecture and debate classes preferred dialectical
thinking in response to the proverb. In the debate class, more students’ responses were
coded as ‘dialectical’ (76%) than ‘non-dialectical’ (24%) (z [n = 63] = 8.32, p < .001).
A similar result was found in the lecture class: more responses were coded as ‘dialectical’
(59%) than ‘non-dialectical’ (41%) (z [n = 60] = 2.58, p < .01). Finally, more students in the
debate class (76%) were coded as ‘dialectical thinkers’ than those in the lecture class
(59%) (z [n = 123] = 2.11, p < .05).
Discussion
Increasing empirical studies offer support for the important role of dialectical thinking ability in this era of explosive information. However, it has been reported (e.g.
Bai, 2015; Zhang et al., 2011) that most adults, including university students, have
not fully developed their dialectical thinking ability. As cultivation of this ability may
be important for human development (Basseches, 2005), the present study aimed to
find an efficient teaching approach for cultivating the dialectical thinking ability of
university students.
Figure 1. The effect of different teaching approaches on students’ dialectical thinking.
Note: **p < .01. The Vertical Bar represents the percentage of participants in debate or lecture class were coded as
‘dialectical’ or ‘non-dialectical’ thinkers.
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL
9
University teaching practices can improve students’ dialectical thinking ability
Students in Study 1 showed less post-mid distance than pre-mid distance of their views
on four out of six debate issues, indicating that they were more likely to think dialectically after receiving instruction according to a specific teaching practice, namely, debate
(which supports Hypothesis 1). This implies that dialectical thinking ability is one of
many important cognitive faculties which can be improved through proper instruction
and practice, a finding consistent with Halpern’s view (Halpern, 1998). One possible
explanation for this might be that a participant’s complementary knowledge regarding
complex social issues increases their understanding about a debate topic, thus reducing
‘black and white’ thinking about a topic as well as personal bias.
Debate was a more effective teaching approach for cultivating university
students’ dialectical thinking ability than lecture
Studies 2 and 3 used quasi-experimental designs to test the effects of different teaching
strategies on students’ dialectical thinking ability, taking into consideration teachers’
characteristics and course contents. The findings showed that the debate-style class was
more effective for cultivating university students’ dialectical thinking ability than lectures
(Supporting Hypothesis 2). This could be due to the different focal points of the two
teaching approaches: Lecture classes focus on understanding knowledge content, while
debate classes focus on how to win a debate about a particular issue using logical
thinking. Compared with students in a lecture class, in a debate class, students must
consider things carefully from different aspects if they are to win the debate (Wu & Lin,
2005). In addition, non-debaters or ‘watchers’ in a debate class have opportunities to
further develop their dialectical thinking ability by observing how their peers and
teachers think about and debate social issues (Arrue et al., 2017). In fact, a teacher’s
summary of debate issues often includes dialectical thinking. For example, one of
teachers in present study offered his summary as “Each issue, especially for complex
social issues, has its strength and weakness.’ Third, participants’ complementary knowledge about various issues could reduce their bias or ignorance when it comes to
interpreting the objective world based on their prior experience. Just as one student
in the debate class said: ‘This debate overturns my view on forgiveness. I have heard
many voices from our teachers, parents and friends speak about the benefits of forgiveness, which is of benefit to you, to me, to our society. Here, I hear some different voices
from some students. That is, forgiveness is not a panacea; it also has a dark side, which
likes the devil sometimes’.
In addition, students in the debate class showed more interest than those in the
lecture class in Study 2. One possible explanation for this is that debate is an efficient
way to promote individual critical thinking and oral communication abilities (Arrue et al.,
2017), which in turn increase students’ active involvement in class and interest in
learning. We also found that students in both the lecture and debate classes in Study
3 tended to think dialectically in response to the proverb, indicating that Chinese
participants preferred to think about an issue from different sides and opted for
compromising solutions to conflicts, a finding consistent with Peng and Nisbett (1999).
10
X. LI ET AL.
Implications
As an important cognitive ability, dialectical thinking plays an important role in university students’ daily lives. However, this ability has not been well developed, and how
to cultivate it remains an important issue for university education. In response to this
issue, we undertook this study using three different experimental designs. The findings
showed that university students’ dialectical thinking ability could be improved through
appropriate teaching practices, that is, debate may be a more efficient teaching
approach than lecture for cultivating this ability. These findings can help broaden
understanding about the development of individual dialectical thinking ability, especially regarding the impact of university-level teaching practices and approaches to
dialectical thinking ability. Also, these findings have important practical implications
for educationalists and policymakers. Namely, that debate can be used as an alternative
method in many courses or training projects to improve university students’ dialectical
thinking ability.
Limitations
The present study had some limitations. First, participants in Study 1 did not tend to
think dialectically after debating two of the six topics, and some participants did not
change their view on the topics even after the debate. This implies that the effectiveness
of the debate teaching approach may be limited by the debate’s context and personal
characteristics (e.g. motivation). Therefore, more research should be undertaken to
investigate the possible moderating factors between debate teaching approaches and
students’ dialectical thinking ability. Second, we found that, in practice, debate as
a teaching approach has some shortcomings. For example, students often experience
a high level of anxiety when facing an opponent in debate class. Furthermore, some
students are only concerned about the topic in which they are taking part, to the
detriment of the debate’s effectiveness (Temple, 2010). Thus, future studies should
focus on exploring an efficient way to reduce these negative effects. In addition, the
positive effect of the debate teaching approach for developing students’ dialectical
thinking ability was only examined in terms of the discipline of psychology. More
evidence should, therefore, be examined within the frameworks of other disciplines,
such as education and sociology.
Conclusion
During a time when discourse about university education is paying attention to innovative teaching approaches that foster students’ thinking ability and active learning
processes, the debate approach has received serious consideration. Our findings showed
that using debate as a teaching approach permitted students to become actively
involved in learning course content while promoting dialectical thinking ability. This
investigation broadened and deepened our understanding about how university students’ dialectical thinking ability develops, and shed light on how to better cultivate this
ability through the university curriculum, especially in terms of explaining complex
social issues to students using debate.
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL
11
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the social science foundation of Jiangxi province (Grant number
16BJ21); Teaching Reform Program of Jiangxi province (Grant number JXJG-18-2-31); the
University humanities program of Jiangxi province (Grant number XL17205); Teaching Reform
Program of Jiangxi Normal University (Grant number JXSDJG1701); the educational science
foundation of Jiangxi Province (Grant number 16YB033).
Notes on contributors
Xiaoshan Li is a lecturer at school of psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, China. His research
focuses on the issues such as China’s traditional culture, occupational health, Educational
Technology, and E-Learning.
Zaichao Han is an instructor at the College of Life Science, Jiangxi Normal University, China. His
research focuses on college students’ mental health and career planning.
Jianping Fu is a lecturer at the College of Life Science, Jiangxi Normal University, China. Her
research interests are Educational Technology, Collaborative Learning, and Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning.
Yun Mei is an assistant professor at School of Geography and Environment, Jiangxi Normal
University, China. His research focuses on college students’ mental health and career planning.
Jianping Liu is a professor at school of psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, China. His research
focuses on improving our understanding of the teaching and learning of science.
References
Arrue, M., Unanue, S., & Merida, D. (2017). Guided university debate: Effect of a new teaching-learning
strategy for undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 59, 26–32.
Bai, Y. (2015). Good and bad simultaneously?: Leaders using dialectical thinking foster positive
conflict and employee performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 26, 245–267.
Basseches, M. (2005). The development of dialectical thinking as an approach to integration.
Integral Review, 1, 47–63.
Cheng, C. (2009). Dialectical thinking and coping flexibility: A multimethod approach. Journal of
Personality, 77, 471–494.
Chiu, C. Y. (2000). Assessment of Zhong-Yong (dialectical) thinking. Preliminary findings from a
cross-regional study. Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences, 18, 33−55. [赵志裕. (2000). 中庸思维
的测量: 一项跨地区研究的初步结果. 香港社会科学学报, 18, 33–55.].
Danielson, J., Preast, V., Bender, H., & Hassall, L. (2014). Is the effectiveness of lecture capture
related to teaching approach or content type? Computers & Education, 72, 121–131.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. Dispositions, skills,
structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.
Hilbert, M. (2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can
bias human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 211–237.
Holloman, H., & Yates, P. H. (2013). Cloudy with a chance of sarcasm or sunny with high
expectations: Using best practice language to strengthen positive behavior intervention and
support efforts. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 124–127.
12
X. LI ET AL.
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552.
Li, X., Zhou, M., Zhao, N., Zhang, S., & Zhang, J. (2015). Collective-efficacy as a mediator of the
relationship of leaders’ personality traits and team performance: A cross-level analysis.
International Journal of Psychology, 50, 223–231.
Lomas, T., & Ivtzan, I. (2015). Second wave positive psychology: Exploring the positive–Negative
dialectics of wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 1–16.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American
Psychologist, 54, 741–754.
Temple, M. A. (2010). Using debate to develop health literacy. Journal of School Health, 67,
116–117.
Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169–184.
Wu, C. H., & Lin, Y. C. (2005). Development of a zhong-yong thinking style scale. Indigenous
Psychology Research in Chinese Society, 24, 247–300.
Zhang, X. Y., Gao, D. G., & Hua, F. U. (2011). Dialectical thinking reduces aggressive tendencies. Acta
Psychologica Sinica, 43, 42–51.