Active Learning: Beyond Structured Debates in Political Science Pedagogy

Abstract

Abstract We examine the impact of two types of active learning—traditional standardized debate and the newer value-line debate, both under-studied in political science pedagogy—on students. Our study argues that value-line debate is as valuable as the more structured debate, based on student perceptions of learning outcomes through Likert-format survey data (n = 105) across 8 key variables. Therefore, we argue that employment of a combination of debate styles in the classroom is a sensible pedagogical approach. We also argue that upper-level students rate debating experiences higher than introductory-level students rate theirs. In short, one can infer from our research that faculty in a normative sense should be reassured about employing either the newer value-line approach or traditional structured debate type.