Structured Academic Controversy
What is a Structured Academic Controversy?
According to a document from http://daretodifferentiate.wikispaces.com/Structured+Academic+Controversy:
“Controversy can fuel some great discussions and cultivate rich thinking and language. Developed by David and Roger Johnson (Johnson & Johnson, 1995), structured academic controversies (SAC) emphasize communication, perspective-taking, and problem-solving. And unlike debates, students work together to collaborate on a resolution to the controversy after they have taken both sides of the issue. Also, SACs are easier to put together and facilitate in a class period, they are less competitive—there is no ‘winner’ or ‘loser.’"
"The basic steps are as follows:
“Controversy can fuel some great discussions and cultivate rich thinking and language. Developed by David and Roger Johnson (Johnson & Johnson, 1995), structured academic controversies (SAC) emphasize communication, perspective-taking, and problem-solving. And unlike debates, students work together to collaborate on a resolution to the controversy after they have taken both sides of the issue. Also, SACs are easier to put together and facilitate in a class period, they are less competitive—there is no ‘winner’ or ‘loser.’"
"The basic steps are as follows:
- Students get in groups of four and pick an issue.
- Students split up into pairs and take sides of the issue. They research this side of the issue and develop logical, compelling, well-reasoned arguments.
- Groups of four form again and present their arguments. As one pair presents, the other pair listens, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.
- Both sides discuss their positions and try to respectfully and academically challenge the other positions.
- Pairs switch sides of the issue, split apart briefly to discuss and look for the most persuasive arguments to defend the side that they had previously argued against.
- Students get back into groups to defend their new sides.
- Groups select the best reasoning from both sides and synthesize them into a new position to which all can agree. Since both pairs took both sides, it is more likely that they will not compete as they draft a synthesis. They write a short report that explains their discussion and conclusions.”