Policy Debate Pedagogy

I wasn’t quite sure where to go from the last work, so I started from scratch with my research process.  I typed “pedagogy of engagement” in the hopes of getting something a bit more focused on what I can actually do in the classroom.  I was slightly nervous about my results since I was very vague and none too specific.  I was really surprised with the first source that popped up.  At first, I doubted it would be useful or reliable—it had the words ‘Policy debate pedagogy’ and I automatically thought that would mean this was meant for high school.  I read the abstract anyway, and found I was very mistaken.  This article, titled “Policy debate pedagogy: a complementary strategy for civic and political engagement through service learning” (2016) by Danielle R. Leek was about a specific type of engagement learning that I could do in my classroom.  The focus was on ‘policy debate pedagogy’ where students learn about argument as a means for problem-solving with multiple ways of solving a problem rather than partisan ones.  The article first focused on ‘service-learning pedagogy’ which was heavily emphasized after U.S. Congress passed the National and Community Service Act in 1990 which was followed by President Bill Clinton’s National and Community Service Trust Act in 1993 (399). These acts encouraged service-learning pedagogies.  “Service-learning is a type of experiential curriculum that calls for students to engage in structured opportunities to work with community partners to solve a problem (Flecky, 2011)” (399).  This philosophy was developed by Dewey (1916), focusing on the need for democratic action as a part of student’s education.  Although service-learning has many benefits, the main opposition with service-learning looks at the simplicity of it—students’ experiences may not motivate them to understand the broader social policies and political dimensions that pertain to a policy.  Instead, students may only rely on their experiences and not consider anything beyond that.  To fix this issue, Leek suggests Instructors incorporate public policy debates into the classroom.  “students need concurrent attention to political learning, which encourages engagement with public policy and electoral issues, while fostering opportunities to build skills needed for political activities (Colby, 2008)” (400).  Students are able to consider a course of action for actual institutions and they learn the skills necessary to participate in political debates and their government.  Leek suggests setting aside time for students to debate relevant policy questions and to engage in multiple perspectives.  She also believes this type of pedagogy enhances information literacy which, in turn, engages students in informed learning.  She also considers this as a pedagogy that builds tolerance for difference and differing opinions.  With this pedagogy, students can better understand social problems, gain knowledge about sources, and “mitigate the absence of fact-finding from traditional institutions” (404).

I thought this article was fabulous!  This type of pedagogy is a specific type of engagement that could be developed for an argument and exposition course.  The only thing I feel like I need more of, concerning this pedagogy, is more specific and concrete examples.  As I read this, I tried to think of ways I can control the specific types of argument we engage in in a classroom (I don’t want my students to get overwhelmed with the amount of policies we could debate and instead prefer focusing on one or two).  I also tried to think about how to make this so students are engaging with society and actual policies while doing this.  I thought it would be neat to look at a specific policy and to have our final argument paper as a letter where we contact our representatives arguing for a specific policy position and asking them to represent our interest and needs.  I love that idea—I just have to figure out how to get there.  I also found myself wondering how I can engage with this pedagogy NOW, with The Complete Persepolis.  I’d really like to see my student’s arguments go somewhere where they can engage with the public and not just our classroom and classmates.