I wonder if this activity (taking sides on an issue or subject) is something that happens in the workplace? Maybe a chef & sous-chef each defending their choice of dessert for a really important dinner? Or deciding whether to add a gluten-free menu even though it would mean extra expense? If this kind of thing does happen, maybe this would be a really worthwhile exercise to help students learn how to argue their point convincingly & accurately (i.e. WITHOUT the mayhem & confrontation).
I like when the debate is placed more in a scenario context, as Gina has suggested. Her example is not asking me, as a student, for a truly personal opinion, only to argue one side of an issue (while being able to see both sides).
I'm glad you brought this question forward Jeff. As an instructor, and a moderator of the discussion forum, I find I often have a fear of treading too closely to a controversial topic that could be heated and personal, potentially making it difficult to discuss politely and professionally (I'm worried about things getting out of control, inappropriate behaviour and students getting offended). I also like the idea of waiting to do something like this before you have a better sense of the group, and what type of controversial topics you feel they may be ready to wade into (as Alice suggested).
I'm developing an ethics course at the moment so this will be something I will be thinking about too..
Thanks for voicing this fear Faith. I'm sure we've all felt this trepidation.
I'm wondering if the group has ideas to support how to effectively set the scene in order to feel more comfortable that you can ask more controversial discussion prompts. I think that even though controversy can be difficult, it could also lead to some pretty major 'aha' learning moments if handled well.
In the book, Design for How People Learn (by Julie Dirksen), she quotes Jonathan Haidt, who talks about the brain being like a rider and an elephant:
The rider is...conscious, controlled thought. The elephant, in contrast, is everything else. The elephant includes the gut feelings, visceral reactions, emotions, and intuitions that comprise much of the automatic system.
So Dirksen basically says that when designing learning we need to talk to the elephant to get learner's attention. (But I add on to this, we need to have some "rider control" in there somewhere so that students and faculty can feel and be safe in those discussions...)
One thing I could suggest is to do some sort of group agreements activity at the start of the course, having the group generate how they are going to work together and communicate with each other throughout the course.
Others may have more experience facilitating through conflict or controversy than I...does anyone else have something to offer up here?