publisher
Debating for persuasion versus debating for deliberation: the effect of differing communicative goals on disciplinary knowledge construction
- Source
- Frontiers in Education
- Published
- Last verified
- 19 Aug 2026
- Confidence
- Moderate
- Evidence
- Original document retained
- Reading time
- 1 min
- Country
- International
- Relevant to
- Operations & Delivery, Research & Evidence
Executive summary
What happened, and why should leadership care?
The provided text outlines a research study investigating the impact of different debate methodologies on the construction of disciplinary knowledge among university students. The study aims to compare the effects of debates designed for persuasion versus those designed for deliberation on psychology students' learning, acknowledging the theoretical benefits of active learning methods like debate for knowledge acquisition.
Why this matters
Why is this strategically important?
Understanding the efficacy of different pedagogical approaches, such as debate, is crucial for optimizing educational outcomes and curriculum design. Identifying which communicative goals in active learning foster superior knowledge construction can inform educational policy and institutional strategies for student development across various disciplines.
Key insights
What should be noted from the evidence?
- The study acknowledges the complexity and challenge of learning disciplinary knowledge in university education.
- Active methodologies, such as debate, are theorized to promote learning through argumentation, which is key to knowledge construction.
- A research gap exists in measuring the effect of different debate objectives on disciplinary learning.
- The purpose of the study is to determine the effect of two distinct debate designs (persuasive vs. deliberative objectives) on psychology students' disciplinary knowledge construction.
- A mixed repeated measures design was implemented involving 43 students.
Evidence and confidence
How far can this assessment be trusted?
Moderate confidence. Provenance established; supporting evidence remains partial.
Analysis is prepared editorially by Aziz Shuaib Ausi. The original publication remains the authoritative record, and executive judgement remains entirely human.
Source
Where does this originate?
Reported by Frontiers in Education · International. This briefing summarises the publication for executive use; the document itself is not reproduced here.
Read the original publication