Debating for persuasion versus debating for deliberation: the effect of differing communicative goals on disciplinary knowledge construction

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 it matters

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

• 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.

Source

Frontiers in Education — https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2026.1855663