What is Controversy? Exercise

Objectives:

This exercise will enable students to:

define controversy.
understand causes and dangers of controversy.
understand differences between dialogue and debate as a means of communication.
recognize the positive benefits of controversy in understanding multiple perspectives of an issue.

Background:

Controversy is not an easy concept for students to understand. Frequently, students view controversy as a negative experience that is associated with conflict. However, dealing with controversy is essential in order to view and weigh multiple perspectives of issues effectively. As a result, conflict resolution skills can be enhanced.

This activity will provide students with a safe environment to understand what controversy is, and also cause them to think about dangers and benefitsm that result from controversy.

Materials:

Butcher paper
Felt pens
"What is Controversy" topic questions sheet
Dialogue vs. debate sheet

Procedure:

Assign the students into cooperative groups of four. Have students designated recorder, facilitator, reader and enforcer roles.
Hand out the following topic questions:
- Define controversy. (one sentence)
- Name three causes of controversy.
- Name three possible benefits which can result from controversy.
- List three dangers resulting from controversy?
After cooperatively answering the topic questions, have the recorder write their group response on a sheet of butcher paper.
Give each group an opportunity to share their responses and reasons for their responses.
Establish class consensus of all reponses to topic questions. Write out and post responses for class to see.
Handout discussion sheet on "Dialogue vs. Debate."
Students meet with their cooperative groups, and discuss the difference between dialogue and debate. Afterwards, have them list five examples of each.
Once students have developed this list, have each group place on butcher paper and openly discuss and defend their list to the whole class. You may also use an overhead projector for this activity.

Course Outline For Teaching Creationism vs. Evolution

Thursday	At end of period, assign preessay on "What is Creation and Evolution?"
Friday	Essays due. Assign reading of Scopes Trial (Great Trials in American History) "What is Controversy?" activity.
Monday	Discuss Scopes Trial (1925). Complete questions p. 35, due tomorrow.
Tuesday	Prepare defense for moot court on Scopes Trial of today.
Wednesday	Prepare for moot court.
Thursday	Moot court-Scopes vs. Tennessee
Friday	Speaker-Marilyn Cover, law professor, Lewis and Clark College, Northwestem School of Law. Topic: Case Law. Hand out law related case articles on Creation vs. Evolution. (Begin preparation for moot court on Friday ) Develop outlines for creationist or evolutionist defense.
Monday	Speaker-Dean Griffith, ordained clergyman and developer of creationist science curriculum: Topic: Scientific Creationism.
Tuesday	Speaker-Steve Seavey, professor of biology, Lewis and Clark College. Topic: Evolution.
Wednesday	Quiz over law related cases. Defense preparation time.
Thursday	Defense preparation time.
Friday	Moot court in auditorium. Case outlines due today. (per. 2, 3, @ 4)
Monday	Assign post-essay "What is Creation and Evolution?" (written in class).

COMPARISON OF DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

This paper was prepared by Shelley Berman but grew out of discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for social Responsibility -- whose members also included Lucile Burt, Dick Mayo-Smith, Lally Stowell, and Gene Thompson.

Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding	Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong
In dialogue finding common ground is the goal	In debate winning is the goal
In dialogue one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning, and find agreement	In debate one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments
Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participant's point of view	Debate affirms a participant's own point of view
Dialogue complicates positions and issues	Debate simplifies positions and issues
Dialogue reveals assumptions for reevaluation	Debate defends assumptions as truth
Dialogue causes introspection on one's own position	Debate causes critique of the other position
It is acceptable to change one's position	It is a sign of weakness and defeat to change one's position
Dialogue is flexible in nature	Debate is rigid in nature
Dialogue stresses the skill of synthesis	Debate stresses the skill of analysis
Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than either of the original solutions	Debate defends one's own position as the best solution and excludes other solutions
Dialogue strives for multiplicity in perspective	Debate strives for singularity in perspective
Dialogue affirms the relationship between the participants through collaboration	Debate affirms one's own strength in opposition to other points of view
Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and to change	Debate creates a closed-minded attitude, a determination to be right
In dialogue one submits one's best thinking, knowing that other peoples' reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it	In debate one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenges to show that it is right
Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs	Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs
In dialogue one searches for basic agreements	In debate one searches for glaring differences
In dialogue one searches for strengths in the other position	In debate one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position
Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend	Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other position
Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable answer	Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it
Dialogue encourages de-polarization of an issue	Debate encourages polarization of an issue
In dialogue everyone is part of the solution to the problem	In debate one person or viewpoint wins over the other
Dialogue affirms the idea of people learning from each other	Debate affirms the idea of people learning individually in competition with others
Dialogue remains open-ended	Debate implies a conclusion

See Lesson Plan for Scopes Trial Activity

The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation

webmaster@woodrow.org
CN 5281, Princeton NJ 08543-5281

Tel:(609)452-7007

Fax:(609)452-0066