| Abstract: | The effects of two types of structured academic conflict, controversy and debate, were compared with individual study in a study on desegregation. Seventy-two sixth grade students were assigned to conditions on a stratified random basis controlling for sex, reading ability, and ethnic membership. In all three conditions students studied a controversial issue with materials representing both pro and con views. In the controversy condition each learning group was divided into two pairs representing the pro and con sides. In the debate condition each member of a learning group was assigned a pro or con position to represent in a debate with the other three members. In the individualistic condition subjects were told to learn the material without interacting with other students and each student was given all the pro and con materials. The results indicate that controversy promotes the most cross-ethnic verbal rehearsal and exchange of the assigned material, the most concern that all students master the assigned material, the most active search for more information about the topic being studied, the most reevaluation of one's position and incorporation of opponents' arguments, the most liking for the subject matter and the instructional experience, the highest self-esteem, and the most accepting and supportive relationships among minority and majority students. The debate condition generated higher levels of these dependent variables than did individualistic study. |
