Constructive Controversy for Beginners: Developing Cognitive, Social, and Language Skills
By: Harumi Kimura
Among the Best of 2024
Readers chose this article as one of the best from all of 2024! Check out the other nominees with the button below.
I have a problem in my “English Communication” class. It’s a required class for first-year university students. They are non-English majors. They practice spoken language interaction in the class. Students are visibly active when talking about everyday topics, such as music they like, fashion labels they prefer, movies or dramas they have recently watched, restaurants and cafes they like. They even share some bad experiences they have had in the past, like when they’ve lost something important or they’ve made a terrible mistake at a crucial moment. They are attentive to each other. They are patient when their partner or groupmate is having trouble expressing themselves in English. Nobody dominates the interaction. Nobody is left out. I see smiles on their faces and occasionally hear laughter here and there ringing through the classroom.
Their intonation is rather flat, and their speech is accented, but they make full use of non-verbal communication tools, such as eye contact and body movement, as well as their language resources. Sometimes they switch to Japanese, but I pretend I’m not overhearing as long as they switch back to English in no time. When they don’t, I approach them and make a tapping sound on one of their desks to remind them that they should try to stay in English. They chuckle and get back to English, struggling a bit to make a fresh start. I can say that they are developing a sense of friendship and are supporting one another while engaged in L2 interaction, a humble example of the tribal classroom where students build a meaningful connection with each other in a safe environment (Cozolino, 2013) to learn social skills along with the language.
You may ask, “What’s the issue here?” Well, talking about everyday topics goes well, but when it comes to discussing, for example, the pros and cons of social media, their interaction seems less active or lively, with longer awkward silent periods, less eye contact, and less animation in their facial expressions. I understand that discussing those issues is linguistically more challenging than talking about everyday topics, but students do not seem to be willing to start or join such deliberate discussions. They become less active even with questions like “Should/Could a husband and a wife be best friends?” and “Is it a good idea to spend a lot of money to buy quality clothes?” I’m afraid their hesitance or reluctance stems from more than language issues. They are not comfortable with declaring opinions or sounding argumentative.
The other day, a group of tourists from the States visited our school and joined one of our English classes as guests. They were a group of older, retired people. It was likely the first time for most of the students to talk with foreign visitors in English. They tried hard to express themselves. It seemed like both the guests and students were having a good time chatting about a variety of things. However, some of the guests said later that the students had difficulty sharing their opinions. One of them gave me an example. He told the students he heard that a convenience store in Yamanashi had installed a large black plastic sheet in front of the store to block the view of Mt. Fuji. Foreign tourists flock together to take a picture of Mt. Fuji sitting on the roof of the store across the street. It makes a good photo! Some of the tourists blocked traffic while others tried to cross the busy street and almost caused traffic accidents. Local parking spaces were full of rental cars. Neighbors got annoyed and upset. The foreign guest wanted to hear what the Japanese students had in mind to say about this issue and asked, “Do you think it is a shame that the convenience store solved the problem that way?” or “Can you think of some other, more creative, or better way to make all the parties happy: the store, the residents, foreign tourists, and other shoppers?” No student responded. Awkward, lingering silence followed.
It seems culturally unsettling for L1 Japanese speakers, especially women, to make points on an issue in public. In their culture, the priority is to preserve group harmony and avoid confrontation or disagreement (Meyer, 2014). Maybe so, but I hope students will experience exchanging ideas and sharing different viewpoints with others, whether classmates or foreign guests. Actively participating in discussion by brain-storming, exploring issues, or problem-solving is an academic skill students need to develop (Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2010). Eliciting opinions from other members is a social skill they need to foster (Lieberman, 2013). Language classrooms, where they’ve already built good social relationships, are the perfect environment to learn to express their own ideas publicly and in some cases disagree agreeably and respectfully (Jacobs et al., 2002).
Constructive controversy
How can we promote discussion, or meaningful dialogs, on social issues in language classrooms? One way to do it is, I think, to have students experience a procedure called “constructive controversy,” which involves a deliberate, structured discussion for examining incompatible positions with one another (Johnson et al., 2000). It is similar to debate, but there are two major differences. First, the two teams swap perspectives in the second round (Step 7). Second, there should be no winner or loser at the end (Step 9). Instead, both parties synthesize the discussion and seek a joint position together. Here is the procedure:
- Choose an issue with two differing points of view.
- Make two groups.
- Assign one position to one group and the opposite position to the other group.
Students then: - Research and discuss the issue in their group.
- Advocate their position to the other group.
- Have an open discussion.
- Switch positions.
- Advocate the new positions.
- Have another open discussion to explore the issue (and reach a creative solution when possible).
- Evaluate group work.
Participants listen to what the other group advocates (Step 5) not to refute or attack, but to understand the other perspective. Thus, the ensuing discussion does not end with arguments for the sake of arguments. It becomes a more constructive exchange of opinions in which the students carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of each perspective. This procedure appears less intimidating and more productive than debate. It helps participants to think more deeply, appreciate different perspectives, and thus build cognitive flexibility.
Cognitive flexibility is one of the key executive functions of our brain (Diamond, 2013). It involves seeing something from different perspectives or switching perspectives. When we see an object in space, the same object looks different when viewed from different directions. Instead of physically moving around the object, we can think about how it looks when seen from another direction and make a mental image. This requires cognitive flexibility. By extension, we can also ask such philosophical questions as whether money can buy happiness or not, and weigh both positions, which also requires cognitive flexibility. Interpersonally, it is about putting ourselves in another person’s shoes, relating in mind to others and seeing things from their perspectives. We all need to develop this cognitive flexibility to live in peace with others in this globally connected world, right?
That said, for learners like mine, it is still challenging to take one side of an issue and argue for it logically. So, I modified one activity, actually a grammar-learning activity from an activity book (Savage & Ward, 2020) to first have students practice should and shouldn’t, and then have them move on to making their points in a “constructive controversy” way.
Practicing should and shouldn’t in a “constructive controversy” way
In the activity, a student describes a dilemma, fake or real, like “My boss wants me to come in on Saturday. The deadline of our current work project is coming up soon and we are a bit behind. But I have a high school reunion this Saturday. I’ve been looking forward to it. Quite a few of my old friends will come. What should I do?” The other students create an alley by standing in two lines face-to-face, keeping enough room for the student who has shared the dilemma to walk through. Students on the right give advice using should and students on the left do so with shouldn’t in turn. Either way, students need to explain the reason(s) for their position. After all the students have made suggestions, the student who asked for advice and walked through the alley declares her decision, like this: “I’ll tell my boss I cannot work on Saturday. I have a high-school reunion. I’m willing to work overtime a few days next week so that our team will be able to keep the deadline,” and she joins one of the lines. In the original activity, another student from the other line moves to the end of the alley and describes her dilemma, and receives advice.
However, in my version, a “constructive controversy” stage comes before the decision announcement. The two lines of students switch should and shouldn’t places and roles. This is the fun part. They have advocated one thing and soon after that they have to promote/defend the opposite. They do it giggling and grinning. This stage is not just for having fun, though. Students often repeat what the other party has just said, with only minor changes language-wise. This is also the time for meaningful repetition. After this second stage, the advice-seeker announces their decision.
There is a caveat here. This procedure takes time, twice as much in my version as the original. I recommend you make small groups in your class, say about seven, where students do the activity with one advice-seeker, three should students, and three shouldn’t students in their group.
Starting with personal problems, we can then move on to social issues. One of the issues I tried with my students was “Are solar-power plants really for environment protection or destruction? Can we say they produce green energy? Trees are being cut down to install a huge number of solar panels. We are actually losing forests.” To make a long story short, what do you think they came up with after arguing both sides of the issue? It was that solar panels should be installed on the roofs of all residences, with full government funding. Installing solar panels is good, but the problem is “where.” They reconceptualized the issue and came up with an original solution. They experienced cognitive flexibility.
Skills they learn (and practice)
As we have seen, taking different perspectives and coming up with creative solutions involves cognitive flexibility. Working with others requires social skills to produce high-quality interaction and build positive relationships among classmates. These social skills include knowing what to say, and when and how to say it: a critical speaking skill (Jacobs et al., 2002). In accordance with their cultural values, students practice carefully planned language in discussions to make their statements sound less certain, less bold, or less direct, and thus less harmful interpersonally. For example, instead of saying “No,” they may want to use “Not really.” Thus, by implementing the idea of constructive controversy in language classrooms even for beginners, learners’ gains can be extensive: cognitive, social, and linguistic. Now they are ready to engage with the world, or with another group of foreign guests.
References
Cozolino, L. (2013). The social neuroscience of education. W. W. Norton
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 35–68. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A., & Loh, W. I. (2002). The teacher’s sourcebook for cooperative learning: Practical techniques, basic principles, and frequently asked questions. Corwin Press.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Tjosvold, D. (2000). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 65–85). Jossey-Bas.
Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. Random House.
Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Decoding how people think, lead, and get things done across cultures. Public Affairs.
Savage, A., & Ward, C. (2020). 60 kinesthetic grammar activities. Alphabet Publishing.
Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2010). Mind, brain, and education science: A comprehensive guide to the new brain-based teaching. W. W. Norton.
Harumi Kimura is a professor at Miyagi Gakuin Women’s University. She studied L2 listening anxiety in her doctoral study, and her academic interests include second language acquisition, learner development, learner psychology, multilingualism, and cooperative learning. She thinks that her mission is “to make learning another language less intimidating and a bit more rewarding plus fun.”