problem solving debate

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2023

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature

• Enwei Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-8169 1 ,
• Wei Wang 1 &
• Qingxia Wang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  16 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

21 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely embraced in the classroom instruction of critical thinking, which is regarded as the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education as well as a key competence for learners in the 21st century. However, the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking remains uncertain. This current research presents the major findings of a meta-analysis of 36 pieces of the literature revealed in worldwide educational periodicals during the 21st century to identify the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and to determine, based on evidence, whether and to what extent collaborative problem solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. The findings show that (1) collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster students’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]); (2) in respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem solving can significantly and successfully enhance students’ attitudinal tendencies (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.58, 0.82]); and (3) the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have an impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. On the basis of these results, recommendations are made for further study and instruction to better support students’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Similar content being viewed by others

A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning

Fostering twenty-first century skills among primary school students through math project-based learning

A meta-analysis to gauge the impact of pedagogies employed in mixed-ability high school biology classrooms

Introduction.

Although critical thinking has a long history in research, the concept of critical thinking, which is regarded as an essential competence for learners in the 21st century, has recently attracted more attention from researchers and teaching practitioners (National Research Council, 2012 ). Critical thinking should be the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education (Peng and Deng, 2017 ) because students with critical thinking can not only understand the meaning of knowledge but also effectively solve practical problems in real life even after knowledge is forgotten (Kek and Huijser, 2011 ). The definition of critical thinking is not universal (Ennis, 1989 ; Castle, 2009 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). In general, the definition of critical thinking is a self-aware and self-regulated thought process (Facione, 1990 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). It refers to the cognitive skills needed to interpret, analyze, synthesize, reason, and evaluate information as well as the attitudinal tendency to apply these abilities (Halpern, 2001 ). The view that critical thinking can be taught and learned through curriculum teaching has been widely supported by many researchers (e.g., Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), leading to educators’ efforts to foster it among students. In the field of teaching practice, there are three types of courses for teaching critical thinking (Ennis, 1989 ). The first is an independent curriculum in which critical thinking is taught and cultivated without involving the knowledge of specific disciplines; the second is an integrated curriculum in which critical thinking is integrated into the teaching of other disciplines as a clear teaching goal; and the third is a mixed curriculum in which critical thinking is taught in parallel to the teaching of other disciplines for mixed teaching training. Furthermore, numerous measuring tools have been developed by researchers and educators to measure critical thinking in the context of teaching practice. These include standardized measurement tools, such as WGCTA, CCTST, CCTT, and CCTDI, which have been verified by repeated experiments and are considered effective and reliable by international scholars (Facione and Facione, 1992 ). In short, descriptions of critical thinking, including its two dimensions of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, different types of teaching courses, and standardized measurement tools provide a complex normative framework for understanding, teaching, and evaluating critical thinking.

Cultivating critical thinking in curriculum teaching can start with a problem, and one of the most popular critical thinking instructional approaches is problem-based learning (Liu et al., 2020 ). Duch et al. ( 2001 ) noted that problem-based learning in group collaboration is progressive active learning, which can improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Collaborative problem-solving is the organic integration of collaborative learning and problem-based learning, which takes learners as the center of the learning process and uses problems with poor structure in real-world situations as the starting point for the learning process (Liang et al., 2017 ). Students learn the knowledge needed to solve problems in a collaborative group, reach a consensus on problems in the field, and form solutions through social cooperation methods, such as dialogue, interpretation, questioning, debate, negotiation, and reflection, thus promoting the development of learners’ domain knowledge and critical thinking (Cindy, 2004 ; Liang et al., 2017 ).

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely used in the teaching practice of critical thinking, and several studies have attempted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature on critical thinking from various perspectives. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking. Therefore, the best approach for developing and enhancing critical thinking throughout collaborative problem-solving is to examine how to implement critical thinking instruction; however, this issue is still unexplored, which means that many teachers are incapable of better instructing critical thinking (Leng and Lu, 2020 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). For example, Huber ( 2016 ) provided the meta-analysis findings of 71 publications on gaining critical thinking over various time frames in college with the aim of determining whether critical thinking was truly teachable. These authors found that learners significantly improve their critical thinking while in college and that critical thinking differs with factors such as teaching strategies, intervention duration, subject area, and teaching type. The usefulness of collaborative problem-solving in fostering students’ critical thinking, however, was not determined by this study, nor did it reveal whether there existed significant variations among the different elements. A meta-analysis of 31 pieces of educational literature was conducted by Liu et al. ( 2020 ) to assess the impact of problem-solving on college students’ critical thinking. These authors found that problem-solving could promote the development of critical thinking among college students and proposed establishing a reasonable group structure for problem-solving in a follow-up study to improve students’ critical thinking. Additionally, previous empirical studies have reached inconclusive and even contradictory conclusions about whether and to what extent collaborative problem-solving increases or decreases critical thinking levels. As an illustration, Yang et al. ( 2008 ) carried out an experiment on the integrated curriculum teaching of college students based on a web bulletin board with the goal of fostering participants’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These authors’ research revealed that through sharing, debating, examining, and reflecting on various experiences and ideas, collaborative problem-solving can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking in real-life problem situations. In contrast, collaborative problem-solving had a positive impact on learners’ interaction and could improve learning interest and motivation but could not significantly improve students’ critical thinking when compared to traditional classroom teaching, according to research by Naber and Wyatt ( 2014 ) and Sendag and Odabasi ( 2009 ) on undergraduate and high school students, respectively.

The above studies show that there is inconsistency regarding the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough and trustworthy review to detect and decide whether and to what degree collaborative problem-solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. Meta-analysis is a quantitative analysis approach that is utilized to examine quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. This approach characterizes the effectiveness of its impact by averaging the effect sizes of numerous qualitative studies in an effort to reduce the uncertainty brought on by independent research and produce more conclusive findings (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ).

This paper used a meta-analytic approach and carried out a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking in order to make a contribution to both research and practice. The following research questions were addressed by this meta-analysis:

What is the overall effect size of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills)?

How are the disparities between the study conclusions impacted by various moderating variables if the impacts of various experimental designs in the included studies are heterogeneous?

This research followed the strict procedures (e.g., database searching, identification, screening, eligibility, merging, duplicate removal, and analysis of included studies) of Cooper’s ( 2010 ) proposed meta-analysis approach for examining quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. The relevant empirical research that appeared in worldwide educational periodicals within the 21st century was subjected to this meta-analysis using Rev-Man 5.4. The consistency of the data extracted separately by two researchers was tested using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and a publication bias test and a heterogeneity test were run on the sample data to ascertain the quality of this meta-analysis.

Data sources and search strategies

There were three stages to the data collection process for this meta-analysis, as shown in Fig. 1 , which shows the number of articles included and eliminated during the selection process based on the statement and study eligibility criteria.

This flowchart shows the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

First, the databases used to systematically search for relevant articles were the journal papers of the Web of Science Core Collection and the Chinese Core source journal, as well as the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) source journal papers included in CNKI. These databases were selected because they are credible platforms that are sources of scholarly and peer-reviewed information with advanced search tools and contain literature relevant to the subject of our topic from reliable researchers and experts. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the Web of Science was “TS = (((“critical thinking” or “ct” and “pretest” or “posttest”) or (“critical thinking” or “ct” and “control group” or “quasi experiment” or “experiment”)) and (“collaboration” or “collaborative learning” or “CSCL”) and (“problem solving” or “problem-based learning” or “PBL”))”. The research area was “Education Educational Research”, and the search period was “January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2021”. A total of 412 papers were obtained. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the CNKI was “SU = (‘critical thinking’*‘collaboration’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘collaborative learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘CSCL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem solving’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem-based learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘PBL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem oriented’) AND FT = (‘experiment’ + ‘quasi experiment’ + ‘pretest’ + ‘posttest’ + ‘empirical study’)” (translated into Chinese when searching). A total of 56 studies were found throughout the search period of “January 2000 to December 2021”. From the databases, all duplicates and retractions were eliminated before exporting the references into Endnote, a program for managing bibliographic references. In all, 466 studies were found.

Second, the studies that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were chosen by two researchers after they had reviewed the abstracts and titles of the gathered articles, yielding a total of 126 studies.

Third, two researchers thoroughly reviewed each included article’s whole text in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meanwhile, a snowball search was performed using the references and citations of the included articles to ensure complete coverage of the articles. Ultimately, 36 articles were kept.

Two researchers worked together to carry out this entire process, and a consensus rate of almost 94.7% was reached after discussion and negotiation to clarify any emerging differences.

Eligibility criteria

Since not all the retrieved studies matched the criteria for this meta-analysis, eligibility criteria for both inclusion and exclusion were developed as follows:

The publication language of the included studies was limited to English and Chinese, and the full text could be obtained. Articles that did not meet the publication language and articles not published between 2000 and 2021 were excluded.

The research design of the included studies must be empirical and quantitative studies that can assess the effect of collaborative problem-solving on the development of critical thinking. Articles that could not identify the causal mechanisms by which collaborative problem-solving affects critical thinking, such as review articles and theoretical articles, were excluded.

The research method of the included studies must feature a randomized control experiment or a quasi-experiment, or a natural experiment, which have a higher degree of internal validity with strong experimental designs and can all plausibly provide evidence that critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving are causally related. Articles with non-experimental research methods, such as purely correlational or observational studies, were excluded.

The participants of the included studies were only students in school, including K-12 students and college students. Articles in which the participants were non-school students, such as social workers or adult learners, were excluded.

The research results of the included studies must mention definite signs that may be utilized to gauge critical thinking’s impact (e.g., sample size, mean value, or standard deviation). Articles that lacked specific measurement indicators for critical thinking and could not calculate the effect size were excluded.

Data coding design

In order to perform a meta-analysis, it is necessary to collect the most important information from the articles, codify that information’s properties, and convert descriptive data into quantitative data. Therefore, this study designed a data coding template (see Table 1 ). Ultimately, 16 coding fields were retained.

The designed data-coding template consisted of three pieces of information. Basic information about the papers was included in the descriptive information: the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper.

The variable information for the experimental design had three variables: the independent variable (instruction method), the dependent variable (critical thinking), and the moderating variable (learning stage, teaching type, intervention duration, learning scaffold, group size, measuring tool, and subject area). Depending on the topic of this study, the intervention strategy, as the independent variable, was coded into collaborative and non-collaborative problem-solving. The dependent variable, critical thinking, was coded as a cognitive skill and an attitudinal tendency. And seven moderating variables were created by grouping and combining the experimental design variables discovered within the 36 studies (see Table 1 ), where learning stages were encoded as higher education, high school, middle school, and primary school or lower; teaching types were encoded as mixed courses, integrated courses, and independent courses; intervention durations were encoded as 0–1 weeks, 1–4 weeks, 4–12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks; group sizes were encoded as 2–3 persons, 4–6 persons, 7–10 persons, and more than 10 persons; learning scaffolds were encoded as teacher-supported learning scaffold, technique-supported learning scaffold, and resource-supported learning scaffold; measuring tools were encoded as standardized measurement tools (e.g., WGCTA, CCTT, CCTST, and CCTDI) and self-adapting measurement tools (e.g., modified or made by researchers); and subject areas were encoded according to the specific subjects used in the 36 included studies.

The data information contained three metrics for measuring critical thinking: sample size, average value, and standard deviation. It is vital to remember that studies with various experimental designs frequently adopt various formulas to determine the effect size. And this paper used Morris’ proposed standardized mean difference (SMD) calculation formula ( 2008 , p. 369; see Supplementary Table S3 ).

Procedure for extracting and coding data

According to the data coding template (see Table 1 ), the 36 papers’ information was retrieved by two researchers, who then entered them into Excel (see Supplementary Table S1 ). The results of each study were extracted separately in the data extraction procedure if an article contained numerous studies on critical thinking, or if a study assessed different critical thinking dimensions. For instance, Tiwari et al. ( 2010 ) used four time points, which were viewed as numerous different studies, to examine the outcomes of critical thinking, and Chen ( 2013 ) included the two outcome variables of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, which were regarded as two studies. After discussion and negotiation during data extraction, the two researchers’ consistency test coefficients were roughly 93.27%. Supplementary Table S2 details the key characteristics of the 36 included articles with 79 effect quantities, including descriptive information (e.g., the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper), variable information (e.g., independent variables, dependent variables, and moderating variables), and data information (e.g., mean values, standard deviations, and sample size). Following that, testing for publication bias and heterogeneity was done on the sample data using the Rev-Man 5.4 software, and then the test results were used to conduct a meta-analysis.

Publication bias test

When the sample of studies included in a meta-analysis does not accurately reflect the general status of research on the relevant subject, publication bias is said to be exhibited in this research. The reliability and accuracy of the meta-analysis may be impacted by publication bias. Due to this, the meta-analysis needs to check the sample data for publication bias (Stewart et al., 2006 ). A popular method to check for publication bias is the funnel plot; and it is unlikely that there will be publishing bias when the data are equally dispersed on either side of the average effect size and targeted within the higher region. The data are equally dispersed within the higher portion of the efficient zone, consistent with the funnel plot connected with this analysis (see Fig. 2 ), indicating that publication bias is unlikely in this situation.

This funnel plot shows the result of publication bias of 79 effect quantities across 36 studies.

Heterogeneity test

To select the appropriate effect models for the meta-analysis, one might use the results of a heterogeneity test on the data effect sizes. In a meta-analysis, it is common practice to gauge the degree of data heterogeneity using the I 2 value, and I 2  ≥ 50% is typically understood to denote medium-high heterogeneity, which calls for the adoption of a random effect model; if not, a fixed effect model ought to be applied (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). The findings of the heterogeneity test in this paper (see Table 2 ) revealed that I 2 was 86% and displayed significant heterogeneity ( P  < 0.01). To ensure accuracy and reliability, the overall effect size ought to be calculated utilizing the random effect model.

The analysis of the overall effect size

This meta-analysis utilized a random effect model to examine 79 effect quantities from 36 studies after eliminating heterogeneity. In accordance with Cohen’s criterion (Cohen, 1992 ), it is abundantly clear from the analysis results, which are shown in the forest plot of the overall effect (see Fig. 3 ), that the cumulative impact size of cooperative problem-solving is 0.82, which is statistically significant ( z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]), and can encourage learners to practice critical thinking.

This forest plot shows the analysis result of the overall effect size across 36 studies.

In addition, this study examined two distinct dimensions of critical thinking to better understand the precise contributions that collaborative problem-solving makes to the growth of critical thinking. The findings (see Table 3 ) indicate that collaborative problem-solving improves cognitive skills (ES = 0.70) and attitudinal tendency (ES = 1.17), with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.95, P  < 0.01). Although collaborative problem-solving improves both dimensions of critical thinking, it is essential to point out that the improvements in students’ attitudinal tendency are much more pronounced and have a significant comprehensive effect (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]), whereas gains in learners’ cognitive skill are slightly improved and are just above average. (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

The analysis of moderator effect size

The whole forest plot’s 79 effect quantities underwent a two-tailed test, which revealed significant heterogeneity ( I 2  = 86%, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01), indicating differences between various effect sizes that may have been influenced by moderating factors other than sampling error. Therefore, exploring possible moderating factors that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis, such as the learning stage, learning scaffold, teaching type, group size, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, in order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking. The findings (see Table 4 ) indicate that various moderating factors have advantageous effects on critical thinking. In this situation, the subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01), and teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05) are all significant moderators that can be applied to support the cultivation of critical thinking. However, since the learning stage and the measuring tools did not significantly differ among intergroup (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05, and chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05), we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These are the precise outcomes, as follows:

Various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively, without significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05). High school was first on the list of effect sizes (ES = 1.36, P  < 0.01), then higher education (ES = 0.78, P  < 0.01), and middle school (ES = 0.73, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the learning stage’s beneficial influence on cultivating learners’ critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is essential for cultivating critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Different teaching types had varying degrees of positive impact on critical thinking, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05). The effect size was ranked as follows: mixed courses (ES = 1.34, P  < 0.01), integrated courses (ES = 0.81, P  < 0.01), and independent courses (ES = 0.27, P  < 0.01). These results indicate that the most effective approach to cultivate critical thinking utilizing collaborative problem solving is through the teaching type of mixed courses.

Various intervention durations significantly improved critical thinking, and there were significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01). The effect sizes related to this variable showed a tendency to increase with longer intervention durations. The improvement in critical thinking reached a significant level (ES = 0.85, P  < 0.01) after more than 12 weeks of training. These findings indicate that the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated, with a longer intervention duration having a greater effect.

Different learning scaffolds influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01). The resource-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.69, P  < 0.01) acquired a medium-to-higher level of impact, the technique-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.63, P  < 0.01) also attained a medium-to-higher level of impact, and the teacher-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.92, P  < 0.01) displayed a high level of significant impact. These results show that the learning scaffold with teacher support has the greatest impact on cultivating critical thinking.

Various group sizes influenced critical thinking positively, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05). Critical thinking showed a general declining trend with increasing group size. The overall effect size of 2–3 people in this situation was the biggest (ES = 0.99, P  < 0.01), and when the group size was greater than 7 people, the improvement in critical thinking was at the lower-middle level (ES < 0.5, P  < 0.01). These results show that the impact on critical thinking is positively connected with group size, and as group size grows, so does the overall impact.

Various measuring tools influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05). In this situation, the self-adapting measurement tools obtained an upper-medium level of effect (ES = 0.78), whereas the complete effect size of the standardized measurement tools was the largest, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 0.84, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the beneficial influence of the measuring tool on cultivating critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Different subject areas had a greater impact on critical thinking, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05). Mathematics had the greatest overall impact, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 1.68, P  < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25, P  < 0.01) and medical science (ES = 0.87, P  < 0.01), both of which also achieved a significant level of effect. Programming technology was the least effective (ES = 0.39, P  < 0.01), only having a medium-low degree of effect compared to education (ES = 0.72, P  < 0.01) and other fields (such as language, art, and social sciences) (ES = 0.58, P  < 0.01). These results suggest that scientific fields (e.g., mathematics, science) may be the most effective subject areas for cultivating critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

According to this meta-analysis, using collaborative problem-solving as an intervention strategy in critical thinking teaching has a considerable amount of impact on cultivating learners’ critical thinking as a whole and has a favorable promotional effect on the two dimensions of critical thinking. According to certain studies, collaborative problem solving, the most frequently used critical thinking teaching strategy in curriculum instruction can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking (e.g., Liang et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Cindy, 2004 ). This meta-analysis provides convergent data support for the above research views. Thus, the findings of this meta-analysis not only effectively address the first research query regarding the overall effect of cultivating critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills) utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving, but also enhance our confidence in cultivating critical thinking by using collaborative problem-solving intervention approach in the context of classroom teaching.

Furthermore, the associated improvements in attitudinal tendency are much stronger, but the corresponding improvements in cognitive skill are only marginally better. According to certain studies, cognitive skill differs from the attitudinal tendency in classroom instruction; the cultivation and development of the former as a key ability is a process of gradual accumulation, while the latter as an attitude is affected by the context of the teaching situation (e.g., a novel and exciting teaching approach, challenging and rewarding tasks) (Halpern, 2001 ; Wei and Hong, 2022 ). Collaborative problem-solving as a teaching approach is exciting and interesting, as well as rewarding and challenging; because it takes the learners as the focus and examines problems with poor structure in real situations, and it can inspire students to fully realize their potential for problem-solving, which will significantly improve their attitudinal tendency toward solving problems (Liu et al., 2020 ). Similar to how collaborative problem-solving influences attitudinal tendency, attitudinal tendency impacts cognitive skill when attempting to solve a problem (Liu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ), and stronger attitudinal tendencies are associated with improved learning achievement and cognitive ability in students (Sison, 2008 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). It can be seen that the two specific dimensions of critical thinking as well as critical thinking as a whole are affected by collaborative problem-solving, and this study illuminates the nuanced links between cognitive skills and attitudinal tendencies with regard to these two dimensions of critical thinking. To fully develop students’ capacity for critical thinking, future empirical research should pay closer attention to cognitive skills.

The moderating effects of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

In order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking, exploring possible moderating effects that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis. The findings show that the moderating factors, such as the teaching type, learning stage, group size, learning scaffold, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, could all support the cultivation of collaborative problem-solving in critical thinking. Among them, the effect size differences between the learning stage and measuring tool are not significant, which does not explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

In terms of the learning stage, various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively without significant intergroup differences, indicating that we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking.

Although high education accounts for 70.89% of all empirical studies performed by researchers, high school may be the appropriate learning stage to foster students’ critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving since it has the largest overall effect size. This phenomenon may be related to student’s cognitive development, which needs to be further studied in follow-up research.

With regard to teaching type, mixed course teaching may be the best teaching method to cultivate students’ critical thinking. Relevant studies have shown that in the actual teaching process if students are trained in thinking methods alone, the methods they learn are isolated and divorced from subject knowledge, which is not conducive to their transfer of thinking methods; therefore, if students’ thinking is trained only in subject teaching without systematic method training, it is challenging to apply to real-world circumstances (Ruggiero, 2012 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Teaching critical thinking as mixed course teaching in parallel to other subject teachings can achieve the best effect on learners’ critical thinking, and explicit critical thinking instruction is more effective than less explicit critical thinking instruction (Bensley and Spero, 2014 ).

In terms of the intervention duration, with longer intervention times, the overall effect size shows an upward tendency. Thus, the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated. Critical thinking, as a key competency for students in the 21st century, is difficult to get a meaningful improvement in a brief intervention duration. Instead, it could be developed over a lengthy period of time through consistent teaching and the progressive accumulation of knowledge (Halpern, 2001 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Therefore, future empirical studies ought to take these restrictions into account throughout a longer period of critical thinking instruction.

With regard to group size, a group size of 2–3 persons has the highest effect size, and the comprehensive effect size decreases with increasing group size in general. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a group composed of two to four members is most appropriate for collaborative learning (Schellens and Valcke, 2006 ). However, the meta-analysis results also indicate that once the group size exceeds 7 people, small groups cannot produce better interaction and performance than large groups. This may be because the learning scaffolds of technique support, resource support, and teacher support improve the frequency and effectiveness of interaction among group members, and a collaborative group with more members may increase the diversity of views, which is helpful to cultivate critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

With regard to the learning scaffold, the three different kinds of learning scaffolds can all enhance critical thinking. Among them, the teacher-supported learning scaffold has the largest overall effect size, demonstrating the interdependence of effective learning scaffolds and collaborative problem-solving. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a successful strategy is to encourage learners to collaborate, come up with solutions, and develop critical thinking skills by using learning scaffolds (Reiser, 2004 ; Xu et al., 2022 ); learning scaffolds can lower task complexity and unpleasant feelings while also enticing students to engage in learning activities (Wood et al., 2006 ); learning scaffolds are designed to assist students in using learning approaches more successfully to adapt the collaborative problem-solving process, and the teacher-supported learning scaffolds have the greatest influence on critical thinking in this process because they are more targeted, informative, and timely (Xu et al., 2022 ).

With respect to the measuring tool, despite the fact that standardized measurement tools (such as the WGCTA, CCTT, and CCTST) have been acknowledged as trustworthy and effective by worldwide experts, only 54.43% of the research included in this meta-analysis adopted them for assessment, and the results indicated no intergroup differences. These results suggest that not all teaching circumstances are appropriate for measuring critical thinking using standardized measurement tools. “The measuring tools for measuring thinking ability have limits in assessing learners in educational situations and should be adapted appropriately to accurately assess the changes in learners’ critical thinking.”, according to Simpson and Courtney ( 2002 , p. 91). As a result, in order to more fully and precisely gauge how learners’ critical thinking has evolved, we must properly modify standardized measuring tools based on collaborative problem-solving learning contexts.

With regard to the subject area, the comprehensive effect size of science departments (e.g., mathematics, science, medical science) is larger than that of language arts and social sciences. Some recent international education reforms have noted that critical thinking is a basic part of scientific literacy. Students with scientific literacy can prove the rationality of their judgment according to accurate evidence and reasonable standards when they face challenges or poorly structured problems (Kyndt et al., 2013 ), which makes critical thinking crucial for developing scientific understanding and applying this understanding to practical problem solving for problems related to science, technology, and society (Yore et al., 2007 ).

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

Other than those stated in the discussion above, the following suggestions are offered for critical thinking instruction utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

First, teachers should put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, to design real problems based on collaborative situations. This meta-analysis provides evidence to support the view that collaborative problem-solving has a strong synergistic effect on promoting students’ critical thinking. Asking questions about real situations and allowing learners to take part in critical discussions on real problems during class instruction are key ways to teach critical thinking rather than simply reading speculative articles without practice (Mulnix, 2012 ). Furthermore, the improvement of students’ critical thinking is realized through cognitive conflict with other learners in the problem situation (Yang et al., 2008 ). Consequently, it is essential for teachers to put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, and design real problems and encourage students to discuss, negotiate, and argue based on collaborative problem-solving situations.

Second, teachers should design and implement mixed courses to cultivate learners’ critical thinking, utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving. Critical thinking can be taught through curriculum instruction (Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), with the goal of cultivating learners’ critical thinking for flexible transfer and application in real problem-solving situations. This meta-analysis shows that mixed course teaching has a highly substantial impact on the cultivation and promotion of learners’ critical thinking. Therefore, teachers should design and implement mixed course teaching with real collaborative problem-solving situations in combination with the knowledge content of specific disciplines in conventional teaching, teach methods and strategies of critical thinking based on poorly structured problems to help students master critical thinking, and provide practical activities in which students can interact with each other to develop knowledge construction and critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Third, teachers should be more trained in critical thinking, particularly preservice teachers, and they also should be conscious of the ways in which teachers’ support for learning scaffolds can promote critical thinking. The learning scaffold supported by teachers had the greatest impact on learners’ critical thinking, in addition to being more directive, targeted, and timely (Wood et al., 2006 ). Critical thinking can only be effectively taught when teachers recognize the significance of critical thinking for students’ growth and use the proper approaches while designing instructional activities (Forawi, 2016 ). Therefore, with the intention of enabling teachers to create learning scaffolds to cultivate learners’ critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem solving, it is essential to concentrate on the teacher-supported learning scaffolds and enhance the instruction for teaching critical thinking to teachers, especially preservice teachers.

Implications and limitations

There are certain limitations in this meta-analysis, but future research can correct them. First, the search languages were restricted to English and Chinese, so it is possible that pertinent studies that were written in other languages were overlooked, resulting in an inadequate number of articles for review. Second, these data provided by the included studies are partially missing, such as whether teachers were trained in the theory and practice of critical thinking, the average age and gender of learners, and the differences in critical thinking among learners of various ages and genders. Third, as is typical for review articles, more studies were released while this meta-analysis was being done; therefore, it had a time limit. With the development of relevant research, future studies focusing on these issues are highly relevant and needed.

Conclusions

The subject of the magnitude of collaborative problem-solving’s impact on fostering students’ critical thinking, which received scant attention from other studies, was successfully addressed by this study. The question of the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking was addressed in this study, which addressed a topic that had gotten little attention in earlier research. The following conclusions can be made:

Regarding the results obtained, collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster learners’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]). With respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem-solving can significantly and effectively improve students’ attitudinal tendency, and the comprehensive effect is significant (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

As demonstrated by both the results and the discussion, there are varying degrees of beneficial effects on students’ critical thinking from all seven moderating factors, which were found across 36 studies. In this context, the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have a positive impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. Since the learning stage (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05) and measuring tools (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05) did not demonstrate any significant intergroup differences, we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article and its supplementary information files, and the supplementary information files are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IPFJO6 .

Bensley DA, Spero RA (2014) Improving critical thinking skills and meta-cognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Think Skills Creat 12:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Castle A (2009) Defining and assessing critical thinking skills for student radiographers. Radiography 15(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2007.10.007

Chen XD (2013) An empirical study on the influence of PBL teaching model on critical thinking ability of non-English majors. J PLA Foreign Lang College 36 (04):68–72

Google Scholar  

Cohen A (1992) Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130602

Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th edn. Sage, London, England

Cindy HS (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 51(1):31–39

Duch BJ, Gron SD, Allen DE (2001) The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Educ Sci 2:190–198

Ennis RH (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018003004

Facione PA (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Eric document reproduction service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed315423

Facione PA, Facione NC (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI test manual. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA

Forawi SA (2016) Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Think Skills Creat 20:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005

Halpern DF (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J Gen Educ 50(4):270–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/27797889

Hu WP, Liu J (2015) Cultivation of pupils’ thinking ability: a five-year follow-up study. Psychol Behav Res 13(05):648–654. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.05.010

Huber K (2016) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 86(2):431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917

Kek MYCA, Huijser H (2011) The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. High Educ Res Dev 30(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501074

Kuncel NR (2011) Measurement and meaning of critical thinking (Research report for the NRC 21st Century Skills Workshop). National Research Council, Washington, DC

Kyndt E, Raes E, Lismont B, Timmers F, Cascallar E, Dochy F (2013) A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ Res Rev 10(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

Leng J, Lu XX (2020) Is critical thinking really teachable?—A meta-analysis based on 79 experimental or quasi experimental studies. Open Educ Res 26(06):110–118. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2020.06.011

Liang YZ, Zhu K, Zhao CL (2017) An empirical study on the depth of interaction promoted by collaborative problem solving learning activities. J E-educ Res 38(10):87–92. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.10.014

Lipsey M, Wilson D (2001) Practical meta-analysis. International Educational and Professional, London, pp. 92–160

Liu Z, Wu W, Jiang Q (2020) A study on the influence of problem based learning on college students’ critical thinking-based on a meta-analysis of 31 studies. Explor High Educ 03:43–49

Morris SB (2008) Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 11(2):364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mulnix JW (2012) Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ Philos Theory 44(5):464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

Naber J, Wyatt TH (2014) The effect of reflective writing interventions on the critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 34(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.002

National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Niu L, Behar HLS, Garvan CW (2013) Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 9(12):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Peng ZM, Deng L (2017) Towards the core of education reform: cultivating critical thinking skills as the core of skills in the 21st century. Res Educ Dev 24:57–63. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2017.24.011

Reiser BJ (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J Learn Sci 13(3):273–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Ruggiero VR (2012) The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought, 4th edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York

Schellens T, Valcke M (2006) Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Comput Educ 46(4):349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010

Sendag S, Odabasi HF (2009) Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 53(1):132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008

Sison R (2008) Investigating Pair Programming in a Software Engineering Course in an Asian Setting. 2008 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2008.61

Simpson E, Courtney M (2002) Critical thinking in nursing education: literature review. Mary Courtney 8(2):89–98

Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S (2006) Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? Publication bias in meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, pp. 261–286

Tiwari A, Lai P, So M, Yuen K (2010) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med Educ 40(6):547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x

Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (2006) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wei T, Hong S (2022) The meaning and realization of teachable critical thinking. Educ Theory Practice 10:51–57

Xu EW, Wang W, Wang QX (2022) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11445-2

Yang YC, Newby T, Bill R (2008) Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: a quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 50(4):1572–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006

Yore LD, Pimm D, Tuan HL (2007) The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(4):559–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4

Zhang T, Zhang S, Gao QQ, Wang JH (2022) Research on the development of learners’ critical thinking in online peer review. Audio Visual Educ Res 6:53–60. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.06.08

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the graduate scientific research and innovation project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region named “Research on in-depth learning of high school information technology courses for the cultivation of computing thinking” (No. XJ2022G190) and the independent innovation fund project for doctoral students of the College of Educational Science of Xinjiang Normal University named “Research on project-based teaching of high school information technology courses from the perspective of discipline core literacy” (No. XJNUJKYA2003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science, Xinjiang Normal University, 830017, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Xu, E., Wang, W. & Wang, Q. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Impacts of online collaborative learning on students’ intercultural communication apprehension and intercultural communicative competence.

• Hoa Thi Hoang Chau
• Hung Phu Bui
• Quynh Thi Huong Dinh

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis

The impacts of computer-supported collaborative learning on students’ critical thinking: a meta-analysis.

• Yoseph Gebrehiwot Tedla
• Hsiu-Ling Chen

Sustainable electricity generation and farm-grid utilization from photovoltaic aquaculture: a bibliometric analysis

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Our Mission

From Debate to Deliberation

Debate has a place in middle and high school classrooms, but it can be divisive. Collaborative deliberation is non-adversarial and encourages sharing of diverse perspectives.

Classroom dialogue and discussion is a powerful and critical tool to support student learning. It’s an opportunity for students to try on ideas before finalizing their thinking. It’s also an opportunity for students to take on a larger cognitive load and process content. Finally, it’s a chance to practice effective communication and perspective-taking skills that promote cultural competence and empathy. All of these are important for long-term success in college, career, and civic life. 

There are many discussion forms and protocols that teachers use to promote student learning, one of which is debate. Discussing opposing viewpoints is one of the most dominant models for deliberation in the classroom. While debate can be a highly engaging discussion technique, there are potential pitfalls; here a few key challenges to consider.

• Decreased sense of belonging—zero sum gain, winners and losers 
• Potentially incomplete ideas or narrow interpretations
• Only “yes” or “no”—narrow answer, binary

As such, it may be worth trying a different type of discussion in the classroom that might avoid or mitigate these pitfalls. Personally, I’m a fan of the Structured Academic Controversy protocol and have seen its success in the classroom. With it, students address a question that lends itself to a contrasting viewpoint, such as “Was dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary to defeat the Japanese?" or “Should we continue to explore outer space?”

Students are expected to learn about both opposing viewpoints even if they’re assigned or choose one for the actual discussion. They have the opportunity to share their voice, learn interesting and relevant content, and use evidence to create effective arguments. 

Collaborative deliberation

Keith C. Barton and Li-Ching Ho , both professors of curriculum and instruction, have researched how to create more inclusive classroom discourse, particularly in the areas of social studies. In “ Collaborative deliberation in the classroom ,” they propose, “Instead of having students debate contentious issues, encourage them to take a problem-solving approach.” This, of course, isn’t new. I’ve shared my ideas in the past about project-based learning and its process to engage students in authentic problem-solving. As many educators may not have the space for a full PBL project, shorter discussions that focus on a problem-solving approach may be more feasible. 

In the same vein, Barton and Ho define collaborative deliberation as non-adversarial problem-solving within a trusting, mutually reciprocal partnership, premised on common interests and involving diverse forms of expression and communication . In essence, instead of having binary “yes” or “no” discussion, the discussion is focused more on “how.” There’s focus on results while considering diverse perspectives and ideas. Below are questions as examples.

• Should our democracy permit hate speech?
• Should we continue to explore outer space?
• Should the state provide universal childcare? 
• How can vulnerable groups be protected against verbal attacks? 
• How might we continue to explore space in meaningful and cost-conscious ways?
• How can working families have greater access to childcare?

Setting the culture

Once you’ve designed a question, you’ll need to spend time norming or re-norming the way students will engage. These can include actual norms that help students communicate and work together effectively, but it also should include an activity that allows students to work together to identify the shared values, purposes, or interests they have in the question. 

Why is this important? While the questions focus on a common problem and are solution oriented, students will have vastly different ideas about why this issue is important and/or why they’re interested in the topic. It’s important to find common ground at the start to set a foundation as a collaborative culture. Before jumping into idea generation, have students spend time identifying these shared interests and values.

Diverse perspectives 

Solutions do, of course, need evidence. Students will need to research and back up their ideas with a variety of evidence, including statistics and data. Teachers should push students, however, to consider other data points that may not regularly be valued. Narratives and counternarratives matter. Often the stories and personal experiences that people share are not valued as much as a quantitative statistic.

To encourage the valuing of personal stories, teachers should ask students to find anecdotes, videos, and interviews to further illuminate their ideas. These ideas should include perspectives they’re familiar with, as well as perspectives that are more “distant” and push their thinking. This will allow students to continue to refine and sharpen their proposed solutions. 

Justifying solutions and weighing alternatives

It’s one thing to come up with possible solutions. It’s another to stress-test them to see if they’re viable and/or have alternatives. Teachers can use the Impact Wheel, found in How to Future , which has students identify intended and unintended consequences. It forces students to consider results and implications they may not have thought of. This, in turn, allows students to reflect on their initial ideas, revise, and/or consider alternatives. 

As you consider more collaborative deliberation, look at intent, limitations, and advantages of it and debate. Both have their place in the classroom; it’s up to the educator to determine the best tool or strategy for student learning. 

• Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning
• Instructional Guide

Classroom Debates

Using debates in the classroom provide students the opportunity to work in a collaborative and cooperative group setting. By having students discuss and organize their points of view for one side of an argument they are able to discover new information and put knowledge into action. Classroom debates help students learn through friendly competition, examine controversial topics and “strengthen skills in the areas of leadership, interpersonal influence, teambuilding, group problem solving, and oral presentation” (Leuser, n.d., para. 1).

By having students discuss and organize their points of view for one side of an argument they are able to discover new information and put knowledge into action.

Debates can be used in all disciplines on a wide range of topics. Here are some examples of subject matter topics for debate which can easily be adapted for a variety of subject areas.

• Arts - There should no restrictions upon artistic expression
• Business - Corporations should be abolished
• Education - Intelligence testing is without value
• Engineering - Only bridges over waterways need to be routinely inspected
• Sociology - It is morally okay to break laws you don't agree with
• English - Language is not a skill
• Geology - Mountain top mining is good for the economy
• Health - There is nothing morally wrong with doing drugs
• Mathematics - Elementary school mathematics should be confined largely to arithmetic
• Science - The theory of evolution is based on both science and faith

Debate Format

Teams work well for classroom debates but two students can be paired as well. Adapt the following format to fit your specific goals and objectives. Adding a third, shorter round will allow teams to further defend their arguments.

Alternatively, have all students prepare both a pro and con position for a designated class session. During this class period two teams are randomly selected who will then state their arguments. The other students will contribute differing remarks and suggestions for a more active and well-prepared class discussion.

. . . two teams are randomly selected who will then state their arguments.

• Team One - 10 Minutes - Presentation of "Pro/positive" or "Arguments for" 
• Team Two - 10 Minutes - Presentation of "Con/negative" or "Arguments against"

Team Discussion Period

5 Minutes This period is used for teams to prepare their responses

• Team One - 5 Minutes - Response or rebuttal of "Pro/positive" or "Arguments for" 
• Team Two - 5 Minutes - Response or rebuttal of "Con/negative" or "Arguments against" 

Whole Class Discussion          

To determine which team provided the most convincing arguments. A vote can be taken or a more detailed evaluation form can be used to assess each team. (10-15 minutes)

Note: Explain to the students that the success behind using debates in the classroom is not in winning and losing but rather how well teams prepared for and delivered their arguments and get potential buy-in from those who help the opposite point-of view.

. . . the success behind using debates in the classroom is not in winning and losing but rather how well team prepared for and delivered their arguments . . .

• Include a time frame in which they have to prepare for the debate and how they are to present their material.
• Allow non-debate students to be adjudicators to help them learn how to be objective in rating their peers’ performance.
• Determine if non-debating students will be allowed to vote.
• Provide resources which will help students learn about debates and their structure.
• Consider holding a practice debate to help students understand the process.
• Select the format you plan to use: teams, individual students, all students (see format above).Consider having students prepare brief “position papers” which also includes their reaction to the debate process and how they were able to reach consensus in their team’s arguments.
• Research controversial, news-breaking and stimulating topics to encourage dynamic and energized classroom discussion. Students are more likely to be authentic when they debate a subject to which they can relate.
• Review the debate process previously established and ask for questions and clarifications on the day of the debate.

Students are more likely to be authentic when they debate a subject to which they can relate.

• Prepare rating rubrics and distribute to adjudicators before the debate begins.
• Begin the debate, giving students as much autonomy as possible.
• Distribute both student and instructor evaluations to the teams.Facilitate classroom discussion and debrief the process at the end of the debate.
• Have a plan in place if the debate gets “hot” and students argue instead of debate. Review guidelines before the debate begins to minimize inappropriate discussion and behavior. Also, getting to know your students through observation and actively listening to their classroom conversations can provide helpful information when selecting topics for debate.

Have a plan in place if the debate gets “hot” and students argue instead of debate.

Using debates in the classroom provides students the opportunity to explore real-world topics and issues. Debates also engage students through self reflection and encourage them to learn from their peers. Finally, debates prepare students to be more comfortable engaging in dialogue related to their beliefs as well as their areas of study.

Leuser, D. (n.d.). Classroom debates. https://oz.plymouth.edu/~davidl/bu342/Debates.DOC

Selected Resources

Classroom debates: A one page tutorial. (n.d.). http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/DE/PD/instr/strats/debates/tutorial.pdf

University of California - Berkley. (1983). Using classroom debates. http://teaching.berkeley.edu/compendium/suggestions/file181.html

Suggested citation

Northern Illinois University Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. (2012). Classroom debates. In Instructional guide for university faculty and teaching assistants. Retrieved from https://www.niu.edu/citl/resources/guides/instructional-guide

Phone: 815-753-0595 Email: [email protected]

Connect with us on

Facebook page Twitter page YouTube page Instagram page LinkedIn page

Adult Online Courses

Global Training Solutions For Individuals and Organizations

The Role of Debate and Discussion in Critical Thinking

Have you ever wondered if engaging in debate and discussion truly enhances your critical thinking skills? Well, the truth is that these intellectual exchanges play a pivotal role in cultivating your ability to analyze information effectively.

But that's not all – they also foster open-mindedness and empathy, challenging your assumptions and biases along the way.

So, why is this important?

By participating in debates and discussions, you strengthen your logical reasoning abilities, expand your knowledge and understanding, and even encourage collaborative problem-solving.

But there's more to it than that.

Stay tuned to discover the profound impact that debate and discussion can have on your critical thinking journey.

Key Takeaways

• Engaging in debates and discussions helps to examine various perspectives, evaluate arguments, and present well-reasoned viewpoints.
• Promoting diverse perspectives fosters open-mindedness, empathy, and challenges biases and assumptions.
• Considering different viewpoints enhances critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and fosters creativity and innovation.
• Challenging assumptions and biases leads to personal growth, strengthens logical reasoning abilities, and promotes the construction of well-structured arguments based on evidence and logical reasoning.

Enhancing Critical Analysis Skills

To enhance your critical analysis skills, actively engage in activities that promote logical thinking and analytical reasoning. Improving your reasoning and sharpening your judgment are essential components of becoming a skilled critical thinker.

One effective way to enhance your critical analysis skills is by participating in debates. Engaging in debates allows you to examine various perspectives on a given topic, critically evaluate arguments, and present your own well-reasoned viewpoints. Through this process, you learn to identify logical fallacies, evaluate evidence, and construct sound arguments supported by facts and reasoning.

Another activity that can help improve your critical analysis skills is engaging in discussions. Participating in discussions allows you to analyze different viewpoints, challenge assumptions, and consider alternative perspectives. By actively listening to others and critically evaluating their arguments, you develop the ability to weigh evidence, recognize biases, and make informed judgments.

Additionally, reading and analyzing complex texts can significantly contribute to your critical analysis skills. By carefully examining the arguments presented in written works, you develop the ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in reasoning, evaluate evidence, and form logical conclusions.

Fostering Open-mindedness and Empathy

To foster open-mindedness and empathy, it's crucial to promote diverse perspectives and enhance critical thinking.

By exposing yourself to different viewpoints and engaging in thoughtful discussions, you can broaden your understanding of complex issues and develop empathy towards others.

This process of actively seeking out diverse perspectives allows you to challenge your own biases and assumptions, ultimately leading to a more open-minded and empathetic mindset.

Promoting Diverse Perspectives

Promoting diverse perspectives fosters open-mindedness and empathy, enabling individuals to broaden their understanding and engage in meaningful discourse on complex issues. By cultivating inclusivity and encouraging respectful dialogue, individuals are exposed to different viewpoints and experiences. This exposure challenges their preconceived notions and biases, allowing them to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the world.

To illustrate the importance of promoting diverse perspectives, consider the following table:

Enhancing Critical Thinking

By fostering open-mindedness and empathy, you can enhance your critical thinking skills and gain a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues.

Active listening is a crucial skill that can help you develop open-mindedness and empathy. When engaging in discussion or debate, actively listen to others' perspectives without interrupting or dismissing their ideas. This allows you to genuinely understand their point of view before formulating your own thoughts.

Additionally, questioning techniques can contribute to enhancing critical thinking. Instead of accepting information at face value, ask probing questions that challenge assumptions and encourage deeper analysis. This helps you explore different angles and consider alternative viewpoints.

Challenging Assumptions and Biases

Challenging assumptions and biases is essential for fostering critical thinking and promoting unbiased analysis. By challenging preconceptions and questioning assumptions, you open yourself up to new perspectives and ideas. This process can be uncomfortable, as it requires you to confront your own biases and potentially rethink long-held beliefs. However, it's through this discomfort and self-reflection that true growth and learning can occur.

Consider the following emotional sub-lists:

• Positive emotions :
• Excitement : Embrace the thrill of discovering new information and perspectives that challenge your assumptions.
• Empowerment : Recognize that by challenging assumptions and biases, you're taking control of your own intellectual development.
• Negative emotions :
• Discomfort : Accept the discomfort that comes with questioning your long-held beliefs and biases, as it's a necessary step towards personal growth.
• Fear : Confront the fear of being wrong or having your worldview challenged, as it may hinder your ability to think critically.

Strengthening Logical Reasoning Abilities

To strengthen your logical reasoning abilities, it's crucial to enhance your analytical thinking skills.

By honing your ability to dissect complex information and identify patterns, you can effectively evaluate arguments and make sound judgments.

Additionally, developing rational arguments involves constructing well-supported claims and presenting them in a clear and logical manner.

This process requires critical analysis of evidence, consideration of counterarguments, and the ability to articulate your thoughts succinctly.

Enhancing Analytical Thinking

Enhancing your analytical thinking skills is crucial for strengthening your logical reasoning abilities. By developing these skills, you can approach problem solving techniques with greater efficiency and precision. This allows you to break down complex problems into smaller, more manageable components, facilitating a more systematic and organized approach.

Additionally, analytical thinking enhances your cognitive flexibility, enabling you to consider multiple perspectives and potential solutions. This not only expands your problem-solving repertoire but also fosters a greater understanding and appreciation of different viewpoints.

Furthermore, analytical thinking promotes critical evaluation of information and evidence, helping you to discern between valid and invalid arguments. Ultimately, by honing your analytical thinking skills, you can become a more effective and adept logical reasoner.

Developing Rational Arguments

By cultivating rational arguments, you can further strengthen your logical reasoning abilities and effectively apply your enhanced analytical thinking skills. Developing rational arguments is a crucial aspect of critical thinking and problem-solving strategies. It involves constructing well-structured and coherent arguments based on evidence and logical reasoning.

A key component of developing rational arguments is persuasive communication. This involves presenting your ideas in a clear and compelling manner, using logical reasoning and evidence to convince others of your viewpoint. By honing your persuasive communication skills, you can effectively convey your arguments and influence others' perspectives.

To help you in developing rational arguments, consider the following table:

Fostering Critical Analysis

Strengthen your logical reasoning abilities by fostering critical analysis. To enhance your skills in this area, it's crucial to engage in active listening. By actively listening, you can fully understand the arguments presented and evaluate their validity. This allows you to identify any flaws or inconsistencies in the reasoning, enabling you to make more informed judgments.

Moreover, incorporating constructive criticism into your analysis is essential. By providing constructive feedback, you encourage a thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Constructive criticism helps to refine arguments, eliminate biases, and improve the overall quality of the discussion.

Expanding Knowledge and Understanding

To expand your knowledge and understanding, engage in active debate and discussion. Through these interactions, you can deepen your insights and broaden your perspectives.

When you engage in debate, you're exposed to different viewpoints and ideas. This exposure challenges your existing beliefs and encourages you to critically evaluate them. It helps you gain a more comprehensive understanding of a topic by considering alternative perspectives and exploring different lines of reasoning.

Active discussion also plays a crucial role in expanding your knowledge. By engaging in conversations with others, you can share and receive information, exchange ideas, and learn from each other's experiences. Discussions provide an opportunity to ask questions, seek clarification, and delve deeper into the subject matter. They allow you to explore different angles and uncover new insights that you may not have considered before.

In addition, debate and discussion foster critical thinking skills, such as analyzing information, evaluating arguments, and constructing logical responses. These skills are essential for expanding your knowledge and understanding as they enable you to approach new information critically and discern fact from opinion.

Encouraging Collaborative Problem-solving

Collaborative problem-solving is a key component in fostering effective teamwork and finding innovative solutions. When individuals come together to tackle a problem as a team, they bring different perspectives, experiences, and expertise to the table. This collaborative approach not only enhances the quality of the solutions but also promotes effective communication among team members.

In the context of collaborative problem-solving, effective communication plays a crucial role. It allows team members to share their thoughts, ideas, and concerns openly and transparently. By actively listening to one another, team members can better understand the problem at hand and explore various potential solutions. Effective communication also helps in building trust and fostering a supportive environment where everyone feels comfortable expressing their opinions.

Moreover, collaborative problem-solving evokes a sense of camaraderie and shared responsibility among team members. It creates a space where individuals can collaborate, engage in constructive debates, and collectively work towards achieving a common goal. This sense of collaboration not only enhances the problem-solving process but also fosters a sense of belonging and unity within the team.

Congratulations! By engaging in debate and discussion, you have embarked on a journey towards enhancing your critical thinking skills. These lively interactions have opened your mind, allowing you to consider different perspectives with empathy.

As you challenge assumptions and biases, your logical reasoning abilities have grown stronger. Moreover, the knowledge and understanding you have gained are invaluable.

Together, through collaborative problem-solving, we can continue to foster an environment that nurtures critical thinking and propels us towards success.

The eSoft Editorial Team, a blend of experienced professionals, leaders, and academics, specializes in soft skills, leadership, management, and personal and professional development. Committed to delivering thoroughly researched, high-quality, and reliable content, they abide by strict editorial guidelines ensuring accuracy and currency. Each article crafted is not merely informative but serves as a catalyst for growth, empowering individuals and organizations. As enablers, their trusted insights shape the leaders and organizations of tomorrow.

Similar Posts

Best Tools and Techniques to Rephrase Content

Repeatedly writing on a single topic makes the process boring; therefore, rephrasing simplifies the process. However, many people are unaware of the complexity involved in the paraphrasing process. Have you ever faced a situation where you want to paraphrase a passage but cannot do so because of a lack of skills?  Don’t worry—rephrasing doesn’t have…

Developing Critical Thinking Skills in the Classroom

Incorporate real-world examples and engage students with complex problems to enhance their critical thinking skills in the classroom.

The Pomodoro Technique: Boosting Focus and Productivity for Students

The Pomodoro Technique: Turbocharge your productivity and unleash your full potential as a student with this simple yet effective time management method.

Top Techniques for Structuring a Strong Research Paper

If you want to create a research paper that becomes memorable, you’ll need more than to fully grasp the material – you’ll also need to organize it in a way that helps the reader move forward through your results and arguments and reach the conclusion you outlined for them. Here are eight things to keep…

Communication Skills for Students

Gain a competitive edge in the modern world by mastering communication skills, essential for building connections and achieving success.

Teamwork and Collaboration for Students

Join us as we explore the many benefits of teamwork and collaboration, and discover how these skills can enhance your academic success and personal development.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Additional menu

Khan Academy Blog

Mastering the Art of Debating with AI: A Comprehensive Guide for Budding Debaters

posted on September 21, 2023

Debating is a powerful tool to develop critical thinking, communication skills, and confidence. It is a formal discussion that involves presenting and defending opinions on a particular topic. Debating is not just restricted to political arenas and competitions but has now become an essential part of academic and professional life. Debating allows you to articulate your thoughts and ideas while also giving you the opportunity to understand the perspectives of others. In this blog, we’ll discuss what debating is, why it is beneficial, how to debate, different types of debates, tips for beginners and advanced debaters, and the impact of debating on education and society.

Not everyone has the natural ability to debate, however. Some people find it daunting and are unsure where to start, while others struggle to put their thoughts into words. But don’t worry, with the help of Khanmigo, an AI-powered AI tutor developed by Khan Academy, we have you covered. This comprehensive guide will take you through what debating is, how to debate, and will provide you with some examples of practicing debates with Khanmigo.

How To Learn Alongside AI

What is debating.

Debating is the art of presenting an argument, with the aim of persuading others to agree with your point of view. Debating is all about being able to articulate your thoughts, supporting them with strong evidence, and presenting them in a coherent and convincing manner. 

The history of debating dates back centuries and has played a significant role in shaping societies and influencing decision-making processes. From Ancient Greek philosophers engaging in intellectual discourse to modern-day parliamentary debates, the art of argumentation and persuasion has evolved and thrived. Debating has not only fostered critical thinking and effective communication skills, but it has also provided a platform for the exchange of ideas, the examination of different perspectives, and the pursuit of truth.

The Impact of Debating on Education and Society

Debating plays a crucial role in creating informed and active members of society. In academic settings, it is a vital tool to develop critical thinking and effective communication skills (Oros, 2007). By engaging in debates, students are encouraged to analyze complex issues from multiple perspectives and formulate well-reasoned arguments. This process enhances their ability to think critically and evaluate evidence, which are essential skills for success in both academic and professional contexts (Chowning, 2017).

Moreover, debating provides a platform to confidently express and articulate ideas and opinions. Through the practice of presenting arguments and counterarguments, individuals learn to express themselves clearly and persuasively (Reznitskaya, 2001). This skill is valuable not only in academic settings but also in various real-life situations, such as job interviews and public speaking engagements. Research has shown that individuals who engage in debating activities are more likely to develop effective communication skills that positively impact their personal and professional relationships (Butt, 2015).

In addition to its academic benefits, debating contributes to a culture of constructive dialogue and a respectful exchange of ideas. By encouraging individuals to listen to opposing viewpoints and engage in reasoned discussions, debating fosters mutual understanding and empathy (Kennedy, 2007). This kind of respectful exchange of ideas is essential to the healthy functioning of democratic societies, as it promotes tolerance, openness, and cooperation. Through debating, individuals learn to challenge their own beliefs and consider alternative perspectives, leading to a more inclusive and diverse society (Sunay, 2012).

Ultimately, a society that is capable of critical thinking and effective communication is more united and collaborative. Debating equips individuals with the skills they need to engage in constructive dialogue, find common ground, and work towards shared goals (Fiore, 2017). It empowers citizens to participate in public discourse, leading to more informed decision-making processes and the development of innovative solutions to societal challenges. Therefore, promoting debating as a valuable activity in education and society at large can contribute to the overall well-being and progress of communities.

Debating plays a significant role in creating informed and active members of society. It fosters critical thinking and effective communication skills, provides a platform for confidently expressing ideas, and contributes to a culture of respectful exchange of ideas. By developing these skills and promoting a culture of constructive dialogue, societies can become more united, collaborative, and better equipped to address the complex challenges of the modern world.

How to Debate

Now that we know what debating is, let’s dive into how to become a master debater. Here are some tips to help you improve your debating skills:

• Know your topic : Make sure you have a deep understanding of the topic you will be debating. Do your research and gather as much information as possible to enable you to make informed arguments. You can use an AI learning tool like Khanmigo to build and review knowledge on your topic to ensure you understand it deeply. 
• . Structure your arguments : Your arguments should be well-structured and organized. Start with a clear introduction that states your point of view. Follow this up with supporting arguments and evidence to back up your claims. Finally, conclude your argument with a strong summary of your main points.
• Practice : The more you practice debating, the more comfortable and confident you will become. You can practice by engaging in debates with friends, family, or even on a debate platform like Khanmigo.
• Listen to others : Listening to other people’s arguments is just as important as presenting your own. Pay attention to what others are saying and respond appropriately. This will facilitate an open and respectful dialogue and allow you to present your own arguments more effectively.

Examples of Practicing Debates with Khanmigo

Khanmigo is an AI-powered guide that offers personalized tutoring to learners and an assistant to teachers. One of the features of Khanmigo is the ability to engage in debates with the AI. You can choose from a range of topics and levels of difficulty, and Khanmigo will respond to your arguments in real time. This is a fantastic tool to practice your debating skills, as you can receive immediate feedback and guidance on how to improve. Here is an example of how you can practice debates with Khanmigo:

Khanmigo: “Let’s have a debate! Formal debates have a very specific structure, but we’re going to keep things more casual here. We’ll each take a side on a topic and make arguments to support our position while also countering the other person’s arguments. At the end, I’ll offer some feedback on how you can improve your debating skills.

If you’re ready, choose a topic from the list to get started!”

Student (via button): “Yes, let’s debate whether large tech companies should be broken up.” Khanmigo : “Fantastic choice! It’s like choosing between a giant pizza or several small ones. Now, do you think large tech companies should be broken up, or should they stay as they are? Give me your first argument, and let’s get this ball rolling!” Student : “I think they should be broken up.” Khanmigo : “Alright, you’re the captain of the break ’em up boat! Let’s hear your first argument. Why do you think these Big Tech whales should be split into smaller fish?” Student : “I think the large companies constrict competition from new market entrants. I also think these companies are motivated to become rent seekers (and often act in this way). Finally, I think that too much concentrated power creates risk for a free democratic society.” Khanmigo : “Ah, you’ve got some spicy meatballs there! You’re saying Big Tech is like a giant octopus, squeezing out the little fish.—and they’re like greedy pirates hoarding all the treasure. Plus, they’re like a big, scary monster, threatening our freedom. I get it. But here’s a twist. What if these Big Tech whales are actually helping the little fish? They provide platforms for small businesses to reach customers—and they invest in new technologies that benefit us all. Plus, they create jobs. So, breaking them up might be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What do you think?”

…. And so on

Hone you Debating Skills With Khanmigo!

Debating is an essential skill that requires practice, patience, and perseverance. With the guidance of Khanmigo, you can improve your debating skills and become a master debater in no time. Remember to know your topic, structure your arguments, practice, and most importantly, listen to others. Engaging in debates with Khanmigo is a fantastic way to hone your skills, receive immediate feedback, and learn from your mistakes. So, what are you waiting for? Let’s get debating!

Andrew L. Oros (2007) Let’s Debate: Active Learning Encourages Student Participation and Critical Thinking , Journal of Political Science Education, 3:3, 293-311

Jeanne Ting Chowning ,Joan Carlton Griswold,Dina N. Kovarik,Laura J. Collins (2012) Fostering Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Argumentation Skills through Bioethics Education, Journal Plos One , Published: May 11, 2012

Alina Reznitskaya , Richard C. Anderson , Brian McNurlen , Kim Nguyen-Jahiel , Anthi Archodidou & So-young Kim (2001) Influence of Oral Discussion on Written Argument, Discourse Processes , 32:2-3, 155-175, DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651596

N. Butt, (2010) Argument construction, argument evaluation, and decision-making: A content analysis of argumentation and debate textbooks , Wayne State University

Kennedy R., (2007) In-Class Debates: Fertile Ground for Active Learning and the Cultivation of Critical Thinking and Oral Communication Skills , International Journal of TEACHING & LEARNING In Higher Education, Volume 19 • Number 2 • 2007

Sunay R., (2012), The importance of public debate in democratic regimes , European Scientific Journal, 2012

Stephen M. Fiore, Art Graesser, Samuel Greiff, Patrick Griffin, Brian Gong, Patrick Kyllonen, Christine Massey, Harry O’Neil, Jim Pellegrino, Robert Rothman, Helen Soulé, Alina von Davier (2017), Collaborative Problem Solving: Considerations for the National Assessment of Educational Progress , National Center for Education Statistics 

Get Khanmigo

The best way to learn and teach with AI is here. Ace the school year with our AI-powered guide, Khanmigo. 

For learners     For teachers     For parents

Is Homework Good for Kids? Here’s What the Research Says

A s kids return to school, debate is heating up once again over how they should spend their time after they leave the classroom for the day.

The no-homework policy of a second-grade teacher in Texas went viral last week , earning praise from parents across the country who lament the heavy workload often assigned to young students. Brandy Young told parents she would not formally assign any homework this year, asking students instead to eat dinner with their families, play outside and go to bed early.

But the question of how much work children should be doing outside of school remains controversial, and plenty of parents take issue with no-homework policies, worried their kids are losing a potential academic advantage. Here’s what you need to know:

For decades, the homework standard has been a “10-minute rule,” which recommends a daily maximum of 10 minutes of homework per grade level. Second graders, for example, should do about 20 minutes of homework each night. High school seniors should complete about two hours of homework each night. The National PTA and the National Education Association both support that guideline.

But some schools have begun to give their youngest students a break. A Massachusetts elementary school has announced a no-homework pilot program for the coming school year, lengthening the school day by two hours to provide more in-class instruction. “We really want kids to go home at 4 o’clock, tired. We want their brain to be tired,” Kelly Elementary School Principal Jackie Glasheen said in an interview with a local TV station . “We want them to enjoy their families. We want them to go to soccer practice or football practice, and we want them to go to bed. And that’s it.”

A New York City public elementary school implemented a similar policy last year, eliminating traditional homework assignments in favor of family time. The change was quickly met with outrage from some parents, though it earned support from other education leaders.

New solutions and approaches to homework differ by community, and these local debates are complicated by the fact that even education experts disagree about what’s best for kids.

The research

The most comprehensive research on homework to date comes from a 2006 meta-analysis by Duke University psychology professor Harris Cooper, who found evidence of a positive correlation between homework and student achievement, meaning students who did homework performed better in school. The correlation was stronger for older students—in seventh through 12th grade—than for those in younger grades, for whom there was a weak relationship between homework and performance.

Cooper’s analysis focused on how homework impacts academic achievement—test scores, for example. His report noted that homework is also thought to improve study habits, attitudes toward school, self-discipline, inquisitiveness and independent problem solving skills. On the other hand, some studies he examined showed that homework can cause physical and emotional fatigue, fuel negative attitudes about learning and limit leisure time for children. At the end of his analysis, Cooper recommended further study of such potential effects of homework.

Despite the weak correlation between homework and performance for young children, Cooper argues that a small amount of homework is useful for all students. Second-graders should not be doing two hours of homework each night, he said, but they also shouldn’t be doing no homework.

Not all education experts agree entirely with Cooper’s assessment.

Cathy Vatterott, an education professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, supports the “10-minute rule” as a maximum, but she thinks there is not sufficient proof that homework is helpful for students in elementary school.

“Correlation is not causation,” she said. “Does homework cause achievement, or do high achievers do more homework?”

Vatterott, the author of Rethinking Homework: Best Practices That Support Diverse Needs , thinks there should be more emphasis on improving the quality of homework tasks, and she supports efforts to eliminate homework for younger kids.

“I have no concerns about students not starting homework until fourth grade or fifth grade,” she said, noting that while the debate over homework will undoubtedly continue, she has noticed a trend toward limiting, if not eliminating, homework in elementary school.

The issue has been debated for decades. A TIME cover in 1999 read: “Too much homework! How it’s hurting our kids, and what parents should do about it.” The accompanying story noted that the launch of Sputnik in 1957 led to a push for better math and science education in the U.S. The ensuing pressure to be competitive on a global scale, plus the increasingly demanding college admissions process, fueled the practice of assigning homework.

“The complaints are cyclical, and we’re in the part of the cycle now where the concern is for too much,” Cooper said. “You can go back to the 1970s, when you’ll find there were concerns that there was too little, when we were concerned about our global competitiveness.”

Cooper acknowledged that some students really are bringing home too much homework, and their parents are right to be concerned.

“A good way to think about homework is the way you think about medications or dietary supplements,” he said. “If you take too little, they’ll have no effect. If you take too much, they can kill you. If you take the right amount, you’ll get better.”

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Breaking Down the 2024 Election Calendar
• What if Ultra-Processed Foods Aren’t as Bad as You Think?
• How Ukraine Beat Russia in the Battle of the Black Sea
• The Reintroduction of Kamala Harris
• Long COVID Looks Different in Kids
• How Project 2025 Would Jeopardize Americans’ Health
• What a $129 Frying Pan Says About America’s Eating Habits
• The 32 Most Anticipated Books of Fall 2024

Write to Katie Reilly at [email protected]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

Learning objectives.

• Discuss the common components and characteristics of problems.
• Explain the five steps of the group problem-solving process.
• Describe the brainstorming and discussion that should take place before the group makes a decision.
• Compare and contrast the different decision-making techniques.
• Discuss the various influences on decision making.

Although the steps of problem solving and decision making that we will discuss next may seem obvious, we often don’t think to or choose not to use them. Instead, we start working on a problem and later realize we are lost and have to backtrack. I’m sure we’ve all reached a point in a project or task and had the “OK, now what?” moment. I’ve recently taken up some carpentry projects as a functional hobby, and I have developed a great respect for the importance of advanced planning. It’s frustrating to get to a crucial point in building or fixing something only to realize that you have to unscrew a support board that you already screwed in, have to drive back to the hardware store to get something that you didn’t think to get earlier, or have to completely start over. In this section, we will discuss the group problem-solving process, methods of decision making, and influences on these processes.

Group Problem Solving

The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes.

Problems of all sorts have three common components (Adams & Galanes, 2009):

• An undesirable situation. When conditions are desirable, there isn’t a problem.
• A desired situation. Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated.
• Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situation. These are things that stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009).

• Task difficulty. Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing a difficult and complex task in order to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information.
• Number of possible solutions. There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may be more creatively based. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design.
• Group member interest in problem. When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.
• Group familiarity with problem. Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are more unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare its house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets as funding has been cut in nearly every sector. When group members aren’t familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done and may also need to bring in outside experts.
• Need for solution acceptance. In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs in order for their solution to be successfully implemented. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. When a small group is planning on building a new park in a crowded neighborhood or implementing a new policy in a large business, it can be very difficult to develop solutions that will be accepted by all. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution and may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that doesn’t have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.

Group problem solving can be a confusing puzzle unless it is approached systematically.

Muness Castle – Problem Solving – CC BY-SA 2.0.

Group Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on US American scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). As you read through the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what we learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems. Some of the following steps are straightforward, and they are things we would logically do when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that do not have an established history of working together and will only be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each step of the process, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem solving should be cautious not to dogmatically follow each element of the process or force a group along. Such a lack of flexibility could limit group member input and negatively affect the group’s cohesion and climate.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who/what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification? At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement . Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To fully analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, only proposed and clarified. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink. For the problem question previously posed, the group would need to generate solutions for all three parts of the problem included in the question. Possible solutions for the first part of the problem (How can citizens report ethical violations?) may include “online reporting system, e-mail, in-person, anonymously, on-the-record,” and so on. Possible solutions for the second part of the problem (How will reports be processed?) may include “daily by a newly appointed ethics officer, weekly by a nonpartisan nongovernment employee,” and so on. Possible solutions for the third part of the problem (How will reports be addressed?) may include “by a newly appointed ethics commission, by the accused’s supervisor, by the city manager,” and so on.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution. Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” and “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” and “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Secondary tensions and substantive conflict, two concepts discussed earlier, emerge during this step of problem solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several fairly similar models for problem solving, there are many varied decision-making techniques that groups can use. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until a consensus is reached. There are also more complex decision-making models like the “six hats method,” which we will discuss later. Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even to do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene or will a new group be formed?

Once a solution has been reached and the group has the “green light” to implement it, it should proceed deliberately and cautiously, making sure to consider possible consequences and address them as needed.

Jocko Benoit – Prodigal Light – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated out to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role in the decision making or because it connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing the solution or “selling” it to a particular group of stakeholders. Last, the group should consider its future. In some cases, the group will get to decide if it will stay together and continue working on other tasks or if it will disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group’s fate.

“Getting Competent”

Problem Solving and Group Presentations

Giving a group presentation requires that individual group members and the group as a whole solve many problems and make many decisions. Although having more people involved in a presentation increases logistical difficulties and has the potential to create more conflict, a well-prepared and well-delivered group presentation can be more engaging and effective than a typical presentation. The main problems facing a group giving a presentation are (1) dividing responsibilities, (2) coordinating schedules and time management, and (3) working out the logistics of the presentation delivery.

In terms of dividing responsibilities, assigning individual work at the first meeting and then trying to fit it all together before the presentation (which is what many college students do when faced with a group project) is not the recommended method. Integrating content and visual aids created by several different people into a seamless final product takes time and effort, and the person “stuck” with this job at the end usually ends up developing some resentment toward his or her group members. While it’s OK for group members to do work independently outside of group meetings, spend time working together to help set up some standards for content and formatting expectations that will help make later integration of work easier. Taking the time to complete one part of the presentation together can help set those standards for later individual work. Discuss the roles that various group members will play openly so there isn’t role confusion. There could be one point person for keeping track of the group’s progress and schedule, one point person for communication, one point person for content integration, one point person for visual aids, and so on. Each person shouldn’t do all that work on his or her own but help focus the group’s attention on his or her specific area during group meetings (Stanton, 2009).

Scheduling group meetings is one of the most challenging problems groups face, given people’s busy lives. From the beginning, it should be clearly communicated that the group needs to spend considerable time in face-to-face meetings, and group members should know that they may have to make an occasional sacrifice to attend. Especially important is the commitment to scheduling time to rehearse the presentation. Consider creating a contract of group guidelines that includes expectations for meeting attendance to increase group members’ commitment.

Group presentations require members to navigate many logistics of their presentation. While it may be easier for a group to assign each member to create a five-minute segment and then transition from one person to the next, this is definitely not the most engaging method. Creating a master presentation and then assigning individual speakers creates a more fluid and dynamic presentation and allows everyone to become familiar with the content, which can help if a person doesn’t show up to present and during the question-and-answer section. Once the content of the presentation is complete, figure out introductions, transitions, visual aids, and the use of time and space (Stanton, 2012). In terms of introductions, figure out if one person will introduce all the speakers at the beginning, if speakers will introduce themselves at the beginning, or if introductions will occur as the presentation progresses. In terms of transitions, make sure each person has included in his or her speaking notes when presentation duties switch from one person to the next. Visual aids have the potential to cause hiccups in a group presentation if they aren’t fluidly integrated. Practicing with visual aids and having one person control them may help prevent this. Know how long your presentation is and know how you’re going to use the space. Presenters should know how long the whole presentation should be and how long each of their segments should be so that everyone can share the responsibility of keeping time. Also consider the size and layout of the presentation space. You don’t want presenters huddled in a corner until it’s their turn to speak or trapped behind furniture when their turn comes around.

• Of the three main problems facing group presenters, which do you think is the most challenging and why?
• Why do you think people tasked with a group presentation (especially students) prefer to divide the parts up and have members work on them independently before coming back together and integrating each part? What problems emerge from this method? In what ways might developing a master presentation and then assigning parts to different speakers be better than the more divided method? What are the drawbacks to the master presentation method?

Decision Making in Groups

We all engage in personal decision making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others. When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision making (Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Group decision making can appear fair and democratic but really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the group leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more time than individual decisions and can be burdensome if some group members do not do their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviors, or miss meetings. Conversely, though, group decisions are often more informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a problem through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also be more complex and deep than what an individual would develop, because the group members are exposed to a variety of viewpoints that can broaden their own perspectives. Group decisions also benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of group communication that we discussed earlier. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision making, perhaps thinking that they’ll work things out as they go. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged discussion, and a host of other negative consequences. So in this section we will learn some practices that will prepare us for good decision making and some specific techniques we can use to help us reach a final decision.

Brainstorming before Decision Making

Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people don’t follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you’ll recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective (Osborn, 1959):

• Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.
• Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.
• Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.
• New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

• Do a warm-up brainstorming session. Some people are more apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime group members for task-related idea generation. The warm-up can be initiated by anyone in the group and should only go on for a few minutes. To get things started, a person could ask, “If our group formed a band, what would we be called?” or “What other purposes could a mailbox serve?” In the previous examples, the first warm up gets the group’s more abstract creative juices flowing, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.
• Do the actual brainstorming session. This session shouldn’t last more than thirty minutes and should follow the four rules of brainstorming mentioned previously. To ensure that the fourth rule is realized, the facilitator could encourage people to piggyback off each other’s ideas.
• Eliminate duplicate ideas. After the brainstorming session is over, group members can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the same or very similar.
• Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. Before evaluation, see if any ideas need clarification. Then try to theme or group ideas together in some orderly fashion. Since “wild and crazy” ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may need clarification. If it becomes clear that there isn’t really a foundation to an idea and that it is too vague or abstract and can’t be clarified, it may be eliminated. As a caution though, it may be wise to not throw out off-the-wall ideas that are hard to categorize and to instead put them in a miscellaneous or “wild and crazy” category.

Discussion before Decision Making

The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members (Delbecq & Ven de Ven, 1971). This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

• Silently and individually list ideas.
• Create a master list of ideas.
• Clarify ideas as needed.
• Take a secret vote to rank group members’ acceptance of ideas.

During the first step, have group members work quietly, in the same space, to write down every idea they have to address the task or problem they face. This shouldn’t take more than twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to use brainstorming techniques, which means they shouldn’t evaluate ideas as they are generated. Ask group members to remain silent once they’ve finished their list so they do not distract others.

During the second step, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a time. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Keep track of how many times each idea comes up, as that could be an idea that warrants more discussion. Continue this process until all the ideas have been shared. As a note to facilitators, some group members may begin to edit their list or self-censor when asked to provide one of their ideas. To limit a person’s apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, I have asked group members to exchange lists with someone else so they can share ideas from the list they receive without fear of being personally judged.

During step three, the facilitator should note that group members can now ask for clarification on ideas on the master list. Do not let this discussion stray into evaluation of ideas. To help avoid an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to go from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(s) of the idea in question for clarification.

During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master list. If the list is long, you may ask group members to rank only their top five or so choices. The facilitator then takes up the secret ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea can then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not carry a group all the way through to the point of decision; rather, it sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the merits of the top ideas.

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 14.1 “Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques” reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a simple method of decision making based on voting. In most cases a majority is considered half plus one.

Becky McCray – Voting – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before a decision is made. A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person’s vote, but since the voting power is spread out over all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases—for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution—a super majority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.

Minority rule is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others in the group, especially if the members of the group didn’t have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members’ level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected him or her than by those who didn’t. As with majority rule, this technique can be time saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can have control over the decision-making process. This type of decision making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators. An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative consequences throughout history. The white Afrikaner minority that ruled South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, which was a system of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the decision and its fairness really depends on the designated expert or authority.

Consensus rule is a decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision. On rare occasions, a decision may be ideal for all group members, which can lead to unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this isn’t a sign of groupthink. More typically, consensus is reached only after lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because of their investment in reaching it. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with but not one that’s ideal for all members. Additionally, the process of arriving at consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.

Table 14.1 Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques

“Getting Critical”

Six Hats Method of Decision Making

Edward de Bono developed the Six Hats method of thinking in the late 1980s, and it has since become a regular feature in decision-making training in business and professional contexts (de Bono, 1985). The method’s popularity lies in its ability to help people get out of habitual ways of thinking and to allow group members to play different roles and see a problem or decision from multiple points of view. The basic idea is that each of the six hats represents a different way of thinking, and when we figuratively switch hats, we switch the way we think. The hats and their style of thinking are as follows:

• White hat. Objective—focuses on seeking information such as data and facts and then processes that information in a neutral way.
• Red hat. Emotional—uses intuition, gut reactions, and feelings to judge information and suggestions.
• Black hat. Negative—focuses on potential risks, points out possibilities for failure, and evaluates information cautiously and defensively.
• Yellow hat. Positive—is optimistic about suggestions and future outcomes, gives constructive and positive feedback, points out benefits and advantages.
• Green hat. Creative—tries to generate new ideas and solutions, thinks “outside the box.”
• Blue hat. Philosophical—uses metacommunication to organize and reflect on the thinking and communication taking place in the group, facilitates who wears what hat and when group members change hats.

Specific sequences or combinations of hats can be used to encourage strategic thinking. For example, the group leader may start off wearing the Blue Hat and suggest that the group start their decision-making process with some “White Hat thinking” in order to process through facts and other available information. During this stage, the group could also process through what other groups have done when faced with a similar problem. Then the leader could begin an evaluation sequence starting with two minutes of “Yellow Hat thinking” to identify potential positive outcomes, then “Black Hat thinking” to allow group members to express reservations about ideas and point out potential problems, then “Red Hat thinking” to get people’s gut reactions to the previous discussion, then “Green Hat thinking” to identify other possible solutions that are more tailored to the group’s situation or completely new approaches. At the end of a sequence, the Blue Hat would want to summarize what was said and begin a new sequence. To successfully use this method, the person wearing the Blue Hat should be familiar with different sequences and plan some of the thinking patterns ahead of time based on the problem and the group members. Each round of thinking should be limited to a certain time frame (two to five minutes) to keep the discussion moving.

• This decision-making method has been praised because it allows group members to “switch gears” in their thinking and allows for role playing, which lets people express ideas more freely. How can this help enhance critical thinking? Which combination of hats do you think would be best for a critical thinking sequence?
• What combinations of hats might be useful if the leader wanted to break the larger group up into pairs and why? For example, what kind of thinking would result from putting Yellow and Red together, Black and White together, or Red and White together, and so on?
• Based on your preferred ways of thinking and your personality, which hat would be the best fit for you? Which would be the most challenging? Why?

Influences on Decision Making

Many factors influence the decision-making process. For example, how might a group’s independence or access to resources affect the decisions they make? What potential advantages and disadvantages come with decisions made by groups that are more or less similar in terms of personality and cultural identities? In this section, we will explore how situational, personality, and cultural influences affect decision making in groups.

Situational Influences on Decision Making

A group’s situational context affects decision making. One key situational element is the degree of freedom that the group has to make its own decisions, secure its own resources, and initiate its own actions. Some groups have to go through multiple approval processes before they can do anything, while others are self-directed, self-governing, and self-sustaining. Another situational influence is uncertainty. In general, groups deal with more uncertainty in decision making than do individuals because of the increased number of variables that comes with adding more people to a situation. Individual group members can’t know what other group members are thinking, whether or not they are doing their work, and how committed they are to the group. So the size of a group is a powerful situational influence, as it adds to uncertainty and complicates communication.

Access to information also influences a group. First, the nature of the group’s task or problem affects its ability to get information. Group members can more easily make decisions about a problem when other groups have similarly experienced it. Even if the problem is complex and serious, the group can learn from other situations and apply what it learns. Second, the group must have access to flows of information. Access to archives, electronic databases, and individuals with relevant experience is necessary to obtain any relevant information about similar problems or to do research on a new or unique problem. In this regard, group members’ formal and information network connections also become important situational influences.

The urgency of a decision can have a major influence on the decision-making process. As a situation becomes more urgent, it requires more specific decision-making methods and types of communication.

Judith E. Bell – Urgent – CC BY-SA 2.0.

The origin and urgency of a problem are also situational factors that influence decision making. In terms of origin, problems usually occur in one of four ways:

• Something goes wrong. Group members must decide how to fix or stop something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that half of the building is contaminated with mold and must be closed down.
• Expectations change or increase. Group members must innovate more efficient or effective ways of doing something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that the district they are responsible for is being expanded.
• Something goes wrong and expectations change or increase. Group members must fix/stop and become more efficient/effective. Example—the firehouse crew has to close half the building and must start responding to more calls due to the expanding district.
• The problem existed from the beginning. Group members must go back to the origins of the situation and walk through and analyze the steps again to decide what can be done differently. Example—a firehouse crew has consistently had to work with minimal resources in terms of building space and firefighting tools.

In each of the cases, the need for a decision may be more or less urgent depending on how badly something is going wrong, how high the expectations have been raised, or the degree to which people are fed up with a broken system. Decisions must be made in situations ranging from crisis level to mundane.

Personality Influences on Decision Making

A long-studied typology of value orientations that affect decision making consists of the following types of decision maker: the economic, the aesthetic, the theoretical, the social, the political, and the religious (Spranger, 1928).

• The economic decision maker makes decisions based on what is practical and useful.
• The aesthetic decision maker makes decisions based on form and harmony, desiring a solution that is elegant and in sync with the surroundings.
• The theoretical decision maker wants to discover the truth through rationality.
• The social decision maker emphasizes the personal impact of a decision and sympathizes with those who may be affected by it.
• The political decision maker is interested in power and influence and views people and/or property as divided into groups that have different value.
• The religious decision maker seeks to identify with a larger purpose, works to unify others under that goal, and commits to a viewpoint, often denying one side and being dedicated to the other.

In the United States, economic, political, and theoretical decision making tend to be more prevalent decision-making orientations, which likely corresponds to the individualistic cultural orientation with its emphasis on competition and efficiency. But situational context, as we discussed before, can also influence our decision making.

Personality affects decision making. For example, “economic” decision makers decide based on what is practical and useful.

One Way Stock – Tough Decisions Ahead – CC BY-ND 2.0.

The personalities of group members, especially leaders and other active members, affect the climate of the group. Group member personalities can be categorized based on where they fall on a continuum anchored by the following descriptors: dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional (Cragan & Wright, 1999). The more group members there are in any extreme of these categories, the more likely that the group climate will also shift to resemble those characteristics.

• Dominant versus submissive. Group members that are more dominant act more independently and directly, initiate conversations, take up more space, make more direct eye contact, seek leadership positions, and take control over decision-making processes. More submissive members are reserved, contribute to the group only when asked to, avoid eye contact, and leave their personal needs and thoughts unvoiced or give into the suggestions of others.
• Friendly versus unfriendly. Group members on the friendly side of the continuum find a balance between talking and listening, don’t try to win at the expense of other group members, are flexible but not weak, and value democratic decision making. Unfriendly group members are disagreeable, indifferent, withdrawn, and selfish, which leads them to either not invest in decision making or direct it in their own interest rather than in the interest of the group.
• Instrumental versus emotional. Instrumental group members are emotionally neutral, objective, analytical, task-oriented, and committed followers, which leads them to work hard and contribute to the group’s decision making as long as it is orderly and follows agreed-on rules. Emotional group members are creative, playful, independent, unpredictable, and expressive, which leads them to make rash decisions, resist group norms or decision-making structures, and switch often from relational to task focus.

Cultural Context and Decision Making

Just like neighborhoods, schools, and countries, small groups vary in terms of their degree of similarity and difference. Demographic changes in the United States and increases in technology that can bring different people together make it more likely that we will be interacting in more and more heterogeneous groups (Allen, 2011). Some small groups are more homogenous, meaning the members are more similar, and some are more heterogeneous, meaning the members are more different. Diversity and difference within groups has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, research finds that, in general, groups that are culturally heterogeneous have better overall performance than more homogenous groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999). Additionally, when group members have time to get to know each other and competently communicate across their differences, the advantages of diversity include better decision making due to different perspectives (Thomas, 1999). Unfortunately, groups often operate under time constraints and other pressures that make the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for conflict, but given that all groups experience conflict, this isn’t solely due to the presence of diversity. We will now look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations we’ve learned about already in this book can play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic diversity in terms of demographics can also influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Group Interactions

Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of communication behaviors and can influence group decision making. Group members from individualistic cultures are more likely to value task-oriented, efficient, and direct communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as dividing up tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and then openly debating ideas during discussion and decision making. Additionally, people from cultures that value individualism are more likely to openly express dissent from a decision, essentially expressing their disagreement with the group. Group members from collectivistic cultures are more likely to value relationships over the task at hand. Because of this, they also tend to value conformity and face-saving (often indirect) communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as establishing norms that include periods of socializing to build relationships before task-oriented communication like negotiations begin or norms that limit public disagreement in favor of more indirect communication that doesn’t challenge the face of other group members or the group’s leader. In a group composed of people from a collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs of conflict and resolving them before they become public.

Power distance can also affect group interactions. Some cultures rank higher on power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status, and believe that people have a set place in society that is fairly unchangeable. Group members from high-power-distance cultures would likely appreciate a strong designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership style and prefer groups in which members have clear and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms of having a high-power-distance orientation, members with higher status would be able to openly provide information, and those with lower status may not provide information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-power-distance cultures do not place as much value and meaning on status and believe that all group members can participate in decision making. Group members from low-power-distance cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and prefer a participative leadership style.

How much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication can also affect group communication. Some cultures have a high-context communication style in which much of the meaning in an interaction is conveyed through context such as nonverbal cues and silence. Group members from high-context cultures may avoid saying something directly, assuming that other group members will understand the intended meaning even if the message is indirect. So if someone disagrees with a proposed course of action, he or she may say, “Let’s discuss this tomorrow,” and mean, “I don’t think we should do this.” Such indirect communication is also a face-saving strategy that is common in collectivistic cultures. Other cultures have a low-context communication style that places more importance on the meaning conveyed through words than through context or nonverbal cues. Group members from low-context cultures often say what they mean and mean what they say. For example, if someone doesn’t like an idea, they might say, “I think we should consider more options. This one doesn’t seem like the best we can do.”

In any of these cases, an individual from one culture operating in a group with people of a different cultural orientation could adapt to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence (ICC). Additionally, people with high ICC can also adapt to a group member with a different cultural orientation than the host culture. Even though these cultural orientations connect to values that affect our communication in fairly consistent ways, individuals may exhibit different communication behaviors depending on their own individual communication style and the situation.

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

While it is becoming more likely that we will interact in small groups with international diversity, we are guaranteed to interact in groups that are diverse in terms of the cultural identities found within a single country or the subcultures found within a larger cultural group.

Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group. For example, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead group members (both male and female) to expect that women will play the role of supporters or harmonizers within the group. Since women have primarily performed secretarial work since the 1900s, it may also be expected that women will play the role of recorder. In both of these cases, stereotypical notions of gender place women in roles that are typically not as valued in group communication. The opposite is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, research shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions. We are socialized to see certain behaviors by men as indicative of leadership abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to contribute more to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or to fill a silence and are perceived to talk more about task-related matters than relationally oriented matters. Both of these tendencies create a perception that men are more engaged with the task. Men are also socialized to be more competitive and self-congratulatory, meaning that their communication may be seen as dedicated and their behaviors seen as powerful, and that when their work isn’t noticed they will be more likely to make it known to the group rather than take silent credit. Even though we know that the relational elements of a group are crucial for success, even in high-performance teams, that work is not as valued in our society as the task-related work.

Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical (and stereotypical) gender socialization affect how we interact in and form perceptions of others in groups, the differences in group communication that used to be attributed to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is likely due to the changing organizational cultures from which much group work emerges, which have now had more than sixty years to adjust to women in the workplace. It is also due to a more nuanced understanding of gender-based research, which doesn’t take a stereotypical view from the beginning as many of the early male researchers did. Now, instead of biological sex being assumed as a factor that creates inherent communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women both exhibit a range of behaviors that are more or less feminine or masculine. It is these gendered behaviors, and not a person’s gender, that seem to have more of an influence on perceptions of group communication. Interestingly, group interactions are still masculinist in that male and female group members prefer a more masculine communication style for task leaders and that both males and females in this role are more likely to adapt to a more masculine communication style. Conversely, men who take on social-emotional leadership behaviors adopt a more feminine communication style. In short, it seems that although masculine communication traits are more often associated with high status positions in groups, both men and women adapt to this expectation and are evaluated similarly (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

Other demographic categories are also influential in group communication and decision making. In general, group members have an easier time communicating when they are more similar than different in terms of race and age. This ease of communication can make group work more efficient, but the homogeneity may sacrifice some creativity. As we learned earlier, groups that are diverse (e.g., they have members of different races and generations) benefit from the diversity of perspectives in terms of the quality of decision making and creativity of output.

In terms of age, for the first time since industrialization began, it is common to have three generations of people (and sometimes four) working side by side in an organizational setting. Although four generations often worked together in early factories, they were segregated based on their age group, and a hierarchy existed with older workers at the top and younger workers at the bottom. Today, however, generations interact regularly, and it is not uncommon for an older person to have a leader or supervisor who is younger than him or her (Allen, 2011). The current generations in the US workplace and consequently in work-based groups include the following:

• The Silent Generation. Born between 1925 and 1942, currently in their midsixties to mideighties, this is the smallest generation in the workforce right now, as many have retired or left for other reasons. This generation includes people who were born during the Great Depression or the early part of World War II, many of whom later fought in the Korean War (Clarke, 1970).
• The Baby Boomers. Born between 1946 and 1964, currently in their late forties to midsixties, this is the largest generation in the workforce right now. Baby boomers are the most populous generation born in US history, and they are working longer than previous generations, which means they will remain the predominant force in organizations for ten to twenty more years.
• Generation X. Born between 1965 and 1981, currently in their early thirties to midforties, this generation was the first to see technology like cell phones and the Internet make its way into classrooms and our daily lives. Compared to previous generations, “Gen-Xers” are more diverse in terms of race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation and also have a greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity.
• Generation Y. Born between 1982 and 2000, “Millennials” as they are also called are currently in their late teens up to about thirty years old. This generation is not as likely to remember a time without technology such as computers and cell phones. They are just starting to enter into the workforce and have been greatly affected by the economic crisis of the late 2000s, experiencing significantly high unemployment rates.

The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion. We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong” that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions. Reviewing Chapter 8 “Culture and Communication” will give you useful knowledge to help you navigate both international and domestic diversity and increase your communication competence in small groups and elsewhere.

Key Takeaways

• Every problem has common components: an undesirable situation, a desired situation, and obstacles between the undesirable and desirable situations. Every problem also has a set of characteristics that vary among problems, including task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in the problem, group familiarity with the problem, and the need for solution acceptance.

The group problem-solving process has five steps:

• Define the problem by creating a problem statement that summarizes it.
• Analyze the problem and create a problem question that can guide solution generation.
• Generate possible solutions. Possible solutions should be offered and listed without stopping to evaluate each one.
• Evaluate the solutions based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Groups should also assess the potential effects of the narrowed list of solutions.
• Implement and assess the solution. Aside from enacting the solution, groups should determine how they will know the solution is working or not.
• Before a group makes a decision, it should brainstorm possible solutions. Group communication scholars suggest that groups (1) do a warm-up brainstorming session; (2) do an actual brainstorming session in which ideas are not evaluated, wild ideas are encouraged, quantity not quality of ideas is the goal, and new combinations of ideas are encouraged; (3) eliminate duplicate ideas; and (4) clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. In order to guide the idea-generation process and invite equal participation from group members, the group may also elect to use the nominal group technique.
• Common decision-making techniques include majority rule, minority rule, and consensus rule. With majority rule, only a majority, usually one-half plus one, must agree before a decision is made. With minority rule, a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision, and the input of group members may or may not be invited or considered. With consensus rule, all members of the group must agree on the same decision.

Several factors influence the decision-making process:

• Situational factors include the degree of freedom a group has to make its own decisions, the level of uncertainty facing the group and its task, the size of the group, the group’s access to information, and the origin and urgency of the problem.
• Personality influences on decision making include a person’s value orientation (economic, aesthetic, theoretical, political, or religious), and personality traits (dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional).
• Cultural influences on decision making include the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the group makeup; cultural values and characteristics such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles; and gender and age differences.
• Scenario 1. Task difficulty is high, number of possible solutions is high, group interest in problem is high, group familiarity with problem is low, and need for solution acceptance is high.
• Scenario 2. Task difficulty is low, number of possible solutions is low, group interest in problem is low, group familiarity with problem is high, and need for solution acceptance is low.
• Scenario 1: Academic. A professor asks his or her class to decide whether the final exam should be an in-class or take-home exam.
• Scenario 2: Professional. A group of coworkers must decide which person from their department to nominate for a company-wide award.
• Scenario 3: Personal. A family needs to decide how to divide the belongings and estate of a deceased family member who did not leave a will.
• Scenario 4: Civic. A local branch of a political party needs to decide what five key issues it wants to include in the national party’s platform.
• Group communication researchers have found that heterogeneous groups (composed of diverse members) have advantages over homogenous (more similar) groups. Discuss a group situation you have been in where diversity enhanced your and/or the group’s experience.

Adams, K., and Gloria G. Galanes, Communicating in Groups: Applications and Skills , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 220–21.

Allen, B. J., Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity , 2nd ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2011), 5.

Bormann, E. G., and Nancy C. Bormann, Effective Small Group Communication , 4th ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: Burgess CA, 1988), 112–13.

Clarke, G., “The Silent Generation Revisited,” Time, June 29, 1970, 46.

Cragan, J. F., and David W. Wright, Communication in Small Group Discussions: An Integrated Approach , 3rd ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1991), 77–78.

de Bono, E., Six Thinking Hats (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985).

Delbecq, A. L., and Andrew H. Ven de Ven, “A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7, no. 4 (1971): 466–92.

Haslett, B. B., and Jenn Ruebush, “What Differences Do Individual Differences in Groups Make?: The Effects of Individuals, Culture, and Group Composition,” in The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research , ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999), 133.

Napier, R. W., and Matti K. Gershenfeld, Groups: Theory and Experience , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 292.

Osborn, A. F., Applied Imagination (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959).

Spranger, E., Types of Men (New York: Steckert, 1928).

Stanton, C., “How to Deliver Group Presentations: The Unified Team Approach,” Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills , November 3, 2009, accessed August 28, 2012, http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach .

Thomas, D. C., “Cultural Diversity and Work Group Effectiveness: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30, no. 2 (1999): 242–63.

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• TEFL Internship
• TEFL Masters
• Find a TEFL Course
• Special Offers
• Course Providers
• Teach English Abroad
• Find a TEFL Job
• About DoTEFL
• Our Mission
• How DoTEFL Works

Forgotten Password

121+ Debate Topics to Spark Discussion

• Teaching English
• James Prior
• No Comments
• Updated August 27, 2024

Explore 121 debate topics to ignite discussion. These thought-provoking topics cover education, ethics, technology, and more, perfect for sharpening critical thinking and argumentative skills.

Debating is an excellent way for you to sharpen your critical thinking skills and improve your ability to form logical arguments. Whether you’re in middle school, high school, or college, or are a student learning English, participating in debates can be both challenging and rewarding. The key is to pick a topic that is engaging, thought-provoking, and relevant.

Below, we’ll explore 121 debate topics categorized to help spark passionate discussions.

Table of Contents

Debate Topics

In this section, you’ll find a wide range of debate topics covering education, ethics, technology, and more. These topics are designed to challenge your thinking and spark engaging discussions. So, if you’re preparing for a class debate or writing an essay, these ideas will inspire you to explore different perspectives.

Education and School Policies

Are standardized tests an effective measure of student ability.

Standardized tests are common in education, but do they accurately reflect student knowledge?

Is It Possible to Achieve Gender Equality?

Gender equality is a fundamental goal. Is it possible to achieve, or are there too many barriers?

Is It Possible to Achieve Racial Equality?

Racial equality is an important goal. Is it possible to achieve, or are there too many obstacles?

Should College Athletes Be Paid?

College athletes bring in revenue, but should they be compensated beyond scholarships?

Should Schools Abolish Grading Systems?

Grading systems can be stressful for students. Should we abolish them in favor of alternative assessments?

Should Schools Ban Junk Food?

With childhood obesity on the rise, should schools take a stand against junk food, or does this infringe on personal choice?

Should Schools Eliminate Standardized Testing?

Standardized tests are a common measure of student ability, but should they be eliminated?

Should Schools Focus More on STEM Subjects?

STEM subjects are important for the future. Should schools prioritize them over other subjects?

Should Schools Have Armed Security?

School shootings are a tragic reality. Would armed security make schools safer or more dangerous?

Should Schools Implement Longer School Days?

Longer school days could improve learning outcomes, but would they also lead to burnout?

Should Schools Start Later in the Day?

Starting school later could benefit students’ sleep, but would it also disrupt family schedules?

Should Schools Teach Financial Literacy?

Many students graduate without understanding personal finance. Should schools prioritize financial education?

Should Schools Teach Sex Education?

Sex education can promote safe practices, but should it be the responsibility of schools?

Should We Ban the Use of Cell Phones in Schools?

Cell phones can be a distraction in schools. Should they be banned to improve focus and learning?

Environment and Sustainability

Are electric cars the future of transportation.

Electric cars are gaining popularity, but are they truly the solution to our transportation needs?

Should We Ban Plastic Bags?

Plastic bags are a significant environmental issue. Should we ban them to reduce pollution?

Should We Ban Plastic Cutlery?

Plastic cutlery contributes to pollution. Should we ban it to protect the environment?

Should We Ban Plastic Packaging?

Plastic packaging is a major source of waste. Should we ban it to protect the environment?

Should We Ban Plastic Straws?

Plastic straws contribute to ocean pollution. Should we ban them to protect marine life?

Should We Ban Single-Use Plastics?

Single-use plastics are a major environmental issue. Should they be banned to protect the planet?

Should We Prioritize Space Exploration?

With so many issues on Earth, should we invest in exploring space or focus on solving terrestrial problems?

Is Fast Food to Blame for Obesity?

Fast food is convenient and cheap, but is it also responsible for the obesity epidemic?

Is Veganism the Future of Food?

Veganism is growing in popularity, but is it a sustainable solution for feeding the world?

Health and Wellness

Is it better to eat organic food.

Organic food is often seen as healthier. Is it worth the higher cost compared to conventional food?

Should We Abolish Fast Food Restaurants?

Fast food is convenient, but should we ban it due to its negative impact on health?

Should We Ban Energy Drinks?

Energy drinks are popular but have health risks. Should their sale be restricted?

Should We Ban Junk Food Advertisements Targeted at Children?

Junk food advertisements target children, potentially leading to unhealthy eating habits. Should they be banned?

Should We Ban the Use of Artificial Sweeteners?

Artificial sweeteners are common in diet foods. Should we ban them due to health concerns?

Should We Implement Sugar Taxes?

Sugar taxes could reduce consumption and improve health. Should they be implemented?

Should We Legalize All Drugs?

The war on drugs has failed in many ways. Would legalizing drugs help or hurt society?

Should We Make Physical Education Mandatory?

Physical education is essential for health. Should it be mandatory in all schools?

Should We Prioritize Mental Health in Schools?

Mental health issues are rising among students. Should schools prioritize mental health support?

Should We Promote Vaccinations More Aggressively?

Vaccinations are essential for public health. Should we promote them more aggressively to ensure higher rates?

Law and Justice

Should we abolish grading systems in schools, should we abolish prisons.

Prisons are a fundamental part of the justice system, but should they be abolished in favor of alternative solutions?

Should We Ban the Death Penalty?

The death penalty is a controversial issue. Should it be banned altogether?

Should We Ban the Sale of Alcohol?

Alcohol has been banned before, with mixed results. Should we ban it again to reduce its negative impact?

Should We Ban the Sale of Cigarettes?

Cigarettes are harmful to health. Should we ban their sale to protect public health?

Should We Ban the Use of Drones?

Drones have many uses, but should their use be banned due to privacy and safety concerns?

Should We Implement Stricter Gun Control Laws?

Gun control is a hot-button issue. Would stricter laws reduce violence or infringe on personal freedoms?

Should We Legalize Euthanasia?

Euthanasia offers a way to end suffering, but should it be legal or is it a slippery slope?

Should We Rehabilitate or Punish Criminals?

The justice system has two main goals: punishment and rehabilitation. Which should be prioritized?

Society and Ethics

Are celebrity culture and influencers harmful to society.

Celebrities and influencers have a significant influence on society. Is this influence harmful or beneficial?

Is Censorship Ever Justified?

Censorship can protect society, but does it also infringe on freedom of speech?

Is Cultural Appropriation Always Wrong?

Cultural appropriation can be offensive, but is it always wrong or is there room for appreciation?

Is It Ethical to Keep Animals in Zoos?

Zoos provide education and conservation, but is it ethical to keep animals in captivity?

Is It Ethical to Use Animals for Entertainment?

Animals are often used for entertainment purposes. Is this ethical, or should it be banned?

Is It Ethical to Use Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare?

Artificial intelligence is being used in healthcare. Is this ethical, or should it be limited?

Is It Ethical to Use Artificial Intelligence in Warfare?

Artificial intelligence is being used in warfare. Is this ethical, or should it be banned?

Is It Possible to Achieve World Peace?

World peace is an ideal goal, but is it realistically achievable?

Is Torture Ever Justifiable?

Torture is a controversial method of interrogation. Is it ever justifiable in extreme situations?

Should Parents Be Held Responsible for Their Children’s Crimes?

Parental responsibility is a hot topic. Should parents be held accountable for their children’s actions?

Should Social Media Be Censored?

With misinformation and hate speech rampant, should social media platforms be more strictly regulated?

Technology and Innovation

Is artificial intelligence a threat to humanity.

AI could revolutionize our world, but does it also pose a threat to humanity?

Is Technology Making Us Smarter or Dumber?

The internet offers unlimited information, but is it making us more intelligent or just more distracted?

Should We Allow Genetic Engineering?

Genetic engineering can cure diseases but also raises ethical questions. Should we allow it?

Should We Allow Artificial Intelligence in Film Production?

Artificial intelligence is used in film production. Should its use be limited to preserve human creativity?

Should We Ban the Use of Facial Recognition Technology?

Facial recognition technology can enhance security but also poses privacy concerns. Should it be banned?

Should We Embrace Artificial Intelligence in Everyday Life?

Artificial intelligence is becoming more common. Should we fully embrace it or be cautious?

Should We Regulate the Development of Artificial Intelligence?

The rapid advancement of AI raises ethical concerns. Should its development be regulated?

Is Virtual Reality the Future of Entertainment?

Virtual reality offers immersive experiences. Is it the future of entertainment or just a passing trend?

These 121 debate topics cover a wide range of issues that can stimulate critical thinking and lively discussions. Whether preparing for a debate, writing an essay, or just exploring different perspectives, these topics will help you engage with important issues and develop your argumentative skills. However, it’s still important to know how to select the right debate topics and we’ll cover that next.

How to Select Good Debate Topics

Choosing the right debate topic is crucial for a successful discussion. Follow these tips to select compelling and effective topics:

• Consider Your Audience Think about what interests and concerns your audience. Tailor the topic to their interests and knowledge level.
• Ensure Relevance Choose a topic that is timely and relevant. This keeps the debate engaging and applicable to current issues.
• Aim for Balance Select a topic with clear, opposing viewpoints. This encourages a balanced discussion and strong arguments on both sides.
• Check for Complexity Choose a topic with enough depth to explore. Avoid overly simplistic topics that don’t allow for detailed discussion.
• Look for Controversy Pick a topic with inherent controversy or debate. Controversial topics generate more interest and discussion.
• Ensure Accessibility Ensure that the topic is accessible to your audience. Avoid highly specialized topics that require extensive background knowledge.
• Evaluate the Sources Check for the availability of credible sources. A good topic should have ample research material to support both sides.
• Consider Ethical Implications Avoid topics that are offensive or insensitive. Ensure the topic fosters respectful and constructive discussion.
• Seek Variety Choose topics from different fields. This provides a range of perspectives and keeps debates fresh and interesting.
• Test the Topic Run the topic by a few people first. Their feedback can help you gauge its potential for engagement and debate.

By following these guidelines, you can select debate topics that are engaging, balanced, and thought-provoking.

How to Prepare for a Debate

Preparing for a debate requires careful planning and practice. Follow these steps to ensure you’re ready:

• Understand the Topic Research the topic thoroughly. Know both sides of the argument.
• Gather Evidence Collect facts, statistics, and examples to support your position. Use credible sources.
• Organize Your Arguments Structure your arguments logically. Start with a strong opening, followed by main points, and conclude effectively.
• Anticipate Counterarguments Identify potential counterarguments. Prepare rebuttals to address these opposing views.
• Practice Your Delivery Rehearse your speech. Focus on clarity, tone, and pace.
• Prepare Opening and Closing Statements Craft compelling opening and closing statements. Make a strong first impression and end with impact.
• Practice Organize practice debates. Focus on clarity, tone, and pace to improve their delivery.
• Use Effective Body Language Maintain good posture, eye contact, and gestures. Positive body language enhances your credibility.
• Engage with Your Opponent Listen carefully to your opponent’s arguments. Respond thoughtfully and respectfully.
• Manage Your Time Allocate time for each section of your argument. Avoid speaking too long or too short.
• Stay Calm and Confident Remain composed during the debate. Confidence and calmness help you present your arguments more effectively.
• Review and Revise Review your arguments and evidence. Revise as needed to strengthen your position.

By following these steps, it will help you prepare effectively for a successful debate. Good luck!

Selecting and preparing for debate topics requires careful consideration and effort. By choosing relevant, balanced, and thought-provoking subjects, you set the stage for meaningful discussions. Effective preparation — researching thoroughly, organizing arguments, and practicing delivery — ensures that participants are ready to engage with confidence and clarity.

Debates foster critical thinking, enhance communication skills, and encourage a deeper understanding of complex issues. It doesn’t matter if you are a student or an educator, mastering the art of debate can provide valuable skills for academic and personal growth.

Remember, the key to a successful debate is not just arguing and defending your point of view but also understanding the opposing arguments and addressing them respectfully and thoughtfully.

So, choose your topic, embrace the challenge, stay open-minded, and enjoy the process of exploring diverse viewpoints. Happy debating!

• Recent Posts

• 99 Funny Debate Topics to Inspire Learning and Laughter - August 26, 2024
• How to Sell an Online Course: A Step-By-Step Guide - August 23, 2024
• 27 ESL Speaking Activities To Get Your Students Talking - August 22, 2024

More from DoTEFL

TEFL Accreditation: Why Finding an Accredited TEFL Course Is Important

• Updated November 2, 2023

31 Best Summer Jobs for Teachers

• Updated May 1, 2024

17 of The Longest English Words: Can You Pronounce Them?!

• Updated January 29, 2024

15 Things You Need to Know Before Teaching English in Japan

• Anna Deutschman
• Updated April 1, 2023

25 Fun Games to Play on Zoom With Your Students

• Updated May 12, 2023
• The global TEFL course directory.

More From Forbes

Problem-solving: exploring three diverse approaches.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Andrea Eboli is a Business Strategist, Founder & CEO of IGB Consulting . Ph.D. in Consumer Science. Member of Forbes Business Council.

A problem doesn't last a lifetime. But how you deal with it can make it linger for years without resolution. In my studies about the topic, I've identified that, in addition to everything that triggers a specific issue, there's also a mindset dictating the script a person follows when confronted with what needs to be solved. It's as if there's already software installed in us, and this program runs in a consistently similar way to find a solution.

Understanding our profile when it comes to problem-solving and recognizing our mindset can be the first step to avoiding getting stuck in problems without reaching a solution. Here are three of the most common types I see:

1. Problem Amplifiers

You might hear a problem amplifier say something like, "My problems are too big and not easy to solve." Some people have a talent for envisioning problems as even larger and more impactful than they truly are. It's common for them to become emotionally entangled to such a degree with an issue that they struggle to find the calmness needed to initiate a resolution. By magnifying difficulties, they end up getting lost and can no longer discern what the real problem is.

Consider someone facing a temporary setback, such as job loss. If they have an amplifying mindset toward problems, they might start believing they will never secure another job and have stable employment again. In this scenario, the individual may begin to act in a negative and defeatist manner, becoming demotivated and giving up on seeking new opportunities.

Identifiers

You may be a problem amplifier if:

• Your conversations at work, with family or among friends usually revolve around sharing problems.

• You tend to magnify the impact of the problem by crafting a detailed story that resonates with people and elicits empathy, but never proposes a solution.

• You talk about the same problem to more than one person.

Tips For Problem Amplifiers

• Try to stay focused and be objective.

• Work to control your emotions.

• Resist the urge to seek attention through the problem and avoid victimizing oneself.

2. Arrogant Problem Solvers

Arrogant problem solvers are "Leave it to me, I know how to solve it!" types. And while confidence is usually a good thing, arrogant behavior can lead to mistakes. It's a blind spot. This is because individuals who tend to believe they have all the answers run the risk of not fully assessing the situation. It's common for this profile to have experience in problem-solving and indeed possess knowledge and resources to read a situation more easily, but they still have more to learn.

You may be an arrogant problem solver if:

• You enjoy doing things your way and have difficulty listening to others.

• You dislike criticism and often project yourself as the "owner of the truth."

• You rarely give credit to others.

Tips For Arrogant Problem Solvers

• Approach a problem with curiosity, openness and fewer certainties.

• Investigate before solving and treat certainties as doubts that need to be proven.

• Learn to listen genuinely.

3. Natural Problem Solvers

A classic refrain for natural problem solvers is "I can't sleep with anything unresolved!" Natural problem solvers are not afraid to face challenges. Individuals like this are so resilient that others might think they have no problems or that everything in their lives is easier. They take initiative, make things happen, seek solutions and are creative. In other words, they spare no effort to do what needs to be done. Successful executives in operational areas often have more of a problem-solving profile. People with this profile can solve many issues, but when they can't, the lingering feeling is frustration.

You may be a natural problem solver if:

• You often receive or take on additional tasks.

• You take care of the personal problems of the entire family.

• You organize personal and professional engagement and partnership-building events.

• You are a workaholic—by nature and passion.

• You can sometimes be disorganized, hasty or have difficulty focusing.

Tips For Natural Problem Solvers

• Have a method that structures your actions and increases your resolution capacity.

• Be less self-critical and banish thoughts that you are always in debt or never good enough.

• Practice patience and celebrate smaller wins along the way.

I often say that problem-solving should be a mandatory subject in all business schools worldwide. Regardless of the area or position in the company, professionals are greeted every morning with numerous challenges and problems to solve. Your outlook on life often predisposes you to face the problem in a certain way, which can be beneficial but at the same time very detrimental to your career and the way you handle deliveries and results. Understanding these profiles and seeking out tools can help you have a more prosperous and promising relationship with your challenges.

Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

How to master the seven-step problem-solving process

In this episode of the McKinsey Podcast , Simon London speaks with Charles Conn, CEO of venture-capital firm Oxford Sciences Innovation, and McKinsey senior partner Hugo Sarrazin about the complexities of different problem-solving strategies.

Podcast transcript

Simon London: Hello, and welcome to this episode of the McKinsey Podcast , with me, Simon London. What’s the number-one skill you need to succeed professionally? Salesmanship, perhaps? Or a facility with statistics? Or maybe the ability to communicate crisply and clearly? Many would argue that at the very top of the list comes problem solving: that is, the ability to think through and come up with an optimal course of action to address any complex challenge—in business, in public policy, or indeed in life.

Looked at this way, it’s no surprise that McKinsey takes problem solving very seriously, testing for it during the recruiting process and then honing it, in McKinsey consultants, through immersion in a structured seven-step method. To discuss the art of problem solving, I sat down in California with McKinsey senior partner Hugo Sarrazin and also with Charles Conn. Charles is a former McKinsey partner, entrepreneur, executive, and coauthor of the book Bulletproof Problem Solving: The One Skill That Changes Everything [John Wiley & Sons, 2018].

Charles and Hugo, welcome to the podcast. Thank you for being here.

Hugo Sarrazin: Our pleasure.

Charles Conn: It’s terrific to be here.

Simon London: Problem solving is a really interesting piece of terminology. It could mean so many different things. I have a son who’s a teenage climber. They talk about solving problems. Climbing is problem solving. Charles, when you talk about problem solving, what are you talking about?

Charles Conn: For me, problem solving is the answer to the question “What should I do?” It’s interesting when there’s uncertainty and complexity, and when it’s meaningful because there are consequences. Your son’s climbing is a perfect example. There are consequences, and it’s complicated, and there’s uncertainty—can he make that grab? I think we can apply that same frame almost at any level. You can think about questions like “What town would I like to live in?” or “Should I put solar panels on my roof?”

You might think that’s a funny thing to apply problem solving to, but in my mind it’s not fundamentally different from business problem solving, which answers the question “What should my strategy be?” Or problem solving at the policy level: “How do we combat climate change?” “Should I support the local school bond?” I think these are all part and parcel of the same type of question, “What should I do?”

I’m a big fan of structured problem solving. By following steps, we can more clearly understand what problem it is we’re solving, what are the components of the problem that we’re solving, which components are the most important ones for us to pay attention to, which analytic techniques we should apply to those, and how we can synthesize what we’ve learned back into a compelling story. That’s all it is, at its heart.

I think sometimes when people think about seven steps, they assume that there’s a rigidity to this. That’s not it at all. It’s actually to give you the scope for creativity, which often doesn’t exist when your problem solving is muddled.

Simon London: You were just talking about the seven-step process. That’s what’s written down in the book, but it’s a very McKinsey process as well. Without getting too deep into the weeds, let’s go through the steps, one by one. You were just talking about problem definition as being a particularly important thing to get right first. That’s the first step. Hugo, tell us about that.

Hugo Sarrazin: It is surprising how often people jump past this step and make a bunch of assumptions. The most powerful thing is to step back and ask the basic questions—“What are we trying to solve? What are the constraints that exist? What are the dependencies?” Let’s make those explicit and really push the thinking and defining. At McKinsey, we spend an enormous amount of time in writing that little statement, and the statement, if you’re a logic purist, is great. You debate. “Is it an ‘or’? Is it an ‘and’? What’s the action verb?” Because all these specific words help you get to the heart of what matters.

Want to subscribe to The McKinsey Podcast ?

Simon London: So this is a concise problem statement.

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah. It’s not like “Can we grow in Japan?” That’s interesting, but it is “What, specifically, are we trying to uncover in the growth of a product in Japan? Or a segment in Japan? Or a channel in Japan?” When you spend an enormous amount of time, in the first meeting of the different stakeholders, debating this and having different people put forward what they think the problem definition is, you realize that people have completely different views of why they’re here. That, to me, is the most important step.

Charles Conn: I would agree with that. For me, the problem context is critical. When we understand “What are the forces acting upon your decision maker? How quickly is the answer needed? With what precision is the answer needed? Are there areas that are off limits or areas where we would particularly like to find our solution? Is the decision maker open to exploring other areas?” then you not only become more efficient, and move toward what we call the critical path in problem solving, but you also make it so much more likely that you’re not going to waste your time or your decision maker’s time.

How often do especially bright young people run off with half of the idea about what the problem is and start collecting data and start building models—only to discover that they’ve really gone off half-cocked.

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah.

Charles Conn: And in the wrong direction.

Simon London: OK. So step one—and there is a real art and a structure to it—is define the problem. Step two, Charles?

Charles Conn: My favorite step is step two, which is to use logic trees to disaggregate the problem. Every problem we’re solving has some complexity and some uncertainty in it. The only way that we can really get our team working on the problem is to take the problem apart into logical pieces.

What we find, of course, is that the way to disaggregate the problem often gives you an insight into the answer to the problem quite quickly. I love to do two or three different cuts at it, each one giving a bit of a different insight into what might be going wrong. By doing sensible disaggregations, using logic trees, we can figure out which parts of the problem we should be looking at, and we can assign those different parts to team members.

Simon London: What’s a good example of a logic tree on a sort of ratable problem?

Charles Conn: Maybe the easiest one is the classic profit tree. Almost in every business that I would take a look at, I would start with a profit or return-on-assets tree. In its simplest form, you have the components of revenue, which are price and quantity, and the components of cost, which are cost and quantity. Each of those can be broken out. Cost can be broken into variable cost and fixed cost. The components of price can be broken into what your pricing scheme is. That simple tree often provides insight into what’s going on in a business or what the difference is between that business and the competitors.

If we add the leg, which is “What’s the asset base or investment element?”—so profit divided by assets—then we can ask the question “Is the business using its investments sensibly?” whether that’s in stores or in manufacturing or in transportation assets. I hope we can see just how simple this is, even though we’re describing it in words.

When I went to work with Gordon Moore at the Moore Foundation, the problem that he asked us to look at was “How can we save Pacific salmon?” Now, that sounds like an impossible question, but it was amenable to precisely the same type of disaggregation and allowed us to organize what became a 15-year effort to improve the likelihood of good outcomes for Pacific salmon.

Simon London: Now, is there a danger that your logic tree can be impossibly large? This, I think, brings us onto the third step in the process, which is that you have to prioritize.

Charles Conn: Absolutely. The third step, which we also emphasize, along with good problem definition, is rigorous prioritization—we ask the questions “How important is this lever or this branch of the tree in the overall outcome that we seek to achieve? How much can I move that lever?” Obviously, we try and focus our efforts on ones that have a big impact on the problem and the ones that we have the ability to change. With salmon, ocean conditions turned out to be a big lever, but not one that we could adjust. We focused our attention on fish habitats and fish-harvesting practices, which were big levers that we could affect.

People spend a lot of time arguing about branches that are either not important or that none of us can change. We see it in the public square. When we deal with questions at the policy level—“Should you support the death penalty?” “How do we affect climate change?” “How can we uncover the causes and address homelessness?”—it’s even more important that we’re focusing on levers that are big and movable.

Would you like to learn more about our Strategy & Corporate Finance Practice ?

Simon London: Let’s move swiftly on to step four. You’ve defined your problem, you disaggregate it, you prioritize where you want to analyze—what you want to really look at hard. Then you got to the work plan. Now, what does that mean in practice?

Hugo Sarrazin: Depending on what you’ve prioritized, there are many things you could do. It could be breaking the work among the team members so that people have a clear piece of the work to do. It could be defining the specific analyses that need to get done and executed, and being clear on time lines. There’s always a level-one answer, there’s a level-two answer, there’s a level-three answer. Without being too flippant, I can solve any problem during a good dinner with wine. It won’t have a whole lot of backing.

Simon London: Not going to have a lot of depth to it.

Hugo Sarrazin: No, but it may be useful as a starting point. If the stakes are not that high, that could be OK. If it’s really high stakes, you may need level three and have the whole model validated in three different ways. You need to find a work plan that reflects the level of precision, the time frame you have, and the stakeholders you need to bring along in the exercise.

Charles Conn: I love the way you’ve described that, because, again, some people think of problem solving as a linear thing, but of course what’s critical is that it’s iterative. As you say, you can solve the problem in one day or even one hour.

Charles Conn: We encourage our teams everywhere to do that. We call it the one-day answer or the one-hour answer. In work planning, we’re always iterating. Every time you see a 50-page work plan that stretches out to three months, you know it’s wrong. It will be outmoded very quickly by that learning process that you described. Iterative problem solving is a critical part of this. Sometimes, people think work planning sounds dull, but it isn’t. It’s how we know what’s expected of us and when we need to deliver it and how we’re progressing toward the answer. It’s also the place where we can deal with biases. Bias is a feature of every human decision-making process. If we design our team interactions intelligently, we can avoid the worst sort of biases.

Simon London: Here we’re talking about cognitive biases primarily, right? It’s not that I’m biased against you because of your accent or something. These are the cognitive biases that behavioral sciences have shown we all carry around, things like anchoring, overoptimism—these kinds of things.

Both: Yeah.

Charles Conn: Availability bias is the one that I’m always alert to. You think you’ve seen the problem before, and therefore what’s available is your previous conception of it—and we have to be most careful about that. In any human setting, we also have to be careful about biases that are based on hierarchies, sometimes called sunflower bias. I’m sure, Hugo, with your teams, you make sure that the youngest team members speak first. Not the oldest team members, because it’s easy for people to look at who’s senior and alter their own creative approaches.

Hugo Sarrazin: It’s helpful, at that moment—if someone is asserting a point of view—to ask the question “This was true in what context?” You’re trying to apply something that worked in one context to a different one. That can be deadly if the context has changed, and that’s why organizations struggle to change. You promote all these people because they did something that worked well in the past, and then there’s a disruption in the industry, and they keep doing what got them promoted even though the context has changed.

Simon London: Right. Right.

Hugo Sarrazin: So it’s the same thing in problem solving.

Charles Conn: And it’s why diversity in our teams is so important. It’s one of the best things about the world that we’re in now. We’re likely to have people from different socioeconomic, ethnic, and national backgrounds, each of whom sees problems from a slightly different perspective. It is therefore much more likely that the team will uncover a truly creative and clever approach to problem solving.

Simon London: Let’s move on to step five. You’ve done your work plan. Now you’ve actually got to do the analysis. The thing that strikes me here is that the range of tools that we have at our disposal now, of course, is just huge, particularly with advances in computation, advanced analytics. There’s so many things that you can apply here. Just talk about the analysis stage. How do you pick the right tools?

Charles Conn: For me, the most important thing is that we start with simple heuristics and explanatory statistics before we go off and use the big-gun tools. We need to understand the shape and scope of our problem before we start applying these massive and complex analytical approaches.

Simon London: Would you agree with that?

Hugo Sarrazin: I agree. I think there are so many wonderful heuristics. You need to start there before you go deep into the modeling exercise. There’s an interesting dynamic that’s happening, though. In some cases, for some types of problems, it is even better to set yourself up to maximize your learning. Your problem-solving methodology is test and learn, test and learn, test and learn, and iterate. That is a heuristic in itself, the A/B testing that is used in many parts of the world. So that’s a problem-solving methodology. It’s nothing different. It just uses technology and feedback loops in a fast way. The other one is exploratory data analysis. When you’re dealing with a large-scale problem, and there’s so much data, I can get to the heuristics that Charles was talking about through very clever visualization of data.

You test with your data. You need to set up an environment to do so, but don’t get caught up in neural-network modeling immediately. You’re testing, you’re checking—“Is the data right? Is it sound? Does it make sense?”—before you launch too far.

Simon London: You do hear these ideas—that if you have a big enough data set and enough algorithms, they’re going to find things that you just wouldn’t have spotted, find solutions that maybe you wouldn’t have thought of. Does machine learning sort of revolutionize the problem-solving process? Or are these actually just other tools in the toolbox for structured problem solving?

Charles Conn: It can be revolutionary. There are some areas in which the pattern recognition of large data sets and good algorithms can help us see things that we otherwise couldn’t see. But I do think it’s terribly important we don’t think that this particular technique is a substitute for superb problem solving, starting with good problem definition. Many people use machine learning without understanding algorithms that themselves can have biases built into them. Just as 20 years ago, when we were doing statistical analysis, we knew that we needed good model definition, we still need a good understanding of our algorithms and really good problem definition before we launch off into big data sets and unknown algorithms.

Simon London: Step six. You’ve done your analysis.

Charles Conn: I take six and seven together, and this is the place where young problem solvers often make a mistake. They’ve got their analysis, and they assume that’s the answer, and of course it isn’t the answer. The ability to synthesize the pieces that came out of the analysis and begin to weave those into a story that helps people answer the question “What should I do?” This is back to where we started. If we can’t synthesize, and we can’t tell a story, then our decision maker can’t find the answer to “What should I do?”

Simon London: But, again, these final steps are about motivating people to action, right?

Charles Conn: Yeah.

Simon London: I am slightly torn about the nomenclature of problem solving because it’s on paper, right? Until you motivate people to action, you actually haven’t solved anything.

Charles Conn: I love this question because I think decision-making theory, without a bias to action, is a waste of time. Everything in how I approach this is to help people take action that makes the world better.

Simon London: Hence, these are absolutely critical steps. If you don’t do this well, you’ve just got a bunch of analysis.

Charles Conn: We end up in exactly the same place where we started, which is people speaking across each other, past each other in the public square, rather than actually working together, shoulder to shoulder, to crack these important problems.

Simon London: In the real world, we have a lot of uncertainty—arguably, increasing uncertainty. How do good problem solvers deal with that?

Hugo Sarrazin: At every step of the process. In the problem definition, when you’re defining the context, you need to understand those sources of uncertainty and whether they’re important or not important. It becomes important in the definition of the tree.

You need to think carefully about the branches of the tree that are more certain and less certain as you define them. They don’t have equal weight just because they’ve got equal space on the page. Then, when you’re prioritizing, your prioritization approach may put more emphasis on things that have low probability but huge impact—or, vice versa, may put a lot of priority on things that are very likely and, hopefully, have a reasonable impact. You can introduce that along the way. When you come back to the synthesis, you just need to be nuanced about what you’re understanding, the likelihood.

Often, people lack humility in the way they make their recommendations: “This is the answer.” They’re very precise, and I think we would all be well-served to say, “This is a likely answer under the following sets of conditions” and then make the level of uncertainty clearer, if that is appropriate. It doesn’t mean you’re always in the gray zone; it doesn’t mean you don’t have a point of view. It just means that you can be explicit about the certainty of your answer when you make that recommendation.

Simon London: So it sounds like there is an underlying principle: “Acknowledge and embrace the uncertainty. Don’t pretend that it isn’t there. Be very clear about what the uncertainties are up front, and then build that into every step of the process.”

Hugo Sarrazin: Every step of the process.

Simon London: Yeah. We have just walked through a particular structured methodology for problem solving. But, of course, this is not the only structured methodology for problem solving. One that is also very well-known is design thinking, which comes at things very differently. So, Hugo, I know you have worked with a lot of designers. Just give us a very quick summary. Design thinking—what is it, and how does it relate?

Hugo Sarrazin: It starts with an incredible amount of empathy for the user and uses that to define the problem. It does pause and go out in the wild and spend an enormous amount of time seeing how people interact with objects, seeing the experience they’re getting, seeing the pain points or joy—and uses that to infer and define the problem.

Simon London: Problem definition, but out in the world.

Hugo Sarrazin: With an enormous amount of empathy. There’s a huge emphasis on empathy. Traditional, more classic problem solving is you define the problem based on an understanding of the situation. This one almost presupposes that we don’t know the problem until we go see it. The second thing is you need to come up with multiple scenarios or answers or ideas or concepts, and there’s a lot of divergent thinking initially. That’s slightly different, versus the prioritization, but not for long. Eventually, you need to kind of say, “OK, I’m going to converge again.” Then you go and you bring things back to the customer and get feedback and iterate. Then you rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. There’s a lot of tactile building, along the way, of prototypes and things like that. It’s very iterative.

Simon London: So, Charles, are these complements or are these alternatives?

Charles Conn: I think they’re entirely complementary, and I think Hugo’s description is perfect. When we do problem definition well in classic problem solving, we are demonstrating the kind of empathy, at the very beginning of our problem, that design thinking asks us to approach. When we ideate—and that’s very similar to the disaggregation, prioritization, and work-planning steps—we do precisely the same thing, and often we use contrasting teams, so that we do have divergent thinking. The best teams allow divergent thinking to bump them off whatever their initial biases in problem solving are. For me, design thinking gives us a constant reminder of creativity, empathy, and the tactile nature of problem solving, but it’s absolutely complementary, not alternative.

Simon London: I think, in a world of cross-functional teams, an interesting question is do people with design-thinking backgrounds really work well together with classical problem solvers? How do you make that chemistry happen?

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah, it is not easy when people have spent an enormous amount of time seeped in design thinking or user-centric design, whichever word you want to use. If the person who’s applying classic problem-solving methodology is very rigid and mechanical in the way they’re doing it, there could be an enormous amount of tension. If there’s not clarity in the role and not clarity in the process, I think having the two together can be, sometimes, problematic.

The second thing that happens often is that the artifacts the two methodologies try to gravitate toward can be different. Classic problem solving often gravitates toward a model; design thinking migrates toward a prototype. Rather than writing a big deck with all my supporting evidence, they’ll bring an example, a thing, and that feels different. Then you spend your time differently to achieve those two end products, so that’s another source of friction.

Now, I still think it can be an incredibly powerful thing to have the two—if there are the right people with the right mind-set, if there is a team that is explicit about the roles, if we’re clear about the kind of outcomes we are attempting to bring forward. There’s an enormous amount of collaborativeness and respect.

Simon London: But they have to respect each other’s methodology and be prepared to flex, maybe, a little bit, in how this process is going to work.

Hugo Sarrazin: Absolutely.

Simon London: The other area where, it strikes me, there could be a little bit of a different sort of friction is this whole concept of the day-one answer, which is what we were just talking about in classical problem solving. Now, you know that this is probably not going to be your final answer, but that’s how you begin to structure the problem. Whereas I would imagine your design thinkers—no, they’re going off to do their ethnographic research and get out into the field, potentially for a long time, before they come back with at least an initial hypothesis.

Want better strategies? Become a bulletproof problem solver

Hugo Sarrazin: That is a great callout, and that’s another difference. Designers typically will like to soak into the situation and avoid converging too quickly. There’s optionality and exploring different options. There’s a strong belief that keeps the solution space wide enough that you can come up with more radical ideas. If there’s a large design team or many designers on the team, and you come on Friday and say, “What’s our week-one answer?” they’re going to struggle. They’re not going to be comfortable, naturally, to give that answer. It doesn’t mean they don’t have an answer; it’s just not where they are in their thinking process.

Simon London: I think we are, sadly, out of time for today. But Charles and Hugo, thank you so much.

Charles Conn: It was a pleasure to be here, Simon.

Hugo Sarrazin: It was a pleasure. Thank you.

Simon London: And thanks, as always, to you, our listeners, for tuning into this episode of the McKinsey Podcast . If you want to learn more about problem solving, you can find the book, Bulletproof Problem Solving: The One Skill That Changes Everything , online or order it through your local bookstore. To learn more about McKinsey, you can of course find us at McKinsey.com.

Charles Conn is CEO of Oxford Sciences Innovation and an alumnus of McKinsey’s Sydney office. Hugo Sarrazin is a senior partner in the Silicon Valley office, where Simon London, a member of McKinsey Publishing, is also based.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Strategy to beat the odds

Five routes to more innovative problem solving

• Workplace Safety

The Great Root Cause Problem Solving Debate

Root Cause Problem Solving

If you’ve spent much time in the safety sphere, you’ve learned all about the importance of identifying “root causes” when problems occur. Usually, a root cause is best described as the simple process of continuing to dig deeper and deeper into why an accident or problem occurred. Eventually, as the theory and practice go, you’ll end up at your primary/root cause.

The method makes intuitive sense for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the most obvious and immediate cause for a problem is not always the most important one; usually a number of preceding conditions had to be met (or not met, as the case may be) for the final ‘domino’ to fall and cause the end result.

Some users on LinkedIn, particularly one Alan Quilley, however, contest that the root cause model for problem solving has some inherent flaws, and hope that this literal ‘line’ of thinking is dying out. He attached to his post an article on the handling of a recent railway disaster in Canada , including a report diagram which showed many factors, as determined by the Transportation Safety Board, in a circular pattern, all shown as contributing to the final cause. It is worth noting that there are no indications of linear progression in such a model, one of the distinguishing factors of root cause analysis.

What followed is one of the most hotly debated LinkedIn discussions I’ve seen. Over 30 comments have been made so far, and at points tempers flared over whether Quilley had a point or was being overly simplistic in his argument, along with the expected rebuttals. It was all a bit dramatic. That said, there was some interesting debate and wisdom to be drawn from the ashes, so here it is.

Factor “Weight”

One of the biggest qualms that Quilley seemed to have with the root cause model was that certain factors were given more weight or thought of as getting “special treatment” when compared to others. In a root causes analysis, for example, you might say that a worker was tired and became inattentive before an accident, but the more important detail was that he had been scheduled for three extra-long shifts in that same week leading up to it.

Quilley argues that all arguments should be given equal attention and addressed. It makes sense, one should give attention to each item contributing to a cause, but to investigate under the pretense that no factors should be labeled as especially important or given more weight seems a bit silly.

User Amjad Alata illustrates this point perfectly by giving an example of a rusty pipe being a cause for a leak, but also poor maintenance as the reason for the rusty pipe in the first place, and then saying, “these two causes need to be addressed, but they cannot be considered of the same weight (or class), because they are not.”

Alata, and a couple others, made the argument that just because factors weren’t labeled in the same way didn’t magically make them equal. In his rust example, it would be important to immediately repair the rust damage (addressing one factor), but more important in the long run to fix underlying causes (the other).

Root Cause Problem Solving and Endless Digging

But that’s just it, a good rule of thumb for root causation backtracking is to simply work backward until you arrive at factors you can no longer control. You can fix a rusty pipe, you can reprimand a maintenance worker, you can change maintenance training and policy, etc., but arrive at a factor predetermined by a government safety agency or the nature of the industry you’re in, and you’ll be wasting time, and this ‘time wasting’ is a big part of what Quilley seems fed up with.

Diagram Style

Interestingly enough, one of the most misplaced (I felt) parts of this discussion was that about what kind of diagram should be used to represent causation. Quilley, for one, decries tree and linear diagrams that show one path to a problem.

Instead, the circular diagram from the TSB report is touted as a great new system… except it’s not. See, the problem is that, aside from very broad and general descriptions like “Insufficient Handbreaks,” you aren’t getting a whole lot of useful information.

The TSB knows this as well, and the real discussion of causation and the digging deeper into each one of those factors occurs inside their full written report. The diagram is only meant to show a sweeping overview of all the factors involved, not to be the actual problem-solving tool.

In Quilley’s defense, he likely knows this, but maybe feels the setup lends itself to a clearer understanding of the problem at a glance. To that end, he’s probably right.

In this arena, it ultimately comes down to what you’re trying to do with your boxes, pictures, bubbles, tree roots, etc. Is your diagram meant to be simple/at a glance, or is it meant to help facilitate a deeper understanding of the factors at play and be an actual problem-solving implement?  This decision will dictate your choice.

One of the biggest problems with this discussion was a common occurrence in just about every single debate that’s happened in the history of the world ever:  Little room for compromise. The truth is, a hybrid of the two models seems, to me, the best way to fully represent a problem and its causes.

The reason people like flow or root cause diagrams is that you can clearly see how one or more factors lead to another. The biggest complaint with them seems to be that they show problems at different levels, more due to the nature of the chart setup than by nature of how the factors actually occurred or contributed.

What might be a direction to explore would be combining this flow chart type progression with the chart of the TSB’s – from each circular ‘petal’ would branch outward the contributing (linear) factors to that particular bubble.

The result, in theory, would be a large inner circle with ALL of the most immediate causes taken into account, and then subsequent sticks/rays of factors going out from each of those, which work backward in time/progression in a similar way to traditional root cause exploration. In this way, you would be giving roughly equal weight to the types of factors that lead to an event, while still acknowledging through exploration of their root causes that different ones require more or more immediate attention.

If there’s nothing else that this discussion showed us, however, it’s that “in theory” means just that, and everyone can have an opinion on the right way to do something without ever having to prove it, test it in practice, etc. So I challenge you to take some of these ideas and see what they look like in practice for you . What works?  What leaves something to be desired?  Does that last hybrid model have a useful application? Only time, and more importantly practice and hard data, will tell.

Additional Resources

• 8D for Problem Solving – creativesafetysupply.com
• Eight Steps To Practical Problem Solving – kaizen-news.com
• Design Thinking: Empathy and Iteration for Innovation and Problem-Solving – creativesafetypublishing.com
• Training to Use 8D Problem-Solving Tactics – blog.creativesafetysupply.com
• “No Problem” is a Problem – jakegoeslean.com
• Great Pipe Marking Examples – lean-news.com
• Lean Thinking Questions – 5snews.com
• What’s so great about the LabelTac 9 Printer? – bridge-to-safety.com
• Why We Rule – A Guide to Creating Rule Compliance In The Workplace – safetyblognews.com

Related posts:

• Floor Signs Improve Safety and Productivity
• Mental Framing – How Your Ability to Take A Wider View Will Fuel Your Success
• Tips for Keeping Your Storage Area Organized
• Improve Workplace Safety with 5S
• Tool Organization for Safety
• Top 10 OSHA Violations in 2013
• Heat Illness in the Workplace
• Cement Safety – Guidelines for Protecting Your Skin
• Safety Supervisors – The 5 Most Common Mistakes

Problem-Solving Argumentative Patterns in Plenary Debates of the European Parliament

• Open access
• Published: 30 September 2015
• Volume 30 , pages 25–43, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Bart Garssen 1  

4466 Accesses

14 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The aim of this paper is to describe the way in which argumentative patterns come into being in plenary debate over legislative issues in the European Parliament. What kind of argumentative patterns are to be expected within this macro context? It is shown that the argumentative patterns that come into being in legislative debate in the European Parliament depend for the most part on the problem-solving argumentation that is put forward in the opening speech by the rapporteur of the parliamentary committee report. This argumentation can be pragmatic problem-solving argumentation or complex problem-solving argumentation. The most important prototypical argumentative patterns are investigated in the argumentation put forward by the Members of parliament. This investigation is based on an inventory of the arguments that can in principle be used to support or attack the initial problem-solving argumentation put forward by the rapporteur.

Similar content being viewed by others

Argumentative patterns in the political domain: the case of european parliamentary committees of inquiry.

Practical Argumentation in the Making: Discursive Construction of Reasons for Action

Prototypical Argumentative Patterns in a Legal Context: The Role of Pragmatic Argumentation in the Justification of Judicial Decisions

Explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

In the last two decades the European Parliament has become an import factor in the legislative process of the European Union. Together with the Council, Parliament can approve, amend or reject proposals for legislation put forward by the Commission. In the legislative process the parliamentary debates have a fixed place and function since Members of the European Parliament (MEP’s) vote on Commission proposals after these proposals are discussed in plenary sessions.

The aim of this paper is to describe the way in which argumentative patterns come into being in plenary debate over legislative issues in the European Parliament. What kinds of argumentative patterns are to be expected within this context and what kind of argumentative patterns are most likely to be used by MEP’s, given the institutional aim of the activity type?

In their comprehensive research project in which they examine the institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering in legislative debate in the European Parliament (van Eemeren and Garssen 2010 , 2011 ) van Eemeren and Garssen have characterized the legislative debate as an argumentative activity type. They come to the conclusion that the debates in the European Parliament are on the one hand highly regulated: there is a fixed speaking order and there is not much room for interruption. This makes parliamentary debates quite organized and structured. On the other hand, there are not many limitations when it comes to the types of argumentation that can be used by MEP’s.

There are no special constraints as to the argument schemes that can be employed in the argumentation stage. However, the types of argumentation that are actually employed in European parliamentary debates are largely determined by the fact that the debate is a political debate dealing with legislation and policy matters (van Eemeren and Garssen 2010 , p. 30). Footnote 1

The types of argumentation that can be used by proponents and opponents is for the most part predetermined by the initial presentation by the rapporteur. Since the institutional aim of the activity type of legislative debate in the European Parliament is sustained opinion forming on a proposal for legislation, the main type of argument that is to be expected is practical argumentation that is presented directly at the beginning of the debate by the opponent. This practical argumentation is always aimed at solving a certain problem. The argumentation put forward by the MEP’s will have to be relevant to this initial argumentation.

In this paper I will therefore first give an account of the problem-solving argumentation put forward by the rapporteur. Next, I will make a systematic inventory of the argument schemes that can be used by the proponents to support the initial problem-solving argumentation and of the argument schemes that can be used by the opponents to attack the initial problem-solving argumentation.

Subsequently, I will describe the prototypical argumentative patterns that most likely come into being in legislative parliamentary debate. Since there is no institutional regulation when it comes to the argument schemes that may be used in the debate, this effort is based on strategic considerations: what kind of argumentative patterns are MEPs most like to use in their efforts to be as effective as possible?

2 The Structure of Legislative Debate in the European Parliament

Since the 1990s, through the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice Treaties the European Parliament can be considered co-legislator, sharing legislative power with the Council across the majority of policy areas (Corbett et al. 2007 , p. 205). With the introduction of the co-decision procedure European Parliament gained considerable influence on legislation.

The shortest route to legislation is as follows: Parliament decides on a commission proposal and comes with a first reading “opinion” approving the (amended) proposal. If the Council agrees with this opinion the legislative proposal is adopted. In case the Council does not approve the outcome of the EP first reading, it adopts a “common position”. In the second reading Parliament may approve this common position, it may adopt amendments or it may reject the common position by an absolute majority of its members (Corbett et al. 2007 , p. 217).

In practice, the parliamentary work is organized through a system of standing and temporary committees that are responsible for the preparatory work for plenary parliamentary sittings. The committees draw up, adopt and amend legislative proposals as well as own-initiative reports, consider Commission and Council proposals and, where necessary, prepare reports to be presented to the plenary assembly. Much of their time the committees spend drawing up reports on legislation that is proposed by the Commission, but they can also draw up “own-initiative reports” on issues that fall within the scope of the committee’s competence (van Eemeren and Garssen 2010 , p. 27).

In legislative debate in the European Parliament, there is a fixed order of debate turns. The order of turns is as follows. The rapporteur of the committee involved starts with a statement, which may take up to 6 min. After this, a Member of the Commission reports on the reasons for the Commission to initiate the legislative procedure or on the Commissions’ view on proposed amendments. If a member of the Council is present, he may speak as well. Subsequently MEP’s of all political groups are given the opportunity to react to the report. Finally, the Member of the Commission will indicate its position on specific amendments tabled in the report before Parliament (Corbett et al. 2007 , p. 174). Usually the rapporteur closes the debate with some final statements reacting to the opinions put forward by the Members of parliaments. The following list represents the general of the order of turns in legislative debates Footnote 2 :

Opening statement by the rapporteur

Opening statement by the Member of the Commission

Main Group spokespersons for the issue (Members of Parliament)

Individual turns by Members of Parliament

Closing statement by the Member of the Commission

Closing statement by the rapporteur

After the opening by the rapporteur the actual debate develops. Legislative debates consist of a series of reactions to the report as it is presented by the rapporteur. This is why the presentation by the rapporteur is pivotal for understanding the overall structure of the argumentation put forward.

When Parliament receives a formal Commission or Council proposal (common opinion), a parliamentary committee writes a report on the proposal. In legislation or regulative debates the ‘rapporteur’ chosen by the committee gives a brief description of the report that was made to present the proposal for legislation. The rapporteur also presents the proposal or the amended proposal prepared by the committee. In a great many cases the rapporteur includes some information about the process that leads to the report: it took a long time to prepare, a great many parties had to satisfied, etc. In this description the rapporteur may also refer to amendments that had to be made on earlier versions of the legislation.

The rapporteur will provide argumentation supporting the main standpoint that the proposed legislation or an amended version of the proposal should be accepted. Defending this inciting standpoint calls for practical argumentation. Practical argumentation is argumentation that is put forward to defend a standpoint that expresses a plan, policy or, more general a certain action that should be performed or not be performed.

In the initial argumentation that is presented in the report, the committee concerned always points at a certain problem that need to be solved. In his or her opening speech the rapporteur presents the problem as the main reason why new legislation is needed. That is why the main arguments for the inciting standpoint that the legislation should be adopted centre around the idea that implementing the new legislation will solve the problems. The main argumentation of the rapporteur can thus be called problem-solving argumentation.

3 Problem-Solving Argumentation

Since the deliberation in the European Parliament is always about solving a specific problem the main argumentation that is put forward will be practical in nature. Generally speaking practical argumentation involves pointing at positive of negative causal consequences of a certain policy or plan. Footnote 3 In this case it is the positive consequence of solving or help solving the problem that is mentioned: the proposed legislation should be adopted because it will remove the predicament that is mentioned in the proposal.

Two types of practical argumentation are to be expected in the opening statement by the rapporteur: pragmatic problem-solving argumentation and complex problem-solving argumentation. The first type is straightforward pragmatic argumentation in which the proposal is defended by pointing at the positive results of implementing the proposal: because adopting the proposal leads to the favourable results (the problems will be solved) we should adopt it. In this case it is presumed in the initial argumentation that the results are indeed positive. This means that the speaker takes it that there is no discussion about the favourableness of the intended results: there is at least one problem and this problem needs to be solved.

In the basic scheme of pragmatic argumentation (as described in the introduction to this special issue by van Eemeren) the proposed action leads to an unspecified positive (or negative) result:

Basic argument scheme of pragmatic argumentation

The implementation of this scheme in the context parliamentary debate leads to the following specification.

Pragmatic problem-solving argumentation

In pragmatic problem solving argumentation of argumentation it is clear from the outset that there is a problem and that the removal of the problem is a positive thing. The speaker does not need to convince the listener that these problems exist and that these problems need to be solved. These are in order words presuppositions that do not need any further argumentation.

In some cases the rapporteur just points at the favourable consequences of a measure. Although it is clear that the measure is meant to solve certain problems, these problems are is it were presented as a given. This may be because it is obvious or because in earlier debates it has already been settled that there is a problem, for instances in first readings of a Commission proposal.

A case in point is the debate on food labelling on 5 July 2011 in which rapporteur Renate Sommers presents at the opening the main arguments for food labelling:

5 July 2011, Renate Sommers (Rapporteur) This regulation is intended to give consumers more and better information about food, in order to allow them to make informed purchasing decisions. That is not all, however. It should also benefit the European food industry by providing more legal certainty, less red tape and better law making.

It is striking that in this example more effects are mentioned: the legislation discussed will not only solve problems that consumers experience but also problems the food industry is faced with. The arguer relies in this case on a series of pragmatic arguments which are connected with each other in a coordinative argumentation structure. Although pragmatic arguments can also consist of pointing to just one favourable consequence, in argumentation in the European Parliament quite often more than just one consequence is mentioned. Footnote 4

In other cases the rapporteur not only mentions the intended results of the proposal but also tries to make clear that the intended effects are indeed desirable. If it is necessary to argue for the desirability of the intended effects, straightforward pragmatic argumentation for the proposal is not enough because using this argument scheme presupposes that the audience is in agreement with the desirability of the effects of the proposal. Since this precondition is not always fulfilled, the rapporteur may need to address the question of desirability. In this case the rapporteur (and other MEP’s) first need to convince their audience that there is a problem. This calls for a different type of practical argumentation.

In the second type of practical argumentation it is first established that there is a problem in the current situation, because this is not automatically accepted by the audience. The proposal is defended by showing that there is a problem and by stating that the implementation of the legislation will remove of will help removing the problem. This argumentation boils down at the following argumentative pattern that minimally consists of complementary coordinative argumentation in which the argument that there is a problem is defended by subordinate argumentation. This argumentative pattern, which is very close to pragmatic argumentation, will be called complex problem-solving argumentation: 

Complex problem solving argumentation

The problem statement 1.1a is compound: it includes a descriptive and a normative component. First, there is the presupposition that a certain situation exists. I will call this the existential presupposition of the problem statement. Second, it involves the normative qualification that this situation is in some way unwanted or troublesome. I will call this the normative qualification of the problem statement. The significance of the problem depends both on the existential presupposition: ‘how widespread is the problem?’, and the normative presupposition: ‘how unwanted is this situation?’.

It is more likely that this kind of argumentation is employed in parliamentary debate than simple pragmatic argumentation because it will not often be the case that all discussants are in full agreement that there is a problem and that this problem needs to be solved.

An example of such argumentation is the following part of the opening statement by Vidal-Quadras, in a debate on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply.

12 September 2010, Alejo Vidal-Quadras (Rapporteur) Mr President, in recent years, we have witnessed repeated examples of the vulnerability of Member States with respect to energy matters, particularly as regards the gas supply. Supply disruptions in the north and east of the European Union in the winters of 2005–2006 and 2008–2009 became a veritable nightmare. The harshness of recent winters in Europe makes it even more incumbent upon us, if possible, to do everything that is in our power to avoid similar occurrences in the future. […] The regulation we are going to vote on is intended to be a firm step forward in resolving this problem. We have spent a long time trying to make progress on this issue, overcoming the difficulties arising from the different national perspectives. It has been a long and hard negotiation process.

Vidal-Qudras not only claims that the proposal will be effective (‘a firm step forward in resolving this problem’), he also points explicitly at the problem to be solved (vulnerability of Member States with respect to energy matters) and provides even some examples that serve as support for the problem claim.

4 Argumentation Used to Defend Problem-Solving Argumentation

There are no institutional constraints to the types of argumentation that can be put forward in the debate. The official rules for the debate contain no limiting conditions, nor does the parliamentary debate tradition in any way impose restrictions to the use of certain types of argumentation. This means that the only restricting factor is that the argumentation should be relevant to standpoint and the initial practical argumentation put forward by the rapporteur.

In order to make some educated guesses about what kind of argumentative patterns can be expected, it is first necessary to make an inventory of the kind of arguments that the MEPs may use to defend or attack the initial practical argumentation.

Subordinate argumentation put forward in defence of parts of the original argumentation, can be seen as anticipation to criticism from an antagonist. Therefore, in order to systematically explore the possible extensions of the initial practical argumentation it is necessary to determine the critical questions pertaining to the two types of practical argumentation.

Because the two types of practical argumentation come with exactly the same sets of critical questions, and because complex problem-solving argumentation is more explicit than pragmatic argumentation, I will focus on complex problem-solving argumentation. A useful source for the critical questions that should be asked in evaluating complex problem-solving argumentation is the system of stock issues that is used American academic debate.

In American debate textbooks stock issues are proposed that are related to the defence of policy statements. Stock issues are the issues that the affirmative side in a debate has to address in defence of the proposition. If the affirmative side in a debate fails to deal with one of the stock issues effectively, the affirmative side loses.

Stock issues are part of the procedure for the distribution of the burden of proof in an academic (policy) debates. However, because they are systematically linked with problem-solving argumentation, they can be helpful in tracing the most important evaluative are relevant for Parliamentary debate as well.

Most textbooks mention four stock issues (ill, blame, cure and cost). Footnote 5 However for my purposes I use the more comprehensive list of six stock issues proposed by Klopf and McCroskey ( 1969 , p. 66–68), who add two issues (practicality and counterplan) to the original four:

Problem or need (ill): ‘Is there a problem in existence which needs to be solved’? The affirmative has to establish that there is a problem. This can be a current problem or a problem that is likely to develop in the future (Ihnen 2012 , p. 41).

Inherency (blame): ‘Is the problem, or the cause of the problem, an inherent part of the status quo ?’ The affirmative has to show that the problem is caused by the current regulations or system and that without adopting the proposed policy, the problem will continue to exist in the future. ‘[…] The affirmative must prove that the significant harm it identifies is built into the essential nature of the status quo through legal structures and/or societal attitudes’ (Freeley and Steinberg 2005 , p. 189). Footnote 6

Plan (cure): ‘Would the action suggested by the resolution eliminate the inherent problem?’

Practicality: ‘Is it reasonable to assume that the plan implied by the resolution could be implemented if it were found desirable?’

Advantages-disadvantages (cost): ‘Would plans suggested by the proposition be free from detrimental side effects if they were put into effect?’

Counterplan: ‘Is the policy stated in the proposition the best way to eliminate the problem?’

These stock issues seem all relevant to Parliamentary debate, save for the inherency stock issue. The definition of this stock issue is often vague and debate textbooks are not always in agreement about its use. According to one interpretation of the inherency stock issue the problem should be caused by the current legislation or policy (the status quo). This may be an interesting issue in academic debate but it is not very likely that this will ever play a role in legislative debates in the European Parliament. For this reason I choose not to use the inherency stock issue in my attempt to come an inventory of critical questions.

It is quite easy to relate the remainder of the stock issues to the premises in the initial practical argumentation. Stock issue 1 (problem or need) is related to premise 1a (there is a problem) in complex problem-solving argumentation. Stock issue 3 (plan) is related to premise 1b. (implementation of the proposal will solve the problem). And, finally, stock issue 4 (practicality), stock issue 5 (advantages-disadvantages) and stock issue 6 (counterplan) are all related to the connecting premise 1.1a-1.1b’ (Proposed legislation [of type X] that solves the problem [of type Y] should be adopted).

This means that we can list the following critical questions for pragmatic argumentation and complex problem-solving argumentation:

Is there a significant problem?

Will the legislative proposal solve the problem?

Is the proposal feasible?

Are there disadvantages?

Are there better means to solve the problem?

In order to answer these critical questions or in order to anticipate doubt directly prompted by these critical questions, the protagonist has to provide argumentation that backs up the specific premise under attack. The next question therefore is: what kind of argumentation can in principle be used to anticipate this kind of criticism? In the following, I would like to make an provisional inventory of the argument schemes that can be used to support the different parts of complex problem-solving argumentation.

Argumentation that can be used to support the premise stating that there is a problem

As explained, the problem statement is complex, since it includes an existential and a normative presupposition. The existential presupposition that a certain situation exists can be defended by a whole range of argument schemes, such as:

Causal argumentation from cause to effect: ‘situation x will occur because y will occur and y leads to x’

Causal argumentation from effect to cause: ‘situation x exits because y exists and y only can be caused by x (or is probably caused by x)’

Argumentation from authority: ‘situation x exists because authority y says so’ or ‘situation x exists because that is what the official data y indicate’

Argumentation by example: ‘situation x exists because of example y’

The normative presupposition that situation x is unwanted can only be supported by causal argumentation:

Causal argumentation from cause to effect: ‘situation x is troublesome because it leads to problematic situation y’

It may seem that the normative presupposition can also be supported by other types of argumentation such as argumentation from authority but this is not really the case. Argumentation from authority can be used to support the causal claim that is put forward to defend the normative presupposition. This causal claim, however, may not be expressed so that it looks like argumentation from authority or other types of argumentation are directly relevant to the normative presupposition.

Argumentation that can be used to support the premise that the proposal solves the problem

The causal claim that the implementation of the new legislation will solve the problem is a particular statement; it is not a general causal statement that expresses a general causal principle such as the connecting premise in causal argumentation (causes of type x lead to effects of type y). However, the particular causal statement (x will lead to y) can be supported by the general one (causes of type x will lead to effects of type y). It can be expected that in practice arguers will not explicitly state this general claim. Therefore this intermediating step will remain unexpressed in the argumentation. To keep things simple I take it that the causal claim can be interpreted as both particular as general. Footnote 7

The particular causal claim can be defended by causal argumentation, argumentation from authority and descriptive analogy:

Argumentation from authority: ‘the proposed legislation x will solve the problem because authority y says so’ or ‘the proposed legislation x will solve the problem because that is what official data y indicate’

descriptive analogy: ‘the proposed legislation x will solve the problem because a similar measure y solved the problems in a similar situation’

symptomatic argumentation: ‘the proposed legislation x will solve the problem y because, in general, events of type x will lead to events of type y’

In addition, the general causal claim that events of type x will lead to events of type y can be defended by argumentation by example:

argumentation by example: ‘events of type x (the implementation of the proposal will lead to events like y (solving the problem) because the same happened in example z.

Argumentation that can be used to support the connecting premise

The connecting premise is directly related to the following critical questions:

Are there weighty disadvantages?

In this case it is much harder to list candidates for argument schemes that can be used in support of the premise. The reason for this is that the questions are quite general. They should be specified to in order to find the types of arguments the arguer can rely on when reacting to the questions. An opponent attacking a legislative proposal will, for instance, not only claim that this proposal is not feasible, he or she will also show why it is not feasible. These critical questions can be used to specify the possible counter arguments the opponents of the plan are likely to put forward.

5 Argumentation Used to Attack Problem-Solving Argumentation

MEP’s who attack the initial problem-solving argumentation are most probably opponents of the legislative proposal. Following the list of stock issues discussed in Sect.  4 they can use the following main arguments for the standpoint that the proposed legislation should not be adopted:

There is no serious problem.

The proposed legislation does not solve the problem.

The proposal is not feasible.

There are weighty disadvantages (the proposal has negative side-effects).

There are better means to solve the problem.

Argumentation that can be used to support the premise stating that there is no problem

The opponent denying that there is a problem can try to show that the existential presupposition is unacceptable which boils down at showing that the claims made by the opponent about the existence of a certain situation are wrong. It is very hard to list the types of argument schemes that can be used to show this. The opponent can also try to show that the normative presupposition is unacceptable. He can do so by showing that the negative consequences of the problematic situation will not occur or will not be negative.

The normative presupposition that situation x is unwanted can only be attacked by symptomatic argumentation:

symptomatic argumentation: ‘situation x is not troublesome because it does not leads to problematic situation y’.

Argumentation that can be used to support the premise stating that the legislation does not solve the problem

argumentation from authority: ‘the proposed legislation x will not solve the problem because authority y says so’ or ‘the proposed legislation x will not solve the problem because that is what official data y indicate’

descriptive analogy: ‘the proposed legislation x will not solve the problem because a similar measure y did not solve the problems in a similar situation’

Argumentation that can be used to support the premise stating that the proposal is not feasible

The proposal cannot be feasible because of a great many reasons. That makes is harder to mention a possible supporting type of argument. However, symptomatic argumentation seem to be the most likely candidate:

symptomatic argumentation: ‘the proposal is not feasible because it is not in line with the current legislation’ or ‘the proposal is not feasible because it is too expensive’

Argumentation that can be used to support the premise stating that there are weighty disadvantages

Pointing to disadvantages means pointing at side-effects; the arguer makes a causal claim. This causal claim can be defended by means of argumentation from authority and argumentation by analogy:

Argumentation from authority: ‘the proposed legislation x will have weighty disadvantages because authority y says so’ or ‘the proposed legislation x will not solve the problem because that is what official data y indicate’

Descriptive analogy: ‘the proposed legislation x will have weighty disadvantages because a similar measure y came with weighty disadvantages as well’

Argumentation that can be used to support the premise stating that there are better means to solve the problem

Pointing at alternative solutions involves an argumentation pattern consisting of coordinative argumentation: the problem will be solved by an alternative measure (causal claim) and this measure is better than the original proposal (symptomatic argumentation)

6 Prototypical Argumentative Patterns

Based on the inventory of types of arguments that in principle can be used to defend parts of the initial practical argumentation or to defend criticisms of the initial practical argumentation, it is possible to make a choice from this list in other to establish what kind of argumentation is most likely to be found in the plenary debates in European Parliament and what kind of argumentative patterns are to be expected. Since there is no official regulation when it comes to the use of types of arguments this (incomplete) investigation of prototypical argumentative patterns is based on strategic consideration of the MEP’s when choosing their argumentation for a certain purpose.

For a number of reasons it seems more likely that the proponents of a proposal defend the claim that there are serious problems than that they go into the matter of the effectiveness of the proposal or start defending the connecting premise (feasibility, disadvantages, alternative proposals). In other words, the opponents will rather deal with the problem than with the causal claim.

The first reason is that in a political situation it is of primary importance to show that new legislation is absolutely necessary. This will be the case in national parliaments but also in the European Parliament where there are persistent voices against more regulation and bureaucracy. Second, if there is a need to defend the causal claim, this is most like already done in the report of the Parliamentary Committee. In the report there is much more room for technicalities that are to be expected when dealing with the causal claim then in the short speaking turns of the plenary debate. These technicalities will be lost for the audiences of the debate. Third, it is easier to point at problems and there significance. Fourth, from a strategic point of view it does not seem very opportune to raise questions of feasibility, disadvantages and alternatives when these are not yet mentioned by the opponents (let sleeping dogs lie).

If an opponent tries to defend the claim that there is a problem it is most likely that he will do so by pointing at specific examples of situations in the EU in which the problems are eminent, rather than go into technicalities. The following argumentative pattern comes into being when using argument by example: 

MEPs in support of a proposal often try to underline the seriousness of the problem (and therefore of the desirability of the results the proposal will bring about) by using arguments from example which are structured coordinatively. In a debate about clear labels for fruit juices sold in Europe (13 December, 2012), Carl Schlyter, for instance, defended a proposal for clearer labelling of fruit juices in the following way:

13 December 2011, Carl Schlyter, Verts/ALE (European Green) Mr President, I would like to thank everyone involved in the negotiations. At times, the negotiations were rather amusing. It could be considered strange that we have spent so many hours on such a limited subject as fruit juices, but at the same time, it was question of rather important principles. Should we maintain the EU’s high standard, where one exists, as opposed to the standard incorporated into international agreements? If we are to have a properly functioning single market, we must stop deceiving consumers. During the negotiations, I brought these juice cartons with me and I am still bringing them with me right to the bitter end. Here is one example of juice packaging: high quality, full of lovely cranberries. The problem is that cranberries are not the main ingredient of the juice—it is apple. However, I do not see apple mentioned on the packaging or in the name. This is a product from France. Here I have a product from Sweden/Finland. It is called raspberry/blueberry and there are raspberries and blueberries on the packaging. Hidden behind an enormous blueberry there is a very tiny apple. This is misleading, because this juice consists mostly of apple—it contains 10 times as much apple as raspberry and blueberry. Here is another fruit drink that is also sold on the European market. It has lovely strawberries and passion fruit on the packaging, but what do you think is the dominant fruit? It is apple, of course. Here is another one that is sold in six other countries in Europe. It states strawberry here, but do you think it contains any strawberries? Yes, it contains a very small amount of strawberries, but as usual it is mostly apple, and the apple on this packaging is hidden behind a symbol so that you can barely see it. This is misleading and fraudulent, and we are at last doing something about it. This is what I have been fighting for, and I am very pleased that this was the end result.

This is complex problem-solving argumentation in which the arguer defends the claim that there is a problem by using arguments by example. The argumentative pattern is in this case slightly more complex: 

Just as it is to be expected that the proponents rather deal with the problem, the opponents are expected to focus on the causal claim on negative side effects and on alternative solutions. Again, these expectations have to do with the strategic choices presumably made by the MEP’s when select their arguments from the topical potential. It is not very likely that the opponents will attack the problem statement, because in most cases the commission and the parliamentary committee most likely made sure that there actually is a problem and that this problem is serious enough to take action.

It is much easier for the opponents to attack the proposal itself. Since the proposal has not been implemented yet there will always exist some uncertainty about its effectiveness. For the same reason, the opponents may want to point at negative side-effects or present a counterplan.

A specific argumentative pattern comes into being when an opponent puts forward argumentation to support the standpoint that the proposal should not be adopted because it is not effective: 

A case in point is the following contribution by Georges Bach in a debate about a European railway regulation.

14 November, 2011 Georges Bach, EPP (European People’s Party) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur and all the speakers for their work on this report. Above all, this document will consolidate the powers of national regulators responsible for overseeing the correct application of rules by railway undertakings and providing non-discriminatory access to infrastructure. Realistically, however, this document will not resolve all the sector’s problems. The quality of customer service and safety should be a key focus. In addition to fair conditions of competition, there is an urgent need for investment in infrastructure and equipment, for an increase in rolling-stock capacity, for the simplification of procedures, for technical interoperability on a European level, as well as for improved technical and social conditions. Yet, unfortunately, we are currently seeing the opposite trend in many countries: services and connections are being cancelled, stations are being closed and the number of jobs in the sector is falling. This is certainly not in keeping with the ideological vision of full liberalisation which we are working towards.

In this example the argumentative pattern is extended by complex argumentation, resulting in coordinatively structured support: 

Opponents also regularly present argumentation in which consequences are mentioned that are counterproductive to the proclaimed objective of the proposal: 

An example is João Ferreira’s argumentation against measures that should strengthen the bargaining power of dairy farmers (14 February, 2012):

14 February, 2012 Joa˜o Ferreira, GUE/NGL (United Left/Nordic Green Left […] this proposal for a regulation does not resolve the fundamental problems in the dairy sector. It is a further step down the path of excusing the unacceptable and disastrous decision to abolish milk quotas in 2015 and that alone makes it already unacceptable. The rest is a fantasy that those preparing to approve this proposal have been selling to milk producers, whose situation is deteriorating by the day. It is fantasy that it is possible to guarantee producers fair prices in the free and deregulated market that they advocate. It is fantasy that the right of every country to produce as much as it needs can be guaranteed without instruments for regulating production. It is complete fantasy. This path will boost the power of big business; of the major retailers and processing companies. It will further concentrate production with a few producers and countries, destroying it in other countries, where many producers will be ruined. It will continue to facilitate dumping between Member States and the flooding of national markets with imported milk. It will continue to promote intensive, export-orientated production that jeopardises food security and quality and environmental sustainability. For all these reasons, what is actually needed is to reconsider reviewing the abolition of dairy quotas and their adaptation to the needs of each country and to the relative level of development of its productive capacity. It is important to have market regulation and intervention instruments that guarantee producers fair prices, taking production costs and retail prices into consideration, so that value added is distributed fairly along the sector’s value chain.

In their argumentation opponents may also point at possible negative side effects of implanting the legislative proposal. When they support the claim about negative side- effects by way of analogy argumentation the following argumentative pattern comes into being: 

An example of this pattern is provided by Catherine Grèze, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development, in a debate in the European Parliament held on 20 November, 2012. This debate is about the environmental impact of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities. Ms Grèze:

20 November 2012, Catherine Grèze, Rapporteur for the Opinion of the Committee on Development I am absolutely against the extraction of shale gas. […] Imagine yourselves what the consequences could be, and how devastating they could be, in developing countries where access to water is vital. But the extraction of shale gas is also about land grabbing and poor land quality; in other words, it brings into question food sovereignty in many countries. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, despite the publicity, despite the brazen lobbying that has been carried out even at the very door of the hemicycle, I would urge you to shoulder your responsibilities.[…] I saw an excellent film, Gasland, which is worth seeing, and which showed the truly dramatic consequences, no pun intended, on water resources and human and animal health in the United States, which as you know is a highly developed and technologically advanced country.

Grèze points in her argumentation at the negative consequences of shale gas exploitation for water resources. She then defends the causal claim involved in this argument by comparing exploiting shale gas in developing countries with the exploitation of shale gas in the United States. Footnote 8

Another type of argumentation used to support the premise that there are side-effects is argument by example. The argumentative pattern is as follows: 

In his argumentation Evžen Tošenovský for the standpoint that the new EU energy policy should not be adopted, Evžen Tošenovský points at a specific negative side effects and he gives an example (excessive support to solar power) to support his claim:

18 April 2012, Evžen Tošenovský, ECR Group (European Conservatives and Reformists) Mr President, the directive submitted is an important part of the key debate on EU energy policy. The submitted draft again, unfortunately, involves heavy administrative intervention in the energy sector. With the current preference—and the sometimes exaggerated direct financial support—for renewables, the situation on the market may get even worse. In some countries, for example, we have seen excessive support for solar power, with long-term commitments to purchase electricity at inflated prices. […]. I am therefore concerned about this heavy regulatory intervention, which may lead to a downturn in manufacturing opportunities in many countries, and may also have significant and incalculable social effects in Member States. Overall, this may put at risk the global competitiveness of the EU.

Another argumentative pattern that is likely to occur, comes into being when an opponent of legislation points at an alternative solution and supports the premise that this alternative is better by making clear that it is more likely to be effective: 

An example is provided by Jacky Hénin, who is convinced that there is a problem with the European energy security and that changes are necessary, but who nonetheless does not agree with the proposal for a pan-European energy policy.

21 September 2010, Jacky Hénin, GUE/NGL (European United Left–Nordic Green Left) Mr President, do we need to ensure energy security and independence? Yes we do. However, to fully ensure security and independence, it is essential that we remove gas and other energy sources from the serious problems caused by speculative markets, declaring them public assets, and enter into tariff agreements that respect the people of producer countries and provide security for European consumers. […] Unlike our rapporteur, I am not convinced that the free action of the market and private companies operating in the gas industry will secure gas supplies in the Union. To guarantee gas supplies for all citizens of the Union we need to nationalize the large gas groups and create, out of these entities, a European interest group under multinational and, above all, public control.

7 Conclusion

Argumentation in parliamentary debate evolves around problem-solving pragmatic argumentation or complex problem-solving argumentation. In order to give an idea of the possible argumentative patterns that may occur in the parliamentary debate, I made an inventory of types of argument schemes arguments that may be used by MEP’s to defend or attack the original pragmatic argumentation put forward. From that inventory I selected the argument schemes that most likely will be used by MEP’s, forming prototypical argumentative patterns.

The opponents in parliamentary debate are expected to focus on the fact that there is a problem that needs to be solved. They will argue that there is a problem and they will try to make clear that the problems are serious. They will do so by showing that the problems are widespread or numerous. The opponents, on the other hand, will focus on causal premise: they are more likely to cast doubt on the statement that the proposal will solve the problem, or they will point at possible alternative solutions. This leads automatically to other argumentative patterns.

Prototypical argumentative patterns used by the proponents of a plan consists of problem-solving pragmatic argumentation or complex problem-solving argumentation that is supported by means of argumentation by example. Prototypical argumentative patterns used by the opponents of the plan involve argumentation showing that the plan is not effective or that it has serious side effects or that there are much better alternative solutions.

In this paper I made an investigation of the prototypical argumentative pattern put forward by the rapporteur and by MEP’s. The question remains whether these prototypical patterns are all stereotypical. Another question is, of course, whether there are more stereotypical patterns. Based on the inventory of possible supporting types of argument that I have presented here, systematic empirical research needs to be carried out in order to find the stereotypical argumentative patterns occurring in legislative debate in the European Parliament.

There is not one type of debate in the European Parliament. Some of these debates are on legislation (first reading and second reading), other debates concern statements by the Commission or oral questions to the or the Council, still others are, for instance, on human rights in non-European countries or on other issues relevant to the European Parliament. I will focus on legislative debates on Commission proposals (first and second readings).

If Council members are present, they may speak as well at the beginning and sometimes at the of the debate.

Although in most cases it is, practical argumentation does not need to be causal in nature. A non-causal type of practical argumentation is argumentation in which it is pointed out that the desired action or policy is in line with a certain normative behavioural rule. Another type of non-causal practical argumentation is argumentation based on a model, in which the arguer points to a person who’s behaviour should be seen as an example (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca p. 363).

From the perspective of strategic manoeuvring, the choice that is made here is quite understandable. The author of the report has to takes several parties with different interests into account and maximizes in this way adaption to audience demand. In this case, no further argumentation is provided. Apparently when putting forward this pragmatic argument it was already understood that all involved are in favour of informed purchasing decisions, more legal certainty, less red tape, and better law-making.

The idea of stock issues was introduced by Shaw ( 1916 ), who identified fourteen issues for propositions of policy. That list has since been reduced to four to six issues (van Eemeren et al. 2014 , p. 432). Ihnen ( 2012 ) takes the traditional four issues as her starting point for her analysis of legislative debate in the British Parliament.

See for a more detailed account of the inherency stock issue Ihnen ( 2012 , pp. 42–44).

The distinction between general and particular propositions is of importance when it comes to the choice between supporting types of argumentation. Particular propositions can be supported by descriptive analogy argumentation, while general propositions can be supported by argumentation by example.

By her addition that the United States is a highly developed and technologically advanced country the analogy argumentation becomes a fortiori .

Corbett, R., F. Jacobs, and M. Schackleton. 2007. The European Parliament . London: John Harper Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Freeley, A.J., and D.L. Steinberg. 2005. Argumentation and debate. Critical thinking for reasoned decisions making . Boston: Wadsworth.

Ihnen Jory, C. 2012. Pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates. Instruments for the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation at the Second Reading of the British parliament . Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Klopf, D.W., and J.C. McCroskey. 1969. The elements of debate . New York: Arco.

Shaw, W.C. 1916. Systematic analysis of debating problems. Journal of Speech Communication 2: 344–351.

van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation . Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Book   Google Scholar  

van Eemeren, F.H., and B. Garssen. 2010. In varietate concordia —United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia 7(1): 19–37.

van Eemeren, F.H., and B. Garssen. 2011. Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament. In Exploring argumentative contexts , ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen. John Benjamins: Amsterdam-Philadelphia.

van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory . Dordrecht etc.: Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Bart Garssen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart Garssen .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Garssen, B. Problem-Solving Argumentative Patterns in Plenary Debates of the European Parliament. Argumentation 30 , 25–43 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9378-y

Download citation

Published : 30 September 2015

Issue Date : March 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9378-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• European Parliament
• Legislation
• Parliamentary debate
• Pragmatic argumentation
• Problem-solving argumentation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research