Structured Academic Controversy: video clips

Below are video clips from a presentation by Claudia Khourey-Bowers that show the use of structured academic controversy. In this example, Dr. Khourey-Bowers leads workshop participants through an exercise involving teaching evolution in a science classroom. The video provides background information about how to use the structured academic controversy method and portrays an example of the technique. As you can see in the longer version of the video, the workshop participants fully embrace their assigned roles and do a realistic job of acting out the role-playing scenario.

Original PowerPoint File from this presentation

This is an excerpt from the 2007 workshop Student Motivations and Attitudes: The Role of the Affective Domain in Geoscience Learning held at Carleton College.

Using Structured Academic Controversy to Address Beliefs about Evolution (PowerPoint 30kB Feb20 07)
By Claudia Khourey-Bowers, Teaching Leadership and Curriculum Studies, Kent State University - Stark

Additional materials for teaching with structured academic controversy

Teaching with Structured Academic Controversy

This module guides faculty through the theory behind this technique, provides instructions for implementing it, and contains 5 different examples of structured academic controversy exercises.

Outline for using structured academic controversy (Microsoft Word 28kB Feb20 07)
Pre- and post- test questions (Microsoft Word 32kB Feb20 07)
Creationism outline (Microsoft Word 30kB Feb20 07)
Structured Academic Controversy: A Peaceful Approach to Controversial Issues (PDF file)
citation and bibliographic information This article describes the use of structured academic controversy to teach evolution to pre-service science teachers. This pedagogic strategy is designed to engage students in controversy and then guide them to seek an agreement. The format includes time for readings, thinking, questions, small group discussion, large group discussion and consensus building. A follow-up survey indicated that the participants felt that the process allowed for consensus-building, avoided confrontation, and emphasized currently accepted scientific thinking.