Finding Your Voice: How Debate Builds Writing Confidence
Brief Description
A compelling exploration of how structured classroom debates can transform student confidence and writing skills. This episode follows a teacher's innovative experiment using climate change debates to help struggling GCSE students tackle high-stakes writing tasks.
Summary
Ever wondered how to build genuine confidence in students facing challenging exams? This fascinating episode reveals how one teacher discovered the power of structured debate to unlock student potential. Working with 46 students resitting their English GCSE, they used informed climate change debates to boost confidence for transactional writing tasks worth 50% of the exam grade.
The results were remarkable: average confidence scores jumped from 4.8 to 7.0 out of 10, with quiet students finding their voice and classroom dynamics transformed. You'll discover why student-led research topped usefulness ratings, how debates created "a life of their own," and what this means for engaging reluctant learners. In under 20 minutes, explore practical insights that could revolutionize classroom engagement and student confidence.
-
[Speaker 2]
You know that feeling when you're facing something big, high stakes, maybe a presentation, an important meeting, perhaps even a major exam. It's not just about having the information down, right?
[Speaker 1]
No, definitely not.
[Speaker 2]
It's about feeling truly capable, that sort of deep-seated confidence that you can actually handle it. How do you even build that, especially in someone like a student? Well today, we're going on a deep dive into this really inspiring investigation by a teacher who really wrestled with this exact question.
They wanted to find out if structured informed class debate could genuinely boost student confidence, specifically for a challenging writing task in their English language GCSE exam.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and the source material we're digging into today, it's such a fascinating look into a real classroom. It details this teacher's very practical experiment, and it shows how a really deliberate approach to, you know, spoken language in the classroom can unlock surprising levels of confidence and academic success. It goes way beyond just memorising facts.
[Speaker 2]
Right, so our mission today is to really understand the specific challenges these particular students were up against, the innovative methods the teacher designed, what actually happened in the classroom, and ultimately, what all these insights mean for, well, for anyone looking to foster confidence and engagement in learning. Okay, let's unpack this. So picture this scene.
You're a teacher, you're working with students who are resitting a really crucial English language GCSE exam. Now, for many of them, basic literacy is, well, it's a struggle. Reading isn't something they do for fun, and the whole idea of literary critical analysis feels incredibly difficult, maybe even impossible.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, a really tough starting point.
[Speaker 2]
Exactly. So how do you empower them, genuinely empower them, for high-stakes writing tasks like that? It's a huge challenge.
[Speaker 1]
And this wasn't just any writing task, was it? This was the transactional writing question. It's a massive part of their English language exam.
We're talking, what, 50% of the entire paper's grade?
[Speaker 2]
Half the paper. Wow.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it demands students write, you know, a letter, maybe a speech, an article, leaflet, or an essay. They have to show persuasive language skills and build a really clear logical argument. Getting this right is absolutely critical for their final grade.
And what's really insightful here is how this teacher connected their sort of immediate classroom problem to a much wider educational discussion. There was this report back in 2019 from an organisation, ASCL, talking about the forgotten third students who often struggle to pass their English GCSE.
[Speaker 2]
Right. I remember hearing about that.
[Speaker 1]
Well, that report actually suggested something called a passport in English, which would include a significant orgolasy component. And orgolasy, just to be clear, is basically the ability to use speech effectively to express thoughts, communicate ideas, and how that spoken interaction actually shapes the teaching and learning process itself.
[Speaker 2]
It's kind of surprising, though, isn't it? We know how important spoken language is in education, but then other groups like Voice 21, they found that schools often do very little to actively support or develop oral literacy. I mean, few even formally assess students' verbal contributions.
It's a strange disconnect.
[Speaker 1]
It really is.
[Speaker 2]
We know it's vital, but it gets overlooked. As the educator Robin Alexander pointed out, talk can genuinely re-engage students, especially those who might feel a bit switched off. But this teacher found in their own classroom, while general class discussion did boost engagement, sometimes it also led to, you know, low level disruption and unequal participation, too.
Some kids would dominate. Others just wouldn't say anything, probably lacking confidence.
[Speaker 1]
That's such a common struggle. Nikki Arnott, an educator over in Australia, she's highlighted how older students especially can become more self-conscious, more reluctant to speak up. Sometimes it's because they feel they just don't have the right words, the vocabulary.
And this teacher, they'd even tried other methods before, like Socratic talk, that discussion style focused on asking probing questions.
[Speaker 2]
Right. To get them thinking critically.
[Speaker 1]
Exactly. But they found students often didn't quite grasp the statements being discussed, or they just weren't very good at taking notes while it was happening. So it raises this really crucial question.
How do you structure these kinds of conversations so that every student, you know, no matter where they're starting from, can actually benefit and find their voice?
[Speaker 2]
And that seems to be the turning point. Recognising that need for clearer boundaries, a more structured way in, the teacher made this conscious choice to try a more traditional debate format. The aim was clear.
Give each student a specific role, make sure their voice was heard, and ultimately build that confidence they were lacking. And this idea, it also connected with bigger themes like critical thinking and even social justice. Debbie Newman talks about critical arbitration, which is basically the ability to thoughtfully engage with people and ideas through speech.
Newman suggests this can be a powerful driver for social mobility, especially maybe for students from lower income backgrounds who might find things like job interviews really challenging otherwise.
[Speaker 1]
That makes a lot of sense. So it's about more than just grades.
[Speaker 2]
Absolutely. So with this challenge identified and a potential solution in mind, what exactly did this teacher do? Because this wasn't just a random attempt, was it?
It sounds like a carefully thought out investigation.
[Speaker 1]
Exactly right. It was very systematic. They worked with 46 students spread across five different classes.
And crucially, their approach was integrated right into the normal weekly teaching. It wasn't some extra thing tacked on. It was part of their curriculum delivery.
It was super focused on that specific challenge, boosting student confidence for that difficult transactional writing task. And importantly, it was flexible. The teacher adapted things as they went along based on what they saw happening with the students.
And the whole investigation was also kind of critical, aiming to really highlight the value of a coracy, something they felt policy often undervalued.
[Speaker 2]
OK, so focus, flexibility. And what about the topic for the debates? They chose climate change.
Why that?
[Speaker 1]
Well, there were a few really strong reasons. First off, it was just intensely relevant to the students lives, something they could connect with. And the timing was perfect, too.
This was autumn 2019 and climate change was everywhere in the news.
[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah. I remember the Amazon fires, those awful bushfires in Australia.
[Speaker 1]
Exactly. Plus, Greta Thunberg speaking at the U.N., the Extinction Rebellion protests. It was unavoidable.
The teacher, who's an environmentalist themselves, also noticed that students generally didn't have a very deep understanding of the climate crisis. They wondered if maybe that reflected less political discussion happening in their home environments. So all that make it a really engaging, really pertinent theme.
[Speaker 2]
And you mentioned this was an informed debate. That sounds key.
[Speaker 1]
Absolutely crucial. The teacher was really influenced by Daniel Willingham's research.
[Speaker 2]
OK, what's the core idea there?
[Speaker 1]
Willingham argues pretty powerfully that effective critical thinking isn't just some abstract skill you learn in isolation. It actually depends heavily on having a solid base of factual knowledge about the topic.
[Speaker 2]
So you can't just think critically in a vacuum.
[Speaker 1]
Precisely. They knew the students couldn't just debate this cold. They needed that foundation first.
So the process was carefully designed over two lessons to build it. In lesson one, they told the students about the research, reassured them about anonymity, you know, the usual ethical stuff. Then the focus shifted to context setting.
They used images, a short animation, and played that speech by Greta Thunberg from Davos in 2018.
[Speaker 2]
Engaging materials.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And to make it interactive, students played a persuasive language bingo game while listening to Greta's speech, trying to spot the technique she used. And they actively learned new vocabulary terms like carbon footprint, glacier, what the ITCC is.
Things they'd need for the debate. Got it.
[Speaker 2]
Building the toolkit.
[Speaker 1]
Then towards the end of that first lesson came the pre-assessment. Students rated their confidence 1 to 10 on tackling an exam style question about climate change. After that, they were given a clear stance, either F.O.R. or against the statement. There is absolutely no point in doing anything about climate change. A deliberately provocative statement.
[Speaker 2]
Definitely gets them thinking.
[Speaker 1]
Right. And the rest of the lesson, about 30 minutes, was spent in a computer suite researching facts, opinions, statistics to back up their assigned position. Lesson two started with a quick recap.
Then they got another 30 minutes to finalise that research.
[Speaker 2]
What I find really insightful here is how the teacher adapted things during the experiment. They weren't just sticking rigidly to a plan.
[Speaker 1]
No, absolutely not. That flexibility was key.
[Speaker 2]
For instance, they realised the initial research prompts were maybe a bit too prescriptive, almost leading the students. Things like technology will save us.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, a bit too narrow.
[Speaker 2]
So they simplify them to just no point and act now. Much broader, allowing more student agency.
[Speaker 1]
Right. And they also noticed pretty quickly that many students struggled with basic research skills. Finding good sources, taking effective notes.
It wasn't easy for them.
[Speaker 2]
So the teacher stepped in.
[Speaker 1]
Yep. Provided specific website addresses to get them started. And really stressed the importance of taking notes, writing or typing as they researched.
That kind of responsive teaching makes such a difference.
[Speaker 2]
OK, so they've done the research. They've got their points. What did the actual debate look like?
[Speaker 1]
They were pretty concise, actually. Around 20 to 25 minutes each. And structured.
First, the four side, those arguing there was no point, presented their opening points. Then the against side, the act now camp, responded. OK.
After that, there were chances for rebuttal. So each side could challenge the arguments they'd just heard.
[Speaker 2]
A bit of back and forth.
[Speaker 1]
Exactly. And then the teacher wrapped it up with a summary highlighting the key arguments from both sides.
[Speaker 2]
And measuring the impact. How did they do that?
[Speaker 1]
Yeah.
[Speaker 2]
Immediately after the debate and all the research, students went back to that 1 to 10 confidence scale and rated themselves again. They also rated how useful they found the different parts of the process. The debate itself, the video clips, any text extracts, and importantly, their own research time.
[Speaker 1]
OK, now this is where it gets really interesting. The quantitative results, the numbers. They showed a really significant shift.
Right. The average confidence score before all this, 4.8 out of 10. Right.
[Speaker 2]
Fairly low.
[Speaker 1]
But after the research and the debate, that average jumped all the way up to 7.0. Wow.
[Speaker 2]
That's a big jump.
[Speaker 1]
It really is. A mean difference of 2.2 points. And critically, this was statistically significant, meaning it was a definite measurable effect of the whole intervention.
It wasn't just random chance or a fluke. The debates and research clearly boosted their confidence. And when they asked about usefulness, student-led research came out top, rated highest by the students themselves.
[Speaker 2]
Interesting. More than the debate itself.
[Speaker 1]
Just slightly. Research was 7.1. The debate itself was close behind at 6.8. The video clips and text extracts were rated, well, quite a bit lower. Now the teacher did acknowledge a limitation here because the research and debate were sort of bundled together in the after assessment.
It's tricky to say exactly how much impact came just from the research versus just from the debate.
[Speaker 2]
Sure. That makes sense. But the overall package clearly worked.
[Speaker 1]
Absolutely.
[Speaker 2]
But beyond the numbers, what about the qualitative stuff, the observations, the feeling in the room? Those are all for the real aha moments, aren't they?
[Speaker 1]
Totally. And there were plenty here. For starters, initially, very few students actually had detailed knowledge about things like the carbon cycle or even the term climate emergency.
Some knew about the fires, sure, but many didn't really connect things like fast fashion or recycling to the bigger climate picture.
[Speaker 2]
Right. Those connections aren't always obvious.
[Speaker 1]
But the lessons became really productive. Discussions about cause and effect, learning new vocabulary. It all started to click.
[Speaker 2]
And student engagement.
[Speaker 1]
Remarkably high overall. Even students who found the research part a bit confusing at first were really drawn in. And the debates themselves, the teacher said, they developed a life of their own.
[Speaker 2]
I love that. What does that mean?
[Speaker 1]
It means students moved beyond just reading out their prepared notes. They started paraphrasing, putting ideas into their own words, even ad-libbing a bit during the back and forth.
[Speaker 2]
That's fantastic. Shows real understanding.
[Speaker 1]
Exactly. And crucially, this format allowed students who maybe struggled with writing to really shine with their speaking skills. They could show their strengths and confidence in a different way.
[Speaker 2]
That's so important. What about individual impact? Any standout examples?
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, a couple. One student, who is usually very quiet and reluctant to speak, actually made several relevant verbal interjections during the debate. A real breakthrough for them.
Another student, quite able but typically giving very short answers, provided far longer, cogent responses in the debate format. Much more developed thinking. And interestingly, the debates seemed to improve classroom cohesion, too.
Different social groups, you know, cliques, started communicating more confidently with each other through the structure of the debate.
[Speaker 2]
Breaking down barriers.
[Speaker 1]
Seems like it. Only a very few students didn't speak at all. One had severe anxiety and chose to listen.
Others maybe just asked clarifying questions or focused on listening actively. But the key thing was, everyone appeared to be genuinely listening to each other. That mutual respect is huge.
[Speaker 2]
Definitely. And did the teacher learn anything for themselves?
[Speaker 1]
Yes, they did. They realised how valuable it was to take notes during the debate, listening to how students were articulating their points verbally. That verbal rehearsal was incredibly useful for figuring out how to structure a strong written response later on, both for the teacher planning support and for the students themselves when they sat down to write.
[Speaker 2]
So bringing it all together, what are the main conclusions here?
[Speaker 1]
Well, they seem pretty clear. These informed debates were highly effective. Great for classroom cohesion.
Fantastic for student engagement, especially engaging those who might normally hang back. And that significant jump in confidence. It really seems to stem from students having that space to articulate their own ideas, listen actively to counter arguments and really grapple with their peers thinking in real time.
[Speaker 2]
And taking a position in the debate, that structure probably helped too.
[Speaker 1]
Absolutely. It directly mirrored the kind of logical structure they needed for a strong written argument. It gave them a practical framework to build on.
[Speaker 2]
So if we connect this back to the bigger picture, it really suggests the combination, gaveling the facts through research, especially self-directed research, and then engaging in structured debate that was the key driver for confidence growth.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it looks that way.
[Speaker 2]
It seems like a really effective method for helping students, maybe from all sorts of backgrounds, tackle complex, sometimes controversial topics like climate change and then crucially translate that understanding into a confident piece of writing.
[Speaker 1]
And thinking about the future, what did the teacher take away personally? They felt the whole process was incredibly beneficial, not just for the students, but for their own development as a teacher too. Really inspiring.
So much so that they now want to develop more intentional classroom activities where dialogue, that structured conversation, is right at the heart of learning. They also floated ideas for future research, maybe trying to carefully separate the effects of the research phase from the debate phase, or textual analysis versus debate, to get even more granular.
[Speaker 2]
Fine tuning the approach.
[Speaker 1]
Exactly. And they also want to look into how best to support students who face mental health challenges within these kinds of dynamic, talk-based activities. Which raises a really important question for all educators, doesn't it?
How can we make these clearly powerful learning experiences even more accessible, even more tailored for every single student?
[Speaker 2]
What a fascinating deep dive. It just really hammers home how a structured, intentional approach to classroom talk, when it's properly grounded in knowledge, can have such a profound impact, boosting not just understanding, but that core confidence and engagement, especially when the stakes are high.
[Speaker 1]
It really does. It shows that the whole process, articulating your thoughts, really listening to others, wrestling with complex information in a supportive space, it isn't just about learning facts. It's about building that inner confidence to actually use those facts to find your own voice and to form and defend your own arguments effectively.
[Speaker 2]
So wrapping up, what does this all mean for you listening right now? Maybe you think about your own learning journey or areas where you'd like to feel more confident. How might they date intentionally designed conversations or maybe even structured debates like these, where you have to take a stance, back it up with knowledge?
How might that change your approach? Could finding your voice in that kind of active discussion be the unexpected key to unlocking new levels of confidence in other parts of your life, too? Definitely something to mull over.