Moving the Debate About Argumentation Pedagogy to the Next Level: Response to Hunt, Meyer, and Lippert

The debate regarding how to best educate students is far from new. In fact, arguments about what constitutes effective pedagogy can be traced back more than 2000 years, to ancient Greece and the works of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. Yet, even as scholars continue to grapple with the question and formulate plausible answers, the higher education system in the United States remains largely unchanged. Although research consistently concludes that a teacher-centered classroom, led by a professor who lectures for 50 or more minutes to passive students, does not promote effective learning, most college instructors continue to teach as we were taught (Brookfield, 2001; Royse, 2001). Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that many teacher-scholars have read the research and/or heard the arguments that effective pedagogy is not exemplified in the traditional classroom lecture approach, relatively few actually translate that knowledge into transformed teaching practices. Throughout the twentieth century, a plethora of research exposed the need for pedagogical reform in higher education. John Dewey (1938) first articulated the compelling argument that experiential learning is an essential component of effective pedagogy. More than 50 years have passed since he concluded that education can only "accomplish its ends both for the individual learner and for society" if it is "based upon experience--which is always the actual life-experience of some individual" (p. 89). Although Dewey's theories remain highly respected today, they often are dismissed by the professoriate as tangential rather than fundamental components of the college classroom experience. Kurt Lewin (1951) extended Dewey's theory, promoting both practical application and discussion as central to effective pedagogy. His concept of T-groups (training groups) suggests that experience, theory, application, and synthesis through small group discussion stimulate the most effective learning. David Kolb (1971, 1984) developed a theory of experiential learning grounded in Dewey's and Lewin's ideas, establishing that people comprehend best via a four-stage cycle of learning involving concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and, finally, active experimentation. Numerous scholars have developed models for understanding the role of preferred learning styles in higher education. For example, Herman Witkin and his colleagues (Witkin, 1978; Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp, 1962; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977) conceptualized the notion of cognitive styles to describe individuals' learning preferences. They conclude that effective classroom experiences must address the cognitive styles of both field dependent (FD) and field independent (FI) learners. Albert Canfield and J. C. Lafferty (1974) posit that certain affective dimensions influence individuals to prefer one of six different learning styles (or combinations thereof). Similarly, Dunn and Dunn (1978) present five dimensions that mark preferred learning styles. Although these models, among others, differ in certain ways, they all contend that traditional lecture-dominated classrooms-albeit unintentionally-advantage some students while placing others at risk for failure. The need for pedagogical reform in higher education has been clearly articulated. Yet, rarely is this need translated into changed teaching practices by college instructors. In his keynote address at the Second National Conference on the Training and Employment of Teaching Assistants, Earnest Boyer (1989), President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, denounced passive learning. He pleaded that professors have a moral obligation to embrace "a new kind of teaching that focuses not on conformity but on creativity" and "not on competitiveness but on cooperative learning." More than a decade later, however, most college classrooms continue to consist primarily of lecture and note-taking, with an occasional activity or group discussion only if time allows (Duch, Groh, & Allen, 2001). …