Assignment 2 | Debate (Team)

You will be organized into debate teams to critically discuss a variety of topics relevant to the organizational structures of digital learning environments. The debate will be carried out synchronously, through structured responses. For each debate topic, you will be divided into groups for and against the motion. Each group will designate an individual(s) or subgroup to be responsible for different roles (opening remarks, formal rebuttal, etc.). Specific guidelines around roles and responsibilities of the different teams and subgroups are provided and are intended to create an even division of work, with each person developing a post, and participating in the open debate (scrum) following formal rebuttals. You will peer and self-assess your sub-groups and submit that as part of the overall mark for this assignment. Your debate positions will be assessed by the instructor for the remaining portion of the mark for this assignment. You are expected to adhere to APA standards for citations, formatting, and references in your debate posts. This assignment is in support of the following course learning outcomes:

  • CLO B – Identifies various organizational features of digital learning environments
  • CLO C – Critically argue the implications of participating in learning networks and learning communities
  • CLO D – Identify the impact of networks and communities on cultures, organizations and society.

Value: 25%

Submit:

Your initial arguments (Pro; Con) and the Judgement decision (Judgement team) to the Assignment 2 Debate (Team) dropbox in Moodle

Your peer and self assessment to the Assignment 2 Debate Peer and Self Assessment dropbox in Moodle.


Debate Instructions

For this activity, the class will be divided roughly into thirds (pro/con/judgment) teams. The final motion for the debate will be provided during Residency and there will be time during Residency to prepare the Initial Arguments and get ready for the debate that will be held in real time. Further details and a review of the debate process will be provided during Residency.

Debate Teams

This is a formal structured debate. For each topic debate, there will be a Pro Team, a Con Team, and a Judgment Team.

  • Pro Teams will argue for the motion.
  • Con Teams will argue against the motion.
  • Judgment Teams will decide on the winning team in each debate, providing justification and rationale.

Debate Structure

The debate activity will take place in during Residency and consist of four steps, with the work distributed between different subgroups. Additional details will be provided during Residency.

  1. Initial Arguments: Both the Pro and Con Teams in both debates will post their opening arguments in relation to the motion.
  • Initial Arguments should be roughly 750 words excluding references. As the debate will be a live debate I would ask you to submit your initial augments to me via email by 12 noon the day of the debate. I will print off a copy for all and bring it to the debate.
  • Indicate clearly at the top of your submission whether you are Pro (for the motion) or Con (against the motion).
  • Deadline: See Course Schedule for deadline
  1. Formal Rebuttals: Both the Pro and Con Teams will create a rebuttal in real time which responds to the key points in the opposing team’s Initial Arguments. Additional points can be drawn in, but the focus should be responding to the points of the other team.
  1. Scrum: Following the Formal Rebuttals, the debate will be opened up allowing any member of the Pro and Con Teams to respond further to anything that has come up in the Opening Remarks and Formal Rebuttals, or new points raised in the Scrum itself. This is the opportunity for your team as a whole to ensure all points you would like to make have been covered. Anyone member of a Pro or Con Team can participate in the scrum.
  1. Judgments: Following the closing of the Scrum, the Judgment Teams will prepare a written statement which reflect their determination about who won the debate, providing clear justification for the selection of the winning team.
  • Judgment posts should be roughly 750 words, excluding any references. Block quotes are not included in the word count.
  • There are no sub-groups in the Judgment Team, and members should collaborate for the single post.
  • Judgement team will have time during Residency to complete their written judgement of the live debate. Additional details will be provided during Residency.

Submit: your peer and self assessment to the Assignment 2 dropbox in Moodle. The final mark for the debate is a combination of instructor, peer and self assessed using the following rubrics:

Debate Rubric

Course Learning Outcome/Assessment Criteria Excellent (A+ to A) Proficient (A- to B+) Satisfactory (B to B-) Unsatisfactory (F)
Citation and APA format All citations and APA format are correct. Most citations and APA formatting are correct. Some citations and APA formatting are correct. Few citations and APA formatting are correct.
Style, Grammar, Spelling All aspects of grammar and spelling are correct. The style of language and form of communication used are suitable and extend the discussion. Most aspects of grammar and spelling are correct. The style of language and form of communication used are mostly suitable for the debate context. Some aspects of grammar and spelling are correct. The style of language and form of communication used are somewhat suitable for the debate context. Significant spelling and grammar errors. The style of language and form of communication are not suitable for the debate context.
Identifies terms and concepts important digital identity and digital presence. All relevant terms and concepts are clearly identified and defined. Relevant terms and concepts are mostly identified and defined. Relevant terms and concepts are somewhat identified and defined. Relevant terms and concepts are not identified or defined.
Organisation and flow Debate position begins with an overall summary/connection to points raised or those wanted to be made and flows seamlessly using section transitions as needed. Debate position is clearly structured and is well organized to support understanding and follow main points and the logical progression of thought. Debate position organization is askew with sections not proceeding in an organized, logical pattern. The reader can periodically follow the main points of the argument or sequence of ideas. Debate position organization needs significant improvement. Missing transitions lead to blocky sections. Or debate position is written as bullets or other non-prose style. It is difficult for the reader to follow the main points of the argument or sequence of ideas. Debate position is not organized in a way that the reader can make sense of the author’s position or arguments.
Position statement The overall position is clearly stated. Position is unclearly stated. Position is both unclear and confusing. No position statement included.
Content Debate position is thoughtful and original. It demonstrates excellent development of each idea and focuses on relevant details and a synthesis of pertinent research. Synthesizes in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches. Shows significant depth of analysis in explicitly and critically evaluating literature sources for reliability, credibility, relevance and authority. States a conclusion that is a logical extrapolation from the debate topic and position and clearly synthesizes the most significant points from the literature and/or previous debate positions posted. Cogently and clearly recognizes and assesses the implications the debate topic. Debate position is either not thoughtful or not original. Debate position contains adequate development of ideas, but would benefit from more research/support or from more specific development of relevant points. Responses to debate statement are short, and the areas of discussion do not represent intentional, synthesized thought. States a conclusion that is somewhat a logical extrapolation from the debate topic and position. Minimally recognizes and assesses the implications for the debate topic. The debate position has some development but lacks sufficient discussion or contains irrelevant details that do not yet develop a clear sense of purpose. Additional support for relevant ideas and a synthesis of pertinent research is required. Presents information from relevant sources representing limited points of view/approaches. Depth of analysis is limited in explicitly and critically evaluating literature sources for reliability, credibility, relevance and authority. A conclusion is limited and not very relevant to the debate topic and position. Assessment of the implications for the debate topic is limited. The debate position need more details on every level, and lacks relevance and originality. Presents information from irrelevant sources representing limited points of view/approaches. Very superficially evaluates literature sources for reliability, credibility, relevance and authority. A conclusion is missing. Assessment of the implications for the debate topic is non-existent.
Analysis Statements are backed by evidence from the literature and information is discussed, not just stated. Clearly and articulately addresses the limitations and delimitations of the position in anticipation of potential rebuttals or judgment. Supporting information is summarized but not synthesized/connected with other perspectives. Synthesis is minimal or lacking. Generally speaks to the limitations and delimitations of the position in their post in an attempt to counter the anticipated rebuttal or judgment. Supportive information is stated and not summarized or backed by supporting evidence from the literature. Minimally speaks to the limitations and delimitations of the position in their post in an attempt to counter the anticipated rebuttal or judgment. Information is stated but lacks relevance and connection to the position statement. Statements are not backed by evidence from the literature. Does not speak to the limitations/delimitations of the position to counter the anticipated rebuttal or judgment.

Peer & Self Assessment Rubric:

Please rate yourself and your sub group team members on the relative contributions that were made in preparing and presenting your position in Assignment Two – Debate. Please be candid in your assessment. Your ratings will not be disclosed to other students. In rating your group members use a one to five point scale, where: 5 = Superior 4 = Above Average 3 = Average 2 = below average 1 = weak You can use 2 decimal places (i.e.: 4.5)

Download this document, insert your group member’s names in the chart below with one name at the top of each column and then fill in, save and upload to the Assignment 2 – Debate Dropbox in Moodle.

 


 

Social Media

Tags