The Experience of Organizing the First Italian Youth Debating Championship

Titolo Rivista EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION IN LEARNING AND TEACHING
Autori/Curatori Matteo Giangrande
Anno di pubblicazione 2021 Fascicolo 2021/2 Lingua Inglese
Numero pagine 12 P. 88-99 Dimensione file 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/exioa2-2021oa13022
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Vedi l'articolo Scarica l'articolo open access

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

We present here a report about the first Italian Youth Debating Championship (IYDC, Campionato Italiano Giovanile di Debate 2021) from an organizational and management perspective. We show the complexity of the event’s implementation and the importance of managing information and communication technologies. We underscore that not only have the participants recognized that the IYDC is a powerful method to improve participants’ soft skills and active citizenship, but the European Commission and the European Parliament have officially as well. While the IYDC would not have been conceivable and viable before the COVID-19 pandemic, as organizers of informal education activities, we are convinced that this innovative educational model presented will continue to spread even after the pandemic ends.

We present here a report about the first Italian Youth Debating Championship (IYDC, Campionato Italiano Giovanile di Debate 2021) from an organizational and management perspective. We show the complexity of the event’s implementation and the importance of managing information and communication technologies. We underscore that not only have the participants recognized that the IYDC is a powerful method to improve participants’ soft skills and active citizenship, but the European Commission and the European Parliament have officially as well. While the IYDC would not have been conceivable and viable before the COVID-19 pandemic, as organizers of informal education activities, we are convinced that this innovative educational model presented will continue to spread even after the pandemic ends.

Keywords:; Debate Methodology; Organization of Educational Innovation; Post-Pandemic Pedagogy; Active Citizenship; Education Platformization

  1. Weijers, O. (2013). In search of the truth. A history of disputation techniques from antiquity to early modern times. Turnhout: Brepols.
  2. Tolmayer, A. (2019). The platformization of higher education. Paper presented at the Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent System, Varazdin.
  3. Strait, P., Wallace, B. (2008). Academic debate as a decision-making game: Inculcating the virtue of practical wisdom. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 29, 11-46.
  4. Snider, A. (2003). Gamemaster: It is you. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 24, 31-41.
  5. Snider, A. (1984). Ethics in academic debate: A gaming perspective. The National Forensic Journal, 2, 119-134.
  6. Rief, J. (2021). Post-pandemic pedagogy in intercollegiate academic febate. In Valenzano, J. (Ed.), Post-pandemic pedagogy: A paradigm shift (pp. 239-257). Lanham: Lexington Books.
  7. Potter, D. (1944). Debating in the colonial chartered colleges: An historical survey, 1642 to 1900. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
  8. Osler, L. (2021). Taking empathy online. Inquire: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, DOI: 10.1080/0020174X.2021.1899045.
  9. IDEA, (2020). Online debating review and lessons learned, Retrieved from: https://www.sn-di.it/debate-online-valutazione-critica-e-indicazioni-per-il-futuro/.
  10. Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1985). Classroom conflict: Controversy versus debate in learning groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22.2, 237-256. DOI: 10.3102/00028312022002237.
  11. Giangrande, M. (2019b). Il debate come sport. In Obino, A., (a cura di), Competenze e occupazione nell’era della discontinuità (pp. 79-95). Roma: Castelvecchi.
  12. Giangrande, M. (2019a). Le regole del debate. Guida ai protocolli per coach e debater. Milano: Pearson.
  13. Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Dickman, N. (2021). Physical distance, ethical proximity: Levinasian dialogue as pandemic pedagogy in faceless (masked or online) classrooms. Teaching Philosophy, 44.3, 255-279. DOI: 10.5840/teachphil2021610147.
  15. De Conti, M., Zompatti, J. (2019). L’etica del debate. Milano: Pearson.
  16. De Conti, M., Giangrande, M. (2018). Debate. Teoria, pratica, pedagogia. Milano: Pearson.
  17. Cinganotto, L., Mosa, E., Panzavolta, S. (2021). Il debate. Una metodologia per potenziare le competenze chiave. Roma: Carocci.
  18. Bartanen, Michael D. (2014). Forensics in America: A history. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  19. Akerman, R., Neale, I. (2011). Debating the evidence: An international review of current situation and perceptions. Reading, UK: CFBT Education Trust.
  20. Andrič, M., Bartanen, M., Frank, D., Llano, S., Zompetti, J. (2021) L’analisi della mozione. Capire i problemi per sviluppare gli argomenti. Milano: Pearson.

Matteo Giangrande, The Experience of Organizing the First Italian Youth Debating Championship in "EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION IN LEARNING AND TEACHING" 2/2021, pp 88-99, DOI: 10.3280/exioa2-2021oa13022