Exploring perspectives on structured academic debates as a learning strategy in speech-language pathology graduate education: a qualitative descriptive study.

Abstract

Rehabilitation professionals require strong critical thinking, teamwork, and communication skills that can be developed through active learning methods such as debates. Debates have been used to develop these skills in fields such as occupational therapy, medicine, and nursing, but have not been studied in speech-language pathology (SLP). Across health disciplines, there is limited research on how debates compare to other learning methods and how students and faculty perceive their utility. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study of SLP graduate students and faculty who engaged in debates on a range of controversial SLP topics. Data were collected using surveys and focus groups and were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Across 18 participant responses, debates developed unique skills (e.g., evidence-based practice, communication and collaboration, cognitive flexibility/clinical reasoning, personal skills) and had unique disadvantages (e.g., challenges navigating controversial topics, risks of incorrect information, missing opportunities for multimodality, student stress). Participants also provided recommendations for rehabilitation educators delivering debates in the future. Many of the skills developed and disadvantages of debates in our study align with existing literature on debates in health professional education. The results of our study may be valuable for health professional educators, including SLP educators, as they design curricula.