From Bojana Skrt:
Please, feel free to send the information about the conference to everybody whom you think might be interested.
We kindly invite all of you who are interested in debate, argumentation and debate as an active method in the classroom to come and join us at the 2nd International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment -- THINKING AND SPEAKING A BETTER WORLD, 11-13 April 2008, Ljubljana, Slovenia. The conference, organized by World Debate Institute at University of Vermont, USA, Zavod za šolstvo/Institute for education Slovenia and Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga/Pro et contra, Institute for culture of dialogue, Slovenia will happen at Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za upravo (Ljubljana University, Faculty for administration), adress: Gosarjeva ulica 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, http://www.fu.uni-lj.si/en/
The conference welcomes scholars and educators from diverse fields for vigorous dialogue and exchange. This conference will unite scholars of argumentation and rhetoric, teachers, and organizers of local, national and international debating networks to discuss critical thinking and advocacy discourse through pedagogy. Please, find the list of almost 80 abstracts the conference organizers received till February 15th deadline and the draft schedule at the end of this message. The final programme will be available on March 15th at the Conference websites: http://debate.uvm.edu/betterworld.htm and http://betterworldconference.blogspot.com/
Those wishing to attend the conference without submitting a paper and participate in the discussions are very welcome but must register as well. The participation fee is 65 Euros and covers the conference sessions and materials, Friday evening reception, Saturday lunch as well as a Saturday banquet. Low cost accommodations must register through Bojana Skrt, while all others must be booked by the attendees. You can check the list of suggested hotels at the Conference web page. I also need to remind you that Slovenia presidency of EU made the Ljubljana hotels quite full, so do not wait too long before making a booking.
Please note that registration for admission to the conference and low cost housing must be coordinated through Bojana Skrt bojana.skrt@siol.net. Registration deadline is 15 March 2008. You can find the application form at http://debate.uvm.edu/conf08appform.doc
All inquires about application, payment and other information should be sent to Bojana Skrt at bojana.skrt@siol.net.
Looking forward seeing you in Slovenia,
Bojana Skrt
Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga/Pro et contra, Institute for culture of dialogue, Slovenia
Alfred C. Snider
World Debate Institute at University of Vermont, USA
CONFERENCE DRAFT SCHEDULE
Friday, 11th of April 2008
12.00 – 14.00 Registration and payment
14.00 Opening
14.30 – 16.30 Presentations
16.30 – 17:00 Break
17:00 – 18.30. Keynote speech 1 and discussion Franz van Eemeren
18:30 – 19:30 Reception
Saturday, 12th of April 2008
9.30 – 11. 30 Presentations
11.30 – 12.00 Break
12.00 – 13.30 Keynote speech 2 Kate Shuster
13.30 – 14.30 Lunch (at the Faculty of social science cafeteria)
14.30 – 16.30 Presentations
16.30 – 17:00 Break
17:00 – 19.00 Presentations
19.30 Banquet
Sunday, 13th of April 2008
9.30 – 11.30 Presentations
11.30 – 12.00 Break
12.00 – 13.30 Keynote speech 3 Omar Salahuddin
13.30 Closing ceremony
ROOM 1 – Argumentation panels
ROOM 2 – Debate panels
ROOM 3 – Pedagogy panels
ROOM 4 – Video room
ROOM 5 – Live events (debates, round table discussions, etc.
ROOM 6 – Overflow of panels from three areas
VIDEO ROOM
We will be showing the following videos on a scheduled basis. A number of them will be shown twice.
Resolved – USA documentary about high school debate
Sixty Minutes – USA report on urban debate leagues
Svetovci – Slovenia documentary about World Schools
The Journey – John Maynard’s piece about youth activism and Eastern Europe
Sample Middle School Debate – USA seeking permission to show it
Discussion by Middle School teachers – USA seeking permission to show it
Sample Debate by Teachers – in nutrition classroom
Others – let us know if you have ideas
LIVE EVENTS ROOM
We will be staging sample debates in a number of different formats in this room. We will also use this room for round table discussions by registered attendees who are now organizing some topics and participants. Let us know if you are interested. Already agreed »Is debate an answer for rhetoric classes?« and »Challenges of running a debate club.«
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS
Argumentation - Frans van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, perhaps the most noted argumentation scholar in the world.
Be Critical!The Need for a Well-Considered Normative Dimension in the Study of Argumentation
Some scholars have the mistaken idea that the study of argumentation, in order to be a scientific enterprise, should be purely descriptive. They shun away from any normative concerns. Although descriptive studies, provided that they have a sound theoretical basis, are indispensable, it is Frans van Eemeren’s view that the study of argumentation cannot do without a normative dimension. He explains why he thinks that this is the case and argues that the normative dimension and the descriptive dimension of the study of argumentation should in fact be integrated, so that in the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse insights from both perspectives can be systematically combined.
Debate - Omar Salahuddin bin Abdullah, MultiMedia University,Malaysia. Recognized* as the "father of Asian debating" and recent winner of the first distinguished service award by the World Universities Debating Championship.
Debating in South-East Asia: A road less traveled.
One of the less visible legacies of colonialism, in Asian countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Hong Kong, is an educational system that, in tandem with traditional classroom practices, spawned what might be best termed, “Classical Debating.” This highly stylised precursor for the art and craft of debating that we recognise now trained generations of high school students to deliver speeches on bland topics, often determined months in advance, in competitive matches against other schools with a ‘tradition and history of debating’. Speeches were usually written by teachers, researched by teams of less debate-able students and rehearsed until every gesture and pattern of emphasis was perfect. Not unsurprisingly, prior to the 1990s, debating was rarely a feature of mainstream coursework or co-curricular activity at tertiary levels in any of these countries.
Small groups of students in institutions such as Ateneo D’Manila University in the Philippines and the Singaporean universities occasionally tried to rally colleagues to attend one of the major international competitions and represent their universities and their countries, but these efforts went almost entirely unrewarded, and motivation was easily lost amongst the pressures of the Asian academe.
In 1994, a number of things began to materialize, almost out of thin Asian air. The first was an effort by student leaders in Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, to generate a debating competition that would offer Asian university debaters an alternative to the intimidating environments of Worlds (WUDC) and Australasians. This small beginning would burgeon into the competition and format now recognised as All-Asians.
The second unlikely happenstance was a meeting that took place on the steps of the old parliament building in Melbourne, Australia, immediately prior to the Grand Finals of the World Universities Debating Championships in January, 1994. This meeting brought together a number of committed educators and a much larger number of somewhat disgruntled students – the latter, for the most part, upset by what seemed to them to have been an embarrassing loss of face and esteem in failing to present any real opposition for their European and American peers. Beneath the portals of a bygone legislative, a pact was made that day that Asians would never be so humbled again.
This presentation will chart the course of Competitive Debate development in South East Asia from that meeting until the present day. On this short journey together, we will consider the key elements that have raised the profile of debating in the region, established debating as a recognised part of the academic curriculum and propelled universities in the region into the forefront of international competitive debating.
Pedagogy - Kate Shuster, Claremont Graduate School, USA the worldwide leader in understanding and applyingactive methods in the classroom at various levels. One of her areas of emphasis has been oral literacy and how it can be successfully taught. Kate has eight recent books to her credit and a number of important works in submission. She is perhaps best known for her efforts to promote debating and critical thinking in middle schools.
Known Knowns, Known Unknowns, and Unknown Unknowns: Pedagogy and the
Importance of Evaluation
There are things we know about teaching and learning. There are things we know we don¹t know. And there are things we don¹t know we don¹t know. Without a serious commitment to evaluation and assessment, pedagogy and school improvement initiatives are unlikely to make any progress on the things we don¹t know. Drawing from new and emerging research in evaluation and accountability, this keynote suggests that teachers and researchers must engage in active collaboration to identify and replicate successful practices in education.
PRELIMINARY PAPERS:
This is a list of submissions. The committees may decide to refuse some of them or request rewrites.
ABSTRACTS SUBMITTED FOR PEDAGOGY SECTION
Panagiota Kotarinou, Anastasia Chrisanthaki-Apostolopoulou, Despina Koutli, Greece: Using “debate” in the teaching of Science
Alfred Snider & Bojana Skrt, USA & Slovenia
TEACHING TEACHERS TO USE DEBATE IN THE CLASSROOM
Bojana Skrt, Slovenia
Debate as a subject in school
Yeoman, George, UK
CREATING OR RE-KINDLING A 'THIRST FOR KNOWLEDGE’ ABOUT GLOBAL ISSUES, IN THE CLASSROOM
DANIELA KOZLOVIČ, Slovenia
Debate and skills developing in the philosophy class
Veronika, Hovnik, Slovenia
Philosophy for children through the debate
Ryhdian Morgan, UK
Critical Thinking Skills in the Classroom
Maria Wilrath Soderberg, Sweden
Pedagogical consequences of viewing topoi as habits
Hedvika Dermol Hvala, Slovenia
DEVELOPMENT OF RETHORICAL SKILLS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL PUPILS
Istvan Pusztai Hungary
Unwanted heritage
The reminiscences of the authoritarian political system in Hungary built obstacles for practising democratic teaching methods in schools.
Dr. Nena Mijoc, Slovenia
Reciprocal and mutual learning within study circles at the Slovenian Third Age University
Ivana Mijatovič, Serbia
THE IMPOWERING ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN TECHING QUALITY MANAGEMENT COURSES
Maja Bregar, Slovenia
EXAMPLES OF DEBATES WITH SIX AND SEVEN YEAR-OLDS IN THE FIRST GRADE OF NINE YEARS' PRIMARY SCHOOL IN SLOVENIA
Nives Videc, Slovenia
DEBATE WITH SIX AND SEVEN YEAR-OLDS IN THE FIRST GRADE OF NINE YEARS' PRIMARY SCHOOL IN SLOVENIA
Darinka VrabiČ and Alenka Gortan, Slovenia
Does matura exam restrict critical thinking and how a debate can contribute to quality of lessons
Andreas Felten, Germany
New Debate-Formats and „Pre-Debate-Forms“ for classroom use
Uve Poom, Tallinn University, Estonia
Factors influencing student reflection in the experiential education context: case study of debate education [summary of BA thesis]
Candace Williams, USA
Debate and Plagiarism: Do Current Debate Practices Violate School Honor Codes?
Mateja Glušič Lenarčič, Slovenia
TOGETHER IN DIVERSITY – PROMOTING INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE IN LANGUAGE CLASSES THROUGH DEBATE
Irena Lapanje, Slovenia
Teaching Young Not to Believe Everything
Mirella Ceglar Jurinčič, University of Koper: , Slovenia
DEBATE AND LANGUAGE, Debate Training as a teaching method
Lara Godec Sozak, Slovenia
Analysis of students' oral presentations in the second year of primary education at the Faculty of Education in Ljubljana
Natasa Makovecki, Slovenia
DEBATE (TECHNIQUES) THROUGH THE LENSE OF THE CURRICULUM REFORM OF THE UPPER-SECONDARY VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN SLOVENIA
Vida Vončina, Slovenia
Critical literacy and motivation for responsible engagement in a community
ABSTRACTS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEBATE SECTION
Ivanka Mavrodieva, PhD, Rhetoric Department, Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia, Bolgaria: Debates during the Presidential election campaigns in Bulgaria (from 1991 till 2005)
Boris Vezjak, Faculty od Arts, Maribor, Slovenia: Arguments, fallacies and media
Steven Woods, Ph.D., Department of Communication, Western Washington University: Arguments of Mass Destruction: The Nexus between Intercollegiate Debaters Catastrophic Impact Claims and Bush Administration Invasion Appeals
Javier Rodríguez Alcázar, University of Granada, Spain:
Risk Assessment: the Limits of Expertise and the Role of Public Debate
Kate Shuster , Claremont College, USA: Not Making the Case: A Critical Examination of Research Supporting Urban Debate Leagues.
Dea Ajduković, HDD – Hrvatsko debatno društvo (Croatian Debate Association), Croatia: Attitude change and need for cognition in debaters and non-debaters
Božena Perko, Križe Primary School, Slovenia: Solving conflicts in school by means of coeval mediation
Dr Ann Kirson Swersky, Founder and Chairperson, Sia’h vaSig – The Israel Debating Society, Israel: Establishing Parliamentary Debate in Modern Israel
Anna Mojca England Kerr, Debate club of Faculty of social science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia: A comparison between World Schools Debate Format and British Parliamentary Debate Format
Karlina Koželj, Master of Politology American Studies, Professor of English and Slovene at Secondary School for Catering and Tourism Celje, Slovenia: I am proud to say: these are my students.
Korry Harvey, Lecturer and Assistant Director of Forensic, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA USA: Beyond Competitive Decision Making: A Primer on Civil Discourse and Deliberative Dialogue Methodology
Manolis Polychronides, PhD Candidate, University of Athens, Greece: Does debating, as an extracurricular activity, promote democratic values and skills? An empirical study in 14 Greek High schools.
Rozália Klára Bakó, Sapientia University of Transylvania, Miercurea Ciuc, Romania and Gizela Horváth, Partium Christian University, Oradea, Romania: The Religious Icons‘ Scandal: Radiography of a Public Debate in Romania
Rhydian Morgan, UK: The changing nature of rhetoric - looking at the way rhetorical styles develop and alter over time
Rhydian Morgan, UK: Zen & the Art of Debating
Miha Gartner, Gimnazija Celje – Center, Celje, Slovenia: Mentorship of debate club.
Veronika Hovnik, Gimnazija Slovenj Gradec, Slovenia: Tekma
Maja Nenadović, Fellow of the George Bell Institute, University of Amsterdam, PhD Candidate: Giving Back the Voice
Helena Felc, Faculty of administration, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, under – graduate student: Promotion of a debate club - story of success or failure?
Alex Just, Program Director, QatarDebate, Qatar: QatarDebate and the future of debate education in the Arab World
Alex Just, Wadham College, Oxford University, UK: William Gladstone: A Model British Parliamentary Debater?
Bojan Marjanović, Chairman of the Executive board, Croatian debating society.Final year student of Sociology, department of Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb Croatia and Dea Ajduković, HDD – Hrvatsko debatno društvo (Croatian Debate Association), Croatia
Evaluation of Croatian debating society debate program.
Conor Tucker, Student, Colgate University, USA: Rhetoric, Debate, and Deliberation: The Colgate Policy Institute
Jerneja Domajnko. Post – gradute student at ISH, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Debating and equal opportunities for everyone.
Christopher Langone, graduate student Department of Communication, Cornell University, USA: Debate and the media
Sam Nelson, Director of Debate, Cornell University: Teaching debate in non-traditional places to non-traditional audiences.
Sam Nelson, Director of Debate, Cornell University, USA: What its past and present can tell us about its future.
Donald Reape, undergraduate, Cornell University, USA: The case against American style policy debate: A personal narrative
Ameila Kermis, undergraduate, Cornell University, USA: Ethos, Pathos, Logos in competitive debate: Can they be balanced?
Kyle Rouse, undergraduate, Cornell University, USA: The international debating workshop as the ideal vehicle for the learning of World's Format Debating: Personal reflections on the 2007 International Debate Academy - Slovenia
Kate Shuster, Claremont Mckenna College, California, USA: Middle school debate programe.
Donal Carbaugh, professor at Department of communication, University of Massachusetts, USA: Debate, Dialogue and Rhetoric as Cultural Discourse: Di-ciphering Codes for Communication Conduct
Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA
NPPF: COMBINING WRITING WITH ORAL DEBATE
Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA
GLOBAL DEBATE: THE STORY OF A DEBATE BLOG
Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA
Middle Age Debate Transition: How One Coach Changed Horses in Mid Career
Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA
TABULATING A DEBATE TOURNAMENT USING TRPC
John Adams, Director of Colgate University Speaking Union, USA: Statis
ABSTRACTS SUBMITTED FOR ARGUMENTATION SECTION
Lillian Bermejo Luque (Spain) Rhetorical argumentation vs. the rhetorical
dimension of argumentation
Henrik Bohlin (Sweden) Perspectives in critical thinking
Bart Garssen (Netherlands) Ad hominem attacks as derailments of critical
testing
Michael Hoppmann (Germany) On Three Kinds of Argumentative Responses
Lyudmila Kourchak (Belarus) Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation as a
Background for Analyzing and Criticizing of a Cross-Cultural Business Communication.
Irina Oukhvanova (Belarus) The Сausal-Genetic Approach as a Background for
Verification Analysis and Criticism of the Content of a Communicative Product (Case Study on Pedagogical Discourse).
Danilo Šuster (Slovenia) Some dilemmas of informal logic
Paul van den Hoven (Netherlands) Playing with the Protagonist: Strategic
manipulations with discourse voices
C. Andone (Netherlands) Manouevring strategically by retracting a standpoint
in what can be reconstructed as the confrontation stage of a critical discussion
Marcin Lewiński (Netherlands) The straw man fallacy in the Internet discussion
forums
Constanza Ihnen (Netherlands) Exploiting topical potential with practical
argumentation: what do arguers choose when they choose between arguments from consequences and arguments from principles or norms?
Roosmaryn Pilgram (Netherlands) Characterising character: Analysing appeals to
ethos in a dialectical framework
Satoru Aonuma and Naoto Usui In Defense of Argument Culture: A Rhetorical
(Japan) Criticism of Asiacentric Bias in Intercultural
Communication
Ivan Mikirtumov (Russia) The Arguments driving to the Responsible
Knowledge: Logical Representation
Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez (Chile) Metaphorical design from an argumentative point
of view
Peter Mesarec (Slovenia) Argumentation and logical fallacies in the
Slovenian presidential election debate
David Cratis Williams (USA) Rhetorical Approach to Problems of Education
Bilal Amjarso (Netherlands) What is persuasive about dealing with anticipated counterarguments? A pragma-dialectical study of a form of strategic manoeuvring
Posts
