|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | + | __NOTOC__ |
| | <div class=teaser-text>The method addresses the communicative skills and helps to reflect opposite points of view in a discussion. Therefore two groups discuss the opposite opinions regarding a topic. This may be a general relevant topic or a current hot topic in your society. </div> | | <div class=teaser-text>The method addresses the communicative skills and helps to reflect opposite points of view in a discussion. Therefore two groups discuss the opposite opinions regarding a topic. This may be a general relevant topic or a current hot topic in your society. </div> |
| | | | |
| − | <div style="float:left; width:18%; "> | + | <div class=methodpage-infos> |
| − | <hr style="border:0; border-bottom: 1px dashed #d21e3d; width: 100%;"> | + | <hr class=simpleline> |
| | [[File:Time-icon.png | 20px | Time]] 45 min | | [[File:Time-icon.png | 20px | Time]] 45 min |
| | | | |
| Line 10: |
Line 11: |
| | | | |
| | [[File:Keywords.png | 20px | Keywords ]] group, discussion, empathy, argumentation | | [[File:Keywords.png | 20px | Keywords ]] group, discussion, empathy, argumentation |
| − | <hr style="border:0; border-bottom: 1px dashed #d21e3d; width: 100%;"> | + | <hr class=simpleline> |
| | ===Related:=== | | ===Related:=== |
| | * [[Social Skills]] | | * [[Social Skills]] |
| Line 17: |
Line 18: |
| | | | |
| | </div> | | </div> |
| − | <div style="float:right; width:80%; border-left:1px dashed #ff0000; padding-left:20px;"> | + | <div class=methodpage-content> |
| | ===Goal=== | | ===Goal=== |
| | Training of discussion skills. Reflecting multiple perspectives on a topic. Empathy for opposite argumentations. | | Training of discussion skills. Reflecting multiple perspectives on a topic. Empathy for opposite argumentations. |
| Line 44: |
Line 45: |
| | * Which arguments appeared to be your most striking ones? | | * Which arguments appeared to be your most striking ones? |
| | * Which arguments were the most striking of your opponents? | | * Which arguments were the most striking of your opponents? |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Reference===
| |
| − | MitOst/Theodor-Heuss-Kolleg
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | ===You might also like===
| |
| − | * [[Making the participants self-responsible]]
| |
| − | * [[Citizen Initiatives]]
| |
| − | * [[We love you!]]
| |
| − | -->
| |
| | </div> | | </div> |
The method addresses the communicative skills and helps to reflect opposite points of view in a discussion. Therefore two groups discuss the opposite opinions regarding a topic. This may be a general relevant topic or a current hot topic in your society.
45 min
10-20 people
nez
group, discussion, empathy, argumentation
Related:
Goal
Training of discussion skills. Reflecting multiple perspectives on a topic. Empathy for opposite argumentations.
Steps
- A groups will be divided into two randomly selected groups.
- The moderator introduces the main question for the debate.
- One representative of one group draws a lot with a pro or a contra written on it. Therefore it does not matter if disputants are personally convinced from what they will discuss during the following debate.
- Group work: Every group collects its arguments and, doing this, tries to assume, what aspects the other group will introduce to the discussion.
- Like in a parliament, every group decides in which sequence the speakers will perform.
- Discussion phase: Now the groups start the discussion. Every speaker has only one minute time to contribute to the discussion. The moderator stops immediately after this minute and gives the opposite party the word.
Example:
1. Regarding to the lists of speakers, the number one of the pro group starts.
2. Then number one of the contra group follows.
3. Number 2 of the pro group overtakes
4. ...
5. The last participants summarize the main arguments for each party They do not introduce new aspects.
Reflection
- Did you learn new aspects?
- How was the cooperation in your group?
- Was it fair and respectful?
- How was it for you to discuss a topic in a controversial way?
- Were you able to follow your common concept which you designed in the beginning?
- Which arguments appeared to be your most striking ones?
- Which arguments were the most striking of your opponents?
