Structured debate as argumentative practice: a quasi-experimental study of high school students’ critical thinking dispositions

This study examines changes in high school students’ critical thinking dispositions associated with participation in a structured faculty–school collaborative debate intervention. A 12-session debate program was implemented with 72 students, including 36 students who voluntarily participated in the intervention and 36 randomly selected students in the comparison group. The experimental group participated in twelve structured sessions (24 h total), facilitated by experienced university debate-club members and incorporating a demonstration match, repeated argumentative practice, adjudication, and structured feedback. The comparison group continued its regular curriculum without participating in the debate program. Critical thinking dispositions were assessed using the Turkish version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale and the UF/EMI Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument. Results showed significantly higher post-intervention scores for the debate group across all measured critical thinking disposition dimensions, with large standardized differences between groups. The findings suggest that sustained participation in structured debate may be associated with dispositional orientations toward inquiry, evaluative judgment, and reflective skepticism, supporting its conceptualization as a form of sustained argumentative practice rather than merely a speaking activity. By situating the intervention in a Turkish secondary-school setting outside the dominant Anglo-American intercollegiate debate tradition, the study extends the contextual evidence base for debate-based pedagogy and faculty–school collaboration.