Session Design Submission Review

Yes

• Communications
• CoSEF

In a debate, participants actively engage with complex issues, learning by listening to where two ideologies come into conflict and circumstances where each side might be right. True extemporaneous debates rely on creativity and quick decision-making, as debaters analyze and argue various aspects of a topic. Debates encourage analyzing problems from multiple angles, fostering open-mindedness and adaptability. Often the conflict inherent to extemporaneous debating can allow debaters and the audience alike to explore and better understand the conflicting value systems inherent to contentious topics. In short, debating isn’t about winning the argument; it is about encouraging educators to think about controversial topics through a new lens and better understand both sides of an argument. To that end, CoSEF, in collaboration with the Communications Committee, proposes a Great Debate at Surgical Education Week. The debate will focus on a controversial topic within surgical education: the educational utility of pass/fail examinations and clerkship grades for medical students. By providing an opportunity for structured debate, we allow for inclusion and acknowledgement of multiple sides of the issue. These debates will frame the inclusive nature of Surgical Education Week, empowering attendees to keep an open mind on not only the topic debated, but on other topics throughout the meeting.

During this structured debate, which will follow a standardized debate format based on Lincoln-Douglas debate, residents will first provide prepared arguments in the form of opening statements for (Pro Team) and against (Con Team) a debate resolution (e.g., “double scrubbing surgical cases is an effective tool for teaching surgical residents”). These arguments will be crafted prior to the debate with input from attending debate coaches (one per team), selected for their expertise. Each team will then deliver extemporaneous rebuttals, improvised from their literature reviews prior to the debate, directly responding to arguments made in the opening statements. This structured exchange will clarify the core ideological conflict between the Pro and Con arguments, thereby deepening audience understanding of the issue. Between each round of arguments, cross examination will occur to allow each team to clarify their arguments. A moderator (a CoSEF member with experience in debate and panel moderation) will guide the audience through the debate, introducing each segment and keeping each team to strict timing. The debate will conclude with an audience Q&A led by the moderator, during which each team will take questions from the audience.

Often two contrasting ideologies can create entrenched but conflicting beliefs amongst surgical educators. In our experience, ‘debates’ held on controversial topics during national conferences often involve pre-planned presentations for and against the topic, without any substantial back-and-forth arguing of ideas. Our proposed “Great Debate” during Surgical Education Week will help engage educators to explore and gain new insight into the educational utility of pass/fail examinations and clerkship grades for medical students. Through structured rebuttals that foster direct, respectful engagement with opposing arguments, we hope the audience will reconsider previously held views, gain a deeper understanding of all sides of an issue, and make a more informed decision regarding this topic.

Acquire a new perspective or insight into a controversial topic in surgical education

Recognize the importance of structured conflict, in the form of debate, in better understanding both sides of an argument

Apply education theory to both sides of a controversial issue in surgical education