Lessons 2–3: Entitled “Introduction to debate,” these lessons covered the
theory and practice of debating, including debating techniques.
Lesson 4: Visit to Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station in Shizuoka Prefecture.
Lessons 5–6: Entitled “Introduction to debate 2,” in these classes students
participated in a model debate and watched a DVD of the debating competition held in the first semester.
Lesson 7: Lecture on the geological disposal of radioactive waste by a member
of staff of NUMO (the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan).
Lesson 7–8: Students engaged in “communication training.”
Lesson 9: Tomohisa Kakefu gave a talk on radiation, which incorporated
demonstrations.
Lesson 10: Lecture on the geological disposal of radioactive waste by a
member of staff of NUMO (the Nuclear Waste Management Organization
of Japan).
Lesson 11: Visit to Mizunami Underground Research Laboratory.
25.3 Reflections on the Courses
In each of the courses, the students reached a level that enabled them to maintain a
debate during the competition held during at the end of the course. Owing in large
part to Fujikawa’s well-constructed topic, the debate proved to be a balanced one,
with the result of the debate not overly biased either for or against the proposition.
Perhaps because of their humanities/social sciences background, the students
had little background knowledge of radiation. Regarding the storage pool for spent
nuclear fuel, for example, a number of students mistakenly thought that the spent
fuel was dissolved in the water of the pool (the spent fuel is stored in the form of
solid rods). However, because preparing for a debate necessitates clarifying which
areas of one’s understanding are lacking, students’ grasp of the subject area
gradually improved as the course progressed. During the period of the course
various news stories appeared in the press related to nuclear power and NUMO.
Students not only responded to this news in class, but also actively gathered
information reported in the media, and were able to use such up-to-date information
in the debate competition.
Despite the fact that nuclear power was an issue directly related to the provision
of energy for their lives, some considered that nuclear energy concerned no more
than Fukushima; in other words, their awareness of nuclear power as an issue
pertinent to them was low. However, through doing the course, students’ understanding deepened and they also began to appreciate that the issue was one that
directly affected them.
The input from experts was also important for helping students to understand the
issues. At the beginning of the course, there were students who, not understanding
fundamental facts—for example, the difference between radial rays and radioactivity—practically “gave up thinking” about the issues. However, with the tuition of
294
A. Yoshida
theory and practice of debating, including debating techniques.
Lesson 4: Visit to Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station in Shizuoka Prefecture.
Lessons 5–6: Entitled “Introduction to debate 2,” in these classes students
participated in a model debate and watched a DVD of the debating competition held in the first semester.
Lesson 7: Lecture on the geological disposal of radioactive waste by a member
of staff of NUMO (the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan).
Lesson 7–8: Students engaged in “communication training.”
Lesson 9: Tomohisa Kakefu gave a talk on radiation, which incorporated
demonstrations.
Lesson 10: Lecture on the geological disposal of radioactive waste by a
member of staff of NUMO (the Nuclear Waste Management Organization
of Japan).
Lesson 11: Visit to Mizunami Underground Research Laboratory.
25.3 Reflections on the Courses
In each of the courses, the students reached a level that enabled them to maintain a
debate during the competition held during at the end of the course. Owing in large
part to Fujikawa’s well-constructed topic, the debate proved to be a balanced one,
with the result of the debate not overly biased either for or against the proposition.
Perhaps because of their humanities/social sciences background, the students
had little background knowledge of radiation. Regarding the storage pool for spent
nuclear fuel, for example, a number of students mistakenly thought that the spent
fuel was dissolved in the water of the pool (the spent fuel is stored in the form of
solid rods). However, because preparing for a debate necessitates clarifying which
areas of one’s understanding are lacking, students’ grasp of the subject area
gradually improved as the course progressed. During the period of the course
various news stories appeared in the press related to nuclear power and NUMO.
Students not only responded to this news in class, but also actively gathered
information reported in the media, and were able to use such up-to-date information
in the debate competition.
Despite the fact that nuclear power was an issue directly related to the provision
of energy for their lives, some considered that nuclear energy concerned no more
than Fukushima; in other words, their awareness of nuclear power as an issue
pertinent to them was low. However, through doing the course, students’ understanding deepened and they also began to appreciate that the issue was one that
directly affected them.
The input from experts was also important for helping students to understand the
issues. At the beginning of the course, there were students who, not understanding
fundamental facts—for example, the difference between radial rays and radioactivity—practically “gave up thinking” about the issues. However, with the tuition of
294
A. Yoshida