Argumentation during the debating sessions 100

(See Appendix 5 for details on how these debates were organised)

This subsection presents, analyses and discusses the results of only two of the several debating sessions that the learners were involved in.

4.1.1.1 Groups were discussing whether learners should put on school uniform or not when they go to school. [This was their first debating episode.]

During the first or initial actual debating session, some of the reasons given for wearing uniforms were: for identity since uniforms and learners are associated with their schools and differentiated from outsiders; in order to look the same; minimising the differences between the rich and the poor ‘nobody can tell that one comes from a less fortunate family’; to avoid dress competition amongst learners; to unite people from different backgrounds and cultures;

‘uniforms make us look smart, neat and tidy’; if a learner is involved in an accident out of

school premises, one can tell which school the learner is coming from. Some of the reasons for not wearing uniform given were: some learners may not afford to buy uniforms; ‘students

in higher institutions do not wear uniforms, why should we?’; ‘we look smart in our own clothes.’

During the open discussions, after the main presenters, the discussions were characterised by ‘fierce arguments’; ‘battles’ to win the argument; what I would call ‘quarrelling.’ Each side was drawing lines in the sand, refusing to take a backward step. There was no sign of accepting any of their opponents’ arguments even when confronted with clear evidence. Their aim was clearly to win the argument. It seemed that, to them, an argument must either be won or lost. (This was so despite the fact that it had been emphasised to them that in these debates there would be neither winners nor losers).

No attempts were made to address, specifically, the arguments that had been advanced by their opponents. In fact, it was almost as if the groups had not heard what their opponents had said. For example, to the claim that “we look smart when we are in our own clothes’ the

opponent quipped ‘How do we tell from which school you come?’, and another one questioned ‘how can we then tell the difference between learners and teachers?’ clearly ignoring the claim that ‘we look smarter in our clothes than in uniforms.’

While heated arguments were observed within the group during the preparation for the actual debate, once it came to group presentations, the group members stood together, helping each other to ‘win the debate’. The group responses seemed to be a consensus position and the group members collaborated with each other against their opponents in the other groups. During the final debating session on this topic on uniforms, no real new ideas were brought forward. Groups tended to just repeat what they had said during the initial debate. I took this opportunity to discuss with the learners what they could do to improve their argument and the sort of questions they would need to answer as they prepared for the final debate. I suggested the following questions:

 What did the other group say which you found weak? How are you going to make

maximum use of that weakness?

 What did you say which the other group found weak? How are you going to minimise that

weakness? Or are you going to abandon that argument?

 What did the other group say which you found attractive and are willing to accept?

4.1.1.2 In another and later debating episode, groups were discussing whether or not a patient suffering from an incurable disease and who is in severe pain should be allowed to die by switching off the lifesaving machines that are sustaining him/her.

During the initial actual debating session the reasons for switching off the machines given included: To save the person and his/her family from physical and emotional pain; ‘it is

painful to watch your loved one in so much pain’; ‘the person was going to die anywhere’; In

other words: ‘If the doctors and experts say that there is nothing they can do to save the patient from dying, then, clearly, the patient will die’; it is expensive for the family or government to keep the patient on life saving machines; money used on the patient could be used elsewhere (e.g. for the decent and dignified burial of the person). The reasons for not switching off the machines included: God might have a rescue plan; it is a sin, before God, to kill a person; ‘What if the patient is not meant to die?’; ‘what if the person does not want to

die?’; ‘nobody except God has a right to decide on when a person should die.’ In other

words: ‘God is a God of miracles, anything is possible with Him; Doctors could be wrong, they are just human beings.’

During the open debate, it became clear that the two differing positions were informed by different worldviews. The first position was informed by the group’s belief in the authenticity and unquestionable validity of science while the other position was informed by the group’s belief in the powers of God. It was a question of Science versus Religion. This debate showed quite clearly that people have different knowledge systems that they use or turn to in order to explain and defend their knowledge claims.

It also became clear that the groups were now responding, directly, to their opponents’ arguments. The following excerpt of what was said by the groups illustrates these two points: Group 1: The doctors have said the patient will not survive.

Group 2: What if God has a rescue plan?

Such exchanges became very common with more debating sessions.

The major findings from these debating episodes were: fierce, heated arguments aimed at ‘winning’ the debate at the beginning of the debating sessions; discussions focussed on the task at hand; cooperation, collaboration and consensus within the small groups; initially, not responding directly to or accepting the opponents’ arguments; arguments informed by different worldviews (science and Religion); questioning the orthodox and often unquestioned knowledge claims coming out of science.

Interpretive commentary

This subsection shows the significance, for this study, of the major research findings in terms of the learners’ ability to argue effectively during the debating episodes.

The ‘fierce arguments’; ‘quarrelling’; ‘battles’ to win the argument, each group drawing lines in the sand, refusing to give in that was witnessed during the first debating sessions mirror what Bricker & Bell (2008) feel when they posit that young people associate the concept of argument with social dispute where yelling and fighting are seen as legitimate ways of winning an argument. This seems to have applied to this group of learners at the beginning of the intervention programme.

Related to the above observation, initially, the learners seemed preoccupied with their own views and did not seem to hear the arguments of their opponents. This is what Kuhn & Udell (2003) called ‘exposition’, which I took to mean ‘just being interested in exposing one’s own ideas without considering other people’s views’. This could be due to what Leitao (2000, p. 357) calls confirmation bias which the author describes as “the tendency (by people) of overlooking information that can potentially undermine their viewpoints” or simply due a desire to win an argument. Later on, there was a progression to a situation where the learners started to attend to and address their opponents’ ideas seeking to identify weaknesses in them. This is what Kuhn & Udell (2003) called ‘challenges’ which I took to be a higher level of argumentation. Kuhn & Udell, 2003) says that while most young adolescents would initially focus their efforts on exposition of their position to the neglect of attending to the opponent’s claims and attempting to weaken their force, they would be able to do so and to generate counterarguments and give reasons against the opposing position, when explicitly instructed and given opportunities to do so. This seems to be what happened to this group of learners. In terms of levels of argumentation, the learners were now operating at level 5 of Downing’s (2007) model where pupils begin to respond to ideas from their interlocutors.

Even at this early stage of the intervention programme, there was consensus and collaboration within the smaller groups supporting a certain point of view. This is in contrast to Bennett & Cass (1989) and Gabon et al. (1980) in Maloney & Simon (2006) who claim that children often do not work well together when given collaborative work because children’s talk is naturally uncooperative and disputational. While within their small groups, before the report back, discussions tended to be disputational and quite heated up, each small group stood together, working cooperatively to win their argument during the report back. In terms of levels of argument, this could be taken as Felton & Kuhn’s (2001) ‘addition’ discourse code where the arguer extends or elaborates the other person’s utterances in order to attack or support another person’s contribution.

Again, at this early stage, discussions were focused on the task. That the learners kept focussed on the task at hand is quite the opposite to the assertion made by Bennett & Cass (1989) and Gabon et al. (1980) in Maloney & Simon (2006) that most talk amongst the children were off task, uncooperative, and not constructive to learning. Here was a group of learners who were on task, cooperative and constructive, most of the time.

The learners developed clear argumentation division lines along different worldviews. As we saw, during one of these debating sessions, some learners leaned on science while others leaned on religion. This means that the learners were being informed by some thought system to come up with their arguments. The importance, for this study, of this development was the realisation and acceptance by the learners that human beings use or rely on different worldviews to explain their experiences. This seems to suggest that there is no one (correct) way of interpreting and explaining events and phenomena around us. Several ways exist and these should be made full use of if we are to understand this world better.