Learners will experience difficulty when generating an argument because they are not use to this type of scientific argumentation. Therefore it is vital that the teacher move from group to group interacting with the learners by asking questions and not just provide learners with the answers. Through questioning the learners the teacher will zone deeper into their understanding and enhance their critical reasoning and argumentation skills (Hall & Sampson, 2009).
Cognitive harmonisation 1.Individual task 2. Small group task 3. Whole class discussion (Group leaders presentations ) 4. Whole class discussion
54
Phase 1 was a Science Argumentation Introductory lesson (SAIL) which consists of four lessons. This was to prepare the learners in knowing what is a claim, evidence and a counterclaim. It also gave them the opportunity to think ahead so that they could argue much better. This lesson lasted two weeks each consisting of four 60-minutes class periods a week.
The learners’ prior knowledge also played a vital role with regard to the timeframe of the SAIL. Learners will experience difficulty when generating an argument because they are not use to this type of scientific argumentation. SAIL was initiated as follows: The learners were organized into three small groups of five and one group of six. Each group was allocated a number.
Straight forward examples were used to get the learners underway. The lesson was intended to offer learners the opportunity to improve their verbal, communication, writing skills as well as their scientific understanding and critical-reasoning skills (Sampson & Grooms 2009). Activities related to the topic were developed to see whether 7-9 year old children could engage in dialogical argumentation in small groups, using evidence to justify their claims (Maloney & Simon 2006). The activities were developed and given to four groups that were suitable for learners of this age to see if they could apply critical thinking as such. The small groups gave each learners the opportunity to contribute to the discussion and argue with each other. It was a mixed boys and girls group.
3.11.1 Lesson 1:Activity 1
Learners had to brainstorm the word “water” individually and then as a group by drawing up a mind map. Thereafter they had to engage within their peer group for further discussion as to refine their ideas and to reach agreement on their group’s mind map. The learners did not find it difficult to write down their own ideas about the word “water” They however found it difficult to share their ideas in the group as they are so use to the fact, that other learners may not see your work. I also had to reassure them that it is not a test. After hearing this they were more comfortable. Subsequently I decided to select a group leader for each group after observing them for quite some time. This was based on the learners’ outspokenness to get the whole group underway. Also it was not easy for them to come to an agreement in the group with regard to their ideas.
55
Some of them just refused bluntly to share their ideas in the group and refused to participate, clutching their mind map tightly against their chest. It took some time to convince these learners that no one will steal their ideas. I urged the group leaders to acknowledge each group member by naming him or her for their ideas during the presentation. This worked well and everybody was happy. At this stage there was no critical reasoning taking place. Learners just had a discussion with regard to the word “water”. They were also urged to speak in full sentences.
It was however surprising to see what they actually knew about the word when I moved around from group to group. To conclude this activity each group had to do a presentation on their mind map. Seeing that it was the learner’s first presentation, I did not involve questioning at this stage, as this might make them anxious and discourage them for the next presentation.
The main aim was to make the learners comfortable during their presentations and praise them for every effort they made. At this stage most of the learners were quite unsure about what to do as this was really something new to them. To stand in front of a class explaining something is not easy. Therefore it was essential, to first develop their confidence as such. The group presentations started off at a snail pace, except for five learners who really was a spark plug to the rest of the class, even if it was by means of a smile and a reassuring nod of the head. This was so heart warming to see the learners surely but slowly getting involve. I was so overwhelmed, by all this. I studied each group’s mind map intensely and highlighted the different ideas they wrote down on the board. This gave me an idea what the learner’s pre-conceptions were with regard to the word water.
56 The under mentioned mind map is an extract of the above.
Figure 3 2 Summary of learners’ pre-conceptions on water.
The learners were observed intensely to see how they interacted with each other. The brainstorming was used as an elicitation method to clarify their thinking and impose the need to resolve the cognitive conflict which will reveal in arguments. According to Millar & Murdoch, (2002:29) “Elicitation is the first stage in a process of determining what they (the pupils) want to know and helping them to develop their ideas surely indicates the prior knowledge” learners had of water. From the mind map it is obvious that the learners had prior knowledge on the topic. It was interesting how individual groups came up with different ideas.
water life save People, animals plants destroy rivers fresh freeze taste See through/ white salty Drink, food, wash clothes, garden clean dirty rain bad good flow smell waste
57
I summarized all the groups ideas on their mind maps and then categorized it, which brought me to the conclusion that the following was evident in all the mind maps namely:(1)The importance of water . (2) Uses of water. (3) Water pollution. (4) Saving water.
Questions were asked, to which participants were expected to answer first individually and then in small groups. Finally the small groups’ representatives presented their agreed solutions as well as areas where they hold opposing views to the whole group. The overall facilitator then summarized the consensus reached where feasible. Specific examples of the outcomes of these activities are presented in Appendix 3.