Using a PMI framework to identify stakeholder

Class discussion and a PMI activity helped to strengthen and consolidate students’ ability to identify consequences of stakeholders. Amy first identified (through raised hands) who in the class had come to a decision about using chemical fire retardants in furniture. She asked them to justify their decision. Some examples were:

No, because chemicals can cause people to get hurt – people could be allergic to the chemicals and people could still die from the fire anyway and furniture would be more expensive.

The chemicals make more smoke because it burns slower and the room fills up with smoke and that affects people. They only do one thing – slow fire down – but there are so many things that could go wrong with it, so no I don’t agree with it.

Each group in the class was allocated one of six stakeholder groups Amy had prioritised as important (fire service, furniture manufacturers, consumers (buyers of furniture), scientists, environmentalists and government). The group had to come up with the benefits and harms from the perspective of the stakeholder they had been given. Amy stressed that it may be difficult to find both a negative and a positive thing. She asked for some examples as firefighters:

They would be for it because it would give them more time to get to fires and more time to put out fires and save lives and buildings.

A negative thing could be that they waste their time and money going to little fires when there might be more important fires to go to.

For some stakeholders, like this example of firefighters, there may be only one perspective that makes sense. Dredging up harms, when there is clearly an overwhelming benefit, might be unnecessary and even stretch credibility.

Students were required to rule up a PMI chart with columns for ‘plus’ and ‘minus’ (which Amy explained were “good things” and “bad things”), a box at the bottom for any questions or ideas they came up with, and the stakeholder group at the top. Students who had been exposed to various

viewpoints during the previous session were asked to help those who had been absent. Examples of student work are presented in Appendix 28 and show that students were able to write about positive and negative consequences for stakeholders.

During the intial discussion in groups, Amy realised students were still thinking and talking from their own point of view. She stopped the class and reiterated that “This is from the point of view of the stakeholder you have been given, that is from the firefighters’ point of view, or the scientists’, or whoever you were given”. She suggested that stakeholders question other stakeholders, for example, consumers may question furniture manufacturers as to why they should pay a lot more money for furniture. The students were also beginning to think about and form solutions to the problem as overheard in this discussion:

Student: We should make different types of chemical fire retardants so that if you’re allergic to one kind you could use another one that would be safe for you.

Student: What if there’s not another chemical - then you’d have a problem.

A number of the comments made in the PMI reflect the reading of the viewpoints handed out in the previous session which were still attached to the whiteboard. For example, one viewpoint claims “These toxic chemicals have been shown to cause cancer, reproductive problems, learning disabilities… in laboratory animals and house cats … these chemicals are climbing the food chain … and are found in fish …”. This would explain the environmentalists’ concern about “chemicals spreading through the environment” and “giving people cancer” (though the viewpoint was referring to animals). Another viewpoint claims “they are potentially toxic chemicals which are bad for children…” which would explain the students’ claim “they are bad for children”. The idea from the firefighters that they would get more money (by helping to advertise chemical fire retardants) indicates students may be confused about what firefighters actually do – especially concerning their relationship as stakeholders in the issue of chemical fire retardants. The activity took longer than expected, possibly

because students were now present who had missed the previous lesson in which additional information had been introduced, and they were ‘catching up’.

5.3.3 Formulating an argument through role-play

Having considered stakeholders and consequences to stakeholders, Amy used a debate (based on ideas shared by Lynda on Heathcoat’s (2009) mantle of the expert strategy) to help students use their science knowledge and ethical perspectives to formulate arguments from others’ viewpoints. The lesson began by discussing what a debate was. Amy summed up by saying,“It’s not personal. Stay with the topic. Stay with the purpose of the debate.” After referring the students back to the question: ‘Should chemical fire retardants in furniture be a regulation in New Zealand?’, Amy asked the students to justify their case to the ‘prime minister’ with three clear arguments. She told the students “you would be trying to persuade – to convince the prime minister whether or not to make chemical fire retardants in furniture a regulation. Have really good, detailed reasons saying why.” Amy said the prime minister would take notes and make a decision at the end of the debate. Each group would have a turn to have their say. The researcher was designated the prime minister.

During preparation for the presentation some groups had trouble agreeing which three arguments they would use. This led to self-initiated votes to solve disagreements, although in actuality every group presented more than three ideas. Some students also had problems with arguments that they didn’t personally believe. Amy explained this was not their personal view but was from the point of view of the given stakeholder. They also had difficulty deciding whether as a designated stakeholder they were ‘for’ or ‘against’ making chemical fire retardants in furniture a regulation. For example, scientists, consumers and the government could easily go either way (the class had discussed arguments both for and against). Furniture manfacturers decided to be ‘for’ but it may have been easier for them to go

designate some groups for and some against because five out of the six were wanting to go against. Amy asked two other groups to go ‘for’ “so that the prime minister won’t be persuaded because she hears mostly ‘against’ arguments. It has to be fair.” When the groups came to present, only two groups went ‘for’ and four ‘against’.

The prime minister was invited to sit in a chair at the front of the groups of students. Amy selected groups randomly. Each group had a first speaker, then the others took a turn to present an argument and then the final speaker summed up what the group was saying. Appendix 29 lists the ideas that were presented in the order in which they were presented.

There were more reasons against having a regulation requiring the use of chemical fire retardants in furniture than for. Students in general seemed to have a good grasp of the reasons introduced in the articles they had read. In contrast, the students arguing in favour of a regulation (firefighters and furniture manufacturers) appeared to struggle with some of their ideas. For example, the firefighter group claimed that the firefighters would make more money promoting chemical fire retardant furniture. As pointed out in the previous section, this suggests that students might not understand the relationship between a firefighter’s job and chemical fire retardants. Some of the arguments were also inherently contradictory. For example, one statement from the furniture manufacturers was that “you should be able to choose your furniture – it’s your own risk”. This did not justify their claim ‘for’ the regulation. The stakeholder appears confused, the students perhaps having difficulty separating personal ideas from the role they were taking. One group (Government) who was asked to go ‘for’ was ‘against’ chemical fire retardants in the final presentation of arguments. The difficulty may have been because of their awareness from the class readings that some chemical fire retardants are harmful.

The arguments ‘for’ were based on two main ideas – saving lives and property. One argument from a consumer offered an alternative solution – to use natural fire retardants such as wool: “especially good in New Zealand

where we have lots of wool”. The comment about the furniture being “ugly” was a fair comment in that it is a serious consideration for scientists3_.

At the end of the debate, the prime minister was expected to make a decision. After thanking the ‘people’ for attending and reiterating some of their justifications, she said although the most important consideration was to save lives and then property, there had been many concerns about the chemicals that make furniture fire retardant. The prime minister said that due to this there would not be a regulation made in the near future. She also said she liked the idea of the natural fire retardant materials and would look into this further.

5.3.4 Student learning

Student learning was evident in presentations made during the debate (Table 5.4) and was supported by student comments in a survey administered two weeks after the end of the teaching sequence and comments from Amy in a later interview. These data suggest that, by participating in the classroom activities, students developed an understanding of consequentialism and the need to support a view with scientific evidence.