today john submitted my grant application :-)
but that is not the primary reason for this entry.
today, i conducted a workshop for teachers of Upper Secondary Social Studies.
the entire duration of the 3-hour session was devoted to the introduction and practice of Structured Academic Controversy, which is a teaching method that i had only learnt of earlier this year (see my entry 'distractions?' posted on July 30th).
i was eager to try out SAC because it will be part of my research methodology, and i was upfront with the teachers today and told them that i had never tried the technique before and was not sure of the possible outcome.
as things turned out, the teachers (just under thirty in number) largely took the exercise seriously and had lively and animated discussions in their groups of four. i was especially pleased to see this, because they had a lot of things on their mind, given the fact that now is the period of the 'N' and 'O' level preliminary examinations.
one of the takeaways from today's exercise was that there really needs to be sufficient time alloted for the initial part of the SAC - that of familiarisation with the issue. this involves a lot of reading and research and there's no getting away from it. today, i had budgeted for 35 minutes for this part (based on what i had read from the web) and true enough, the teachers used the entire duration for their background reading and preparation of arguments.
the presentation of arguments which followed the reversal of perspectives did not take the ten minutes per team. this was completed in five minutes.
some issues that the teachers raised were the purpose of the reversal - why not just proceed to research both points of view straightaway? also, what exactly was required during the post-reversal presentation round - was it a rehash of the original points, or something more productive (such as presenting the more convicing points)? some teachers did not really heed the instructions and proceeded to the clarification / consensus-building stage prematurely. it is easy to envisage pupils doing this too. participants of SAC must be convinced of the discipline of holding one's peace, and of appreciating the worth of the exercise as the construction of a strong position on the issue (as opposed to the cultural baggage of tearing down the opponent's argument). those teachers who did not have the discipline to do so generally ended up rehashing the main points on either side without achieving new insights (as was evident from the inter-group sharing).
the inter-group sharing was very important to the SAC, and that was something that i had not really anticipated. it gave participants a sense of closure, and an opportunity to speak. teachers like to be in front of an audience, speaking. also, because the majority of the teachers took the exercise seriously, they really did want to hear how their colleagues felt with regard to the issue.
as for the issue itself, the consensus among the teachers was another surprise. the issue i had chosen was the extent to which the South African government is justified in its present stance regarding the most appropriate ways to combat the spread of AIDS in the country. i honestly had expected most of the participants to disagree with the South African government's policies, especially given the fact that UNAIDS has published information elaborating on why it is a fallacy to question the link between HIV infection and AIDS. instead, the teachers took a long-term view (which in retrospect was the most sensible thing to do) and mainly agreed with the policies of President Mbeki's administration.
i learnt a lot from this morning's session. i had been really apprehensive at the start of the day, but thanks to the commitment and participation of the teachers, we all left the room with much to think about.
:-)
