To create a good debate climate in the classroom the following elements
are important to be aware about. The following is a translation of criterias
for a “socratic dialogue” which aims at making a good debate climate that is
made by Dorete Kallesøe [i].
Dialogical teaching: The children are supposed to think for themselves and formulate their own opinions. Preferably it is supposed to happen between the pupils and not between the teacher and the pupil. The teachers role is to ask “open questions” that have more than one answer and not necessarily a right answer which enables dialogue. It is important that the appreciate the pupils contribution.
Dialogical teaching: The children are supposed to think for themselves and formulate their own opinions. Preferably it is supposed to happen between the pupils and not between the teacher and the pupil. The teachers role is to ask “open questions” that have more than one answer and not necessarily a right answer which enables dialogue. It is important that the appreciate the pupils contribution.
The teacher as leader of the conversation: The teacher is supposed to be in the background and (only) structure the dialogue. This enables the pupils to argument with each other. Preferably the teacher has the role of summarizing arguments and being “the devils advocate” that asks questions that force the pupils to give nuances if they agree to fast.
Active listening: The pupils are supposed to learn to listen to each other. Without a willingness to hear others opinion it is not possible to talk to each other in a sensible way. A way to train this is by letting the pupils repeat opinions of others.
Analysing concepts: It is important that everyone discuss the same subject. The teacher has a role of explaining definitions of concepts that are the core of the dialogue (what is culture for example). It is also possible to include different opinions on the concept in play and even let the pupils argument for the opinions that they may not share
The importance of argumentation: The children has to learn that they have to argument about their opinions. (“if you don’t know why you have an opinion, you may not know at all if you actually have it”). The teacher should urge the pupils to challenge each others opinions by asking why the pupils has that particular opinion (for example “what are the consequences of that opinion?” or “why do you think that?”). It is something that have to be trained and small children will not be as good at argumenting as older children.
Pluralism in the classroom: It is important that everyone listens to each other and respect opinions of others as long as long as there is good reasoning for the argument.
Now we now that, let´s say an example in which a teacher
shows her pupils how to maintain a Socratic dialogue:
Maria has organized her class sitting their pupils
forming a circle, so they can see each other. Then, she points a mediator (who has to write who raises
his/her hand first and says who can talk next according to that). After this,
she asks them to discuss about the way we greet people in the different
cultures. To do it she sets out the next problematic situation:
John, who is a Japanese guy
and also has a Japanese background, has a new girlfriend, whose name is Laura.
She is Spanish and has a Spanish background as well. When John introduces Laura
to his parents, the first thing she does is kissing them in both cheeks.
Suddenly, they take a step backwards looking shocked.
Once she has said the conflict, she starts the dialogue
by asking this question:
·
- Why did John parents act like that?
- · Who do you think is the right way of greeting, the Spanish or the Japanese´s ones? Why?
- · Do you think it is important to know something about the other´s culture when we are introduced to someone new? Why?
In order
to answer Thomas´ question, if we use Iben Jensen´s “Analytical Model” to
analyze this situation, we could say that Laura´s Cultural Pre-Understanding
about John parents was incorrect. According to Jense´s description, “Cultural
Pre-Understanding is the general knowledge, the experiences, emotions and
approaches we have towards a group of people with whom we do not share cultural
community”[1].
So probably, when Laura met her boyfriend she greeted him the same as she did
with John´s parents, but he did not acted the same. Consequently, unconsciously she created her
own Pre-Understanding, which consisted of thinking that Japanese people greet
the same as the Spanish ones. Moreover, John parents also had an incorrect
Pre-Understanding about Spanish way of greeting and did not expect receiving
two kisses instead of an inclination of the head.
Apart
from this, not only the members of this conversation have Pre-Understandings
but they also have Cultural Self-Understandings. Jensen says that, these both
are inter-dependent, as “when constructing “the other”, people automatically produce a narrative about themselves-
particularly how they are not”. Cultural self-understanding is therefore almost
always idealized. Society is not depicted as it is but as it “ought to be”
(Jensen, 2007).
In case
we want to use Cultural Pre-Understanding and also Cultural Self-Understanding
as Analytical Tools with our pupils we can do the following activity, based on
what Jensen says in his book “Introduction to cultural understanding”:
Exercise: Imagine that after the greeting, Laura and
John´s parents have this conversation:
J.P: How can you dare to greet us like this?
L: Here,
in Spain, we always greet kissing people in both cheeks. I thought that everybody
in the world does the same.
J.P: Please do not do it again as we, the Japanese people,
consider your way of greeting as disrespectful and unhygienic.
L: Sure,
I am so sorry I did not know anything about it. Every Japanese people I know
greet me the same as I do, even your son. Maybe it is due to the fact that they
have a lot of Spanish friends and are used to it.
J.P: That is ok, we arrived from Japan yesterday and
nobody had tried to greet us like this before. We did not know anything about
it and thought that you also greet people the same as we do. Because from our
point of view, inclining our head is the best way for greeting people.
Now that you know more about what happened with John´s
parents. Can you answer these questions?
In relation with the Cultural Pre-Understanding
Analytical Tool:
1. How are “the Others” depicted? Where in the conversation do you find descriptions of groups? Are positive or negative terms used to depict “the others”?
2. What
is the status of “Normal We” values when “they” are depicted? Is something
characterized as evidently correct? Are particular values expressed?
In relation with the Cultural Self-Understanding
Analytical Tool:
- Who belongs to a “we”? Who certainly does not? Is this a national “we”?
- Is the individual´s own cultural community idealized?
[1] Jensen, Iben (2007): Introduction
to cultural understanding. Roskilde University Press, pp. 103-117