Descripción del proceso de desarrollo de requerimientos

3.3.5.1 Document analysis

The Adult ESOL Core Curriculum (2001) does not use the term ‘argumentation’ at all. Whilst this, perhaps, is to be expected in that a technical term like this might not figure in syllabi or curricula, the preference for the term ‘argument’ is revealing in that it conceptualises argument in terms of static product. So, for example, the Level 2 competences identify the need to ‘support opinions and arguments with evidence.’ There is little on the elaboration and establishment of a point of view, in interaction with others or, indeed, about what constitutes evidence in support of an argument, although evidence is associated with the giving of reasons and examples. Argument is thus conceptualised as an abstract individual competence or set of discrete skills. There is no connection made with the imagination or with identities, either individual or collective. The conceptualization is monologic in nature and no connection is made with the narrative mode either, the two modes being conceptualized discretely. In this way, the findings here mirror the observations Andrews makes about the ways in which argument is conceptualised in the mainstream secondary English National

Curriculum (2000).

Moreover, the emphasis is on effective discussion skills, emphasising the production of consensus. Thus, for example, at Level 1 students are expected to engage in discussion to ‘produce a shared understanding about different topics.’ The focus is on the management of disagreement when it arises.

This emphasis on consensus is also evident in terminal assessment. Thus, for example, in the Trinity College Speaking and Listening examinations at Level 2 in 2009, one of the three tasks required the students to resolve a problem by reaching a consensus. The topics are prescribed by the examiners and are generally of a personal, rather than a political, nature. In the second task, framed as a ‘discussion’, the topics for debate are also prescribed, and the students are given the opportunity to debate more general issues, such as the threat to the environment, or space exploration.

What, then, of these topics? The Skills for Life learning materials (2003) do introduce potentially controversial topics (e.g. male and female roles, Genetically-Modified food) as part of the Level 2 materials. However, generally speaking, the topics are both functional and largely uncontroversial, with an emphasis on the skills necessary to operate effectively in the

workplace. This avoidance of controversial topics is something attested to more generally in the global context of ELT (Gray, 2000).

There is also a unit on citizenship, where the students are invited to consider the rights and responsibilities of citizenship and where they learn about the operation of both local and national democracy. The guidance notes reveal a level of explicit policy positioning, exhorting teachers to: “Explain that the notion of rights linked to responsibilities is a key part of government policy, in large part due to the perception of the growth of a ‘rights without responsibilities’ culture” (Teacher Notes Unit 5, p. 60). Here, the teacher is expected to authorise the government’s position in placing the emphasis on the ‘responsibilities’ that migrants have as citizens rather than their rights. The teacher, in other words, is expected to ventriloquize (Bakhtin, 1981) the policy position of the government.

In the Level 1 examination task, narrative is conceptualised in the traditional Labovian way (see Labov, 1972). The task to describe a memorable event in the past is canonically autobiographical, as is the conceptualization of narrative as something that occurs to one person in the past on one occasion. This Aristotelean unity of time and place leads to a focus on the accurate linking of rigidly-sequential statements in the past tense and reflects Labov’s (1972) influential conceptualization of narrative. This is a monological view of narrative and sits uncomfortably with the complexity and variability of the real-life narratives heard in the course of debate in both the pilot and the main study. However, it has to be acknowledged that this is perhaps to be expected in the context of an assessment document, where some degree of simplification is inevitable.

3.3.5.2 Student discussion

In this section, I report on the student discussion, illustrating key points with two extracts from the discussion10. In the extracts presented below, the students are discussing the role of reason and emotion in the authorisation of argument. In what follows, I analyse the ways in which argument is constructed by the students.

Extract 1

1 Natasha (reading from the definition sheet) argument should be based on reasons (.) yeah (.) agree with you (.) because if there is some reasons then argument happens

10

The transcription conventions used are to be found in Appendix 10. The rationale behind transcription is discussed in Section 3.5.4.4.

2 Miroslav well actually]

3 Artur of course yeah (.) but sometimes you don’t

like]

4 Miroslav well actually sometimes you don’t need a reason sometimes]

5 Artur yeah if you don’t like someone you want to argue with him or her]

6 Natasha it it it depends on the personality of people

7 Artur yeah

8 Natasha like with my personality (.) if you don’t like me

9 Artur I didn’t say that

10 Natasha nooo buuuutt (high-pitch) come on (.)

11 Artur ok

12 Natasha I’m not telling you that you don’t like me but just just like for example

13 Artur for example

(Pilot study: Martin’s class, 13/5/09).

Extract 2

1 Natasha argument involves emotions as well as

reasons (.) I don’t understand this

2 Miroslav argument involves emotions as well as reasons]

3 Artur I understand]

4 Natasha how comes

5 Artur it means involves emotion

6 Miroslav yes

7 Artur argument is kind of little talk but on a high level right (indecipherable sound mimicking people arguing) so (.) it means yeah when you put some emotion on your side when you argue right (.) that’s what I am saying now (.) I’m moving my hands now 8 Miroslav yes (.) calculating when you are doing an argument

maybe you are angry about this point (Pilot Study: Martin’s class, 13/5/09).

Before conducting the analysis, it is important to note that the content of the extracts is interesting for what it reveals. Firstly, there is some insight into the role of emotion in argumentation. This includes the fruitful connection between gesture and the emotional intensity of argument made by Artur. Secondly, the extract also reveals both agreement and disagreement and a degree of clarification and development as the speakers begin to articulate and develop their positions.

The analysis begins by examining the role of the formal discourse markers here. Thus we have Natasha using ‘because’ to offer a reason for her initial response to the statement about argument, even though the logic behind her reason seems more to do with the cause of argument rather than how it is justified. This connects to the authorisation of argumentation. Then, there is the use of ‘well, actually’ to signal the introduction of an opposing viewpoint, a different voice. Finally, there is the use of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ as conventional markers of agreement and disagreement and the use of ‘it depends’ to signal both causation and the complexity of argument.

The insights of conversational analysis can also illuminate the ways in which the argument is being constructed here. Thus, Miroslav and Artur overlap as they respond to Natasha’s assertion. In this way turn-taking conventions are broken and they both compete for the conversational floor. This is a competitive situation. However, this is not simply a matter of competing voices here; the voices are also consensual as it becomes clear that they are both in disagreement with Natasha’s view that argument should always be based on reason.

The role of prosody is also important. This is because it carries the emotional dimension of the voice and points to elements of the speaker’s positioning in argumentation. This positioning is visible, for example, in the playfulness revealed by these extracts. This is a theme that emerged in this pilot study and was one which I returned to in the main study. Here, Natasha provides introduces a personal example to illustrate her point that argument depends on personality. There is also a hypothetical element to the argumentation here, as she uses ‘if’ to posit a situation where the other students did not like her. However, Artur takes her utterance literally, rather than hypothetically and contradicts her, observing that this is something he has never said. There is an element of deliberate misunderstanding here, a way of appropriating the words of others that emphasises the listener’s role in meaning-making (Bakhtin, 1981). Natasha responds by exaggerating the phrase ‘no but’ and using the phrase ‘come on.’ This suggests, perhaps, that she is partly aware of, and partly frustrated by, his playfulness.

Later Artur emphasises and illustrates the point about the emotional dimension of argumentation by parodying or mimicking the tone of people arguing. This is not a matter of lexical selection. The words are deliberately nonsensical. The meaning is carried by the prosodic features of voice e.g. the pace and rhythm (which is speeded up) and the pitch (which is higher). These features help him to make his point about the emotionally-charged nature of argument. The exaggeration visible in the extracts is akin to the kind of stylization of voice discussed by Rampton (2003)11.

In summary, insights based on a more conventional examination of discourse markers and on insights from conversation analysis can be used to illuminate the ways in which argumentation is constructed. In addition, it is also possible to see the seeds of a more dialogic analysis, and the value of a sociolinguistically-informed approach to discourse analysis, especially in relation to prosody.

3.3.5.3 Teacher focus group

There was evidence of differing conceptualizations of argument amongst the teachers sampled. Thus, one teacher reported that: “It would actually be quite useful to look at the art of argument” and conceptualized it in terms of the classic Hegelian dialectic, explicitly invoking the philosophical terms “thesis,” “antithesis” and synthesis” and linking these to the development of a point of view.

In contrast, another teacher observed that: “I have a lot of negative connotations” so “I avoid argument or, at least, I avoid conflict.” This conceptualization seems to have more to do with the conceptualization of argument in the popular sense of a ‘row’. This teacher reported that they avoided presenting their views in class and avoided controversy for fear of damaging group cohesion. For her the classroom was akin to a ‘safe haven’ from the harshness of the world outside (Baynham et al., 2007).

What is interesting here is the way that elements of the teachers’ habitus (Bourdieu, 1991) position them in relation to their classroom practices. So, the teacher who invoked Hegel was an academically-oriented one (indeed he taught academic English) and was clearly drawing upon his socio-cultural knowledge and background. The other teacher invokes negative experiences of argument or conflict in the classroom to authorize her avoidance of it.

The dialogic format of the teacher focus group raised some interesting questions about what counted as argument. For example, the following two questions were raised, questions that

11

were not part of the initial list of focus group question but which facilitate the exploration of the issue:

 Does discussion come under the heading of argument?

 Does it argumentation include negotiation?

This first question problematizes the distinction between argument and discussion. Andrews (1995, p. 63) views discussion as more consensual in nature and suggests that it might be viewed as a speech genre (Bakhtin, 1986) of the broader speech mode of argumentation. The two are connected by the dialogical principle that the voices in argumentation are perhaps both competing and consensual (Costello and Mitchell, 1995). The second question suggests the functional work that argumentation does in order to arrive at a consensus when the differences that might be said to characterize it emerge.

The dialogic format of the focus group also went beyond explicit statements of positioning; it allowed for the exploration of them. This will be illustrated in the extract that follows, where the teachers are discussing what they see as their role when argumentation emerges in the classroom:

1 James there’s another thing (.) is that I’ve got a point of view as well (.)

2 Sally mm

3 James now do I express that or do I try to remain strictly neutral (.) I tend not to remain strictly neutral (.) when we’ve talked about (.) for example (.) tony blair’s iraq war I said no (.) I was against it but that’s my (.) I always label it that’s my point of view this is my point of view (.) you may disagree with it (.) that’s fine (.) and that sets to some extent the parameters for the discussion that we might have about it (.) I said I don’t think it’s right you might think it’s right and we go from there rather than pretending I have not got a point of view

4 Sally mm

5 Judith mmm (uncertainty)

6 James which I find difficult to do and we go from there (.) I think it’s more honest and more uhm productive to say that’s my point of view and you may disagree with it but you’ve got to add that that I’m perfectly happy for you to disagree

7 Judith yeah(.) you have to be clear about that

actually turn round and say Sally what do you think

9 James yeah yeah yeah

10 Sally and then you think (.) great (.) this is good 11 Judith I only ever give my opinion if asked.

12 Sally ah (.) exactly

13 James only

14 Sally exactly

15 Judith yeah

16 James no I’d go a step further than that I don’t throw it in right at the beginning but on the other hand I will throw it in if it’s something I feel strongly about

17 Judith yeah (2) yeah (.) (uncertainty) I don’t

(Pilot Study: teacher focus group, 2/7/09)

In this extract, the teachers begin to articulate and, crucially, explore their own stances when argument is unfolding in the classroom. Thus, James introduces the topic of what Baynham (2007) refers to as teacher ‘disclosure’ in the classroom. This is the degree to which the teacher reveals their opinions on a particular topic or issue. Here, he expresses his conviction that he, as a teacher, has both an opinion and the right to disclose it in argument, as long as he is clear that it is his opinion, saying: ‘I tend not to remain strictly neutral’ and ‘I always label it that’s my point of view.’ He frames the decision teachers face (to disclose or not) then offers his view. Judith agrees and emphasises the need to be clear about the possibility of disagreement. Then Sally’s contribution develops and deepens the discussion on disclosure when she observes that students often want to know what teachers think, identifying that as one of the ingredients of a good class.

In terms of topic, the one referred to by James is certainly controversial, evidence that some teachers do deal with them in the classroom. There was a general consensus that “religion and politics” were the two controversial topics most likely to generate the difference that characterizes argumentation and that they needed to be circumvented on occasion.

There is disagreement here too. Sally agrees with James’s views on disclosure but Judith’s ‘mmm’ is a more uncertain one and suggests she has a different view. She confirms this later in the extract by saying she only discloses her opinions when she is asked. All this is achieved with the minimum of intervention by me, in my role as co-ordinator of the focus

group. Here, again, elements of the teachers’ personal and professional experiences might inform their classroom practices and James was more politically-oriented than Judith, who expressed a desire to avoid difference or conflict.