Are the learners’ understanding of water pollution related to their age, gender and social economic background?
In this study, the learners’ conceptions of the causes and effects of water pollution are not significantly influenced by gender or age. An analysis of the responses of the WPQ shows that gender has not affected the understanding of water pollution. From the four groups in the study three groups had girls who played the leading role whereas one group had two boys who were in the lead. Although it was evident in the study that the girls were competing with each other as well as with the boys in terms of making claims and justifying it. Therefore, Swann’s claim that (1992) that girls avoid competitive behaviour has not been confirmed in this study.
However, the study has confirmed his claim that there is no difference between boys’ and girls’ argumentation levels. It was interesting to see how two boys in the same group got involved in an intense argument without reaching consensus. As they raised their voices, I moved closer to them to see how I could help them argue in a more coherent way than they were doing. Below is an excerpt of their argument:
118
L2: “Put down your pencil. Everyone in the group must still make their claim and give evidence about container A. You are taking too long to explain.
L5: I’m thinking and you are rushing me. I’m not putting my pencil down because I am not yet done. I must still put the thermometer in container A and B to see what substance is colder so that I can write in my evidence on my page. You just want to dominate the group.”
Based on the above, I politely asked the two learners not to rush each other but to listen to each other’s claims and then respond accordingly. Soon afterwards, I moved away from the group so that my presence would not affect the outcome of their reasoning, but observed them from a hearing distance to see how they reacted. It was amazing to see from a distance how a girl intervened and how the problem was solved and both boys finally reached an agreement. Here is an excerpt on this. L3: I listened to both L2 and L5. I agree with L5 because you are rushing him and he is still busy
and you shouted at him.
L5: You a… are right, he is rushing me and I was still thinking and I don’t like it if children
shout at me. He just want to boss us around. Teacher did not choose him to be the leader of the group. She said we are all the leaders.
L3: As a group we must work together and b..be patient. Nobody in the group wanted to start and
that is why L2 started. So he was right. Some children will take longer and other children will work faster. Do you agree with me L2?
L2: Yes L3 I agree with you. I am sorry and it will not ha.. happen again. I’m really sorry. L5:
Thank you L2.
L3: Can we go on with our work now? L2 and L5: (smiling) of course!
L3: There is still other children that must make their claims. We must work faster now before our
time is up.” The whole group is happy now and full of smiles.
Although L3 was not the leader in the group she was however confident to intervene so that the group could solve the problem and complete their task. It is possible that L2’s behaviour dampened the other quiet learners’ spirit in the group which resulted in them not having the courage to participate and reason. L3 did not just come to L5’s aid but also her approach appealed to everyone in the group.
119
The case related above contradicts the Piagetian notion that cognitive development is related only to age of the children because experience also counts as well. Also my experience in the study contradicts those of other scholars (e.g. Kuhn et al., 1998; Mercer et al., 1999., Samarapungavan, 1992; Sodian et al., 1991) that young children are not capable of constructing arguments. Based on this study, the degree to which young children can engage in dialogical argumentation cannot be linked to age alone. It seems that other socio-economic factors such as opportunities to be engaged in, or participate in debates and dialogues on various controversial issues, classroom discourses and group discussions as has been done in this study, can enhance learners’ ability to debate in a coherent way.
These findings are comparable to earlier findings in the area. For example, Ogunniyi (1999) found that certain demographic factors such as age, gender and career interest influenced grade 7-9 learners’ performance on various scientific concepts tested. He found that young learners outperformed older ones. Based on the findings of this study I do agree with him, seeing that the learners’ everyday experience, as well as gaining some scientific ideas at school must have contributed to the learners’ understanding of water pollution as well as the their worldviews in general. The belief systems of different cultures are not the same. It was evident in the study how the two worldviews linked up with each other regarding water pollution.
The scientific view was obvious when the learners in the E group mentioned in the post-test that water could be purified by putting chemicals in it so that it can be re-used again. One learner also mentioned that their pool water is purified by the use of a chemical known as Blue 52. In purifying water, the IKS way, learners indicated that after filtering the water, it needs to be boiled, then a spoon of bleach needs to be added to destroy tiny germs that is not visible.