One of the activities used by Lynda to help students weigh up alternative views was a role-play requiring students to select a role of a stakeholder and argue (in a meeting scenario) from the perspective of that role either in support of, or against, using chemical fire retardants in furniture. As part of the role-play the class received an email inviting community organisations to attend a meeting to consider a question raised by someone building a movie theatre in the community: “Should I use chemical fire retardant seating in my new movie theatre?” The activity incorporated Heathcoat’s (2009) mantle of the expert format, which emphasises “an active, urgent purposeful view of learning in which knowledge is operated on, not merely taken in” (para. 1). Individuals were required to specialise in knowledge from a particular viewpoint, becoming an ‘expert’ in that area.
After a class discussion to identify affected groups (teenagers; firefighters; scientists, including chemical engineers; environmentalists; parents; human rights commission; reporters; town council members) the students selected a role and made a name tag for themselves that would give them their new identity. The researcher was assigned to be ‘Nancy’, the movie theatre owner. The students reviewed previous work (Noisy round robin and PMI results charts, articles and the Internet resources) according to their role to gather evidence for their argument. On the day of the meeting Lynda set the scene by telling the class they “had some serious issues to discuss” and invited them to “take a seat around the [imaginery] board table” (on the floor). She welcomed attendees, saying they had convened to discuss the issue of chemical fire retardants in the theatre seating, and introduced
Nancy, the movie theatre owner (the researcher). Lynda made the scene more real by describing where the theatre was being built. The students appeared to take their roles very seriously, with one of the ‘councillors’ asking if they could not put their hands up during discussion (because adults did not). Lynda suggested they “could try and see if it works”, and the class worked ‘like adults’ for the duration of the ‘meeting’.
The first person to speak was ‘Rachel Greendale’ from the Human Rights Association, which was concerned about the health of those working in the chemical factories: “We have issues with the use of child labour in the production of the chemical fire retardants in poor countries. We don’t agree that you should use children to work. Also we have concerns about people’s [workers’] health involving the chemicals. We believe they could be toxic and further investigation is needed.” A councillor argued in response: “Yes, there are factories in poor countries but they are owned by rich companies who pay workers well – and they are old enough to work”, although this view was not substantiated in any way.
Another example of the role play involved ‘Mick’, a ‘manufacturer of the chemicals’, who said “We’re [indicating two companions] chemical engineers and we’ve just flown in from Europe. We install the chemicals into fabrics by spraying them in. When the fabric burns it just melts and gives people time to get out of their house”. The concept of spraying the chemicals into fabrics was inferred from an article they read (Appendix 16). Lynda clarified this by asking what would happen to her furniture if it caught fire and had that particular fabric on it. Mick told her it would burn slowly and enable her to get out of the house. The science behind these chemicals – they slow down the fire by melting rather than burning was later reiterated by the students in the role of scientists.
The ‘environmentalists’ argued that the chemicals concerned have been found in trees and in human tissue, showing how easily they are transmitted through the environment. Another environmentalist said he had
without burning. This led to concern that chemicals may get into patrons, particularly if they were eating food in the theatre (chemicals may get onto their hands). It was suggested that more research was needed to identify how toxic the chemical retardants are.
The issue of cost and the high price of the chemical fire retardant furniture was raised by a councillor. Some attendees felt it to be too expensive.
After hearing all these points of view, Nancy (the movie owner) talked about regulations in other countries and in the aircraft industry. She also talked about the need to save lives and described to the group what she had seen when scientists compared burning times between a sofa treated with a chemical fire retardant and one that was untreated (the untreated sofa was buring fiercely within seconds). She told them that as the movie theatre owner, she knew there were issues about the chemicals and that was why she had sought their views.
The chairperson invited questions, giving students an opportunity to learn more about the emotive and technical aspects of the issue:
Student: Are you opposed to chemical fire retardants?
Nancy: While the first priority is to save lives, it seems that a number of people are opposed to using man-made chemicals as fire retardants. I want to know more about why, and what research had been done in this area.
Student: Is smoke from chemical fire retardants more toxic than ‘normal’ smoke?
Nancy: I was talking to a scientist who said all smoke is toxic – but at least by using these chemicals the fire burns more slowly allowing people to get out and away from both the fire and the smoke.
Student: Are there different kinds of chemicals and if there is [sic], are you considering one particular one?
Nancy: There are, and some chemicals have been banned in the United States. Scientists are working on producing chemicals that are not harmful to people, but will still slow the fire down.
Town councillors decided to request an investigation into various chemical fire retardants to see what was available and to compare harms and benefits of different ones. A suggestion was made to make the seating from natural fire retardant materials (e.g., leather) but this was opposed because of the cost.
Someone brought up the regulation of chemical fire retardant furniture in Europe and stated that if other governments felt it should be regulated, maybe we should follow their directive. Someone suggested that filters/fans could be fitted to deal with any possible toxic fumes from the chemicals. A query was made as to whether the toxicity could be taken out from the chemicals. That caused participants to think about the workers in the factories producing the chemicals and the health risks associated with this work.
The focus was returned to personal decision-making when Nancy was asked to choose between a wool couch and a couch with chemical fire retardants – if it was for herself. She responded that she would be interested in investigating the potential of natural fire retardant materials. A council member then asked what her decision would be for the seating based on what she had heard. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision and imposing her view on the students, she said she needed to go away and think about what they all had said and weigh up the benefits and costs.
Lynda (as the chairperson) suggested that all present should indicate by a show of hands their personal preference in order to give Nancy an overall view of opinion. She reiterated some of the main points for and against using chemical fire retardants in the seating, stressing this was their personal decision. One student suggested voting for or against using natural fire retardant materials, and then voting a second time for or against using chemical fire retardant materials. The responses (presented in Table 5.1) show a strong favouring of incorporating fire retardants, with 90% supporting the incorporation of chemical fire retardants and 80% supporting
favour of natural fire retardants rather than chemical fire retardants may have been because the student announcing the vote stressed that students should keep in mind the cost of natural fire retardants.
Table 5.1
Results of vote for fire retardant seating in movie theatre (n=29).
Using natural fire retardants Using chemical fire retardants For using natural fire
retardant materials in furniture
23 (80%) For using chemical fire retardant materials in furniture
26 (90%)
Against using natural fire retardant materials (because of cost)* 6 (20%) Against using chemical fire retardant materials in furniture 3 (10%)
A council member thanked Nancy for coming and wished her the best in her decision making. After the group had disbanded, removed name tags and regrouped as themselves in another classroom space, the teacher welcomed them back and then shared with them that she felt they had had “a very powerful discussion”. Specifically, the activity enabled every student to consider the issue from a particular point of view, and the teacher was pleased that nearly every student had contributed to the discussion. At the end, every student expressed an opinion in the informal vote, with several who had at first been against chemical fire retardants changing their mind during the ‘meeting’. Student feedback in an end-of-unit survey and in discussions with the researcher demonstrate that they felt they had learned a lot by listening to others during the role-play. The success of the activity may also have been because Lynda had attended a workshop using mantle of the expert as a learning activity, and had already used this as a learning medium with her class. Lynda felt “the mantle of the expert was a superb way to bring their learning together and allow authentic voice. The children spoke and justified their views.”
5.2.3.2 What do you think? worksheet
In order to formulate and justify a personal view, students were given a worksheet and Lynda asked them to reflect on previous discussion (the role-play) and to consider whether New Zealand should have a law requiring that fire retardants be added to foams and fabrics in furniture, and whether these should be manufactured in New Zealand or not. The students were also required to explain their answers. The students’ reasons were glued onto a chart under the questions for display.
Table 5.2
What do you think? worksheet responses
Worksheet questions Number
completed* Yes No Most western countries in the world have a
regulation that says that fire retardants must be added to the foams and fabrics in furniture. New Zealand does not. Do you think New Zealand should have such a regulation?
24 8 (33%) 16 (67%)
If there was such a regulation in New Zealand, should we manufacture the retardant chemicals needed to put into foams and fabrics for furniture?
16 5 (31%) 11 (69%)
* Some students paired up, giving one response between them and not all students completed both questions.
All eight responses supporting a regulatory change in New Zealand gave similar reasonings, relating to the chemical fire retardants slowing down the burning, giving people time to leave, and saving lives (e.g., “Yes – because it saves lives by giving people more time to get out from a fire”). Amongst the opposing group there were four areas of concern about having a regulation in New Zealand: people’s rights to choose; people’s health (toxicity of the chemicals); the costs involved in the manufacture and consequent purchasing of the furniture; and there should be alternatives to chemical fire retardants.
The responses to these questions were more in-depth than the previous noisy round robin and PMI activity responses. Thought had been
given to alternatives to chemical additives, such as using naturally fire- retardant fibres. The health issues were less emotive (discussing possibilities rather than absolutes), and students were thinking about people’s rights. Costs were considered as more of an issue. More students also appeared to appreciate the potential benefits of including chemical fire retardants in furniture, although twice as many were still against having a regulation in New Zealand.
Just over twice as many students were against producing the chemicals in New Zealand than for. There was a concern about consumers’ rights, health issues for workers, cost and pollution (revealing students’ prior knowledge about pollution in the atmosphere). One student, who supported producing the chemicals here, was concerned about causing pollution in another country and at sea:
because it is not fair to use other companies’ resources – and to affect their environment and wildlife community. Also it costs a lot to ship the chemicals to New Zealand (it would be cheaper to make them here). And there might be a chemical spill into the sea (killing sea life) if they were shipped.
Other students saw saving lives as being a top priority and believed it worthwhile to produce the chemicals that might do this: “…even if they are toxic because they slow down the fire and save lives”. Lynda said the in-depth thinking could be due to having had the ‘meeting’ where a number of students reported learning from each other and finding out things they didn’t know before.