Learning by Argument: More thoughts on raising a freethinker

I read an article earlier this week called "No Debate: Kids Can Learn By Arguing". It was a good read and I have some thoughts of it from a few different points of view; first as that of a parent of a mini-debater named Matrim and second from that of a kid who loved to debate. First though, some information from the article, where a teacher takes kids who have never been introduced to debating and puts them into twice-a-week philosophy courses with 4 yearly debates, teaching the kids about how to gather evidence and support their claims.

At first, as each new topic was introduced, the researchers were startled: the youngsters were clueless about complexity. (“Prisoners, not animals, should be used in medical research because prisoners are guilty and animals are innocent!”) And early in the experiment, the kids showed no interest in the written questions and answers offered by their coaches. By the end of year two, though, they had developed a thirst for evidence.

This is great, because it's exactly the kind of thinking I can see Mat doing. I mean, it's black and white, right? If someone is in jail, they are guilty, if they are guilty they are bad, if they are bad then they should be subject to whatever we want to do to them. And when exactly would that world-view get challenged? Quite possibly not until he's old enough that it would be very difficult to change his mind. Next, another group of kids took the same classes but using a traditional textbook and writing a lot more essays, with no debating. Then the children all had a final essay. The results were surprising (to me):

Hands down, the winners were the students in the experimental group — even though they’d had much less practice writing. By the end of year one, researchers found, two-thirds of the students in that group were considering and addressing opposing arguments in their written essays—a skill demonstrated by only 38 percent of the students in the comparison group. By the end of the third year, nearly 80 percent of the students in the experimental group were writing essays that identified and weighed opposing views in an argument. Less than 30 percent of the students in the comparison group were doing so.

This is one aspect of essay writing I was always praised for in school. I always, always, always tried to think of good arguments against what I was writing for and include them in my paper. I'm not even sure where I got the practice from, but it served me well. Even on things I thought I had a strong opinion on, just taking that small step and realizing, "Wait, people disagree with this and the reasons actually make sense..." was enough to make me reevaluate my own stance. Sometimes I would change my own mind, sometimes my belief would be even stronger. What mattered, though, was that I wasn't just relying on an answer from authority and saying 'So there!'. I wonder if I do that too much with Mat though - he will ask a question and, depending on my mood, I will say "Let's go look it up!" or just say "This is the answer and that's how it is, stop asking questions about it!".

If we don't encourage our kids to challenge their world-views, if we don't challenge our own even as adults, then we are doing a disservice to them and ourselves. I want to help Mat have empathy, to think of other people and how they view situations. I want Mat to stop and think about opposing viewpoints when he's challenged on something rather than getting defensive and taking a dogmatic stance. Debate is an excellent way to do this, but it's not something you often find at schools these days.

At Camp Quest last year, the first year I volunteered, I had the pleasure of watching one of the activities which was a debate about all sorts of different topics (depending on age group). It was refreshing to see the way that the kids would take the topics, some of which are near and dear, and attempt to objectively view them. And you could see the pride and pleasure when they took the time to consider opposing arguments and, in a few cases, handily disarm them.

I plan on trying to engage Mat in more open-ended conversations and discussions. If there's a black and white answer (How long does it take light from the Sun to reach our planet?) I can give it to him and we can talk about how they know that, like normal, but if it's another question, (Why do they kill animals at shelters? [he asked me that a week or two ago and I brushed it off, not wanting to get into that with him since he loves animals so much]) why not encourage him to think about it from multiple angles and let him know that many people have different opinions on it and that's okay, and it's okay to form his own? We tell him he can all the time, but we don't actually actively help him do so.

I would say I'll report back in a week and let you know how it goes, but let's be realistic? Maybe I'll mention it in another post one day though!