Daniela Dlabolová works as a lecturer at the Language Centre of Masaryk University. She teaches Academic English and English for Specific Purposes at the Faculty of Science. She is interested in project-based learning and simulations in EAP and ESP classroom. Email: dlabolova@sci.muni.cz

 

Introduction

Vegan, paleo, fruitarian – alternative dietary habits like these are increasing in popularity. Many individuals feel responsible for their personal choices and perceive connections between individual lifestyles and the health, environmental and moral dilemmas of today’s society. How about our students, would-be scientists or teachers? Are they more conservative in seeking solutions or are they going against the mainstream? Chances are that some of them have adopted alternative lifestyles, and their personal experiences could enrich the language-learning climate in the classroom.                

Alternative diets is an example of a debate topic where knowledge of an academic discipline (in this case, biochemistry) blends with personal values and inclinations.  Students try to apply the recognized facts and make appropriate conclusions based on their “hard” knowledge; simultaneously, they collate individual experiences and viewpoints, thus generating unique arguments of different capacity to withstand group scrutiny. The debate participants put the arguments into new contexts, evaluate their relevance, and prioritize their effects in order to find a generally acceptable conclusion. In constructing a non-confrontational discussion where different viewpoints are acknowledged, the debaters get the chance to shape their communication skills and attitudes as those of citizens with informed opinions, capable of valuable contributions to the public debate on contemporary challenges.

I used this topic for a learning unit in my course of English for Specific Purposes offered to undergraduate students of Natural Sciences. I divide the unit into several parts: the background science, a mini case study, the role-play, and the evaluation.

 

Part 1: Establishing the background

For the preparation, students explore multiple sources related to the effect of nutrition on human health. They choose a text or audio source and prepare a brief summary, adding the reason why they think the information is useful. While discussing the summaries, the students take notes in comprehension worksheets to build their vocabulary in this context. I like to ask them to work with these following sources:

·         Dietary Guidelines for Americans and Food-based Dietary Guidelines in Europe – these explain the risks associated with a Western diet and provide recommendations.

·         World Health Organization website – for its information on communicable and non-communicable diseases.

·         Crash Course videos on Metabolism – these blend educational content with an entertaining style.

Before the actual activity, it is helpful to reinforce some of the functional language for debating. Lists of phrases are available online for students to explore and briefly revise afterwards.  I try to make sure that students are familiar with the variety of functions of different phrases. For instance, they should be aware of the different impacts of various phrases used to express disagreement, such as I don’t think so, I’m afraid I disagree, or I see what you’re saying but…, because a significant part of successful disagreement is tactfulness. Among other sources for studying academic language, I especially refer to the Manchester University Academic Phrasebank for the sections on Avoiding Overgeneralization and Explaining Causality.

 

Part 2: A scaffolding activity

Michael Arnstein, the endurance athlete, gave an interview with a CNN News medical correspondent. The reason why the media were interested in him was his controversial diet. At that time, Michael was “an athlete who subsists on fruit and fruit alone” (CNN, 2013, 0:24). In the interview, he advocated the benefits of his choice.

After watching the interview and answering a few comprehension questions, I ask the students to analyse the case. Initially, they typically focus on the following aspects and questions:

1	Time	How long has he been a fruitarian?
2	Place	Where does he live? What resources are there? What equipment does he need?
3	Family	How does it affect his family?
4	Reasons	Why is he a fruitarian? Why does he have specific dietary demands?
5	Benefits	What are the benefits for him? For anyone else? For the community?
6	Drawbacks	Does it bring any negatives to him / to anyone else?
7	Future	Is it sustainable? What will be the long-term effects?
8	Context	Is it compatible with official dietary guidelines / with scientific knowledge?
9	His message	What point is he making in the interview? Is he convincing?
10	Personal conclusions	How would your life change if you were a fruitarian? What would you eat? What would happen if most people in your country became fruitarians?

 

I allow enough time for the discussion of these questions. The students work in small teams, supporting their arguments, objecting to other comments, and theorising about the effects. It can also be useful to encourage them to search for more details about fruitarians and about Michael Arnstein’s current lifestyle.

 

Part 3: The role-play

At this phase, the students receive the role-play instructions:

You are guest speakers in an educational debate about being a fruitarian because nowadays more people are interested in alternative lifestyles. It’s not clear whether this lifestyle is good or bad, so the debate should help shed light on the issue by bringing together the knowledge and experience of different people.

You will not be explaining your own opinions; instead, you will be playing a specific role and advocating the opinions of your role.

 

Roles:

Athlete (for)                      Athlete (against)

Doctor (for)                       Doctor (against)

Parent (for)                        Parent (against)

Student (for)                      Student (against)

There need to be two hosts of the debate. Two roles of nutritional therapists can also be added.

The activity embraces different language levels; therefore, I assign the roles respective to the abilities of different students. Some of the most advanced speakers of English play the roles of the debate hosts because they should be able to invite others to contribute, link the contributions to one another, summarise and reformulate different points, as well as propose next steps. According to the Council of Europe, such abilities facilitate collaborative interaction (Council of Europe, 2020, p. 88). Those more scientifically-oriented play the roles of doctors or athletes because they have to provide details, react rationally to questions, and clarify their arguments. The participants with lower language levels are better suited to the roles of students or parents, which are easiest for them to project themselves into.

Before starting the role-play, some time for planning is needed. During this time, the debaters think about their main arguments and possible examples or evidence and the hosts prepare their strategy (e.g., first asking the debaters to introduce themselves, then inviting their contributions and leading the debate, and finally ending the debate).  

Moreover, the preparation time is important for accepting the idea that the students will be in the shoes of a different person, not speaking for their real selves. Sometimes they will have to advocate opinions which in reality they disagree with.

 

Part 4: Evaluation

The evaluation follows when the hosts close the debate with a conclusion, summary of the outcome, or paraphrase of an interesting point. Now I use several questions for evaluating the results of the whole process. The answers involve some reflection on the progress of the students’ language skills and communication abilities.

1. What went well?

2. What made this unit a valuable experience?

3. What was difficult?

4. What would you do differently next time?

5. What insights did you gain?

6. How can you use these insights?

7. How does it relate to your discipline / other areas (e.g., the environment)?

 

Conclusion

The role-play enables us to disguise crucial skills in a light playful activity. However, to achieve a good outcome of the role-play debate, thorough preparation is important; therefore, the background activity and mini case study carried out by the students are quite detailed. Based on these, the students are then able to support their assertions with content knowledge and interpret the content innovatively. Their main goal as debaters is not to persuade the others but to retreat from a personal standpoint and define the problem in relation to various contexts. The critical thinking dimension requires the learners to point out the risks and benefits of different perspectives while recognizing the flaws and different levels of relevance in the argumentation. At a deeper level, it is also possible to describe metacognitive aspects. The debaters continually react to one another and adapt their arguments to relate them to the other points. They must be aware of other individuals’ thinking processes and monitor the group’s problem-solving ability. If necessary, they manoeuvre to redirect the group’s thinking into a more constructive path. The experience from the role-play debate perhaps shows that studying science need not be depersonalized. The natural laws and principles presented at science lectures are parts of broader issues with ethical impacts, the solutions to which relate to students’ individual personalities, motivations and competencies. 

 

References

CNN. (2013, August 26). CNN’s Dr. Gupta: ‘Fruitarian’ eats 25ibs of fruit. [online video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE5Z1gKiD1s

Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. Available at www.coe.int/lang-cefr

 

Please check the Pilgrims f2f courses at Pilgrims website.

Please check the Pilgrims online courses at Pilgrims website.