A class of 20 part time master students, all of them experienced teachers, was divided in two groups and got the task to argue for opposite and given standpoints. One group should argue in favour of the statement: Schools should be worldview and religiously neutral. The other group should argue for: Schools should NOT be worldview and religiously neutral.
The task was meant as a warming up session by raising important questions relevant for the theme of the lecture: Objectives clause of the Educational Act and Core values of education in Norway, valid for all schools. The study literature prepared them for this.
The task was performed by a given time for individual preparations for argumentation, then some time in pairs, before all ten students discussed together. Each group were lined up on opposite sides in the room.
The first group had a rich vocabulary of arguments for the neutrality of education. The second group, however, argued that school often missed to practise its neutrality. The leader interrupted them and repeated the given task: not neutral. After some confusion it came up a few arguments for that education cannot be neutral and should promote values and formation.
The same groups were given new tasks. The first should argue in favour of: Schools shall promote values. The second group should argue in favour of Schools shall only give knowledge. This was done to demonstrate representative argumentation, both groups had to think opposite. They argued richer, and the students commented on the need to experience the difficulties in arguing in favour of standpoints they do not agree to. It was also discussed when and how the method could be used in classrooms in school.