Creating Strategies and Conditions for Civil Discourse About
Controversial Issues by John Allen Rossi
John Allen Rossi, an assistant professor of education at Virginia Commonwealth
University, Richmond, Virginia, examines several major approaches to teaching about
controversial issues, explores their benefits and weaknesses, and looks at how they might
be combined with a variety of constructivist methodologies. At the end of the article,
Rossi presents an annotated list of instructional materials for teaching controversial
issues.
In a recent column, Michael Kramer (1995) contended that civil discourse about
controversial political issues was virtually an oxymoron in American society today. The
media are replete with incendiary discourse designed to get attention, startle, and attack,
as reflected in the dialogue on radio and interaction on television talk shows like those of
Jenny Jones and Ricki Lake. For adolescents, such discourse serves as a model for how to
discuss and manage conflicting perspectives on controversial issues.
In contrast with the feverish talk show efforts to stir up feelings on minor issues,
numerous studies (Shaver, Davis, and Helburn, 1980; Goodlad, 1984; McNeil, 1986)
report the absence of any dialogue about significant controversial issues in many high
school classrooms. Yet it is a well-established tenet of social studies education that
promoting civic competence requires informed, thoughtful social interaction among
students about controversial public issues. The incendiary discourse in the media and the
silence of the classroom pose a challenge to this tenet, obligating the profession to
demand more opportunities for open, honest, and thoughtful dialogue in social studies
classrooms.
This is not to say that any discussion of controversial issues will lead to civic
competence. The potential for positive and negative consequences is present whenever
controversy is discussed. Whether the consequences are positive or negative depend on
the conditions under which the controversy occurs and the way it is managed. In other
words, classroom context and climate are extremely important variables in promoting the
abilities and dispositions necessary for an informed, thoughtful, and caring citizenry. In
this article, I will not focus on what those abilities and dispositions might be. Other
articles in this special section [Ed. Note: Social Education, Vol. 60, No. 1, 1996] define
them. Instead, I will first provide an overview of approaches and discussion formats
advocated in the teaching of controversial issues. Second, I will propose a set of
contextual conditions in which these approaches and formats might best promote civic
competence.
Major Approaches to Teaching About Controversial Issues Four major approaches to
teaching about controversial issues frequently appear in the literature--problem solving,
public issues, decision making, and moral reasoning. Each approach contains a set of
clearly articulated goals and a framework for classroom practice derived from theoretical
premises. In addition, each approach offers the teacher a choice of a variety of discussion
formats (e.g., role-playing, debating, class discussion) when implementing the approach
in the classroom. In this section, I will describe and provide examples of the four
approaches, leaving a discussion of the choice of formats to the next section. Although
differences among the four approaches should not be exaggerated, I will explore a few of
the subtle differences among the approaches.
Problem Solving The term "problem" has several definitions. Dewey (1933) defined
problem solving as a condition wherein individuals experience a state of doubt or
perplexity about a question or situation that triggers the active search for knowledge that
will solve the conflict. The purpose is for students to hypothesize, collect and organize
data, and draw conclusions about problems for which there is no definitive answer.
Although certain values may influence the conclusion drawn by students, the purpose is
not for students to make value judgments about the problem. Adapted from Dewey
(1933), the problem-solving approach follows five steps: (1) creating a puzzle, dilemma,
or state of doubt about a topic; (2) stating the problem in the form of a question (e.g.,
what explains this?); (3) generating some hypotheses from students about the problem;
(4) testing the validity of the hypotheses through collecting and organizing data; and (5)
asking students to draw a tentative conclusion about the problem based on the evidence
available.
For example, in an international relations class, the teacher might organize a series of
lessons around the question, "When should one country intervene in the affairs of another
country?" The teacher would present the students with two scenarios for U.S.
intervention in international conflicts, one in the Gulf War and the second in Bosnia. The
teacher then poses the question, "Why did the United States intervene militarily so
quickly in the Gulf War and not in Bosnia?" Students would generate a series of
hypotheses from their existing knowledge and begin a search for information from a
variety of sources about the two scenarios to test their ideas. Eventually, each student or
group of students would draw a conclusion about the problem posed by the question.
Public Issues Dating back to the Harvard Social Studies Project (Oliver and Newmann,
1967), the purpose of the public issues approach is to help students analyze and discuss
persisting human dilemmas and value conflicts related to public issues, both historical
and contemporary.1 The analytical framework entails the investigation of a policy
question by analyzing the factual, definitional, and moral components of the policy under
consideration.
For example, an investigation of Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on
Hiroshima in 1945 requires the analysis of the following questions: (1) Was the bomb
militarily necessary? (factual); (2) What was meant by the term "surrender?"
(definitional); and (3) was it morally justifiable to kill Japanese civilians in order to save
the lives of American soldiers? (moral). In the public issues approach, students research
and discuss these questions as they move toward taking and defending a position on the
policy question--should the United States have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima? The
approach views the classroom as a community of learners in conversation, eventually
making value judgments about enduring public questions.
Decision Making Decision making can be defined as the making of reasoned choices
from among several alternatives (Cassidy and Kurfman, 1977). The steps in the approach
include (1) defining the situation that requires a decision, its origins, and the goals of the
decision maker; (2) identifying available alternatives and their good and bad
consequences; and (3) selecting an alternative and assessing how it best fits the goals of
the decision maker (Cassidy and Kurfman, 1977). Like the public issues approach,
decision making explores value conflicts and judgments, but, unlike public issues, its
focus lies more in identifying the range of available choices.
Again using Hiroshima as an example, this approach would ask students first to define
the situation and goals of the United States in July 1945. Then, students would identify
and predict the consequences of possible alternatives like invading by land, detonating a
demonstration bomb over a deserted island, offering the retention of the Emperor as a
condition of surrender, and the dropping of the bomb. Like the public issues approach,
the predicting of consequences often entails a consideration of disputed factual and moral
questions. Finally, students would choose the most desirable alternative given the
predicted consequences and the goals of the United States. A recent adaptation of this
approach is The Choices for the 21st Century Education Project established by the
Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies at Brown University. This project
has designed curricular units that ask students to assess the choices on a number of
foreign policy issues, ranging from U.S. policy in Vietnam to keeping the peace in the
post-Cold War world.
Moral Reasoning Drawing on the research of Lawrence Kohlberg, this approach seeks
to advance the quality of student reasoning about ethical dilemmas. It contends that
student reasoning becomes less self-centered, less conformist, and more attuned to the
legal rights of others and the well-being of society if exposed to properly led discussions
of moral dilemmas (Lockwood and Harris, 1985). These moral dilemmas can be derived
from history (e.g., Rosa Park's choice not to move to the back of the bus) or from the
real-life experiences of students.2
Beyer (1976) proposed a multi-staged strategy to guide such moral discussions: (1)
defining and clarifying the dilemma; (2) asking each student to take a tentative position
on the dilemma; (3) dividing students into small groups to identify reasons for their
position; (4) conducting a class discussion that defends, challenges, and probes the
reasoning; and (5) extending the reasoning to the larger moral question raised by the
dilemma. In the case of Hiroshima, the discussion might concentrate on the moral
dilemma confronted by atomic scientists, military leaders, and the State Department prior
to Truman's decision. Was the dropping of the bomb morally justifiable? Does the fact
that the bomb would shorten the war and save lives justify the means used? Was the
atomic bomb any more immoral than regular incendiary bombs? Was the bomb a means
of punishing and gaining revenge? If so, is that morally justified? Although students may
struggle with definitional and factual questions and propose options in the process, the
emphasis of moral reasoning lies in probing the moral justification for behavior.
Discussion Formats In this section, I will describe and give examples of a variety of
discussion formats that a teacher might adopt to carry out any of the previous four
approaches in the classroom. These formats do not include textbook or lecture-driven
recitations but substantive conversation among students with the direct or indirect
guidance of the teacher. Newmann and Wehlage (1993) assert that substantive
conversation contains three features: (1) considerable interaction that includes higherorder thinking about ideas; (2) the sharing of ideas in exchanges not completely scripted
or controlled by the teacher; and (3) a dialogue that builds coherently on participants'
ideas to promote collective understanding. Conversation might occur in such formats as
teacher-directed large-group class discussions, small-group discussions, debates, or roleplaying. Although each format can be adapted to all four approaches, for the purposes of
this article, I will describe how each format might be adapted to fit one approach.
Large-Group Class Discussion This format can be pursued using the decision-making
approach, particularly when examining the alternatives and their consequences. Start the
discussion by asking each student to write out his or her understanding of the alternative
to be assessed (e.g., use of a demonstration bomb). Once the alternative is clearly
defined, poll the students on their position on the alternative (good idea, bad idea,
undecided). If disagreement exists, ask students to share the good and bad consequences
of the alternative and write them on the board. Clarify the consequences when necessary.
If class consensus exists, write the consequences on the board to see if students favor the
alternative for the same reasons. Once the consequences are clarified, begin to probe the
reasoning behind each consequence, examining its logic, identifying supportive evidence,
and prioritizing its importance. End the discussion by re-taking a poll on the worth of the
alternative. Have the results remained the same or changed? Why?
Small-Group Discussion One form of small-group discussion often associated with the
public issues approach is the scored discussion (Oliver and Newmann, 1972; Zola, 1992;
Harris, 1995). In a scored discussion, the class is divided into small groups ranging from
five to eight students. Each group is asked to discuss a public issue for about 25 minutes
without interruption by the teacher or students outside the group. Prior to the discussion,
each group prepares an agenda in which it identifies the factual, definitional, and moral
issues the members wish to address during the discussion. The group's discussion and the
contribution of each student are scored for substance and procedure. The scorer gives
points for positive features, such as using evidence or inviting non-participants to share
their ideas, and subtracts points for negative features, such as dominating the
conversation or making personal attacks.
Debates Although there are many debate forms, I have found two particularly effective
in the classroom. The first is formal, Oxford-style debate, which includes opening
speeches by students with opposing positions, interrogation and defense of each side's
argument, and rebuttal speeches. This format can easily be integrated into one phase of
the problem-solving approach. Students might be asked to debate two different
hypotheses about the problem being investigated. For example, on the problem of the
effect of slavery on the black family, one group might support Stanley Elkin's hypothesis
(1985) that slavery turned the culturally uprooted African slaves into passive and
childlike Samboes, while a second might support Eugene Genovese's hypothesis (1985)
that slaves developed their own system of family and cultural values within Southern
society. The debate starts with the opening arguments from each group and continues
with interrogation by each group of the other's position. During the interrogation, either
group could claim a "cream" if it detects (1) a serious factual error, (2) stalling by the
other side, (3) a contradiction, (4) the inability to answer a main question, or (5) an
effective counterpunch to a question. The debate concludes with rebuttal speeches by
each group. A third group of judges scores the entire debate, including the assessment of
the "creams" and both sets of speeches, and decides which hypothesis has the most
validity.3
A second form of debate is advocate decision making in which students
debate a single position on a public issue (e.g., the United States should deny mostfavored-nation trade status to China). The activity begins by clarifying the debate
proposition and its context, and dividing the class into three groups of equal size-advocates for the proposition, advocates against the proposition, and decision makers.
After the preparation of reasons, evidence, and questions by all three groups, the class is
further divided into groups of three students, each containing an advocate for, an
advocate against, and a decision maker. The debate, moderated by the decision maker,
occurs in these small groups of three students each. The activity ends with a full-class
discussion in which students identify value conflicts as well as the strongest arguments
and evidence presented in the debate.
Role-Playing Shaftel and Shaftel (1967) describe role-playing as having students
portray other people. Students "step into someone else's shoes" as a means to experience
firsthand something that they might otherwise only read or be told. They claim that one
function of role-playing is "educating for ethical behavior; more specifically, for
individual integrity and group responsibility" (1967,8). Role-playing, as explained by
Shaftel and Shaftel (1967), involves a sequence of steps: (1) "warming up" the group or
problem confrontation, (2) selecting the participants, (3) preparing the audience to
participate as observers, (4) setting the stage or scenario, (5) enacting the role-play, and
(6) debriefing the enactment.
Role-playing is a common practice used in the mock trials and public hearings advocated
by law-related educators (see McBee, Social Education, Vol. 60, No. 1, 1996). It is also
adaptable to the moral reasoning approach in which group’s role-play moral dilemmas as
a springboard to large-group debriefing of the reasoning heard in the role-play. For
example, I have designed a role-play based on the story of Victoria Woodhull, the
controversial nineteenth-century feminist and journalist, found in Reasoning With
Democratic Values (Lockwood and Harris, 1985). Set in the home of Ms. Woodhull in
1872, the role-play entails a conversation among Susan B. Anthony, the Reverend Henry
Ward Beecher, Colonel James Blood, and Woodhull about whether Woodhull should
print a story about the private marital indiscretions of Reverend Beecher, a prominent
supporter of women's rights' issues. Subsequent debriefing often evolves into a discussion
of whether the private lives of public figures should be publicized.
Classroom Climate I mentioned at the beginning of the article that discourse about
controversial issues is a staple of talk radio and TV shows like those of Jenny Jones and
Ricki Lake. However, the climate in which controversy occurs on these shows inflames
and exacerbates conflict; it does not generate informed, thoughtful deliberation. As these
shows demonstrate, merely discussing controversial issues is not sufficient to promote
civic competence and democratic attitudes. Much depends on the climate in which the
discourse occurs. In the classroom, the consequences for students of teaching about
controversy depend on the classroom conditions in which these approaches and formats
occur and the way they are managed by teachers and students (Johnson and Johnson,
1979; Lusk and Weinberg, 1994; Hahn, 1991). In other words, context and classroom
climate are critical. What classroom conditions and procedures are conducive to
promoting civic competence? In this segment, I will define these conditions and use them
to examine more closely the approaches and formats identified in the last two segments.
A Cooperative versus a Competitive Context Johnson and Johnson (1979) claim that a
cooperative context facilitates constructive controversy. They define a cooperative
context as one in which people perceive they can obtain their goal only if other people
with whom they are linked can obtain their goals. Under such conditions, communication
tends to be more open and honest, people feel safer to challenge ideas, and conflicts are
perceived as jointly shared.
Cooperative contexts, compared to competitive ones, promote more accurate
communication of information, more verbalization of ideas and information, greater
efforts in seeking others' information and ideas, more attentiveness to others' statements,
more utilization of others' information in more optimal ways, more willingness to be
influenced by others' ideas and information, fewer difficulties in communication with and
understanding others, more confidence in one's own ideas and in the value that others
attach to one's ideas, and greater feelings of agreement between oneself and others
(Johnson and Johnson, 1979).
Of the approaches outlined earlier, the public issues approach and the scored discussion
format seek to establish and maintain a cooperative context. The public issues approach is
neither confrontational nor combative; rather, students discuss their positions on a policy
issue using the rational, analytical framework of factual, definitional, and moral
questions. There is a search for consensus and, where there is disagreement, an effort to
understand and bridge the differences. Students receive positive points for drawing others
into the discussion, moving the discussion forward, and asking clarifying questions, and
receive negative points for monopolizing or making a personal attack. Similarly, in a
scored discussion, students debate and deliberate, as citizens interacting as a group.
Barber (1989) asserts that the danger of a competitive context is one-sided advocacy,
where the aim is to prevail and the purpose of listening is to scan the adversary's position
for weakness. The goal of the dialogue is not to understand but to defeat the opponent.
Newmann (1989) claims that such dialogue is manipulation, not honest discussion. It
forces participants to harden and blindly defend their position rather than examine their
reasoning. In their study of class discussions about race and gender, Lusk and Weinberg
(1994) report one student saying, "It seems that once we start talking about it, the object
is to win the debate, not talk about the issue.” The potential for such danger exists in the
Oxford-style and advocate decision-making debate formats. In Oxford-style debate, the
potential danger is excessive focus on "creaming" the adversary; in advocate decision
making, the danger is excessive focus on winning the debate rather than a rational
presentation and defense of one's position. Even a scored discussion for some students
has the potential of becoming a contest to amass more points than one's peers (Rossi,
1995).
On the other hand, a competitive context is not necessarily perilous. Lynch and McKenna
(1990) contend that teaching controversy requires dealing with the hearts and minds of
students. At in-service workshops where I model Oxford-style debate and advocate
decision making, teachers frequently praise the formats for their motivational value. In an
era when many students devalue schooling except as a means to secure a credential,
teachers treasure the affective as well as the cognitive component of effective instruction.
The dilemma for the teacher is to create a climate that generates enough emotion to create
interest and commitment without impeding open, honest dialogue where participants feel
safe to speak. The task of the teacher is to deal with the emotion before it builds to
defensiveness and aggression. It is imperative to arrive at rules for the exchange of ideas
(Lynch and McKenna, 1990) and to teach students discussion skills (Harwood and Hahn,
1990). Rules and scoring criteria might include (1) elaborating statements with reasons or
evidence, (2) stipulating the temporary acceptance of a fact or assumption in dispute, (3)
forbidding personal attacks, and (4) acknowledging the statements of others (Lynch and
McKenna, 1990; Harris, 1995).
Use of Relevant Information If controversy is to lead to learning, the students must
possess and use information relevant to the controversy. Just because students are highly
engaged when discussing controversial issues does not necessarily mean they are
expanding their knowledge or examining their attitudes. Although the process of
identifying errors is difficult, students are more likely to modify their outlook if they
recognize why prior knowledge or beliefs were incorrect or indefensible (Lynch and
McKenna, 1990). Consequently, it is important that teachers know in advance what
beliefs students already have. Using a brief opinion survey with a Likert scale at the
beginning of a lesson is one way to begin to explore these beliefs.
At some point in dealing with controversial issues, it is important that students possess
the key facts and concepts from the academic disciplines that supply the framework for
understanding the issue. It is impossible, for instance, to understand the current
controversy over affirmative action without some conceptual knowledge of equal
opportunity, the history of discrimination, and landmark court cases. However, such
knowledge must not remain inert. Rather, students should be asked to use it to examine
and refine their reasoning on the issue or as evidence to support their position. All
approaches and formats fall short if attention to understanding and using relevant
knowledge is deficient.
Two approaches outlined earlier encourage teachers not to limit analysis of knowledge to
the specific controversy under consideration. The public issues and moral reasoning
approaches advocate raising the analysis of the specific case controversies to general
principles and concepts. The public issues approach urges the use of analogies to test the
meaning of common principles in different cases. For example, by comparing rebel
response to the Stamp Act in the 1770s with the incident at Pettus Bridge in Selma,
Alabama, in 1965, students might gain greater insight into when governmental authority
should be challenged (see Griese and Glade, 1988). Likewise, as exemplified earlier in
the Woodhull role-play, the moral reasoning approach suggests using probe questions,
which draw attention to larger moral issues implicit in a moral dilemma.
Perspective Taking Perspective taking is the ability to understand how a problem or
situation appears cognitively and affectively to another person. A classroom climate that
provides opportunities to develop perspective-taking skills tends to increase the amount
of information disclosed, the level of comprehension and retention of others' ideas, and
the quality of problem solving (Johnson and Johnson, 1979). It also ensures that students
are exposed to a range of viewpoints on any issue. Of the formats, role-playing perhaps
provides the most opportunities for students to understand and empathize with another
person's perspective. However, even Oxford-style debate and advocate decision making
supply such opportunities by asking students to defend positions with which they initially
disagree. In conducting class discussions, Kelly (1989) recommends that teachers ask
students to compare and contrast their views with others or to make conjectures about
others' points of view as a means to enhance listening among adversaries and to
discourage dismissal of others' views without reflection. The task is not an easy one.
Teachers must decide which perspectives to include. Are all perspectives of equal worth?
If not, how does one decide which to exclude? Students may be resistant to requests to
play roles contrary to their own beliefs.
Disagreeing while Confirming A frequent occurrence when dealing with controversy
is that of students or teachers challenging ideas advocated by other students. While
necessary pedagogically, such challenges can be perceived as threats to one's ability and
self-confidence. Somehow, participants need to be able to disagree with each others'
ideas while confirming each others' personal competence. Disagreeing while attacking
one's competence only reinforces one's commitment to his or her ideas and the rejection
of opposing ideas (Johnson and Johnson, 1979). Quieter or less confident students are
likely to withdraw further if their ideas are not received with respect. How does a teacher
protect the divergence of views among participants, yet create a safe environment where
students listen and respect the ideas of their peers? Scored discussions use a scoring
criteria where students are rewarded for acknowledging the statements of others or
summarizing points of disagreement as well as agreement, and are penalized for abusive
comments designed to hurt feelings (Zola, 1992; Harris, 1995). In addition, teachers need
to model appropriate behaviors by not only asking challenging questions but also by
listening to and acknowledging student responses.
Teachers walk a tightrope when modeling such behaviors. Students often view teachers
as experts who, if one waits long enough, will reveal "the right answer.” Following a
response to a teacher's question, students will wait for the teacher to confirm or
disconfirm its value. More Socratic teachers will continue to question student reasoning
by asking follow-up questions or proposing alternative scenarios. There is potential
danger, however, in Socratic questioning if it intimidates students who are just beginning
to gain confidence in their own voice. Such intimidation is one reason some students are
reluctant to discuss controversial issues (Rossi, 1995). Knowing when to push more
deeply or back off gently is part of the art of teaching.
Inclusion Efforts to initiate discussion of controversial issues often provoke
uncomfortable silence. What are the roots of this silence? Some students are reluctant to
say anything that might jeopardize relationships with their peers; some feel intimidated
by more vocal students; others view social studies as a non-controversial subject where
knowledge is inert and certain (Just tell us the answer, Mr. Rossi); still others simply feel
uncomfortable with conflict (Lusk and Weinberg, 1994). Yet including as many students
as possible when discussing controversy has numerous benefits. It promotes the
heterogeneity of viewpoints, provides opportunities for more students to test their ideas
publicly, and limits dominance by a few outspoken students.
What might teachers do to promote inclusion in discourse? Lusk and Weinberg (1994)
report noticing an increase in participation after conducting an exercise in which students
identified and explored the social norms and classroom dynamics that inhibit discussion.
During large-group class discussions, Kelly (1989) suggests asking clear, focused
questions, waiting for responses, calling on non-volunteers, and promoting student-tostudent interaction. The quiet student is not necessarily a thoughtless student. Often the
quiet student, if called on, will offer ideas that move the discussion forward in a
productive direction. In a scored discussion, group members are rewarded for drawing
someone else into the discussion and are penalized for not yielding the floor. One of the
strengths of advocate decision making lies in the inclusion of all students in small groups
of three, each triad debating the controversy.
Conclusion While there is no single approach or discussion format guaranteed to
produce the citizenship outcomes ascribed to teaching about controversial issues, one
critical variable is the classroom climate in which these approaches and formats occur.
The teacher is a major player in nurturing such a climate. The climate revolves around a
teacher who has in-depth substantive knowledge of the issues and procedural knowledge
of available approaches and formats. It requires a teacher who has the skill to integrate
the emotive and cognitive aspects of teaching; protect open, honest dialogue where there
is an exchange of divergent views; ask clear, thought-provoking questions in discussion;
wait for and listen to student responses; define and enforce rules for conduct; and include
quieter students in the participation. The climate revolves around a teacher with certain
personal dispositions or attitudes, who is a model of thoughtfulness, showing an interest
in and respect for student ideas, a skepticism about the right answer, a thirst and
enthusiasm for knowing more, and a commitment to social studies as more than the
dissemination of knowledge. Creating a classroom climate where dealing with
controversy produces the desired civic outcomes depends on teachers who intertwine
their knowledge, skill, and attitudes into the art of teaching. Our profession would benefit
from rich descriptions and videotapes of teachers who exemplify these characteristics.
Rossi, John Allen. “Creating Strategies and Conditions for Civil Discourse About
Controversial Issues.” Social Education, Vol. 60, No. 1, 1996, pp. 15-21.
http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/civics/workshop7/otherlessons/index$
5.html