Oxford Review of Education Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2004
| p Carfax Publishing
Controversial issues - teachers' attitudes and practices in the context of citizenship education Christopher Oulton'', Vanessa Day*^, Justin Dillon*"^ and Marcus Grace ^University of Gloucestershire, UKs University College Worcestery UK; ^King*s College London, UK; '' University of Southampton, UK
Current conceptions of citizenship favour public involvement in dialogue on controversial issues such as GM food. 'Students with higher levels of civic knowledge are more likely to expect to participate in political and civic activities as adults' (Kerr er a!., 2003, p. 4). Young people need to be aware of the nature of controversy and be able to see how arguments are constructed to sway our opinions if tliey are to be fully scientifically literate. A survey of the literature suggests that the principles and methods relating to the teaching of controversial issues are rhemselves controversial. This irony is more relevant to teachers now than ever before. In England, the teaching of 'Citizenship' has been compulsory for students aged 11-16 in the state sector since September 2002. As it is currently framed, 'Citizenship' includes education for sustainable development and the teaching of the nature of controversy. This paper explores the issue of teachers' readiness to use controversial issues in the classroom, and reports on research involving focus groups and questionnaires. We suggest that many teachers are under-prepared and feel constrained in their ability to handle this aspect of their work. We conclude by offering a set of foci for developing suppon materials to help teachers be more effective at teaching controversial issues.
Introduction Public involvement in policy formation is increasingly encouraged through dialogue and debate (New Economics Foundation, 2003). Issues such as whether we should permit GM crops to be grown in the UK are frequently debated in ways which would not have been considered feasible until recently (e.g. GM Public Debate Steering Board, 2003). The inclusion of controversial issues in the curriculum, it is argued, should help to prepare future citizens for participating in their resolution (Cross & *Corresponding author. Justin Dillon, Department of Education and Professional Studies, King's College London, Franklin-Wilkins Building, Waterloo Road, London SEl 9NN. Email: justin.ditlon(«;kcl.ac.uk ISSN 0305^985 (print)/ISSN 1465-3915 (online)/04/040489-I9 © 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/0305498042000303973
490
C. Oulton et al.
Price, 1996). This paper looks at recent policy initiatives in England that are designed to encourage public participation in issues that affect society as a whole and that promote ideas of what some conceptualize as 'citizenship'. In 2001 a non-statutory framework for Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) and Citizenship was introduced alongside the revised National Curriculum for secondary schools. The documentation suggests that Citizenship across the curriculum will have the following outcomes, which appear to have direct relevance to tlie teaching of controversial issues: Thinking skills, through helping pupils to engage in social issues that require the use of reasoning, understanding and action through enquiry and evaluation. Moral development, through helping pupih develop a critical appreciation of issues of right and wrong, justice, fairness, rights and obligations in society. Social development^ through helping pupils to acquire the understanding and skills needed to become responsible and effective members of society. Education for sustainable development, through developing pupils' skills in, and commitment lo, effective participation in the democratic and other decision making processes that affect the quality, structure and health of environments and society and exploring values that determine people's actions within society, the economy and the environment. (DfEE 1999, pp 7-8)
The success of the implementation of Citizenship will depend, in part, on how well prepared teachers are for teaching about controversial issues. How well prepared teachers are is not well understood. The research reported here was carried out in order to investigate teachers' practices and opinions with respect to controversy in the classroom. The insights gleaned from the study are used to identify how teachers might be supported so that they might teach these challenging areas of the curriculum more effectively. The research was funded by the Countryside Foundation for Education. ^ The nature of controversial issues in the curriculum Bailey (1975) suggests that an issue can be deemed controversial 'if numbers of people are observed to disagree about statements and assertions made in connection with the issue' (quoted in Dearden, 1981, p. 38). Dearden regards this as insufficient, arguing that Bailey's definition could merely be describing a playground disagreement. For Dearden (1981, p. 38): a matter is controversial if contrary \'iews can be held on it without those views being contrary to reason. This can be the case when insufficient evidence is held in order to decide the controversy. Similarly, an issue can be controversial when the outcomes depend on future events that cannot be predicted with certainty, and where judgement about the issue depends on how to weigh or give value to the various information that is known about the issue.
Stradling (1985) defines controversial issues as 'those issues on which our society is clearly divided and significant groups within society advocate conflicting explanations or solutions based on alternative values' (p. 9).
Teachers' attitudes in citizenship education
491
TTie arguments for the inclusion of controversial issues in the curriculum are compelling, for example: Education should not attempt to shelter our nation's children from even the harsher controversies of adult life, but should prepare them to deal with such controversies knowledgeably, sensibly, tolerantly and morally. (QCA, 1998, p. 56)
As Dewhurst (1992) argues, students are going to meet moral dilemmas before and after they leave school. Schools therefore have 'to help their students to handle questions of value, to learn to make judgements which are truly their own as well as learning to take responsibility for their own lives' (p. 153). A cautionar>' note is sounded by Finn (1990) who warns that we must not be too optimistic about schools' capacity to bring about social change. The changes required in schools for controversial issues to be effectively taught will need to be matched by parallel changes in society as a whole. If knowledge is not seen as morally and politically neutral then, argues Geddis (1991), students need to learn skills which allow them to 'uncover how particular knowledge claims may serve the interests of different claimants. If they are to be able to take other points of view into account in developing their own positions on issues, they need to attempt to unravel the interplay of interests that underlie these other points of view' (p. 171). The challenge therefore when teaching about controversial issues is to recognise that they are controversial because the protagonists from their own worldview are applying reason and thereby arriving at their different perspectives. Students need to explore how it is that individuals can apparently arrive at different perspectives on an issue. Introducing them to multiple perspectives is therefore an essential part of the methods of teaching about controversial issues. The literature on the teaching of controversy includes advice on the principles that teachers might adopt. A number of these principles appear themselves to be controversial: neutrality, balance and reason.
Neutrality
Stenhouse (1983) advocated 'procedural neutrality', in which the teacher acts as neutral chairperson during classroom debates. However, Stradling (1985) reports that teachers 'found procedural neutrality difficult to sustain' as it threatened the rappon they had built up with the class and seemed to cast doubt on their personal credibility. Kelly (1986) proposed 'committed impartiality' in which the teacher attempts to provide all sides of an argument but does share their own views with the class. In critiquing a number of different approaches to neutrality, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (1998) concluded that allegiance to any one stance is unlikely to be appropriate as each has its weakness. It is not QCA's 'business or intention to try to tell teachers how to teach ... but we do suggest a 'common sense' approach has much to recommend it' (QCA, 1998, p. 60). However, without a
492
C. Oulton et ai.
definition of a 'common sense' approach, it is difficult to see how this advice will be helpful to teachers. Schools and the activities that take place there are value-laden (Ashton and Watson, 1998, p. 183). Values may be taught directly, developed through classroom activity or through the way in which activities in and outside the classroom are organised (Soley, 1996). The extent to which teachers should or should not actively encourage students to adopt certain values seems open to debate. However, the Citizenship documentation implies that certain values are to be promoted, for example: Education for sustainable development, through developing pupils' skills in, and commitment tOy effective participation in the democraiic and other decision making processes that afFcct the quality, structure and health of environments and society and exploring values that determine people's actions within society, the economy and the environment. (DfEE, 1999, pp 7-8: our emphases)
Cross and Price (1996) found that in their experience, 'teachers express very real concern about the expression of personal opinion' when teaching controversial topics (p. 324). Hanvood and Hahn (1990) suggest that it can be appropriate for a teacher to express their opinion on a topic provided that they: clearly indicate that it is only one opinion, and must he willing to provide evidence on which tlieir decision was based ... they must also be willing for their views to be subieci to question and scrutiny, teachers must be willing to reflect upon their own stances and allow students to challenge them. (Harwood & Hahn, 1990, p. 5)
Balance
On first inspection, the idea of presenting students with a balanced view of an issue appears to be reasonable. However, Carrington and Troyna (1988) point out that balance is itself a contested concept and begs the question 'how is it to be achieved?'. Also, as Stradling (1985) asks, are we more concerned with balanced teaching or balanced learning? Exhortations to 'stick to the facts' are equally problematic, as the teacher will still need to make subjective judgements about what constitutes the 'facts' and 'what is not relevant, important or accurate' (Stradling, 1985, p. 10). QCA also warn that 'whilst aiming for balance we should remember that to be completely unbiased is impossible and in some cases undesirable. What we need to avoid is indoctrination' (QCA, 1998, p. 56). However, one person's indoctrination might well be another's desire to present a vision of the truth.
Reason
Ashton and Watson (1998) warn that teaching that implies that all situations can be resolved by recourse to reason is unrealistic, as 'real life situations will not wait for a calm philosophical ... approach'. Similarly, Kibble (1998) expresses concerns about an over-simplistic presentation of moral dilemmas, as this ignores the reality of real
Teachers* attitudes in citizenship education
493
situations which he sees as complex, *dirty' and frequently involving an element of 'guilt' on all sides (p. 54). Dewhurst (1992) also considers that rationality does not provide an appropriate basis for discussion as it lacks 'social connotations, and it can also have associations with proof and deduction mediated by general principles. It is just such proofs, which are lacking in areas of moral controversy' (p. 159). When dealing with controversial issues, teachers should adopt strategies that teach pupils how to recognise bias, how to evaluate evidence put before them and how to look at alternative interpretations, viewpoints and sources of evidence, above all to give good reasons for everything they say or do, and to expect good reasons to be given by others. (QCA, 1998, p. 56, our emphases) T h e extent to which the principles and practices discussed in the literature are reflected in the experience of teachers in England is the focus of the research that is described below.
The research study In order to study the range of existing practices and opinions of teachers in some English schools it was decided to adopt a mixed methodology involving focus groups and a questionnaire. Four focus groups were used to identify and explore issues which were then followed up in a larger scale questionnaire. The focus groups
The focus groups were planned and administered using protocols set out in 'The Focus Group Kit' (Morgan & Krueger, 1998). The details of each focus group are presented in Table 1. The groups were chosen to include a range of teachers from different phases, subjects and school locations. No attempt was made to choose a representative sample of the population of English teachers as a whole; rather the purpose was to gather a range of views that might reflect the most common positions found in staff rooms across the country. As the teachers were all volunteers, and no inducements beyond an offer of light refreshments were offered, it is likely that the groups contained a high proportion of those who have an interest in teaching controversial issues. Four focus groups took part in the study, two made up of primary teachers and two of secondary teachers. The groups contained between flve and eight teachers and were made up of teachers from both state and independent schools so that factors beyond the confines of the National Curriculum could enter the discussions. Teachers from rural and urban areas were invited as it was thought that some issues, such as foxhunting, might be viewed differently in such areas. Hie breakdown of the groups was as follows: Primary Group 1. Eight teachers from a mixture of rural and urban state primary schools. Primary Group 2. Seven teachers from urban state primary schools.
C. Oulton et al.
a 3 O
o
>1
a
0 ca •a
i U S -S fa
u 3 O u
0 .3
|g
•o
u
& a •a
c o
u u Vi
1
s g
If u .2
co o « o
.S K a tg u
•2 S
g "nS
„
So It
i/
(/)
503
504
C. Oulton et al. Table 7. Approaches teachers would adopt when teaching about two controversial issues (as percentages) (n=205)
Approach
Racism %
Factory Farming %
62 21 17
83 12 5
29 29 42 42
33 53 14 82
34
7
2
II
Present a balanced view Present a biased view Explain to pupils that balance is impossible to achieve Not give my opinion Only give my opinion if asked Make opinion clear to pupils Encourage pupils to make up their own mind on the issue Try to influence pupils to adopt a particular attitude to the issue Discourage pupils from making up their mind at this stage of their development
Table 8. The importance teachers attached to specific learning outcomes (as percentages) (n=205) Learning Outcome
Increase pupils knowledge Increase pupils' analytical skills Increase pupils' study skills Change pupils' behaviour Change pupils' attitude Change pupils' values
Very Important
Important
Not Important
Shouldn't do it
50 46
22 27 31
31 35 42 32 31
I 2 18 9 9
26
29
9
1 I 2 9 8 14
curriculum where the teaching of controversial issues is a relatively high priority. It is therefore likely that the level of preparedness across the teaching population as a whole is worse than that reported here. Given the way in which Citizenship is expected to be developed across the curriculum this can only increase concern about how controversial issues are to be handled. When looking at the approaches teachers would adopt when teaching two different controversial issues, it is evident that the differences of opinion about issues of principle that were identified in the literature and focus groups are present in the population surveyed by the questionnaire. For example in Table 7, in relation to the question of whether teachers should give their opinion or not when teaching about racism, responses were divided relatively evenly across the three responses. It is also notable that only one in three teachers suggested that they would try to influence the attitude of pupils when teaching about racism. This lack of a consensus about key
Teachers' attitudes in citizenship education
505
issues such as the need for balance, reliance of fact and influencing values leads us to the opinion that any 'training' must be developmental. That is not simply focusing on developing the understanding and skills of teachers but developing school policy and eventually national policy also. Conclusions Given the issues that emerged from the teachers we studied and the concerns that we indicated above, we suggest that a pre-service and in-service development programme for Citizenship needs to be given national priority. We suggest that it should, as a starting point, focus on: • The nature of controversial issues emphasising that they have the following characteristics: — groups within society hold differing views about them; — different groups base their views either on different sets of information or they interpret the same information in different ways; — the different interpretations might occur because of the different way that the individuals or groups understand or see the world (their worldview); — differing worldviews can occur because individuals adhere to different value systems; — controversial issues cannot always be resolved by recourse to reason, logic or experiment as they involve a degree of emotion; — controversial issues may be resolved, as more information becomes available. • Using these characteristics to develop principles for teaching about controversial issues (including neutrality, balance and reason) • Exploring the application of these principles in practice for a range of controversial issues. • Policy development at national and school level in order to enable teachers to deal with controversial issues, including legal requirements. • Teaching strategies for dealing effectively with controversial issues; with close attention to progression, not just in terms of content, but in terms of how pupils are expected to engage with the issues. We believe that recognition of the underlying features of controversial issues might necessitate developing teaching approaches that: • Acknowledge that balance is impossible to achieve in our teaching and take account of this by making pupils aware of bias in materials and giving tliem the skills and abilities to identity bias for themselves; • Provide a supportive atmosphere to encourage confidence to become fully engaged (see, for example, Hahn, 1998; Parker & Hess, 2001; Hess, 2002; Hess & Posselt, 2002; Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003);
506
C. Oulton et al.
• Avoid strategies that encourage pupils to prematurely make up their minds on an issue. Rather, strategies should be used to encourage open mindedness, a thirst for more information and a willingness to change ones mind in the light of convincing evidence, argument or experience; • Use strategies that encourage pupils to recognise, respect and value the notion that a person's stance on an issue will be affected by their worldview; • Emphasise the importance of teachers and learners reflecting critically on their own stance and recognise the need to avoid the prejudice that comes from a lack of critical reflection. Alongside the teacher development programme there is a need for further research, particularly into the impact of various teaching approaches on pupils' understanding of and ability to deal with controversial issues. This research should give insights which will help teachers differentiate their teaching and plan for pupil progression.
Notes on contributors Chris Oulton is head of the School of Education at the University of Gloucestershire. Until recently, he was one of the editors of Environmental Education Research.
[email protected] Vanessa Day was, until recently a tutor at University College, Worcester. Justin Dillon is a lecturer in Science Education at King's College London and a member of the Centre for Informal Learning and Schools. Justin.dillon@ kcl.ac.uk Marcus Grace is a lecturer in Science Education and Environmental Education at the University of Southampton. m.m.grace(aisoton.ac.uk
Note The Countryside Foundation for Education is an educational charity established in 1986 to promote an understanding of the countryside as a living, working environment. The CFE provides a range of balanced teaching materials for schools that inform and encourage debate about the countryside. It also provides training for teachers and student teachers on how to use the countryside in their teaching. A significant part of this work relates to supporting teachers, student teachers and teacher educators in teaching topics that can be considered controversial. For further information contact the Countryside Foundation for Education, PO Box 8, Hebden Bridge, HX7 5YJ or visit the website at www.countrysidefoundationftz'org.uk.
References Ashton, E. and Watson, B. (1998) Values education: a fresh look at procedural neutrality, Educational Studies, 24(2), 183-193. Bailey, C. (1975) Neutrality and rationality in teaching, in: D. Bridges & P. Scrimshaw (Eds) Values and authority in schools (Londonj Hodder & Stoughton).
Teachers^ attitudes in citizenship education
507
Bertrand, J.T., Brown, J.E. & Ward, V.M. (1992) Techniques for analysing focus group data, Ez'alualiori Review, 16, 198-209. Carrington, B. and Troyna, B. (1988) Children and controversial issues, in: B. Carrington & B. Troyna (Eds) Children and controvcrsialissues: strategies for the early and middle years (Ixindon, Falmer Press). Cross, R. and Price, R. (1996) Science teacher's social conscience and the role of teaching controversial issues in the teaching oi science, Joumal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 319-333. Dearden, R.F. (1981) Controversial issues in the c\ixnc\x\\xnt, Joumal of Curriculutn Studies, 13(1)3 37-44. Dewhurst, D. (1992) The teaching of controversial issues, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 26(2), 153-163. Department for Educaiion and Employment (DfEE) (1999) Citizenship (London, DfEE). Finn, G. (1990) Children and controversial issues: some myths and misinterpretations identified and challenged from a cognitive-developmental perspective, Cambridge Journal of Education, 20(1), 5-27. Geddis, A. (1991) Improving the quality of science classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75(2), 169-183. G M Public Debate Steering Board (2003) GM nation? The findings of the public debate (London, GM Public Debate Steering Board). Hahn, C. L. (1998) Becoming political. Comparative perspectives on citizenship education (Albany, NY, SUNY Press). Harwood, A.M, & Hahn, C L . (1990) Controversial issues in the classroom (Bloomington, IN, ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education). Hess, D. (2002). Teaching controversial public issues discussions: learning from skilled teachers, Theory and Research in Social Education, 30(1), 10-41. Hess, D. and Posselt, J. (2002). How students experience and learn from the discussion of controversial public issues in secondary social studies, Joumal of Curriculum and Supervision, 17(4), 283-314. ICelly, T. (1986) Discussing controversial issues: Four perspectives on the teacher's role. Theory and Research in Social Education, 14(2), 113-138. Kerr, D., Lines, A., Blenkinsop, S. & Schagen, I. (2003) Citizenship and Education al age 14. A summary of the international findings and preliminary^ results for England (Slough, National Foundation for Educational Research & London, Department for Education and Employment). Kibble, D. (1998) Moral education dilemmas for the teacher, Curriculum Joumal, 9(1), 51-61. Morgan, D.L. & Krueger, R.A. (1998) The focus group kit (Thousand Oaks, Sage). New Economics Foundation (2003) DEMOCS (Deliberative Meetings of Citizens) The game to improve democracy. Briefing 2, April (London, New Economics Foundation). Oulton, C , Dillon, J. & Grace, M. (2004, in press) Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues, Iniemationat Joumal of Science Education. Parker, W. C. & Hess, D. (2001) Teaching with and for discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 273-289. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (1998) Educaiion for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools (London, QCA). Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003) Science educaiion for citizenship (Maidenhead, Open University Press). Soley, M. (1996) If it's controversial, why teach it? Social Educaiion, January, 9-14. Stenhouse, L. (1983) Authority, education and emancipation (London, Heinemarm). Stradling, R. (1985) Controversial issues in the curriculum. Bulletin of Environmental Education, 170, 9-13.
