IN FULL VIEW:
The
Importance of Providing Students a Complete Representation of a Controversial
Issue and the Structure of its Analysis.
December
6, 1998
Student
Learning Project
EDTEP
561
Section
B
Professor: Susan Nolen
The following is an examination of
student learning carried out at a suburban junior high school. For this examination, a ninth grade
Washington State History class was observed for four consecutive days. Two students were each interviewed
individually following both the third and fourth observed classes. The purpose of this project was to gain
insight into both student learning and the teaching-learning process.
Students were
selected in attempt to gain diversity of perspective on student learning. One
of the students interviewed, Diane[1],
was a female student who did well in class.
The second student interviewed, Jack, was a male student. The teacher, Mrs. Worley, believed that Jack
had a learning disability, though she was unsure about the exact nature of that
disability. At the time of the
observation, Jack was failing this particular course.
The
Lesson
The classes observed were part of a
five-day lesson on Washington State election issues, conducted the week prior
to the 1998 General Election. The goal
of this lesson was to teach students how to analyze election issues when they
become old enough to vote.
The lesson was introduced at the
beginning of the first observed class.
Students each received a copy of the Washington State History Election
Assignment (see appendix). Mrs. Worley
went over the assignment with the students.
She then began working with the students in a large group in doing Part
1 of the assignment. The directions for
Part 1 read:
Part 1:
Look at the issues
from the voters pamphlet. Read the
description of The law as it now exists, The effects of the law, and both
sides of the issue. Summarize these in
your own words. Now, based on your
summary, how would you vote on this issue?
Explain your decision
She explained that
students had to analyze two initiatives for part 1 of the assignment. Every student had to analyze Initiative 688
(I-688), then each student had to select a second initiative to analyze out of
three being decided in the upcoming election.
I-688 was a Washington State initiative to raise the state minimum wage.
Mrs. Worley spent the rest of the class going over I-688 with the
students. She began by having a student
read, out loud, the section of the pamphlet describing I-688 entitled "The
law as it now exists". While the
student was reading, the teacher would periodically interrupt to explain or
discuss certain points. The discussion
in this class, as in the remainder of the observed classes, was dominated by
"the default pattern of classroom discourse", IRE.[2] IRE is defined by Cazden as "the
three-part sequence of teacher initiation, student response, teacher
evaluation."[3] After covering "The law as it now
exists", the teacher then followed the same procedure for covering
"The effect of Initiative Measure 688, if approved into law". One point Mrs. Worley stopped to clarify was
the state minimum wage did not directly apply to employees who were under the
age of 18, and that this would not change under the new law.
After going through the current law,
and effects of the initiative, Mrs. Worley moved on to looking at the
statements for and against I-688. She
had the students read these two statements to themselves. Then had an IRE discussion with the class on
these statements. A large portion of
this discussion was devoted to a representation of inflation and the effect of
wages on inflation by the teacher, in order to clarify the inflation argument
opposing the initiative. The teacher defined
inflation as "the anticipation that prices will rise." In order to help her students understand
inflation, Mrs. Worley used the example of an employee asking for a raise to
buy a new car, expecting that the price of the car will go up. If the employer granted this employer the
raise, then the price of whatever goods or service that company provided would
go up. According to the teacher, that
is how inflation worked. To represent
the relationship between inflation and the minimum wage initiative, the teacher
used McDonald's as an example. She told
the students that if McDonald's raised it's wages, then they would have to
raise the cost of a Big Mac to cover it.
She told the students that prices will rise, and people will still be
unable to afford the things they couldn't afford before. She then explained that people with fixed
incomes, such as retirees, would be especially hurt by this.
After covering the statements for and
against I-688, Mrs. Worley read the names and associated organizations of
people listed as preparing those statements or being on the Advisory
Committees. She asked the students why
they thought each person or organization would support or oppose raising the
minimum wage.
Day
2
On the second observed day of
instruction, Mrs. Worley had students work on part 1 of the election
assignment, analyzing I-688. She wrote
the following instructions on the overhead projector and went over them with
the class:
1. Write a summary of the law as it exists.
2. Write a summary of what would change if
Initiative 688 passes.
3. Write a summary of the position for
688.
4. Write a summary of the position against
688.
5. Write your vote and why.
Mrs. Worley gave them
the remainder of the class period to work on this part of the assignment. Diane used the time in class to finish this
part of the assignment, while Jack did little work in class.
Day
3
Mrs. Worley began the class by having
the students pull out their election assignment packet. She reminded them of the part of the
assignment they were supposed to have worked on the day before, in class. She asked them to look at their analyses of
I-688. She asked for them to give their
answers of what the law says now, explaining that they need only read the
summaries they had written down. After
a student gave an answer, Mrs. Worley said good and repeated an enhanced
summary of the student's response.
Diane was listening quietly to what the teacher and class were
doing. Jack started out listening, them
had to ask other students about what was said in discussion. Then, Jack raised his hand, and put t down
again without asking a question. At a
point in the discussion when the McDonald's example was mentioned, he raised
his hand again and said that Bill Smith worked at McDonald's. The teacher disregarded Jack's statement.
Mrs. Worley then moved the discussion
to the summaries of "what would happen if the law passes." She had students quickly contribute. Then asked what the people for the issue
said. Diane was paying attention to
what both the teacher and other students were saying on the matter at
hand. Jack was looking at objects that
other students had, and talking to other students on unrelated matters during
this discussion. Jack was reprimanded
for this behavior by the teacher.
During most of the IRE discussions throughout the observed classes
conducted by this teacher, however, many students, in addition to Jack, seemed
to be uninvolved or distracted.
While the class was discussing reasons
for supporting I-688, Diane raised her hand and contributed that she supported
the initiative because it would help people get off of welfare. This was the only time that Diane
contributed to classroom discussion during this class period. The teacher responded that it was a good
point, then asked students for summaries of the "statement against".
For the next part of the discussion
topic was "How would you vote and why?" First Mrs. Worley conducted a class vote on the issue. She didn't count up totals or make sure
everyone voted, but noted that the vote looked pretty close. Mrs. Worley then explained that for this
part of the discussion, they would use a "speaking order." The "speaking order" consisted of
students raising their hands if they wanted to say something and having their
names written on a first come first serve basis on the overhead. Students were allowed to talk when they
reached there name in the order.
Jack raised his hand at the beginning of the discussion and got his name
on the initial speaking order. Diane
didn't raise her hand, but appeared to be listening attentively to what both
the teacher and students were saying on the topic. When Jack was reached in the order, he said that he would vote
for I-688 because he would get more money when he got a job. After he had finished making his statement,
Jack stopped paying attention to the teacher, even though she was responding
directly to his statement. Mrs. Worley
was developing a "devil's advocate" point about how people on fixed
incomes might be badly affected if the minimum wage was raised, causing prices
to rise. After developing this point,
Mrs. Worley directly asked Jack a question about what he would tell senior
citizens about his decision to support the measure. She had to recapture Jack's attention because he had begun
talking to other students, off-topic.
Having not listened to the teacher's development of the point, Jack
answered that he would tell senior citizens that they should vote for I-688 for
their grandchildren who would be earning minimum wage.
During the rest of this part of the
discussion, Diane appeared to continue to be paying attention while Jack was
continually focused on other things.
Jack would occasionally return his attention to the discussion but
usually not for long. At one point he
raised his hand to say something (the speaking order was no longer in use), but
lowered it before the teacher called on him.
At this point, the teacher commented on how well the students had been
doing in carrying out the discussion.
She told them thanks for paying attention and respecting the speaking
order. She also told them that it was
good that they felt they could express opposing viewpoints. Next a student asked how laws get on the
ballot. During this part it appeared
that Diane began to lose interest. She
was looking at papers in her notebook and looked bored. The teacher explained that initiatives got
on the ballot by collecting enough signatures.
While this was going on, Jack got up, walked across the room and got a
drink of water, then returned to his seat.
The discussion moved to Linda Smith and Patty Murray. Jack raised his hand, put it down, leaned
back in his chair, and raised it again.
When called upon he asked if it was true that one of them voted against
school lunches. The teacher said it
might be. The teacher then went over
with them what was expected of the students to finish the rest of Part 1 of the
assignment. She had copies of the other
three initiatives up at the front of the room.
The other three initiatives were written on the overhead as follows:
692--Legalization of
Medical Use of Marijuana
694--Partial Birth
Abortion
200--Affirmative
Action
Mrs. Worley then asked if any of the
students knew what affirmative action was.
This occurred close to the end of class, and most of the students were
packing up and not answering. She then
said that students each had to explain what affirmative action was before they
would be excused. The bell rang to end
class at that time. Students were
called on to answer and allowed to leave.
Each gave unclear definitions of affirmative action. During this time, Jack left the room without
being excused or noticed by the teacher.
After calling on and excusing a handful of students, Mrs. Worley got a
definition that she found acceptable.
She made the class repeat it as they were allowed to get up and leave.
Day
4
On the third day of instruction, the
teacher had the following instructions on the board when students entered the
classroom:
1. SIT DOWN
2. Take out a piece of paper and head it
3. Answer the following:
What is Initiative 688?
What would happen if it passes?
What would you vote and why?
The teacher divided a
white board into two halves. At the top
of one half she had a plus sign, on the other a minus sign. She wrote the names of those who followed
the instructions on the plus side of the board and those who didn't on the
minus side. Diane followed the
instructions quietly and got on the plus side.
Jack got a piece of paper and headed it, getting his name on the plus
side. He then moved to the other side
of the room, and got the answers from a fellow student. After he had finished, Jack returned to his
seat. While waiting for others to
finish, Diane read a political advertisement mailing. Jack got up and went to ask another student for help on a
crossword puzzle from another class.
After Mrs. Worley began asking students to give their answers, Jack was
still out of his seat working on his puzzle, and had to be told to sit down by
the teacher. After a short discussion
the teacher conducted a class vote on I-688.
Both Diane and Jack voted for the measure.
Mrs. Worley then began a discussion on
political advertising. During this part
of the discussion, she read an ad for a candidate which said that some
politicians may sling mud at him, and that you should call him for the
truth. Then she read a newspaper
editorial accusing the candidate of mudslinging in an underhanded way. She then asked students what they thought
about the ad. During this part of the
lesson, it appeared that Jack was paying attention and listening, while Diane
was reading something else. After this
discussion, the teacher gave students the rest of the class period to either
continue working on the election assignment, or to work on an unrelated project
that had been assigned before this observation. Diane chose to work on Part 2 of the project, analyzing the U. S.
Senate race. Jack worked on the
unrelated Native American project.
Analysis
When first looking at Mrs. Worley's
election assignment, the lesson appeared to be both creative and well thought
out. It's purpose of trying to help the
students learn how to become educated, informed voters is an important goal of
social studies. I think the
interruption of the Washington State History curriculum in order to teach
students about the upcoming elections had the potential to send a strong
message to the students. After,
observing the way in which this lesson was taught, however, I began to realize
the difficulty involved in teaching controversial issues. When the arguments surrounding an issue are
complex and numerous, meeting the responsibility of accurately representing
that issue to students becomes more and more challenging. Through observing these lessons, and
interviewing the two students, I was able to see the effect these difficulties
in analyzing the issue of raising the minimum wage. Though it seemed that a lot of thought and development went into
the design of the election assignment, it seemed that less care was taken by
the teacher in developing her representations of the issues and arguments
involved. These underdeveloped
representations caused students to develop or maintain stereotypes they had
about the issue of raising the minimum wage, about using the voter's pamphlet
to decide how to vote, and about analyzing controversial issues in
general. The continuance of these
misconceptions, prevented students from receiving the complete structure used
by scholars to analyze such issues.
Howard Gardner talked of the
"disjunction between students' intuitive understandings and the
understandings exhibited by disciplinary experts."[4] Gardner chose to label these disjunctions
"stereotypes" or
"simplifications" in the area of the humanities. Gardner explains these types of disjunctions
as follows
Abandoning or
bracketing any formal knowledge they have of statistics, probability, or
logical analysis, they respond instead on the basis of dominant images,
prevalent stereotypes, or favored ways of framing a problem. They ignore information that obviously
should be taken to account in making a decision ... in favor of assumptions
about behavior made on the basis of their daily experience. A stereotype proves more robust than formal
disciplinary statistical knowledge or logical thinking. The way in which a problem is framed
similarly takes precedence over logic...[5]
Many stereotypes and
simplifications were obtained and maintained by students in the observed
lesson.
One stereotype held on to by many of
the students of the class was the idea that minimum wage would affect them more
immediately than any other age group.
Students believed that they would automatically fall under the minimum
wage law as soon as they got jobs, even if that was before they turned 18. This stereotype was held onto by students,
even though they went over the sections entitled "The law as it now
exists" and "The effect of the Initiative Measure 688, if approved
into law" which both stated that the minimum wage for those under 18 would
be set by the state director of labor and industries. This stereotype was, indeed, supported by the part of the
"Statement Against" I-688 which stated that, "more than 80% of
those still making the minimum wage are teenagers or people living
within a family with more than $30,000 per year in income." The voter's pamphlet was never referred to
during discussions on the issue, however.
Not only did the fact that many
students held this stereotype come out during discussions, it came out during
the interviews with Jack and Diane.
When asked how he would vote on Initiative 688 and why, Jack gave the
same response he gave in class. He said
that he would vote for I-688 so he would get paid more when he got a job [in
the near future]. That was the only
reason he could come up with for supporting the measure, even though it was not
one of the several arguments given in the "Statement For" I-688. Diane's main reason for supporting I-688 was
that it would help people get off of welfare, which was one of the points given
in the "Statement For". She
also mentioned the idea that she would get more money when she got a job,
however.
A simplification held by students
surrounding I-688 was generated by Mrs. Worley's representation of the effect
raising the minimum wage would have on inflation. It appeared from the way Mrs. Worley taught the lesson that she
had anticipated that students would have difficulty understanding the argument,
found in the "Statement Against", that raising the minimum raise
would increase inflation. Therefore,
she presented a representation for this argument while failing to do so for any
of the other arguments surrounding the issue.
The McDonald's representation she gave (as described above) was very
powerful in its ease of understanding for the students. Several aspects of the structure of
analyzing such arguments were missing from this representation, however. One important structural element of analyzing controversial issues is how to
evaluate conflicting arguments. The
importance of conflicting ideas to good social studies teaching is suggested by
Wineburg and Wilson.[6] Although they present this importance in the
context of history, I would argue that conflicting ideas are even more
important in teaching current controversial issues. The section of the ballot description titled "Rebuttal of
Statement Against" states that, "Annual adjustments in the minimum
wage increase purchasing power, not prices." Mrs. Worley, however represented the inflation resulting from
raising the minimum wage as being inevitable.
Although I cannot be sure of her reasons for representing this argument
as unquestionable, it appeared to me that the representation made so much sense
to her, that she took for granted that such inflation would occur. As M. Z. Hashweh stated,
The representations
used by the unknowledgeable teachers reflected their surface knowledge of the
topic. Their representations were often
inappropriate. Sometimes they were
misleading because they reflected [the teachers'] preconceptions and knowledge
inaccuracies.[7]
The fact that the teacher created a
representation for this argument exclusively, had a strong impact on how
students viewed the minimum wage issue.
The inflation argument was brought up most often by students opposing
the measure in all further discussions on the issue. When asked in the interview if he could come up with an argument
opposing I-688, the inflation argument was the only one Jack could come up
with, although he thought it was taxes, not prices that would rise. In explaining her reasoning for supporting
the measure, Diane stated that having to pay an extra 10’ for groceries
wouldn't matter to her.
Another misconception came to light
while conducting a think-aloud task with Diane. For this think-aloud consisted of having Diane apply the
knowledge she had gained in using the voter's guide and deciding how she would
vote from analyzing I-688. Diane was
asked to use the voter's guide to decide how she would vote on Initiative 200
(I-200) which would put an end to affirmative action. Although the teacher, at the end of day three (the same day this
think-aloud was conducted) had made the connection for students between I-200
and affirmative action and had made all students define affirmative action
before leaving class, Diane could not make the connection between the
description of I-200 in the pamphlet and affirmative action. When asked what I-200 would do, Diane said
that she thought the law would keep things as they are now, but just restate
the current law concerning equality in a stronger fashion. When asked, Diane was unable to define
affirmative action. I understand the
wording of I-200 could be misleading, even for adults. Bruner, however, claims that "any
subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any
child at any stage of development."[8] I also believe that much of the
misconceptions surrounding the teacher's attempt to teach affirmative action
can be attributed to the lack time available at the end of day 3 to address
this issue. This little time, at the
end of class, however, was the only time Mrs. Worley devoted to teaching this
concept.
In a later class, following the period
of this project, Mrs. Worley asked students to vote on I-200. In the middle of conducting this vote, she
struggled in forming a description of the ballot that the students would
understand. She even asked me if I
could come up with a clear description.
This suggested to me that she was perhaps not as knowledgeable on the
subject as she could be. Perhaps this
confusion contributed to her difficulty in explaining affirmative action
clearly and to the fact that she dedicated such little time to explaining the
issue. While I don't blame her for
doing either (I understand the time stresses placed on teachers in both
instruction and preparation) I do worry about the message being sent to
students by having them vote on election issues that they do no understand.
This think-aloud, done with Diane, and
a similar think-aloud done with Jack brought out misconceptions about using the
voter's guide, and deciding on election issues. For his think-aloud, Jack was provided with a voter's pamphlet
and asked to decide how he would vote on Initiative 692 which would legalize
the medical use of marijuana. He
decided that he would vote for the measure, after reading only the ballot
title. When pushed to use more of the
part of the pamphlet dedicated to this issue, he had difficulty figuring out
how. He had difficulty finding an
opinion opposing the initiative. He was
confused by the section heading, "Rebuttal of the Statement
Against". Jack did not understand
that there were two pages describing this initiative, because he had not done
enough of the I-688 analysis himself to see that there were two pages
describing I-688. Diane did not look
for, and had difficulty finding the section titled "The effect of
Initiative Measure 200, if approved into law" because it was located on a
third page, and she only looked at the first two pages. Similarly, Diane first decided how she would
vote, basing her decision solely on the ballot reading the ballot title and did
not read further until pushed to do so.
If teaching students the importance of using the voter's guide and how
to use it were goals of the lesson, these think-alouds suggest that these goals
were not completely met.
I believe that the way in which Mrs.
Worley presented this lesson is the reason these goals were not met. I believe that the academic structure of
analyzing election issues was not adequately represented in this presentation. First of all, she put forth the voter's
guide as being all that was needed to decide on an election issue. It is understandable one may come at the
subject of elections with an attitude that getting people to use a voter's
guide is better than them not even being that informed. It is impossible, however, to resolve
conflicting arguments without leaving the confines of the voter's guide. Schwab suggested that when structures of a
history were replaced with different structures, "historical writing was
treated as a true report of the indubitably significant matters of the
past."[9] Similarly, by treating a voter's pamphlet as
the sole authority on election issues, students see everything in the pamphlet
as being true, and believe that every important argument is included within
it. These arguments, however, are more
often opinion than fact, and the authors only include those arguments which
they decide will be most convincing to certain groups of registered voters. When the voter's pamphlet is presented to
students as truth, the questions and arguments that they come up with, their
thoughts, are no longer important.
Based on our discussions in class, I believe that this lack of perceived
importance of student thought, leads to lower student interest.
Another presentation factor, related
to low student interest and students feeling unimportant to the process is the
large amount of IRE used in presenting this lesson. When Mrs. Worley is conducting IRE with one student in the class
other students did not see that student's contributions as being important (the
guide and the teacher are the only authorities) and were likely to tune out,
unless they were being addressed directly.
From the interviews conducted with two of these students, it became
apparent that when an issue with numerous arguments is being discussed, and
students tune out for some of those arguments.
By missing arguments of a controversial issue, the picture students
receive of that issue can be distorted or misconceived. This idea was most clearly evident in talking
with Jack. While Mrs. Worley did not
know what exactly Jack's learning disability was she suspected it was related
to his attention. The view he gained
through the lesson did little to alter the stereotypes he came into the lesson
with. I believe this was due to the
amount he was not tuned into the lesson.
Diane tuned out less often, because she realized that paying attention
was important to her grade. Even she,
however, although she was one of the most successful students in the class,
tuned out and missed important pieces of information. In order to preserve the structure of the discipline involved, it
is necessary to teach students to gather as much information as they can before
making important election decisions.
Implications
for My Teaching
Although this paper may be perceived
as an attack on the teacher being observed for this project, that has not been
my intention. Rather, my intentions
have been to fully appreciate the challenges Mrs. Worley faced, and that I will
face in teaching controversial issues.
I realized through this process that there is not only a danger of
presenting students with an inadequate view of such an issue, but that there is
also a danger of presenting students with a view that is simply wrong. In order to present as accurate a portrayal
of an issue as possible, I must carefully construct valid representations for
all important arguments related to that issue.
In order to accomplish this, I must try to know that issue inside and
out. In order for students to get the
full picture of an issue, I must also present the representations I build in a
style that best assures that they will pay attention to those
representations. I believe that the way
to do that is to make the thoughts of students the priority of classroom
discourse, and strive for the real discussions described by Cazden.
Reflections
I, like most of the students who go
through this program, found this project to be extremely challenging. I think that I learned a lot in this
process, though. I became aware of many
issues surrounding an important aspect of teaching social studies. Perhaps even more importantly, however, I
have seen the necessity of trying to get inside the head of my students on a
regular basis, to become aware of similar issues related to my teaching that I
might otherwise miss. The one thing
that I would do most differently if doing this project again, would be to get
more information from the teacher, concerning her goals for the lesson. Because I was worried about imposing on the
teacher, I felt I ended up guessing about some of the goals she had for the
lesson.
Appendix
Appendices include:
Comprehensive list of interview questions.
Washington State History Election Assignment
Sections of the 1998 Washington State Voter's
Guide describing the following ballots
Initiative 688 - Raising the Minimum Wage
Initiative 200 - Ending Affirmative Action
Initiative 692 - Legalizing the Medical Use of Marijuana
(Note: I-200 and I-692 descriptions included in
appendix is taken from the on-line voter's guide,
therefore layout of descriptions differs from voter's pamphlet version used in interviews. Content of descriptions is the same, however.)
Comprehensive List of Interview Questions
QUESTIONS ASKED OF JACK
Day 3
How
would you vote on I-688? Why?
What
are the arguments against I-688?
Where
did you learn that argument from?
Can
you think of any more reasons to oppose the initiative?
How
would you decide how you would vote on an initiative like this when you are a
registered voter?
Why
would you use the voter's pamphlet?
Do you
know how initiatives get on the ballot?
How
would you decide what to vote on I-692?
Do you
think that just reading the ballot title is enough to make a decision?
What
things are important to look for when reading the voter's pamphlet?
Where
is the supporting viewpoint located? Opposing?
You
think the "Rebuttal of the Statement Against" opposes I-692?
Is
there only one page describing I-692?
Now
can you find an opposing viewpoint?
Day 4
What
did you learn in class today?
What
did you think about the way Mrs. Worley started the class?
What
is I-688?
What
did Mrs. Worley say about political ads in class?
Do you
think Schuster's ad was good?
Why
did you choose to work on your Native American project in class?
Can
you tell me the story of the myth you were working on?
How is
that myth connected to Native Americans?
What
tribe?
How do
myths fit in Native American culture?
QUESTIONS ASKED OF DIANE
Day 3
How do
you feel about I-688?
How
would you vote? Why?
How
far did you get on Part 1 of the assignment in class?
How
would you vote on I-200?
Do you
think reading the ballot title is enough to decide?
What
other parts are important to look at?
What
would the law do, if passed?
After
reading the other parts of the description do you still think it wouldn't
change anything?
What
do you think you learned about using the voter's guide?
How
does an initiative get on the ballot?
Did
you know that before today?
Day 4
What
did you learn in class today?
What
is I-688? What would happen if it
passes?
What
kinds of things did you learn about political ads today?
What
do you think about Schuster's ad?
What
did you decide to work on in class?
Why?
Would
you vote for Patty Murray or Linda Smith?
Why?
Is
there any difference between deciding on initiatives and deciding between
candidates?
[1] The names of all students and teachers in this paper are pseudonyms.
[2]Cazden, p. 53
[3]p. 29
[4]Gardner, p. 150
[5]Gardner, p. 170-1
[6]p. 57
[7]M. Z. Hashweh "An Exploratory Study of Teacher Knowledge and Teaching: The Effects of Science Teachers' Knowledge of Subject-Matter and Their Conceptions of Learning on Their Teaching" Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. as quoted by Wilson et. al. p. 109
[8]Bruner, p. 33
[9]Schwab, p. 243