Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2011 Florida Pre-Service Teachers' and Their Attitudes Towards the Use of Controversial Issues Peggy Rambosk
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
FLORIDA PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ AND THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE USE OF CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
By PEGGY RAMBOSK
A Dissertation submitted to
the School of Teacher Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded Spring Semester, 2011
The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Peggy Rambosk defended on January 31, 2011:
______John P. Lunstrum Professor Directing Dissertation
______Bruce Grindal University Representative
______Edward Wynot Committee Member
______Helge Swanson Committee Member
Approved:______
______Chair, School of Teacher Education
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my son, Tyler, and my daughter, Kaitlyn, for enduring the time it took me in completing this accomplishment. They continued to inspire me to work hard and to be successful. I would also like to thank all of my committee members for their patience and support throughout this process, Drs. Swanson and Lunstrum especially. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. John Lunstrum. He is truly a mentor and a valuable asset to my dissertation. I would like to accomplish the many tasks that Dr. Lunstrum has done in his teaching career. He has inspired me to follow my dreams and be the best that I can at any endeavor. Finally, I would like to thank my close friends for their continued support, particularly, John Phillips. Without his assistance and guidance I would have drifted off course and delayed my ultimate goal in completing my degree. I truly hope that my study will inspire someone to continue to explore controversial issues and education. .
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………...iii LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………..vi LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………vii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...... viii CHAPTER 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….………..1 Background…………………………………………………………………….....1 Purpose of study……………………………………………………………..…....2 Significance………………………………………………………………….……2 Theoretical Foundations of this Study……………………………………..……..5 Operational Definitions……………………………………………………..…….7 2. Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………..……….9 Controversial Issues in the Social Studies Classroom…………………..…………13 Challenges to Academic Freedom ……………………………………..……...….21 Conflict over Academic Freedom and Textbook Censorship…………..………….24 Pre-service Teacher Training in Social Studies Methods Courses……..………….30 3. Methodology…………………………………………………………………..…………..30 Pre-Service Teacher Sampling Procedure…………………………………..……..30 Development of the Instrument……………………………………………..…...... 31 Statistical Analysis ………………………………………………………..………33 Z Score……………………………………………………………………..………34 Limitations of this study……………………………………………………..…….35 4. Presentations and Analysis of Findings……………………………………………..…….36 5. Summary, Recommendations, and Conclusion…………………………………….….….63 APPENDICES Appendix A: Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire.….68 Appendix B: Informed Consent Letter………………………………………………72 Appendix C: Permission letter from Dr. John Phillips…………………………..…..82
iv
Appendix D: Human Subjects Approval Letter……………………………….…...... 84 Appendix E: Florida Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire…………….…..87 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………..…..83 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH………………………………………………………….……..94
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Topics that should or should not be discussed in social studies methods courses………….39 2 Mean controversiality by gender………………………………………………………..…..49 3 Mean controversiality by religion…………………………………………………………...52 4 Ethnic background………………………………………………………………………...... 58 5 Mean controversiality by region………………………………………………………….....59
vi
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Controversiality of issues examined in social studies methods courses………………….…37 2 Top five issues considered controversial is social studies methods classes………………...38 3 Controversiality of issues examined in social studies methods classes overall……….…….39 4 Top five controversial issues pre-service teachers believe should or should not be discussed in social studies methods classes……………………………………………………………41 5 Pre-service teachers’ should participate in discussion of controversial issues in social studies methods courses…………………………………………………………………………..... 43 6 Time allotted to the discussion of controversial issues in social studies methods courses…44 7 Exposure to controversial issues in pre-service social studies methods courses enables pre-service teachers’ to discuss controversial issues with their future classroom………….45 8 Strategies and methods of teaching controversial issues should be taught to pre-service teachers’ in social studies methods courses………………………………………….……..46 9 Pre-service teachers’ should be trained in the pedagogical value of controversial issues in social studies methods classes…………………………………………………………...….48 10 Female respondents attitude towards controversial issues……………………………...... 50 11 Male respondents attitude towards controversial issues…………………………………..51 12 Male respondents z score value on controversial issues…………………………………..52 13 Mean controversiality of all religions……………………………………………………...54 14 Top four issues considered controversial by Protestants, Catholics and Jewish………….55 15 Top four issues considered controversial by Moslems……………………………………56 16 Top four issues considered controversial by Other respondents………………………….57 17 Mean controversiality of all regions observed…………………………………………….61 18 Top four issues considered controversial by university…………………………………...61
vii
ABSTRACT The purpose of this attitudinal study is to investigate the role that social studies methods courses in Florida play in examining controversial issues with their pre-service teachers’. Five research questions established the parameters for the investigation of pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward the use of controversial issues through the utilization of a survey instrument, the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire (FPTCIQ). The FPTCIQ was mailed to 435 pre-service teachers enrolled in social studies methods courses at the Florida State University, the University of North Florida, and the University of South Florida. Of the 435 pre- service teachers’ in social studies methods courses, 203 respondents returned the FPTCIQ with a 47% response rate. The FPTCIQ is comprised of questions that asked respondents to rank the controversiality of thirty issues. The FPTCIQ also measured pre-service teachers’ awareness of issues taught in their social studies methods courses, pre-service teachers’ willingness to discuss issues in their future classrooms, pre-service teachers’ reasons for not discussing issues, and pre- service teachers’ belief in traditional socio-political values. Pre-Service teachers’ were asked questions about how much time they spent examining controversial issues in their social studies methods course, and should pre-service teachers’ participate in the discussion of controversial issues in these courses. Demographic characteristics of respondents’ included gender, religious affiliation, ethnicity, and region/locale of the university attending were also recorded. Respondents rank gay/lesbian rights as the most controversial issue. In addition, pre- service teachers’ were less willing to teach about creationism than other issues and listed external pressures as the primary reason. Only 32% of the respondents discussed controversial issues in their social studies methods course. After the findings were statistically analyzed and cross-sectioned with the research questions, the demographic characteristics comprising all participants in this study was correlated and analyzed.
viii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background The problem to be researched in this investigation is the treatment of controversial issues in secondary schools as viewed from the perspective of students enrolled in pre-service social studies teacher education programs in Florida. For a substantial part of the 20th century, social studies teachers and educators have had to face a persistent challenge: to protect academic freedom of teachers and to protect the teachers who dare engage their students in higher level thinking through the treatment of significant controversial issues. These issues have consistently emerged from the objective study of history and the social sciences. (Allen, 1994; Beale, 1936; Lunstrum, 1999; Nelson & Roberts, 1962; Phillips, 1997) An extensive examination of research reveals that while beliefs of teachers, administrators, and methods instructors have been investigated, little research is evident concerning how pre-service teachers’ view teaching controversial issues in social studies in secondary schools. In addition, this topic is significant because the treatment of controversial issues and concerns over academic freedom have become a matter of passionate debate since the beginning of the 20th century and the start of the 21st century. The purpose of this study is to measure attitudes that Florida pre-service social studies teachers’ have regarding the treatment of controversial issues. The need for treatment of and the importance of controversial issues in the social studies classrooms has been a strong belief by those who have called for a curriculum dedicated to critical thinking, inquiry, and citizenship education. Social Studies methodology programs in colleges of education should train pre-
1
service teachers’ in the pedagogical value of the various types of controversial issues and learn how to develop critical thinking and inquiry skills needed for the social studies classroom. Pre-service teachers’ in social studies methods programs should be directed to various types of controversial issues and learn how to develop critical thinking and inquiry skills needed for the social studies classroom. Also, during the 20th century, evidence of notable attacks on academic freedom have been documented and continues to be a problem by intruding on the 21st century. In order to prepare students for the 21st century, Florida pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards the use of controversial issues should be addressed and academic freedom should be addressed also. Purpose of this study This study will research the beliefs, opinions, and demographic characteristics of Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ regarding the identification of the use of controversial issues in selected Florida Social Studies Methods Program. It is important that pre-service social studies teachers’ are encouraged to study the use of controversial issues for their future classroom while they are in colleges of education. “A renewed emphasis on controversial issues instruction for teacher training would potentially provide a better chance for controversial issues to be discussed in elementary and secondary schools”(Phillips, 1999). In addition, pre-service social studies students need to learn “how” and “why”. They need to be able to examine controversial issues which enable them to become open-minded thinkers. Nelson (2003) posits, “If students preparing to teach are not encouraged to examine and challenge ideas, how can they be expected to do that for their own students.” Significance A contemporary study of Florida pre-service social studies teachers and their attitudes towards the treatment of controversial issues and academic freedom would be beneficial to the social studies profession because it continues to remain a resurfacing problematic area. In teaching methods classes, pre-service teachers may be asked to consider whether social studies, for example, is based on the facts of what happened, a method of inquiry, or broad concepts and ideas that enable learners to understand the contemporary world. Generally, the answers teachers develop to these questions are based on the beliefs and expectations pre-service teachers bring in to their respective teacher education programs. The pre-service teachers bring their already developed conceptions of the content as well as what it means to teach and they make sense of 2
their teacher education experience through the screen of these preconceived ideas. For this reason, the study of pre-service teachers' attitudes and the influences on forming and changing these attitudes will be helpful in preparing teachers to deal constructively with controversial issues they will encounter teaching in their future social studies classroom. Moreover, although social studies methods courses are key components of the pre-service education of social studies teachers, there is not a general agreement on a number of issues concerning this course: How much time should be spent preparing pre-service teachers to work with state-mandated assessments? What emphasis should be placed in the methods course on developing a sufficient background in the social science disciplines? How should controversial issues be approached? How is academic freedom addressed to the pre-service teachers? The various perceptions by teachers and by how the courts have viewed academic freedom are crucial in the 21st century. According to the National Council for Social Studies (2007): In order to carry out this crucial mission, education must impart the skills needed for intelligent study and orderly consideration of societal issues. Students need to learn how to study controversial issues by gathering and organizing facts, evaluating information and sources, discriminating between facts and opinions, and discussing different viewpoints in order to be able to think and make clear, informed decisions. Fechner and Gore (1990) argue that general education and academic specialization courses, methods and foundation courses, and field-based experiences constitute the major components of a teacher preparation program that may potentially influence the beliefs of pre-service teachers (Dope, 2007). Teacher preparation programs can make a difference on how pre-service teachers teach their future students. Teacher educators can influence the attitudes pre-service teachers hold about teaching and learning social studies by enabling more training in controversial issues instruction. This attitudinal study suggests that teacher preparation program can favorably dispose its pre-service teachers towards the utilization of controversial issues and understanding the concept of academic freedom. Social studies educators have advocated using issues-centered curriculum in classroom instruction (Engle, 1949; Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Evans, 1987; Evans & Saxe, 1996; Griffin, 1942; Hunt & Metcalf, 1955/1968; Nelson, 1996; Newmann & Oliver, 1970; Oliver, 1960; Oliver & Shaver, 1966; Phillips, 1997; Rugg, 1921a, 1921b; Stanley & Nelson, 1994; Wraga, 1998, 1999). They believe that a curriculum that focuses on social questions, issues and 3
problems in the classroom is highly relevant to students' present and future experiences and is inherently more interesting than the study of abstract ideas and principles from textbooks and lectures. They value a democratic society of informed citizens (Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Whitson & Stanley, 1996), believing that "the rationale for including controversial issues in social studies instruction rests on the necessity of preparing citizens to participate in the democratic decision- making processes within a pluralistic society" (Hahn, 1991, p. 420). As Ochoa (2007) expresses it, academic freedom is “a logical correlate of the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.” Other social science educators reporting on their investigations in Theory and Research in Social Education, (Mitchell, Evans, Daly & Roach, 1997) appear to agree with Ochoa. They see academic freedom as “the right of a teacher to teach and a learner to learn without interference from political authorities or countervailing public opinion.” Lunstrum (1999, p. 2) reasoned “one essential condition of academic or intellectual freedom is the right of the teacher to select content and methods (even content considered controversial by some) consistent with sound pedagogical goals within a democratic frame of reference.” Studies concerning the assertion of the pedagogical benefits of treating controversial issues have been well-documented in the social studies field (Cox, 1977; Engle, 1993; Gross, 1952; Hunt & Metcalf, 1968; Lunstrum, 1981; Massialas, Sprague, & Sweeney, 1970; Oliver & Shaver, 1966/1974; Onosko, 1996; Phillips, 1997; Rossi, 1996; Simpson, 1996; and Sweeney, 1969). These studies indicate the need for teacher utilization of controversial issues. Unfortunately, few of these studies investigate the pre-service teachers attitudes towards the treatment of controversial issues. Since teachers decide whether or not to implement controversial issues into their social studies classroom, it is appropriate to investigate their respective attitudes towards the treatment of controversial issues. In order to prepare students for the 21st century, pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards the treatment of controversial issues should be addressed and academic freedom should be addressed also. Social science researchers concede that academic freedom has had a long and somewhat turbulent history that has become an important issue as evidence of notable attacks on academic freedom has been documented and continues to be a problem in the 21st century. As quoted in Whitehead (2004): It is the collective freedom of the faculty member to teach free from pressure, penalties, 4
or other threats by authorities or other persons inside or outside their institutions of learning. It is the freedom of the student to be taught by unrestrained teachers and to have access to all available data pertinent to the subject of study at an appropriate educational level. (p.2) For social studies to reach its potential, the social studies classroom of the 21st century must be different from the classrooms of the previous generations. Implementing controversial issues into social studies classrooms has been a debate since the onset of the Cold War. According to Lunstrum, (1995): the evidence suggests that pressures from the radical fringes in the Cold War period presented a real threat to the democratic educational process, for they exploited the following problems: (1) a weak tradition of professional autonomy and confusion over the meaning of intellectual freedom, (2) absence of strong, supportive administrative leadership, (3) the faddism to which the social studies, lacking a viable conceptual framework, have long been susceptible, (4) the deep-seated, almost paranoid American fear of communism based on misinformation and half truth, and (5) the inadequate preparations both in methodology and content of social studies teachers. (p. 19) Pre-service teacher education for the social studies classroom of the 21st century should implement controversial issues and show how to employ these issues into the social studies classroom. Theoretical Foundations Maurice P. Hunt and Lawrence E. Metcalf introduced the idea of an issue-centered approach in social studies education in 1955 and again in 1968. This progressive approach during the “Red Scare” days led to many controversies from the far right. Despite the challenges, they encouraged the study of teacher attitudes towards issue-centered methodology (controversial issues) presented in the social studies classroom. “In order to understand the task of teachers as it related to the problem of creating open-mindedness and willingness to change beliefs and behaviors, we need to examine in detail how emotional blocking can prevent such changes” (Hunt & Metcalf, 1955, p.193). “Emotional blocking” is defined as the “failure of perception, which is not understood by the person involved and which without help he cannot prevent or overcome” (Hunt & Metcalf, 1955, p. 193). Furthermore, Lunstrum (1960) believed that the methodology of the social sciences 5
should focus on the utilization of controversial issues and how teachers’ should implement controversial issues into their social studies classroom. Lunstrum suggests to “emphasize the methodology of the social sciences in order that students may comprehend the process giving rise to knowledge about human affairs” (p. 327). Also, “in attempting to define the proper role of the social studies teacher relative to the use of controversial issues, it is necessary to examine the way in which he translates his theory into practice in the classroom”(Lunstrum, 1960, p. 240). During the 1960s, Engle presupposed that teachers explore with students the issues central to life decisions. Engle posits that decision making should “afford the structure around which social studies instruction should be organized” (Engle, 1960, 301). Further research was conducted in 1963 by Massialas and Cox on the utilization of inquiry while emphasizing controversial issues and according to Hahn (1996), “...studies revealed some evidence, although conclusive, that the use of inquiry approach could facilitate student higher-order thinking” (p. 29). By the late 1960s and into the 1970s, Oliver and Shaver (1966/1974) implemented a jurisprudential approach for students to analyze controversial issues in American history. The ultimate purpose of this approached was for teachers to explore issues considered controversial and have the students defend their position. Shirley Engle revived his version of issues-centered education in 1988 and combined forces with Anna Ochoa to focus on the problems approach (Engle & Ochoa, 1988). They determined that the best way to prepare students for democratic citizenship is to implement societal issues, even if they promote controversy. By applying controversial issues into a pre-service social studies methods course, pre- service social studies teachers’ will better understand the importance of implementing controversial issues into their social studies classroom. In addition, pre-service social studies teachers’ attitudes towards the treatment of controversial issues are essential. Hahn (1996)states: the controversial nature of any issue can be confronted or avoided by the questions that a teacher ask and how a teacher responds to student comments and questions, research on questioning patterns and discussion is important to examine. (p.35) While the pre-service social studies teachers’ attitudes towards the treatment of controversial issues are a concern, little preparation is accomplished in the social studies methods 6
courses. Engle and Ochoa (1988) wrote of the social studies curriculum in methods of education courses and stated that “if survey courses are to exist at all, they must include major social problems pursued in depth.” In addition, Dana (1996) posits, “in order to meet general education requirements (such as courses in the social sciences) for the purpose of subject-matter preparation, pre-service social studies teachers may complete many courses that do not model issued-centered instruction” (p. 301). According to Florida Teachers’ Attitude toward the study of Controversial Issues in Public High School Social Studies Classrooms survey conducted by John Phillips (1997), “respondents (pre-service teachers) who were not subjected to controversial issues in their pre- collegiate formal education experience cited more external reasons for not discussing controversial issues than those respondents (pre-service teachers) who experienced controversial issues exposure in the pre-collegiate schooling” (p.200). Teachers historically have avoided the systematic treatment of controversial issues (Beale, 1941; Hahn, 1991; Lunstrum. 1962; Phillips, 1997; Walsh, 1998). In the state of Florida, there has been no research investigating pre-service social studies teachers’ attitudes toward the treatment of controversial issues in their social studies methods classroom. Since this has been a research problem in the field of social studies education, it is imperative to investigate. The pre- service social studies teachers’ attitude in implementing controversial issues into their classroom can be formulated in the social studies methods courses. According to Ochoa-Becker (1996), “a deeper and more thoughtful teacher education program at both the in-service and pre-service levels is clearly in order for professionals who will implement social studies (issues) in our school” (p.11). Operational Definitions For the objective of this study this researcher operationally defines controversial issues as a recurring or recent issue in society that has taken a public aspect and is the source of debate and conflict. Lunstrum (1960) states, “controversial issues...are the recognizable components of a larger social problem in which real and meaningful alternatives are presented for a critical decision” (p. 19). Also, the operational definition of academic freedom according to this researcher is the extension of intellectual freedom in the classroom consistent with the maturity levels of students. In addition, Pre-Service teachers’ will be defined as undergraduate students’ residing in 7
Florida who is seeking a teaching degree and are enrolled in a college or university in social studies methods courses. Hence, social studies methods courses that try to prepare the pre- service teacher for the social studies field. With these social studies methods courses, the pre- service teacher is able to gain a plethora of pedagogical value in the different methods and strategies to implementing controversial issues into their future classroom. Finally, the term controversiality, according to this researcher, is defined as an issue which is considered divisive among the pre-service teachers. It is utilized as a level of measurement in determining which controversial issue should or should not be discussed in social studies methods courses.
8
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Educators are obligated to help prepare students for a mature life that is framed by social, political, cultural, and technological change. Students are challenged to become open-minded thinkers, accept and tolerate diverse attitudes and the multiculturalism of others, while remaining willing to deal with problems and conflicts that are present in today’s world. In other words, the teacher’s task is not only to assist students’ achievement in content knowledge (as measured by high-stakes testing), but also to prepare them to become decision-makers in a democratic, pluralistic world. In order to prepare the student, one must first prepare the teacher. To enhance the teachers’ preparedness for the social studies classroom, pre-service social studies teachers must understand how to use controversial issues in their pedagogy. Pre-service social studies teachers should be exposed to the various teaching methods and styles of incorporating controversial issues into their social studies education programs. However, to effectively accomplish this, they must be aware of their academic freedoms on the one hand, and potential sanctions that they may face on the other. Controversial Issues in the Social Studies Classroom The teacher’s role can enhance student motivation for learning and understanding. If the purpose of social studies education is to prepare students to become active, participating members of a pluralistic society, what better pedagogical decision for teachers to choose to implement than those controversies that encompass the real world in which students (and teachers alike) live.” (Phillips, 1997, 2) There is reason to doubt that our public school classrooms-from which many of our teacher education majors come-have their goals in utilizing controversial issues. After studying the issue and analyzing the data, Stephen Wolk (2007) concludes: “While the preparation of citizens may be in every school mission statement, our performance in that area is dreadful.” Historically, educators have disagreed as to what and how to teach certain subjects. No Child Left Behind and the Florida New Generation Sunshine State Standards, for example, have mandated various curricula and counties have dictated that certain topics should not be introduced. The famous or infamous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial which focused on the legal issue of teaching evolution stands as the epitome about disagreements over what to teach that has continued into the 21st century. Walsh (1998) contends that “controversy is vital in order to gain 9
and maintain student interest in and motivation for studying a topic.” During the Classical Age of Greece, the Sophists executed Socrates for “corrupting the minds” of the youth because of his inquiry and discovery methods of learning when in fact he was trying to awaken the people of Athens from their intellectual and moral complacency by asking questions. Should teachers today not have the right to utilize controversial issues in their classrooms? The Academic Freedom Committee in 1990 acknowledged that: students need to study issues upon which there is disagreement and to practice analyzing problems, gathering and organizing facts, discriminating between facts and opinions, discussing different viewpoints, and drawing tentative conclusions. It is the clear obligation of schools to promote full and free contemplation of controversial issues and to foster appreciation for the role of controversy as an instrument of progress in a democracy. (NCSS, 1969) So why do teachers decide not to introduce or incorporate controversial material into their daily or weekly lessons? The explanation is primarily based on “fear”-Fear of administrative disapproval, public disapproval and personal beliefs and values. In addition, Hess (2002) posits: the press for content coverage, which has been exacerbated by the onslaught of state testing, the high difficulty level of teaching young people how to participate more effectively in controversial public issue discussions, teachers’ lack of pedagogical confidence, and fear of community reprisals all account for the rarity of controversial public issue discussions. Such factors explicitly and implicitly serve as barriers to treating controversial issues with one’s students. Despite the potential benefits controversial issues can provide to one’s students, others still believe otherwise. “While most educators agree that openly examining controversial issues can promote positive, democratic political attitudes, some people suggest that controversy has no place in public education” (Cook, 1984). Upon evaluation of the Phillips (1997) and Walsh (1998) studies dealing with controversial issues, the Florida Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire (FTCIQ) and the Florida Principal’s Controversial Issues Questionnaire (FPCIQ) reveal that the majority of social studies teachers and principals in Florida treat controversial issues less than 25 percent of
10
pedagogical time. Such data indicate controversial issues are not being thoroughly implemented into Florida schools. In terms of academic freedom, Walsh’s study indicates that teachers have administrative support for teachers’ academic freedom for treating controversial issues. However, Phillips’ study indicates that teachers feel more internal reasons for not treating controversial issues, such as lack of maturity of the student or the controversial issue is not pertinent to social studies content matter. This study contrasts with Nelson’s (1994) belief that the majority of reasons were the external reasons-such as administrative constraints, or parental and community pressures. All students should have access to controversial materials that promote inquiry, critical thinking and diversity. Torney-Purta et al. (2001) contends that, “students who report that they are encouraged to investigate controversial issues and to express their views in an open classroom climate in which they feel comfortable expressing their views have higher levels of civic-political knowledge than other students.” In addition, Hahn (1998) posits that “they (students) are also more likely to report high levels of political interest, political efficacy, political trust, and civic tolerance than other students.” Unfortunately, many high school social studies teachers still do not incorporate controversial issues because of the fear of reprisal. Hahn, 1991; Kahne et al., 2001; Phillips, 1997; Shaver, Davis, & Helburn, 1980, contend that when classroom discussions do occur, that discussion rarely focuses on controversial issues. To exclude controversial issues because of fear of reprisal hinders the potential for students to critically think and learn. As noted by Barber, 1989; Hahn, 1998; Parker, 1996; Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald,& Schultz, 2001; & Yankelovich, 1999, discussing them (controversial issues) can have powerful educational outcomes for students and for the development of a more democratic society. It is essential in the 21st century for students to be able to critically read and analyze issues that directly or indirectly affect their lives. It is essential for pre-service teachers to be trained in the treatment of controversial issues so that they can promote inquiry in their social studies classroom. In the field of social studies, controversial issues must be studied in the classroom without the assumption that there is one “right” answer in matters of dispute. Nelson (1994) suggests that “the study of history is the study of conflicts over time. It is controversies and their resolution that inform historical scholarship, but that scholarship is subjective-that is, historians 11
place different values on the same information.” The democratic process involves the ways in which individuals and groups in a free society handle problems, resolving conflicting opinions and interact with one another. There has been a vast amount of research conducted in the field of social sciences on the treatment of controversial issues in the social studies classroom. However, pre-service teacher attitudes’ towards the treatment and utilization of controversial issues remains minimal. Lunstrum (1965) argues that controversial issues are “recognizable components of larger critical decisions.” Educators consistently report that controversial issues by teachers rest on the “necessity of preparing citizens to participate in the democratic decision-making processes within a pluralistic society” (Hahn, 1991). Emphasis should be placed on controversial issues made “more relevant to life.” Evaluating pre-service teachers’ attitudes’ towards the treatment of controversial issues will enhance the possibility of the teacher incorporating issues into their social studies classroom. Hence, it is the responsibility of teachers to teach students how to think, not what to think. Hunt and Metcalf (1968) explain that controversy “leads to an awareness of inconsistency or conflict or inner conflict: it thus creates its own learning goal.” Engle (1989) states that: the topics or episodes to be selected should be those with the greatest potential for encouraging thinking, or even controversy, about matters of facts, or about matters of historical interpretation of events in the past, or about alternative resolutions to social problems in the present...Topics or episodes that cannot be conceived as problematical should be omitted from the curriculum. To engage students in this mode of “thinking” allows them to disclose their personal beliefs on a topic without any recourse because of their opinion or belief. There are two primary rationales presented by Oliver, Newmann, and Singletary (1992) which determine what controversial issues should be used for classroom discourse. “The overall importance of the issues to the society in which we live and the possible personal significance the issues might have for ourselves and the particular students we are teaching.” Teachers who avoid controversial issues discussion as an instructional device or those who dogmatically indoctrinate students with biased perspectives of such issues possibly diminish their students’ abilities to critically examine social controversy and to think democratically. Students need to study issues upon which there is disagreement and to practice analyzing problems, 12
discriminating between fact and opinion, and the formulating and developing of defensible hypotheses. “Controversial issues provide rich and exciting opportunities for learning how to formulate defensible opinions and, perhaps, locate truth”(Malikow, 2006, p.108). With support for the teacher from the community, administration, and parents, controversial issues can be implemented into the classroom at a higher level and the introduction of controversial issues can be enhanced and proven “curriculum guided.” Challenges to Academic Freedom During the 20th century, notable attacks on academic freedom became an important issue to our nation’s teachers and professors. According to the American Association of University Professors: In 1940, following a series of joint conferences begun in 1934, representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges agreed upon a restatement of principles set forth in the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure. This restatement is known to the profession as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. (1940 Statement, n.d., para. 1). These principles stated academic freedom was essential in institutions of higher educational learning. In addition, according to the representatives at the conference that was held November 7th and 8th, of 1940, “...Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning” (1940 Statement, n.d., para. 4). Hence, by 1952, challenges to academic freedom erupted. In the Supreme Court case, Adler v. Board of Education of New York (1952), Justice William O. Douglas upheld a New York law that prohibited employment of teachers in public institutions if they were members of a “subversive organization”. Douglas (1952) states: ...if Academic Freedom is the pursuit of truth it is protected by the First Amendment, then the New York law should be struck down because it produced standardized thought...the New York law created an academic atmosphere concerned not with intellectual stimulation but with such questions as ‘Why was the history teacher so openly hostile to Franco’s Spain? Who heard overtones of revolution in the
13
English teacher’s discussion of The Grapes of Wrath? And what was behind the praise of Soviet progress in metallurgy in the Chemistry class?’ (Adler v. Board of Education, 1952) Challenges regarding academic freedom spurred again in the Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) case. Paul Sweezy refused to address questions regarding his teaching and political views and was considered a Marxist professor. Sweezy challenged his academic freedom rights and Chief Justice Earl Warren identified with him stating, “academic freedom is the freedom of thought and expression essential to an academic institution”(pp.262-263). In addition, the Supreme Court concluded that "teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.” (Sweezy v. N.H., 1957) In the 1930s and 1940s, some states, including New York and California, enacted legislation requiring educators to swear allegiance to the state and the nation, and to uphold their constitutions. In the late 1950s, two out of three states compelled loyalty oaths, with some schools and universities augmenting the loyalty requirement, essentially for the purpose of purging communists. According to the Law Encyclopedia, a “loyalty oath” is “an oath that declares an individual’s allegiance to the government and its institutions, and disclaims support of ideologies or associations that oppose or threaten the government.” (Law Encyclopedia, 1958) This questions of allegiance was challenged in the 1967 case of Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of NY (1967), the Supreme Court declared that the New York statute requiring “political ‘loyalty oaths’ by New York State employees (including educators) under state civil service laws were declared void, and New York education laws against ‘treasonable or seditious speech’ were found to violate the First Amendment right to free speech” (U.S. History Encyclopedia, n.d.). In 1968, the Supreme Court was faced again with a decision not only regarding academic freedom, but also, controversial issues. Can a state constitutionally ban the teaching of evolution in public schools? This type of question over controversial issues was first introduced in 1925 with The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes (1925). John Scopes, a biology teacher, was teaching evolution from the state approved science textbook. He was informed that he had violated the state act banning the teaching of evolution in the classroom. Scopes was ultimately fired and had to pay a fine. The Scopes trial did not end the debate over the teaching of 14
evolution, but it did represent a significant setback for the anti-evolution forces. According to Linder (2000)“of the fifteen states with anti- evolution legislation pending in 1925, only two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) enacted laws restricting teaching of Darwin's theory”. The laws enacted by Arkansas concerning the teaching of evolution in a secondary public school led to another Supreme Court case. In 1968, Susan Epperson, a biology teacher at Little Rock High School, decided to challenge the “anti-evolution” law in Arkansas. With a 9-0 vote in the Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), Justice Fortas struck down the criminal statute that forbade teachers from teaching the theory of evolution holding that the state’s undoubted power to shape the curriculum is controlled by the First Amendment. Fortas (1968) confirmed: Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and non-religion. (Epperson v. Ark., 1968) Furthermore, with the Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will County (1968), academic freedom suffered a setback. A public school teacher was fired for writing a letter to a local newspaper critical of the local school board. In ordering the teacher reinstated, the court found that a public employee's statements on a matter of public concern could not be the basis for discharge unless the statement contained knowing or reckless falsehoods, or if the statements would cause a substantial interference with the ability of the teacher to continue to do his or her job. However, The Supreme Court has also held that if school authorities can show additional independent grounds for discharge, they may terminate a teacher for disruptive speech even if a substantial motivation for the termination was speech on issues of public concern. (Pickering v. Board of Educ., 1968) At the close of the 1960s, the Supreme Court was faced with yet another challenge to academic freedom. In the Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), students at the public high school were suspended for wearing black arm bands in protest of the Vietnam War. Justice Fortas invalidated the school district’s suspension of the high school students stating that the students had a First Amendment right to express their protest against the Vietnam Conflict. 15
With the onset of the 1970s, the Supreme Court was inundated with academic freedom cases. One important case was Henry Keith Sterzing v. Fort Bend Independent School District (1972). Sterzing was accused of utilizing propagandistic and biased material to a senior current events class on race relations. The judge stated A teachers methods are not without limits…on the other hand, a teacher must not be manacled with rigid regulations, which preclude full adaption of the course to the times in which we live…The Court finds Mr. Sterzing’s objectives to his teaching to be proper to stimulate critical thinking, to create an awareness of our present political and social community, and to enliven the educational process” (Stelzer and Banthin, 1980, p. 105). Another example, Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977), the court reaffirmed the school authorities’ power by allowing the termination of a teacher whose speech that dealt with public issues if the employer could show independent grounds for discharge. In 1982, The Board of Education v. Pico (1982), the Supreme Court recognized the school boards power over curriculum and book selection but held that the school board could not submit to community pressure and remove books from the school library because they were deemed “objectionable” books. The Supreme Court reiterated in the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), that a high school principal may impose some limits on student publications, but that the principal did not have the right to censor the student newspaper and said that because students in a journalism class had written the paper, it was therefore not considered a public forum. During 1991, challenges towards the teaching of issues deemed controversial erupted. Dr. Phillip Bishop taught at the University of Alabama. In an elective class, Bishop discussed his personal views towards creation. He was informed by the university that the references to Christian ideals was not allowed and to cease discussion on the issue. In addition, Bishop was advised to discontinue the offering of any course elective relating to Christian ideals. Bishop challenged the university in Bishop v. Aronov (1991). Senior Circuit Judge Floyd R. Gibson of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was sitting on the Eleventh Circuit by designation stated "university administrators may exercise editorial control over the style and content of student [or professor] speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."( in D’Souza, 1997, p. 3) 16
Some challenges to academic freedom have been apparent with the arrival of the 21st century. The debate over controversial issues and academic freedom in the public schools is still very much a matter of public and professional concern. The affect on the teaching of issues, such as the war on terror, has led some teaching professionals to question their academic freedom. The senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, Charles Haynes, found the public furor expressed in the media and the internet blogs over the taped remarks about President Bush by Colorado geography teacher, Jay Bennish to be prophetic. Bennish was secretly taped by a student for approximately 20 minutes in a 10th grade geography class. Bennish, according to Haynes (2006), “compared some of the president’s language to language used by the Nazi leader (Adolph Hitler).” Haynes (2006) predicted that “the Bennish tape will accelerate current attempts by worried administrators to limit the academic freedom of teachers- a trend that has been backed up by courts in recent years.” During the 21st century, educators are being restricted in their teaching of controversial issues and their academic freedom rights have been recently challenged throughout our nation. Weidner (2003) stated: Academic freedom is the freedom of a teacher or researcher in higher institutions of learning to investigate and discuss the problems of his science and to express his conclusions, whether through publication or the instruction of students, without inferences from political or ecclesiastical authority, or from the administrative officials of the institution in which he is employed. Additionally, the National Council for Social Studies states “Academic freedom for social studies teachers includes the right and responsibility to study, investigate, present, interpret, discuss, and debate relevant facts, issues, and ideas in fields of the teacher’s professional competence” (NCSS, 2007). Academic freedom, like all freedoms in a democracy, carries with it an obligation. As teachers, we must remember that our special position in the community, with our students, calls for thoughtful and appropriate constraint in regards to the controversial material presented and academic freedom. According to Ochoa-Becker (2007), “academic freedom has a historic tradition because of courageous teachers and courageous young citizens who have been willing to take their cases to court and withstand the financial, social and personal costs involved.”
17
Additionally, it has become apparent in the 21st century that lower courts have continued to infringe on a teacher’s right to academic freedom. Limitations on teaching controversial issues have resulted in devastating lower court decisions affecting teachers’ across the nation. Simpson (2003) states “...and two state courts in California and New Jersey have ruled that teachers don’t have a right to wear political buttons in the classroom.” The lower courts offered this reasoning for their decision, “while engaged in teaching activities, teachers are speaking on behalf of the school district and can be prohibited from expressing personal viewpoints or otherwise straying from the prescribed curriculum.” Does this mean that the Supreme Court can determine each case on an individual basis rather than previous decisions rendered? With such pressure on teachers, it is no wonder that controversial issues are not introduced at a greater degree in the classroom. Mears (2007) remarks that “while the Supreme Court has said students do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter the classroom setting, they have ruled that schools have the power to limit their speech.” In Alaska, a student displayed a banner during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch run stating “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” during an outdoor rally. The student, a senior, was suspended. The case went to the U. S. Supreme Court who decided in a 5-4 decision “schools can regulate student expression” (Sherman, 2007). In North Carolina, a teacher was transferred from a high school to a middle school because of the controversial play, Independence; her students performed which depicted a divorced mother, a lesbian daughter, and a daughter pregnant out of wedlock. Judge Widner, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated the majority opinion in the Kirkland v. Northside Independent School District (1990) “is whether a public high school teacher has a First Amendment right to participate in the makeup of the school curriculum through the selection and production of a play” (Stegmayer, 2000). Unfortunately, the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision mandates that “although the concept of academic freedom has been recognized…public school teachers are not free, under the First Amendment, to arrogate control of curricula”(Stegmayer, 2000). Moreover, a Colorado teacher, Alfred Wilder, showed the film 1900 to his junior English class and directed them to create short plays to promote creative expression based on the film. In addition, the students’ plays were to be performed in class and videotaped. The videotape came to the attention of the principal who then initiated an investigation. Since the students utilized profanity in their creative expression, Wilder was dismissed for not following 18
the district’s controversial materials policy and allowing students to view the film 1900. Wilder sued stating that his First Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that “as a teacher, Wilder had no rights of free speech and due process guaranteed by the Constitution”(Stegmayer, 2000). These decisions indicate that although controversial issues, materials, and methods may motivate and inspire students, they can subject social studies teachers to termination, expense, and personal hardship. However, because of the Patriot Act that was established in October 2001, government officials have infringed on academic freedom by asserting their authority not only in the secondary schools, but also college campuses. These violations on an educator can potentially lead to their inhibition to infuse controversial issues into the pre-service social studies methods courses. Government officials have been accessing voice mail stored on campuses without wiretap authorization. According to Tierney and Lechuga (2005), “it is much easier for the government to obtain court orders for electronic surveillance on campuses. Similarly, federal law officials can obtain a record of the books that students, faculty, and staff check out of the library.” In addition, “a gag order prevents librarians from disclosing to library patrons the existence of the government’s request or that the records were released.” The North Carolina House of Representatives threatened to cut the budget to the University of North Carolina in 2002 because the Koran was listed as one of the reading requirements for entering freshmen. One representative declared that it was “insensitive … to allow Students’ to read about our attackers” (Wilson, 2005). Representative Sam Ellis declared that students should not be “required to study this evil.” In August 2002, The North Carolina House of Representatives banned the use of the Koran unless other religions were treated equally. In Pennsylvania, a biology teacher at Penn State had allegedly subjected his class to Michael Moor’s Fahrenheit 9/11 on the night of the 2004 elections. Since then, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Select Committee on Student Academic Freedom was created to determine if conservative students were being subjected to forms of discrimination in Pennsylvania’s public universities. David Horowitz, a conservative, “has spent the past three years promoting ‘Academic Bill of Rights’, which seeks to protect students from ‘biased’ courses and lecturers”(Berube, 2006). Horowitz found no evidence for his claim against the biology teacher and “Penn State revealed that it had received all of 13 complaints about political 19
‘bias’ over the past five years-on a campus with a student population of 40,000”(Berube, 2006). The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) condemned some university faculty members for not adequately voicing their support for the Bush administration. In a report, ACTA stated that many faculty “invoked tolerance and diversity as antidotes to evil” (Tierney & Lechuga, 2005). In essence, it appears that the federal government is imposing more regulations on educators. With restrictions increasing from the federal government on how and what professors can teach, academic freedom is curtailed. “Many state legislatures, boards of education, and school administrators have shown disregard for the teacher’s professional role in dealing with controversy in the classroom”(NCSS, 1974). Academic freedom allows the teacher to feel unimpeded and autonomous when selecting the various approved instructional materials and the methods by which to teach chosen content (although the content may be controversial). In addition, the instructional materials suggest certain techniques into which the topic should be taught. Every course contains content knowledge and pedagogical learning outcomes which are, more or less, specified in advance and teachers are expected to stay generally within the curriculum guidelines. Do teachers have the right to refuse to teach content that may violate their personal beliefs? The answer is generally “no”. The freedom to teach has to be meaningful and the teacher must participate in decisions regarding the organization, presentation, and evaluation of instruction. Engaging students into thought provoking discussions enables them to learn and enjoy the freedom of learning. “It is the clear obligation of schools to promote full and free contemplation of controversial issues and to foster appreciation of the roll of controversy as an instrument of progress in a democracy”(NCSS, 1996). It appears that the free exchange of ideas means something entirely different in the 21st century as it did a decade ago. A new Florida House Bill 837, dubbed “The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights” by its supporters, has been voted on in the state House of Representatives. Many university professors feel as though this bill will censor their teachings in the classroom. “Nowhere in the bill is ‘controversial matter’ clearly defined, which has some professors concerned” (Gardner, 2005). Also, “the judgment as to what is intellectually appropriate for classroom use is and must be a judgment made by the faculty. Whenever the government tries to usurp that judgment, they are flying in the face of academic freedom” (Gardner, 2005). With the governments’ power to 20
intrude on the work of academics, academic freedom and the study of controversial issues are compromised. With this assumption, Lunstrum (1998) emphasizes that “some contemporary critics of public schools expressed the fear that inquiry and examination of controversial issues might produce a generation of cynics and skeptics estranged from their government.” However, because we live in a democratic society, students are entitled to learn and teachers are entitled to teach. A teacher’s freedom to teach involves both the right and the responsibility to use the highest intellectual standards relevant to his/her field of professional competence. Academic Freedom and Textbook Censorship As the battle over academic freedom and censorship continues in the 21st century, it is important to prepare the pre-service social studies teacher for potential conflicts that may arise in the classroom. There appears to be a limited amount of research conducted on pre-service social studies teachers dealing with censorship and the use of controversial issues. Censorship issues should be integrated in the training of the pre-service social studies teachers along with district and local policies on the use of controversial issues. It is essential to educate the pre-service social studies teacher on their local school board’s policy concerning implementation of a new book into their classroom, whether a textbook or a reading supplement. However, because of the fear of reprisals and sanctions, “most teachers decide to stick with safely sanitized state-adopted textbooks; they submit only the blandest books for approval; or they ignore the policy and worry about the consequences if they are found out” (Pipkin & Lent, 2002). In order to prepare the pre- service social studies teacher for the social studies classroom, the understanding of academic freedom through the treatment of controversial issues is necessary. Understanding a teacher’s right to teach with controversial issues allows the pre-service social studies teacher to be better prepared in the selection of controversial issues and potential controversial classroom textbooks. Durbin (2005) affirmed “notwithstanding the First Amendment, book banning is a practice rooted in American History.” Since the 1970s, textbooks have undergone tremendous changes, especially U.S. history and social studies. Apple (1992) noted: Publishers expended considerable effort to make texts redress earlier omissions. Nevertheless, the state-level controversies of the late 1980s and early 1990s in California and New York showed that textbook publishers remained beset by the demands of special-interest groups, including ethnic activists, feminists, the disabled, 21
environmentalists, homosexuals, and religious groups, all of whom desire favorable and prominent treatment. Such pressures make it difficult for publishers to balance academic integrity against market requirements. Several federal court cases in the 1980s reflect the perennial disputes over textbook censorship, content, and interpretation. Challenges have arisen over biology, health, literature, and history texts. Three significant federal cases originated in local complaints that textbooks promote secular humanism (Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 1986), atheism (Mozert v. Hawkins County Public Schools, 1987), and the theory of evolution (Aguillard v. Edwards, 1987). Additionally, in some of the history textbooks, publishers have agreed to print separate perspectives on Civil War history. “In order to capture Southern markets, textbook publishers agreed to print separate editions with a pro-Confederacy slant including the elimination of the phrase Civil War in favor of the Southern preferred wording of War Between the States”(Matusevich, 2006). Texas, Florida, and California are the three largest textbook purchasers who purchase such textbooks. “It is interesting to note that in spite of the successes of adoption states to determine the content of history textbooks, the students in these states perform poorly on national tests” (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 2004). Other cases such as Chiras v. Miller (2004), addresses the issue of First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights over textbook content. In 2001, the Texas State Board of Education was challenged on the implementation of “evolution” in their biology textbooks that were being submitted for state adoption. The school board rejected the Environmental Science textbook by Dr. Daniel Chiras, stating that it was “anti-Christian” and “un-American”. Chiras stated: I was stunned by the Board’s decision to reject my textbook. Texas public high schools used an earlier edition of my book, and colleges across the country, including a state university in Texas, have used the current edition. It is incredibly offensive and unfair that my book was falsely portrayed as ‘anti-Christian’ when this same book is used at Baylor University – a top-tier Christian school and Texas’ oldest university (in Clarkson, 2003). The U.S Court of Appeals in the 5th Circuit dismissed the case in August of 2004, and it is currently under appeal. However, a new controversial action over textbooks in Texas has resumed. The Texas 22
State Board of Education stated that there was a “lack of balance that prompted the efforts at changes in the social studies program. The State Board of Education will make the determination if more religion will be interjected into the new textbooks” (Wright, 2010). In addition to textbook censorship, paper back and hard cover books censorship also violates a teachers’ academic freedom. A more recent event, for example, occurred in Kentucky and it involved the book Golden Compass by Philip Pullman which had recently been challenged at Conkwright Middle School. Although teachers and parents read and reviewed the book and found it to be suitable for middle school students, a former Fannie Bush Elementary principal and senior pastor at Grace Bible Church, Lee Cruse, protested adamantly along with 15 other Catholic Diocese in the Lexington area. Cathy Bell, principal at Sts. Peter and Paul School in Lexington, stated “that the decision by the Diocese of Lexington was made because the material in the book was deemed ‘not just anti-Catholic, but anti-God and anti-religion’” (Wilson, 2007). Additionally, Cruse (2007) stated, “we believe that there are problems with the book, and other books that Philip Pullman, who is a noted atheist in England, has written.” Cruse’s ultimate goal is to see the book removed from the school’s curriculum. Public schools were not immune from this controversy either. The Conkwright Middle School in Winchester offered a solution to the dilemma over this controversial book. Principal Luke Wright offered “any student an opportunity to ‘opt-out’ and instead be taught similar principles from a different book” (Wilson, 2007). Also, the teachers and parents and school board members agreed that “the book be retained and that it could be taught, with principal approval” (Wilson, 2007). Since the controversy, this book remains, according to Wright, “the most checked-out book in the Conkwright library.” History will show that giving ground to censors in hopes of pleasing them just encourages more censorship. Teachers must have the courage to fight for what they believe in selecting specific literature that would be curriculum guided and would be beneficial to student comprehension. Tomlinson and Tunnell (1994) express “when censorship undercuts a students’ freedom…their opportunities to develop as readers and thinkers are diminished.” According to the National Coalition against Censorship (2007), incidents have increasingly occurred in reference to censorship and book banning in the middle and secondary schools. In the Miami- Dade schools, Florida, the children’s book Vamos a Cuba was banned due to its content. Conversely, on August 15, 2006, the U.S. District Judge Alan Gold ruled that the book should 23
remain on the Miami-Dade school library shelves. Durbin (2005) describes literary works such as Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress which have caused a great deal of controversy in the K- 12 classroom. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain was deemed inappropriate for 9th grade students because of the language and the use of the “n-word”. Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress written by Dai Sijie was considered sexually explicit and ordered to be removed from the reading list. How is a teacher able to educate their students on issues such as tolerance and racial prejudice if the books are censored? As Smith (1953) noted “the fundamental question about censorship in American can be phrased in this fashion: America has been sipping the hemlock; how much can it drink?” Pre-service social studies teachers should be familiar with the potential negative responses that can occur with book selections and how to attend to and rationalize their selections. It is important that issues such as these are addressed in the methods courses in social science education to ensure clarity and insight. Pre-Service Teacher Training in Social Studies Methods Courses Social Studies teacher preparation is often questioned regarding the methods, and issues that meet the needs of prospective teachers and educational needs in our society. According to Slekar (2006), “Leming (1992) declared that most of these social studies methods courses have little impact on instruction in public schools.” In order to meet the needs of educating teachers for our society, traditional pre-service programs in colleges of education should change. If the “traditional” approach, which is based on rote student learning in lieu of inquiry based approach, to pre-service social studies education is continually implemented, it becomes apparent that little relevant teacher education is occurring. As Engle (1989) expressed, teachers are themselves the product of a system of education that even in the University places emphasis on memory with little opportunity to criticize, argue with, or think about either the truth or the meaning of what they are learning. Can teachers be blamed for teaching as their university professors teach? Unfortunately, some of the university professors in social science education programs model the traditional approach which often dictates how the pre-service social studies teacher will instruct their class and, as Molebash (2004) stated, “teachers teach the way they are taught.” 24
The question that should be considered is whether this traditional approach facilitates the development of students who can think for themselves and participate as responsible citizens in a changing world. Shor and Freire (1987), states “instruction in schools is primarily the transmission of knowledge rather than the process of interaction and construction of knowledge.” As a result, when tradition dominates social studies education, the students are forced to participate in traditional endeavors dominated by direct instruction and an expanding environment and often chronological curriculum, designed decades ago. Pre-service social studies methods courses have to meet the needs of educating teachers for our society. Social studies instruction remains primarily teacher centered, with lectures, reading the text, and taking tests. The attitudes pre-service social studies teachers in colleges of education programs encounters should focus on the relevance of social studies education through the treatment of controversial issues. “Teachers must learn not to fear controversial issues but rather to view them as natural to any system or institution that functions within a democratic society”(Schukar, 1993). The goals for achieving effective teaching and learning focus on pre-service social studies methods courses that concentrate on the attitudes pre-service social studies teachers have on the treatment of controversial issues and the challenges to academic freedom. As Patterson and Purkey noted: A 1988 review of the literature linking teacher behavior to student achievement dealt almost entirely with teaching methods, with no consideration of teacher attitudes and interpersonal relations. Major changes in teacher education programs have essentially been limited to academic content and instructional methods. (p. 148) To improve student performance on critical thinking, schools of education must improve teacher training. Colleges of Education should begin to teach cognitive skills to pre-service social studies teachers before training them to teach these skills in the classroom. Writing in the national education journal, The Phi Delta Kappan recently, a social studies teacher, Stephen Wolk noted that his college students “know little or nothing about current events.” When he assigned his methods students to write a paper expressing their views on controversial issues, he found many were unable to complete the assignment (Wolk, 2007). Pre-service social studies teachers have to be exposed to critical thinking in order to teach critical thinking in their social studies classroom. “Teacher educators should concentrate on an 25
instructor’s sense of purpose, because this will ultimately have the greatest impact on how a teacher will run his/her class” (Fallace, 2007, 442). Emphasis should include, according to the National Council for Social studies (1994), “modeling pedagogy that requires teaching and learning that is meaningful, integrative, value-based, challenging, and active participation.” Social Studies teachers have to integrate critical thinking skills into all aspects of teacher preparation and train future teachers to be models of effective thinking strategies. In addition, according to Schukar (1993): In pre-service…degree programs, teacher education must provide teachers with the opportunities to (a) understand the nature of controversy and controversial issues, (b) develop skills for productive inquiry into, reflection upon, and resolution of controversy, and (c) learn strategies and methods of teaching these understandings and skills in the classroom. (p. 53) There are many goals for all levels of social studies education. Social studies teachers have long maintained that in order to best meet the goals of social studies, the inclusion of controversial issues in the classroom practices of teachers is vital. Lord (1969) stated that “history may be the record of man’s accomplishments, but students using the inquiry approach are learning that these accomplishments themselves are subject to interpretations and that their viewpoint might be as valid as anyone’s.” The limited amount of research concerning pre-service social studies teachers’ attitudes and treatment of controversy in the classroom has indicated that most pre-service social studies teachers have not been introduced to the study of controversial issues and hence, as practicing teachers avoid this practice and instead employ more traditional content transmission models of social studies (Engle, 1996; Hahn, 1991). In order to break this traditional content transmission model, pre-service social studies teachers will have to overcome their fear of reprisals while implementing controversial issues into a social studies classroom. By developing an understanding and appreciation for social studies, and by developing student-centered applications for use in the classroom, the awareness of cognitive learning in social studies education becomes apparent. However, if pre-service teachers in social studies methods courses are not taught how to implement controversial issues, then their future students will not be challenged to think critically. “Students will continue to receive inadequate instruction and will be poorly prepared for citizenship in this increasingly complex world unless 26
teachers are provided with substantive training that will enable them to competently present competing perspectives on controversial subjects” (Lamy, 1989,p.69). A student-centered orientation to teacher education is important if we are to encourage students in schools to develop skills such as problem solving and critical thinking, and to apply, analyze, and evaluate knowledge. “To transform teaching, teachers need to implement experiential learning in their classroom” (Hope, 1996). Pre-service social studies teachers should engage in these processes throughout the teacher program in order to implement the experiential approach in the schools. According to White (1995): general goals for teacher education should include providing experiences and expectations that help teachers develop professionally, facilitates constructivism through modeling and applying, reflecting, involving students actively and developing a community of learners, generating a passion for teaching and learning, developing critical thinking and problem solving skills, and integrating transformative, non-traditional curriculum and instruction. (p. 3) In other words, pre-service social studies teachers can be more effectively trained when learning in the discipline is combined with learning how to teach the discipline. As Patterson and Purkey (1993) posits: It is the person of the teacher that is the most important factor in teaching and learning. It should therefore be apparent that teacher education should focus on the development of the person of the teacher. This requires attention to feelings, attitudes, and beliefs of the teacher. (p. 150) Successful teachers tend to be those who vary their instructional style to meet the needs of their students. Effective teachers “adjust their teaching to fit the needs of different students and the demands of different instructional goals, topics, and methods” (Doyle, 1985). To prepare the pre-service teacher for the social studies classroom, they need to be taught to “do the discipline and learn to think historically” (Fallace, 2007, 443). Pre-service social studies teachers’ that are “highly trained to use observation forms with focus questions on democratic practice demonstrated strong analytic and explanatory skills.” Pryor, 2006 and Wactler,1991 found that increased explanatory skill helps pre-service teachers’ link theory to their developing framework for making decisions about useful classroom practices. Fallace (2007) contends “exposing pre-service teachers to conflicting historical accounts allowed them to transmit the 27
‘facts’ required by the state standards, but to do so in a dynamic manner...” (p. 443). Pre-service social studies teachers’ should be introduced in teacher preparation courses on how to “think” about and “try” alternative types of instruction for the classroom. The Grossman et al (2000) study “suggests that teacher education can affect the transition from university to first-year teaching.” Furthermore, “other research supports the potential power of the methods course in shaping students’ beliefs” (Woolley and Hosey, 1999). When the pre- service social studies methods courses offer a variety of instructional styles with the implementation of controversial issues and the understanding of academic freedom, it enhances, ultimately, the social studies classroom. To impose additional requirements on teachers’, many states have adopted state- mandated testing. High-stakes testing becomes more of a factor on a teacher because they are forced to teach to the test in lieu of the implementation of inquiry based instruction due to time constraints. “Because test scores reign supreme, the quest for higher numbers cannibalizes the curriculum, diverts scarce resources, stigmatizes poor test-takers, sends push-out rates soaring, and turns our schools into test prep centers” (Lent & Pipkin, 2003, p.132 ). As new testing guidelines are implemented by our federal government under the No Child Left Behind Act, methods of teaching teachers’ will have to change. According to Lent and Pipkin (2003, p.133), “not only will more tests be required in many states, but teaching methods and materials will also be prescribed and reviewed by a panel of seventy-three experts- one of whom is a teacher.” If teachers demonstrate any type of opposition to the high-stakes testing, they could lose their job, be suspended, and even have their teaching license revoked. For example, Mitch Balonek was an English teacher at Scott High in Ohio and he did not allow his daughter to take the state-required proficiency test in October of 2000. In addition, he refused to administer the test to the ninth graders at Scott High. He protested by using his sick leave on the day the test was to be administered and thus avoided being fired. Bruce Degi from the Cherry Creek High School in Denver declared “schools are now just another business; teachers are simply assembly-line workers who produce a product that we have to ‘quality control’ during the manufacturing process. The business metaphor subverts and perverts everything I believe about education, every reason why I became a teacher” (Lent & Pipkin, 2003, p.131). According to Annelise Schantz (2000), “schools are being turned into factories churning out brainless, mindless, opinionless hacks year after year”. Do social science methods courses need to prepare the pre- 28
service teacher on how to teach to the state-mandated test in lieu of issue-centered approaches? Adler (2000) noted that “the growing interest in accountability for both teachers and students, is a major issue in the early 21st century. The work of teaching and teacher education has come to focus increasingly on helping students to meet state standards.” In Florida, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) diverts scarce funds from the neediest schools and gives bonuses to those with higher scores. At the Gulf Gate Elementary School in Sarasota, the principal and several teachers decided to return their bonuses to the state board of education. Principal Cathy Kitto expressed, “those books like this (Johnny Tremaine) were being replaced by test prep workbooks. Warnings of the dangers that a rigid state-mandated testing program poses to intellectual freedom, (the) fear is doing away with any original thoughts in our schools” (Lent & Pipkin, 2003, p.132 ). How are teachers’ to educate our youth for the 21st century with issues that will confront them in their everyday life when states require mandatory test prep and rigorous reading classes for those students who perform low on the state mandated test? Will this state test reflect a student’s potential? “Proficiency tests, cannot measure human potential” stated Mitch Balonek (Lent & Pipkin, 2003, p. 129). Social Studies methods courses offered in the College of Education should be re- evaluated to determine if pre-service teachers’ are being introduced to controversial issues. If the teacher is to be prepared for the 21st century social studies classroom, controversial issues should be addressed. Palmer (1989) noted that perhaps it is the teacher themselves who decides not to implement controversial issues because they are: unsure of their own knowledge, prepared only in the memorization of content selected from the social sciences and history, and inexperienced in discussion and issue analysis, could they be expected to adopt in the social studies a drastically different classroom content and pedagogy than they have known in their own schooling? (p. 63) If pre-service teachers have not been exposed to issues-centered approaches during their time as a student in social studies methods courses, they will generally decide not to implement controversial issues but instead design instruction in the conventional ways in which they were taught.
29
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This study utilized a questionnaire/survey method to obtain information about the pre- service social studies teachers’ attitudes toward utilization of controversial issues in Florida pre- service social studies methods courses. The data generated from the participants’ responses was used to draw inferences about factors involved in the use of controversial issues being implemented into methodology instruction in public senior institutions in the state of Florida. Pre-Service Teacher Sampling Procedures Two studies were used as precedents to establish internal validity of this research proposal. The original design of the study was formulated by John P. Phillips (1997) in the “Florida Teachers’ Attitudes toward the Study of Controversial Issues in Public High School Social Studies Classroom”. Phillips developed the Florida Teachers Controversial Issues Questionnaire that was sent to secondary social studies teachers in a random sample of Florida high schools. The Florida Teachers Controversial Issues Questionnaire (FTCIQ) instrument was three pages long and contained 141 items. Questionnaires were returned by 55.6% of the teachers in the representative sample. The second study was conducted by Charles Walsh (1998). Walsh developed the Florida’s Principals’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire and surveyed 321 principals in Florida public high schools. Walsh received a 48% return of the principals in the representative sample. Additionally, this attitudinal study of pre-service teachers’ and their attitudes towards the use of controversial issues is an analysis from a sample population with different perspectives. The first investigation reports responses of the sample as a total group and explores the importance of three demographic variables: 1. Gender, 2. Religious Affiliation, 3. Ethnicity and 4. University. The second investigation of this study inquires into the relative importance of the social studies methods courses preparation to pre-service teachers’ attitude towards the use of controversial issues. Pre-service teachers may have personal reasons why they may be apprehensive towards utilizing controversial issues in a secondary social studies classroom. These potential reasons could include lack of training in social studies methods courses, lack of textbooks and materials, fear of community sanctions, and lack of school administrative support. This comparison correlates with the pre-service teachers’ training in social studies methods courses. 30
As of the Spring, 2010 academic school year, there were approximately 435 Florida pre- service teachers enrolled in social studies methods courses. The sample goal was a return of at least 300 pre-service teacher questionnaires for purposes of statistical analysis. In addition, the following universities participated in this study: Florida State University, University of North Florida, and University of Central Florida. A total of 203 pre-service teachers returned the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes towards the use of Controversial Issues questionnaire (FPTCIQ), for a 47% response rate was received. Development of the Instrument The instrument used in this research project is a modification of the Florida teachers’ attitudes towards the use of controversial issues questionnaire developed by John P. Phillips, Program Manager of Teacher Education at Gulf Coast Community College. The revised instrument is called the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire (FPTCIQ). More importantly, the objective of this study was to investigate the role that social studies methods courses have in examining controversial issues with pre-service teachers. Specifically, the objectives of this study are to provide answers to the following critical research questions: (1) What issues do pre-service teachers list as being controversial? (2) Which controversial issue does pre-service teachers feel should or should not be presented or discussed in social studies methods courses? (3) Should pre-service teachers participate in the discussion of controversial issues in social studies methods courses? (4) Do social studies methods courses vary in the amount of time spent examining controversial issues with pre-service teachers? (5) Would exposure to controversial issues in pre-service teachers’ social studies methods courses enable pre-service teachers to discuss controversial issues with their future social studies class? (6) Would exposure to different strategies and methods in social studies methods courses on teaching controversial issues ensure that the pre-service teacher be more inclined to implement controversial issues into their future classroom? (7) Should social studies methods courses train pre-service teachers in the pedagogical value of various types of controversial issues? 31
(8) What is the relationship of each of these variables to the examination of controversial issues instruction in social studies methods courses (a) Gender (b) Religion (c) Ethnicity (d) University The Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire contains both independent variables and dependent variables. An independent variable, according to Babbi (2007), is a “variable with values that are not problematic in an analysis but are taken as simply given. An independent variable is presumed to cause or determine a dependent variable.” For the purpose of this study, the independent variable is the participants comfort level on the utilization of controversial issues in their future social studies classroom. Dependent variables are a “variable assumed to depend on or be caused by another (called the independent variable)” (Babbi, 2007, p. 18). The dependent variables utilized in this study are gender, religious affiliation, ethnicity, and the location of the university in Florida. In addition, an acceptable level of probability can be determined by utilizing a probability formula. Babbi (2007) states the “probability theory gives us a formula for estimating how closely the sample statistics are clustered around the value…probability theory enables us the sampling error-the degree of error to be expected for a given sample decision.” Moreover, “probability theory dictates that roughly 05% (the so-called .05 level), of the samples will fall within plus or minus two standard errors of the true value”(Babbi, 2007, p.196). Tuckman (1987, pgs. 243-244) states that the formula below can be used for determining a sample size suitable for obtaining a sample representative on this parameter for a given confidence level and a given sampling error N-(z/e)2(p)(1-p) Where N is the sample size (203), z is the standard score corresponding to a given confidence level, e is the proportion of sampling error in a given situation, and p is the estimated proportion of cases in the population. Confidence level refers to the probability that the sample population will reflect the population proportion on a given outcome with a specific degree of accuracy (this degree of accuracy being designated as e). 32
Statistical Analysis The data generated from the returned questionnaire was subjected to statistical tests using frequencies, percentages, and means. The computer program Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, or SPSS, was designated to address the research problems listed by drawing items and analysis found in the questionnaire instrument. The following measurements were utilized in this research objective, nominal, ordinal, interval, and z-score. Nominal Scales There are three scales or levels of measurement that was employed in this research study- nominal, ordinal, and interval. Nominal measures are those “variables whose attributes have only the characteristics of exhaustiveness and mutual exclusiveness are nominal measures” (Babbi, 2007, p.136). Gender, religious affiliation, ethnicity, and university attended are examples of nominal scales. Questions 67-70 of the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire ask participants to circle the letter pertaining to their gender, religious affiliation, ethnicity, and the university attending. These questions directly relate to the eighth research problem from this study. Ordinal Scales “Variables with attributes we can logically rank order are ordinal measures”(Babbi, 2007, p.137). Question 1-30 from the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire ask participants to circle (1-3) pertaining to that perceived level of controversialism of the given issues in a social studies methods class. Because perceptions of controversialism of the issues will vary from participant to participant, a ranking or order can be measured. Thus, ordinal scaling will be employed for these questions. Questions 1-30 relate to the first question in this research problem. Next, Question 31 from the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire ask participants to circle the letter pertaining to the amount of teaching time is spent per month (measured by percentages) in social studies methods courses in discussing controversial issues. Question 31 allows for six choices and relates directly with the fourth research problem from this study. Questions 32-61 ask participants to select from two choices (“A” representing issues that should not be discussed and “B” indicating issues that should be discussed) in social studies methods courses. These questions relate directly to question two from this study. Question 62 from the Florida Pre-Service Teacher Controversial Issues Questionnaire is open-ended with no forced itemization. Question 62 enables participants 33
to furnish issues that they feel should or should not be discussed in social studies methods courses. This question expands on research problem two of this study. All of questions 63-66 are measured from a five –choice Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” This section of the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire was intended to measure how pre-service teachers feel towards the discussion of controversial issues in social studies methods courses. Question 63 from the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire directly relates to the third research question from this study. The questionnaire asked respondents if social studies methods courses should participate in the discussion of controversial issues. Additionally, Question 64 from the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire directly relates to the sixth research question from this study. This question asked pre-service teachers if social studies methods courses should implement various strategies and methods of teaching controversial issues. Along with the teaching of the various strategies and methods to pre-service teachers, Question 65 on the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire asked the respondents to decide if social studies methods courses should teach the pedagogical value of the various types of controversial issue. Lastly, Question 66 from the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire explored how exposure to controversial issues in social studies methods courses would determine if the pre-service teacher would implement controversial issues in their future social studies classroom once they enter the teaching profession. This question relates to the fifth research question from this study. Interval Scales With an interval scale, the numbers represent more than an ordinal scale. According to Babbi (2007, p. 138), interval measure is “a level of measurement describing a variable where the attributors are rank ordered and have equal distances between adjacent attributes.” In addition, when comparing pre-service teachers “in terms of an interval variable, we can say there are different from one another (nominal), and that one is more than another (ordinal) (Babbi, 2007, p. 138). Z Score Utilizing the Z score statistical analysis of this study allows this researcher to determine the overall correlation between the participants that responded to the questionnaire to the respondents’ attitude towards controversial issues. A Z score is also known as the standard score, 34
z value, normal scores and standardized variables. The unit of measurement of Z score is the standard deviation. Standard score or Z score is nothing but observing how many standard deviations that are in an observation. It is obtained by subtracting the population mean with the observation and dividing the difference with the population standard deviation. Where Z symbolizes the normal distribution, x is the raw data, µ is the population means, and σ is the standard deviation. According to Peck, Olsen, and Devore (2007), “the process of subtracting the mean and then dividing by the standard deviation is sometimes referred to as standardization and a z score is one example of what is called a standardized score.” (p.183)
Z = Limitations of this study There are some limitations which must be placed on the results of this study. The usual cautions associated with the limitations of a paper and pencil survey instrument are apparent. The chance for participants’ misunderstanding of the questions was always a possibility. Since the questionnaire was mailed out April 16, 2010, some social studies methods courses pre- service teachers based their opinions on their educational experience which had little no inclusion of controversial issues in their social studies methods courses.
35
CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS The presentations and analysis of the data collected through this investigation correlates with the approximate sequence of the research questions outlined in Chapter 3. Respondents were asked to return the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire (FPTCIQ) within three weeks after it was mailed to them. A reminder postcard was mailed to the professor administering the questionnaire, and data collection extended for two weeks. The professors from the designated universities had 203 respondents return the questionnaire for a 47% response rate from the 435 selected pre-service teachers in social studies methods courses. In a measurement on how controversial an issue is and whether or not it should be examined in social studies methods courses allowed for the respondents to rank which issue they perceived as controversial. The first research question, “What issues do pre-service teachers list as being controversial” deals with the level of controversiality pre-service teachers may perceive an issue to be from the list of thirty given issues from the FPTCIQ. (see Figure 1). The thirty issues are ranked on an ordinal scale with one being “not controversial” and three being “very controversial.” Therefore, a three digit ordinal ranking will serve as the measure for the controversiality of the thirty issues examines in social studies methods courses. Of the most controversial issues ranked by the respondents, gay/lesbian rights and abortion were considered the most controversial. Legalization of drugs was also considered to be an extremely controversial issue. Of the most controversial issues, three of the top four related to sex which, according to Knight (1972), is the most “taboo” topic to treat in schools. Interestingly, AIDS is not in the upper half of the thirty provided issues (AIDS is ranked number 15). It is possible that AIDS education in many schools has made the perception of the issue less controversial, even though it could be grouped in a “sex” or “sexually-related” category. The Americans with Disabilities Act was the issue perceived as the least controversial.
36
Figure 1 Controversiality of issues examined in social studies methods courses N=203 Abortion, gay/lesbian rights, creationism, legalization of drugs, and pornography were among the top five listed as the most controversial issue to be discussed in a social studies methods class (see Figure 2).
37
Figure 2 The top five issues considered the most controversial to discuss in a social studies methods classes N=203 A z-score was computed utilizing the top five controversial issues. The z score reflects how many standard deviations are above or below the population mean. By converting normally distributed scores into z scores, the probability of obtaining ranges of scores can be determined. The tabulation results indicated a z score for the following controversial issues: Abortion yielded a z score of 1.73, Creationism .85, Gay/Lesbian rights 2.26, Legalization of Drugs 1.28, and Pornography 1.24. Although creationism generated a z score of .85 significance, the overall z score indicated that it was only .52 away from the population mean score of .33 and 1.04 standard deviations away from the mean (1.895). The Gay/Lesbian Rights z score was of high significance. With a score of 2.26, it was well above the population mean. This suggests that pre-service teachers are not comfortable in the discussion of gay/lesbian rights. The potential reasons as to why the pre-service teacher feels uncomfortable with this controversial issue is that it may be deemed inappropriate or unrelated to the social studies content. Additionally, welfare reform had a z score of -2.18. This score was below the population mean. Could pre-service teachers feel that welfare reform is not an important issue for discussion?
38
Figure 3 Controversiality of issues examined in social studies methods classes overall N=203 Comparisons were made from what the pre-service teacher deemed a controversial issue and were willing to discuss in their social studies methods class to what issues the pre-service teachers were not willing to discuss in their social studies methods class (see Table 1). Table 1 Topics that should or should not be discussed in social studies methods courses N=203 Should be discussed Should not be Issue (%) discussed (%) Abortion 5.5 94.5 Affirmative Action 38.1 61.9 AIDS 24.5 75.5
Americans with Disabilities Act 44.6 55.4 Animal Rights 23.1 76.9 Censorship 30 70 Civil Rights 28 72 Creationism 8.3 91.7 Euthanasia 21.6 78.4
39
Table 1 continued
Should be discussed Should not be Issue (%) discussed (%) Feminist Ideology 19.5 80.5 Gay/Lesbian Rights 7.7 92.3 Genetic Engineering 81.2 18.8 Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing 13 87
Government/Media Surveillance 16.1 83.9 Gun Control 14.5 85.5 Health Care Reform 26.8 73.2 Homelessness 31 69 Illegal Immigration 92.5 7.5 Intelligent Design 20 80 Iraq Policy 21.7 78.3 Juvenile Crime 79.8 20.0 Legalization of Drugs 20.2 79.8
Marriage and Family Relations 15 85 Multiculturalism 28.8 71.2 Pornography 11.9 88.1 Sex Education Programs 32 68 Suicide 19.2 80.8 Tobacco Use 17.3 82.7 Veterans Medical Care 15.2 84.8 Welfare Reform 14.4 85.6
The findings in Table 1 relate directly to the second research question, “What issues do pre-service teachers feel should or should not be presented or discussed in social studies methods classes?” (see Table 1). The same thirty issues from the first figure were used as the basis for respondents to choose from these controversial issues that should or should not be discussed in
40
social studies methods courses. Utilizing a scale from one, being “not controversial”, to three, being “very controversial”, the overall population mean was determined at 27.38 with a standard deviation of 20.98. Of the respondents, 94.5% considered abortion to be highly controversial. Gay and lesbian rights (92.3%) were considered exceptionally controversial (see Figure 4). Creationism (91.7%), pornography (88.1%), and genocide/ethnic cleansing (87%) were also regarded as controversial for discussion in social studies methods courses (see Figure 3). Over 75% of the respondents considered the majority of these thirty issues listed as topics that should not be discussed in social studies methods classes. With a mean of 73% on all the corresponding issues, the pre-service teachers’ response indicated avoidance on the discussion of controversial issues in social studies methods classes despite the relative importance of the issue.
96%
94%
92%
90%
88%
86%
84%
82% Abortion Creationism Gay/Lesbian Genocide Pornography Rights
Figure 4 The top five controversial issues pre-service teachers believed should not be discussed or presented in social studies methods classes N=203
Interestingly, pre-service teachers’ selected four out of the five controversial issues that were previously mentioned in Figure 2. In addition, illegal immigration (93%) and genetic engineering (81%) were considered topics that should be discussed in a social studies methods class. Pre-service teachers were more willing to discuss issues such as illegal immigration, genetic engineering, and juvenile crime as opposed to abortion, creationism, gay/lesbian rights, pornography, and genocide/ethnic cleansing. The third research question in this study dealt with the pre-service teachers’ participation
41
in the discussion of controversial issues in social studies methods classes (see Figure 5). The data in Figure 5 suggest that 47% of pre-service teachers agree that participation in social studies methods classes on controversial issues is important. However, over 21% of the respondents disagree with the discussion of controversial issues in social studies methods classes. Additionally, 32% of the respondents indicated they basically agree that participation in the discussion of controversial should be implemented. Although this percentage can be grouped with the respondents that disagree, it could also be grouped with the respondents that agree with the use of controversial issues. This percentage, along with the 21% of the respondents that disagree equated to 53% of the pre-service teachers belief that participation in the discussion of controversial issues should not occur in social studies methods classes. And, if the percentage was added to the overall respondents that agree, 79% of pre-service teachers believe they should participate in the discussion of controversial issues in social studies methods classes. It is interesting to point out that if over 75% of the respondents from Table 1 believed that the majority of the controversial issues should not be discussed in a social studies methods class, then, why did 79% believe that participation in the discussion of controversial issues should occur in social studies methods classes? Moreover, if 53% indicated that participation in the discussion of controversial issues should not occur, then the 75% of respondents from Table 1 would agree that controversial issues are not to be implemented into social studies methods classes. This aversion to controversy serves as a barrier to enacting an issue rich discussion in the social studies methods class. Utilizing the percentage of pre-service teachers’ belief that participation in the discussion of controversial issues is important, it was essential to determine if the participation in the discussion of controversial issues relates to the amount of time (or lack of time) spent on the discussion of controversial issues in social studies methods classes.
42
Figure 5. Pre-service teachers should participate in the discussion of controversial issues in social studies methods classes N=203
The fourth research question deals with the variation of time spent by pre-service teachers in social studies methods courses on the discussion of controversial issues. In the FPTCIQ, six groupings of percentages of time were provided for respondents to indicate how much time they spend each month in the discussion of controversial issues (see Figure 6). Most of the respondents (44%) spent less than 15% of their social studies methods courses per month discussing controversial issues with pre-service teachers. In a study by Phillips (1997), 51.7% of the social studies teachers in the response rate indicated that they spent 25% or more of their classroom time discussing controversial issues. More than 55% reported in this study that they spent more than 15% of their classroom time in the discussion of controversial issues. Additionally, in Figure 5, 44.2% of the respondents discussed controversial issues less than 15% of total classroom time. However, if the time allotted in the discussion of controversial issues is tabulated, then the overall average of 75% of the pre-service teachers believe that time is being dedicated to the discussion of controversial issues yet, the pre-service teachers’ believe that there are specific issues that should not be discussed in social studies methods classes.
43
Figure 6 Time allotted to the discussion of controversial issues in social studies methods courses N=203 On a five point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, respondents were asked to indicate if exposure to controversial issues in social studies methods courses would enable them to potentially utilize controversial issues in their future social studies classroom. This relates directly to the fifth research question in this research study. An overwhelming 44% strongly agree that exposure to controversial issues in social studies methods classes would potentially lead to future discussions of controversial issues in their classroom (see Figure 7). 20% of the respondents indicated no opinion on the exposure to controversial issues in social studies methods courses would be indicative of utilization of controversial issues in their future classroom.
44
20% Strongly Agree Basically Agree 18% 21% No Opinion 44% Basically Disagree Strongly Disagree 15% 3%
Figure 7 Exposure to controversial issues in pre-service social studies methods courses enables pre-service teachers to discuss controversial issues with their future classroom
N=203 Over 59% of pre-service teachers’ in social studies methods classes agree that exposure to controversial issues enables the pre-service teacher to discuss controversial issues with their future classroom when they enter the teaching profession. Therefore, pre-service teachers’ have the belief that exposure to controversial issues in social studies methods classes is considered important in developing critical issues in a social studies classroom. More than 21% of the respondents indicated that they basically disagree or strongly disagree that exposure to controversial issues in pre-service social studies methods courses enabled the pre-service teacher to discuss controversial issues with their future classroom when they enter the teaching profession. The idea behind the sixth research question, “Would exposure to different strategies and methods in social studies methods classes on teaching controversial issues ensure that the pre- service teacher be more inclined to implement controversial issues into their future social studies classroom?” was an investigation into whether a pattern could be uncovered linking pre-service teachers’ subjection, or lack thereof, to controversial issues in their social studies methods classes and their attitudes toward the treatment of controversial issues in their future classrooms. Respondents were asked on a five point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” if exposure to the different strategies and methodologies would be indicative of
45
utilization of controversial issues in their future social studies classroom. Over 54% of the respondents indicated that pre-service teachers’ should be exposed to different strategies and methods in social studies methods courses on teaching controversial issues (see Figure 8). In preparing the pre-service teacher in social studies methods courses on how to teach controversial issues, the professor teaching in the social studies methods class should utilize a plethora of strategies and methods. However, there is not any indication to determine if pre- service teachers will utilize these methods that they are taught in social studies methods classes on controversial issues with their future classroom. According to Pellegrino (2010), “Social studies practitioners may subscribe to teaching social issues in the abstract, but seem reluctant to do so in their classrooms without a logical and effectual framework to involve students on issue analysis.” Incorporating strategies and methods of teaching controversial issues into pre-service teacher social studies methods classes provides teacher candidates with opportunities not only to gain effective civic competence but also to develop skills and experience in their teaching of controversial issues.
10%
32% Strongly Agree 14% Basically Agree No Opinion Basically Disagree
22% Strongly Disagree
22%
Figure 8. Strategies and methods of teaching controversial issues should be taught to pre-service teachers' in social studies methods courses N=203 issues in the abstract, but seem reluctant to do so in their classrooms without a logical and effectual framework to involve students on issue analysis.” Incorporating strategies and
46
methods of teaching controversial issues into pre-service teacher social studies methods classes provides teacher candidates with opportunities not only to gain effective civic competence but also to develop skills and experience in their teaching of controversial issues. Interestingly, 22% of the respondents indicated “no opinion” while 24% disagreed with the teaching of strategies and methods on controversial issues would lead to future discussions and/or implementation of controversial issues in the pre-service teachers future social studies classroom. Ultimately, it was conceived that the teaching of different strategies and methodologies on controversial issues to pre-service teachers in social studies methods classes would provide the pre-service teacher with the tools to discuss controversial issues with their future classroom as they enter the teaching profession. Therefore, the pre-service teacher appeared to be willing to discuss controversial issues if taught the various strategies and methods in the teaching of controversial issues prior to implementing controversial issues into their future classroom. The pedagogical value of the controversial issue is essential in training pre-service teachers’ (see Figure 9). This relates to the seventh research question in this study, should pre- service teachers’ be trained in the pedagogical value of controversial issues in social studies methods classes. As soon as the pre-service teacher has grasped the concept and importance behind the issue, the pre-service teacher can add credence to their future lessons in their social studies classrooms. The respondents were asked to rank from a scale of one, being “strongly disagree”, to five, being “strongly agree” as to their opinion on the pedagogical value of the various types of controversial issues. Only 32% of the respondents indicated that the pedagogical value of the controversial issue is important in the training of pre-service teachers in the understanding of controversial issues. Also, 32% of the respondents indicated that they had no opinion on the pedagogical value of the various types of controversial issues. Furthermore, 26% indicated that pre-service teachers should not be trained in the pedagogical value of controversial issues. And, over 42% of the respondents resolved that they basically agree or strongly agree that social studies methods classes should train pre-service teachers’ in the pedagogical value of the various types of controversial issues. Amazingly, the respondents that indicated no opinion along with basically disagree and strongly disagree received a combined total of 57% that either do not want to be 47
trained or are unsure of the training on determining if the pedagogical value of the controversial issue is important.
Figure 9 Pre-service teachers’ should be trained in the pedagogical value of controversial issues in social studies methods classes N=203
Demographic variables such as gender, religious affiliation, ethnicity, and university, were utilized to determine if these variables had an effect on this attitudinal study. The demographic components of this study relates directly to the eighth research question on the examination of these variables to their attitude toward the use of controversial issues. Female respondents comprised of 58% of this study and male respondents encompassed 42%. On a scale from one (being least controversial) to 3 (being very controversial), the female respondents indicated that nearly all thirty issues from the FPTCIQ were more controversial than male respondents (see Table 2). More specifically, the data indicated from the female respondents specified that of the thirty issues from the FPTCIQ, ten issues were considered more controversial than the male respondents – abortion, euthanasia, genocide, affirmative action, civil rights, creationism, intelligent design, genetic engineering, censorship, and gun control (see
48
Table 2 Mean controversality by gender N=203 Issue Total for Males Total for Females Abortion 2.56 2.65 Affirmative Action 1.97 2.15 AIDS 1.69 1.96 Americans with Disabilities Act 1.25 1.09 Animal Rights 1.49 1.3 Censorship 1.75 1.99 Civil Rights 1.79 2 Creationism 2.05 2.5 Euthanasia 2.34 2.12 Feminist Ideology 2.08 1.37 Gay/Lesbian Rights 2.68 2.64 Genetic Engineering 1.83 2.04 Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing 1.55 2.24 Government/Media Surveillance 1.69 1.84 Gun Control 1.8 2.19 Health Care Reform 1.4 1.79 Homelessness 1.44 1.8 Illegal Immigration 1.78 1.99 Intelligent Design 1.95 2.05 Iraq Policy 1.5 1.88 Juvenile Crime 1.37 1.85 Legalization of Drugs 2.55 2.44 Marriage and Family Relations 1.28 1.14 Multiculturalism 1.35 1.21 Pornography 2.55 2.17 Issue Total for Males Total for Females
49
Sex Education Programs 1.53 1.25 Suicide 1.71 1.94 Tobacco Use 1.64 1.67 Veterans Health Care 1.38 1.91 Welfare Reform 1.21 1.84
Figure 10). Conceivably, male pre-service teachers felt that some issues were not as controversial as the female pre-service teachers (see Figure 10).
Figure 10 Female respondents attitude towards controversial issues N=203 Female respondents did not differ far from the mean of 1.90 on issues such as civil rights, illegal immigration, and censorship. They had .09 above the standard deviation. Other groupings such as the Iraq policy, juvenile crimes, government and media surveillance revealed a -.10 below the standard deviation. In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act were perceived as the least controversial scoring a -.89 below the standard deviation. Both the male and female respondents were less willing to discuss gay/lesbian rights and abortion. 88% of female respondents considered gay/lesbian rights and abortion extremely 50
controversial and only 89% of male respondents found gay/lesbian rights to be controversial. Abortion was considered controversial by 89% of the female respondents however; the male respondents reported 85%. The least controversial issue for male respondents was welfare reform (less than 5%) and for female respondents was the American with Disabilities Act (less than 5%) (see Figure 11).
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 AIDS Suicide Abortion Iraq Policy Civil RightsCivil Euthanasia Censorship Creationism Gun Control Gun Tobacco Use Tobacco Pornography Animal Rights Juvenile Crime Welfare Reform Homelessnesses Multiculturalism Intelligent Design Feminist Idealogy Affirmative Action Illegal Immigration Gay/Lesbian Rights Health Care Reform Genetic Engineering Legalization of Drugs Sex EducationSex Programs Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing Marriage and Family Relations Americans with Disabilities Act Government/Media Surveillance
Figure 11 Male respondents attitude towards controversial issues N=203 The male respondents and the female respondents opinion on controversial issues varies. In some areas, both male and female respondents are similar in their attitude towards the use of controversial issue such as abortion, gay/lesbian rights, legalization of drugs, and tobacco use. Other issues, such as creationism, genocide/ethnic cleansing, juvenile crime, pornography, veterans’ health care, and welfare reform, indicate significant difference in the ranking between male and female respondents. Interestingly, 85% of male respondents considered pornography more controversial than female respondents and 75% of female respondents considered genocide/ethnic cleansing more controversial than males
51
Figure 12 Male respondents z score value on controversial issues N=203 The attitude towards the examination of controversial issues among male and female respondents in this research indicated that some issues were considered more controversial than others and male respondents appeared to be more inclined to discuss some of the controversial issues. As Subedi (2008) posits, “teachers may consider conversations on race, sexuality, religion, and ethnicity to be too controversial to be openly discussed in classrooms, particularly if such topics have been repeatedly avoided in schools.” Ultimately, implementing controversial issues in a social studies classroom depends on the pre-service teachers’ belief and knowledge on the issue. The second demographic variable utilized in this study was religion (see Table 3). Respondents indicated their religious affiliation as 23% Catholic, 54% Protestant, 16% other, 5.42% Moslem, and 1.48% Jewish. Table 3 Mean controversiality by religion N=203 Issue Protestant Catholic Moslem Jewish Other Abortion 2.49 2.51 2.5 2.48 2.4 Issue Protestant Catholic Moslem Jewish Other Affirmative Action 2.12 2.01 1.89 1.87 1.79
52
AIDS 1.78 1.75 1.95 1.88 1.75 Americans with Disabilities Act 1.01 1.12 1.16 1.15 1.08 Animal Rights 1.67 1.69 1.68 1.66 1.68 Censorship 1.84 1.86 1.95 1.98 1.87 Civil Rights 1.99 1.98 1.84 1.88 1.72 Creationism 1.87 1.72 1.99 2.11 2.95 Euthanasia 2.2 2.18 2.01 2.17 1.96 Feminist Ideology 1.58 1.69 1.98 1.79 1.55 Gay/Lesbian Rights 2.82 2.86 2.89 2.78 2.11 Genetic Engineering 2.11 2.05 2.09 1.98 1.88 Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing 2.17 2.2 2.08 2.1 1.98 Government/Media Surveillance 1.82 1.84 2.11 2.09 1.72 Gun Control 1.72 1.99 2.36 2.24 2.08 Health Care Reform 1.75 1.71 1.66 1.72 1.58 Homelessness 1.72 1.71 1.73 1.68 1.69 Illegal Immigration 1.85 1.86 2.03 1.99 2 Intelligent Design 1.95 1.99 2.1 1.98 2.28 Iraq Policy 2.01 1.91 1.65 1.85 1.68 Juvenile Crime 1.85 1.71 1.85 1.82 1.79 Legalization of Drugs 2.38 2.48 2.45 2.38 1.99 Marriage and Family Relations 1.11 1.08 1.25 1.1 1.17 Multiculturalism 1.69 1.67 1.65 1.7 1.63 Pornography 2.32 2.36 2.5 2.31 2.05 Sex Education Programs 1.64 1.63 2.1 1.72 1.58 Suicide 1.95 2.1 1.94 1.86 1.72 Tobacco Use 1.58 1.62 1.56 1.66 1.61 Veterans Health Care 1.85 1.9 1.81 1.77 1.75 Welfare Reform 1.76 1.89 1.91 1.75 1.84
The majority of pre-service teachers’ religious affiliation was Protestant with a mean
53
score of 1.89. Additionally, Catholics had a mean score of 1.90, Moslem 1.96, Jewish 1.92, and other religious affiliations 1.83 on their attitude towards controversial issues. Utilizing an ordinal scale from one (being least controversial) to three (being most controversial). Respondents were asked to indicate how their denomination played a role in determining what issues were considered controversial.
Figure 13 Mean controversiality of all religions N=203 According to the data collected, abortion was indicated as one of the most controversial issues to discuss in social studies methods classes. Of the five groups, 84% of Catholics felt that abortion was the most controversial of an issue for discussion. With a mean of 1.90 on all religious groups, each group indicated a .60 above the standard deviation. The respondents who did not indicate a religious affiliation selected creationism as the most controversial issue. An overwhelming 98% signified that creationism is very controversial. Creationism is not one of the top four issues selected by the other denominations. In fact, creationism was considered a controversial topic for the Jewish (70%) and Moslem (66%) faiths however, each ranked below the top four issues. Even intelligent design was ranked low according to the data with the Protestants, Catholics, Moslems, and Jewish (see Figure 11).
54
Figure 14 Top four issues considered controversial by Protestants, Catholics and Jewish N=203 Additionally, Moslems choose the same top four issues but considered pornography and abortion to some extent more controversial than legalization of drugs (see Figure 15). Marriage and family relations, Americans with Disabilities Act, homelessness, and juvenile crime were .50 below the standard deviation. In addition, euthanasia, gay/lesbian rights, and pornography were considered highly controversial among all religious groups. The legalization of drugs was considered controversial among the Protestants (79%), Catholics (83%), Moslems (82%), and Jewish (79%) faiths. Again, the top four issues that were selected as the most controversial can be grouped under a “sex” or “sexually related” category and considered irrelevant for discussion in social studies methods classes based on the respondents religious belief.
55
Figure 15 Top four issues considered controversial by Moslems N=203 The importance of the religious variable was to determine if any significance was observed between each of the denominations and their attitude towards the use of controversial issues. Though little significance was observed between three of the issues, abortion, legalization of drugs, and pornography among all of the religious groups, gay/lesbian rights revealed an increase of .99 above the standard deviation and a 10% increase from the other issues observed among Moslems. The other denominations had a .33 difference between abortion and gay/lesbian rights besides the non-denominational group (see Figure 16). This group indicated gay/lesbian rights as .20 above the standard deviation.
56
3 2.95 2.5 2.4 2 2.28 2.11
1.5
1
0.5
0 Creationism Abortion Intelligent Design Gay/Lesbian Rights
Figure 16 Top four issues considered controversial by Other respondents N=203 It is important to note that only 16% of the respondents indicated their religion as “other” or nondenominational. Subsequently, with 84% of the total population in a specific religious category that identified the same issues as being controversial, a distinction between religious affiliation and attitudes towards issues classified as controversial was ascertained. Ethnicity is the third demographic variable observed in this study. Of the 203 respondents, 51% were Caucasian, 27% were African American, 12% Latino (Hispanic), 6% Asian, 2% Native American, and 2.5% other (see Table 4). Aspects of a teachers’ personal identity such as race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, etc. are important as the teacher tries to relate to students and instill in them an interest in a field. Good teachers not only convey a body of knowledge to their students, but they are also aware of how to convey that knowledge by connecting their own experience with their students’ experience of the world. Teachers should be aware of the comfort level they have in discussing controversial issues before they enter a classroom. It is crucial to understand how pre-service teachers’ feel about controversial issues and what pre-service teacher’s would say in a future classroom where some students’ may not understand their particular position. If a controversial topic of discussion arises in the class, students will expect the teacher to be able to explain his or her perspective. Pre-service teachers’ in social studies methods classes should address controversial issues that also affect their own
57
diversity. This will enable the pre-service teacher to become better prepared for their future classroom. As noted by Dewhurst (1992): It is not difficult to understand why the inclusion of such topics [controversial] in the curriculum has at times been viewed with considerable suspicion, given that teachers entering into such areas may be tempted to impose their own views of what are in fact highly contentious and publicly debatable matters. But to many it has seemed that these are aspects of social life which students should know something about if they are adequately to handle the diversity of values, conflicting ideologies and opposing moral standpoints which they are liable to confront before and after leaving school. This variable did not produce any important significance except in determining the breakdown of each respondent’s ethnic background in social studies methods classes. However, further study should be conducted utilizing more regions in Florida (such as the Miami area) which should provide a stronger ethnic demographic variable. Table 4 Ethnic background N=203 African- Native American Asian Caucasian Latino American Other 54 12 104 24 4 5 26.60% 5.91% 51.23% 11.82% 1.97% 2.46%
The University of West Florida, the University of North Florida, the Florida State University, and the University of Central Florida participated in this study to help with the fourth demographic variable, university. For the purpose of this study, both the University of Central Florida and the Florida State University will be categorized under the title “Central and South Florida” in Table 5. The regional demographic variable focused on the pre-service teachers’ attitude towards the use of controversial issues in social studies methods classes based on the university attended. Although political affiliation was not a factor in this attitudinal study in determining the pre- service teachers’ attitude towards the use of controversial issues, the history of political voting in the various regions of Florida could be beneficial in determining the level of comfort for the pre-
58
service teacher in the use of controversial issues in their future classrooms. Ironically, studies by Lee Ehman in 1966 and 1977 reveal that focusing course content on controversial topics positively affects students' attitudes toward citizen duty, political participation, and political efficacy as well as their political trust, social integration, and political interest. (Ehman, 1977) With a mean of 1.91, gay/lesbian rights, abortion, legalization of drugs, pornography, and creationism ranked as the highest among the controversial issues presented on the FPTCIQ. 92% of the University of West Florida (UWF) respondents considered gay/lesbian rights controversial having a .89 above the standard deviation. 90% of respondents from the University of North Florida (UNF) and 85% of the respondents from central and south Florida indicated gay/lesbian rights as highly controversial. Abortion ranked second among the controversial issues presented in the FPTCIQ. 84% of the respondents from West Florida also indicated abortion as controversial. In addition, 83% of the respondents from North Florida and 82% of respondents from Central and South Florida indicated that abortion was an issue that should not be discussed in social studies methods classes. Religious affiliation and ethnicity may play a role in these regional differences among the various controversial issues listed (see Table 5). Moreover, the results from this study do not indicate where the respondents originated from and whether or not there was a relationship between the origins of birth to the location of the university. Table 5 Mean controversiality by region N=203 Issue West Florida North Florida Central/South Florida Abortion 2.53 2.49 2.47 Affirmative Action 2.14 2.09 2.06 AIDS 1.87 1.86 1.85 Americans with Disabilities Act 1.13 1.16 1.15 Animal Rights 1.66 1.69 1.67 Censorship 1.84 1.89 1.92 Civil Rights 1.99 1.97 1.98 Creationism 2.20 2.18 2.55
59
Issue West Florida North Florida Central/South Florida Euthanasia 1.95 2.12 Feminist Ideology 1.79 1.71 1.68 Gay/Lesbian Rights 2.76 2.69 2.56 Genetic Engineering 2.12 1.95 1.98 Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing 2.14 2.08 2.11 Government/Media Surveillance 1.85 1.87 1.78 Gun Control 1.99 2.11 2.15 Health Care Reform 1.72 1.73 1.64 Homelessness 1.7 1.75 1.72 Illegal Immigration 1.96 1.94 1.95 Intelligent Design 2.01 2.09 2.11 Iraq Policy 1.81 1.86 1.83 Juvenile Crime 1.84 1.76 1.87 Legalization of Drugs 2.47 2.31 2.28 Marriage and Family Relations 1.12 1.16 1.18 Multiculturalism 1.7 1.71 1.65 Pornography 2.42 2.26 2.28 Sex Education Programs 1.71 1.67 1.68 Suicide 2.1 1.83 1.72 Tobacco Use 1.67 1.68 1.65 Veterans Health Care 1.9 1.71 1.81 Welfare Reform 1.79 1.82 1.74
The legalization of drugs and pornography issues were considered controversial among all three regions. It appears that pornography was an issue most pre-service teachers’ would not consider for discussion in a social studies methods class regardless of the location in which they reside. The pre-service teacher may believe that pornography is an issue not pertinent to the
60
subject matter (see Figure 18).
Figure 17 Mean controversiality of all regions observed N=203 Central and South Florida considered creationism (85%) a controversial issue. Only 73% of West Florida respondents considered creationism controversial. The potential reason for this percentage for West Florida could be related to the pre-service teachers’ religion and/or ethnicity.
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 WFLA NFLA CSFLA Gay/Lesbian Rights 2.76 2.69 2.56 Abortion 2.53 2.49 2.47 Legalization of Drugs 2.47 2.31 2.28 Pornography 2.42 2.26 2.28
61
Figure 18 Top four issues considered controversial by university N=203 The university that showed some significance in the difference on the top four issues was the University of North Florida. With a 1.90 mean, a .20 difference between gay/lesbian rights and abortion revealed little importance. In addition, a .33 difference in the mean was determined between gay/lesbian rights and pornography. Central and South Florida universities had a mean of 1.89 and indicated a .28 difference between gay/lesbian rights and pornography. West Florida, with a mean of 1.93 revealed the greatest difference between gay/lesbian rights and abortion at .23. These distinctions reveal little to no significance at this point. The least controversial issue considered from the FPTCIQ for Central and South Florida was the American with Disabilities Act. Marriage and family relations were considered the least controversial among West and North Florida. The respondents in Central and South Florida believe that the American with Disabilities Act was not an important issue for discussion ranking it last compared to the thirty issues from the FPTCIQ. The importance of the university that the pre-service teacher attended did not provide enough information in determining if the actual location was a condition on their attitude towards controversial issues.
62
CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary It is evident that there has been a dearth of research on teachers’ attitudes towards the study of controversial issues in the social studies literature. If the role of the pre-service teacher is to prepare students for the challenges that they will face in this new millennium, then the issues that arise from these challenges must be confronted in the classroom. The social studies profession generally agrees that in order to best achieve its goals, the examination of controversial issues is vital. However, a majority of pre-service teachers report that they are not integrating controversial issues into their pedagogy. The findings in this study clearly articulate the factors involved in the lack of controversial issues examination in Florida social studies methods classes. These findings will inevitably further the research in the area of professor’s attitudes towards the use of controversial issues in the social studies methods classes. The purpose of this attitudinal study was to investigate the role of the pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards the use of controversial issues in their future classroom. Eight research questions established the parameters for the investigation of pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward the study of controversial issues through the utilization of a survey instrument, the Florida Pre-Service Teachers’ Controversial Issues Questionnaire (FPTCIQ). The FPTCIQ was mailed to four separate universities to professors who teach pre-service teachers in social studies methods courses. 203 respondents returned the FPTCIQ for a 47% response rate. After findings from the overall response group (n=203) were reported, statistical measurement was utilized to cross-section the research questions with the demographic characteristics comprising all participants of this study. In essence, different groups were investigated and compared to the overall response group in order to determine if any significant findings were relevant. Respondents who were more willing to discuss the thirty issues from the FPTCIQ in their future classroom discussed controversial issues more than 15% of their pre-collegiate instructional time. These findings indicate that pre-service teachers’ are more likely to discuss controversial issues if subjected to them in their pre-collegiate training. Additionally, respondents may have personal feelings regarding an issue and choose not to discuss it despite time allotted in the social studies methods class for discussion on 63
controversial issues. Also, the respondent may believe that the content of the issue is not pertinent to the subject matter. These finding indicate that there could be a link between exposure to controversial issues in social studies methods classes and the training and preparedness for reasons a pre-service teacher may have in not discussing controversial issues. Exposure to controversial issues in pre- service methods classes provides the pre-service teacher with the opportunity to be more willing to discuss controversial issues with their future classroom. Perhaps pre-service teachers provide different answers for impediments to examining controversial issues when confronted with different research methods and training. Moreover, potential reasons may be personal in nature or the respondent was comfortable in their teaching of controversial issues that the different strategies may not apply to their style of teaching. Furthermore, the respondents may potentially lack the knowledge, training or preparedness in teaching controversial issues and therefore choose not to discuss the issues at all. Interestingly, respondents considered illegal immigration, genetic engineering, and the Americans with Disabilities Act issues that should be discussed in social studies methods classes. The rationale for this finding could be that the respondents are more aware of these issues because of the news media and current events. Moreover, respondents may feel more comfortable in presenting issues they are interested in and are more familiar with. Internal factors such as religious affiliation and ethnicity may play a role in the decision to not discuss controversial issues. Also, pre-service teachers may view specific issues as too sensitive for discussion among students. Religious backgrounds of the pre-service teacher may affect their attitude towards the use of controversial issues. One's religious, moral, and cultural values often influence the pre- service teachers' perspectives in dealing with controversial issues in the classroom. Religious beliefs can influence the pre-service teacher not to discuss controversial issues such as abortion, gay/lesbian rights, or even creationism. This in no way denies the importance of pre-service teachers’ attending to moral and spiritual issues in all subjects; but it affirms that there should be a place where controversial issues are the main focus of study. Pre-service teachers’ should include controversial issues in an open, inquiring study where the issue examined extends the students' horizons, challenging them to identify and evaluate arguments and evidence. The female and male respondents from this study may feel that some controversial issues 64
are not appropriate for the classroom and are pressured by external factors such as administrative pressures or community pressures that may prevent them from utilizing controversial issues in their classroom. Additionally, other reasons for this factor could relate to their ethnic and religious background. Additional data is necessary to determine if the pre-service teachers’ ethnicity, religion, and location of the university is a determining factor in the utilization of controversial issues. Teaching controversial issues in social studies methods courses enables pre-service teachers’ to develop an understanding in how to examine controversial issues and how to introduce them to their future classroom. However, even though some controversial issues are important to examine and social studies methods classes train the pre-service teacher with detailed description in regards to how to teach an issue, many pre-service teachers’ will still be hesitant to incorporate controversial issues into their classroom because of either internal (religious, ethnic, or moral) or external (administration, community, and parental) reasons. Today's society has gradually changed the rules about what is expected of the pre-service teacher in their pre-collegiate schooling. It has become more evident that social studies methods classes have started reflecting the profound changes that were occurring in society through the use of controversial issues. Sex education, AIDS education, etc. were introduced as part of the community's response to immediate problems. Some argue that the demands teacher have been too many and inappropriate, claiming that the primary role of education has been, and should always be, the study of traditional subjects and that it should not be influenced or undermined by calls to take up new interests or fads. However, it is this researcher’s belief that if pre-service teachers’ are introduced to controversial issue in their social studies methods course, they will be more inclined to introduce these issues to their future classroom. Moreover, the lack of subjection to controversial issues in pre-collegiate studies may cause the pre-service teacher to feel more pressured from sanctioning groups than teachers who were subjected to controversial issues in their elementary and secondary schooling. Question 63 from the FPTCIQ asked respondents if there should be discussions on controversial issues in social studies methods courses. Close to 79% believe that controversial issues should be discussed in social studies methods courses and these issues are replete in the social studies literature yet pre-service teachers are not using issues study as a primary pedagogy. This finding reveals evidence for further research. 65
Recommendations This investigation has been essentially exploratory and descriptive in nature. Research on pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards the use of controversial issues has been lacking, but even more lacking is research on the professors’ in social studies methods courses attitudes towards the use of controversial issues. If controversial issues are an integral part of the social studies curriculum, then the development and advocacy of critical thinking tests for the pre- service teacher is essential. With current trends leaning towards open-ended discussions in the classroom, an increase in pre-service teacher subjection to controversial issues would be indispensable to the study of controversial issues in social studies methods courses. More regional applications of pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward the study of controversial issues through survey research would be helpful. The research undertaken by Phillips (1997) which studies Florida teachers is nearly fifteen years old. Massiales et. al. (1970) studied Michigan teachers over two decades ago and Engel’s (1993) Illinois study was relatively current, but, again, it dealt with teachers in the upper Midwest. Regional studies in the northeastern and far west states would be helpful for a national compilation of studies on pre- service teacher attitudes towards the use of controversial issues. The findings of this study could be utilized by department heads of colleges and universities, professors who teach social studies methods classes, and the pre-service teacher in social studies methods classes. Colleges of Education can reinforce their pre-service teacher training programs with an emphasis on controversial issues. The training of pre-service teachers starts with institutions of higher learning, A renewed emphasis on controversial issues instruction for pre-service teacher training would potentially provide a better chance for controversial issues to be discussed in secondary social studies classrooms. Studies observing professors in social studies methods classes may provide enhanced insight on implementing new programs integrated with the study of controversial issues. Study designs with experimental and control groups can be undertaken. Pre-service teachers can be tested on critical thinking tests in a “pre-test, post test” design to determine the benefits (or lack thereof) of controversial issues discussion. Ultimately, the decision to utilize controversial issues in the classroom is the pre-service teacher’s. Curricular decisions predominantly start and end with them. To alleviate some of the concerns from external sources, pre-service teachers must articulate their desire to utilize 66
controversial issues by establishing rapport with their future administration, the school board, the parents, and, overall, the community. In Conclusion It is this researchers belief that if social studies methods classes implement controversial issues to pre-service teachers’, the potential for the examination of issues will increase with their future social studies classroom. This research was an important study if we are to educate and build strong civic minded students. Examining controversial issues and teaching the different strategies of implementing these issues will be beneficial to pre-service teachers’. The research problems to be examined will potentially provide an understanding as to how pre-service teachers in social studies methods classes feel towards controversial issues in general and, will pre-service teachers’ utilize controversial issues in their classrooms if taught the different methods and strategies. Further research should be in the examination of social studies methods class’s educators and their beliefs surrounding the use of controversial issues. These investigations should ultimately provide an understanding in the attitudes of pre-service teachers in social studies methods classes towards the use of controversial issues. The study of controversial issues in our nation’s social studies methods classes was imperative if the goal of education is to produce a citizenry that can critically think and make changes that students will have to make decisions about. Discussing controversial issues enables the potential for such choices to be discussed. Hahn (1991) wrote, “the rationale for including controversial issues in social studies instruction rests on the necessity of preparing citizens to participate in the democratic decision-making processes within a pluralistic society.” Those words still ring true today. The study of controversial issues is a valuable part of the education to prepare pre-service teachers to meet the challenges they will face in this new millennium.
67
APPENDIX A
FLORIDA PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE
68
Major______
FLORIDA PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE
In terms of social studies methods classes, how would you rank the following issues presented on a scale of: (1) not controversial, (2) mildly controversial or (3) very controversial. Please circle the number pertaining to each issue:
1. Abortion 1 2 3 16. Legalization of Drugs 1 2 3 2. Affirmative Action 1 2 3 17. Multiculturalism 1 2 3 3. AIDS 1 2 3 18. Pornography 1 2 3 4. Animal Rights 1 2 3 19. Suicide 1 2 3 5. Censorship 1 2 3 20. Tobacco Use 1 2 3 6. Creationism 1 2 3 21. Welfare Reform 1 2 3 7. Euthanasia 1 2 3 22. Intelligent Design 1 2 3 8. Feminist Ideology 1 2 3 23. Iraq Policy 1 2 3 9. Gay/Lesbian Rights 1 2 3 24. Veterans Medical Care 1 2 3 10. Genetic Engineering 1 2 3 25. Sex Education Programs 1 2 3 11. Gun Control 1 2 3 26. Illegal Immigration 1 2 3 12. Health Care Reform 1 2 3 27. Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing 1 2 3 13. Homelessness 1 2 3 28. Marriage and Family Relations 1 2 3 14. Civil Rights 1 2 3 29. Americans with Disabilities Act 1 2 3 15. Juvenile Crime 1 2 3 30. Government/Media Surveillance 1 2 3
31. Please circle the amount of time in social studies methods courses you consider appropriate to be spent discussing controversial issues.
A. 0-5% of class time D. 15-25% B. 5-10% E. 25-50% C. 10-15% F. 50-100%
Perhaps there are issues which you feel should not be presented or discussed at all in social studies methods courses. From the following list, please circle (A) for those items that should not be discussed and (B) for those items that should be discussed:
69
32. Abortion A B 47. Legalization of Drugs A B 33. Affirmative Action A B 48. Multiculturalism A B 34. AIDS A B 49. Pornography A B 35. Animal Rights A B 50. Suicide A B 36. Censorship A B 51. Tobacco Use A B 37. Creationism A B 52. Welfare Reform A B 38. Euthanasia A B 53.Intelligent Design A B 39. Feminist Ideology A B 54. Iraq Policy A B 40. Gay/Lesbian Rights A B 55. Veterans Medical Care A B 41. Genetic Engineering A B 56. Sex Education Programs A B 42. Gun Control A B 57. Illegal Immigration A B 43. Health Care Reform A B 58. Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing A B 44. Homelessness A B 59. Marriage and Family Relations A B 45. Civil Rights A B 60. Americans with Disabilities Act A B 46. Juvenile Crime A B 61. Government/Media Surveillance A B
62. Other that the above items, please list any other issues that you would feel are inappropriate for social studies methods classroom discussion: ______
I would appreciate your opinion as a pre-service teacher taking social studies methods courses. As you read the following statements please circle the opinion that comes closest to expressing your belief. (A) Strongly Agree ; (B) Basically Agree; (C) No Opinion; (D) Basically Disagree; (E) Strongly Disagree
63. Pre-Service teachers should participate in discussion issues in social studies methods courses. A B C D E
64. Strategies and methods of teaching controversial issues should be taught to pre-service teachers in social studies methods courses. A B C D E
65. Social studies methods courses should train the pre-service teacher in pedagogical value of the various types of controversial issues.
70
A B C D E
66. Exposure to controversial issues in pre-service social studies methods courses enables pre-service teachers to discuss controversial issues with their future classroom when they enter the teaching profession. A B C D E
For the purposes of my research I would like you to answer just a few items about yourself.
67. Gender: A, Female B. Male
68. Please indicate what religious group you are affiliate with: A. Catholic B. Moslem C. Jewish D. Protestant E. Other______
69. Please circle your ethnic background: A. African American B. Asian C. Caucasian D. Latino E. Native American F. Other______
70. In what region do you attend the college/university? A. North West B. North East C. Central D. South West E. South East
71
APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT LETTER
72
73
APPENDIX C PERMISSION LETTER FROM DR. JOHN PHILLIPS
74
75
APPENDIX D HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER
76
Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742
APPROVAL MEMORANDUM Date: 4/16/2010 To: Address: Dept.: MIDDLE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research Florida Pre-Service Teachers' Controversial Issues Questionnaire
The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and two members of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per 45 CFR § 46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process.
The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.
If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects.
If the project has not been completed by 4/14/2011 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.
You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.
By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects 77
involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446.
Cc: Toni Kirkwood-Tucker, Chair HSC No. 2009.1926
78
APPENDIX E FLORIDA TEACHERS’ CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE
79
80
81
82
BIBLIOGRAPHY ACLU wins settlement for New Mexico teachers punished for posting anti-war materials. (2003, November 14). Retrieved March 12, 2004, from http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11202prs20031114.html
ACLU of Florida disappointed by Miami-Dade school board’s vote to ban book on Cuba. (2006, June 14). Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http:// www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorship/25976prs20060614.html
Academic Freedom. (n.d.). Retrieved April 7, 2005, from http://www.ncac.org/action_issues/Academic_Freedom.cfm
Adler, S. (2000). Social studies education: Preparation of teachers. Retrieved May 2004, from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2433/Social-Studies-Education.html
Adler, S. (2008). The education of social studies teachers. In L.S. Levstik & C.A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research is social studies education (pp. 329-351). New York: Routledge.
Allen, S. (2006, September 28). Panel to address academic freedom. Columbian Missourian. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2006/09/28/panel-to-address-academic- freedom/
Adler v. Board of Education of New York, 342 U.S. 485 (1952).
Altoff, P. (2007, January/February). Building the relationships that matter. Social Education, 71 (1), 4-6.
Babbi, E. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Berube, M. (2006, September 17). The academic blues. The New York Times. Retrieved January 6, 2008), from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/magazine/17wwln_lede.html?ex=1316145600&en=10 fed6edad38dc04&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Bishop v. Aranov, 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
Bohan, C.H., & Davis, O.L.,Jr. (1998). Historical constructions: How social studies student teachers’ historical thinking is reflected in their writing of history. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(2), 173-197.
Books. (n.d.). Retrieved April 7, 2005, from http://www.ncac.org/action_issues/Books.cfm 83
Cohen, P. (2007, October 4). Howl in an era that fears indecency. The New York Times. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/books/04howl.html
Conklin, H.G. (2010). Preparing for the educational black hole? Teachers’ learning in two Pathways into middle school social studies teaching. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38(1), 48-79.
Cook, K.K. (1984). Controversial issues: Concerns for policy makers. Boulder, CO: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED253465).
Critical thinking skills and teacher education. (1988). Washington D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED297003).
Dana, N.F. (1996). An issues-centered teacher education. In R.W. Evans & D.W. Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 299-305). Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
Dewhurst, D.W. (1992). The teaching of controversial issues. Journal of Philosophy of Education, (26)2, pp. 153-163.
Doppen, F. (2007). Influence of a teacher preparation program on preservice social studies teachers’ beliefs: A case study. Journal of Social Studies Research. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3823/is_200704/ai_n19430389
Durbin, K. (2005, Spring). Books under fire. Teaching Tolerance, 47-51.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).
Engle, S. H. (1949). Controversial issues in world history classes. In E. West (Ed.), Improving the teaching of world history, twentieth yearbook. Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
Engle, S.H. (1960). Decision-making: The heart of social studies instruction. Social Education, 24 (2), 301-304, 306.
Engle, S.H., & Ochoa, A.S. (1988). Education for democratic citizenship: Decision making in social studies. New York: Teachers College Press.
Engle, S. H. (1989). Whatever happened to the Social Studies? The International Journal of Social Education, 4(1), 42-51.
Evans, R.W., & Brodkey, J. (1996). An issues-centered curriculum for high school social studies. In R.W. Evans & D.W. Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 254-264). Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
84
Evans, R.W., Newmann, F.M., & Saxe, D. W. (1996). Defining issues-centered education. In R.W. Evans & D.W. Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 2-5). Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
Evans, R.W., & Saxe, W.S. (1998). Issues-centered education misread: A response to Grant and Tzetzo. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(2), 264-268.
Evans, R.W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? New York: Teachers College Press.
Feely, T.,Jr. (1976). Critical thinking: Toward a definition, paradigm and research agenda. Theory and Research in Social Education, 4(1), 1-19.
Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., & Kelley, C. (1994). Teachers and the law (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Addison Wesley-Longman.
Gardner, C. (2005, April 5). Censorship in the classroom. The Oracle: University of S. Florida. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://media.www.usforacle.com/media/storage/paper880/news/2005/04/05/News/Censorshi p.In.The.Classroom-1673252.shtml
Gerwin, D., Visone, F. (2006). The freedom to teach: Contrasting history teaching in elective and state-tested courses. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(2), 259-282.
Gibson, R. (2000). Methods for social studies: How do I keep my ideals and still teach? Retrieved September 5, 2004, from http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/Methods.htm
Hahn, C. (1991). Controversial issues in social studies. Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (J. Shaver, Eds.). Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
Hahn, C. L. (1996). Research on issues-centered social studies. In R.W. Evans & D.W. Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 25-39). Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
Harwood, A.M., & Hahn, C.L. (1990). Controversial issues in the classroom. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED327453.
Hartzler-Miller, C. (2001). Making Sense of “Best Practice” in teaching history. Theory and Research in Social Education, 29(4), 672-695.
Haynes, C.C. (2006, March 26). Academic freedom for teachers a tough sell post-Bennish. First Amendment Center. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=16649
85
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Hess, D. E. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers. Theory and Research in Social Science Education, 30(1), 10-41.
Hess, D. (2006, January/February). Should intelligent design be taught in social studies courses? Social Education, 70(1), 8-13.
Hess, D. (2008). Controversial Issues and democratic discourse. In L.S. Levstik & C.A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research is social studies education (pp. 124-136). New York: Routledge.
Hope, J. (2003). Confessions of a testing renegade. In R. Cossett & G. Pipkin (Ed.), Silent no more: Voices of courage in American schools (pp. 45-59). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hopkins, K. D., Glass, G.V., & Hopkins, B.R. (1987). Basic statistics for the behavioral sciences. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Hughes, A.S. (1997). Toward a more thoughtful professional education for social studies teachers: Can problem-based learning contribute? Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(4), 431-445.
Hunt, M.P., & Metcalf, L.E. (1968). Teaching high school social studies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Irvin, J.L., Lunstrum, J.P., Lynch-Brown, C. & Shepard, M.F. (1995). Enhancing social studies through literacy strategies. National Council for the Social Studies Bulletin, 91, 51-72.
Jerich, K.F. (1996). Supervision for teacher growth in reflective, issues-centered teaching practice. In R.W. Evans & D.W. Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 306- 315). Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
Kelly, M. (2007). Censorship and book banning in America. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://712educators.about.com/cs/bannedbooks/a/bookbanning.htm
Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, 385 U.S. 589,87, S. Ct. 675 17 L. Ed. 629 (1967).
Kirkland v. Northside Independent School District, 496 U.S. 926 (1990).
Kirkwood, T.F. (2002). Teaching about Japan: Global perspectives in teacher decision-making, context, and practice. Theory and Research in Social Science Education, 30(1), 88-115.
Kochman, S.M. (1997). What happens when a high school censors. The English Journal, 86(2), 58-62. 86
Kon, J.H. (1995). Teachers’ curricular decision making in response to a new social studies textbook. Theory and Research in Social Education, 23(2), 121-146.
Lamy, S.L. (1989). Controversy in the social studies classroom: A review of concerns related to teaching international relations. The International Journal of Social Education, 4(1), 68-85.
Larson, B. E. (1997). Social studies teachers’ conception of discussion: A grounded theory study. Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(2), 113-136.
Ehman, L. (1977, April). Social Studies Instructional Factors Causing Change in High School Students' Sociopolitical Attitudes over a Two-Year Period. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Lewis, L., Parsad, B,. Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., & Smerdon, B. (1999, January). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualification of public school teachers. Education Statistics Quarterly: Teacher Quality. Retrieved September 18, 2001, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999080.pdf
Lockwood, A.L. (2004, April 27). Controversial issues: The teacher’s crucial role. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from http://members.ncss.org/se/6001/600105.html
Longstreet, W.S.(1996) Alternative futures and the social studies. In R.W. Evans & D.W. Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 317-326). Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
Lunstrum, J.P. (1960). An inquiry into the proper role of the social studies teacher with reference to the use of controversy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University.
Lunstrum, J.P., Irvin, J.L. (1981). Integration of basic skills into social studies content. Social Education, 169-177.
Lunstrum, J.P. (1995, October). Academic freedom in the schools during the Cold War: A preliminary analysis. Paper presented to the American Association for Teaching Curriculum, Orlando, FL.
Lunstrum, J.P., Phillips, J.P., & Walsh, C.J. (1999, November). Academic Freedom at the end of the 20th Century: Some persistent issues and questions for the future. Paper presented at the 1999 College and Faculty Assembly of the Annual National Council for the Social Studies Conference, Orlando, FL.
Lunstrum, J.P. (2007, September 24). Teaching Civics: Courses should educate, not indoctrinate. Tallahassee Democrat, pp. 1B, 3B.
Marshall, K. (2007, April). Dave Berry to heckle, Katy Sorenson to host. The Torch: Newsletter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, 42(1), p. 1. 87
Massialas, B.G. (1970). Structure and process of inquiry into social issues in secondary schools. Ann Arbor: MI: University of Michigan.
Massialas, B.G. (1996). Criteria for issues-centered content selection. In R.W. Evans & D.W. Saxe (Eds.). Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 44-65). Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
Matusevich, M. (2006). Strange bedfellows: Censorship and history textbooks. Social Studies Research and Practice, 1 (3), 359-373.
Mears, B. (2007, March 19). High court hears ‘bong hits for Jesus’ case. Retrieved May 3, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html
Merryfield, M. (n.d.). The professional development school(PDS) network in social studies and global education. Retrieved February 26, 2003 from University of Ohio, Web site: http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/mmerryfield/Program%20Pages/ssgepds.htm
Misco, T., & Patterson, N.C. (2007). A study of pre-service teachers’ conceptualizations of academic freedom and controversial issues. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(4), 520-550.
Mitchell, G., Evans, S., Daly, J., & Roach, P. (1997). Academic freedom and the preparation of social studies teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(1), 54-66.
Mount Healthy School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).
National Center for Science Education. (2003, September 9) Don’t mess with textbooks. Retrieved January 4, 2004, from http://www,ncseweb.org/resources/news/2003/TX/377_don39t_mess_with_textbooks_9_8_ 2003.asp
National Council for the Social Studies, 1969. Academic Freedom and the social studies teacher. Retrieved May 9, 2004, from http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/freedom/
National Council for the Social Studies. (2005, October 17). Controversial topics tough in class. Retrieved February 5, 2006, from http://64.233.167.104/custom?q=cache:Xx20jVtDcQ4J:www.socialstudies.org/newsItems/d epartments/educationNews
National Council for the Social Studies. (2007, September). Academic Freedom and the Social Studies Teacher. Social Education, 71(5), 282-283.
Nelson, J.L. (1994). Contemporary social education literature: An essay review. Theory and Research in Social Education, 22(4), 461-481.
88
Nelson, J.L. (1996). The historical imperative for issues-centered education. In R.W. Evans & D.W. Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 14-24). Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
Nelson, J.L. (2003, Winter). Academic freedom, institutional integrity, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 65-72.
Noddings, Nel. (2008, February). All our students thinking. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 8-13.
Ochoa-Becker, A.S. (1996). Building a rationale for issues-centered education. In R.W. Evans & D.W. Saxe. Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 6-13). Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
Ochoa-Becker, A.S. (Ed.). (2006). Democratic education for social studies: An issues-centered decision making curriculum (2nd ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Oliver, D.W., & Shaver, J.P. (1966). Teaching public issues in the high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Owens, W.T. (1997, May/June). The challenges of teaching social studies methods to preservice elementary teachers. The Social Studies, 113-120.
Palmer, J. R (1989). Whatever happened to the social studies? International Journal of Social Education, 4(1), 60-64.
Peck, R., Olsen, C., & Devore, J. (2007). Introduction to statistics and data analysis.(2nd ed.). USA: Brooks/Cole.
Pellegrino, Anthony (2010). A tool in teaching social issues. (Review of the book Teaching social issues with film). Theory and Research in Social Education, 38(2), pp. 293-298.
Phillips, J.P. (1997). Florida teachers’ attitudes toward the study of controversial issues in public high school social studies classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University-Tallahassee.
Phillips, J.P., Lunstrum, J.P. (1999). Dealing with controversial issues: New insights from research. AATC Journal, 1, 40-49.
Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will County 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
Pipkin, G., & Cossett-Lent, R. (2002). At the schoolhouse gate: Lessons in intellectual freedom. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
89
Pipkin, G., & Cossett-Lent, R. (2003). Portraits of courage: Test defiers and the fruits of resistance. In R. Cossett & G. Pipkin (Ed.), Silent no more: Voices of courage in American schools (pp. 127-139). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pryor, C. R (2006). Pre-service to in-service changes in beliefs: A study of intention to become a democratic practitioner. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(1), 98-123.
Resnick, L. , & Zurawsky, C. (2005, Spring), Getting back on course. American Educator, pp. 8- 19, pp. 44-45.
Rossi, J.A.(1995). In-depth study in an issues-centered social studies classroom. Theory and Research in Social Education, 23(2), pp. 88-120.
Rugg, E.U. (1921). How shall we reconstruct the social studies curriculum. Historical Outlook XII (6), pp. 184-189.
Rugg, E. U. (1921). On reconstructing the social studies. Historical Outlook XII (6), pp. 249- 252.
Santoni, M. (2007, April 9). ‘Chocolate War’ to be cut from Harford schools’ curriculum. The Examiner. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.examiner.com/a- 663446~%E2%80%98Chocolate_War%E2%80%99_to_be_cut_from_Harford_schools%E2 %80%99_curriculum.html
Saxe, D. W. (1994). Establishing a voice for history in schools: The first methods textbooks for history instruction 1896-1902. Theory and Research in Social Education, 22(4), 482-514.
Schrecker, E. (2000, September). Cyberspace censorship threatens academic freedom in Virginia. Retrieved December 18, 2003. from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3860/is_200009/ai_n8907122
Schukar, R. (1993). Controversy in global education: lessons in teacher education. Theory into Practice, 32(1), pp 52-57.
Sherman, M. (2007, June 26). Supreme Court rulings show conservative shift. The News Herald, 1A.
Simmons, J.S. (Ed.). (1994). Censorship: A threat to reading, learning, and thinking. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Simpson, M. (Ed.). (2003, November/December). The use of primary sources. Social Education, 67, 369-370.
Simpson, M.D. (1998, November). Academic freedom takes a hit. Retrieved August 24, 2004, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3617/is_199811/ai_n8826130
90
Simpson, M.D. (2003, September). Academic freedom: Where do teachers stand? Retrieved August 24, 2004, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3617/is_200309/ai_n9281885
Smith, L.C., Jr. (1953). The truth be beaten down. College Composition and Communication, 4(4), 138-141.
Standler, R.B. (2000). Academic freedom in the USA. Retrieved July 2, 2006, from http://www.rbs2.com/afree.htm
Stanley, W.B., Cornbleth, C., Jantz, R.K., Klawither, K., Leming, J.S., Nelson, J.L., et al. (1985). Review of the research in social studies education 1976-1983. Boulder, CO: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED255469)
Stanley, W.B, & Nelson, J.L. (1994). The foundations of social education in historical context. In. R.A. Martusewicz & W.M. Reynolds (Eds.), New York: St. Martins Press.
State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, 152 Tenn 424 278 SW 57 (1925).
Stegmayer, W.J. (2000, November/December). Protecting academic freedom in the 21st century. Social Education, 64(7), 422-425.
Stelzer, L., & J. Banthin. (1980). Teachers have rights, too: What educators should know about school law. Boulder, CO: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED199144)
Sterzing v. Ft. Bend Independent School District. 496 F. 2d 92 (5th Cir.) (1974).
Subedi, Binaya (2008). Fostering critical dialogue across cultural differences: A study of immigrant teachers’ interventions in diverse schools. Theory and Research in Social Education, 36 (4), 413-440.
Sweeney, J.C., & Foster, S. (1996). Teaching controversial issues through Massialas and Cox inquiry. In R.W. Evans & D.W. Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 66- 74). Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies.
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234,250, 77 S.Ct. 1203, 1211, 1 L. Ed. 2d. 1311 (1957). Textbooks. (n.d.). Retrieved May 23, 2004, from http://www.answers.com/topic/textbook Textbook case of self-censorship: First Amendment Outrage. (2000, November 15). Retrieved June 7, 2005, from http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=4701
Thernstrom, S. (2005, April 11). Harvard’s crucible: A question of academic freedom, and meritocracy, and sense. Manhattan Institute of Policy Research. Retrieved March 13, 2008, from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_national_review_harvards_crucible.htm
91
Theisen, R. (2000). Social studies education: A challenge, a choice, a commitment. Social Education, 64(1), 6-7, 63-64.
Thorpe, S. (1996). Promoting best practice in social studies teacher education. Theory and Research in Social Education, 24(2), 213-219.
Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Tierney, W.G. (2006, April). Hate speech and academic freedom in the academy. [Review of the books: The people v. Harvard law: How America’s oldest law school turned its back on free speech; Restoring free speech and liberty on campus; Speak no evil: The triumph of hate speech regulations]. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 33-37.
Tierney, W.G., & Lechuga, V.M. Academic freedom in the 21st century. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www2.nea.org/he/heta05/images/2005pg7.pdf
Tuckman, B. W. (1987). Conducting educational research. Orlando, FL: Harcourt , Brace, & Jovanovich.
Van Hover, S. (2008). The professional development of social studies teachers. In L.S. Levstik & C.A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research is social studies education (pp.352-372). New York: Routledge.
Walsh, C. J. (1998). The opinions of school leaders on the use of controversial issues in the social studies classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University- Tallahassee.
Wegner, G. (2004, April). The NCSS curriculum standards: A model for University methods courses and conceptual teaching. The National Council for Social Studies. Retrieved October 6, 2005, from http://members.ncss.org/se/6002/600204.html
Weidner, D.J. (2003, October 1). Academic freedom and the obligation to earn it. Journal of Law and Education (32). Retrieved April 20, 2005, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3994/is_200310/ai_n9340564/pg_1
Whelan, M. (1994). Albert Bushnell Hart and the origins of social studies education. Theory and Research in Social Education, 22(4), 423-440.
Whelan, M. (1997). Social studies for social reform: Charles Beard’s vision of history and social studies education. Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(3), 288-315.
White, Cameron. (1997, April). Preservice to the “Real World”: Transforming social studies through technology. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando, FL.
92
Whitehead, L. (2004, June 14). The rights of faculty. Leadership U. Retrieved September 18, 2004, from http://www.leaderu.com/index.html
Wides-Munoz, L. (2006, July 21). ACLU decries ban on book: Free-speech advocates fear broad purge. Tallahassee Democrat, p. 4B.
Willingham, D. T. (2007, Summer). Critical Thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 8-19.
Wilson, A. (2007, December 2). Schools and parents grapple with ‘The Golden Compass’: Popular book among teens said to tout atheism. The Lexington Herald: Kentucky. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from http://bibliowitch.livejournal.com/39299.html
Wraga, W.G. (1998). Implications of issues-centered education for the social studies curriculum. The International Journal of Social Education, 13, 49-65.
Wraga, W. G. (1999). Organizing and developing issues-centered social studies curricula: Profiting from our predecessors. Social Education, 90, 209-217.
93
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH PEGGY D. RAMBOSK
PROFESSIONAL STRENGTHS • Twelve years of public school teaching experience • Ten years of community college teaching experience • Two semesters of university teaching experience • Recognized by supervisors for a positive, professional attitude • Highly skilled at communicating with people at all levels and building positive interpersonal relationships • Dedicated to helping students achieve their optimum learning potential • Strong and proven ability to present educational materials and pedagogical techniques in an innovative and systematic manner EDUCATION • Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Doctoral Candidate in Social Science Education, January 2011 Educational Specialists in Social Science Education, August 2002 Master of Science in Social Science Education, April 2000 Bachelor of Science in Social Science Education, December, 1996 Gulf Coast Community College, Panama City, FL Associate of Arts, December 1992 TEACHING CERTIFICATE in Social Science 6-12 Kean College, Union, NJ 8/89-12/91 University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 5/87-5/88 Central State University, Edmond, OK 8/85-5/87
ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS 2000- J.R. Arnold High School, Panama City Beach, FL
94
present Teacher, 11th – 12th Grades, Social Studies, Dual Enrollment Western Civilization, Advanced Placement American History, and Dual- enrolled American History Instructed American History to 1877 (AMH 2010), American History After 1877 (AMH 2020), History of Florida (AMH 2070), Sociology (SYG 2000), Western Civilization I (EUH 1000), Western Civilization II (EUH 1001) , AP World, and AP European, AP US History, Holocaust, Law Studies, and, Economics, • Judged History Fair • European Club Sponsor • Platinum Honor Society Sponsor • Interact Club Sponsor Report to Dr. John Haley, Principal
2000- Gulf Coast Community College, Panama City, FL present Adjunct Professor, Education Department, , Division of Social Sciences Report to Dr. John Phillips, Program Manager and Professor of Education Instruct Introduction to Education (EDF 1005), Teaching Diverse Populations (EDF 2085), Technology for Teachers (EME 2040) • Western Civilization I, Western Civilization II, American History I, American History II, Florida History • Advise curriculum to Elementary & Secondary Education programs and Social Science programs, summer, 2001
2004- Florida State University, Panama City, FL present Adjunct Professor, Middle and Secondary Education, Division of Education Report to Dr. John Phillips • Instruct Fundamentals of Teaching Social Studies (SSE 4362)
1999- Rutherford High School, Panama City, FL
95
2000 Teacher, 11-12th Grades, Social Science Courses • Instructed Economics, Law Studies, and American History • Sponsored Mock Trial competitions • Utilized interactive, inquiry-based teaching Report to Mr. Joseph Bullock, Principal
1/1999- A. Crawford Mosley High School, Panama City, FL Teacher, 11th Grade, American History Part-time • Taught American History utilizing interactive, inquiry-based teaching Reported to Bill Husfelt
OTHER EXPERIENCES Workshops attended and field studies • AP European Training Seminar • AP American History Training Seminar • Economic Demise if the Soviet Union, Panama City, FL, February 2000 • Economic Seminar, Tallahassee, FL. November, 1999 • Florida State University-Panama City Campus, Student Government Historian June-December 1996 • 1996 Torch Run Chairman • Field research with the Lower Muscogee Creek Indian Reservation August 1996-November 1999 • Gulf Coast Community College Advisor for summer 2001 in General Education and Social Science Education • Grading and Reporting Representative for Bay District Schools August 2000 to present • Currently seeking doctoral degree in Social Science Education from Florida State University • Sponsor of the Interact Club at AHS which has received for the 2008/2009 and the 2009/2010 Presidential Award for Excellence • Fred Jones Seminar Training • CAR-PD Professional Development 96