The Role of Discussion and Dissent in Creating Civic Understanding
2007; Volume: 36; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
2326-9618
Autores Tópico(s)Values and Moral Education
ResumoABSTRACT Social studies teachers are charged with imparting an understanding of what democracy entails. Unfortunately, a major component of any authentic democracy, the acceptance of dissent in the face of majority views, is often omitted from classroom discussions due to practical considerations such as maintaing classroom order. Many scholars insist, however, that civic understanding requires dissent to be part of classroom discourse. This article provides an overview of the practical problems associated with including dissent in classroom discussion as well as the theoretical justifications for doing so. Several practical strategies for including dissent in classroom discussions are offered. INTRODUCTION Discussion in the social studies classroom should not be an activity to pass the time or to liven things up. Instead, meaningful discussion should be promoted in a manner to ensure that learning is occurring, beliefs are substantiated by evidence, and minority opinions are protected. Dissent in American is essential, and its value can be seen in repeated instances over the course of the history of the United States. Dissent has been one of the precursors to democratic change and one of the staples of civic duty, and it should be tolerated and protected in the social studies classroom. Indeed, dissent in discussions held in the social studies classroom is both a sign of the continuance of the civic culture of the United States and an indicator of effective instruction. Social studies educators should recognize dissent in classroom discourse as a defining characteristic of the authentic discussion that best promotes civic understanding and behavior. OBSTACLES TO AUTHENTIC DISCUSSION Despite the social need in America for, meaningful discussion of controversial topics this practice rarely seems to occur in the social studies classroom. There may be a variety of reasons for this breakdown of authentic dialogue. Students, in middle and secondary grades may be reluctant to accept or even include viewpoints that are not aligned with majority opinion due to peer group pressure, the conservative social construct of their or their role in the social hierarchy of the population. Factors such as physical stature, socioeconomic status, and personality may also prevent some students from being as willing to contribute personal opinions. Teachers may hesitate to encourage discussions that revolve around controversial or taboo subjects because of the conservative nature of schools or because of the potential disorder that may result. Engle and Ochoa (1988) contend that schools, enmeshed in the timeless web of culture, tend naturally to be conservative institutions, since it is more comfortable to pass along conventional wisdom than to question the assumptions of society (p. 15). Leming's (1989) research certainly supports the claims of Engles and Ochoa. Analyzing information from several studies, Leming argued that research clearly demonstrated that socialization, rather than intellectual discourse, was the primary aim of classroom social studies teachers. In an examination of social studies teachers in six school districts, McNeil (1987) found that classroom teachers were preoccupied with maintaining and teaching the concept of order and with portraying history to give a positive impression of American institutions. Teachers are trained to minimize conflict in the classroom in order to avert potentially dangerous situations. Consequently, opinions that are perceived to have the potential to cause conflict may be excluded. Shaver (1989) wrote that student control is a realistic concern. It is important for the teachers' own piece of mind and because teachers are often evaluated by the principal and by other teachers in terms of the noise level and apparent deportment of the students in their classrooms (p. 194). Cornett and Caudelli (2003) studied the tensions encountered when moving from the sloganeering associated with civics into the engaged, meaningful, and educational processes of real classrooms (p. …
Referência(s)