Ethical Dilemmas

Neiderjohn, Nygard and Wood’s article on teaching ethics to high school students did not inspire a lot of optimism when it comes to teaching ethical issues in the classroom, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. The authors point out that after students received lessons dealing with ethical issues such as “rational self-interest vs. greed” and the “social obligations of business”, their personal values were “more resistant to change”. I would have liked to seen a lot more detail on what these lesson plans encompassed, for instance what were the goals and intended outcomes? It seems like most of these issues mentioned (such as organ transplant markets, the role of ethics in science, etc) do not have a clear “right” or “wrong” verdict, and moral/ethical people could plausibly arrive at very different conclusions.

In something as subjective as morality and ethics, I am not sure how a great a role a teacher should truly play in the process. The authors point out that students became more effective at examining and discussing these ethical dilemmas, and I think that is the most important part. Since many of these topics are religious and political in nature, I don’t think teachers should be assigning a definitive judgment on them, but should instead view it from multiple angles and allow the students to arrive at their own conclusions. I also don’t think the burden should rest entirely on the teacher to educate students on every ethical issue (or risk feeling guilty if a new generation of “Enron”-type workers are spawned), but there should be increased responsibility on families to discuss these types of issues at home in order to expose their children and instill their personal values.

Creating Informed Citizens

Why are so many students apathetic and/or ignorant when it comes to political knowledge and the basic structure of our government? Is it as simple as "dull teaching" and an "overreliance on textbooks" as Sansone claims? In his article "Get your Students Involved in Civics", he provides a very structured formula for getting students to form a political identity and understand various issues and concepts. I think it's helpful for students to have the framework for how to dissect issues and arguments. But I also believe, much like Sansone, that the only true way that students will take a vested interest in these issues and their civic duties is to engage in a relevant discussion of these topics themselves. I remember talking to my parents about issues at home, and walking away with a much better understanding of why each side held a certain belief. The classroom can provide a more neutral ground for students developing a political identity. The issues don't even have to be particularly controversial- anything that can be argued is a potentially valid topic.

The author points out that adolescents are actively forming their social identity but not their political one, unlike the youth of the 1960s. For many students in high school today, the social identity forms out of necessity. They are faced with questions of how their peers perceive them each day. But they can ignore their political identity with little consequence on their daily routine (unlike the 1960s youth who faced the possibility of war). I think teachers should try to impress upon students the relevancy of issues in their lives. The author provides details on the debate over National Health Insurance. Rather than just learning about what each side argues, students can be impacted if they know how certain changes can directly affect their lives and their families. Instead of just teaching facts from a textbook, the classroom should always serve as an open forum to discuss the issues in an authentic way.

Civic Education

Walling’s article “The Return of Civic Education” argues for a renewed commitment to Civic learning within Social Studies classrooms. He insists that “teaching students about their constitutional heritage so that they will become knowledgeable, thoughtful citizens of democracy” is key to improving both political and community engagement and learning (285). I still find myself a little confused about the distinction between “government” and “civics” as separately offered classes. In my government classroom in 12^th grade, we discussed the principles of the constitution and the duties and expectations of citizens in a democratic nation. Walling explains that back in the 1960’s “civics” used to include exhaustive analysis of government functions that actually turned people away from civic engagement (286). I would be really curious to learn more about the proposed focus on “civic outcomes” that teach students how to work within their community to solve problems and encourages civic learning projects. I agree with the author that this type of learning is only truly valuable if it engages students. When the learning is hands-on and “real world”, it becomes more relevant and useful in the eyes of students. Since young people today are more motivated to volunteer, there should be opportunities within the classroom to discuss the reasons why we volunteer and how we can positively impact our communities. I also didn’t realize how many organizations and resources are available that promote civic education. It would be great if teachers shared this information with students and incorporate activities in the classroom to encourage debate and engagement.

An Inconvenient Truth, indeed: the Use of Documentaries in the Classroom

When I think back to “movie days” in school, I envision an unproductive classroom where the lights are switched off as students struggle to stay awake and the teacher occupies himself at the back of the class grading papers. I experienced these days firsthand when “movie-time” was more like “nap-time.” So it was interesting to see these two articles present the use of documentary films as a worthwhile learning opportunity in the Social Studies classroom.

The article by Marcus and Stoddard suggests that documentary films can be a useful way to fulfill “three goals for history education… promoting reasoned judgment, promoting an expanded view on humanity, and deliberating over the common good” (281). The authors then provide examples such as “Bowling for Columbine” and “When the Levees Broke” as meaningful films that can be viewed and analyzed to achieve those goals. I agree with them that the value in watching these films is not for the content- because even though it may seem objective, the filmmakers certainly do have a viewpoint to express- but in students analyzing the perspective. Much like students would do in an English class when reading a novel, students would pinpoint the “author’s” (filmmaker’s) intent and point of view, as well as those of the various “characters”. Subsequent assessments would have students selecting certain characters for further study.

But after reading both of the articles, I can’t help but ask why none of the authors pointed out how this is such a time-consuming process. To view a film in its entirety would take multiple class periods, followed by analysis such as Socratic Seminars, and assessments. In all, an entire week could be devoted to discussing a Michael Moore film. Is this really worth it? I agree that documentaries provide a unique look at controversial and often over-looked issues, but I don’t think it necessitates quite that much study. And how would a teacher incorporate a documentary on modern Navajo Indian pageants into the curriculum, as suggested by Hess? None of the documentaries showcase time periods older than the World Wars. It is so rare that teachers move beyond the 1970’s when teaching History. How do documentaries fit into the ancient world? Both of the articles mention modern and even current day events, but how can they be effectively integrated into a classroom where the focus is on events before the advent of film?

While I think there are some useful aspects of documentaries, they might be better served in a weekly after-school History club where interested students can watch and discuss the merit of the filmmaker’s stance without taking up valuable class time. 

Teaching History for the Common Good

Barton and Levstik make some controversial claims in Chapters 1 and 3, specifically regarding the construction of a national identity, pluralistic curriculum and the ways in which students in the United States make connections between the past and present. The authors attempt to ground their analysis in research and empirical evidence, and cite many surveys and student responses when making certain arguments. 

One of the interesting ideas presented in Chapter 1 was that students feel most connected to history that they are personally engaged in, including visits to museums, talking to grandparents, etc (13). To this day, I still vividly remember when WWII veterans came into my 8^th grade classroom and spoke about their experiences and allowed us to ask questions. Even though some of their stories did not always fall in line with the broad generalizations and rhetoric of my textbook, I felt as though they were even more authentic and accurate because I was hearing them firsthand. Museum trips and other interactive experiences may afford students with similar results. I also agree with Barton and Levstik’s claim that students who “know nothing” of History are actually those who do not conform to “an abstract standard of ‘correct’ historical thinking or understanding” (17) and that all students bring pre-existing knowledge, and even those that differ from the standard may be equally valid.

In Chapter 3, the authors claim that teachers should not make connections between current events and relate them to past events, (and apparently we should not want students to admire the Bill of Rights or believe that we are a nation of freedom.) I wholeheartedly disagree with this. The reason why I became interested in History and chose to pursue it in college was because I had a History teacher in high school who made connections between current events and what we were learning in class. It made the content seem relevant, “real”, meaningful and frankly less boring and out of touch with my life. By creating a link between the past and present, I found the concepts to be very pertinent and I could more relate to the “characters” of History. I also disagree with the author’s assertion that minorities will either have to deny their ethnicity or their nation unless teachers abandon a traditional view of American history (64). If we abandon the study of European conquerors and the role of white men in the development of US History, exactly what will student learn?

Whose History?

Social Studies teachers are in a unique position with their “gate keeping” responsibilities. Although all teachers must make determinations regarding what content will be taught, the limitless amount of sources and information surrounding Social Studies subjects such as U.S. History and World History make teachers of these subjects even more impactful in the classroom. Linda Symcox’s Whose History? raises many essential questions about what content students in the United States should be learning in Social Studies classes. Should national standards exist? How does one determine what historical events are stressed in History classes? Should the focus by on a traditional Euro-centric viewpoint that favors Western culture, or should emphasis be placed on a Progressive multi-cultural, pluralistic viewpoint? These are questions that I personally grapple with, especially now that I am in the midst of my student teaching in a 7^th grade Western Civ. classroom. Ideally, a History teacher should strike a balance between the two. I don’t believe in “hero worshipping” the Founding Fathers and never discussing anything negative, for instance, but I also think that these men need to be discussed in detail, along with other voices and people. Although Symcox raises questions regarding national unity being threatened by a Progressive “current event” curriculum, I think “traditional” history ought to be taught in tandem with more relevant trends. This allows students to view events in meaningful personal ways and find connections to historical figures that will inspire them.

Hopefully, groups who are in charge of creating standards will set aside political affiliations and work towards creating a curriculum that honors traditional perspectives while also including diverse viewpoints.