fimmedll (0t'Culf l 4atn and Supenr'sionz 283Summer 2002, Vol. 1', No. 4, 283-314

HOW HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS EXPERIENCEAND LEARN FROM THE DISCUSSION OF

CONTROVERSIAL PUBLIC ISSUES

DIANA lIESS, Un iversi5 .v oj Wisconsin-MadisonJULIE POSSELT, Un tversity of Wzsconsin-Madison

ABSTRACT: This study explored how two classes of 10th grade students experiencedand learned from a require(1 social stuCies course that focused explicitly on teachingstudents to become more effective participants in dliscussiotns of controversial pub-lic issues (CPI). We learned that although the vast majority of the students held gen-crally positive views about the importance of classroomn discussion, nearly half ofthem believed that a requirement to grade their verbal participation in discussionswas unfair. Also, students' perceptions of their peers hacd a greater influence on theirpatticipation and affective response to discussion than diCl their teachers' behavior.Throu-ghout the course Imost studenits' affinity for discussion increased-as did theirabilities to participate effectively in CII dliscussions. Not all students, however, hacda po)sitive experience, because of negative peer relations and a staunch belief thatdliscussion participation should be a choice-not a requirement.

R ecent informnation provided by Freedoim House, a nonprofitorganization that tracks democracy throughout the world, re-ports thiat 58.2 percent of the world's people live in dcmo-

cratic countries, compared with only 14.3 percent of such indiviclu-als in 1950. Much of this dramatic increase has occ urred in the last20 years and lhas led Freedorm H-louse and ot:hers to characterize ourtinle as "democracy's age." Tile definiition of democracy, of course,is contestecl. According to Freedom iIHouse, "Democracies are polit-ical systwn7s whose leaders are elected in comlpetitive nmulti-party

Authors' note: The research reported in this articlc was made possible bygrants frorri the Spencer Foundation and the GralCuate Schlool at the U-iniversity ofWisconsin-Madison. 'T'he damt presented, the statements madc, and the views ex-pressed are solely the responsibility of the authors. Several people have assisted ulsin this work in various ways: Phil Buly, Jeff Choppin, Carole Hlahn), James Hartwick,Betty Hayes, Alan Lockwood, AnanC Marri, Walter Parker, Simorie Schweber, MarkSchtwingle, Laurel Sinigleton, andc the two anonymous reviewers. We are also in-debted to the teachers and students who participated in this study.

284I!icJh School D)iscussio n?f of ronem-il 'c Tublic Is.sues

and mnulti-cand.idate processes in which opposition parties have alegitimate chance of attaining power or participating in power.'"Ralplh Nader, on the other 'hand, conceptualizes democracy quitedifferently: "A democracy," le cotntends, "is a society where less andless courage and isk are needed of inmore and m)ore people tospread justice and the blessings of liberty throughout the land'.2

These contrasting definitions illustrate a soutce of tension in the ed-ucation of yvoung people for demnocratic life; proponents of differentconceptions of democracy argue for different lypes of democrac'yeducationt

't'he study on wicsh this article is based examined one ap-oroach to democracy educ'- atiosn tthat has been, promioted in theUnited States since the 1960s: teaching adolescents how to becomemos-re skillful participants in discussions of controversial pul)lic issues(CPI)-unresolved questions of public policy that spark significantdisagreemient. 'We studied teaching and learning in two sections of

a 10th grade social stu.dies course thal.t has as its primary outcomeinmprovng students abilities to participate effectively in CPI discus-sions. The courxse was unUsual because it was reqcuired for gradua-tion (often issues Courses are electives) and because its teachers haddeveloped a formal process to assess and grade their students dis-cussion skills.

This article first presents the studly's theoretical framnework, sitU-

ating the course withiin a typology otf schools of tlhought about demnoc-racy educatlon and rcviewing ibriefly the relevant literature. Second.we describe our primnary research questions andc thle study's methcod-ology, also providing overviews of the conmnunity, the school, andthe course design. Third, we move to our prinlary fociUs: descriptionsof students' experiences in the course. Finally, wc outline five hy-potheses emnerging from the data and explain their implications.

SCHOOLS OF 'HOTHUCGITHI' ABOUT THE PIJRPOSESOF DEMOCRATIC FI)UT CATION

An analysis of the demiocracy educcation literature re-veals a pro-liferation of programs, currictla, and approaches that have been.advocated as promioting effective democratic participation aml-long

Tireectom I louse, DemoctcvAYs Centu or A Sun ey o(f'Global Political Changein5 the 20/h Centgry (-New York: Freedom tiouse, 19'39). (Emiphasis adclded.)

2Ralph Nader, -Forevword," in Ct'ics fi)r D)entocracy: A Journe, jbr Teachersand Students. ed. Katherine Isaac (washington, DC0: Essential Books, 1992). (Fm-

ihiasis added.)

284

)iana Hess and juiie JPosselt

youth.3 This explicit interest irn demnocracy education shlotuld not.however, be mistaken for agreemenit about tlhe appropriate focusand goals of a demoicracy education program. In fact, extensive dis-agreement exists over what is required to live productively in ademnocracy as well as what the schools' role is or should b)e in edu-cat;ing the young for that life.

Table I displays six schools of thought about democracy educa-tion in the United States. Although each school of thought hlas adv)-cates and rmianifestations in sclhool curricula, in practice the schoolsoften overlap considerably. h'liat is, teachers' goals for democracy ed-ucation-and the curricuia and the practice they design-may crossthe schools in this typology. For example, the Discussing Public Is-sues course examiEined in this study mergecd the "issues" and "skills"schools of thought.)i

'issues " end Ski ci" as 5chools of Thought in Democracy Educcati.on

The study and discu.ssion of public issues has a lontg history ofprormotion in the IJnited States, dating back at least to the 1916 re-port of the National Education Association's Commission on the Re-organization of Secondary Education, which recomnmended the cle-velopmeent of a course that examinies the probtelemlis of demnocracy.5Since tlhat time, social studlies reformers repeatedly have called forinclusion of controversial issues in the social studies curriculumn. Re-cently, both Social Education and 7The Social Studies devoted entireeditions to issues-centered social studies curriculum.' Additionally.the National Coutnicil for the Social Studlies sponsors a special inter-

3See. for example, Michael Apple and James Beane, eds., Demnocratic Schools(Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1995);Carole Hahn, /?ecomning P1olitical.: Comparative Perspectives on Citizensbip Educa-Iiont (New York: State t Tniversity of New York Plress, 1998); Shleilah Mann ancl JohnPatrick, eds., Educationfr cit iC Engagement in I)eemocracp1 Service Lea rninnlk andOther PrIromising Practices (Bloominigtoni, IN: ERIC Clcaringhouse for Social Stud-ies/Social Science Education, 2000); Walter Parker and William Zumeta, "Toaa:ric anAristocracv of Everyone: Policy Study in the High School Curriculum," Theo)ry andIResearch in Social Education 27 (Winter 1999): 9-44.

'We kt.now many high schools require government couLses that include dis-cussions of controversial puhlic issues. This course. however, has the discussion ofsuch issues as its primary content. 'the authl rs would appreciate learning about therequirerrment of similar courses.5N,ational Educatiorn Assoc iation, 7he Social Studies in Secondctary Education:A Report of the Committee on Social Studies of tbe Committee on the RleoiganizationgfSecondcay Education: Bulletin 28 (Washington, 0)C: Bureaut of Education, 1916).

.Soc tat Education 53 (October 1989); 'he Social Studies 80 (September/Octobcer 1989).

285

Hg.b Scw'/ Di) scussion (?n C-mveln txijal Public Pssiles

^4,P

2 �4--o �

-0 - 0 -0 -mc�0: 0�--

4-(1040 r

t'4- �

�i�- � -

-4>- '41 -4-- 4 14

d� -t Ct�5�4-'4-4-0---4-

-4 140 4-1 A; 0-

I -4 -'4 -4

-4 '4-4

'4 '40 '4 0gjJ� cC

� C-S-�0o -s

'4 14 �4 -� � too -� to 0.

'4

0'4

0(C

'4

1-

-� -z -;'> '4-44---

t '4 Cl

0 0L �-A'4 st.-'-4 -4 - -

-'4

0:4-1� -c

(C - -� 1 ,-

Ž1CL

-4 4o -�

'40 � o'4-no

Jo

o 21 A '4

22 -4'4-- �:Po

'4

-t4--

-4 4- -�o �'4- -t o�Is-'4 0 '4 :'4 '4 14

o�2 too-

'4

4

0

-ocE0 q

-� 0,A

C~

~0_ .

v~

'4 --00-4-. 4-

-- 4

AZ

0-'

--- '-1

t -�

4-- 14-0

4----- -4- 'DC-

-|-1

0

f4 -4

A;q

4 '4r

ox .

O-0 r,_

A V

, -Ok

V- V >~

> s; ,

'N' ' ' C,b

-t 'V 0 9

" 2'4 -I "

is 54 0 ' G

A 3'4'r

0 - 4 -'I

5 3 44 q_

28(s

CZ:C,

-'4

.14

0:lC4-

14

004-0

0

0 Cft

ft

4t

01C,

01C

1,4

ID)iana Ness atndJulie Posselt

est group on issues-centered social studies and has published a comn-prehensive Handbook on 'Iwch l Sg Social ssue.s.7

The impact htat professionals' advocacy of CPI has had on whatactually happens in social studies classroomus reTmains unclear. Recentobservational data suggest that few students seriouslv study contro-versial issues, and group discussion appears not to be a prominentinstirLctional mcode. For example, a study olf democracy education in135 midcdle and high school classes in the Chicago tPublic Schools re-vealed that controversial issues received scant attention. Specifically,tlhe study of issues (wvhich the researchers labeled "social problemns")occurred in only 8.1 percent of the classes. In those classes, more-over, stucdents simply icdentified and offered opinions on thie issues.None of the -135 classes analyzecd evidence or theories regardingcauses and solutions to these prob lems. 8 Regardless of how little orinfreqtuently controversial issues are discussed in classrooms, socialstucdies educators continue to promnote the CPI approach as a pow-erful forrn of denmocracy education.9 Wlhat accounts for the enthusi-asmii for this approach?

Answers to this qcuestion lie at least partly in the perceived re-lationship between learning lhow to discuss divisive public topicsanti preparation for cdemocratic citizeinship (that is, the "skills" sch0oolof thiought). Newmann and Parker lhave argued that the most im-portant componernt of effective democratic citizenship education isteaching young people how to deliberate about the nature of thepublic good and hFow to achieve it.")

Beyond the importance of (PI discuissions to democracy edu-cation, a numrber of political scientists believe that suclh discussionscani enhance democracy itself. Gutmann, Barber, and Mansb-ridge,for examnple, each have argued that healtfhy democracies require

7Ronald W. Evans and l)avid Warren Saxe, ecds., finudbhook on Thachin9 So-cial /ssues (Wasilngtoni, lC: National Council for the Social Studies, 1996).

"Jo seph Kalne. Monica Roduiguez, Betsy Ann Smith, and Keith Thiede, "De-veloping Citizens fuir Democracy? Assessing Opportunities to Learn in Chicago'sSocial Studies Classroomis," lheory and R?esearch in Socicil Education 28 (Sumrmrer2000): 327.

9Carole llahn, Becomzing Political: (omuparalive 'enspectie'es on Citizenship]duc4ation (New York: State t-Tniversity of New York Press, 1998.); Walter Plarker andWilliam Zunieta, "Toward an Aristocracy of FIveryone: Policy Stucdy in the IIighSchool Curriculum." 'Th7eory) antd Reseagrch in .Social Education 27 (Winter 1999):9-44'

11'red Ncewmann. Reflective Civic f'articipation," Social Education 53 (Octo-ber 1989): 357-361; Walter Parker, "'Curriculum for Demnocracy," in lDemnocrncy, lId-ucawtion, and the Schools, eC. Roger Soder (San "rancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1996),p. 197.

287

28li-.3g School Di )sclision/ (i/C'nn/rov?eisial Plbl.e lIstmes

miany citizenis engaged in high-qjUality pLublic talk.'' Recent researcholn i)\w people becomie interested in Public debates provides eni-pirical e vidence for the claimii that CPi discussions influence the for-mation of a robLust denmocracy. Specifically, researchers from thle Ket-tering Founidation 13ave found t:hat citizens want to participate in

public talk, and when th-iey (to so, thiey "enlirge, rathier thian narrow,the waya they see and act on1 puLblic concerns."'2 tn short, conversa-tonm about p7ublic problenis appears to be linked to learning fromother citizens andc solving imnportant societal problems.

Researchers consistently have noted positive effects of democ-ratcy education that includes an open climate h)r discussion ancd sel-

expression in thte classrooni. Most significant is a recent study by theinternational Association for the Eval uation of Educational Achlieve-ment (lEA). T'lhiS study of 90,000 studCeIts in 28 countries revealedthat the United States Is one of on-ly fou,r countries (along withColombia, Greece, and N)orwav.) in WliCh students report an es-peciai.y open chimllate for d:iscussion. Open classroomii clirnate is aresearch-based construct that indiciates the 'extent to which studentsexperience their classroo-Ims as places to insvestigate issues and ex-plore their opiniJons and those of their peers." "Tle IEA report alsonotes that open classr oom climate for discussion is a significamnt pre-dictor of civic kntowledge, suppo,rt for democratic values, p,articipa-tion in political discussion, and political engagemient-mneasured bywhethet young people sa>y they will vote wshen thes becomnle egallyablel (Stroig and corntinluing support exists for tlle etffectiveness of

linkinig the "issues" and 'sktlls" schooIls of thought throughl a cur-ric.ulurn. richl in ,PI discussions.1',

Anmy Goinlann [Detnocratic 12l' r a/inn (Princeton, Ni: Princeto.tn TniversitVj

Press, 199'9).: 3enjamin itarber, "iutblic Talk and Cvic Action: Edjicaiion for Partie-

ipations in Sutong tCetl. ohccy, .i)ocial Educatioun 53 (O)ctioer 1989): 355--356, 3710

lanUe Manisridge, -e1oixr.acy. Deliberatioin. and tie Experience of Women" inHiTbgher Ication and bthel Practice oft ])emoCnI-tt Politics: . Polititcal Fdctc0tonn

Rleiadei. ed. Bernard murr`ciand (iDaXton1, Oil: Kettering ioundation. 1991).

I7)oh1e Research Associates, Inc.. A [lpoynn on Peoples '1TSniktng inI ite

i9'1)8-l099 NAi.noal Issue,1 hnainis (Englewaood ttliifs, NJ: National Issues Fornms

Institu-te 1999): Ketertiog Foundation, heanng/zi$ (ans: Hon People .tnrinu Aela-

tiunsbtips wvith Plubli (,oncerns (Dayton, OTL: Krettering F(iutndatioi, 199')'3).

Iludith ToineyTPuta, t.iincr IeTTr.atnn, 7lans Oswald and Wolframri Schltlz,C.itzetiship antd Education i1 Twentp7-fiught Cotianrrusw: 'ViCc Knowlecgie and E'-ta

gagWeneut ait Age eFOWleYen I Amsterdani: Tnt:rnational Ass ci.ttion fiE the Evaluation

of E.ducatliomal Acmevetmneot 20)(1 ).'t irole Ha/tn, 'Researclh ont Social s:tudies' in h11gandbh/k on

Th,acbhnuqg .Sncia ' ed, Ronit l/ W. Evans and lavid Warren Saxe (Wasli ngto,

DC: \tational Council ibr tde Social Stmudies, 1996i), pp. 26--39. judith Tnrney-Pkirta,Rainer Lehmann, Hlan" I)saswald, :ti Wolfram Sclmoltz. (Att-n.z?ship aned F.ohucatin ionTwentC1t-eight 6Jn-Fiies. ('tCile nooineed/ge aun l'ngageInnwt at AgeF T Foreen (Anister-

darn: internaiioil Association for the Esvaluationas of Educational Achiesvement. 20(11

2)88

Diana Hess and julie Posselt

METfIODOLOGY

With cooperation from the t:wo teachers of the course understudy, we developed research qcuestions by identifying w'hat wasleast understood about CPI discussions and specific iSSueCS of con-cern to the teachers. The research questions were the following:

1. How do secondary social studies students experience CPTdiscussions? What factors account for studeints' experiences?

2. How do students' race, gender, andi preferred classroomcommunication style influence how they experience classdiScUssionIs Of CPI?

3. Do students improve in their ability to participate effectivelyin CPI discussions during a semester-long course that focusesprimarily on sUch1 discussions? If so, how?

7The Community, the School, &anid the CGouseI5

Located in tlhe Midwestern city of Franklin (population approx-iniately 200,000), Midland High School serves a somewhat cliversestudent population of approxim-nately 2,000 and boasts the highest at-tendance and graduation rates in the schiool district. Like many com-prehensive high schools, Midland offers a wide range of extracur-ricular organizations (stuch as Students for Choice and Students forLife) that reflect Franklins reputation as a veritable hotbed for freespeeclh and thought.

Bob Martin, one of the teachers who participated in this study,designed tlhis school's initial i)iscussion of Public Issues (DPI) coursein 1972 withi a since-retired colleague andi university professor/research-er with expertise in democratic education. According to Mar-tin, tlhey intended to engage students more deeply in learning aboutdemocratic citizenship through diiscussion of current public policy is-sues, using a conceptual framework for public issues discussions de-veloped in the late 1960s.16 The model uses three specific types ofquestions (factual, definitional, and value-oriented) to guide thfe dis-cussion of larger puLblic policy issues, defined in the DPI course syl-labus as "significant, contenmporary, and unresolved political, social,and moral issues of our society."

During the semester we studied the course, students spent twoweeks learning thie discussion model and then stucdiecd five major

' 5Names of people, places, and the course have been changedt to protectconfidentiality.

16See Fred Newmann, Glarijjing Public Controversy}: An Approach to 7e?ach-ing Social Studies (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970). See also Doniald W. Oliver andJames P. Shaver, Teachbing [7zPublic Issues in the 7i-gh School (Logan, I T: I Jtah StateUniversity Press, 1974).

..... .

289

11t ;4,b Sch/oonl DJ) Ression ? (J'C ntn 'Rvennui i/blic ]ssues

Table 2. Coxrse Schedule and Topics of Scored Discussions

Week 1 Taking a Stand C nitoed-Ctory unit)

W;eT- 2

WiS/eek S (izGambling: ShOUld the state legisltaire legalize privately owned

'Week 4 Physician-Assisted Suicide. Slimul I[he state legislature legalize

Week 5 ptivsicianl-assiste(l suicide'•

Week 6 .-

i" ee 'c Jl uveniae C(rimne: Should the IrS. Congress pass slrictcr gUln control

WeXek S laws to redt(ee school vioenlne?

Week 9 I 2libtic sernice anoiinucetlnent aetivity

WX'eek i_0_Week II Title U(: S;houl( Congress repeal the spoirts equity provision of Title

Week t2 7IX of the FDucation Aumenacdnetnts Act of t972?

1c 2 13 Advocay speech researchW eek 13 _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Ws eek i 4 Spring bhreak

Week lS Free Speech: Shou7Ld the i:S. Congress prohibit [nternet sites fronm

Week 16 pubishiing materials that threatlen puiblic safet-?

Marv Beth linker veisitWeek 17

Week 18Week 1 e Alivol..Aacay speecli l)resentltIlions'Week 1i)

Weck 201 Review and final exsanms

public issues, which had been selected by thie teaclhers (see Table2). Stu:detnts studied a general issue (for example, gYamibling); thleytneao considered dimensions of anld possible resolutions to a morespecific case (for exanmple. Shoutld the state legislature allow the op-eration of privately ownedl casincs?) in a scored cdiscussion. Discus-sion skills, especiallv taking a position and defending it with evi-dlence. were central to the scored discussionrs and the teachers' goalsfor the cotUiSe. (See Table 3 for the scoring checklist used by teach-ecrs to evaluate students' participation in the scor-ed diiscussions.)

Assessmzent ftor the l)IPI coturse took a varietv of forms. Students

cotmpteted an elaborate workshteet to prep are for each discussion andtook a traditional written test at t.le endc3 of each urnit. The discus-

sion and worksheet received approximately equal weiglht (23 and 27points, respectively), and the written tests were worthl 50 points each.

Near thle entd of tthe semnester-long cousrse, students individually pre-parel '"ad-ocacy speced ' i on t other controversial public iss-ues, orally

defending a1 osititil befo-re tle class. Despite stuidents' pelrceptionls

that their oral participatiotn in sCored disCussions factored heavily into

29t)

1)/ana HIPss and/Julie Posseit

Table 3. Scoring Checklist for Scored Discussions

PositiveI. Making a relevant comnment

(+DsI2. Using a probing question to

elicit more infortintion or toget sorneone involved in thedisctussioni (+ I )

3. Using evidenct to support ast atement (+I1)

4. Challenginn the relevancy ofa person s comment or use ofevidence t +2)

5. Using evidence frompersonally gathiered sourcesto support a statenment (+2)

u. Summarizing t ee discussion(+2`)

7. Recognizimg a contradictionin someone's position (+2)

8. Making a stipulation (+2)9. Making a concessioni (+2)

10. Making a clear transition to arelevatnt issue (+3)

111. Identifying anc explaining avalue conflict (+3)

12. Stating and explaining anappropriate analogy (,+3)

Negative1. Making an irrelevant comment (-I)2. Not paying attention (-1)3. Interrupting another discussant to

preve-nt him from palticipating (-2)4. LIack of or inappropriate use of

evidence when making a factualstatement (-2)

5. Monopolizing/dominatintg adiscussioni so as to prevent othersfrorn participating (-3)

6. Making a personal attack (3)Notes:

* Individlually, students toay notreceive tnore than [l8 poinits perdiscussio)n.

* An additional i-5 pointi. are addedto each indlvidual's score on thebasis of the overall discussioni'squality, for a maximumrn of 23 points.

* A maximiiuni of 3 points may heearned on #l (positive), and armaxintium of 8 points mav beearned btetween #3 and #5(positive).

their final grade, it amotinted to only about 10 percent; the advocacyspeech and written tests made up the bulk of their grade.

Teachers qf Ihe Czourse

According to Bob Martin, wlho has taught social studcies for 33years, democracy is rooted firmily in free speech and participatorycitizenship; therefore, engaginig students' minds throu gh discussionsof public policy issues enables therm to practice a fundaimental as-pect of that citizenship. U:ltimately, he claims, citizens need to de-libetate with. one another to form opinions on issues tlhat are thenicommunicated to political leaders in our detnocratic repullic. FrornMartin s philosoph-ty of democracy comes his attempt to create ademocratic classroom in wh-ich the free marketplace of ideas reignswithin a climate of mutual respect. To prevent lending "instant cred-ibility to some positions and a lack of credibility to some other po-sitions," Martin rarely offers his own perspectives on the issuesunder discu3ssion and rarely publicly comnments on- students' contri-butions in a way that would reveal his personal views.

291l

9High.) School Dfsc uission of C ontroversial Public lssuces

A teacher for seven years, Jay Smith learecl how to teach theD ,iscussion of Public IssUtes course througlh Bob Martin's mentorship.She describes the course as "the great unifier.' Smith asserts, fur-thermore, 'People are a lot closer together than the public discoursewould 'have us believe,' but adds that Americans do not know oNhOWto comne together to discover the wvays in whlicht they are alike or tocollaborate oni wrestling with social prod lems. Slhe encourages dlia-logue because it provides a `workable process for solving society'sproblemis" and produces classroom outcomes that incslude a strongerdegree of trust am:nong studcents than previously existed. At the sametinme, shie recognizes that relations of trust Imlust characterize thedemocratic classroom before mneaniingful discussion- can occur. Bycalling oin students "who miiay have been put down before" anid tak-ing immediale action whAlen such "p"ut-downs' do occur, she tries toencourage a climate in whlich individuals can feel secure and vali-dated in their contributions.

Students in T7his Slucly

Before the spring 2000 semester, t.he two teachiers each selectedonc section of their course for studcy. Because we were unable to ob-tain human subjects consent from parents of all tlhe students7 the finalnumber in these study groups was slighltly smaller than the total numn-ber of students enr(o,led in the two classes. Fortv-six studlents partic-ipated in thfie study-227 frsn Smnith's class and 19 from Martin's class.Althousg,h not technically tracked for ability, peivasive sorting in otherdepartm-iients of the school skewed the comnosition of Martin's class;it contained more students who liacd previously been academnicallysuccessful thian th-sose withl average achievement. Stuldents in Smith'sclass, hoowever, possessed a tmore diverse range of achievement a.ndint:erest levels than did sttudents in Martin's class. Both classes had afaitrl even gendler split (22 femnales and 24- males overall), and thestudy groups consisted of 4 African Amlericanis, 1 Asiani Amierican, IIHispanic, I Japanese foIeign exchange student, ancd 39 whites. Forbothl gender and race, we ttied3 to attain a population proportionallysimilar to the larger school population. All of the students were in10th gnade, ande; except one (who was 17), all were either 19 or 16years old.

Datai Collection

\We collected and analyzed five types of data: pre- an(d post-course qtuestionnaires, classroomii observations, interviews with thestudents and teacthers, videotapes of most scored discussions, andclassrooimi artifacts, inicluding hmndouts and the teachers' grade books.A precourse questionnaire usecd previously b-y - Francis, Wade, and

292

I)iana Ifess and julie Posselt 293

Schwinigle obtained the first data. i7 The questionnaire captured basicdemographic infonnation and focused on four topics. Twenty-oneit:ems assessed students' geineral participation in and affective re-sponse to dEiscussi-n in school classes. 'Twenty-one items focused onfactors that influeLnced the extent to which students spoke more orless in class discussions. Five itemis probed students' views tow-ardindividuals' responsibility to contribute to class discussions and thef'airness of basing part of a student's grade on the qtuality of partici-pation in discussion. Finally, a numnber of open-ended response ques-tions specifically asked what students liked most and least aboutclass dliscussions. At the end of the course we administered the cqles-tionnaire a seconci timle, including summative questions on what stu-dent.s thouglht they had learnied, their assessment of graded discus-sions, and wrhether or not they intended to vote when they becanmeeligible to do so.

After reviewing students' responses to the first qluestionnaire,we selected a smaller group of 12 students for more intensive study.With the two teachers' assistance, we chose 6 students from each ofthe two classes in order to achieve gender balance, the same racialproportion as in the total sanmple, a variety of academic achievementlevels, and a range of "talk scores" (explained in thse Data Analysissection).

Over the course of the 90 school days in the semester, we ob-sewved 53 class periods, took extensive field notes, and videotaped21 of the class sessions. Most of the videotapes focused on the 12students as they participated in scored discussions; eacih student en-gaged in five suclh discussions throughiout the semester. Portions ofthe tapes were transcribed to capture every statement made by the12 students in the scored discussions. We conducted a total of 32student interviews that were recorded on audio- and vidleotape ancdtranscrit)ed, with each of the 12 focus students receiving one to threeinterviews. Additionally, we held interviews with the teachers (threewitlh Smith and five with Martin) that were also recorded on audio-and videotape and transcribed. Otfher data collectecd included alllhandouts distributedl to the students tlhroughoLut the semester, stu-dient work (for example, tests, work-sheets, scored discussion mate-rials) fromia 3 of the 12 focus studenlts, the written tests students tookafter each scored discussion, and eachn teacher's grade book.

'Eileen Francis. Learning to Discuss (Edinburgh: Scottish Currkiculumi Devel-opment Service, 1986); Rahnima Wade, ;Teacher Education Students' Vicws on Class-room tiscussion: Implications for Fostering Critical Reflection." 7iea.hintg andleiacber Education 1(0 (Marchi 1994): 231-242: Mark Schwingle, "hiigh School Stu-dents' Attitudes About the Use of Gradedi Discussions in1 Social Studies" (mastersthesis, Unmversity of Wisconsin, 20001).

... I -.. "

2935

29a 7iUQI. /. lI [S)iscrlo (/SaO Cq(/ Gbnlrovernl Pub/ic Issues

Data ,4)An3iSiS

temts from the students' pre- 'and postcourse questionnaires

werc subjectecl to a frequency atnalysiS in order to examine thle dis-tril)ubtion o f responses on every survey itemn in both thle prccourseand postcourse administrations. Next, paired samples t-tests com-pared the mneans of each precourse item with the meanrs of the cor-responding postcourse itemii. Iables 4a, 4b. and 4c display thoseit.ets whose ptre-post effecl sizes were less than .05.

A summinary variable. called the "talk score,"' w,as computed by

adiding the scores on 21 items, with scores on several items invertedso that the highest respo3nse corresponded to highi participation inu'iscussions. T1is variable simiplified analysis by creating one targetvariale representing hiigh interest and enjoymient in discussions.Students Could be ranked and sorted osn this variable, wh1ich alsoserved as t-le basis for the next step. of correlating demnographics.The influence of= certain student demographics on irterest and en-loyvnent of discussions WIaS tested using either thc independent sam-pics t-test or one-way ANOVA test Tt'ests were usedl for variableswith two distinct grouups (such as getner or class period). A_NOVAswere used for dentigniraphic variables with three or mnore groups(sucth as ethnicity, age, or grade received). We recognize that thesmall number of students in ou,r samnple (n = 46, and a smaller nmr -her on some qIuestions) and, the nonrandom selection of tlhose stu-desnts dimzlinishi the inferential utility of our findLings. Reporting the ef-fect sizes tsee Tables 4ta, 4b, 'ic) enables readers to amake their ownjudcgmi-ents about tlhe educational significance of our findings. More-over, wxe usedl the coinbination of quantitatf.ive and qualitative datato understand andi interprel the experieinces of these students. Byreadling the two types of data against one another, we w. ere able to,identify important and commiti-ion r trend's and thtreads in the students'experiences miaore effectively than had we had only orne type of data.

After the statistical analysis, we turrned to the audio- and video-tapes. Two teacners witth expertise in classroom discussion and so-cial studies education were trained on the scoring checklist theteachers had usecd for scored discussions (see Table 3). T'he ratersviewed each discussion and reviewed a transcript of the focus sittl-

clen-ts' partici^pation in that discussion, thenl rated the participation ofthec locus stu:ldentCs, adding a slhort narrative of their assessment ofeach student's participation and other notable ifactors (for examnp-,le,teacher behavior).

We next coded the student and teacher interviews. T3o begin ouranalysis of the student interview datac, we selected frorn thc groupof 12 j'ust 3 studetnts wsho represented the diverse backgrounds and

29->

Diania Hess and Jjuie Posselt

1,0

C-- 9'Cr

2) 0 0

> 0 '-i

0J -

2) ---V ^

x ,

-: U'' 2). ° 2° o H ° ' E°

2); G °) -, °) ' -o

-t -~ -. a _

t~~ ~ ~ V 6r %Xr 65 Fr

'' C' _' C_ _ __

Kf ;,:tnf)\ r

2 ff fM LI ff) fi t6

f' r C' CC >' C t: v C KD 'C

a~~~~~~~~~~0 'i. __, K) .c'

' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C C') f.C' , . .

_ _. _ ~~~'-

't

2)

C'-

1,

0

2)Cy'

V2

;V

295

ItQ

V

I.

I'

.0-1

.U

0;

4R

I

296

2)QSX.

21) ' cc:>cf 02G~2)4,4'

rSci en

Iigih Sc/Nxol LXA-usiZ;ilon J"(CfnltmrovFsial Public Issues

-)

-cc 4 6-t 0 2 -r '

I cc~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c

.-CC 0c IC2 t JC. t Y cc , 6 _ -

__,_ _-t . ., __ _

_C _ , 4 _ V _2 ,'2___ )

V Ick -c _ '0 nC U02r VI ~ ~ ~ cc *-- *o V, _~ 'a -/ V>

4: K' ca 5 02;-.-9

eY t 1 + , Y rl it Yen.fi e7

,__ __ __. _ _ _ _ _ . _ 0.2eeee_ee

en -Et-. '42 aD U V U Ve U n U V

CZ F c2 c.2

.. . ... .. . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. ..0. . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . ...-. . .. . .

k l

U-

A

It

It

I-0Zt

Vit

It4

el

.

'.S

Je,

v"

I

Diana Hess andJulie Posselt

a) I-? Z

V *- VV1

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

&) a)rCa1

Vr :

1 Q -

a) V a "I -)

E S E c

I) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~Ig 0 -s 0S FC : ° '

m I 'D I- 0 r D O °

0 0~~~~~~~~~~~~ ct ~ ~~~~ a): I- tu

ON s9 - -, s,,t

t~ C',O

A -t -C C r

-t: NO ONtC tO 1- 4

E Aw E C S O O0 O

_~~~ -- v,

NO .- C) NO C) C) CdN > e

_~~~~- _~ (. I C 6- -

-C

a)<N"

-O

CN

>.

0

II-OC>.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a>.1

\5

10

0CZV

'0l

730

CZa

NO

297

um

to

li

Q~

00

ce

(i

t

2

a)PCIda)

ill

.C2

!ll

I)

VD

......... . ..... I

Hi8 ghiSJi ol Di 101% ssiu cj (%nltrolersal Pubibhc sues

experiences of studCets in the classes (in termiis of genier, nace corn-

fort level, anicl attitude to arid discsussioin and the class). 'rhe differ

ences amotng these 3 stuclenlts, we hoped, Wotilid lelp Us develop aninitial coding sclhemiie that w'is as comprehensive as possible. Earlyito (Uar analySiS it became clear- that reporting fincings through de-scriptions of a smaller group of students would be more illustrativethan focusing on all 12 students--which is why this article contains

cualitative data froill only 3 stuldents. We each didl line-hy-line codingof po)rtions of the 3 stuclents' interview transcripts to induce first-levelcodes and later mnet to comnpare out' codes and establish the core listof codes. '[.'hen we comtnpleted the coding using lYivo, checking pe-riodica1hvy foi inter-rater reliability, adding new codes when appropri-ate, and eventually moving to axial coding to draw connections be-tweenl categories of (odes and their subcodes. After the 3 students'interviewvs were coded, we turnecd to transcripts of the 3 students' con-tributions in the scored discussions. We coded these in a similar ftasl-ion an,ci finaliv, codled the teachers' interview transcripts. Throughloutthie coding process, we followed what Glaser and Strauss termi "thqebasic, defining rule for the 'iconstant comparative imethod"' alwayscomDaaring an incident being coded into a specific category with theincidents previously codedd in thai category.s ' It is important to notetat we analyzed the qualitative data frn m the 3 students and 2 teach-

er-s in conjuniction with our stalistical analysis of survey resul?ts. WVeo uind that the interviews and observations c'larified the meaning and

implications of the surv,,ey results and vice versa.

F-or each of the thIree stuLdents, these d-ata togethler were used toconstruct a case template, whicth breaks otur research questio'ns intomior-e specific types of infot rmnation developed thrfoLugh tlle coding

process. For example, to approach oi' first research question, howsecondary social studies students experience class discussions ofCPI, we indticeci a num-ber of factors that conceptualize the wordoxcpr'rience. With these comnprehensive case templates in hanld, wethen turnedc tO crn ss-('ase analysis, drawing on data from the threestludents' questionnaires and their case temnj.plates.

Hq NDINGS

An(lya,isjs of Question nzcirc Rc ra/s

Tihe q1uestionnaire results showed that the 4i students in thetwo sectionis olf thie DPI class started the semester withl positive atti-

tudes about classroom discussion that persisted and, in somne re-

813trncy G. (Glsier and AnstIm 1. Strauss, 7D' Iiiscoacery qjGrorunuded 77,c'urv.

S'taCte iis,fr Qiudikitti"? Nesoarcsb (NNe' York: Akluixe [)e Gruyter, 1967).

29-8

D)ina fiess and lulie Possell

spects. increasecd th-roughout the semester (see T:ables 4a, 4b, 4c). Inparticular, the study students believed that participation in discus-sionI helped them, learn more and reported that their contributionswere important (items 26 and 19); moreover, they claimiied to listento others and enjoy class more wlhen they participate in discussions(items 25 and 14) (see lable 5).

The factors that most influenced stu(Ients' verbal participationin discussion were knowing a lot about the topic, being interestedin the topic, ancI recognition fronm classmates (items 35, 42. anIc 47).These results may not seem surprising, butt a possible contradictionexists between the neecd to know miuch about a topic before dis-cussion and one theoretical basis for discussion-tlhat we talk tolearn.' 9 One other participation factor is particularly important to thisstudy. Seventy-four percent of the study students indicated that ateachers basing part of their grade oin participation in discussionwould cause thenm to speak mnore (item 50). (See Trable 6.)

In terms of students' positions on some ethical and pedagogicalissues related to classroonm discussioni (see T.able 7), we found animportant tension between responsibility to the group and individ-ual choice. A majority of students believed they had a responsibilityto contribute to class discussions occasionally, that verbal participa-tion was an essential skill, antd that students slhould be tauglht howto participate effectively in discussions (items 28, 29, and 31:). Theywere divided over whether participation in class discussion was amatter of personal choice and over whether it was fair for a teacher-to base part of their grade on the quality of their paiticipation (items30 and 32).

Changes over the Chause oJf/he Semester

We cotmpare(i the pre- andc postcourse quEestioinaire results on anLitnber of categories: gender, race, which class the students were in,students' age, and their self-reported previous academic success. Vir-tually all statistically significant changes that occurred pointed to in-creasecd appreciation for discussion. For example. at the end of thecourse, female studlenits were m(ore likely to report that they spoke indiscussions and less likely to say tllat they were afraid classmateswould think their ideas unworthiy of consideration (items 9 and 22).Male students' enjoymelnt of discussions increased from the b )eglnningof the course to its end, as (lid their belief that every student has theresponsibility to participate occasionally (items 24 and 28). Older stu-dents (16-year-olds) showed more changes in a prodiscussion diirec-

WWaiter Parker and t)iana Hcss, 'Teatching with and for i)iscussion," Teacb-tng and 7IPacherREducation 17 (April 2(01): 273-289.

2399

3011ih Scbool )isc ussio-n of 'on tmrvemsial Iutiblic Issues

Table 5. Precourse Survey. Stadent Responses toTalk Score Questions*

Response (9/a)

Quiestion

7. I enjoy sharing nmy ideas.8. I am hesitant to talk in discussion.9. I speak in class discussions.

tO. I have so mulch tc say that Ihave difficulty lettirng othershave a chance.

11. I am afraid that tihe teacher willcriticize or judge me based on3in; conmments in discsosions.

t12. I only speak up wvhen I havesometh-ing I really want to sax.

13. 1 wotuld rather sit hack an(d heawiat others have to say.

14. t enjoy a class miore wlhen Iparticipate in the discussions.

15. 1 iave difficulty expressing myideas clearly.

1i. I 1ail (aistiactecd fromii participationby thinking about other things.

1i7. Ily thc title I have decided what Iwant tn say the rest of the grouphias moved o0n to soniething else.

18. 1 stop listeniing because I ari busythinking about what I want to saynext

19. I thintk my ideas make importantcontributionls.

20. 1 can hardly get a wortd inedgewise so I keep qluiet.

21. Whern I speak it is brief andto th-le point.

22. 1 am afraid that my classmateswill tiihak miy ideas are unN-orthyof consideratioin.

23. Most class discussions seenm likea waste of ti'ne.

24. 1 enjoy class discussions.25. t listen to others.26. 1 thinLk that participating in

d iscu}ssionts helps rme to learn naore.

27. I like to have sone time to thinkabout an issue before discussing it.

Always

18

913

(OfteII

47

1340

Somnetimnes

366238

Never

0

t69

0 9 32 59

7 9 42 492

9 42 42

9 *i6 71 4

29 36 22 1 3

I I 58 27

9 9 6't 18

t) 13 58 29

0

'1] 51

58 38

33 4

2 13 42 42

7 44

7 1 1

/I7 2

44 38

0 [3 52 35

13 33 41139 4 ,i 20

93tt 30 30

43 35 22 0.

'11 = 4i)

300

7

Dianai Is.ts andj/uie Posselt 301

Table 6. Precourse Survey: Student Responses RegardingParticipation Factors*

Response (%)

Would Would Nocause mne cause me effectto speak to speak on Not

Factor more less speaking applicable

33. Classmates whio are overlvtalkative

34. A teacher who asks nme(luestions about whiat I say indiscussion

35. flaving a lot of knowledgeabout discLussionl topiC

36. criticisIm from classmates37. ILack of interest in the topic38. Feeling that the teacher cares

about me as a person

39. Male teacher40. Feeling tired41. Interpersonal contlict with

classmriate4 2. Interest in the discussion topic43. Preparing a statement or

question for homeworkbefore the discussion

44. 'Lime to thinlk i)efore speaking45. Feel that my ieteas won't be

valued or appreciated46. Lack of knowledge about

the topic47. Recognitiorn or encotuiragenment

from classmates48. Female teacher49. Judigmental or critical teacher50. Teacher is basing part of imy

grade on mry participation indiscussion

1 1 59 26

59 15 26

93 0 77 65 240 91 9

439(I)

7100

5976

22

91

52 278 11

2

50 370 0

4 334 15

2 80 17

0 96

78

2

11

74

i

2 152 83

65 22

9 1 7

'ri = -116Note: Totals mauy not acki up to o0f0,%.

tion than the 15-year-olds. In particular, by the end of the course theywere muchi less likely to report that discussions seemed like a waste oftimne (item 23) andl much more likely to say they enjoyed class discus-sions (item 24) and believed that every student has the responsibil-ity to contribute in class discussions (item 28). (See Tables 4a, 4f, 4c.)

4

0

'4

7

44

I)

0

4132

()

301

H(1g2,-g b §611b (1ol BI 1sc SSiit)f of Con/roce si w Pl ibflic iSS ues

Table 7. Precourse Survey: Student Responses RegardingDiscussion as a Value

Response (t)))

Agree Disagree

28. i.vetry,r stude-nt in a (lass has the resp)onsii)ilft\ totOnti l[)UtC to ciaSS diSCUSSions oCcIisloiiatl]\

29. Being able to speak tlp in '- group (if one.s peensis atn essential skill or ,t persVOn to ha%ve.

30. Participating in class discussio ns is a Putter ofptersonal choice. It is not essential that everyolevi at1itbute in this way.

31 It is important that studerts he tatughit how topa3ttcipate e ffentc tn'eIy in c'a,SS disCUssIorts.

32. it s faair -or a teatin to basc .t p)arr of thestllIent's gratle on3 th qrtuality of thleirparticipation it) caLss discassvi"tN.

8(

90

S4

85

20

4

4i

15

41( S'i

Studeuits'A/fihi vfior 3 il o00s1 Issues

3ecause tile selektion of issues fior study and discussion is so

chall.('engirng, wt9e -were interestedi int knowing how much teil Sitiientsliked sttttying and discu-ssing the issies ihe tw. teachers selectedfor th,e couirse. Oin thie postcourse questionnaire we asked studentsto idsentify their m>ost .and least favorite issutes and to explain their

selections (see Tale 8). These data indicate thal many mnore Stul-dents disliked the gatbling issuLe thalln bked it and that the gentlerequity issue (Title I) did not spaitk intense positive or negative re-spouses. The tharee other issUes Were mnuch more co4nfo1un1ding, hoW-

ever. For examtiple, stuiden<ts most commonly id3entified free speechas either their mnost or least favorite topic. They ran:kecd physician-assisted suicide as the seconci mrost t opular and seconid least popu-

lar issue. This Ceontrad.wiCtiOn1 also appeared with- the juvenile crimie

Table 8. Percent of Students Rankinig Issues as "Favorite"and "Least Favorite"

Issues F;avtrfite

Gamr-]ling 3 17PhysiciauI-asstste sUicide 31 21

Juvenile nici.e 21 17Title INX'tree t)t It' __ ,,_,,38

3(J2

Diana Hess and Julie Ptosselt

issue. Clearly, student opinion on interesting/appropriate issues forstudy was cdividedi.

THE IHIREE FOCI IS STUDENTS

Recall that our analysis of th}e qualitative data focused on threestudents: Emily Bright., Lisa Satunders, and William jTones (see Table9). Juxtaposed, these three students' experiences of the DPI courseoffer Useful insights into the benefits ancd limitations of this CIPI dis-cussion--based demnocracy education course.

Emily John'son enjoys school, comes from a close-knit family,and describes herself as a "sporty girl." She sees teaching as a careeroption and -is a s lf-labeled "overachiever" who "likes to see thoseAs." UJpon graduation, Emily hlopes to attend her stalte's major re-search university, whiere her older sister currently studies. Despitehaving a ne twork of fetmale friends slhe has known since kinder-garten, E£T1ily doesn't consider herself a popuLlar student. MicdlanidIligh Schiool, she says, is "cliquish" and the popular students exert apowerful influence over the school's culture. That influence has si-lencec Emiily in the past. In a past French class, she stayed "quiet,just because the people in my class tend to be more popular people,and I feel like I want thiem to like me." When she is in a class wvithpeople she feels comfortable with1, however, her participation in-creases. We witnessed that same scenario in t,he iPI class. ThlAroughthe course of the semester, she developed friendships with severalof her peers, carrying herself and speaking up witlh increa.sing con-fidence: in the last few discussions, she exhibited not only strongparticipation, but clear leadiership skills.

Toward thie b)eginning of the set mester-, Emily's teac,her, JaySmith, accurately predicted she woould do -well in thc class. "'Etiilywill be an z",' Smith surmised. "She is going to make this an experi-ence that is very valuable-for me andl her, I th ink." Despite earlyreservations about tthe course, Emily hacd a very positive expericnce."At the beginning, I was a little annoyed with the class' because "itwas a lot of lhard work, andt I didn't rcally like public speaking,"Emily remiemnberecd in our final interview with her. "I enjoy the classnow because we just talk about really hCot issues." Moreover, Emilyfound the clatss valuablre:

A lot of kids donit like it just because you hlave to get in thiere ancl you haveto talk out loud to a group of people, but I think ... it is important thatpeople learn thaIt its okay to talk and speak out their ideas.

31)3

H)4 h7gSh 1bool Discussion /CNotztvrstal Ri.t humS

Table 9. Data for Students intensively Studied

Iteii Student

tinily

Age

Race

Gendcer

'Teacher

Exp1 ctedfinal grade

Final gracdereceived

Desc iiptionof class

l avornte thingab)out class

Least favoritething aboutclass

Pre/post classNew talk sclores

Perception ofself as a student

Perceptiorn ofschool

Favorite issue

Least favoriteissuce

15.5

Whfite

i'emnalc

j.ay S.9itih

A

A--

"Great-1 learned'- lot about coltrt)-vcrsial topics andabout the worldaround rmie. I alsolearned how tobetter participate i7class discussions."

;Setred discus-sions. becaLuse itIbrought togethereverything youlcarned froinr these,nester."

"Having to cite thesource of orygpiece of evile'nce."

82a/,Vy/q4%

t ami a go-odstudent.

I like school.

Juvenile crime

Physician-assisttrdsulicidle

Lisa Wilairn

16 A6

White

Peniale

Bob iMrtarin

C'

"Devastating-I learned lhoutiean peoplecani be."

'Mv friend Janekept ire alive inhee. "

-Pretty muticheverything."

65'X }/71 ;)%

1 ain an averagestu(oent.

I strongly do miotlike school.

Juvenile criome

Frete spe'ecli

Atrican Amuertcan

Male

Both

L3

'1 )iscussions"

"The discussio ns"

"L'[he tescs"

I 10%'' MY0%

I ain a "'ootlstudent.

I d(o ot likcsch ool.

iuvenlle crime

Physician-assisledsuicide

Emtily's 1)articipattlon in the scorecd disciussionis was most notablefor her facilitation. She usually opened the dialogue b3y introdlucingthe policy issute, consistently invited thteB participation of othicr groupmem:nbers, and frequently referenced another student's commiiiienit tomake a paint. During the discussion on free speechi, for example,

30-84

f :3-

Dianat. H-ess and Julie Posselt

she asked, "Whiat values are in conflict, Dave?" and in the phiysician-assisted suicide discussion, she suitmmarized by saying, "The valuesthat are in conflict are, like Miini said, the inalienable right to lifeand, as Bruce said, the quality of life. Katy, which one do you thinkis imore important?" When she sensed her group was bogged downduring the juvenile crime discussion, Emily led them forward by clar-ifying, 1 think inost of us agree that alternatives should be tiecl inwith other solutio<ns, although we clon't agree on what the alterna-tives should be. How successfiul have the alternatives to stricter laws[handguEn laws] been?" All of this facilitative talk, however, did notprevent Emily from taking strong positions on the issues, offeringreasons for her views, and freely admitting her errors.

Emily's gracdes on scored discussions improved throughout thecourse, and our analysis revealed thiat Emily was one of the few stu-dents in either class who consistently took on a leadership role. 11erleadership surprised us initially, given her concerns about how otherstudents perceived her. Twvo factors, we now believe, explain whyEmily emerged as a leader in the discussions. First, Smith often placedher in the "middle-ability group" for the scored discussions, wliichEmily found less intimidating than the "top group." As she said, "Gein-erally I do very well in the middle group just because I'm betweenthe middle and the top, and I kind of feel intimidated sometimes bythat." Second, perhaps because of her success in it, Emily bought intothe goals of the course sufficiently to offset her concerns about pub-lic speakinig. Although she wrote on her postcourse questionnairethat what she likes least about class discussions is 'the vulnerabilitythat you have when speaking your views and ideas, because vou facepossible criticism," her talk score increasecl drnamatically (fromn 82 per-cent to 94 percent). In contrast to her opinion at the beginning of thecourse, she agreed at its completion that it is fair for teachers to gradestudents' participation. For Emnily, instruction and practice in scorecldiscussions, along with developing relationships with other discus-sants, caused her to value discussions mnore and gain confidenceabout the importance of what she had to contribute.

Lisa

Not all students shared Enmily Johnson's positive experience, un-fortunately. In stark contrast to Emily, Lisa Saunders chose "devastat-ing" as the one-word descriptor for her experience in the DPI class,adding, "I learned how mean people can he." Peer relations and thecourse struLcture accounted for her negative experience in the DPIclass. Lisa found the atmosphere in the DPI class discouraginig and de-void of particular choices she wanted to mnake. "You can't choose the

30)5

i!l lglh Sctsh l D iscu"ssion %/ Gmit'0ves,ial J: ;lib issues

topic [of the scored discussions] and can't chioose the people you dis-cuss with,' she told us. Speaking in discussions should be "a chocie,not ta respofnsil)ility." T,lsa also diaifletd tihat verbal participation, in dis-Cu55Rsi.)Us was an unfair basis for grading and wrote on the postclass

questionnaire' '"Ilat pisses rme off and m.akes mie not want to talk."Lisa's teachier, Bob Mvartin, thought lim-lited confidence re-

strained Lisa s participation but tnat she was thiolughitfutl andl, whenput on the spjot, coulcl rmake intelligenit contributions. He correctlypredicted shie wotuld struggle in the class, but thiat she could earn a

B('`f I can draw her out," as he ptit i). Lisa had one of the lowesttalk scores in our samnple, which was borne otl+ by our interview

data and lher participation in scored discussions. W.7hen askedl to de-

scribe lher typical participationi, she said, "I don't.' but stipulated ttiat

the teacher and whether her frieneds were in the class made a dif-ference. If w-ithl people sihe likets, she talks, but "with people I hate

I don-'t say anythiing." Like Ernily, Lisa expressed concei'n that shewouid say something irrelevant, especially around stucdents wxhom

she considered popular. Later she elaborated on how these studetits"think they rule the world.'

(liven her attitude tO<warcd tlhe class and the popularity Of someof her student colleagues, l.isa's minimal participation in the scoreddiscussions is not surprising. In the first discussion (on physiciant-assisted suicide), Lisa said a total of 81 words, which came in the

form of five questions. In the next discuission her participation in-creased but was still characterized by shiort statements and shortCqUeStiOl-1S, SuChI as, "'O D ou t[hit-k they'e Lhandguni control laws] ef-fective?" ulr raters thought her participation in the following dis-

cussion (on-i Title IX) was markedly better, but her teachser's score dcld

not reflect the impnrovement they saw. Isy the final cdiscussion, her

sco)re from, Mart-in was miUSt above '4 p.erient. Moreover, slhe clislikedthese discussions throuighlout the course, although her comfort level

increased some whebn reassigned to) a groutp without any of the

" p-opular kids" she so disliked.Ultimately, Lisa dicd not believe in t:he teaclhers' goals for the

course. In our first interview \vitli her, we asked her hlow slhe woul7d

explain the pr1-pose of the class to sormeone who asked:

Lisa: "What's its purpose?"

!,nte;Vi(u,er: "O:r, what aue you supp)osed to get out of thlis class?"

Lisa: 'Depends on who it was.' IMeaning, it cdepetids ont who was asking.1

lnterviezver 'VWelt, what if it was mne'-L&ser: 'lf it was yout F'd give 'temisomne, like, stick utp response.'Ile-vienver: [Laughsl

[L5(1: "Like [in aI high. sotmewlhat sarcistic voicel, I, tlhink the class is a good

Waxy to c-xpress your feelings in front of othter people."

306)(

Diana iess andjullie Posselt

Jnterviewer: "And what if you were talking to a frienid on the phonetonight?"

Lisa: [in a low and critical voice] "I don't know whiat the hell this 'lass isfor, or what it's supposed to teachi me."

Although she earned, a B in the course, lher experience was vervnegative, and her cdiscussion skills showed little improvermlent. ToLisa, the course was hardly an exercise in democratic ecducation, butrather an ordeal that took away the choices she so valued making inschool. It is not surprising that her sole positive experience in thecourse was the acdvocacy speech, in which she chose the issue shewould research and speak about, for this is a young woman vhoplaces a premium on indi vidual decision i making about whether andwhen to speak. For Lisa, scored discussions were forced exercisesthat violated her deeply hield belief that there should be a riglht toremain silent. Peer culture is an additional factor that explains hierexperience. Like Emily, I.isa felt intimidated by the "popular kids" inthe class, but unlike Emily, who reported increasing comfort withtalking as she got to know people, Lisa reported that she only likedto speak when she was with people she already knew and liked.

Williaim

William Jones is an African Atnerican mnale who turned 16 dur-ing the semester of the course. One of fotur African Americans stul-dents we studied, he described himself as a verbal person. "I talk alot," William said. "My dad always tells me I have a good way withwords. I get that froim ty father, and I like to express what I'mthinking by talking." Of the 46 students in the sample, William hadthe highest talk score both before and after the class, indicating thathe not only valued class discussions but also had confidence in hisdiscussion skills. "l just learn more if I conversate," William told us,"and it jtust makes the class smoother if there's more conversationgoing on." Although he said that lie somnetimes gets nervous in dis-cussions "'cause everybody's looking at me, and J just feel like I'mgoing to mess up," he also said he "speaks pretty well in public." Wesaw no evidence of insecurity or shyness in the classroom. Quite theopposite, William emerged early as a leader in class discussions anclciften encouraged his classmates to increase their participation. Afterlistening to another African American rnale participate, he said tohinm, "Man, you gotta talk mnre!"

William was the only student in the study who had experiencein both classes. lie began the semester with jay Smith, who ac-knowlecdged him early on as a leader. H-lis leadership skills and ac-tive engagement, however, did not show up in his scored discussion

307

3 117gb Sc.i3 JDiscussion ijc.onversial Public Issues

evaluations. Shortly after the second scored discussion, he was sus-pended from school for a week an(l a half because of a verhal inci-dent th'at occurred in this class. The official reason for his suspen-sion was 'harassment of a teacher,' but it proved impossible for usto understand fully w-.hat happened-in part because we did nothave humnan subjects approval to access a stuldent's disciplinary rec-oras. After his suspension was finished, William was transferrecl toBob Martin's class, enabling us to keep him in the stucly.

B3ecause William was "willing to take a confrontational positlonin class." Martin believed he had a positive effect oni the overallclassroom cli-mate. In scored discussion1s. William showed some ofthe same leadership tendencies we noticed with Emily. Hle fre-.juentiy asked questions designed to move the discussion forward

and specifically referred to another student's previous contribution.We noticed William's code-switching: lie confidently and easily usedthe English traditionally valued in school, hut occasionally, espe-cially wlhen mnore emotionally engaged, he chanlgecd both the lexiconand the mannier in wlhich hie snoke.

His scores on th!e scored discussions ranged between 40 per-cent and 80 percetnt in Bob) Mart:in's class. Ourl raters, thouglh, scoredhis participation much h-iher than did Martin o n t:he final three dis-cussions. Although William expectecd to earn a B in the class, in fact,he ended utD with a C,, in large part because of hiis relatively lowscores onl the written tests. It is important to note, however, thatWilliam's C'- was the highest grade eairned by any of the AfricanAmerican studlents in either class. in subsequent analyses, we intendtc) analyze what accounts for the differences between the gr-ades ofwhite and African American students in the DPI course.

William reported this to be hqis favorite of all tde classes lhe wastaking. lis positive views about the class stemmed, in part, from theutility of the course goals as they related to wlhat he expected toneed to know and be able to do as an adult. Supporting this, Williamsaid:

We're going to be 1S, and w-e're going to be out, you know, making ourowwn living. And issues conme up, for presideent. or, yoLi know, deathpenalLy, abortion, or whatever conies up. Who s going to speak for it? Ifyotu don't have those skills, things can hiappen that we don't want. So it'sa very good clIss. I learneda lot.

-lie believed the issuLes under stucdy were imuportant, claiming, "Themore we know about these issues, the bwetter our Voice is." Thie

Course also taught hini speaking skills that would be necessary inadulthood. 'Xlhen wve get older," he said, "we're going to have avoice that yotu kno-w can nake a difference-i mean, that's what thlis

308

Diana Hess and Julie Plosselt

class is trying to teaclh us." As a student who appreciated verbal corn-munication from the semester's outset, William found the course'sgreatest asset to be its emphasis on developing his sense of voiceand. improving his discussion skills.

DISCITSSION

We have drawn five findings from the questionnaire results ofthe entire sample and the qualitative data for Emily, Lisa, and William.We list them here as hypotheses that will be explored in the nextphase of this study.

1. Students generally have positive attitudes about classroom dis-cussion, although they disagree about whether oral participationsbould be required and whether as-signing grades for their discussionparticipation isfjiir. The fact that students generally appeared to likeclass discussion vwas not surprising. Otther researchers have foundthe samne attitude among preservice teachers20 and high sclhool so-cial studies students.21 These researchers also noted the same con-tradiction between the value students place on discussion and theirattitudes about participation in class discussion as a matter of per-sonal choice (see Table 7).

More than half of the students in the study group believed inthe importance of learning how to participate in discussions; how-ever, they also believed that actual participation should be a matterof personal choice. Moreover, just under h-alf of them claimed thatgrading participation was unfair, perhaps illustrating how values as-sociated witlh free speech have permeated the belief systems of theseyoung people. Lisa's case offers an explanation for this apparentcontradiction, that the constitutional right to freedom of speech alsoimplies the converse-the freedomn not to speak. For her, and per-haps for others, tlhe requirement to parttcipate verbally deterred,ratlher than encouraged, participation in discussion and contributedto her decision to "drop out" of what the teacher believed was ademocratic activity. Indeed, students may perceive that teacher-mandated participation in discussion violates personal rights. Evenso, Dillon reminds educators that "far from cominig naturally, dis-cussion has to be learned." 22 liJow should teachers help studentswho typically remain silent learn discussion skills?

205ee Rahima Wade. "Teacher Education Students' Views on Classroom Dis-cussion: Implications for Fostering Critical Reflection," Teaching and Teacher hdu-caion 10 (March 1994): 231-242.

21See Mark Schwingle, "Hfigh School Students' Attitudes Albout the tuse of(Graded Discussions in Social Studies" (masters thesis, University of Wisconsin, 2000).22James T. Dillon, Uising Discussion in Classrooms (Philadelphia: Open Uini-versity Press, 1994), p. 105.

30)9

gh St Stcool Discusosi n q/'((:onht veisial I'ulit Issues

in-class groupirng practices that inforrna lly 'tracked" students

based on verbal aility andl/or confidence in dIiscussion may have

l)een helpful for verbally reticent stuIdent1s. F-or scored discussions,

stud"nts weTe placed in a sm-.all group (typically 8 to 10 students)

with others who lhad simil.lar participatory s-tyles and skills. As a re-suIt, students wlho Were es,ecially quiet dlid not have to compete for

"airtime" With students who talked a lot, andi cdiscussions became

less intimidating for students like Ltsa. SuC h grouping practices,

however, raised oth er pron'blems and did not change the fuIdilamen-tal Choice teachers mlade that all students should be taught and re-

cuired to participate verbai'y in class discussions.i2

2. Students dtisagyre aboutt wthich ) 5ssues nam their least and mnost

javorrle. .Many democrtacy educators lhave proposecd criteria for issues

selectton,2 4 and somiie advocate in oIVing stUtdenis in selecting the is-

sues for discussionS What emerges from both the questionnaire data

ancl tlhe inters-vicws is that students' views on w'hicth issues thley like

anld dislikfe vrv yildel-v (see Tables S and 9). Although whlat accountsfor this variation remainis uinclear, a connection. may exist between

the extenlt to whieclh an issue is colntroversial in thie world beyond

schoot and students' disagreemnent about fiavorite/least favorite is-

sues. Three topics tlhlat the stuldents studied were extrenmely contro-versial among the genenr.a putblic quvenile crime, physician-assistedsuicide, and free sneech), anLd students held strong opinions on

wh,cther or not they likeed these as topics for dJiscussion. The otherIwo topics generated less pUblic controversy, and stuclents, similarly,were less polarized in their attitudes about discussing thetm. ofcourse, stu.-dents miiay niot hlav£e enjoyed thinkiing about a particuklar

issu,e coftr example, physician-assisted suicidDe). but they may deemlearning about it to be ciucial, nevertheless. Regardless of why StU-dlenits differ alout the'r least and most favorite issues to discuss,telLach.crs wVho) hope that thleir students will choose identiical issues to

study, if given the optio-n, likely will be disappointed.

i3 Stodr.nis in the highest-s,i led group were reinforced in their belief that it

was riot inmportnt to listen w the ViewIs Of all studIents, 1)1t only to those whlo were

sinmilar in academeic. and discussion skills. Additionally, stuctents in the least-skilled

gop lit had tew models of exemplary discossion participalioll to emulate.

2'IBvron G. tNlassialas and Blenalnin (7 (,ox, hIquigr in Soci jl Studies (NewYork: NlceGraws- hill Boou'cs, Inc ., 1966): Walter Parker rAnd Williarm Zumeta, "T'oward

an Aristocracyv of -x vensone: Policy Study in die i3igh School Currulrumr.'" 7I teoey

arou ARsearcn h fo Sock;! udocauo 27 (Winter 1')999i: 9 14. Di.ana FI less, "DevelopingStrong Voters Thl-ouoglh I)emnvxratic I )cliberation,' mociil Jtdultii)n1 64i (Septemnber

2000)): 21)93-9"9.0 aMichiel Appk and Jamtnes Beane. edts . ()emoe;ntic Schoos tAlexa,ndrita. VA:

Associalion 1or superv.ision ancd Curriculum Development, 1995).

Dr1).na Hess andulie j 'Posselt

Classroomrl discourse that ainmed to achieve such conseIisuswould be an exercise in democratic education. Even without such adeliberative process to select issues, iowever, the time required toengage in issues-cenitered education2 6( may discourage teaclhers fromtrying this approach. That students expressed a range of preferences,in short, suggests that teachers should he cautious about involvingstudents in issue selection urnless thev want to devote the time nec-essary for students to truly deliberate about wlhich issues to study.Most teachers, likely, will decide to dlevote curricular timne to delib-eration about the isstues thlemselves.

Another implication for teachers and researclhers emanates fromthis finding. Much of the issues-centered social studies literature citesa positive connection among engagement, learning, ancd pre-existinginterest in a particular issue. For exam-iple, Jeff Passe states, "l)iscus-sion mnust be based on an issue that students seek to explore" be-cause "without somne sort of intellectual curiositv, the discussion willnever evolve."52 7 13yron Massialas sinmilarly places the category of "rel-evance" at the top of his five-point list of criteria for issue selection.referring to the extent to which- a particular issue "relates to the stu-dents and to the social context in which tlhev find themselves, 25

The present findings offer ve-y miodest support for these clairns.(Generally, the students tencded to favor issues (sucth as juvenile crirneand free speech') that were closest to their lives. However. more than30 percent of the stuudents selected pl-hysician-assisted suicide as thteirfavoiite issue fOr discussion because of the clear and diffictult mnoralconflict it presented. Moreover, thle tmore students knew about anissue before they stLudied it cdid not seem to influence their affinityfor an issue after the unit. In fact, students often endecd up likinig thevery issues abioult wlhich they initially knew the least.

3. The behavior and perecpt ions o/ peers srongly influence stu-dents' views oj classroom discusfsiont. The impact of peer cuilture onh'ow stLudents felt about participating in the discussions is striking.The three focus studclen-ts feared being judged negatively by tlheirpeers more than by their teachers. In particular, the two femnale stu-dents were especially wary of stuctents they perceived as being pop-ular. Moreover, the questionnaire data ctearly illustrate that, for vir-

2"John A. Rossi, -in-depth Study in an Issues-Orientated Social Studies Class-roomn," Theoy anti Researcb in S. ciaEd ducation 23 ( Spring 1995): 88 120.

<lJeff Passe and Ronald W. Evans, Discussion Methods itn an Issues-CeriteredCurriculum," in Haindbook on Teaching Secial Issues, ed. R. W. I'vans and( D. W.Sa'xe (Washington, D)C: National Council for the Social Studies, 1996), p. 81.

'1B¾ron C. Massialas, "Criteria for Issues-Centered Content Selection," inflaw-I book on 7iachin- .Social Issues, ed. R. W. Evans and 1). W. Saxe (Washington,l)C: National COUncil for the Social Studies, 1996), p. 46.

3101

312.s6b Scbool DJiscuissioni of Contlroverial Putblic Jssues

tually all studients int the two studvy classes, the power or peers wasgreater than tlhat of the teacher (see Table 6). This finding is trou-1)ling, in part because of the neecd to teach adolescents how to en-gage in discussions with people thev do not krnow or even iike.

The find3ing is also troubling becauise it illustrates how the teachi-ers goals of achieving some higher level of eqluality in classroom dis-cussion were undercut by differences over which they miay have hadlittle control. Other researchers have recently identified the impor-tance of peer cuiltu-re in classroom discussions. For example, leem-rnings's study of discussions in two high school classes illustrated

lhow the sociocu,tural divisions within the study group influencedho-w and why students participated in discussions. HIer stucly foundstudents' displays of tolerance had procluced a social fayade tlhat

concealed the true nature and depth of divisions. ' 29 in our stucdy,teachers' in-class grouping practices appeared to nmitigate some ofthe most negative influences of peer culture, but peer culture stillloomed large as a factor in how students experieniced suclh discus-sions and the overall class. Orn the other lhand, grouping studentswlth othiers who had similar skl3ls and levels of discussion confi-cdence created its own set of problems. In )articular, it deprived stu-cdents with weak skills of the opportunity to work with those whohad stronger skills andcl greater confidence levels. Additionally, it re-inforced the arrogance of the iost stillful students, who cominentedthat tlhey were pleased to not have to discuss issuies with studentsWho possessed weaker skills. fIThis attitude is especially troubling be-cause the course was designed to promote the view that all membersor a community should have a voice in deliberating issues.

4. Students' attitudes aboult a controversial issues discussioncourse are linked sirongly both. to h'u) much value they place on c dis-u.ssion general/y and, miore spec//ical/v to whether they believe a

connection e.xists between learninkgq howe, to discuss sutch issues andwhat is valuable in the world beyond school. Two of the three focus

students, Emily and -William, had ve'y positive reactions to the CI'1discussions and the cla ss. Several reasons may account for their pos-itive reactions. First, they miiay have believed in their teachers' ratio-nales for CPR cdiscussionrs. 13otlh Emily and Williain articulated strong

connections between thie CPI discussionls and what they thoughtconstituted strong citizen behavior in the world outside of school.Second, although William reported more confidence in his verbalprowess than did Em-iily, both students had higlh talk scores goinginto the class (.82 percent for Emily and 100 percent for William), anti

29Annette f lemitnilngs, "High School Deemocratic Dialtogues: Possibilities forPraxis," An1erIicani E.'clucatiofncl Research Journa 237 (Spring 2000): 88.

312

Diana Hess and Julfe Posselt

both students believed that tlhey made imiportant contributions to tieclass discussions. Conversely, Lisa had one of the lowest talk scoresat the beginning of the study (65 percent) and thouglht the discus-sions were generally a waste of time. A simplistic explanation forthiese differences would be that the class simply reified the existingparticipatory tendencies of the students. Richer, nore profound ex-planations surely may be advanced. Note that Emily's talk score in-creased dramatically (to 94 percent) and that even Lisa's increasedsomewhat. Students' positive attitudes about such a class are possi-bly related to three factors: perceptions of peers, comfort level withpublic speaking, and willingness to study issues the teachers select.In the cases of Emily, Lisa, and William, the interaction of these threefactors appears to account for their general attitude toward the class.

5. /tude its' abilities to pantic/pate c.f/ectively ii C'P1 ciscussionsimpr)ve as a result of a social studies course that places pri-macy onsuch discussions. The scored discussion scores indicate that all threeof the students improved in their ability to participate in this form ofCPI discuission. These scores (and the interview data) suggest that al-though students wlho already have a proclivity for class discussiondo improve more than those wlho do not, this class has a small pos-itive effect even for students like Lisa. Perhaps this effect is simply aresult of practice--students can improve tlheir skills if they are taughthow to do so and if those skills are valued in the structure of theclass. Also, as both Lisa and Emily indicated, discussion withi otherpeople whose skills are similar can increase discussants' confidenceand foster the kinds of pa-ticipation that will, over time, build skills.

That a class designed to help studerts become better discussantsof CPI actually produces that effect may, at first blush, appear to bean expected and inconseluential finding. Such a judgment seemns tobe erroneous, however. First, that students can be taughit how to dis-cuss better is a claim supported by little empirical evidence-and vir-tually none in the recent social studies literature. Second, a common-place notion is that people are either verbally proficient or not-thatit is an inclination and skill imnpervious to instruction. That studentslearned to more effectively discuss (PI after a sermester of instructiondisproves this idea, however. Both of the teachers in this study re-ported that, in the past, parents have requested waivers from thecourse because "my child is the quiet type and does not talk in class."These waivers were not granted because the teachers and the schooladministrators believed that learning how to discuss CPT was a skillimportant for all students to develop, and that their course would im-prove those skills. Our findings vindicate the educators' stance; thecourse did, in fact, help students become better discussants.

-

33

JTlioh Sco()Oi! Di5cIISSIon q/f'obtrvowsiri1 Public Issues

Th-e csourse we studlied was atypical of what is offered in m1)osthigh school social studtes progrnams. Its curricula and pedagogyexemiplified one approach to combining two schlools of thoughtin demnocracy education ("skills" and: 'issues") and illustratedt how

teachers can work toward the goal of im-proving students' abilities todiscuss the kin-Cds of issues thal are preyvalenr in a demisJocracy. In gen-era], high-quality diSCUSSio1n skills are diffficult to teach and learn.3"T1he present findings do not challenge that claim; instead, they acidsotme depth anid texture 10 understandcing flow hiighl school studenltsexperience and learna frorn the discussiotn of controversial public is-sues. It is important to note. however, that many of the outcomtesdemiocracy educators hope schooling will work toward are. not rep-resented in this co-uise (sce TabJle 1). Therefore. it Would be prob-lenmatic if such a cou, rse COnstituted the sum:i total] of stUdents' dem1ioc-rac, eduCation.

IXANA HEMS is Assistant Professor in the 1)eparimaent of Curriculum and In-struetion at the 1 !niversitv of Wisconsin-Madison. JI JOE POSSEL'I is a Graduate Stu-dtent in the Departnient of Educational Policv Studies at the I.Jniversity of Wisconsin-Madison. lioth inav he reached at Teacher Education Buikhlng, 225 No)rth M1ills Stree,tMadison, 1i 53'7tX0-179 5, phone: (608) 263-4i-71 : e-mnail addresses: dhessfiiedneation.w5i5(.C and jrpossclt@students.wiscC ee.l .

' Jaines 1. D)ilon, t Di- : c ussion i7 ('iussnioms (Phlatdelphia: Open tini-versitv Press, 1994), p. 1O5. WNIalter Parker and Diana I less, "'Teaching with and forliscUssion," 1acbing evod Ieiacibr duceation 17 tAprdl 20(01): 2 7,-289.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: How high school students experience and learn from thediscussion of controversial public issues

SOURCE: Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 17 no4 Summ2002

WN: 0219602453002

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited..

Copyright 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.