This article describes the experience of five high school seniors in a discussion-based, Advanced Placement Government course, in which the teacher of the course frequently implemented controversial public issues (CPI) discussions. By analyzing the ways in which students experienced CPI discussion in their government classroom, the author seeks to better understand the ways in which discussion strategies support the aims of disciplinary literacy in civics. Overall, the discussion-based strategies were successful in supporting the development of disciplinary literacy in civics; however, more intentional connections between CPI discussion and the aims of disciplinary literacy may further enhance the effectiveness of this practice.
American Political Science Association Committee on Pre-Collegiate Education. (1971). Political education in the public schools: The challenge for political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 4, 431–457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096500003358
2.
Denney, S. M. (2019). Adolescent identity exploration and civic identity development in a U.S. government classroom (8021) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. Digital Commons @ University of South Florida.
3.
AveryP. G.LevyS. A.SimmonsA. M. M. (2013). Deliberating controversial public issues as a part of civic education. The Social Studies, 104(3), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2012.691571
4.
BreakstoneJ.SmithM.WineburgS.RapaportA.CarleJ.GarlandM.SaavedraA. (2021). Students’ civic online reasoning: A national portrait. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3816075
ConradJ. (2020). Navigating identity as a controversial issue: One teacher’s disclosure for critical empathic reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 48(2), 211–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1679687
9.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
FeredayJ.Muir-CochraneE. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
14.
GirardB.HarrisL. M. (2012). Striving for disciplinary literacy instruction: Cognitive tools in a world history course. Theory & Research in Social Education, 40(3), 230–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2012.705183
15.
HessD. E. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies slassrooms: Learning from skilled teachers. Theory & Research in Social Education, 30(1), 10–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2002.10473177
HessD. E.McAvoyP. (2015). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. Routledge.
18.
HessD. E.PosseltJ. (2002). How high school students experience and learn from the discussion of controversial public issues. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 17(4), 283–314.
19.
HlavacikM.KrutkaD. G. (2021). Deliberation can wait: How civic litigation makes inquiry critical. Theory & Research in Social Education, 49(3), 418–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2021.1933665
20.
JournellW. (2011). Teaching politics in secondary education: Analyzing instructional methods from the 2008 presidential election. The Social Studies, 102(6), 231–241. https://doi.org/10/1080/00377996.2011.558939
21.
JournellW. (2018). Teacher identity and political instruction. In SchutzP. A.HongJ.Cross FrancisD. (Eds.), Research on teacher identity: Mapping challenges and innovations (pp. 169–179). Springer.
22.
JournellW.BeesonM. W.AyersC. A. (2015). Learning to think politically: Toward more complete disciplinary knowledge in civics and government courses. Theory & Research in Social Education, 43(1), 28–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2014.1001106
23.
KahneJ.CrowD.LeeN. J. (2013). Different pedagogy, different politics: High school learning opportunities and youth political engagement. Political Psychology, 34(3), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00936.x
24.
KnowlesR. T.Torney-PurtaJ.BarberC. (2018). Enhancing citizenship learning with international comparative research: Analyses of IEA civic education datasets. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl.13.1.7_1
LichtmanM. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Sage Publications.
27.
MojeE. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07300046
28.
MojeE. B. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 257–278. https://doi.org/10/17763/0017-8055.85.2.254
29.
MorganL. A. (2016). Developing civic literacy and efficacy: Insights gleaned through the implementation of Project Citizen. Inquiry in Education, 8(1), Article 3.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). The college, career, and civic life framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. National Council for the Social Studies.
32.
PaceJ. L.ClarkC. H. (2023, April15). Ripple effects of the “conflict campaign” on curricular-instructional decision making in classroom authority. In T.M.Kessner (Chair), “Walking a tightrope”: Social studies in an era of restrictions on teaching divisive issues [Symposium]. American Educational Research Association Annual Conference 2023, Chicago, IL, United States.
33.
ParkerW. C.HessD. (2001). Teaching with and for discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 273–289.
RubinB. C. (2007). “There’s still not justice”: Youth civic identity development amid distinct school and community contexts. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 449–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681071090020
36.
ShanahanT.ShanahanC. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content- area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
37.
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford.
38.
SwanK.GrantS. G.LeeJ. (2023). Trusting inquiry: Teaching with the inquiry design model. Social Education, 87(5), 328–331.
39.
SwanK.LeeJ.GrantS. G. (2015). The New York state toolkit and the inquiry design model: Anatomy of an inquiry. Social Education, 79(5), 316–322.
40.
Torney-PurtaJ. (2002). The school’s role in developing civic engagement: A study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 54(3), 494–512. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0604_7
WineburgS.BreakstoneJ.McGrewS.SmithM.OrtegaT. (2022). Lateral reading on the open internet: A district-wide field study in high school government classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(5), 893–909. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000740
43.
WineburgS.McGrewS.BreakstoneJ.OrtegaT. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository. http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934
44.
WineburgS. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73
45.
WooA.KaufmanJ. H.DoanS. (2023, April15). Teachers’ perspectives on and experiences with limitation on classroom discussion about divisive topics. In KessnerT.M. (Chair), “Walking a tightrope”: Social studies in an era of restrictions on teaching divisive issues [Symposium] American Educational Research Association Annual Conference 2023, Chicago, IL, United States.
46.
YinR. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
