On teaching issues as controversial vs as settled

Related to whether we teach in a fact-based, normative or pluralistic way, there is also the issue with teaching about topics that might be controversial (hello again, sustainability, and my post earlier on conflicts and resistance), and how to deal with that. After recently having heard his work on “teaching controversial issues” summarized as “don’t do it!!” by a colleague and interpreted his decision map the same way, I had the chance to attend Fredrik Portin’s seminar on the topic at AHU’s “inspiration day” yesterday. I went to understand why “don’t do it!!” would be the advice that an academic developer gives teachers in a time like ours, and I was pleasantly surprised that that is not how he would like to see his message summarized at all! So stay tuned.

Portin started his presentation explaining that teachers need to understand what it entails to teach controversial issues (i.e., “issues or themes that have the potential for conflict between students or between student and teacher“), practice methods of doing it, and learn how to manage conflicts in the classroom. He describes his main message as “it’s a risky undertaking“, and that is because of the paradox of controversy: although there are good reasons why controversial issues should be taught (for example because the content is on the curriculum and needs to be taught or because it develops democratic abilities), there are also many reasons why teachers might want to avoid it (like not being or feeling prepared, or not feeling that their colleagues and management have their back). But: He nevertheless wants to encourage everyone to do it and sees the benefits as bigger than risks. But even though he encourages it, he also warns that teachers should take it seriously and prepare for it (which, of course, I agree with).

A tool that he developed to determine if you are ready to teach controversial issues (and possibly to get pointers of what kind of preparation might make you more ready) is a decision map (but this is not the newest version of the map, which isn’t online yet, but the one that my colleague saw, and about which he himself says that it might give the wrong impression of his main message). But in any case, the map is helpful to look at whether all the conditions are in place, for example if the students have strong relationships with each other already, or if students have experience discussing controversial topics in a respectful and constructive way already. If we aren’t sure about those, he recommends using methods that don’t lead to more conflict than necessary, for example by making discussions theoretical (e.g. based on “what does this text vs that text say on the matter”) and not emotional and based on the students’ own experiences and identities, or by choosing less controversial issues first and gradually building up the level of controversy. And sure, for some issues we know going in that they will likely be controversial, but then sometimes it is surprising how we go in with something “controversial” and then there is just no controversy in the student group at all. On the other hand, it can also happen that we go in thinking that we are discussing something completely non-controversial and it turns out that students think that it is, in fact, very controversial (see also “Schrödingers controversy“).

In that context, he mentioned Michael Hand’s work on teaching-as-controversial (or nondirective teaching) and teaching-as-settled (or directive teaching), which can also influence how students react. If you, for example, teach settled issues (like climate change, where there is no doubt that it is happening and due to human activities) as if they were open (e.g. to see what arguments students bring), you might be seeding doubt in their minds about whether the matter is really settled. But that said, what’s really settled depends also on context, and if you misjudge how settled or not something is in a specific context, your teaching might not land as expected.

For example, AI was mentioned early on as a controversial issue in teaching. Later that day, though, there was a second workshop on the “progression of discomfort” of teachers using AI, where AI in teaching was introduced maybe not as 100% settled, but definitely as if there was one morally correct way to approach it: to be on “Team Embrace” (and not “Team Ban” or “Team Avoid“, and those three were presented as the only possible options), where academic developers and teachers accept that since AI is here to stay, we have to teach everybody how to use it. But, it turns out, the question of AI in teaching is not nearly as simple and settled as presented in that model. Because, of course, there are many reasons why people resist AI: socio-economic concerns, ethical issues, safety risks, threats to democracy and sovereignty, and last not least the environmental impact — and all of those were brought up by participants. Also, I think that saying that AI is here to stay and that is why we need to teach everybody how to use it is irresponsible — as academics and teachers, I believe it is our role to think about the purposes of education where yes, qualification is one, even socialization into a culture where certain tools are used in certain ways is one (but only to a certain extent!), and subjectification is, arguably, the most important one. At least at a university who has “Bildung” in its mission statement… And part of subjectification is to learn that the future is still undetermined and while we can make predictions about how it will play out, those are just predictions and things can go in many other ways, too. And we have an influence on the direction, and a responsibility to use that influence, to use our freedom. And that includes making conscious decisions about which tools to use and which to resist — considering not only what is likely to happen in the future, but also whether we want to support or slow down that development. Karen Costa’s question “What if the critical #AI skill for our era is not how to use it, but how to resist it?” is still very much on my mind there! Anyway, we got to see first hand how, if a controversial issue is introduced as noncontroversial, that will spark a lot of discussions. And, although that is not something I would recommend, we also saw that if you call students who might want to resist using AI an “esoteric bunch” or roll your eyes at participants that speak up, you will get even more people to engage. So very interesting workshop for sure!

Anyway, the last question on the decision map is about whether we have support from management and colleagues should conflicts in teaching arise, and here he stressed that teaching controversial issues is not just the individual teacher’s responsibility, it’s also the university’s as a whole, and the university management’s. And I agree! The recommendation, however, is to not teach controversial issues if there is no support for the teacher. But then — me wonders — how are things ever going to change? Anyone have any good suggestions? Until then, I still prefer to teach about controversies and live with the consequences of that.

One really nice resource that was recommended yesterday is the Council of Europe’s “teaching controvesial issues” training pack that comes with a lot of great suggestions, for example a set of strategies:

• “Distancing – introducing analogies and parallels – geographical, historical or imaginary – when an issue is highly sensitive within the class, school or local community
• Compensatory – introducing new information, ideas or arguments when students are expressing strongly-held views based on ignorance, the minority is being bullied by the majority or there is an unquestioning consensus
• Empathetic – introducing activities to help students see an issue from someone else’s perspective, particularly when it involves a groups which are unpopular with some or all of the students, the issue includes prejudice or discrimination against a particular group, or the issue is remote from students’ lives
• Exploratory – introducing enquiry-based or problem-solving activities when an issue is not well-defined or particularly complex. […]
• De-personalising – introducing society- rather than person-orientated language when presenting an issue – e.g., substituting ‘us’, ‘our’, ‘someone’, or ‘society’ for ‘you’ or ‘your’ when addressing students, especially when some or all students have a personal connection with an issue and feel particularly sensitive about it
• Engaging – introducing personally relevant or otherwise highly engaging material or activities when students are apathetic and express no opinions or feelings about an issue.“

And I like the recommendation to team-teach, that is always a great suggestion but especially in situations when dealing with controversial issues and a large group of students!

The section on teaching methods is especially useful, too, for example an activity for students to discuss which role a teacher should take when teaching a controversial issue — present your own view or act as a neutral chairperson? Present a wide variety of views on an issue or present the official view? Support students in their arguments or challenge them? Clarifying this is so helpful in establishing a didactic contract as suggested by Bengtsson et al. (2024). Another really useful exercise is about reframing something from personal to societal and vice versa. So there are good materials out there! And I think we need many more venues like yesterday to discuss the purpose of education and our role and responsibility in it. We live in interesting times for sure!

But now: Some pictures from my lunch time walk.

I still get so excited about the green and the blossoms and flowers and everything!

And the sea…

I hope I never stop getting excited about fresh green, and flowers, and especially the sea!