opposing perspectives lesson plans
I've been working on a "structured academic controversy" (SAC) lesson plan--an assignment--for which I chose the Israeli-Palestinian struggle as a topic. As a result, I've been thinking a lot about how to teach controversial issues.
IMO the dominant public-school message to students about ALL controversial issues is: "There are always two extremes. A rational, 'moderate' person takes a position in the middle."
As an example of this viewpoint, a teacher ed student (from a different teacher ed program) who was visiting the school where I was student teaching, communicated this assumption directly when "helping" high school students with their study of the Montgomery Bus Boycott: he suggested to high school students that Dr. King et alia represented one “extreme,” while the KKK, George Wallace, et alia represented the other “extreme.” He went on to say that, "you know, usually in cases like this, you've got the two extremes and the 'truth' is somewhere in the middle." What would the "truth" be, I wonder, according to his worldview? Moderate segregation? (I was furious at this guy and got him in trouble--that was fun).
The major fallacies in this idea of course is: (1) there are always more than two positions and (2) in the classroom setting, the "middle" is as arbitrarily constructed as the "extremes." (And in a situation like the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, you can also present two opposing positions that are so extreme and so incompatible, that they will just produce despair--or you can present opposing positions that are so close that students will have trouble understanding what the problem is).
So although the SAC design we were assigned calls for two positions, I ended up designing my lesson with nine. This makes for a lot more work. But if I can pull it off, I think it would be more stimulating and more realistic. ("If"—I said "if.")
posted by birdfarm @ 7:11 PM
2 Comments:
Actually, the Montgomery Bus Boycott could be a good example. Think of it this way: the KKK represents one extreme, and a hypothetical group of African Americans advocating that whites be relegated to the back of the bus and otherwise be treated as second-class citizens would be the other extreme. Dr. King et alia would therefore represent the middle wherein the "truth" lies.
I'm not sure I completely understand your comment--a 'good example' of what?
If I understand you correctly, this example just underscores my point--that you can't assume the "middle" between two sides MUST ALWAYS BE the "truth," because there will be a different "middle" depending on how set up the argument.
You illustrated this perfectly. In your hypothetical example, Dr. King is the "middle." In real history (there's no record of any large group seriously advocating whites go to the back of the bus), he was, at the time, close to an extreme.
You could come up with another middle if you tried another "two sides"--KKK members versus people who favored segregation but not lynching. In that case, the "middle ground" would pro-segregation but only pro-lynching in a few select cases. Hopefully, this is far to the extreme on the average person's radar in this day & age.
My whole point, you see, is that the "middle" is meaningless--the "middle" can be anything. Thinking that if you can find the "middle" you will find "truth" and "right" is just silly, because there isn't any one "middle." In other words, students have to make up their minds based on logic, principle, and conscience--not just seek the "middle."
Post a Comment
<< Home