Facing Social Justice Conflicts: Case Studies of Critical Dialogic Education in Teacher Development and High School Classrooms

• In Event: Critical Approaches to Civic Education: International Perspectives

Abstract

Background: Democratic citizenship education scholarship advocates dialogue and deliberation pedagogies, addressing social conflict questions as a means to engage and prepare students for democratic participation (Bickmore, 2008; Davies, 2005; Hahn, 2010; Hess & Avery, 2008; Parker, 2006; Sears & Hughes, 2006). However, such strategies are rarely implemented in North American classrooms (or teacher professional development), especially those serving non-affluent student populations (also Hemmings, 2000; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; Simon, 2001; Bickmore, 2005; Donnelly & Hughes, 2006; Torney-Purta, Richardson, & Barber, 2005; Yamashita, 2006).

Purpose: This paper is drawn from a larger study designed to help improve such practice in schools. The goal is to analyze instances of dialogic, reflective, historically-grounded education about social justice (‘othering’) conflicts and their consequences for diverse students.

Study Design, Methods, Data Sources: The study involves qualitative case studies of contrasting ways in which dialogue on difficult issues may be implemented in public school contexts—rich description of complex phenomena in social context (Charmaz, 2000; Miller & Glassner, 1997; Tobin, 1999). Case study sites were selected purposively to reflect diverse approaches, participants, and contexts. This paper profiles one professional development case—a critical citizenship education initiative based on reflective engagement with conflictual, identity-linked Holocaust and genocide history—and the classroom work of two teacher participants (one in grade 10 Canadian History, one in grade 11 English) in one urban public high school. Data include 35 hours teacher development observation, 10 70-minute observations in the high school classrooms, classroom materials, and a semi-structured interview with each teacher and professional development leader. Analysis is based on constant comparison of curriculum elements for (and in) conflict dialogue —Preparation ‘for’ conflict dialogue and peacebuilding; Locating selves ‘in’ conflicts; Entering ‘into’ conflictual dialogue; and Conflictual decision making — examining how each enacts recognition of alternate perspectives and (in)justice questions; Agency and engagement among/across diverse students; and Inviting students’ imagination into the conversations.

Results: The case studies illustrate various ways teachers and students were prepared for, located themselves in relation to, and entered into dialogue about identity-linked social conflicts. The results show that such pedagogies are feasible in public classrooms, and that many students in these classroom cases engaged in some apparently inclusive, citizenship-relevant learning opportunities. The study also notes professional development and context factors that facilitated or impeded effective implementation. These cases highlight the complicated role of content knowledge (alternate perspectives) as well as pedagogical process (how to participate in equitable and constructive conflict dialogue). The study suggests that preparation and pro-active inclusion of previously-marginalized voices are key elements of making such classroom dialogue activities constructive.

Significance: These findings build on inter-cultural anti-bias dialogue, citizenship and peacemaking education scholarship. Constructive conflict talk is a crucial element of democracy and peacebuilding: it can be taught, but we need to know more about how to make this a reality. The paper examines the role of knowledge(s) in democratic dialogue about conflict, in order to “improve education and serve the common good.”

Author

• Kathy Bickmore, OISE/University of Toronto