Page 51 - 2022-Jour_88-3_FINAL

need to teach about this area of controversial issues. Moreover, young people are
rarely prepared with the civic action skills that lead them to participatory democracy
(Kawashima-Ginsbered & Junco, 2018). Just taking a civics class is not enough;
families and principals must support controversial exploration.

Teachers’ Opinions
Teachers have opinions. To teach students critical thinking and democratic values,
social studies teachers conduct discussions about both controversial and political Dr. Ronald V. Morris
issues. After multiple years of both studying and teaching controversial issues, is a professor in the
they have heard multiple discussions of the topics. Quality social studies teachers Department of History, Ball
State University, Muncie,
harbor pluralistic attitudes and efficacy in leading controversial discussions (Erlich Indiana. RVMorris@BSU.
& Gindi, 2019). When a teacher misses an opportunity or feels intimidated, he or edu
she may terminate a classroom conversation prematurely. Teachers who shut down
discussions miss opportunities for critically assessing polarizing debates (Khan,
2019). By doing so, they deny students the opportunity to explore perspectives and
ideas dissimilar to their own. The teacher’s opinions may mirror or contrast with the
thinking of most of the students or even all the students on a position. Classrooms are
increasingly segregated by political ideology (Beck, 2019). When giving opinions
and views, the teacher must express those ideas in ways acceptable to the listeners.
Instructors share discrepant opinions as part of the exploration of controversial
issues if they remember to consider the members of their audience. Socio-politically
marginalized teachers disclose their ideas to their students on controversial issues.
Nevertheless, although a teacher might not be impartial, the educator provides for
opportunities for democratic learning if he or she offers students mutual respect
coupled with student autonomy (Conrad, 2020).

Procedures
The authors of this study worked with the participants in a teacher inservice
program to enhance social studies instruction. We did not write letters to the editor
but were interested in what teachers who are instructing students thought about
controversial issues so that we could build future inservice programs for them. The
teachers came from different school districts but had worked together for 10 years
with the regional educational service center to support social studies instructional
practices. Teachers from the inservice group volunteered to write about topics of
their choice—issues that interested them and issues they thought would interest
their students. The teachers also included both sides of the argument. The teachers
considered how the issues influenced their teaching and how the letters to the editor
displayed their professional ethics. To conform with the newspaper requirements,
letters included no more than 850 words, and the writers did not collaborate with
their peers on topics. Teachers were not contacted for more information after they
wrote their letters. The participants were all White, which reflected the teaching
population in the region, and they were evenly divided between male and female.
Each teacher was given a random number to protect his or her identity; they are
referred to by that number (for example, T1, T2, etc.) to help the reader differentiate
among the participants.
The theoretical underpinning of the study was a constructivist/interpretivist
framework with a phenomenological methodology. Constructivists create knowledge
from situations, interpretivists translate that knowledge, and phenomenology
determines the essence of the experience. Open and axial coding of data sources

Educators’ Choice 49