theoretical foundation of educational administration and ...wktsang/mcl6508/handouts/l2-is… ·...

MCLS 6508Selected Topics in Liberal Studies

Lecture FourTeaching through Issue Enquiry Approach

A. The Official Version of Issue Enquiry

1. Download from: http://ls.edb.hkedcity.net/Includes/GetPage.aspx?url=/cmsContent/69&template=/home/navtemplate

1

W.K. TsangSelected Topics in LS

Pedagogy

The issue-enquiry approach adopted in Liberal Studies guides both the selection of content and the

pedagogy for the curriculum. The learning and teaching of Liberal Studies is structured around enquiry

into a range of contemporary and perennial issues. Students should be helped to appreciate the changing,

complex and controversial nature of these issues. As students explore such issues, they may bring in their

own experiences and have access to first-hand information. Students need to learn to see issues and

information from a variety of perspectives and evaluate different points of view.

Different Stages in the Issue Enquiry Approach

The table below shows the processes involved in conducting an issue-enquiry in Liberal Studies, and how

these processes are relevant to the development of multiple perspectives. The three parts emphasises the

development of multiple perspectives throughout the entire issue-enquiry process. The learner will be

able not only to discern “subjective” views and opinions held by different parties in the light of their

backgrounds and values, but also to evaluate critically and interpret “objective” information and

knowledge. In forming their own conceptions of the issues involved, learners will see the need to

consider the pros and cons of the arguments, and be aware of the limitations in, and alternatives to, the

positions they have chosen.

The three parts in the figure are not discrete or linear steps in the enquiry process. They intertwine and

feed on one another. As learners gather more information on an issue, fresh conflicts and controversies

may appear; as they try to sort out the different conflicts, further information may be needed and new

concepts may emerge; and as they reflect on the learning process and evaluate the results of the enquiry,

new issues and problems may arise which require the collection and analysis of additional information.

Therefore, at the end of the enquiry process, a learner might have more questions than answers, but

would have a richer and deeper understanding of the issues involved.

ProcessesRelationship with development of multiple perspectives

( I )Mastering the facts, understanding the phenomena, clarifying the concepts

Different sources of information Different ways of data collection Different interpretations and explanations Different associations …

( II )Understanding the differences and conflicts involved

Different values Different interests Different convictions …

2


( III )Reflection, evaluation, judgment, solution, action

Considering all sides of the argument Weighing the pros and cons Putting forward reasons and justifications Accepting consequences Revising judgement …

Last Updated: 2011/05/25

2. Download from: http://ls.edb.hkedcity.net/Includes/GetPage.aspx?url=%2fcmsContent%2f70&template=%2fhome%2fnavtemplate

3


Flow

An example of a common way for students to examine an issue systematically is outlined in the below figure. The

arrows indicate a logical procedure; and the feedback loops show that when the work on a particular step is found

to be inadequate, returning to a previous step(s) is necessary. Examples of learning and teaching strategies

involving an intertwining of enquiry and direct instruction approaches for the steps are listed on the right-hand

side. The process starts with student exploration, not direct input from the teacher. The advantage of this

particular approach is that it enhances students’ ownership of the enquiry by engaging them in exploring their own

ideas before the teacher introduces new information.

4


Last Updated: 2011/05/25


Design Flow

Considerations in selecting a suitable issue for teaching Relevance to NSS LS modules / module themes Breadth and depth for issue enquiry (e.g. linkages between the concepts involved, cross-modularity) Oppotunities in promoting active learning and enriching learning through authentic experience for the

students Oppotunities in promoting collaborations among teachers and interdisciplinary learning experiences Reusability of teaching plan with respect to the issue selected (e.g. to adopt the teaching plan in other issues)

Tools

Data Sheet for LS related issues (Click here to view / download) The data sheet aims to facilitate teachers in organizing the preparing materials and activities used in their lessons (individual use or collaborated teaching). The following information shall be recorded in the data sheet:

Basic categorization of the issue Topics related to the issue Source of data Focus, key enquiry questions and extended enquiry questions

Also, the data sheet may assist students to explore a contemporary issue or perennial issue at the beginning phase of issue enquiry.


LS related issues - Data Sheet

Issues / Incident

Date / Month of event

Adhoc / perennial / re-current

event ?

Perspectives

Relevant activities, rituals /

taboos

5


Persons involved /

Stakeholders

Relevant themes / concepts

(Module．Module theme)

Factors for selecting data /

material

1) Encourage students’ participation & enrich nriching learning through authentic

experience

2) Focus :

3) Expected lessons used:

4) Data / material collected having less significant connections with the focus could

be used in quiz / examinations / homework

Others

Resources

Search Keywords for

websites (Chinese / English)

Background Information　　Official Website

Others …

Source of pictures / authentic

objects

Articles (Possible ways to select the resources effectively: )

Publications …

Videos

Reference books …

Old textbooks / CD-Roms

Past exercises / papers …

Others

Feasible enquiry questions

Key questions for enquiry

Extended Questions

(Interpreting media’s perspective)

Extended Questions

(Handling similar issues )

Extended Questions (Cross-

modularity )

Others

6


7


B. What is At Issue? Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry1. The idea of “Issue”

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a. The noun “issue” means “a point or matter in contention between two parties;

…a choice between alternatives; a dilemma”. b. The phrasal expression “at issue” means “in dispute”; “taking opposite sides of

a case or contrary views of a matter.” c. “To join issue” means “to accept or adopt a disputed point as the basis of

argument in a controversy; to proceed to argument with a person on a particular point”.

d. “To make an issue of” means to “turn into a subject of contention”.2. Defining issues-centered education:

“Issue-centered education focuses on problematic questions that need to be addressed and answered, at least provisionally. Problematic questions are those on which intelligent, well-informed people may disagree. Such disagreement, in many case, leads to controversy and discussion marked by expression of opposing views. The questions may address problems of the past, present or future. They may involve disagreement over facts, definition, values n beliefs. ….To say that questions are problematic means there are no conclusive, finally ‘right’ answers. But some answers, however tentative or provisionally and subject to change in the future, are clearly better or more valid than other. The purpose of issues-centered education is not just to raise the questions and expose students to them, but to teach students to offer defensible and intellectually well-grounded answers to these questions. …The point of issues-centered education is …to develop well-centered responses based on disciplined inquiry, on thoughtful, in-depth study, and to move beyond relativistic notion of truth.” (Evans, Newmann & Saxe, 1996, P.2)

C. What is at Issue? Understanding the Epochal Nature of “Late-Modern” Society1. C. Wright Mills’ distinction between personal trouble and public issue

In the beginning chapter of the book Sociological Imagination (1970), C. Wright Mills makes a useful distinction between “trouble” and “issue”a. By trouble, Mills refers to problems which “occurs within the characters of the

individual and within the range of the immediate relations with others; they have to do with his self and with those limited areas of social life of which he is directly and personally aware. Accordingly, the statement and the resolution of troubles properly lie within the individual as a biographical entity and within the scope of his immediate milieu. A trouble is a private matter: values cherished by an individual are felt by him to be threatened.” (1970, p.15)

b. By issues, Mills specifies that “Issues have to do with matters that transcend these local environments of the individual and the range of his inner life. They have to do with the organization of many such milieux into the institutions of a historical society as a whole, with the way in which various milieux overlap and interpenetrate to form the larger structure of social and historical life. An issue is a public matter: some value cherished by the public is felt threatened.” (1970, p. 15)

c. Apart from its public character, Mills also underlines the contradictory and ambiguous nature of an issue. He states that “often there is a debate about

8


what the values is all about and what it is that really is threatens it. This debate is often without focus if only because it is the very nature of an issue…. An issue, in fact often involves …’contradictions’ or ‘antagonism.’” (1971, p. 15)

2. John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement under Political Liberalism:In his book entitled Political Liberalism (1994), John Rawls makes a distinction between reasonable and unreasonable disagreements. The distinction can further our understanding of the nature and features of the idea of issue.a. By unreasonable disagreement, it refers to disagreements in public life, which

grow out of “prejudice and bias, self and group interest, blindness and willfulness” (Rawls, 1993, p. 58) or of “simple ignorance or …mere undisciplined assertiveness.” (Dearden, 1984, p. 85)

b. By reasonable disagreement, John Rawls defines it as “disagreement between reasonable persons.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 55). In understanding the idea of reasonable person, Rawls makes a distinction between rational and reasonable persons within the conception of modern man. i. “Persons are reasonable in one basic aspect when, among equals say,

they are ready to propose principles and standards as fair terms of cooperation and to abide by them willingly, given the assurance that others will likewise do so. ….The reasonable is an element of the idea of society as a system of fair cooperation and that its fair terms be reasonable for all to accept is part of its idea of reciprocity.” (1993, 49-50)

ii. “The rational is, however, a distinct idea from the reasonable and applied to a single, unified agent (either an individual or corporate person) with the powers of judgment and deliberation in seeking ends and interests peculiarly its own. The ration applies to how these ends and interests are adopted and affirmed, as well as to how they are given priority. It also applies to the choice of means, in which case it is guided by such familiar principles as: to adopt the most effective means to ends, or to select the most probable alternative, other things equal. (1993, p. 50) More specifically, “what rational agents lack is the particular form of moral sensibility that underlies the desire to engage in fair cooperation. …Rational agents approach being psychopathic when their interests are solely in benefits to themselves.” (1993, p. 51) As in everyday speech, we may characterize rational agents that “their proposal was perfectly rational given their strong bargaining position, but it was nevertheless highly unreasonable.” (1993, 48)

c. Accordingly, a reasonable disagreement is not disagreement generated prejudice, bias, ignorance, or even rational calculation of self-interest. They are disagreement between persons “who have an enduring desire to honor fair terms of cooperation and to be fully cooperating members of society.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 55).

d. Rawls has specified numbers of sources, from which disagreement among reasonable citizens in constitutional democracy could have derived. More specifically, Rawls suggests, “these sources I refer to as the burden of judgment.” (1993, p. 55) That is, if reasonable citizens have to come to term with (not completely resolve) their disagreements, they are burdened with reasonable judgments on the following sources of reasonable disagreements i. Availability and reliability of evidences: “The evidence—empirical and

9


scientific—bearing on the case is conflicting and complex, and thus hard to assess and evaluate.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 56) This source of disagreement derives on the ground that the evidences required to settle the dispute are in conflict or unavailable. For example, the effects of GM (genetic-modified) food or cloning (both beneficial and harmful effects), the causes of the damage of the ozone layer, or the effects on the development of children growing up in queer families, etc. are still in dispute among natural and social scientists. And there are not sufficient and reliable evidences to make informed decisions on the issues in point.

ii. Relevance and relative weight of evidences: In cases where evidences have been scientifically and empirically proven to be reliable, disputes may still derive on the ground that the evidences in point are irrelevant to the issues in dispute. Furthermore, “even where we agree fully about the kinds of considerations that are relevant, we may disagree about their weight, and so arrive at different judgments.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 56) Parties in dispute may put forth relevant and reliable scientific evidences in support of the stances in controversial issues. As a result, disagreements will derived on the ground that how relative weights should be assigned to different evidences relevant to the issue in dispute.

iii. Judgment and interpretation of concepts: People’s concepts, not only moral and political concept but also empirical and factual concepts, are “vague and subject to hard cases; and this indeterminacy means that we must rely on judgment and interpretation (and on judgment about interpretation) within some range (not sharply specifiable).” (1993, p. 56) This is another source where reasonable disagreement may have invoked.

iv. Value judgments and preferences: Disagreements may not only involve judgments of factual evidences, but may also be caused by desirable and preferable attributes, which individuals or social groups attached to the issues in point. For example, legalization of same-sex marriage may invoke value controversy between personal liberty of choice and the stability of the institutional orders of a given society. Furthermore, the normative concepts attached to social and political issues are most likely to be indeterminacy in nature and subject to different interpretations. Hence, disagreements between values and their interpretations are another reasonable ground from which controversial issues may derive.

v. Prioritization of values: Even where there are general agreements on the relevance and interpretations of the values involved in an issue, disagreement can still derive from the priorities ascribed to each of the values and preferences involved.

vi. Positional and experiential considerations: “In a modern society with its numerous offices and positions, its various divisions of labor, its many social groups and their ethnic variety, citizens’ total experiences are disparate enough for their judgment to diverge.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 57) As a result, they will constitute reasonable disagreements in modern liberal-democratic society.

vii. Normative and perspective considerations: Another source of disagreements among reasonable citizens in liberal-democratic society is differences in comprehensive moral doctrines or overall socio-political

10


10

perspectives, for examples differences in the socio-political orientations between unionists and employer and business federations; or differences in public-policy stances between liberals and communitarians; etc.

viii.Institutional imperatives: “Any system of social institutions is limited in the values it can admit so that some selection must be made from the full range of moral and political values that might be realized. This is because any system of institutions has, as it were, a limited social space.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 57) Public choices are not made in social, economic, political and cultural vacuum; they are bounded by different institutional constraints. However, reasonable citizens may disagree on whether institutional imperatives should be imposed on particular sets of social actions and/or interactions, for examples controversies over restriction of smoking in in-door areas, legalization of same-sex marriages, etc.

e. The burdens of judgment and necessities of issue inquiry: In modern liberal-democratic societies, citizens are often confronted by these reasonable disagreements or controversial issues. As a result, they are burdened with these hard decisions and judgments.

3. Issues of recognition of diversities under the multiculturalism of the global agea. Amy Gutmann indicates in the Introduction of the book she edited

Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition that “Public institutions, including government agencies, schools, and liberal art colleges and universities, have come under severe criticism these days for failing to recognize or respect the particular identities of citizens. In the United States, the controversy most often focuses upon the needs of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and women. Other groups could easily be added to the list, and the list would change as we moved round the world. Yet it is hard to find a democratic or democratizing society these days that is not the site of some significant controversy over whether and how its public institutions should better recognize the identities of cultural disadvantaged minorities.” (Gutmann, 1994, P.3)

b. As a result, Gutmann complied papers from three prominent philosophers of our time. In each paper, Charles Taylor, K. Anthony Appiah and Jurgen Habermas reflect respectively on their experiences in the diverse and multicultural contexts of their societies (namely Canada, the US and the unified Germany). And each of them then suggest ways of how to cope with the issue and politics of diversity of multiculturalism.

c. In light of these discussions, issues can further be elevated beyond the levels of public issue (Mills, 1970) and political liberalism (Rawls, 1993) and be construed at global and multicultural level.

4. The nature of issue inquiry approach to Liberal Studiesa. In light of the perspectives of Mills, Rawls and Gutmann et al; we may define

the enquiry object, i.e. an issue in late-modern society, with the following attributesi. Issues are public in nature. They differ from personal trouble or problem,

which involves individuals' personalities and/or milieux. Issues usually involve institutional or systemic deficiencies and their impacts of individuals' livelihoods and well beings.

ii. Issues are disputatious, contradictory or even antagonistic in nature. That

11


11

is because they usually embedded in some institutional and systemic arrangements, which invoke contradiction or even antagonism among different social groupings in social institutions and systems.

iii. Issues in the form of reasonable disagreements are “subject to hard cases” and not easy to resolve. Hence they bear burdens on both sides of the dispute to come up with reasonable judgments.

b. Accordingly, issue enquiry may categorize into different aspects of burden of judgment.i. Factual and empirical judgment:

- Empirical verification- Judgments on the relevance and relative weight of the verified evidences- Judgments on the interpretation of concepts

ii. Value and preference judgment- Judgment on the relevance values and preferences- Judgment on value priority

iii. Institutional judgment- Relevance and legitimacy of positional and experiential considerations- Legitimacy and respectability of normative and cultural consideration- Appropriateness of institutional imperatives

iv. Comparative judgment- Locating the factual, normative and institutional judgment against the

multicultural context of the global age- Evaluating one’s judgments on the issue from the perspective of politics of

recognition.c. Decision making: Based on these inquiries and judgments, citizens in late-

modern society are expected to be able to make well-informed, rationally justifiable, and reciprocally reasonable decision on the issues in contention. Furthermore, they are also expected to carry out their decision in social and political actions in continuous and persistent manners.

C. Teaching of IEA1. Debate between issue-centered and conten-centered curriculum

a. Since the 1950s, educators of social education in the US (including social studies, social –science education, general education, liberal education, liberal studies, citizenship education, etc.) have been debating on the issue of “selection of content in social studies”. (Oliver, 1957) Against the conventional conception of content-centered or discipline-centered curriculum prevailing in the field of social education in the US schools, Donald W. Oliver led the charge by publishing an article in Harvard Educational Review and underlined that the primary aim of social education should not be to transmit contents of specific disciplines in social sciences, such as geography, economics, cultural sociology, political science, and history (Oliver, 1957, P. 276) but to prepare student to address the nature of citizenship in the liberal-democratic state, and the pluralistic and multi-value society of the US. (P. 284-5). More specifically, Oliver underlined that in such socio-political context, intractable disagreement and conflicts are “inevitable” (P. 285), hence “the central core of the curriculum would be the study of those human affairs fraught with conflict or tension which might threaten the integrity of a free society” (P. 299) and to prepare students

12


12

to deal with these “inevitable conflict”, which he and his collaborators later termed “public issues” or what some other called “controversial issues.”

b. Among the proponents of the issue-centered approach in the field of social education in both the US, three teams of scholars can be identified to be the most representative:i. Donald W. Oliver, James P. Shaver and Fred P. Newmann, their works have

been recognized under the name of the Harvard Social Studies Project or characterized as Teaching Public Issues in the Higher School (Oliver & Shaver, 1966; see also, Newmann & Oliver, 1970; Shaver, & Strong, 1982)

ii. Shirley H. Engle, Byron G. Massialas and Benjamin Cox, their works have been characterized as issue-centered, inquiry, decision-making approaches to social studies (Engle, 1960; Engle & Ochoa-Becker, 1988; Ochoa-Becker, 2007; Massialas & Cox, 1966; Evan & Saxe, 1996)

iii. James A. Banks, his works have been characterized as multiculturalism education. (Banks, 2007; Banks & McGee Banks, 2004)

c. In the UK, a stream of scholars have also advocated that teaching controversial issues should be the core approach in political education and citizenship education.

i. Bernard Crick and the working party of the Hansard Society first initiated the idea of teaching controversial issue to be the approach to political education in the 1970s. (Crick, 1978; see also Stradling et al., 1984)

ii. Again in 1998, Bernard Crick chaired an advisory group and produced the government document entitled Teaching of Democracy in Schools: Final Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship (The Advisory Group on Citizenship, 1998). In the report, the controversial-issues approach has gained its retrieval in the Section 10 of the document, captioned “Guidance on the Teaching of Controversial Issues”.

iii. Other scholars in the UK have also contributed to the development of the approach in numbers of works, for examples, Wellington, 1986; Fiehn, 2005; Oxfam, 2006; and Claire & Holden, 2007.

D. The Comprehensive Framework of Issue-Enquiry-Approach Model1. Various teams of scholars have developed different frameworks in teaching of

public and controversial issues in school curricula such as political education, citizenship education, social studies, social education, or general education. For examplea. Jurisprudential or legal-ethical framework (Oliver & Shaver, 1966; Newmann &

Oliver, 1970; see also Bohan & Feunberg, 2010; Stern, 2006; 2011)b. Decision making model (Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Ochoa-Becker, 2007; see also

Allen, 1996; Previte, 2011)c. Social studies inquiry model (Massialas & Cox, 1966; Massialas et al., 1975;

Massialas, 1996 see also Sweeney & Foster, 1996; Zevin, 2011)d. Multicultural approach (Banks, 2007; Banks and McGee Banks, 2004)e. Teaching-controversial-issue approach (Stradling et al, 1984; Wellington,

1986; Fiehn, 2005; Oxfam, 2006)2. To synthesize these models, we may categorized the constituents of the Issue-

Enquiry-Approach (IEA) a. Formulation of public issue and its controversy

13


13

b. Social enquiryc. Value enquiryd. Institutional enquirye. Comparative-multicultural enquiryf. Decision making

3. Formulation of public issue and its controversya. Issue enquiry begins of course with the identification of the issue in point. The

issue usually appears in the form of public actions, which articulate points of contention on specific public affairs, such as public policy, actions of public figures and/or social groups, media reports, results of social surveys, etc.

b. The second step is to enquire into the social backgrounds from which the issue invokes.

c. The third step of the enquiry is to identify the parties engaging in an issue. In public and social issues, they may involve different political parties, interest groups or stake-holders. However, in a controversial social issue, the engaging parties may be numerous in number and their opinions about the issue may vary diversely. Nevertheless, as in most political issues, these diverse stances will subsequently aggregate or even polarize into two opposite camps.

d. Fourth, the process of political aggregation and alignment among various parties participated in the contention of the public issue should be mapped out.

e. Finally, statements and arguments put forth by opposite camps engaged in the debate and contest of the controversial issue are to be collected and categorized for sequent enquiries.

4. The factual enquiry: It refers to analyzing the factual evidences which the disagreements and controversies are based and derived. These factual evidences may be categorized into three groups, from which three types of factual enquiries can be identified.a. Clarification of definitional and categorical disagreements:

i. These type of enquiries begin with analyses of the words, rhetoric, statements, and any other forms of representation used by contesting parties in describing and defining the nature and features of the issue in point.

ii. The enquiry then advances to interpretive studies of the meanings, intentions and protentions which the contesting parties bring to bear in their statements and representations, i.e. their texts on the issue.

iii. Finally, the interpretive study can further look into the different depictions of the status quo or even the prospect of “the world of the text” that various contesting parties envisioned.

b. Validation of the situational meanings involved in the disagreement: i. These type of enquiries begins with recording what anthropologists call

“deep description” of the meanings that contesting parties invested into the issue.

ii. It would then involve the enquirer to immerge into the situations or even the “lived world” of the contesting parties involved and to have empathetic understanding of the contesting parties.

iii. Finally, the enquiry should advance to the stage of validation. That is to

14


14

contrast the situational meanings cherished by a particular contesting party with the large socioeconomic and cultural contexts. As a result, the enquiry can bring light to the question whether a specific situational meanings of a particular contesting party is justifiable against the larger meaning contexts which involve all parties concerned.

c. Verification of the empirical grounds of the contention: i. This type of enquiry begins with recording all the empirical evidences, in the

form of scientific law, tested propositions, or statistical-probabilistic hypotheses in natural science and social science, put forth by contesting parties engaged in a particular controversial issue.

ii. The enquirers are then expected to verify all these empirical evidences, usually in the form of statements of causes and effects or consequences, and to draw their own conclusion that which contesting parties’ arguments are empirically and scientifically more well-grounded.

5. Value Enquiry: Apart from factual disagreement, controversial issues in human societies may invoke by disagreement and conflict in value dispositions or positions among different social groups. Hence, to clarify, analyze and prioritize the value stances imputed by contesting parties involved to the controversial issue is another significant component in IEA. An value enquiry may generally be categorize into the following constituentsa. The concept of value: Values are desirable and preferable attributes a person

impute to objects in his environment. i. “Conduct, performances, situations, occurrence, states of affairs,

production, all these is associated with the ways in which we perceive them, appraise them, judge them, and the way we are inclined towards or away from, attracted to or repelled by, such objects, production, states of affairs, performances, manifestations of conducts. We choose them. We prefer them over other things in the same class of comparison. We want to follow their model or to replicate them. We want to emulate them.” (Aspin, 1999, p.125)

ii.. 價值：「大體上說來，一切具價值之事物，都是人所欲得的，人所尋求的、喜悅的、愛護的、讚美的、或崇敬的。簡言之，即都是人所欲或所好的。一切具負價值或反價值之事物，則都是人所不欲得的，人所不尋求的、厭棄的、憎恨的、貶斥的、鄙視的。簡言之，即都是人所不欲或所惡的」。（唐君毅，2005，頁 707）

b. Types of values: Values can be classified into two general types, intrinsic and extrinsic (or instrumental) values: i. “An intrinsic value can be defined as something that is valuable for its own

sake” (Ellis, p.12) or important in and of itself.ii. “An extrinsic value is valuable not for its own sake, but because it facilitates

getting or accomplishing something that is valuable for its own sake.” (Ellis, p.12) It means the worth or desirability of a thing or person is derived from its instrumentality and efficiency in achieving something more desirable.

c. Levels of value: Ronal Dworkin has made a distinction between three levels of value. He suggests that “ethnics studies how people best manage their responsibility to live well, and personal morality what each as an individual

15


15

owes other people. Political morality, in contrast, studies what we all together owe others as individuals when we act in and on behalf of that artificial collective person.” (Dworkin, 2011, Pp. 327-8) Accordingly, value can be categorized into i. Ethical value: It refers to desirable traits and features we attributed to

human behaviors, actions, and conducts. ii. Moral value: It refers to desirable traits and features attributed to human

interactions and relationships among fellows humans.iii. Political values: It refers to the ethical and moral values taken by a given

society as of prominent importance that they should be imposed onto all members of that society coercively.

d. Ingredients or strategies of evaluation: Charles Taylor has made a distinction between weak and strong evaluation. By “strong evaluation”, it refers to the kind of value inquiry which aims to substantiate an attribution of an intrinsic value to a state of affair, an object and even a person. He has outlined the numbers of constituents for such a strong-evaluation inquiry. (Taylor, 1985; see also Dworkin, 1995) In strong evaluation, a value stance may be substantiated with the followings componentsi. Justificatory with articulacy and depth: The first constituent of a strong

evaluation is that the evaluation must be supported with explicitly articulated justifications. Furthermore, these justifications must be grounded on ethical, moral and/or political validities and “depth”.

ii. Supported with sense of responsibility and agency: A strong evaluative assertion must also be supported with human practices and actions, i.e. human agencies. Furthermore, those who are in support of the strong evaluative positions are not just paying lip services but are ready to bear the cost or even lost for its fulfillment

iii. Embodied with notion of identity: A person who are in support of a strong evaluative stance are most probably hold that value orientation continuously over time, consistently in various circumstances and coherently with the other aspects of his life. In other word, the value orientation becomes part of his own identity.

iv. Embedded in community: The last constituents of strong-evaluation inquiry is to look beyond human agency or identity but into human community, which may be defined as a group of human agents who share and identify with a particular value stance. In other words, the strong and intrinsic value in question has been embedded into the lifeworld of a community.

e. Bases of strong evaluation: In order to justify and substantiate a value stance, evaluators may rely on one of the following theories of evaluation.i. Deontological theory of evaluation: The theoretical tradition can usually be

traced back to Kant’s concept of categorical imperative. It is the universal normative rule, which transcends all particular ontological situations, i.e. the deontological principle of ethical conduct. - It is called the categorical imperative because it is “'categorical' in a

sense that the principle is not based upon different goals and desires people might happen to have, and ‘imperative’ since it tells people what they ought to do.” (Rogerson, 1991, p. 108)

- Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative can simply be stated as that in

16


16

testing for the morality of actions, “an action is morally permissible if you would be willing to have everyone act as you are proposing to act (if you would be willing to have the ‘maxim’ of your action become a universal law). An action is morally wrong if you are not willing to have everyone act as you are proposing to act.” (Rogerson, 1991, p. 108)

ii. The institutional bases of evaluation - Alasdair McIntyre, in contrast to Neo-Kantian stance, proposes that the

social ground of intrinsic-value evaluation “can never be grounded by an appeal to some neo-Kantian ideal of a set of norms presupposed by all speakers in a discussion. Rather, the concept of the better argument must always be ground within social particular tradition of philosophical enquiry.” (Doody, 1991, p. 61)

- More specifically, McIntyre contends that it is within a tradition of a craft of inquiry that rationality and ethical principles can find their authority or ground of justification. Hence, “for on McIntyre’s account, moral rules are not embodiments of a pure practical reason whose charge is to issue statements of oughts which necessarily bind ahistorical beings. Rather moral rules which express claims of ought are expressions or statements of …virtues and rules of practices that which were …grounded in a community of practice which understood itself through those practices.” (Doody, 1991, p.68)

f. Given all these analytical tools in value enquiry, IEA may conduct the value enquiry of the controversial issue in point in the following waysi. Identifying the value stances of various put forth by various contesting

parties engaged in a given controversial issue. ii. Classifying these contesting value stances by the categorization between

extrinsic (instrumental) and intrinsic valuesiii. Clarifying the levels of value that various contesting parties attributed to

their value stance, namely ethical, moral or political values. iv. Analyzing the “ingredients” or strategies used by various contesting parties

in justifying and substantiating their own value stances, e.g. justificatory with articulacy and depth, Supported with sense of responsibility and agency, embodied with notion of identity, and embedded in community.

v. Analyzing the theoretical ground upon which various contesting parties build up their evaluative arguments, e.g. deontological or institutional grounds.

6. The institutional enquiry: a. Apart from analyzing the factual and value stances adopted by various

contesting parties in a controversial issue, IEA must proceed further into the institutional context within which a particular controversial issue invoked and the parties involved waged their conflicts against each other. As Douglas North defined, “institutions are rules of the game in a society or more formally, are the humanly devised constraint that shape human interaction.” (North, 1990, p. 3) This type of enquiry involved analysis of the rule of the games that various contesting parties defined as well as willing to obliged.

b. More specifically, Cleo H. Cherryholmes (1980) suggests that in the “institutional enquiry” students should be led to enquire into the following questions

17


17

i.. What is the history of their institutions?ii. What actions are permitted? iii. What actions are proscribed?iv. What is prescribed?v.. What is the verification, justification underlying the prevailing institutional

arrangements?

18


18

5. The comparative-multicultural inquiry: a. As national societies and ethnic groups are drawn closer both spatially and

temporally by global-informational networks, educators such as James A. Banks propose that multicultural dimensions should be incorporated in preparing future citizens. Hence students will not confine their perception in ethnocentric perspective and be able to consider public issue in multicultural perspective.

b. In order to enlarge students’ perception and understanding of the issue under study, IEA should extent the enquiry beyond the institutional contexts in which one is familiarized with, to avoid culturally ethnocentric version. Accordingly, comparable issues invoked in other spatial and temporal contexts should also be studied.

c. As a result, students could recognize how societies of different cultural and sociopolitical backgrounds resolve their internal controversies and conflicts. And subsequently they may be able to recognize the diversities among their fellow citizens and learn how to contain their conflicts and work collaboratively in a liberal and democratic fashion.

7. The decision making: a. Based on the precedent four types of enquires, issue enquirers may then

proceed to make decision on the public issue under study, more specifically they may be in the position to decide whether to support the issue stance of a contesting parties engaged in a controversial issue.

b. Structure of decision treei. Identifying alternativesii. Assessing anticipated effects of each alternativesiii. Predicting unanticipated consequences of alternativesvi. Prioritizing alternativev. Making chioice

c. Theories of decision making: Herbert Simon and James March two pioneers in the studies of decision making have formulated two theoretical perspectives in terms of the following three dimensionsi. Assumption on decision maker: They draw a distinction between economic

man and administrative man. Simon underlined that "The model of economic man was far more completely and formally developed than the model of the satisficing administrator. …limited rationality was defined largely as a residual category—as a departure from rationality." (P. 118)

ii. Assumption on outcome of the decision: They draw a distinction between the maximization principle (best solution) and satisfice principle (good-enough solution). Simon suggest "Whereas economic man supposedly maximizes—selects the best alternative from among all those available to him—his cousin, the administrator, satisfices—looks for course of action that is satisfactory or "good enough". (P.119)

iii. Accordingly, James March makes a distinction between the logics of consequence and that of appropriateness.- Logic of consequence: “The idea is that a reasoning decision maker will

consider alternatives in terms of their consequences for preferences.” In other words, it assumes that “decision processes …are consequential and preference-based. They are consequential in the sense that action

19


19

depends on anticipation of the future effects of current actions. Alternatives are interpreted in terms of their expected consequences. They are preference-based in the sense that consequences are evaluated in terms of personal preferences. Alternatives are compared in terms of the extent to which their expected consequences are thought to serve the preferences of the decision make. (March, 1994, P. 2)

- Logic of appropriateness: “When individuals and organizations fulfill identifies, they follow rules or procedures that they see as appropriate to the situation in which they find themselves. Neither preferences as they are normally conceived nor expectations of future consequences enter directly into the calculus.” (March, 1994, p. 57)

iv. Accordingly, decision makers on controversial issues, especially those in informational-global context, could no longer based solely on consequences of actions and the extent that their preferences are satisfied by the consequences of actions. Instead they would base their choices on the follows: (p.58)“1. The question of recognition: What kind of situation is this? 2. The question of identity: What kind of person am I? Or what kind of

organization is this?3. The question of rules: What does a person such as I, or an organization

such as this, do in a situation as this?” (March, 1994, P. 58)

20


20

Issue Analysis1. Analyzing the nature & features of the controversial issue

2. Analyzing the social backgrounds of the controversial issue 3. Mapping the contesting parties involved

4.Analyzing the process of political aggregation and alignment5.Recording the arguments signified by the contesting camps

Factual Enquiry1. Clarification of definitional &

categorical disagreements 2. Validation of the situational

meanings involved in the disagreement

3.Validation of the situational meanings involved in the

disagreement4. Weights and priorities

assigned to various evidences

Value Inquiry1. Clarification of values

(substance, types & levels) Identify the values attributed by

parties in dispute2. Analyzing the substances of

strong evaluation 3. Analyze the theoretical grounds

of evaluation 4. Priority analyze the conflicting

values

Structure of decision-makingTheories of decision-making1. Identifying Alternatives1. Economic or administrative 2. Assessing anticipated effectsmanof each alternative2. Maximization principle or 3. Predicting unanticipated satisfice principle consequences of alternatives 3. Logic of consequence or 4. Prioritizing alternatives appropriateness5. Making choice

Institutional Enquiry1. Identify the institution and its

history in which the controversial issue invoked

2. Identify the institutional practices or values endorsed or

violated 3.Priority analyze institutional

imperatives

Comparative Enquiry1. Identify controversial issues in

other comparable societies2. Identify comparable issue in

other points in time 3. Analyze the commonalities and

differences among cases4.Recognition of diversities in

multicultural perspective

A framework for issue enquiry approach

21


21

E. Cases of IEA1. Foreign Domestic Helpers are eligible to apply for permanent-resident status in

HK2. Desecration of National Flag is a Criminal Offense3. Publications of Paparazzi Photographs should be Penalized4. 趙連海「尋釁滋事」罪‚罪有應得5. Teaching Controversial Issues in the US: Taking Sides6. Teaching Controversial Issues in the UK

a. Oxfam, Teaching Controversial Issuesb. Learning and Skill Development Agency, Agree to disagree: Citzienship and

Controversial Issues.

Additional Referencesa. Allen, Rodney F. (1996) “The Engle-Ochoa Decision Making Model for Citizenship

Education.” Pp. 51-58. In R.W. Even & D.W. Saxe (Eds.) Handbook on Teaching Social Issues. Washington DC: National Council for the Social Studies.

b. Aspin, A.N. (1999) “The Nature of Values and their Place and Promotion in Schemes of Values Education.” Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol 31, No.2, Pp. 123-143.

c. Bohan, Chara H. & J.R. Feinberg (2010) “Leader-Writers: The Contributions of Donald Oliver, Fred Newmann, and James Shaver to the Harvard Social Studies Project.” PP. 2010. In B.S. Stern (Ed.) The New Social Studies: People, Projects and Perspectives. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

d. Cherryholmes, Cleo H. (1980) “Social Knowledge and Citizenship Education: Two View of Truth and Criticism.” Curriculum Inquiry 10 (2): 117-140.

e. Claire, Hilary & C. Holden (2007) The Challenge of Teaching Controversial Issues. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

f. Doody, John A. (1991) “MacIntyre and Habermas on Practical Reason.” Pp. 59-74. In C. Peden and Y. Hudson (Eds.) Communitarianism, Liberalism, and Social Responsility. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

g. Dworkin, Ronald (2011) Justice for Hedgehogs. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

h. Ellis, Ralph D. (1998). Just Results: Ethical Foundations for Policy Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

i. Evans, Ronald W. F.M. Newmann, & D. W. Saxe (1996) “Defining Issues-Centered Education.” Pp. 2-5. In R.W. Even & D.W. Saxe (Eds.) Handbook on Teaching Social Issues. Washington DC: National Council for the Social Studies.

j. Fiehn, Julia (2006) Agree to Disagree: Citizenship and Controversial Issues. London: Learning and Skill Development Agency. (http://tlp.excellencegateway.org.uk/tlp/xcurricula/employability/resources/documents/Agree%20to%20disagree.pdf)

22


22

k. Gutmann, Amy (1994) (d.) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

l. Massialas, Byron G. & B. Cox (1966) Inquiry in Social Studies. New York: McGraw-Hill.

m. Massialas, Btron G et al. (1975) Social Issues through Inquiry: Coping in an Age of Crisis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hill.

n. Massialas, Byron G. (1996) “Criteria for Issues-Centered Content Selection. Pp. 44-50. In R.W. Even & D.W. Saxe (Eds.) Handbook on Teaching Social Issues. Washington DC: National Council for the Social Studies.

o. Newmann, Fred M. & D. Oliver (1970) Clarifying public controversy: An Approach to Teaching Social Studies. Boston: Little, Brown.

p. North, Douglas C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

q. Oliver, Donald W. (1957) “The Selection of Content in the Social Studies.” Harvard Educational Review. Vol. 25, No. 4, Pp. 271-300.

r. Oxfam (2006) Teaching Controversial Issues: Global Citizenship Guide. Oxford: Oxfam. (http://www.oxfam.org.uk/~/media/Files/Education/Teacher%20Support/Free%20Guides/teaching_controversial_issues.ashx)

s. Previte, Mark A. (2011) “Education for Democratic Citizenship: Decision Making in the Social Studies.” Pp. 251-276. In S. Totten and J.E. Pedersen (Eds.) Teaching and Studying Social Issues: Major Programs and Approaches. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

t. Stern, Barbars S. (2006) “Donald Oliver: The Search for Democratic Community.” Pp. 267-289. In S. Totten & J. Pedersen (Eds.) Addressing Social Issues in the Classroom and Beyond: The Pedagogical Efforts of Pioneers in the Field. Charlette: Information Age Publishing.

u. Stern, Barbars S. (2011) “CitizenshipEducation Using Rational Decision Making: Donald Oliver, James Shaver, and Fred Newmann’s Public Issue Model.” Pp. 43-65. In S. Totten and J.E. Pedersen (Eds.) Teaching and Studying Social Issues: Major Programs and Approaches. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

v. Sweeney, JoAnn C. & S. Foster (1996) “Teaching Controversial Issues through Massialas and Cox Inquiry.” Pp. 66-74. In R.W. Even & D.W. Saxe (Eds.) Handbook on Teaching Social Issues. Washington DC: National Council for the Social Studies.

w. Taylor, Charles (1985) “What is Human Agency?” Pp. 15-44. In C. Taylor. Philosophical Papers Vol. 1: Human Agency and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

x. Wellington, Jerry J. (1986) Controversial Issues in the Curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.

y. Zevin, Jack (2011) “The Reflective Classroom in “Inquiry in Social Studies” by Massialas and Cox. Pp. 67-86. In S. Totten and J.E. Pedersen (Eds.) Teaching and Studying Social Issues: Major Programs and Approaches. Charlotte: Information Age

23


23

Publishing.

24


24

theoretical foundation of educational administration and ...wktsang/mcl6508/handouts/l2-is… ·...

Documents