Powerful Knowledge as a Conceptual Frame for Teaching Controversial Issues in Ethics and Values Education in Social Studies Subjects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I have with great interest read the article "Powerful knowledge in social studies while teaching about controversial issues in ethics and values education" which deals with an important topic both for research and teachers who teach social studies subjects. The article is a theoretical reasoning about powerful knowledge and controversial issues in teaching.  The article is well written, knowledgeable and supported with relevant references and current research in the field. However, I have a few questions and comments that I would like the author to revise before publication and that I believe would improve the quality of the article.

In the instructions for reviewers, it is stated that you must summarize the purpose of the article, and this is where I run into problems, and it is around this that my main concern is. It is a bit difficult to understand what the overall purpose of the article is. I have marked the sections that states what the author will do but I am unsure if I should understand this as aim so or merely guidelines of the articles outline? All the excerpts are from Section 1:

Line 64-64: In the following, I will show why it is important to have such a structure for work and research on teaching controversial issues, and I will do so with a focus on social studies subjects as these are perceived and designed in a Swedish context

Line 90-92: In the following, I will initially comment on the model for four strategies for how such issues can be dealt with in school classrooms, presented by the American researcher Diana Hess.

Line  94-102: I will briefly describe the model and comment on it, in particular regarding what I find to be a risk in unilaterally using it as a platform for developing didactic strategies for teaching about issues where disagreements and differing positions are expressed in the classroom. I then move on to discuss in more detail what it means to “create conditions for children and young people/give/conditions to develop knowledge about democracy and values, social structures, social relations and sustainable development” (Skolverket, 2017) with regard to teaching controversial issues concerning ethics and values in social studies subjects.

Line 112-114: How can a knowledge-based teaching on ethically controversial issues in social studies subjects be developed, with room for “emotional, cognitive and evaluative elements”(Larsson & Lindström, 2020, 2). Is this the aim and researchquestion of this article? It is formulated as a question, should have a question mark?

Line 119-122: Here I will discuss in what way subject-theoretical concepts and argumentation models need to be integrated with a philosophically anchored approach to how issues concerning ethical disagreement and ethical controversies should be understood.

Is it the last excerpt that is the aim? Or all of the above? My suggestion is that the author make explicit and clearer what the aim is (and what is outline and guiding to the reader), as it is structured now it confuses the reader and it is difficult to understand what the article is about.

There are quite a few articles that deal with both powerful knowledge and controversial issues (however, not so many combine these themes) based on different theoretical starting points and ideas about how teaching, on a theoretical and normative level, should be designed and what teaching should emphasized or highlight, and the reasoning rarely takes its starting point in empirical research. At the same time, the available empirical research shows that teaching is a complex business and there can be good grounds and professional considerations why a teacher chooses a specific strategy in a concrete teaching context. I don't know if teachers are helped by even more normative reasoning about the nature of pedagogical issues. I miss reasoning about the complexity of concrete classroom practices in relation to the article's theme, I think that would make it more relevant. The reasoning consists of how the author thinks it should be, a little unclear on what grounds. There are many exampels of this kind, but just to give one example: What I would like to point out in this context is the importance of children and young people being confronted with the question of what it means in a philosophical sense to take different positions on ethical issues, and to have critical discussions with mutual respect. (line 463-469) This cannot be argued against, but what much of the literature on teaching about controversial issues, also mentioned in the article, addresses is precisely that this is difficult, and that teachers find this challenging and need to make professional decisions about how to do this. Of course, educational philosophical reasoning also has its justification, but the article still claims to say something about teaching (in the title for example and in the abstract: “practical prerequisites for a tenable and solid teaching on controversial ethical issue in social studies subject”), about teachers' practices and work, and therefore I would like to see more of that kind of reasoning and connections. Or clarify that this article deals only with theoretical perspectives.

Another question that would have been interesting to read more about is whether there are significant similarities and differences between the four social studies subjects when it comes to powerful knowledge linked to controversial issues as the different subjects have different content and purposes? 

Specific comments

Line 68-75 Font

Writes in footnote 1 that you should use the term "Religion" for the subject will be used because it is translated that way in official English version of the Swedish curricula and that you will follow that terminology here. In the international contexts, the term religious education is used (often abbreviated RE), or possibly the term religion education to mark that the subject is non-denominational. It is also the term used in the guest editors' description of this journals special issue, and for example in line 107 and 350-357 the term religious education is used. So my suggestion is to use the term religious education as it is the international term or at least be consistent.

In the fourth approach the word balance at line 150 needs to be italicized, Hess's other approaches are italicized.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to thank you for a thorough reading of the manuscript.

Your comments made it clear to me that the purpose with the discussion have to be clarified: I agree that the focus in the presentation in the first version oscillates between theory and practice.

I have in the revised version tried to make it clear that my aim is theoretical, and I have emphasized this in an explicit way. And I have tried to make it clear that I, (in line with for example both Hand and Zrudlo), make a discussion of a theoretical foundation for teaching on controversial issues the main issue, without leaving didactical perspectives on teaching totally aside.

I have also made corrections regarding your specific comments.

Kind regards

Author

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest the following minor revisions:

1. Line 405, bracket missing after publication date. Also this reference is not included in the reference list. I suggest author checks manuscript to ensure all citations are included in reference list.

2. Page reference missing from bracket.

3. The final section of the article needs some attention. Calling it "Discussion" seems odd since the whole article is a discussion of a complex subject. What I think is needed is a "Conclusion", that lays out the key points that the author wants the reader to take away. At the moment I am left with a sense of "so what? having reached the end of a very interesting and insightful discussion which pursues a number of different threads. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for constructive comments to my manuscript.

I have made corrections in line with comments 1 and 2.

Regarding comment 3, I understand that the heading "Discussion" seems odd, given the content in and the structure of the text. I am grateful that you drew my attention to this.

I have now changed the formulation of the heading to "Concluding remarks: Future directions". This seems more congenial, at the same time as it corresponds to my intention to indicate two possible ways, (represented by Hand and Zrudlo respectively), to take the discussion on the theoretical foundation of teaching controversial ethical issues further.

Kind regards

Author

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author/s:

An article is presented that is thematically appropriate for this journal. Furthermore, the author or authors of the text develop a discourse with a central theme that is relevant and interesting from an academic perspective. The emphasis on an educational perspective in addressing a socially relevant issue such as controversy also adds a distinctive element. The text is well-written, and its publication is recommended. However, from my point of view, there are areas in the text that could be improved, which I will suggest below. Some of these suggestions pertain to text editing, while others aim to enhance the structure of the text. In my view, the text's structure complicates the reader's comprehension and should be improved, especially in a text of this nature where philosophical aspects play a significant role.

The main objective of the text, as stated by the author or authors in the first section, is to justify the creation of a foundation or platform to demonstrate how a conversation between disagreeing parties can be achieved and to show "why it is important to have such a structure for work and research on teaching controversial issues." In this regard, the concept of a 'platform' should be developed further to clarify to the reader what exactly the text aims to accomplish, why it is necessary, and how it would contribute to its improvement. Ultimately, it should clarify what is meant by creating a 'platform.' In some cases, it appears to be a theoretical foundation, while in others, it seems to be a disciplinary or even multidisciplinary knowledge (e.g., pedagogical, philosophical) with unspecified nature.

From my perspective, the main problem with the text is its structure. The text should be improved and developed in a more organized and linear manner, avoiding shifts like the one indicated on page 3: "I have elsewhere critically commented on some of these and made suggestions as to what a teaching practice in accordance with Young's thinking could mean, especially in terms of religious education and ethics (Author 2023, 49), and I'll come back to this a little later. Right now, however, I would like to draw attention to another dimension, namely one concerning the philosophical-pedagogical conditions for teaching controversial ethical and value-related themes in social studies subjects." The same issue is present in section 6, where it disrupts the discourse, and previously, in lines 285-287, the author introduces a topic he will "return to later in the text."

In the first section, the need for the topic and its social and academic relevance should be discussed. The problem under analysis should be clearly defined, and the need for a solution and its necessary characteristics should be justified. Once the problem is defined, it may be appropriate to state the objective and its justification, and finally, explain what will be developed and why. It would also be helpful to demonstrate the relationship between these arguments, though this could perhaps be deferred to a later stage.

In the first section, the following aspects are especially relevant:

• Direct quotations should include not only authorship but also the page from the referenced document: line 34: "As Larsson & Lindström (2020) point out, there is 'no generally accepted definition of controversial issues in the research literature,' although most proposed definitions 'contain what we describe as emotional, cognitive, and evaluative elements.' This also applies to direct quotations in section 7.

• Additionally, the publication date of the document "In the Council of Europe's published support material for teachers, Living with Controversy: Teaching Controversial Issues Through Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights" (line 42) should appear alongside the reference to facilitate the reader's comprehension.

• The argument regarding whether the definition of controversy should include the aspect of generating strong feelings or emotions could also consider the relevance of educating students to identify and cope with these feelings that could interfere with or influence their discussion of controversy. This is especially pertinent in the current era, where emotional education holds value and significance in the curriculum at all educational levels, and its absence is linked to numerous social issues.

In this section, the choice of four subjects taken as reference and examples for the application of the pedagogical and teaching aspects discussed in the text is also discussed. From my point of view, the way these aspects are subsequently addressed in the text, generally as areas of application, makes such an explanation in the introduction unnecessary, or at least the way it is presented. The manner in which these aspects are considered, and the historical, political, and ideological considerations that influence the choice of the four subjects taken as reference (i.e., geography, history, religion, and civics) seems unnecessary and suggests a detailed and in-depth description of the problem under consideration (i.e., controversy and its classroom approach) for each of these topics that is not presented in the text and is not the article's objective. It is sufficient to specify that these four subjects are taken as examples due to their relevance to Swedish educational policy, which shares a common goal for these subjects.

The discourse between the paragraph ending at line 75 and the one starting at line 76 should be reviewed. It is appropriate to link to the results of educational research highlighting the connection between values and social relations, but not necessarily to a specific study mentioned in line 76. Perhaps the paragraph could begin with general ideas and then narrow down the common themes that discussions and research focus on (e.g., democracy, societal structures, rights, human rights, gender, racism, gender, and LGBTQ+ issues).

Furthermore, given the relevance of the concept of 'powerful knowledge' in the discourse, it should be introduced in the initial part of the text rather than waiting until page 3, considering its connection to the treatment of controversy as the central focus of the text and the primary goal, which is to justify the creation of a platform.

The idea, concept, and approach given to 'transformative didacticization' seem appropriate, but its development is confusing, and its connection to the text's objective should be described more clearly.

Section 2, "Four strategies for dealing with controversial issues in teaching," is clear and well-developed. The title of this section should mention the author of the presented ideas (i.e., Hess), and it may be worthwhile to merge this section with section 3. Given the article's stated objectives in section 1, it is not justified to discuss Hess's four strategies for addressing controversial topics in teaching in section 2 and subsequently provide critical reflection in section 4. The content of the latter seems appropriate and justifiable to introduce the concept of 'powerful knowledge,' but the coherence of the discourse needs improvement and should be revised. Perhaps the discourse should begin with the characteristics this platform should have and then develop them throughout the text: an alternative perspective to Hess's proposals, the development of truly empowering knowledge (section 4), what effective teaching of controversial subjects based on knowledge entails (section 5), and examples of this approach (section 6) in the fields of religion, history, geography, and social studies.

The current section 7 might provide a deeper exploration of the aspects mentioned in section 6. Sections 6 and 7 could potentially be merged to complete a section 6 that presents concrete examples of applying this 'powerful knowledge' in specific areas of knowledge. It might be best to develop a section on 'powerful knowledge,' with subsections that orderly and cohesively develop the current sections 4 to 9.

Some sections lack sufficient support from bibliographic references, such as section 6. In section 7, the year of reference for the information attributed to the "Swedish National Agency of Education" should be indicated (p. 331).

Section 10 seems difficult to fit into the discourse unless, in the first part of the article, the various contents and sections that will be developed are presented and justified to the reader. Justification for including this section should be provided here. Additionally, section 10, in its development, should be restructured to address and elaborate on its initial idea, which is how to approach the ethical-moral question underlying controversy. The discourse should focus on what the section's title suggests: "teaching about controversial ethical questions," and not solely on moral philosophy or philosophy of education, as is the current orientation of much of the content in this section. With a reworking of the discourse, aligned with the section's title, some of its content could potentially be retained. If the content about the moral aspect of controversy is to be preserved, it should be reconsidered in the section title and appropriately linked to previous sections, then developed properly, focusing on describing the moral issue that arises around controversy and how to address it. The section titled "Discussion" is therefore not appropriate.

The same issue arises with section 11, whose contents are insufficiently connected to the preceding discourse, and its contribution to the text's development is not justified.

Finally, a concluding section of the article should provide a synthesis and conclusion presenting the main ideas of the text, the conclusions the author wishes to highlight, and future perspectives to consider.

In the title of the text, the focus should be on teaching controversial issues rather than powerful knowledge, although both concepts should be included in the title.

Once these changes have been made, the article's abstract should also be reviewed to accurately reflect its main ideas and structure.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for a thorough reading of the manuscript, and for constructive suggestion for improvement.

1

I am grateful that you draw my attention to the need for clarifying the aim of the presentation. I have tried to make the purpose - to elaborate on the theoretical prerequistes for teaching controversial, ethical issues, and to present some steps in order to identify a theoretical foundation for such a teaching - explicit. By going thorugh the text with this aim in mind, I have made adjustments and changes that hopefully clarifies the purpose.

2

I have also followed your recommendation to deleate some parts (for example i section 2) that seemed to make the argument too long including partly irrelevant considerations.

3

I have also inserted references on several places where such information was lacking in the former version.

4

I have made a change in the formulation of the title that sharpens the description of the focus in the article with a balance between the parameters "powerful knowledge" and "controversial issues".

5

I have included a comment on "the aspect of generating strong feelings or emotions" with regard to" the relevance of educating students to identify and cope with these feelings".

6

I have made some restructional changes in order to ameliorate the order in the text.

7

The title of the final sections has been revised - from "Conclusion" to "Conclusing remarks: Future directions". This seems more congenial than the label "Conclusion", and it connects to the final discussion on Hand and Zrudlo which has the purpose to identify and discuss two potential paths for the development of a theoretical foundation for teaching on controversial issues.

8

I have included a complementary publication in the list of reference in order to clarify a part of the reasoning in the presentation.

9

I have made corresponding changes in the abstract.

Kind regards

Author

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author/s,

Just point out some minor corrections. The text is now easier to understand and has a clearer structure that allows the discursive thread of the text to be better understood.

Some minor editing issues to review:

Line 108: If "to “create conditions for children and young people/give/conditions to develop knowledge about democracy and values, social structures, social relations and sustainable development” is a literal quote from (Skolverket 2017), then the page is missing.

The relationship of aspects "critical thinking", empathic ability... on line 328: I suggest indicating the author before said text on line 327, and if it is literal, indicate the page, or include said text in the same paragraph that ends on line 327:: (1) critical thinking, (2) empathic ability, (3)...

In lines 343, 349, when "Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the leisure-time center 2022. Syllabus: Civics" is cited as a source, the authorship should be cited, not the title, whether it is a public body or a law.

Suggested title of Section 12: "Conclusions and future directions"

Thanks for your work and dedication.

The ·Editor.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you (again) for drawing my attention some complementary adjustments to take care of.

I have now followed your recommendations.

Kind regards

Author