Logan Dobson, 2018. Student ID# 1723518: EDPROF.

757

● Reframe the problem or puzzle as a question 

 
In Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s final public address before his fateful 

assassination on April 4th, 1968, he announced,  

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of 

comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and 

controversy.1

When teaching in the social sciences, and particularly in philosophy, 

encountering controversy is seemingly unavoidable. The notion of ‘teaching 

through controversy’ incorporates two valid meanings. First, it signifies that 

when controversy erupts in one’s philosophy classroom, like it or not, teachers 

must muddle through. Social science educators in general must deal with 

controversy’s immutable presence within their classroom in some way. 

Hopefully, it is a way that fosters student learning and thought, and does not 

place limitations upon such opportunities. The second reading, however, 

interprets the phrase differently. Controversy constitutes a frame of reference 

through which content can be taught so as to support critically important and 

unique ways of learning for students.  

1
​"What's the meaning of the Martin Luther King Jr quote below? “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in
moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands ​ at times of challenge and controversy.”"​eNotes, 7 June 2012,
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/whats-meaning-martin-luther-king-jr-quote-below-343195. Accessed 29 Mar. 2018.
Logan Dobson, 2018. Student ID# 1723518: EDPROF. 757 2

This framing is deliberate, it indicates the dilemma controversy creates for 

teaching practice. On the one hand, controversy can easily become a barrier to the 

intellectual exploration of content, restrict student learning, and concurrently shackle 

teaching pedagogy. Yet, it is equally plausible that controversy can enrich the student 

learning experience and develop critical thinking skills at a deeper level than ‘safe’, 

‘politically correct’, or ‘kid-glove’, approaches to controversial topics. The dilemma 

arrives in the realisation: the conditions of possibility for the emergence of the latter 

positive learning context, requires the acceptance of the potential for the former, 

negative context, to spontaneously intrude. At every learning juncture in ‘teaching 

through controversy’ there appears to be the threat of the lesson ‘going either way.’

Fundamentally, the impetus for my selecting an inquiry context of learning 

through controversy is informed by initial interactions with the Year 13 philosophy 

students who will be participants in the first iteration of my inquiry.  

In the initial observation, students in the class interacted with the topic of the 

ethics of euthanasia with steadfast and reasoned beliefs, but struggled to interpret the 

counter-arguments questioning their reasoning and beliefs with philosophical charity. 

While this was not an altogether objectionable result, the overwhelming consensus of 

the class threatened to alienate some who may hold the counter-view, but felt it was ‘the 

wrong one’ because of the trend amongst their peers. Thus identifies a student-need 

 
Logan Dobson, 2018. Student ID# 1723518: EDPROF. 757 3

which motivates the puzzling notion of ‘teaching through controversy’ for my inquiry, 

in aid of supporting students to ‘learn through controversy’ and not be afraid to 

challenge the status quo.   

The class I am embedded in is finishing a topic on the ethics of euthanasia. I 

interviewed my mentor on the first day with a series of questions which built our 

professional relationship and allowed her to communicate what needs the students had 

in relation to their immediate achievement; and, specific learning idiosyncrasies at the 

individual level. After some discussion clarifying my mentor’s expectations of me as a 

pre-service teacher, and the needs of her students, it was agreed upon that I use the next 

5 lessons with the class to develop critical engagement strategies for philosophical 

arguments via the learning context of the ethical status of abortion and reproductive 

rights. 

Consequently, I have chosen to enact the first iteration of contending with the 

puzzle posed by ‘teaching through controversy’ in this series of lessons. The challenge 

from the outset is to teach through controversy authentically. The NZ Curriculum 

names the active, purposeful, relevant, and empowering, modes of teaching and 

learning as ‘key competencies’ for students and teachers in the social sciences. It is, 

therefore, incumbent upon practitioners in this discipline to understand controversy is 

 
Logan Dobson, 2018. Student ID# 1723518: EDPROF. 757 4

inescapable; if learning and teaching is authentically interacting with the educational 

competencies prescribed by the NZ curriculum.  

To authentically embody these principles in practice necessitates my pedagogy to 

wilfully (and hopefully skillfully) wade into potentially turbulent controversial waters 

for teaching practice and learning experience. Moreover, in immediate terms, the 

success of the particular students I have in front of me requires I deliver an enriching 

learning experience via a topic (the ethical status of abortion and reproductive rights) 

which is mired in controversy. Not only this, but I recognise my representing (in 

philosophical terms, not political) the role of white and male in relation to the topic. 

This puts me in a position where the relevant power-relations regarding the ethical 

status of abortion & reproductive rights associate my representational status with the 

‘dominant culture’. Such an affiliation engenders some challenges for my practice. 

Primarily, it introduces controversy before the first word is spoken in this series of 

lessons; because, every student (in particular females) in the class can legitimately 

interpret my delivering this discourse (regardless of how progressive it may appear) as 

subordinating the female gender to my ‘male gaze’. So, in order for these students to 

succeed, I must be able to deliver effective learning opportunities through controversy 

with an awareness of the discursive position my representational role embodies a priori 

 
Logan Dobson, 2018. Student ID# 1723518: EDPROF. 757 5

to the topic. The importance of this particular puzzle to teachers of philosophy, the 

wider faculty of social science, and its relevance to students, is hereby confirmed. 

An inquiry into ‘teaching through controversy’ is relevant for the reasons 

outlined already, but also speaks to the teacher I want to be, and the influence I want 

my teaching to have in the wider social context of Aotearoa, New Zealand. If teaching is 

a political act, and one of the main dysfunctions in our body politic is how we deal with 

things that are hard to talk about - like the root causes of inequality or institutional 

racism in the NZ prison system; then, equipping students so when they leave school at 

the end of Year 13 they possess sufficient capabilities to navigate controversy and 

challenges effectively, ethically, and energetically as citizens, constitutes the political 

impact I seek to have with my teaching. It is not the sole aim, but it is a foundational 

one echoing the opening King Jr quote.   

Finally, this inquiry is informed from personal experience. As a student I left 

school at 15, and my initial disengagement can be traced to one event in 4th form (Year 

10). I was taught, in social sciences, Te Rangihaeata had carried out an unprovoked 

massacre of colonial settlers at Wairau in 1843, and proceeded to murder some prisoners 

he had captured. Now, Te Rangihaeata is my tipuna and I knew his story well, but the 

story my teacher told was simply untrue; optimistically, this is attributable to ingenuous 

incompetence, rather than malicious intent. My teacher did not know this however, and 

 
Logan Dobson, 2018. Student ID# 1723518: EDPROF. 757 6

given the framing I did not want to take ownership of my identity at that moment. This 

was one of many minor, but influential incidents which led to my early exit from 

secondary school. So, I recognise the power controversy has to affect student learning 

negatively, and I believe the inverse is true also. Controversy has the power to affect 

student learning positively. The puzzle is the presence of one appears to necessitate the 

potential of the other. 

 
● Your action plan  
 
5 lessons around abortion and reproductive rights, aiming to develop critical 
engagement skills with philosophical arguments, Year 13 philosophy. - derived 
from mentor interview 06/03/2018 
 
1 - “​Premises, Reasons & Conclusions; Moral argument, Rights & Duties, Power & 
Privilege; The impact of Gender Roles​” - Inquiry basis - trial grouping strategies 
concerning spatial organisation evidenced in the literature to encourage and facilitate 
dialogue, implement learning contexts that encourage ‘promotive interaction’ through 
strategies extrapolated from the literature.  
 
2 - “​Creating an argument with convincing reasons - Sanctity of Life vs Bodily Autonomy 
+ Reductio ad Absurdum” - ​Inquiry basis - reflect and adjust experimental strategies 
according to their efficacy in lesson 1.  
 
3 - “​Principle of Philosophical Charity - how to argue with yourself and why philosophers 
do” - ​Inquiry basis - trial ‘affinity groupings’ in partnership with introducing a political 
analysis in the place of a monocultural one (looking at power and privilege and its 
influence on rights and duties). Both these trials will be informed by the identified 
literature. 

 
Logan Dobson, 2018. Student ID# 1723518: EDPROF. 757 7

 
4 - “​ How to Engage​ ​Analogical Reasoning and Thought Experiments - Judith Jarvis 
Thompson’s arguments for reproductive rights”​ - Inquiry basis - reflect and adjust 
strategies where needed, inquire into student perceptions of how the strategies went and 
how they influenced student learning experience 
 
5 - “​ Constructing and Presenting a convincing argument by instituting the skills we have 
learned - Human organs grown inside Pigs, the ethical implications” - I​ nquiry basis - 
Bring all thus far strategies to bare through the facilitation of an intergroup dialogue 
wherein students are empowered to lead their learning for the most part, but are 
provided with a context to apply their learning actively, purposively, and in a way that is 
relevant to their lives. Participate in a ‘dialogue about dialogue’ with students. Both 
techniques sit nicely with the flavour of the experimental strategies from 1 - 4, and are 
independently supported by the literature.   
 
 
● Evidence you intend to collect 
 
1. Filmed teaching with annotated commentary 

2. Pictures of co-constructed boardwork 

3. Examples of student work 

4. Informal student voice through regular out of class interaction (that starts with 

trivial preamble and moves to feelings about strategic 

implementation/experimentation) 

5. Formal student feedback - questionnaire 

6. Mentor feedback from observation 

 
Logan Dobson, 2018. Student ID# 1723518: EDPROF. 757 8

7. Initial interview with mentor 

8. Reflective summary of pedagogy and inquiry from mentor 

9. Birds-eye view of various grouping and spatial strategies 

10.Journalling 

11.ULT/Area specialist feedback from observations 

12.Appendix of slideshow resources + handouts with relevance to enacted strategies 

● Key reading you have or will undertake 

 
1. David Johnson & Roger Johnson, (2009) ​“An Educational Success Story: Social 
Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning”​, E ​ ducational Researcher, 
Vol. 38 No. 5​, American Educational Research Association (accessed from 
JSTOR), pp. 365-379 
2. David Johnson & Roger Johnson,, (2007) “​Creative Controversy: Intellectual 
Challenge in the Classroom​” 4th Edition, Edina, MN: I​ nteraction Book Company 
3. Ximena Zuniga, Biren (Ratnesh) A. Naagda & Todd D. Sevig, (2002) 
“​Intergroup Dialogues: An Educational Model for Cultivating Engagement 
Across Differences​”, E​ quity & Excellence in Education​ (accessed from 
Routledge), 35:1, p 7 - 17 
4. Hanneke Jones, (2016) ​Discussing Poverty with Student Teachers: The Realities 
of Dialogue​”, J​ ournal of Education for Teaching​(accessed from Routledge), 42:4, 
pp. 468 - 482  
5. Christine E Sleeter, (2012) “​Confronting the Marginalization of Culturally 
Responsive Pedagogy​”, ​Urban Education​ (accessed on SAGE), pp. 562 - 584 
6. Jürgen Habermas. 2001. ‘​Reflections on the Linguistic Foundation of Sociology: 
The Christian Gauss Lecture, Princeton University, February-March 1971​.’ In 
On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction. Preliminary Studies in the Theory of 
Communicative Action​, 1-105, selected 100-105. Cambridge: Polity/Oxford: 
Blackwell 

 
Logan Dobson, 2018. Student ID# 1723518: EDPROF. 757 9

 
 
● The role of your critical friend 
 
I have multiple critical friends including, but not limited to, Scott, Simona and 

Ophelia from the cohort. Their roles are generally going to be reciprocal sounding 

boards for ideas and practical strategies. But essentially, their role in relation to my 

inquiry is as an ethical touchstone and advisor. Naturally, their roles (and my own) will 

be to explore thinking around pedagogy and discuss the wider relational contexts we 

encounter in our schools. Individually, all three offer strengths and insights that are 

invaluable to my teaching, ultimately I attribute this to the different contexts we all 

bring to this experience. And, through collaborative problem-encountering I think we 

all bring an important perspective to education. For instance, Scott has the wisdom 

gathered from wide-ranging social experiences which inform his perspective which 

allows him to often foresee consequences I overlook; Ophelia has an innate creativity 

and infectious enthusiasm for engaging her learners which I value highly as she provides 

vastly original insights, and Simona possesses a commitment to, and optimism for, 

teaching that I am prone to neglecting and for this reason she provides crucial 

attitudinal support which is irreplaceable in the excursion of pre-service teaching. All 

 
Logan Dobson, 2018. Student ID# 1723518: EDPROF. 757 10

three, therefore, complement my identifiable personal failings quite well and this works 

to inspire in various ways. 

● Any ethical issues you are aware of.  

 
- Teaching through controversy brings the inherent potential for marginalization 
and alienation in the classroom on multiple levels - intellectually, socially, 
institutionally, practically, all of which have the potential to produce ongoing 
consequences for student well-being.  
- Whether any subject-matter (such as abortion) has directly, or even tangentially, 
affected any students individually or even as a couple, this brings the ethical 
concern of the psychological well-being to the forefront. 
- In order to present controversial topics I must be willing and able to present both 
sides of as issue with equal clarity and consideration, even when I passionately 
feel in favour, or against, one side of the argument. This brings the ethical 
concerns of sincerity, transparency, and intellectual charity. 
- Given my social positioning in relation to the pertinent topic (abortion) as 
representatively occupying the role of the dominant culture, which currently is 
culpable for the subordination of women regarding their reproductive rights; the 
tone and body language with which I deliver information is pivotal in 
encouraging (or discouraging) student engagement in discussion that may enrich 
(or restrict) their learning experience.