Where Do You Stand? Discussions That Promote Democratic Citizenship and Engage Multiple Intelligences

Abstract

Teachers often desire meaningful classroom discussions, but frequently shy away from introducing controversial topics. An instructional activity “Where Do You Stand?” was developed and used regularly with the goal of engaging students in discussion around politicized and divisive issues. Over 3 years of use in a secondary social studies classroom, benefits of fostering democratic citizenship and engaging a range of multiple intelligences were observed. Beyond social studies, there are viable adaptations for use across content areas, in multiple forms, and recommendations to maximize the observed benefits. “Where Do You Stand?” offers teachers an opportunity to invite learners into critically important conversations.

Keywords

democratic education citizenship multiple intelligence discussion instructional strategy controversial topics teaching

Introduction

My 11th grade students are all standing in the center of the room waiting for my cue. Anxious tension fills the air as I begin to explain the instructions:

For today’s activity, I will read a statement, and based on your understanding and personal beliefs regarding the statement, you will quickly move to one of the four designated areas in the classroom. Look around the room at the four choices that are on display: “IN ALL CASES,” “IN SOME CASES,” “IN MOST CASES,” or “NEVER.” I will not explain the statement, but I am happy to reread it or define any unfamiliar words. Once you have chosen a place in the room, be prepared for me to call on you to defend your choice. Does everyone understand my directions?”

The students nod in agreement and appear anxious for me to begin. “Okay, here is the first statement . . . killing is wrong.”

How often as educators do we wish we could engage our students in deep, meaningful discussion? We desire to incorporate activities that cause students to think critically, be reflective, and create arguments that are supported by evidence. All of this is because we know that these are skills students will need as they leave our classrooms and school buildings. As a high-school social studies teacher, I often wondered if my students were gaining skills they need to be engaged citizens. I tried a variety of strategies, such as debates, Socratic seminars, and simulations, and while these methods worked from time to time, often the discussions and arguments felt manufactured and inauthentic. Furthermore, I desired to increase my students’ awareness and consciousness of both the realities in which they lived and into which they would be walking as they moved beyond school, particularly as U.S. society seems to be growing more divided socially, politically, and economically. Because classroom discussions generally revolved around current events, our discussions were limited to what was happening in the moment and therefore were often limited in scope. The list of topics can and does often change with society, but giving students a safe, trusting place to try out these conversations is critical for the health of our democracy.

Scholars have called for teachers, particularly those teaching social studies to engage their students in discussions of the tough issues of today (Beane & Apple, 2007; Hess, 2011; Journell, 2016; McAvoy, 2016; McAvoy & Hess, 2013; Stitzlein, 2012, 2014). But the actual practice has been limited among social studies teachers (Journell, 2016) and is likely limited for other content area teachers as well. This disconnect can be attributed to a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, an increasing focus on assessment, lack of time in the school year, various stakeholders’ opinions that schools should be politically neutral or apolitical, and teachers’ fear or inexperience. As McAvoy and Hess (2013) point out, “teachers are obligated to take on deliberation, particularly on controversial or tough issues” (p. 35). As these issues are being discussed in society, and because schools are not isolated from the realities of life, teachers need to offer their students the opportunity to engage students in these discussions. If schools don’t, who will?

This led me to utilize an activity that would allow students to engage with issues of the day, particularly ones that were seen as controversial, divisive, or politicizing. “Where Do You Stand?” became that activity and is the focus of this article. It was used so I did not have to wait for the news cycle to pick up issues of interest to my students. Topics included but were not limited to immigration, gun reform, abortion, LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and others) rights, capital punishment, criminal justice, racism, classism, and sexism. Upon reflection, I quickly started to see the benefits and versatility of Where Do You Stand? It can aid in developing democratic citizens and meeting the needs of a variety of students and is extremely adaptable both across content and in form of use. The purpose of this article is to offer a teacher perspective of a nontraditional and adaptable learning activity that can be used by educators to broach difficult, but necessary, topics or issues. Based on experiences of conducting the activity over multiple semesters, and thus numerous observations of the activity, I will offer benefits of using it, precautions that should be considered when using it, and how it can possibly be adapted for various uses. First, Where Do You Stand? will be described in detail.

The Activity—Where Do You Stand?

Background and Context

Before the activity is described in detail, it is important to understand the context in which the activity was used. I, the author, am a White male who has taught high school social studies for 8 years. All of my teaching experiences have been in an affluent suburban school district in central Ohio. Where Do You Stand? was first used in the fall of 2014 in a mixed junior–senior Global Politics class. The majority of the students took this class one semester and then took U.S. Government the opposite semester, but there were a handful of students each year who chose to take it as an elective. Another important element of the class was that it was the recommended option for students on Individual Education Plans (IEPs) or Academic Intervention Plans. This created classes with a wide range of knowledge, ability, and levels among the students.

The class was originally developed in the district as one of the few options students could take to fulfill their government credit, which was a graduation requirement. Along with two other social studies teachers in the district, I helped to develop the class based on Ohio’s state standards for Contemporary World Issues (Ohio Department of Education, 2013). However, the semester-long class was non-state-tested curriculum, which allowed for more flexibility and experimentation with the instructional strategies. For most semesters, there were at least two sections of the class, each having 27+ students, and in a few cases, 33 students per section. For the first 3 years of the course, I was the sole instructor at my school. In that time, I conducted Where Do You Stand? more than 20 times. In the meantime, a few of my colleagues adapted this activity for their classrooms as well. While I did not collect data during the activity, what is described as the benefits, limitations, recommendations, and possible adaptations emerge from extensive experience and informal observations of the activity.

As stated above, Where Do You Stand? was first and almost solely used in a Global Politics class. It was the introduction activity to a multiweek Human Rights unit that culminated in student presentations on a self-selected Human Rights issue. The day before using activity, the students received no information about Where Do You Stand?, except that it would take up the whole class period. Over several semesters of completing Where Do You Stand?, it became popular among my students, and although I desired to keep the details of the activity a secret to allow for more authentic responses, students shared their experience with classmates, making it difficult to conceal the nature of the activity for my new students. Based on my experience, the participation in, and significance of, the activity was not influenced by the amount of knowledge students had gleaned about the activity from their classmates.

Description of Activity

Before students would get to class I would display four signs around the room: “IN ALL CASES,” “IN MOST CASES,” “IN SOME CASES,” and “NEVER.” Once the students were in their seats, I would explain the directions. A description of the activity from start to finish is given in the following:

I would read a single statement and based on how they felt about the statement, students were required to move to one of the four signs hanging up around the room.

I would not explain or provide any additional details about the statement. This was because they were designed to be ambiguous and entail multiple interpretations. See Appendix for a list of statements that were used in my Global Politics classes. In some cases, I would define a word if necessary, but tried to avoid it as my definition could influence the students’ understandings of the statement.

The students would be given anywhere from 30 s to 1 min to move to their desired location.

Once it appeared that students had moved to their respective spots in the room, I would randomly call on a student to defend or explain their position and decision to move to the spot they were in.

The students were told that they would be called on to explain or defend their position. They were not allowed to respond with “I don’t know.” If they did, I would move to another student and come back to them. They had to give some sort of reason no matter how complex or simple.

At least one student, often more, from each position was called on to explain their position.

Students were allowed, and encouraged, to move or change their position as they heard their classmates’ explanations.

As a side note, I acted as the moderator and would rarely offer my own thoughts or opinions. Mostly, I would ask questions for clarity or depth and occasionally critique statements made by students no matter where they stood.

Once it appeared that the discussion was exhausted, for any number of reasons, I would read a new statement and the process would start over.

The activity generally lasted for 35 to 40 minutes, which allowed for directions and housekeeping at the beginning of class and a short debrief at the end of the period. In most classes, anywhere from 8 to 15 of the 27 statements were read. They were often selected based on prior knowledge of the class and/or the direction of the unit.

General Observations

Even though the classes’ makeup and dynamics were different every time I facilitated Where Do You Stand? was used, there were a few overarching similarities among the classes. There were always students who moved with the pack. At the same time, it seemed as though there were also students who were regularly alone or in the minority based on their position. Inevitably, for the first few statements, the students were reluctant to move and defend or explain their positions. As the activity progressed, students became more willing and comfortable in offering defenses and rationale for their positions. Very often, for about the second half of the class, I would have to limit discussion to ensure we were able to get through the statements that I had selected for the class. Students would also start to question and critique the arguments presented by their peers; in many cases, I was truly an observer for this activity.

At least 2 or 3 times per class, students would ask me where I stood on a particular issue. In only a handful of instances did I offer some insight into my beliefs or positions. As stated above, my goal was not to influence students’ positions, but to critique and counter claims to incite students’ reflection and examination of their personal arguments. I made every effort to create an environment that allowed for openness, critical thinking, and reflection, without giving off the feeling that I was preaching. One of the key components to holding an effective discussion according to Parker and Hess (2000) is to avoid proselytizing. Throughout the activity, I would step in when students’ comments or points were disrespectful, dehumanizing, marginalizing, or oppressive. In addition, I would point out instances of divided or contradictory consciousness in students’ arguments (Femia, 1975; Gramsci, 1971). This would happen a few times per class during the activity.

Where Do You Stand? seemed to make a lasting impression on students as they would ask to do it again and referenced back to it throughout the remainder of the semester. In addition, students regularly would not want to stop the activity or leave the class. While I could infer as to why many of these observed instances occurred, because I did not collect data, any conclusions would be mostly conjecture and extremely limited with regard to trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, such conclusions would be beyond the scope of this article.

As we move into discussion about the benefits, limitations, recommendations, and adaptations of the activity, it should be noted that all claims are based on my perspective as the teacher. I do have extensive experience and know the activity intimately, but as it has been stated above, no empirical data were collected, so no conclusions of impact can be made. However, most teachers can note what worked and what changes are needed with a particular lesson. Furthermore, as teachers tend to find activities that “work,” they tend to stick with them, adapt them as necessary, and can even predict students’ reactions. This is the case with Where Do You Stand?. Completing the activity over multiple years, I began to notice student trends and tendencies in my students, and this, combined with deep reflection on the activity, is the basis for the discussion that follows. As teachers share “good” lessons with colleagues, my desire is to share this activity from one educator to another.

Benefits

It is safe to assume that the vast majority of teachers choose instructional activities and strategies based on their belief that they will benefit student learning. This was the case for me as I planned to implement Where Do You Stand? in my Global Politics class. McAvoy and Hess (2013) describe four recommendation for having a discussion using controversial issues, and Where Do You Stand? fulfills three of them: open-ended questions, embracing and allowing ideological diversity, and no proselytizing. At the time of planning the activity for the first time, I saw the theoretical strengths of the activity and benefits to student learning. However, having never completed the activity with students, I had limited language for describing its benefits in practice. It was only after I had incorporated “Where Do You Stand?” across classes, semesters, and school years and reflected on the activity did the benefits become clear. At the same time, I was able to perceive limitations to the activity, which will be discussed in a later section. From my perspective, the benefits associated with “Where Do You Stand?” fall into two main categories—democratic citizen development and supporting multiple intelligences (MI; Armstrong, 2009; Gardner, 2006, 1983/2011)—which will be described in the following.

Democratic Citizen Development

Over the years, a number of scholars have called for preparing students to become democratic citizens (Beane & Apple, 2007; Dewey, 1916; Gutmann, 1999; Hytten, 2017; Meier, 2003; Stitzlein, 2014; Wood, 1998). Where Do You Stand? incorporates many of the habits and/or dispositions that many of these scholars acknowledge as critical but must be learned (Beane & Apple, 2007; Hytten, 2017; Meier, 2003; Stitzlein, 2014; Wood, 1992) for students to become agentic democratic citizens who are conscious of social reproduction (Gutmann, 1993). As many of these benefits are being framed through democratic education, it is important to understand the definition of democracy being used—the Deweyan belief in “associated living.” Much of democratic education theory stems from Dewey’s (1916) overarching belief that “a democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experiences” (p. 86). Dewey (1916) goes on describe in some detail that

The two elements in our criterion both point to democracy. The first signifies not only more numerous and more varied points of shared common interest, but greater reliance upon the recognition of mutual interests as a factor in social control. The second means not only freer interaction between social groups (once isolated so far as intention could keep up a separation) but change in social habits—its continuous readjustment through meeting the new situations produced by varied intercourse. And these two traits are precisely what characterize the democratically constituted society. (p. 86)

These criteria, to which Dewey points, are an integral part of Where Do You Stand?. Students quickly recognize that there are others who think and believe in similar ways to them. This happens both by experiencing the physical proximity of classmates standing with them and hearing verbal agreement through explanations. While those realizations of collectiveness and group belonging are powerful, what seems to be more significant is how students engage in dialogue with peers who possess varying beliefs. Ayers (2004) discusses that “[d]emocratic education is characterized fundamentally by dialogue- the principal vehicle for discussion, deliberation, reconsideration, and transformation. In every dialogue there exists the possibility of mistakes and misperceptions, struggle and emotion, and also of growth and change” (p. 96). What comes out of this, while it may not be easily observable and thus difficult to measure, is increased mutual respect and trust, within the class. This helps students realize that they can engage and live with people with differing views and beliefs. This appreciation of difference could also be considered a form of tolerance (Gutmann, 1993). No matter what it is called, Where Do You Stand? gives students an opportunity that they may not have elsewhere to associate with and find common interest among peers with differing beliefs and opinions.

Along similar lines, the ambiguous nature of the statements that are read encourage an environment of collaboration and cooperation (Beane & Apple, 2007; Gutmann, 1993; McAvoy & Hess, 2013). Ideally, democracies allow for pluralism (Thayer-Bacon, 2008, 2013); thus, for a democracy to work, differing groups must learn to cooperate and collaborate. Where Do You Stand? creates an informal environment of collaboration and cooperation. Because the students do not have any time to prepare arguments, they must look to their classmates to aid in and add to their explanations. In addition, as the activity goes on, the students begin to question each other. This in turn causes them to reflect on their own stances, this becomes another variation of collaboration. Whether or not the students are in agreement, as they share their viewpoints, they begin to rely on each other to articulate and advance strong arguments. Where Do You Stand? does not seem to meet student opposition that many other activities that foregrounding cooperation and collaboration tend to. This is likely due, in part, to the fact that the students may not have been consciously aware that they were developing these skills. So, Where Do You Stand? allows for development of democratic habits in what could be considered a more practical, real-world experience.

Collaboration and cooperation do not occur if the students do not feel as though they have a voice. By stepping aside as the teacher, and allowing the students’ voices to carry as much, or more weight, the classroom environment begins to resemble a democracy (Hytten, 2017; McAvoy & Hess, 2013). By setting the standard that I, the teacher, will say almost nothing an environment of safety and freedom can begin to develop (Meier, 2003). This is based on another component of democratic education; for citizen development, curriculum and instructional strategies should be student-centered (Beane & Apple, 2007; Hytten, 2017; Wood, 1992, 1998). This is based on the idea that in a democracy, power is shared and both individual and group voices are allowed and should be protected. Where Do You Stand? is an activity that cultivates this environment and gives value to students’ voices, experiences, and realities of students. Both in theory, and practice, the focus on freeing and empowering student voice through a student-centered activity is one of the most explicit democratic habits that Where Do You Stand? encourages.

A major premise of Where Do You Stand? is giving the students space to question the world around them (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Incorporating questions as part of democratic education develops habits of inquiry (Beane & Apple, 2007; Hytten, 2017; Meier, 2003; Parker & Hess, 2000; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Having curriculum and instruction based on inquiry of societal realities in turn requires students to develop critical thinking habits (Beane, 2005; Hytten, 2017; Meier, 2003). The statements read during the activity are purposefully ambiguous and selected based on contemporary issues so that inquiry and critical thinking skills are engaged. A goal of the activity is to foster a safe place for thinking, reflecting, and questioning what is known and accepted in society (Beane, 2005; Journell, 2016). In the end, engaging students in Where Do You Stand? gives them permission to question, inquire, be critical, and act democratically, in ways that traditional activities and strategies may not.

By design, Where Do You Stand? tends to be a cyclical activity, thus having no clear ending. Basing discussion on ambiguous statements and allowing for iterative organic discussions mimics the idea of democracy-in-the-making (Dewey, 1927/1954; Thayer-Bacon, 2008, 2013). As the students are continuously engaged in conversation, they are developing their democratic skills and dispositions although they never fully develop. Through this activity, the students experience, even if it is only on a small scale, of what it means to work toward the ideal or goal of democracy (Thayer-Bacon, 2013). Just as “democracy is forever incomplete” (Greene, 1993, p. 218), so is citizen development. Where Do You Stand? allows a glimpse into the reality of democracy-in-the-making and is a piece of the citizen-making process.

Multiple Intelligence

In 1983, Howard Gardner published his first iteration of his theory around MI, Frames of Mind, which included seven intelligences. Since that time two intelligences have been added resulting in a total of nine (Gardner, 2006, 1983/2011). It is believed that while individuals have a propensity toward certain intelligences, they can develop all nine intelligences to some extent (Armstrong, 2009). As a result of this belief, over the last three and a half decades, countless papers, articles, and materials have been developed regarding how to use MI in the classroom (e.g., Armstrong, 2009; Gardner & Hatch, 1989; Nolen, 2003; Stanford, 2003). Teaching based on MI allows for teachers to expand their strategies to meet the needs of their students and helps to initiate differentiation (Armstrong, 2009; Nolen, 2003; Stanford, 2003).

Because Where Do You Stand? is a nontraditional activity, it allows for students’ MI to be engaged and displayed (Armstrong, 2009; Gardner, 2006). Five of the nine intelligences are supported, directly or indirectly, based on the iteration of Where Do You Stand? described above: verbal linguistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, logic mathematical, and bodily kinesthetic.

Verbal–linguistic and interpersonal are the most obvious intelligences exhibited and supported through Where Do You Stand?. Verbal–linguistic intelligence is based on learning through hearing, speaking, and discussion, and individuals possessing this intelligence generally have a way with words (Armstrong, 2009; Denig, 2004; Gardner, 2006, 1983/2011; Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000). As the activity is based on discussion and articulating arguments, the students are required to activate their verbal–linguistic intelligence, allowing them to grow this intelligence as the more thoughtful they are with the words, the more likely they are to convince classmates of their stance. Those students who have a propensity toward verbal intelligence tend to thrive in this activity as they can exhibit their strength in this area.

Where Do You Stand? is a student-centered, group activity and therefore epitomizes the interpersonal intelligence which is based on learning with others through connecting, relating, and sharing ideas (Armstrong, 2009; Denig, 2004; Gardner, 2006, 1983/2011). During the activity, students participate in an extended discussion that requires them to share, connect, and potentially learn from each other. As Armstrong (2009) puts it, they are “bouncing ideas off other people” (p. 33). The point of the activity is for students to work and learn as a community, thereby growing interpersonal intelligence through Where Do You Stand?.

While intrapersonal intelligence is highly valued when discussing controversial topics, it is difficult to assess whether students are using and growing in it. Intrapersonal intelligence is more of an internal intelligence based on having space and time to think, reflect, and become aware of individual feelings (Armstrong, 2009; Denig, 2004; Gardner, 2006, 1983/2011). Another key component is that this intelligence thrives and grows with choice. Where Do You Stand? helps students grow in this intelligence as they are expected to reflect on their beliefs and make a justification for their beliefs. Furthermore, as the statements read can be emotional, it gives the students a safe place to work on this intelligence and become aware of how they react or what emotions they feel as a result of a topic. This does not mean that students do not or cannot be emotional, but it teaches them, through the guidance of the teacher, how to be aware of those emotions and how said emotions may help or hinder their point in a discussion. It should be noted that for this to be a safe and effective activity, the teacher should have a well-developed intrapersonal intelligence. This intelligence is hard to recognize, but it is highly supported through Where Do You Stand?.

Logical–mathematical and bodily kinesthetic intelligences may not be as foregrounded as other intelligences, but both are still supported in this activity. Logical–mathematical intelligence is learning through scientific thinking, such as reasoning and logic through questioning, experimenting, finding connections, and working with the abstract (Armstrong, 2009; Denig, 2004; Gardner, 2006, 1983/2011). Where Do You Stand? supports logical–mathematical intelligence as many of the statements read are ambiguous and abstract forcing students to make sense of them as well as develop a stance on the issues. Usually, students who exhibit this intelligence will make arguments based on logical claims. This often encourages other students to begin thinking this way as well. There were times where, as the teacher, I would exhibit this intelligence as a way to counter assumptions, induce thinking, and bring awareness to students’ contradictory thinking (Gramsci, 1971). Where Do You Stand? is by no means scientific or math based, but it gives students the space, and in some instances, requires students to think logically about difficult and often abstract topics.

In addition, Where Do You Stand? requires student movement which allows for reinforcing bodily kinesthetic intelligence. In instances that fully support bodily kinesthetic intelligence, there is a large amount of movement and a focus on being able to control one’s body (Gardner, 2006, 1983/2011). Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is learning through movement, touch, tactile experiences, and physical sensations (Armstrong, 2009; Denig, 2004; Gardner, 2006, 1983/2011). As students move around the room to illustrate their beliefs, they exhibit bodily kinesthetic intelligence. As movement is a key component of this intelligence, even the limited amount of movement this actually requires can aid the processing for those students who exhibit this intelligence. At the same time, the limited movement can offer a safe experience that can help develop this intelligence in other students. In the end, the movement may not be enough to fully support bodily kinesthetic intelligence but it does allow for another group of students to engage with an activity that supports learning through one of their strengths.

Researchers acknowledge that it can be difficult to account for and teach in ways that support MI (Armstrong, 2009; Denig, 2004; Dunn, Denig, & Lovelace, 2001; Gardner, 2006, 1983/2011; Silver et al., 2000), but Where Do You Stand? is an example of an activity that works toward that end. Whether fully or partially, five of the nine intelligences can be exhibited and developed in students through this one activity. As over half of the intelligences are supported through Where Do You Stand?, this should allow more students to engage in the learning process. In the end, while Where Do You Stand? offers many benefits to student learning, it does possess potential limitations that can hinder its effectiveness if not planned for.

Limitations and Recommendations

While Where Do You Stand? has a great deal of benefits, the activity’s implementation does present potential limitations. Where Do You Stand? was part of a larger sequence of activities focused around Human Rights and Global Issues, and so, one of its strengths is how it set a tone and started conversation around potentially controversial topics. I quickly saw how the activity enhanced the unit and eventually the unit project that focused on students becoming experts of a single Human Rights issue. However, there is a possibility that the discussion could perpetuate misinformation, false narratives, and/or oppressive narratives as the students are the main discussants. For instance, missing or ignoring crucial details of laws or policies can influence their stance. If misinformation or falsities are shared, they should be addressed in the moment and then in more depth through future-connected content and activities. It is recommended that Where Do You Stand? not be used in isolation but rather in connection with other content and activities as a nontraditional activity that enhances student learning.

In addition, the structure of the activity can be limiting. As the students are required to move and respond to the statement that is read, the timing of movement and responses are a critical piece of which to be aware when planning and implementing the activity. Where Do You Stand? can lose its punch if the timing is off. In other words, the teacher needs to be conscious of wait time and provide necessary space for the students to process and respond thoughtfully (City, 2014; Walsh & Sattes, 2015). Silence is a dear friend of Where Do You Stand?, allowing and in some cases forcing students to think through their own beliefs and stances (Christenbury & Lindbolm, 2016). It is natural for the teacher to try and rush or be quick to call on students based on the controversial statements with the hope of getting through as many statements as possible. It is better in the end, however, to get through fewer statements or extend the activity to a second day and allow the students the space to critically engage with their own beliefs rather than focusing on simply ensuring all the statements are covered.

Sometimes, the activity can get heated or quickly move from discussion and deliberation to argument based on the statements read, which is often one of the main reasons why many teachers avoid controversial issues (Hess, 2011; Journell, 2016). I tried to be as prepared for this reality as much as possible, waiting until I knew my students fairly well and could almost predict which students might become heated or disruptive and when. It is important to know the students and base the scope and issues on what would be most appropriate. This does not mean a teacher should avoid pushing his or her students or avoid getting them out of their comfort zones. Instead, the challenge is for the instructor to be cognizant of the age, culture, experiences, and so on of the students that will be in the room to make the activity most effective. One key part of making this possible is establishing rapport and a classroom climate that invites discussion long before introducing the activity. Where Do You Stand? should not be the first time the class has tackled any type of controversial topic in discussion (Hess, 2011). In addition, because Where Do You Stand? supports and develops interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence in students, it is important that the teacher facilitating the activity has these intelligences developed as well. Teachers do not have to have these as their main intelligences, but having a sense of and awareness of these intelligences is extremely beneficial, because this is where the activity is most likely going to be derailed; mostly through a lack of maturity and emotional awareness. It is recommended to build up to this activity by having smaller and regular discussions around political, controversial, and even possibly divisive topics (Hess, 2011; Journell, 2016; McAvoy & Hess, 2013). It takes preparation and forethought, but if the students are at the center of planning, forethought can aid in creating an engaging activity that facilitates learning.

Adaptations in Content and Form

Where Do You Stand? can easily be adapted and used in a variety of ways without compromising its benefits. There is no reason that Where Do You Stand? could not be adapted to other content areas. The focus and statements read could be altered in conjunction with a teacher’s subject area and curriculum. For example, in an English classroom, an adaptation of Where Do You Stand? could help students formulate arguments and supporting points or it could provide a new way to discuss themes, actions, or character motivations within a selected text. In science and math, it could be a different way of checking for understanding and helping students build their ability to justify and explain solutions. Specifically, in science classrooms, it could be used to assess where students stand on different theories or controversial topics such as global warming or evolution. With careful planning and intentionality, Where Do You Stand? becomes a versatile tool for any teacher to use with students.

Where Do You Stand? could even be shortened and given a specific time allotment as an introductory or bell ringer activity. This would allow students to hear a sample of what the unit or new content will cover. Also, it gives the teacher a way to quickly and formatively assess students’ prior knowledge (Christenbury & Lindbolm, 2016). As with the extended activity, a shortened version would only give a general sense of where the majority of the class may be on any given standard or content. If used multiple times throughout a unit, it could also inform the teacher how student thinking and understanding has evolved. Along the same lines, Where Do You Stand? could be used at the end of a class to informally assess learning for the day. It could act as another form of an exit ticket. Where Do You Stand? has great potential for being used as an informal, formative assessment tool.

Educators could use Where Do You Stand? as a portion of a formal assessment. The statements could be given a few days before the activity, and then, the students would need to prepare their arguments and evidence in advance. The students could even be grouped or placed in teams to ensure that each student has the opportunity to demonstrate their understanding and learning. On the front end, this would also require more intervening and managing on the part of the teacher, but the students could be given time limits, so they learn how to be succinct and direct in their responses. This would look a bit like a walking debate. What is specifically assessed by the teacher would depend on the content and topic, but would most likely be focused on the arguments made, evidence presented, and articulation of points. Once again, this would encourage the enactment of democratic principles and allow students with a variety of intelligences to exhibit learning.

While countless other adaptations that could be created, one last to note is Where Do You Stand? could take on a written form. It would look very similar, but individuals would describe their beliefs in writing. This could be used as a formative or summative assessment. Changing Where Do You Stand? to a written activity would allow for all students the opportunity to respond and engage with their beliefs (Christenbury & Lindbolm, 2016), particularly those who may not be as vocal during class discussion. While written form does offer its own set of benefits, it also loses some of the benefits that come from student-to-student discourse, such as many of the intelligences discussed previously. In the end, it is up to the teacher to weigh the costs and benefits of changing the format to meet students’ needs. No matter the format, Where Do You Stand? can be a powerful instructional tool for teachers to use in a variety of content areas in an assortment of forms with a range of purposes.

Conclusion

As educators, we are held to a call beyond ourselves of preparing a variety of students for life after school as active, engaged citizens. We need to move beyond ourselves—apathy, fear, indifference, and so on—and create a safe classroom environment that allows students to practice and experiment with what it means to be a citizen in a democracy. Where Do You Stand? is an opportunity to start doing this work or enhancing work already being done. The experience described here is one of hope that students not only can, but desire to, engage in conversation around issues that are and will influence their realties. In addition, the versatility of Where Do You Stand? allows a range of learners to develop citizenship through their strengths. Society is already talking; Where Do You Stand? invites learners to join the conversations.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Armstrong

(2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ayers

(2004). Teaching toward freedom: Moral commitment and ethical action in the classroom. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Beane

J. A.

(2005). A reason to teach: Creating classrooms of dignity and hope. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Beane

J. A.

Apple

M. W.

(2007). The case for democratic schools. In Apple

M. W.

Beane

J. A.

(Eds.), Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education (2nd ed., pp. 1-29). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Christenbury

Lindbolm

(2016). Making the journey: Being and becoming a teacher of English language arts. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

City

E. A.

(2014). Talking to learn. Educational Leadership, 72(3), 10-16.

Denig

S. T.

(2004). Multiple intelligences and learning styles: Two complementary dimensions. Teachers College Record, 106, 96-111.

Dewey

(1916). Democracy and education. In Boydston

J. A.

(Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works, 1899-1924: The electronic edition (Vol. 9, pp. 1-370). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dewey

(1954). The public and its problem. Athens, OH: Swallow Press. (Original work published 1927)

10.

Dunn

Denig

Lovelace

M. K.

(2001). Multiple intelligences and learning styles: Two sides of the same coin or different strokes for different folks? Teacher Librarian, 28(3), 9-15.

11.

Femia

(1975). Hegemony and consciousness in the thought of Antonio Gramsci. Political Studies, 23, 29-48.

12.

Gardner

(2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York, NY: Basic Books.

13.

Gardner

(2011). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books. (Original work published 1983)

14.

Gardner

Hatch

(1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-9.

15.

Gramsci

(1971). Selections from the prison notebooks ( Hoare

Smith

G. N.

, Eds. & Trans.). New York, NY: International Press.

16.

Greene

(1993). Diversity and inclusion: Toward a curriculum for human beings. Teachers College Record, 95, 211-221.

17.

Gutmann

(1993). Democracy & democratic education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 12(1), 1-9.

18.

Gutmann

(1999). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

19.

Hess

(2011). Discussions that drive democracy. Educational Leadership, 69(1), 69-73.

20.

Hytten

(2017). Democracy and education in the United States. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.2

21.

Journell

(2016). Introduction: Teaching social issues in the social studies classroom. In Journell

(Ed.), Teaching social studies in an era of divisiveness: The challenges of discussing social issues in a non-partisan way (pp. 1-12). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

22.

McAvoy

(2016). Preparing young adults for polarized America. In Journell

(Ed.), Teaching social studies in an era of divisiveness: The challenges of discussing social issues in a non-partisan way (pp. 31-46). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

23.

McAvoy

Hess

(2013). Classroom deliberation in an era of political polarization. Curriculum Inquiry, 43, 14-47.

24.

Meier

(2003). So what does it take to build a school for democracy? Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 15-21.

25.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

26.

Nolen

J. L.

(2003). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Educational Leadership, 124, 115-119.

27.

Ohio Department of Education. (2013). Ohio’s new learning standards: K-12 social studies—Contemporary world issues. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Social-Studies/Model-Curriculum-for-Social-Studies/High-School_Contemporary-World-Issues_Model-Curriculum_Aug2014.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US

28.

Parker

W. C.

Hess

(2000). Teaching with and for discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 273-289.

29.

Silver

H. F.

Strong

R. W.

Perini

M. J.

(2000). So each may learn: Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

30.

Stanford

(2003). Multiple intelligence for every classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39, 80-85.

31.

Stitzlein

S. M.

(2012). The right to dissent and its implications for schooling. Educational Theory, 62(1), 41-58.

32.

Stitzlein

S. M.

(2014). Habits of democracy: A Deweyan approach to citizenship education in America today. Education and Culture, 30, 61-86.

33.

Thayer-Bacon

(2008). Beyond liberal democracy in schools: The power of pluralism. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

34.

Thayer-Bacon

(2008). Democracies-always-in-the-making: Maxine Greene’s influence. Educational Studies, 44, 256-269.

35.

Thayer-Bacon

(2013). Democracies always in the making: Historical and current philosophical issues for education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

36.

Walsh

J. A.

Sattes

B. D.

(2015). A new rhythm for responding. Educational Leadership, 73, 46-52.

37.

Westheimer

Kahne

(2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 237-269.

38.

Wood

G. H.

(1992). Schools that work: America’s most innovative public education programs. New York, NY: Plume.

39.

Wood

G. H.

(1998). A time to learn. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam.