JOURNEY COMPANIONS: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL IDEAS
3.7 Approaches, methods and strategies of teaching controversial issues and genocide genocide
111
was not only a civil war as Straus (2001) posits, but also facilitated by discriminatory policies and practices against Tutsi and other groups put into place after independence. The primary perpetrator objective was a total military defeat in Rwanda while it was ideological in Cambodia. As in Rwanda, throughout Cambodia, victims and perpetrators of the atrocities live in the same vicinity (Bockers, Stammel,
& Knaevelsrud, 2011; Kissi, 2004).
Regarding history teaching in the post-conflict period, Rwanda and Cambodia are striving to deal with the immediate past while in Northern Ireland the immediate past is only discussed with a few mature learners due to the sensitivity and controversy of it all. In Cambodia, political leaders whose party was involved in past atrocities do their best not to allow talk about the conflictual period in history classes. In Rwanda, there is an effort to talk about the Genocide against the Tutsi which is still fresh in the minds of people. In Rwanda and Cambodia, the Genocide against the Tutsi and the Khmer Rouge period are given less attention in history textbooks probably for different reasons in the two countries. In these two countries, Rwanda and Cambodia, the use of multi-perspectivity unlike in Northern Ireland, is still a challenge. In all, the Holocaust is taken as a template in different countries to teach controversial issues including genocides. In the next section, I present a range of approaches used to teach controversial issues and genocides.
3.7 Approaches, methods and strategies of teaching controversial issues and
112
teaching methods can blend participation, recitation or use one of the previous activities separately. In other words, types of activities used to teach are teaching methods. Therefore methods are procedural and a range of methods can be used in one approach.
Another concept sometimes used interchangeably with teaching approaches and methods are teaching strategies. Strategies are methods used by the teacher to allow learners to access the information such as a picture or a power point presentation (http://bellotabei.blogspot.co.za/2013/03/differences-between-teaching- approach.html; http://www.teachhub.com/top-5-teaching-strategies). In order to accomplish a particular immediate objective, the teacher uses particular ways known as techniques which have to be in line with the approach and method. In this study, the approach is considered as general philosophies whose importance are considered as true; teaching methods are ways of teaching and teaching strategies as innovative ways used by the teacher to access information. Even if sometimes, the demarcation between methods and strategies are not clear, in this study I try to follow the above conceptualisations.
It is important to note that approaches used for teaching controversial issues in general are also used to teach the Holocaust which generally serves as a template for teaching other genocides. In this section general rules about the teaching of controversial issues are explained. Approaches such as teaching by contextualisation, teaching the Holocaust as a cross curriculum activity and the employment of a comparative approach used mainly for teaching the Holocaust, but also valid for other controversial issues are outlined. The use of stories is a teaching method discussed in this section. Furthermore, simulation and empathy are also reviewed as approaches. For the Genocide against the Tutsi, the use of comparison with the Holocaust and other genocides is described in this section. Finally, the literature review analyses how to teach the Holocaust as an outside the classroom activity. Some challenges related to the mentioned approaches as gleaned from the literature are also engaged with in this section.
Since the 1970s, the literature describes certain rules and different perspectives the teacher should adopt while teaching controversial issues so as to enhance learners’
113
participation (Buhigiro & Gahama, 2012; Cain, 1999; Hess, 2009; Johnson &
Johnson, 1979; Leib, 1998; Manyane, 1995; Philips, 2008; Sheppard, 2010;
Stradling, 1984; The Historical Association, 2007; Zembylas, 2009). Each teaching approach related to the teaching of controversial issues has positive and negative aspects. The teacher should be aware of the factors that can facilitate, or hinder for instance innovative dialogue and have the knowledge and skills to deal with them.
The teacher can thus create a favourable classroom atmosphere that can dissipate emotions for fruitful discussions (McCully, 2006). Some of the teaching strategies identified include the use of films, Information Communication Technology, visual arts, personal narratives, study tours to museums, resource persons, sharing experiences, group work and fictional stories. In this section on approaches of teaching controversial issues, emphasis is placed on multi-perspectivity and rules to be followed to avoid learners having negative emotions so that they can discuss a controversial issue openly in a classroom setting.
The Northern Ireland case illustrated that controversial issues should be taught through a multi-perspective approach. Multi-perspectivity is “a way of viewing, and a predisposition to view, historical events, personalities, developments, cultures and societies from different perspectives through drawing on procedures and processes which are fundamental to history as a discipline” (Stradling, 2003, p. 14). By this conceptualisation, Stradling (2003) shows that there are issues which seem unresolved. For instance, do people understand perspective the same way? Is the history teacher expected to include all perspectives or merely a selection? What does the teacher do when the narratives used contradict each other? Stradling also points out some limitations to multi-perspectivity including time, space, cost and the possibility of flexibility within the curriculum. As Dicamilo (2010) noted multiple perspective is not a panacea for teaching controversial issues because the teacher needs enough skills to lead the discussion to avoid the polarisation of the discussion.
In the teacher’s role in teaching controversial issues as described in the literature, the teacher should be a “presiding judge” and give clear rules to be followed in advance to allow democratic discussion (Hess, 2009). Arguments are to be avoided (Lockwood, 1996) but debates pursued. However, some teachers skip controversial
114
topics fearing to lack a safe classroom environment or due to lack of appropriate skills to deal with controversial issues. As Holley and Steiner state:
The metaphor of the classroom as a “safe space” has emerged as a description of a classroom climate that allows students to feel secure enough to take risks, honestly express their views, and share and explore their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours. Safety in this sense does not refer to physical safety. Instead, classroom safe space refers to protection from psychological or emotional harm.
It is “concerned with the injuries that individuals suffer at the hands of society (Boostrom, 1998, p. 399), or when referring to a classroom, at the hands of instructors and other students …. Safe space does not necessarily refer to an environment without discomfort, struggle or pain (Holley & Steiner, 2005, p. 50).
In creating safe spaces lesson preparation and research are key strategies for succeeding in the teaching of controversial issues (Barton & McCully, 2007; Hess, 2009; Johnson & Johnson, 1979). In this regard, there is a proposed set of guidelines to be fixed at the outset by the teacher to promote trust such as: mutual respect, the use of humour, to be honest, confidentiality and to speak clearly (Wassermann et al., 2008). Another strategy is to share lived experiences including the teacher’s own (Sheppard, 2010). But, there is a controversy whether the teacher can disclose her/his point view while discussing controversial issues (Hess, 2009;
Hess & McAvoy, 2015) as will be discussed later on. Another important guideline is that the teacher can encourage all learners to participate and to master all the relevant information and can listen to everybody’s ideas even when one learner disagrees with her/his peers (Johnson & Johnson, 1979).
Further proposed ways to create a safe class are “empowerment” by integrating learners’ views on course structure; “role modelling” by accepting her/his mistakes;
humility when making a point; listening to others before making a decision and
“commitment” in view of multicultural awareness and cross cultural understanding (Valerio, 2001). These aspects are very important. However, the literature is generally silent on the consequences of an unsafe classroom, for instance the lack of interest by learners who do not invest in the course or when their emotions are ones of feeling vulnerable, fearful, anxious or scared (Holley & Steiner, 2005).
From their side teachers should manage their own emotions by conducting debriefing sessions with other staff and/or some specialized training units. Moreover,
115
they can anticipate strong emotions and must be able to hold their nerve when learners respond emotionally. They can also allow extreme positions to be voiced, and to admit their own uncertainties (McCully, 2006). Thus communication skills are very important in discussing controversial issues (Elksnin & Elksnin, 2003).
Generally speaking, teachers’ approaches to teaching controversial issues would be different. Some teachers would accept the risk and tackle controversial issues head- on. Others are less motivated to teach such topics. Some teachers are more inclined to link the past and the present or to talk about current issues. Their approaches are either learner-centred or teacher-centred or sometimes even a blend. The learner- centred also known as a democratic approach (Tabulawa, 2013) can foster a climate of tolerance, acceptance, and respect. Democratic teaching styles can enable safer and more dynamic learning environments in which learners are empowered to think critically. An atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding is then promoted by the teacher. Thus learners’ self-esteem and confidence are enhanced and they are encouraged to express themselves freely which builds and strengthens their self- esteem, confidence and mutual respect (Alo, 2010).
The learner-centred approach is supported by the Rwandan history curricula for improving learners’ skills:
Learner-centered (also known as student centered) which is inductive, requires learners’ more responsibility for their own learning than does the traditional lecture-based deductive approach. “The methods always almost involve students discussing questions and solving problem in class (active learning), with much of the work in and out of class being done by students working in groups (collaborative learning)” (Prince & Felder, 2006, p.123).
In a simple way, the learner-centred approach implies that people learn best when absorbed in the topic and seek new knowledge to sort out a problem they have.
Learners work to solve those problems mainly in groups or by using extra-class time.
Teachers clearly formulate the problems and the learners explore all of them during the course and sometimes the learners do not notice that they are moving through their programme (Norman & Spohrer, 1996). Teachers adhering to learner-centred classrooms should challenge every learner according to his/her individual experience. Within this approach, learners take an active role in the classroom and have increased responsibility for their learning. Although literature describes this
116
change and its apparent benefits and disadvantages (Malawi Institute of Education, 2004), it is not clear how it is going to be implemented in the current situation of most developing countries where there is a lack of sufficiently trained teachers, lack of resources, learners who do not master the medium of communication and overpopulated classroom (Buhigiro, 2011).
The above mentioned methods are useful but depend on the circumstances and context teachers would encounter in the classroom. The teacher has to take account of the knowledge, values and experiences that learners bring with them into the classroom, the teaching methods which predominate in other lessons as well as the classroom climate. But in teaching controversial issues the teacher has to be highly responsive to reactions from learners, both to the content of the lessons and the teaching methods being employed. Any controversial issues can create emotions leading to conflict situations in the class and subsequent antagonism. Different problems related to the teaching of controversial issues require different strategies that can not necessarily work the same way under different circumstances. In this regard little is known about how teachers are prepared to use different strategies related to teaching controversial issues to navigate the educational process.
A range of scholars wrote extensively about approaches to teaching the Holocaust as a controversial issue (Avraham, 2010; Burtonwood, 2002; Cowan & Maitles, 2012; Fracapane & Haβ, 2014; Desiatov, 2016; Heyl, 2014; Meyer, 2014; Philips, 2008; Salmons, 2003; Totten, 1994). One of the approaches for teaching the Holocaust, genocide and controversial issues is the contextualisation of the Holocaust and controversial issues by means of a larger historical framework.
Learners need to know the how and the where of the event. For example, the Second Word War was a prerequisite to the Holocaust. In this regard Lindquist (2006) points out that “the Holocaust must also be seen within the context of the Nazi era and of “the host of the critical historical trends [anti-Semitism, racism, social Darwinism, extreme nationalism, totalitarianism, and the nature of the modern war]
that one needs to be conversant to even begin to understand the Holocaust”
(Lindquist, 2006, p.217). Thus, a historical perspective is one approach used for teaching the Holocaust/controversial issues as no historical event developed in a vacuum.
117
Amongst different methods of teaching about genocide (Glanz, 1999; Kennedy, 2008; Lemarchand, 2002), there is also the use of comparison with the Holocaust.
By comparing the Rwandan case to the Holocaust learners can benefit from the conceptual knowledge gained while learning about the Holocaust. This can enhance their understanding of the Rwandan case (Lawrence, 2012). The literature reveals some examples how the Weimar Republic which executed the Holocaust was used by Rwandans as a starting point to discuss the Rwandan case without directly confronting the Rwandan past. In this regard, by using a case related to “the breakdown of democracy in the Weimar Republic; the rise of a totalitarian state; the role of propaganda, conformity and obedience in turning people against each other;
and stories of courage, compassion, and resistance, participants [in Facing History and Ourselves teachers’ workshops] were able to discuss ideas and events and raise feelings that were too threatening to approach directly” (Freedman et al., 2008, p.671).
Through comparison, people from post-conflict societies such as Rwanda or Northern Ireland can use their experiences to better understand the sufferings of other victims. However, people from post-conflict societies’ traumatic experiences
“have the potential to distract their attention from dealing with similar events that happened to other people in other times and places” (Avraham, 2010, p.s33). By comparing learners can make superficial comparative judgements and put aside major issues (Lawrence, 2012). The comparison may for instance fail to specifically identify the discrimination against a target group, Tutsi in the case of Rwanda and the anti-Semitism for the Holocaust (Waterson, 2009), or moral aspects and notions of identity while focussing on aspects such as facts and chronology instead.
Furthermore, comparison may lead learners to lose sight of the appropriate historical context (Avraham, 2010).
A cross-curriculum approach in teaching the Holocaust or controversial issues is also proposed in the literature (Burtonwood, 2002). In fact, many aspects of human behaviour related to different disciplines are linked to the teaching of the Holocaust.
Even if history is key in this regard other subjects such as religious studies, citizenship or psychology can be used to enhance the understanding of the
118
Holocaust. For instance, moral, theological and ethical issues can be explored while teaching the Holocaust. The Education Working Group (n.d., p.3) suggests that an
“imaginative links between departments can enhance a scheme of work by drawing on differences of expertise, approaching the Holocaust for multiple perspective and building upon ideas and knowledge gained in other lessons”. In the same perspective, teaching the Holocaust can be done through new approaches such as by using Geographic Information Systems and geo-browsers. By using these applications, teachers and learners get “the opportunity to analyse historical and contemporary genocidal acts from a critical geographic perspective in which the confluence of historical background, sociocultural perspectives and geospatial contexts further understanding” (Fitchett & Good, 2012, p.87).
The use of film and other visual media is also essential in teaching the Genocide and controversial issues. Totten (1987) advocated video presentations as they can make the topic real for learners. The latter must explicitly engage in seeing and critically interpreting images which are aspects of teaching literacies. Films it is argued can help learners to engage with their prejudices while sharing what they have watched (Cavet, 2007; Manfra & Stoddard, 2008; Sardonne & Devlin-Scherer, 2015). Another method is the use of survivors’ testimonies. The efficiency of the use of survivor testimony lies in its possibility of learners seeing the victim as a human being and not in a dehumanised situation depicted by the genocidaires (Glanz, 1999; Lawrence, 2012). This human dimension is considered by Totten (1987) as one of the most powerful methods of teaching genocide. However, due to the diminishing numbers of genocide survivors, audio-visual testimonies can be used to narrate to learners how people survived policies of violence.
The Holocaust and other controversial issues can also be taught through stories. By focusing on the stories of named individuals such as Anne Frank (Maitles &Cowan, 1999; Lindquist, 2006), the teen writer who wrote about her experiences in The Diary of Anne Frank. The use of stories, called micro-history by Burtonwood (2002), helps learners to understand the enormity of the number of the victims not as an aggregate event but as circumstances that affected individual people (Lindquist, 2006). Totten (1987) supports the idea of personalising the study of genocide instead of using confusing statistics and remote places and events. This micro-history methodology
119
can use autobiographical material. However, the challenge of using stories resides in the fact that teachers can fail to put characters in their historical context and to show some distortion of the story. Moreover, some teachers use Frank’s story as the sole example in as much as there were many other children who had experienced the Holocaust (Lindquist, 2006).
Some teachers use simulations to teach the Holocaust. However, the use of simulation when teaching the Holocaust is found by some authors to be unsound and naïve because this approach cannot provide learners with a true sense of the victims’ real experiences. It may be underestimating the event and dishonouring victims’ memory (Ben-Peretz, 2003; Lindquist, 2006; Totten, 2004). Role-play can also be used to develop empathy when teaching the Holocaust, for example, by giving learners a choice of scenarios or allowing them to develop their own scenario where they can apply what they have learned about racist policies such as the Nazi one. The problem is that imitation does not really reflect what really happened (Cowan & Maitles, 2012). By simulating, learners over-identify themselves with the victims (Waterson, 2009) or even the perpetrators. This comment is also valid for using fictional publications to teach the Holocaust. This is because fiction can create misconceptions (Cowan & Maitles, 2012).
Regarding the use of pictures or graphic images, teachers are generally advised on how to engage the learners in a way that does not traumatise them. This means avoiding “shock tactics” while employing horrific imagery (Salmons, 2003). Horrific images may bring unexpected results such as turning learners away from history.
Another danger is the risk of traumatising learners resulting in them losing focus of the topic. The use of material with “shock value” is also ethically problematic. Instead of immersing learners in a world with terrifying realities (Lindquist, 2006) teachers should look for “approaches that present the Holocaust in ways that engage student thinking without exploiting “either the victims’ memories or the students’ emotional vulnerability” (Lindquist, 2006, p.219). If frightening images are used, learners who are affected by traumatic experiences should be allowed to withdraw (Burtonwood, 2002).