(2021) Comfort or Change: Teaching Controversial Issues in French Immersion
How can we talk about controversial issues in French immersion classrooms, and why do we need to?
- Introduction
- What are controversial issues and why is it important to teach them?
- What is the difference between comfort and safety in controversial discussions?
- How are these issues particularly challenging in French immersion contexts?
- Implications pour la salle de classe/Implications for classroom practice
- Conclusion
- References
What are controversial issues and why is it important to teach them?
Discussing controversial issues can engage students and create rich opportunities for reflection and discussion (Hawley et al., 2016). However, that cannot be done before first defining “controversy” itself. Noddings and Brooks (2017) make the distinction between facts and controversy by explaining how “the facts are not in dispute. Controversy arises when we begin to argue about what should be done and why” (p. 55). This suggests that teachers play a key role in identifying which topics should become controversies in their classroom. British Columbia’s social studies curriculum includes many events and concepts that could be framed as controversies. For example, there is no controversy in teaching the facts about Canada’s electoral system, but controversy can be found in questions of mandatory voting, proportional representation, and lowering the voting age. It is the teacher’s role to find ways to pull controversy out of the curriculum. Cutrara (2018) proposes that teachers are hesitant to do this because they wish to shield students from discomfort, but it is, in fact, our responsibility to decide which issues are worth studying in class and how to best open the discussion.
What is the difference between comfort and safety in controversial discussions?
In surveying teachers, I found that many recognized this responsibility but reported feeling uncomfortable around controversial topics. This resistance to discomfort is understandable, but discomfort is not something that needs to be avoided: in fact, discussing controversial issues requires teachers to embrace a pedagogy of discomfort. This strategy assumes that discomfort is a natural part of the work of education; that if our job is to challenge dominant structures and teach real critical thinking skills, then that process will not be comfortable. This discomfort prevents questions of power and race from being ignored, since engaging with discomfort forces critical reflection, and that reflection is what can lead to real change (Boler 1999, as cited in Ohito 2016, p. 458). The uncomfortable emotions unearthed by these challenges are productive, and teachers should see them as an opportunity for deeper engagement rather than something we should deflect. In order to genuinely challenge the structures that have upheld inequality and discrimination in our society, all members of the school community will need to recognize that discomfort is a fundamental part of this work, not something to be avoided.
Of course, it is difficult for teachers to fully embrace discomfort when we want to create a safe learning environment for all students. Safety, however, “is not about the absence of discomfort, but rather it is a way of thinking, feeling, and acting” that still allows students to sharpen their critical skills (Zembylas, 2015, p. 166). The challenge is in finding these ways of thinking, feeling, and acting to establish safety when the discussion topics are inherently uncomfortable.
How are these issues particularly challenging in French immersion contexts?
In my early attempts to incorporate more controversial discussions in my sciences humaines classes, I noticed that students would sometimes struggle to explain a complex thought in French and would ask permission to say a word or phrase in English. I was initially resistant to this: my own linguistic insecurity as an FI graduate translated to professional anxiety and a fear of being seen as less legitimate if I allowed for English in my classroom. In the past, I often avoided sensitive topics in my classes because I felt that I lacked the French vocabulary to do it well, and I wanted to uphold my perception of the FI program as French only. However, as I explored teaching controversial issues during my inquiry, I became more aware of the different levels of engagement that I saw when I was more flexible with the students and their choice of language.
I wondered how code-switching, or spontaneously switching back and forth between two languages in a conversation, might support sensitive discussions. My initial assumption was that code-switching was the result of a lack of effort and commitment to learning French, but I became interested in whether insisting on a monolingual discussion might actually compromise student engagement and willingness to participate in the discussion. There are many common functions of code-switching in a bilingual classroom, including clarity and spontaneous emotional response (Chen & Rubinstein-Avila, 2018). I wondered how those functions might support sensitive discussions, especially those that come up organically.
As an example of how I have used code-switching during my inquiry, I offer a discussion I had with my students about the insurrection at the U.S. capitol in January 2021. I had prepared a lesson that I taught in French, but as the discussion became heated students began to appear frustrated with their inability to express their ideas. I had a choice to make: would I insist on French as my FI background had taught me, or would I allow students to explain a complex idea in English as a stepping stone to French? I recognized my responsibility as an immersion teacher to give students the tools to discuss increasingly complex subject matter in French, but I was unwilling to exclude students from important conversations because of their choice of language. In this case, I permitted code-switching, and I found our discussion to be rich and challenging. When teaching controversial topics, I learned to be linguistically inclusive in order to encourage students to participate in these conversations and develop their critical thinking and discussion skills.
However, not all researchers support this use of code-switching and argue that defaulting to English may delay progress in French rather than support the development of complex thinking in both languages (Lyster, 2019). As an FI teacher, I feel the tension between adhering to my perception of the program and wanting to prevent linguistic inflexibility from shutting down opportunities to discuss important issues. I worry that if FI teachers insist on only allowing French in controversial discussions, we may avoid them altogether. Although code-switching is something of a controversial issue itself, I am interested in further examining how we can question the default of using French at all times without abandoning the values of our FI program, something that current research is engaged in exploring (Cummins, 2007). This may be particularly useful in the context of sensitive topics that require access to all and every available communication tool, including their first language.
Implications for classroom practice
Controversial discussions are by nature unpredictable, as we do not know how students will react to a topic and what may cause conflict in the classroom (or outside of it). I wondered in my inquiry if I could help students and staff feel more prepared to tackle these topics by introducing elements of predictability into the conversations themselves. If resistance comes from a fear of the unknown, then introducing predictable, structured formats of discussion could help reduce stress and shift the focus from the conversation itself to the topic at hand.
One way that I introduced predictability into these situations is establishing discussion norms. When beginning planned discussions of controversy, I asked students what they needed the discussion to look like to feel that they could contribute, a recommended practice in many teacher guides for working with controversy (see Warren, 2002; or University of Michigan, n.d.). I used norms in my classroom to establish safety before easing students into discussions and ideas that may cause discomfort. Sometimes these norms were practical (one person talks at a time) and sometimes they aimed to teach students effective communication skills (communicate to be understood, not to win an argument). These norms could also be linguistic: when I let students know upfront that code-switching was permitted within the parameters of a specific discussion, they were able to code-switch without asking permission and halting the discussion, and they understood the expectation that we return to a monolingual standard for the following activities. I found that taking a moment at the beginning of a discussion to establish our expectations helped me create a safe environment so that students could wrestle with difficult topics without feeling like they would be judged for their opinion or their choice of language.
Another strategy that I have used to introduce predictability into these conversations is structuring participation in discussions. For example, telling a class that they would be discussing in partners, optionally sharing out with the class, and then completing an anonymous reflection took some tension out of the room and led to more confident participation in the small-group discussions. Additionally, allowing my students to participate in concrete, low-risk ways such as completing sentence stems or anonymous online surveys led to students reporting feeling less overwhelmed and more willing to participate than they did with open-ended questions. For example, students could be asked to complete the sentence “Three words I would use to describe residential schools are…” or anonymously rate how they feel about the statement “We should remove statues of John A. Macdonald”. Brookfield (2017) writes at length about the importance of structuring conversation when trying to develop critical skills. He explains that strategies like sentence stems ensure an “acknowledgement of the importance of each person’s contribution” and “a constant effort to bring into the discussion as many different perspectives on the topic as possible” (p. 119). We want to encourage student engagement and create safe ways for them to participate.
While these structured formats may feel limiting at first, adopting a formal structure is important to develop critical skills that will eventually become habitual. I believe that building structure into these discussions reduces uncertainty and allows the participants to focus on the topic rather than the logistics of the conversation. Making the discussion format predictable through norms and participation structures is one potential approach to establish safe ways for students to experience the discomfort that comes from controversial discussions, especially when they are participating in their second language.
Conclusion
Teaching controversial issues can seem daunting, but they offer a key to unlocking questions of social justice in our classes. Zinga and Styres (2019) argue that teaching controversial issues allows teachers to become “more aware of their own assumptions and biases” (p. 43), and that creates opportunities for teachers to improve their own engagement with questions of power, diversity, and justice in their teaching. However, this work often comes with a fear of the unknown and a resistance to discomfort. As immersion teachers, we additionally feel the burden of having these conversations in situations where our students are not speaking their safest language (and sometimes, neither are we).
It is impossible to make everyone comfortable in controversial conversations, and my fear is that this will discourage teachers from engaging with controversy at all, especially in FI classrooms where language can offer an additional barrier. In my inquiry, I found ways to structure safety into discussions in order to allow students to productively engage in this discomfort. I introduced predictability to shift the focus from the conversation itself (and all its related anxieties and tensions) and on to the topic of discussion. Using discussion norms, communicating clear participation formats, and permitting code-switching in FI classes were all strategies that made risky conversations more predictable, allowing my students and myself the opportunity to hold on to something familiar while engaging with the unknown.
Références
Brookfield. S. (2017). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. Jossey-Bass.
Chen, Y., & Rubinstein-Avila, E. (2018). Code-switching functions in postcolonial classrooms. Language Learning Journal, 46(3), 228–240. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca /10.1080/09571736.2015.1035669
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240.
Cutrara, S. (2018). The Settler Grammar of Canadian History Curriculum: Why Historical Thinking Is Unable to Respond to the TRC’s Calls to Action. Canadian Journal of Education, 41(1), 250–275.
Hawley, T. S., Crowe, A. R., & Mooney, E. (2016). Visualizing Social Justice: Using Controversial Images in Social Studies Classrooms. The Clearing House, 89(3), 85–90 https://doi-org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1080/00098655.2016.1181046
Kumashiro, K. K. (2015). Against common sense: teaching and learning toward social justice (Third edition.). Routledge.
Lyster, R. (2019). Translanguaging in Immersion: Cognitive Support or Social Prestige? Canadian Modern Language Review, 75(4), 340-352.
Noddings, N., & Brooks, L. (2017). Teaching controversial issues: The case for critical thinking and moral commitment in the classroom. Teachers College Press.
Ohito, E. O. (2016). Making the Emperor’s New Clothes Visible in Anti-Racist Teacher Education: Enacting a Pedagogy of Discomfort with White Preservice Teachers. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(4), 454–467.
University of Michigan. (n.d.). Guidelines for discussing difficult or high-stakes topics.
Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://crlt.umich.edu/publinks/generalguidelines
Warren, L. (2002). Managing Hot Moments in the Classroom. Retrieved March 13, 2021, from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/html/icb.topic58474/hotmoments.html
Zembylas, M. (2015). ‘Pedagogy of discomfort’ and its ethical implications: the tensions of ethical violence in social justice education. Ethics & Education, 10(2), 163–174. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1080/17449642.2015.1039274
Zinga, D., & Styres, S. (2019). Decolonizing Curriculum: Student Resistances to Anti-Oppressive Pedagogy. Power and Education, 11(1), 30–50.
