Core Decisions
What?
For my social studies lesson, I chose to focus on the concept of fairness. Drawing on the exploration of equity in Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Stone, 2002), I wanted to give students the opportunity to explore “fairness” as a concept which may seem simple, but is actually extremely complex, contextual, and subjective.
Students in this lesson will ideally begin to recognize embedded concepts involved in different interpretations of equity (Stone identifies three primary “dimensions of equality” – the recipients, the items, and the process – as well as providing a large number of different perspectives and conflicting interpretations of equity and equality); while I do not have a set vocabulary that I will require students to learn, I will consider the lesson a success if their articulated responses to the question “What is fairness?” take into account a broader number of considerations at the end of the lesson than at the beginning.
Students will also be expected to apply their understandings of fairness; they will be expected to be able to thoughtfully argue that particular scenarios are or are not “fair.” Scenarios will be complex and varied enough that students will be required to form and apply their own relatively nuanced perspectives, which they will then need to be able to explain to their partners, the other students engaged in the lesson, and the teacher.
How?
The lesson will unfold in three parts: the first and third will be whole-group centric, while the second will play out in partners.
The first section will be a series of brief, guided whole-group explorations of fairness. After asking the students to brainstorm definitions for “fairness,” the subsequent lesson components aim to challenge students’ initial conceptions. In the first one, four students will be asked to fairly distribute eight marbles; after they (presumably) give two to each person, I will introduce a wrinkle: they needed to include me too! This exercise aims to introduce two nuances to the notion of fairness: the need to define who is included, and the fact that perfect equality may not be possible. Following this, I will ask which students need pencils, and hand pencils to those who need them (I will try to pre-arrange such that only some students will have pencils with them). Afterwards, I will ask – “Was that fair?” In discussing this, two new concepts (if not more) can be added to our discussion of fairness: need, and subjective value (since the borrowed pencils are only important for those students who don’t have their own).
The second section of the lesson will give students, in pairs, the opportunity to rank various scenarios (all beginning with the situation, “Mr. G. brings a cake to school…,” which is a direct homage to Stone’s chapter on equity) according to how fair they think the scenarios are. They will try this with a small number of fairly simple scenarios, under guided circumstances; once they have ranked these, they will be given a more comprehensive set of options to categorize independently. Students will be expected to respectfully and thoroughly discuss their opinions with one another; once they have made their decisions as a pair, they will be expected to apply those same norms of discussion to considering the decisions made by the other pair.
The final section will be a chance to regroup and discuss student selections, and in the process, collectively generate a broader set of terms and concepts relating to fairness.
Why?
There were several reasons behind my decision to choose this particular topic. I wanted to choose a topic about which students would likely have strong preexisting notions, but which would actually be much more complex than they had considered. Because I had not witnessed social studies instruction in my classroom, I wasn’t sure what historical or cultural topics students would have strong preexisting notions regarding; consequently, I became interested in the idea of exploring a concept with which all students would be familiar even without explicitly being taught about it.
I was specifically interested in the idea of fairness (which I consider a more familiar form of the concept of equity, although it clearly also relates to the concept of justice) because it is central not only to students’ everyday lives, but also to a huge number of topics of history and public policy which they will ultimately study. Further, a nuanced study of fairness requires students to do what any good social studies unit should do: force them to confront the fact that other people have very different needs, resources, values, and contexts than they do. An understanding of fairness can take into account not only material equality but also equality of value; not only determining what to divide, but also determining whom to divide among; not only equal access, but also equal outcomes. Grappling with these issues forces students to take into account a huge number of considerations and moral perspectives. The stances that people take regarding these issues implicitly play a tremendous role in determining their personal perspectives on most other issues of social studies (in my opinion); while one short lesson cannot hope to provide a thorough consideration of these topics, I hope that it can open a window and help students begin to understand the tremendous complexity, as well as the importance, of these concepts.
The structure of the lesson serves several functions. First of all, since the goal of the lesson is to challenge students’ preexisting notions and guide them to a more nuanced perspective, I tried to make the lesson flow in a way that supports that: students state their initial perspectives; they enter scenarios and conversations that challenge these perspectives; they apply and discuss their perspectives with relation to a complex assortment of scenarios; and finally, they return to the initial concept and discuss new ideas that they can now connect to the original concept.
The structure of the lesson also seeks to draw upon PA Common Core Standards, challenging students to “[e]ngage effectively in a range of collaborative discussions” (C.C.1.5.3.A) and to “[s]upport an idea with reasons” (C.C.1.4.3.I) by having the lesson revolve around interaction, discussion, argumentation, and collaboration. Finally, the lesson seeks to connect to my overarching Term III guiding question, which asks about how partner work can serve as a tool for differentiated instruction; the lesson is centered around a partner task, in which there are a variety of roles that partners can serve (for example, this could support students with diverse reading levels: students at a higher reading level can support and scaffold their partners who might struggle to read the scenarios; meanwhile, by forcing pairs to visually place these scenarios, the struggling readers may find it easier to recognize and eventually read these scenarios as well).
Stone, D. (2002) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
For my social studies lesson, I chose to focus on the concept of fairness. Drawing on the exploration of equity in Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Stone, 2002), I wanted to give students the opportunity to explore “fairness” as a concept which may seem simple, but is actually extremely complex, contextual, and subjective.
Students in this lesson will ideally begin to recognize embedded concepts involved in different interpretations of equity (Stone identifies three primary “dimensions of equality” – the recipients, the items, and the process – as well as providing a large number of different perspectives and conflicting interpretations of equity and equality); while I do not have a set vocabulary that I will require students to learn, I will consider the lesson a success if their articulated responses to the question “What is fairness?” take into account a broader number of considerations at the end of the lesson than at the beginning.
Students will also be expected to apply their understandings of fairness; they will be expected to be able to thoughtfully argue that particular scenarios are or are not “fair.” Scenarios will be complex and varied enough that students will be required to form and apply their own relatively nuanced perspectives, which they will then need to be able to explain to their partners, the other students engaged in the lesson, and the teacher.
How?
The lesson will unfold in three parts: the first and third will be whole-group centric, while the second will play out in partners.
The first section will be a series of brief, guided whole-group explorations of fairness. After asking the students to brainstorm definitions for “fairness,” the subsequent lesson components aim to challenge students’ initial conceptions. In the first one, four students will be asked to fairly distribute eight marbles; after they (presumably) give two to each person, I will introduce a wrinkle: they needed to include me too! This exercise aims to introduce two nuances to the notion of fairness: the need to define who is included, and the fact that perfect equality may not be possible. Following this, I will ask which students need pencils, and hand pencils to those who need them (I will try to pre-arrange such that only some students will have pencils with them). Afterwards, I will ask – “Was that fair?” In discussing this, two new concepts (if not more) can be added to our discussion of fairness: need, and subjective value (since the borrowed pencils are only important for those students who don’t have their own).
The second section of the lesson will give students, in pairs, the opportunity to rank various scenarios (all beginning with the situation, “Mr. G. brings a cake to school…,” which is a direct homage to Stone’s chapter on equity) according to how fair they think the scenarios are. They will try this with a small number of fairly simple scenarios, under guided circumstances; once they have ranked these, they will be given a more comprehensive set of options to categorize independently. Students will be expected to respectfully and thoroughly discuss their opinions with one another; once they have made their decisions as a pair, they will be expected to apply those same norms of discussion to considering the decisions made by the other pair.
The final section will be a chance to regroup and discuss student selections, and in the process, collectively generate a broader set of terms and concepts relating to fairness.
Why?
There were several reasons behind my decision to choose this particular topic. I wanted to choose a topic about which students would likely have strong preexisting notions, but which would actually be much more complex than they had considered. Because I had not witnessed social studies instruction in my classroom, I wasn’t sure what historical or cultural topics students would have strong preexisting notions regarding; consequently, I became interested in the idea of exploring a concept with which all students would be familiar even without explicitly being taught about it.
I was specifically interested in the idea of fairness (which I consider a more familiar form of the concept of equity, although it clearly also relates to the concept of justice) because it is central not only to students’ everyday lives, but also to a huge number of topics of history and public policy which they will ultimately study. Further, a nuanced study of fairness requires students to do what any good social studies unit should do: force them to confront the fact that other people have very different needs, resources, values, and contexts than they do. An understanding of fairness can take into account not only material equality but also equality of value; not only determining what to divide, but also determining whom to divide among; not only equal access, but also equal outcomes. Grappling with these issues forces students to take into account a huge number of considerations and moral perspectives. The stances that people take regarding these issues implicitly play a tremendous role in determining their personal perspectives on most other issues of social studies (in my opinion); while one short lesson cannot hope to provide a thorough consideration of these topics, I hope that it can open a window and help students begin to understand the tremendous complexity, as well as the importance, of these concepts.
The structure of the lesson serves several functions. First of all, since the goal of the lesson is to challenge students’ preexisting notions and guide them to a more nuanced perspective, I tried to make the lesson flow in a way that supports that: students state their initial perspectives; they enter scenarios and conversations that challenge these perspectives; they apply and discuss their perspectives with relation to a complex assortment of scenarios; and finally, they return to the initial concept and discuss new ideas that they can now connect to the original concept.
The structure of the lesson also seeks to draw upon PA Common Core Standards, challenging students to “[e]ngage effectively in a range of collaborative discussions” (C.C.1.5.3.A) and to “[s]upport an idea with reasons” (C.C.1.4.3.I) by having the lesson revolve around interaction, discussion, argumentation, and collaboration. Finally, the lesson seeks to connect to my overarching Term III guiding question, which asks about how partner work can serve as a tool for differentiated instruction; the lesson is centered around a partner task, in which there are a variety of roles that partners can serve (for example, this could support students with diverse reading levels: students at a higher reading level can support and scaffold their partners who might struggle to read the scenarios; meanwhile, by forcing pairs to visually place these scenarios, the struggling readers may find it easier to recognize and eventually read these scenarios as well).
Stone, D. (2002) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.