The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia, Vol.7, pp.65-76, 2018

A Framework for Controversial Issue Gatekeeping within
Social Studies Education: The Case of Japan
Jongsung Kim

Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, Japan

Thomas Misco

College of Education, Health, and Society, Miami University, United States

Kazuhiro Kusahara

Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, Japan

Toshinori Kuwabara

Graduate School of Education, Okayama University, Japan

Masato Ogawa

Department of International Education, International Pacific University, Japan
Abstract
This article addresses how social studies teachers in Japan might employ a framework for addressing
controversial issues. This framework recognizes multiple and overlapping contexts for curriculum andinstruction decision making, including the classroom, community, and society. It also categorizes the state of
topics among five levels, ranging from deeply taboo, silenced and unknown to student, taboo, controversial, free
discussion and deliberation, and settled with little or no disagreement. Finally, we submit recommendations forpre- and in- service teachers, teacher education departments, and educational policy makers to reconceptualize
how they think about controversial issues in light of the essential democratic normative mandate to teach them.
Keywords: Controversial issues, Japan, Curricular instructional gatekeeping.

INTRODUCTION
Similar to other free societies, Japanese education generally has limited time and makes few efforts toconfront controversial issues in social studies classes. Too little concern for addressing controversial issues isevident as many teachers’ views tend to agree with the majority or consensus view and teachers avoid risks by
not venturing too far into uncomfortable topics (Shaver, Davis, & Helburn, 1979). This problem seems to be oneof growing seriousness, however, as the nation continues to drift toward more reactionary views and as politicalconstraints hamper legitimate efforts to educate democratic and justice-oriented citizens.

65Jongsung Kim, Thomas Misco, Kazuhiro Kusahara, Toshinori Kuwabara, and Masato Ogawa

A radical approach to social studies may not be recommended or welcomed, but instruction in social
studies must involve more than textbook reading and recitation. To that end, the work of developing tolerant,
reflective, and engaged democratic citizens hinges upon the full release and discussion of controversial issues in
the classroom and without this educative mandate realized, students are ill-prepared for their eventual exposure
to prejudicial and propagandistic entrepreneurial efforts (Misco & DeGroof, 2014). Every free society, including
Japan, struggles with this most critical and foundational educative enterprise (Misco, 2012; Misco & DeGroof,2014). In response to this mandate, we propose how teachers might employ a framework to teach controversial
issues in conscious and deliberate ways, while being cognizant of multiple contexts external to the classroom.
We believe that teachers in free societies should make their classroom a forum for democratic action and should
not hesitate to address controversial issues that hold meaning for future citizens.

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
Dewey (1933) situated doubts and controversy as a central fulcrum in the reflective thinking andpragmatic problem solving process. Without doubt and controversy, there is no occasion for reflection, only
perception and recognition. Doubt, as found in controversial issues, which are always normative and sometimes
moral, fuels the active search for answers and prompts judgment to filter and weigh the reasonability of
meanings, ultimately leading to decisions based on reasonable grounds, which is the purpose of social studies
education in Japan (Kusahara, 2014; Katakami, 2006; Kobara, 1987; Moriwake, 2001). Positioning students tohave opportunities to address and confront controversial issues has profound implications for the health andvibrancy of democratic societies (Misco & DeGroof, 2014).
Given the importance of teaching controversial issues, Japanese social studies teachers have adopted theinclusion of numerous issues in their classrooms. Teachers tend to believe that teaching controversial issues isbeneficial for student development of learning skills, as well as creating their own arguments and deliberating
the issues with others. Also, teachers assert that utilizing controversial issues in their classrooms provides
students with opportunities to formulate normative and value-oriented beliefs. By creating learning experiences
involving analysis and evaluation of differing opinions and values underlying issues, teachers can position
students with opportunities to revalue prejudgments and beliefs (Iwasaki, 2017).
The teaching of social studies as history, or as any other social science discipline, is a perversion of the
field (Kusahara, 2008; Barton & Levstik, 2004; Sanaga, 2009; Watanabe, 2004). Descriptive history is not, after
all, a natural reality but rather a constructed reality. Therefore, teachers need to encourage students to reconstructhistory in terms of relevance to contemporary society and its problems (controversial issues), as well as students’
own interests and concerns (Ikeno, 2006).
Controversies evolve and change over time. The social process of mediating these conflicting ideas isessential to build consensus (Yoshimura, 2001) and the opportunity to “examine issues and solutions” positions
students to “reflect and rebuild their system of values” (Mizoguchi 2012, p. 5) is essential for civic life.
Controversial issues are contested, normative, moral, and require attention, deliberation, and some degree ofresolution in order to build more justice-oriented and democratic local, national, and international institutions.
Yet, Japanese social studies teachers are likely to avoid teaching the authentic controversial issues including
poverty, domestic violence, and bullying, and instead prefer to choose “authorized problems” as located66The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

within the textbook covered, such as unfair labor practices and false accusation (Kusahara et al., 2015). Other
research suggests that roughly 20% of Japanese social studies teachers who were asked to teach geography
decided to embed controversial issues within their classes, including nuclear energy and free trade policies(Kusahara, 2012).

Figure 1. A framework for controversial issue gatekeeping
This paper builds upon and extends the idea of controversial issues as “tipping” (Hess, 2009), whichrefers to the evolution, change, and development of an issue within a context. Because it is often difficult todetermine whether an issue is open, closed, or in the process of changing (Hess, 2009) and because multiple
stakeholders in different contexts may view the current controversial state of an issue differently, we propose aframework to help teachers and teacher educators to make conscious and deliberate gatekeeping decisions about
controversial issue inclusion. Of particular note is that this decision making is predicated on teachers recognizing
the value of broaching controversies as a part of citizenship education (Misco, in press).
Some controversial issues are simply not known to students because of their intensely taboo status. For
example, children are not exposed to a variety of topics when they are young and they are not even aware of their
existence (Figure 1). Similarly, older students and citizens in authoritarian and totalitarian states are sometimes
not aware of issues that are taboo. We refer to this stage of unknown taboo issues as Level I. In Level II, students
are aware of a topic, such as religion, but do not discuss it in classrooms because they may not feel an open or
welcoming climate to talk. Or, it simply is not something they are ready to discuss. The teacher is pivotal indeciding the extent to which Level II topics remain taboo within their classrooms or whether they should “pullthe topic up” into the realm of discourse (Level III). Given the multiple realities, experiences, and identities
within a single classroom, as well as the school and community contexts, topics might be taboo for somestudents and not others. A topic that might be taboo for the students may not be for the teacher. In short, teacher
judgment is profoundly important in making these determinations.
Once a teacher unearths a taboo topic and “pulls it up” into the realm of discourse, it will likely take on
a controversial status, whereby the various and competing beliefs not universally shared by students undergo
reconsideration. Over time, this topic can enter Level IV, whereby students freely engage in deliberation anddiscussion. Although universal agreement may not be achieved, the electrifying element that results in67

Jongsung Kim, Thomas Misco, Kazuhiro Kusahara, Toshinori Kuwabara, and Masato Ogawa

vehemence, argumentation, and discomfort recedes in Level IV to a point of normalized conversation andinquiry. Ultimately the end of Level IV should be tentative resolutions in Level V, or the revaluation of values,
laws, or policies resulting in a more justice-oriented and democratic local, national, and global contexts.
As this process of teacher decision-making about taboo and controversial topic occurs in classrooms,
the issue also lives within the other domains of the school, community, and society. Part and parcel of curriculum
instructional gatekeeping (Thornton, 1991) is the need for the teacher to recognize the status of the topic within
the realms outside the classroom (Figure 1) and make contextual determinations about which topics should enter
the classroom and their reasons for doing so. Certainly many factors enter into this judgment, including age ofstudents, standards, school climate, parents, administrators, and other stakeholders. Yet, it is essential that thesocial studies teacher recognize their obligation to teach controversial issues for the health of democracy (Misco& Shiveley, 2016).
Additionally, it is beneficial for teachers to engage in meta-recognition on the extent and type of theircurriculum instructional gatekeeping. Focusing on teacher dependence on context and independence as
intentional agents, we classify teachers, based on observations and experiences as teacher educators, into thecategories of: autonomous-independent, subjective-controlled, and situated-context. The autonomousindependent teacher primarily focuses on their classroom and is not heavily influenced by concerns external tothe classroom. Given this level of autonomy these teachers could either substantively focus on controversial
issues or ignore them altogether. This sort of teacher is the most promising, as well as potentially nefarious, as it
relates to inclusion of controversial issues in classrooms.
Subjective-controlled teachers are influenced by contexts external to the classroom, but these do not
deterministically influence them. For example, as is often the case with the Japanese social studies teachers, evenif teachers working at the same school were equally influenced by the purposes of school management, principal
initiatives, and the orientation of the education board, their implementation can be different because of their own
beliefs and rationales of social studies education (Kusahara et al., 2014). The teacher thus inhabits multiple
layers of variables and forces influencing their gatekeeping decisions. As a result, classrooms within the sameschool can exhibit great variability in terms of which topics are discussed and in what depth. This level ofautonomy is similar to the mutual adaptation construct related to curriculum implementation. The vast range ofvariables external to the classroom informs teacher decision-making on a case by case basis.
The situated-context teachers (e.g., those found in totalitarian states) are primarily focused on that whichis external to the classroom and they do not deviate from the position of the issue as it resides in the school,community, or society. Similar to the “fidelity” construct within curriculum implementation, this kind of teacher
lacks autonomy (or has ceded it) and is a conduit of whatever forces are informing curriculum and instruction
decisions. As a truly democratic society would not have teachers practice in this way, this sort of teacher
represents the most hazardous and noxious position for free and justice-oriented citizenship education.
In the next section, we describe our thought experiment about how teachers might design a social
studies unit focusing on a controversial issue while referring to the framework. We chose to begin with a thought
experiment as prefatory to an empirical study in order to test hypotheses and reflect upon a range of possible
outcomes, consistent with Dewey’s ideas (1933) on the psychological processes of reflective inquiry.

68

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

A CASE OF GATEKEEPING:
TEACHING THE USE OF THE ATOMIC－BOMB DURING WWII IN JAPAN AS A
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE IN A CLASSROOM IN HIROSHIMAIn this hypothetical gatekeeping narrative, we assume a situation in which a teacher endeavors to teachabout the use of the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan as a controversial issue in a classroom in Hiroshima.
Through this focused and contextualized gatekeeping narrative, audiences can construct more concrete images
about how the framework could be utilized, how the “subjective-controlled” (neither “autonomous-independent”
nor “situated-context”) gatekeeping as typical in Asian democratic society could be done, and how it might behelpful for stakeholders.(e.g., parents, school administrators, community members.)

Understanding Context
In this hypothetical situation, Suzuki Naoko as a 9th grade social studies teacher at a middle school in
Hiroshima, Japan. She believes teaching controversial issues is crucial because when students are exposed tomultiple perspectives while they deliberate normative and contested issues, they have the opportunity to growas tolerant and open-minded citizens. Based on this premise, she has introduced manifold views into her social
studies classroom to create discussions and expects her students to digest, revalue, and utilize them as lenses tocritique and understand social phenomena.
At Ms. Suzuki’s school, the 9th grade social studies curriculum consists of civics and Japanese history.
Similar to many social studies teachers in Japan, Ms. Suzuki has taught Japanese history chronologically. One
day, when planning a unit about WWII in Asia, she is faced with the content related to the use of the atomic
bomb during WWII in Japan. She decides to teach the topic using critical approach. Yet, because she feels stressin doing so, she chooses to utilize the aforementioned framework in order to determine the reasons for theemotional burden that she is experiencing and to resolve this burden in order to teach about the use of the atomic
bomb during WWII in Japan.
First, Ms. Suzuki wants to confirm spatial scales which are classroom, community, and society on thehorizontal axis of the framework. Community and society surrounding school and classroom would be varied
depending on the characteristics of topics. Considering the characteristic of the topic, the use of the atomic bomb
during WWII in Japan, Ms. Suzuki defines “community” as Hiroshima because Hiroshima is the city that was
directly attacked by the atomic bomb and its government and its people have special interests in how to teachthe tragedy. Additionally, she defines society as “Japan” because the Japanese government provides
gakusyusidouyouryo, Japanese national curriculum, that carries legal binding force on how and what to teach.
The national discourse in the curriculum surrounding the use of the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan also hasstrong influence on how to teach the topic.
After confirming spatial scales of the framework, Ms. Suzuki starts to think about the level of controversy
she plans to unleash (Table 1). To begin with, she distinguishes between just mentioning the topic in herclassroom and teaching the use of the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan as a controversial issue (Hess, 2009).
Given the scale of society, Japan, she considers that dealing with the use of the atomic bomb during WWII in
Japan is not controversial at all (Level V). Most social studies textbooks that were authorized by the Japanese
government include descriptions about the topic and encourage teachers to teach it. Furthermore, the discourseof the textbooks suggests there is general agreement on the topic; Japan is the only country that was attacked by69

Jongsung Kim, Thomas Misco, Kazuhiro Kusahara, Toshinori Kuwabara, and Masato Ogawa

the atomic bomb. Moreover, Japan overcame the tragedy and has pursued a peaceful world without nuclear
weapons (e.g., Sakaue et al., 2015).
Table 1. The context of teaching the use of Atomic bomb during WWII in Japan in a classroom of Hiroshima
V

〇

〇

〇

✓

✓

✓

Japan

Hiroshima

Classroom

IV
III
II
I
Level of Discorse

Scale〇: Dealing with the use of atomic bomb during WWII in Japan in a classroom in Hiroshima✓: Teaching the use of atomic bomb during WWII in Japan as a controversial issue in a classroom in Hiroshima

Alternatively, Ms. Suzuki judges that teaching the use of the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan as acontroversial issue is a fundamentally alternative narrative. For example, the socially agreed upon discourse inJapan does not involve details about what Japan did during WWII. In other words, the official discourse only
mentions the tragedy caused by the use of the atomic bomb, how the Japanese overcame it, and how they tried
to pursue a peaceful world without nuclear weapons. It is not difficult to imagine that introducing multiple
perspectives on the topic, including the causes that led to the dropping of the bomb, which are different from theofficial discourse, will collide with the official discourse in such a way as to render it taboo (Level II).
In the scale of community, Hiroshima, Ms. Suzuki considers that there is no problem with teaching theuse of the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan because teachers in Hiroshima are actively encouraged to teachthe topic (Level V). This topic is so deeply rooted into the identity of Hiroshima and its people that most schools
provide special lessons about the topic every year. Similar to the scale of society, Japan, Hiroshima also has anagreed discourse on the topic, and that is well expressed in the aim of the Hiroshima Peace Program which was
published by the City of Hiroshima: “Considering the tragedy of Hiroshima, students are expected to understandabout the preciousness of individual’s life and the dignity of human being, and have desire and disposition forcontributing to realize permanent world peace as citizens of international, peaceful and cultural city” (The Cityof Hiroshima, n.d.).
Additionally, symbols of Hiroshima such as the Hiroshima Peace Memorial (genbaku dome) and theHiroshima Peace Memorial Museum deliver messages similar to the city’s peace education policy, even though
the museum explains, to a certain extent, Japan’s invasion of Asia and the attack on Pearl Harbor (Hiroshima
Peace Memorial Museum, n.d.). In a scale that is being informed by a singular discourse as is found in Hiroshima,
Ms. Suzuki thinks that teaching the use of the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan as a controversial issue in aclassroom would be taboo (Level II).
In the context of her classroom, Ms. Suzuki feels comfortable to teach the use of the atomic bomb
during WWII in Japan because the Japanese national curriculum and Hiroshima’s peace education policy

70

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

support teaching the topic (Level V). Alternatively, she thinks that introducing multiple perspectives that are
different from the agreed discourse in Japan and Hiroshima would be taboo because the atmosphere of society
and community strongly affects her classroom’s dynamics, and there is a good chance that descendants ofsurvivors might exist in her classroom and may be offended by perspectives outside of the official discourse(Level II). Furthermore, she also worries about how other teachers and parents of her school view teaching the
topic as a controversial issue.

Gatekeeping
Given the context of teaching about the use of the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan as a controversial
issue in a classroom in hiroshima, Ms. Suzuki might learn that a teacher who challenges prevailing discourses
may feel uncomfortable in broaching divergent views, but also the members of society, community, andclassroom may experience a similar feeling. Moreover, she also problematizes the situation that students did notpreviously have enough opportunities to be exposed to other possibilities or interpretations because a strong
discourse concealed other potentialities.
Ultimately, Ms. Suzuki decides to adopt an inquiry-based approach to elevate teaching the use of theatomic bomb during WWII in Japan as a controversial issue from the realm of Level II to Level III. She thinks
there are two main benefits with utilizing this approach. First, this approach diminishes students’ psychologicalburdens or fears caused by being exposed to other views that differ from their own. Students are guided tounderstand and compare multiple perspectives and asked to develop rational answers to the unit’s central
question and naturally are exposed to the perspectives dissimilar to their own. Because inquiry learning asks
students to recognize alternative views as subjects of analysis rather than as subjects of unconditional acceptance,
they can deliberate and discuss multiple perspectives with less emotional pressure.
Second, this approach provides a position for Ms. Suzuki to escape the criticism that might be caused
by introducing multiple perspectives on the use of the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan. The discourse ofJapan and Hiroshima on the topic has overlooked the possibilities of other discourses, such as Japan’s
accountability in the tragedy. As such, the citizens of Japan and Hiroshima may raise objections to the introductionof other perspectives that differ with their own. However, the Japanese national curriculum emphasizes thedevelopment of students’ critical thinking skills that is deeply connected to the goal of social studies. If criticized,
she plans to answer the following question: “For students to have opportunities to develop habits of criticalthinking while inquiring and comparing different ways of understanding the topic, I adopted multiple perspectives
to think about the use of the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan.”To design an inquiry-based unit, Ms. Suzuki tries to come up with a central question. Central questions
should not be answered easily and its answer should be varied according to students’ knowledge and beliefs. As
a result of the right central question, diverse and conflicting answers create provocative classroom discussions.
She develops the questions “Was the United States justified in dropping the atomic bomb for punitive reasons
given Japan’s actions throughout Asia?” and “What is the lasting impact of the use of nuclear weapons during
WWII in Japan?” Additionally, for guiding students to explore the whole history surrounding the topic, she
prepares three supporting questions that cover the events before and after the tragedy (Table 2).
Table 2. A unit plan: “What is the lasting impact of the usage of atomic bomb during WWII in Japan?”71

Jongsung Kim, Thomas Misco, Kazuhiro Kusahara, Toshinori Kuwabara, and Masato Ogawa(for more details, see Kim & Kusahara, in print)- Was the United States justified in dropping the atomic bomb for punitive reasons given Japan’s actions
throughout Asia?
- What is the lasting impact of the use of atomic bomb during WWII in Japan?
Supporting Questions

Performance Task

Learning Materials

What events during WWII led
the U.S. to use nuclear weaponsin Japan?

- Create a flowchart, based onevidence, of the events that led
the U.S. to use nuclear weaponsin Japan during WWII.

Source A: A map of Imperial
Japan’s territory in 1942
Source B: An article about thehistory of Hiroshima
Source C: A video of Truman’s
speech after dropping atomic
bomb on Hiroshima

How did the use of the atomic
bomb affect Hiroshima, and how
did the city’s residents react tothis?

- Write a journal entry for August
6, 1945, as a person who lived in
Hiroshima.

Source A: The number ofcasualties in Hiroshima from theatomic bomb
Source B: A video about
dropping the atomic bomb on
Hiroshima
Source C: Images about
Hiroshima after the atomic bomb
Source D: An article about
Hiroshima’s movement to peace

Who should the word “we”
represent in the memorial
cenotaph for the atomic bomb
victims, which reads, “Let allsouls here rest in peace for weshall not repeat the evil?”- Make a claim about who
should be “WE” in the memorial
cenotaph for the atomic bomb
victims, which is “Let all souls
here rest in peace for WE shallnot repeat the evil,” and share
one’s claim through “take-astand” activity.

Source A: The memorial
cenotaph for the atomic bomb
victims
Source B: Remarks by President
Obama at Hiroshima Peace
Memorial
Source C: An article from The
Mainichi “Atomic bomb
survivors, residents welcome
Obama's visit to Hiroshima”
Source D: An article from The
Mainichi “Ex-Hiroshima mayor
decries Obama's Hiroshima visit
without apology”
Source E: An article from The
Mainichi “Chinese media raps
Japan for 'playing victim'
through Obama's Hiroshima
visit”

Ms. Suzuki intends that students learn about what happened before the use of the atomic bomb ininternational context while answering the first supporting question, “What events during WWII led the U.S. to
use nuclear weapons in Japan?” She prepares three learning materials for students’ inquiry: A map of Imperial
Japan’s territory in 1942, an article about the history of Hiroshima, and a video of Truman’s speech after
dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Through reading the texts and creating a flow chart of the events that
led the U.S. to use nuclear weapons in Japan during WWII, students are expected to understand the generallysilenced rationale for using the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan.
The second supporting question, “How did the use of the atomic bomb effect Hiroshima, and how did

72

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

the city’s residents react to this?” is raised to understand Japan and Hiroshima’s discourse one more time. Ms.
Suzuki thinks that deep understanding of “my” or “our” discourse is a prerequisite to compare it to other ones.
She prepares four learning materials for students’ inquiry: the number of casualties in Hiroshima from the atomic
bomb, a video about dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, images about Hiroshima after the atomic bomb,
and an article about Hiroshima’s movement to peace. After learning what the use of the atomic bomb caused in
Hiroshima and how the people in Hiroshima overcame it, she plans asking students to write a journal entry as aperson who was in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. As a result of this activity, Students have opportunities toempathize and deeply understand the discourse of Japan and Hiroshima.
The third question, “Who should the word ‘we’ represent in the memorial cenotaph for the atomic bomb
victims, which reads, ‘Let all souls here rest in peace for we shall not repeat the evil?’” is the highlight of thisunit. Ms. Suzuki thinks Obama’s visit to Hiroshima and the various reactions of stakeholders who are related to
the visit are valuable for introducing multiple perspectives into her classroom. She prepared five learningmaterials that are related to his visit, but dealing with the event in different ways: the memorial cenotaph for theatomic bomb victims, remarks by Obama at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, an article from The Mainichi“atomic bomb survivors, residents welcome Obama's visit to Hiroshima,” an article from The Mainichi “ExHiroshima mayor decries Obama's Hiroshima visit without apology,” and an article from The Mainichi “Chinese
media raps Japan for 'playing victim' through Obama's Hiroshima visit.” She intends that students learn about
how other countries think about Hiroshima. Also, she wants her students to understand there might be different
viewpoints even in the same city. Students are encouraged to make their own claim about who should be
responsible for the tragedy that happened in Hiroshima and should work to not “repeat the evil.” Individual
claims are shared within a “take-a-stand” activity, which expresses one’s stance as a location in a physical spaceand discusses why they choose the spot. Ms. Suzuki intends to transform a singular discourse classroom on thetragedy into public sphere that students can express their own opinions on the issue.
Based on the inquiry, Ms. Suzuki plans a summative performance task of designing the last ten feet of
the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Based on their learning through this unit, students are expected toanswer what they think about the impact of the use of nuclear weapons during WWII in Japan and design theirown last ten feet of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE GATEKEEPING
This narrative of gatekeeping illustrates how to utilize the aforementioned framework. First, teachers
who want to design a unit with controversial issues need to confirm spatial scales that are on the horizontal axisof the framework. Each scale might be grounded in a different context, so considering the number and the typeof scales is crucial to teaching controversial issues. Second, teachers should distinguish between just dealing
with a topic in a classroom and teaching the topic as a controversial issue. Some topics are readily accepted bya society or community and are freely discussed among its members, but they also can be taught as controversial
issues because of teachers’ gatekeeping to educate democratic citizens (Hess, 2008; 2009). Therefore, teachers
need to understand the difference between the two and consider this distinction in their decision making. Thirdand finally, teachers should develop rationles to explain and potentially defend their decision-making (Misco,2017).

73

Jongsung Kim, Thomas Misco, Kazuhiro Kusahara, Toshinori Kuwabara, and Masato Ogawa

Additionally, this thought experiment provides a pathway for teachers regarding what to consider andhow to approach the process when designing a unit with controversial issues. The first consideration is that every
topic, even though the topic may be settled and freely discussed in a society or a community, can be taught as acontroversial issue. The addition of nuance and normative questions invite reconsideration and revaluation of
topics and issues that are seemingly settled and accepted. As mentioned in the gatekeeping narrative, dealing
with the use of the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan in a classroom in Hiroshima is not controversial at all.
However, it can be taught as a controversial issue by adopting multiple perspectives on the topic that differ fromthe existing one and provide students the opportunity to share one another’s opinions on the views. To transform
a topic to a controversial issue, teachers should be the first ones who pay attention to the discourse of the other.
The discourse of the other, including those found in other regions or nations, would be good resources to
excavate different perspectives from the existing one.
Introducing multiple perspectives that collide with the existing views in a society or community might
invite criticism from members of a society or a community. However, in democratic societies such as Japan, themandate to educate democratic citizens through deliberation and discussion cannot be emphasized enough. Inorder to effectively defend their decision-making against possible criticism, teachers need to marshal evidence
that they are mandated to teach controversial issues given governmental guidelines such as a national curriculum
or research within a field.

CONCLUSION
We recommend that social studies teacher educators, as well as pre- and in- service teachers, employ
this curriculum instructional gatekeeping framework to ensure that controversial issues are consciously anddeliberately examined in their classrooms. We also suggest that researchers begin to empirically study the use of
the framework within classrooms. As evidence begins to emerge, these data can inform new iterations of andmodifications to the framework. In addition, teacher educators need to provide more training on controversial
issue instruction, through workshops, conferences, and their own classes. Administrators also need toreconceptualize their understanding of social studies education and support their social studies teachers to makethoughtful decisions and cultivate an autonomous gatekeeping climate that encourages controversial issue
instruction. Without fully understanding this central concern of social studies education, teachers would findlittle reason to modify current instructional, curricular, and structural approaches to citizenship education. If thisview is perpetuated, the health and vibrancy of democracy and citizenship education will forever be in peril.

REFERENCES
Barton, K. C. & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Company.
Hess, D. (2008). Controversial issues and democratic discourse. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.),
Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 10-41). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY:

74

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Routledge.
Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum (n.d.). East building: Permanent exhibition. Retrieved from http://
hpmmuseum.jp/modules/exhibition/index.php?action=FacilityView&facility_id=4&lang=eng
Ikeno, N. (2006). Shimin shakaika rekishi kyoiku no yukyo kosei (The principles of teaching history associal studies education for civil society). Journal of Educational Research on Social Studies, 64, 51-60.
Iwasaki, K. (2016). Ronso mondai gakushu niokeru kyoshi no kojinteki kenkai hyomei nikannsuru
kenkyu: Kenkai hyomei no zehi nikansuru kyoshi no mikata o chushinni(Teacher's judgement ofwithholding and disclosing political views in issues-centered approach focusing on judgement andjustification for political disclosure). The Journal of civic education, 24, 1-14.
Katakami, S. (2006). Choutei toshiteno shakaika jugyo kosei no riron to houhou: Ishi kettei gakushu nokakushin (Theory and method of organizing social studies lessons based on “mediation”: Innovation oflearning oriented toward decision making. Journal of Educational Research on Social Studies, 65, 1-10.
Kim, J. & Kusahara, K. (in press). What is the lasting impact of the use of nuclear weapons during WWII
in Japan? In B. M. Maguth & G. Wu. (Eds.), Global learning based on the C3 Framework in the K-12
social studies classroom. Silver Spring, MD: National Council of Social Studies.
Kobara, K. (1987). Ishi ketteiryoku o ikuseisuru rekishi jugyo kousei: “Jinbutsu gakushu” kaizen no shiteno chushinni (A study on the organization of lessons in the teaching of history for developing decisionmaking abilities: From the viewpoint of the reform of “the study of historical persons”). The Review of
the Study of History, 177, 45-67.
Kusahara, K. (2008). Chiri kyoiku kaikaku no orutanatibu: Kyoka kozo no genriteki kousatsu o humaete(The alternative solution toward the reform of geography education: A theoretical study on the integrated
curriculum of social studies). Journal of Research on Education in Social Studies Department, 20, 21-30.
Kusahara, K. (2012). Tabunkateki seikaku no chiiki o kyoshiwa donoyouni oshieruka: Shakaika kyoshi no
ishikettei no tokushitsu to sono youken (How do teachers teach the multicultural regions?: The
characteristics and conditions of decision making by social studies teachers in Japan). The Journal ofSocial Studies, 116, 57-69.
Kusahara, K. (2014). Naze kokyo, kokudo, ryoudo no shidoga hitusyo nanoka? (Why do we teach thenational boundary, national lands and national territory?). In K. Kusahara, & T. Watanabe (Eds.), Kokyo,
kokudo, ryoudo kyoiku no ronten, souten (Issues on education of national boundary, national lands,
and national territory) (pp. 11-20). Tokyo: Meiji publishing company.
Kusahara, K., Osaka, Y., Seto, K., Taguchi, T., Nakayama, A., Nishimura, S., & Yoshii, M., (2014).
Shakaika kyoshiwa donoyouna karikyuramu dezainga kanouka: Rekishi gakushuzai no kaihatsu tokatsuyou no jirei kenkyu (The possibility of the curriculum designs implemented by the social studies
teachers: A case study on the development and application of the history resource book). Hiroshima
Journal of School Education, 20, 91-102.
Kusahara, K., Okada, R., Watanabe, T., Osaka, Y., Nomi, K., Yokoyama. T., Wakahara, T., & Terashima,
T. (2015). Shakaika kyoshiwa donoyouna karikyuramu dezainga kanouka (2): Koumin gakusyuzai no
kaihatsu to katsuyouno jirei kenkyu (The possibility of the curriculum designs implemented by thesocial studies teachers (Part II): A case study on the development and application of the civic resourcebook). Hiroshima Journal of School Education, 21, 83-96.

75

Jongsung Kim, Thomas Misco, Kazuhiro Kusahara, Toshinori Kuwabara, and Masato Ogawa

Misco, T. (2012). The importance of context for teaching controversial issues in international settings.
International Education, 42(1), 69-84.
Misco, T. & J. DeGroof (Eds.) (2014). Case studies in controversial issues. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands:
Wolf Legal Publishers.
Misco, T. & Shiveley, J. (2016). Operationalizing social justice in social studies education. The Social
Studies, 107(6), 186-193.
Misco, T. (2017). Constructing rationales to teach controversial issues. In S. G. Grant, J. Lee, & K. Swan
(Eds.), Teaching social studies: A methods book for methods teachers (pp. 111-114). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Press.
Misco, T. (in press). Contextual gatekeeping. In M. H. Gross & L. Terra (Eds.), Troubled history, troublingtimes: Teaching and learning about the difficult past. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mizoguchi, K. (2012). Hirakareta Kachikan keisei o mezasu rekishi kyoiku noriron to houhou: Chishiki no
seicyou ohakaru yonsyogen moderu no kentou o toushite (Values education when teaching history in a
democratic society: A learning module for values formation). Journal of Educational Research on
Social Studies, 77, 1-12.
Moriwake, T. (2001). Shiminteki shishitsu ikusei niokeru shakaika kyoiku: Goriteki ishi kettei (Teachingsocial studies in citizenship education: Rational decision making). Journal of research on education insocial studies department, 13, 43-50.
National Council for the Social Studies (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework forsocial studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography,
and history. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS.
Sakaue, Y., Tonami, K., Yagasaki, N., Gomi, F., Arai, M., Sakuma, A., … Nakakita, K. (2015). (Shinpen)
Atarashii shakai: Rekishi ((New Edition) New social studies: History). Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki.
Sanaga, K. (2009). Shakaika kyoiku naiyou no jyokyoronteki kentou: Gainenteki chishiki no
diknsutorakushyon(Examining social studies education contents from the situated perspectives: A
deconstruction of conceptual knowledge). Journal of Educational Research on Social Studies, 71, 1-10.
Shaver, J. P., Davis, O. L., & Helburn, S. W. (1979). The status of social studies education: Impressions
from three NSF studies. Social Education, 43(2), 150–153.
The City of Hiroshima (n.d.). The outline of peace education program by the city of Hiroshima. Retrieved
from http://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/www/contents/1298266910803/files/program.pdf
Thornton, S. J. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.),
Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 237-248). New York, NY: MacMillan
Watanabe, T. (2004). Amerika shakaika niokeru shakai mondai gakusyu no genriteki tenkan: “Jijitsu” oshiru tameno tankyukara jiko no “kenkai” o kouchikusuru tameno tankyue (Foundation of the theory of
the issues centered curriculum in the United States’ social studies: Shift from the inquiry to know theother's perspectives thought as “truth” toward the inquiry to construct the original “perspectives”).
Research Journal of Educational Methods, 29, 85-96.
Yoshimura, K. (2001). Shakaika goui-keisei o mezasu jugyo: Shotangen “Noushi-zouki isyoku to jinken”
o jireini (A social studies lesson for building social consensus: A case of “The law of brain death/organtransplant and human rights). Journal of Research on Education in Social Studies Department, 13, 21-28.

76