ABSTRACT

Scholars of citizenship education have long regarded deliberation as the default framework for democratic discussion in the classroom and beyond. Turning to the history and theory of rhetoric, we question why the deliberative model of the Athenian assembly has been developed for social studies pedagogy without including the litigative discourse of the Athenian courts. In response, we offer civic litigation, a discursive framework that recasts public controversies from a pro vs. con to an accusation vs. defense format. By examining the role of civic litigation in a historical case study from the 1960s Black civil rights movement, along with three inquiry-based lessons concerning contemporary controversies, we argue that civic litigation plays a crucial role in the effort to make inquiry-based instruction critical when it addresses issues of injustice.

摘要

长期以来，公民教育学者一直将协商视为课堂内外民主讨论​​的默认框架。转向修辞学的历史和理论，我们质疑为什么雅典议会的审议模式被开发用于社会研究教学法而不包括雅典法院的诉讼话语。作为回应，我们提供公民诉讼，这是一个话语框架，将公共争议从赞成与反对的形式重新转换为指控与辩护的形式。通过研究公民诉讼在 1960 年代黑人民权运动的历史案例研究中的作用，以及关于当代争议的三个基于探究的课程，