Rapports et notes de recherche
Format for Teaching Liberty of Expression
A Brief Literature Review
Ian Seth McPhail
Introduction
My goal with this literature review was to provide format recommendations for a pedagogical project on liberty of expression in Québec. To help define this scope, I searched both the grey and academic literature for existing pedagogical projects on freedom of expression as well as for any research on the benefits and challenges associated with teaching freedom of expression. This document begins with an overview of the academic literature, followed by my format recommendations with example product types, and concludes with a discussion of next steps, including avenues for further research.
Teaching Freedom of Expression
There is no shortage of academic literature on the free speech rights of students and teachers. However, there is less research on the actual teaching and learning of freedom of expression, especially in Québec. That said, some scholars have shared their experiences teaching freedom of speech in the American college classroom.
A clear trend emerges from this literature: an emphasis on the use of classroom discussionfor teaching freedom of expression(Andsager & Ross, 1999; Aufderheide, 1991; Cos & Ivy, 1998; Dewberry et al., 2018; Eveslage, 1987; Geske, 1991; Hess, 2009; Matto & Chmielewski, 2021, 2021; Paddon, 1991; Rossiter Jr., 1970; Smolla, 2021).Authors frequently reported centering discussions around a diverse range of case studies. These included cases that either directly addressed the topic of freedom of expression or cases that were themselves controversial in nature.Legal decisions, current events, historical examples,or different types of popular media served as materials to initiate these classroom discussions.
Alternative methods were also reported, such as: role-playing the classroom like a talk show (Geske, 1991) or court room (Dewberry et al., 2018; Hilpert Jr., 1972; Schwartz, 2010); team-based projects (Eveslage, 1987; Jolliffe, 1991); public speaking assignments (Dewberry et al., 2018; Rossiter Jr., 1970); and inviting guest speakers (Eveslage, 1987).
While some authors reported student satisfaction (Andsager & Ross, 1999; Geske, 1991) or a liberal change in attitude towards freedom of expression (Hilpert Jr., 1972; Rossiter Jr., 1970) with a range of these methods, their effectiveness is reliant on the teacher’s ability to appropriately manage the classroom. It requires a high level of preparedness to maintain the delicate balance of what Callan (2016) has called a “fittingly unsafe academic environment” (p. 64) for productive classroom discourse (Shockley & Morris, 2022). For example, Khan (2019) found that a Grade 12 teacher’s inability to tolerate a student’s unexpected emotional counternarrative effectively shut down a critical educational opportunity during a heated classroom discussion on the controversial Charle Hebdo incident.
Controversy in the Classroom
Looking at the literature on the use of controversial topicsand materials in the classroom provides more context on the pedagogical challenges associated with teaching freedom of expression. Although it is debatable whether freedom of expression itself could be considered a controversial topic, the use of controversial materials, cases or discussions on controversial issues in the classroom are often recommended when liberal democratic values are an educational goal (Eveslage, 1987; Hess, 2009; Marshall, 2024; Maxwell et al., 2020; Stitzlein, 2024).
There has long been disagreement between educational researchers on the ways teachers should position themselves in class on controversial issues. Some believe that discussions on controversial issues are most effective when educators demonstrate complete impartiality (Jackson, 2008; Smolla, 2021). Others assert that there is not only a social justice imperative for teachers to speak up on matters of oppression but that it is also has a stronger pedagogical value (Applebaum, 2007, 2009).
Many educational specialists take the middle ground, opting rather for position of “committed impartiality”, where “the teacher presents all sides of an issue fairly but discloses his/her view” (Waddington et al., 2024, p. 3). This style of positioning also has educational benefits: it can humanize a tense discussion and can give teachers an opportunity to model tolerance, openness and flexibility (Martinson, 2005; Maxwell et al., 2023). This is easier said than done; however, and can be especially challenging for racialized teachers who may need to self-censor more than their white counterparts in order for students perceives them “neutrally” (Boatswain-Kyte et al., 2022).
Theory vs. Reality
Indeed, the social reality of teaching controversial issues in divided or polarized societies is often more complex than what might be agreed upon by educational philosophers (Hand, 2008; Maxwell et al., 2023; Stitzlein, 2024). Depending on one’s social, political, and legal environment, there can be stark differences between what the educational research recommends, what’s been found to be legally permissible, and what actually causes offense.
Teachers at all levels may suffer repercussions when they become subject of a complaint over the use of controversial material in the classroom. The financial and personal costs associated with dealing with a complaint are numerous, and the repercussions can be lasting (Hyslop, 2016; Waddington, 2011). University professors are generally understood to have greater academic freedom than primary and secondary school teachers, but are not impervious to being dismissed over the use of controversial statements or materials (Maxwell et al., 2023; Shahverdian & Young, 2023). However, primary and secondary school teachers worry not only about potential complaints from their students, but also their students’ parents (Waddington et al., 2024). In addition, they are held to curricular standards that university professors are not. Although the use of well-intentioned controversial content in Canada has historically been upheld in provincial and federal courts (Maxwell et al., 2023), its use must be in alignment with the provincial curriculum.
This makes choosing a specific target group for a pedagogical project on freedom of expression all the more important. Secondary school teachers and university professors are accountable to different educational authorities, and thus, have different educational goals — with different educational goals comes the necessity for different educational formats.
Different Groups, Different Needs
Teaching freedom of expression aligns with the educational requirements of the new Culture et citoyenneté québécoise (CCQ) course, which debuted in Québec schools just a few months ago. However, secondary school teachers across Québec are currently lacking many of the necessary pedagogical materials to properly develop their lesson plans for this course, with publishers not expecting to release the required textbooks for the CCQ course until the 2025-2026 school year (Gagné, 2024). Some pedagogical materials exist online (gathered on the Portail National CCQ); however, there is still a clear need for teacher resources on subjects required by the CCQ program, such as freedom of expression (Ministère de l’Éducation, 2024).
In addition, many pre-service teachers struggle to feel confident dealing with controversial topics and discussions in the classroom (Waddington et al., 2024). In Québec specifically, Dhali et al. (2022) found that although the former Éthiques et cultures religieuses (ECR) program offered to pre-service teachers at McGill and UQAM had the opportunity to positively impact student’s dialogical open-mindedness, there was still room for professors to be more prepared. Considering the new CCQ programs offered at Québec universities now have an even wider educational scope (Soffer, 2024), it is not unreasonable to think that the professors teaching this program might be in need of additional teaching resources as well.
Lastly, there is the question of the general public. If we consider, for example, CÉGEP students or students enrolled in undergraduate programs, what are their needs in respect to freedom of expression education? The idea of teaching freedom of speech as a general topic was a subject of strong academic importance at the height of the Cold War, with institutions citing “the challenge of a militant Communism on a global front” as a main motive for its prescription (Speech Association of America, 1962, p. 25). Indeed, the bulk of the literature on the subject stems from this era (Andsager & Ross, 1999; Aufderheide, 1991; Geske, 1991; Haiman, 1964; Hilpert Jr., 1972; Hunsaker, 1970; Meeske, 1969; Rossiter Jr., 1969, 1970).
Much has changed, however, since the fall of the Berlin wall. Recent publications by American scholars suggest concern over issues of polarization, anti-pluralism, and an erosion of democratic values in the United States (Dallmann, 2024; Mikander & Satokangas, 2024; Stitzlein, 2024; Torres, 2024; Zakharin & Bates, 2024). Is this also the case in Québec? Further study on the perceptions of the Québécois population is required to understand its needs in relation to a more general freedom of expression education.
Format Recommendations
In light of the literature discussed above, I recommend we first choose one of two main formats:
1) A situation d’apprentissage et d’évaluation (SAÉ); or,
2) An awareness campaign.
This decision should hinge on whether we believe it will be more impactful to target:
1) learners within the formal educational system directly; or
2) general learners outside of the classroom.
This decision should be clearer once we have a better idea of the perceptions of the Québécois population on freedom of expression.
Once we have developed, launched, and evaluated one of these two formats, future phases of project development may open up.
With an SAÉ for example, we may discover that pre-service teachers wish to learn more about freedom of expression outside of a single classroom activity. This could lead to Developing an SAÉ for professors to use in their existing courses is a feasible first step that opens doors to more ambitious opportunities.
With an awareness campaign, I also recommend starting conservatively in terms of resource expenditure and potentially making bids for additional funding if we discover interest in additional products. For example, we could start by developing an interactive website with a series of short videos. If the campaign gains attention and interest, we could then make requests to develop more costly tools like comic books or even a video game.
Below are two tables detailing my format recommendations, as well as product examples that could serve to meet the chosen format’s educational goals.
|
Format Type |
Audience |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Examples/Resources |
|
Situation d’apprentissage et d’évaluation (SAÉ) |
In-Service secondary school teachers Pre-service teachers Teacher education program professors |
In-demand format for teachers Can create multiple versions to target both in-service and pre-service teachers Existing templates facilitate creation process |
Requires extensive knowledge of Ministry program requirements (even with templates) Restricted to formal educational settings
|
SAÉ planning template for the CCQ Guidelines on choosing an SAÉ for the CCQ Developing content and methods that meet the CCQ competency requirements Example of an SAÉ webpage with printable materials for Sec 1 |
|
Example products: PDF documents, interactive websites, workshops. Could also include comics, films, or games as part of lesson plan. |
||||
|
Awareness Campaign |
University/college students Secondary school students
|
Social media strategies can reach a wider audience outside of formal classroom setting Deradicalization literature provides program design guidelines and toolkits |
Requires a firmly established social need/educational goal Social media strategies require ongoing resource investment
|
|
|
Example products: Interactive websites, video games, short films/documentaries, posters/infographics, comics, workshops, MOOC. |
||||
Note: The advantages and disadvantages listed below are hypothetical and come from my own personal and professional knowledge of each product type. Further research on these various product types may be necessary to anchor their pedagogical benefits and limits in the literature.
|
Product Types |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Examples |
|
PDF Guides |
Familiar format, accessible Requires few resources to develop Does not require Internet access (once downloaded) |
Less engaging Hard to update if changes required Less visible online/harder for search engines to optimize
|
Centre International PhiloJeunes : Fiche sur la liberté d’expression et ses limites Agence Science-Presse : Qu’est-ce que la liberté d’expression Cliquezjustice.ca : Modules sur la liberté d’expression HabiloMédias : La liberté d’expression et Internet Canadian Civil Liberties Education Trust: Freedom of Expression 101 |
|
Interactive website |
Possibility to collaborate with existing knowledge producers (e.g. Récit) Possibility to imbed other products within (comics, video capsules, video game, etc.) Easier to update if changes required Possibility to optimize SEO for increased visibility online Can be published on social media as part of an awareness campaign |
Can be resource-intensive (if done independently) Requires continued access to Internet
|
Récit : Comment[aire] la haine (guided lesson) Amnesty : Comprendre les discours toxiques (quiz) Centre de prévention de la radicalisation menant à la violence : Petit guide illustré de la haine au Québec (open educational resource) |
|
Massive open online course (MOOC) |
Possibility to collaborate with existing knowledge producers (e.g. TÉLUQ) Possibility to optimize SEO for increased visibility online Can be published on social media as part of an awareness campaign
|
Requires continued access to Internet Would be in competition with other MOOC providers if partnerships don’t occur |
TÉLUQ : La liberté d’expression UNESCO: International Standards on Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists (archived) Canadian Constitution Foundation: Learn about your Fundamental Freedoms Amnesty International: Freedom of Expression – a Fundamental Right |
|
Video Game |
Multimodal, engaging Development provides for interdisciplinary collaboration May be designed for use without Internet access If designed to be playable in a web browser, can be published on social media as part of an awareness campaign |
Resource-intensive, even with partnerships Hard to update if changes required Challenging to integrate into an SAÉ |
Ontario Justice Education Network: Access to Justice |
|
Card Game |
Engaging Development provides opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration Can be self-contained Does not require Internet access |
Resource-intensive, even with partnerships Can be difficult to learn Hard to update if changes required Cannot be published on social media as awareness messaging |
TAG, Robinson & Waddington: Cabinet Shuffle |
|
Role-Playing Game |
Engaging Less resource-intensive Easier to update if changes required Possible to integrate into an SAÉ Does not require Internet access |
Can be difficult to learn Require skilled moderation – not self-contained Cannot be published on social media as awareness messaging |
Reacting Consortium: Political Games |
|
Short Films |
Can be self-contained, ideally accompanied by a PDF guide or within an interactive website Development provides opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration Possible to integrate into an SAÉ May be designed for use without Internet access Can be published on social media as part of an awareness campaign |
Resource-intensive, even with partnerships Hard to update if changes required |
Project Someone : Attaquée : La haine au temps du numérique (to be used with this guide) Télé-Québec : La bombe (to be used with this guide) |
|
Comics |
Can be self-contained, ideally accompanied by a PDF guide or within an interactive website Development provides opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration Possible to integrate into an SAÉ May be designed for use without Internet access Can be published on social media as part of an awareness campaign |
Resource-intensive, even with partnerships Hard to update if changes required |
Radio-Canada : BD sur Raif Badawi Centre de prevention de la radicalisation menant à la violence : Radicalishow (to be used with this guide) |
|
Posters/Infographics |
Less resource-intensive Can be published on social media as part of an awareness campaign Does not require Internet access (once downloaded) |
Less engaging Hard to update if changes required |
Centre de prevention de la radicalisation menant à la violence : Vous avez observez ces changements de comportements chez une personne? |
|
Workshops |
Provides greater assurance that learners are acquiring the intended education objectives Opportunities for dialogue with learners Can be virtual or in-person Can be used for teacher training or for general education as part of an awareness campaign |
Requires attendance, less convenient Requires facilitator |
York University: Understanding Freedom of Expression at York University of Waterloo: Freedom of Expression in Canada Workshop South Asian Legal Clinic of BC: Drawing the Line: Hate Speech or Freedom of Expression?
|
What Comes Next
Once a format has been selected, product types will need to be considered based on the respective target audience’s needs as well as our available resources and partnership opportunities. Then, specific pedagogical methods will need to be evaluated and selected for use with our chosen format and product type(s).
For SAÉs, there is often a stark difference between what a teacher wills and what actually occurs in class, especially when it comes to the discussion of controversial issues (Cassar et al., 2023; Smolla, 2021; Waddington et al., 2024). For this reason, certain pedagogical methods may be more effective at teaching freedom of expression than others and need to be weighed carefully.
Since the literature on teaching freedom of speech provides limited evaluations of pedagogical methods, I recommend a deeper search of the research on methods for teaching controversial topics as well on citizenship education. I have begun collecting some of this relevant literature. For example, some scholars recommend instructional methods that encourage an open classroom climate (Siegel-Stechler, 2023) and build trust (Ben‐Porath, 2023), such as: practices of classroom democracy (Matto & Chmielewski, 2021) peer-teaching (Chandler Garcia & Ulbig, 2024), and structured academic controversy (Parker, 2021). Others provide strategies for using existing media, such as films (Marcus & Stoddard, 2009), graphic novels (Bae, 2022), and video games (Waddington et al., 2013) to teach controversial issues and promote critical reflection. Finally, there is a particularly large body of research on the use of role-playing and other dramatic techniques in the classroom that is worth exploring if we choose to develop an SAÉ.
Furthermore, any methods researched for use in the Quebec secondary classroom should be tested against Maxwell, Waddington and McDonough’s law-based principles for dealing with controversial issues in schools. This will apply to methods included in an SAÉ for in-service teachers, as well as method recommendations in SAÉ education for pre-service teachers.
Following Maxwell et al., (2023) methods must be:
– Suited to achieve the ministerial requirements for each grade level
– Pedagogically appropriate for each age level.
Teachers must avoid methods that:
– Place the teacher in a position where they might use their authority to promote their own personal opinions, viewpoints, or beliefs.
– Deliberately use inflammatory material to generate discussion.
– Create opportunities for students to bring in their own inflammatory content or create opportunities to engage in inflammatory speech.
Methods chosen for an awareness campaign have more freedom in this respect, but it is still important to consider the audiences that will be directly and indirectly targeted by the campaign. The development tools listed in the table above may help with this, as can the literature on deradicalization strategies.
Bibliography
Andsager, J., & Ross, S. D. (1999). Assessment of outcomes of free expression courses. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 53(4), 54–65.
Applebaum, B. (2007). Engaging student disengagement: Resistance or disagreement? Philosophy of Education Yearbook, 335–345.
Applebaum, B. (2009). Is Teaching for Social Justice a “Liberal Bias”? Teachers College Record, 111(2), 376–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100204
Aufderheide, P. (1991). Approaches to Teaching Freedom of Expression: Cross-Cultural Film Study: Seeing inside Out. The Journalism Educator, 46(2), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769589104600204
Bae, J. (2022). An Interview With Lisa Wool-Rim Sjöblom: Teaching and Learning Difficult Knowledge With Comics and Graphic Novels. Studies in Art Education, 63(2), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2022.2050990
Ben‐Porath, S. (2023). Learning to avoid extremism. Educational Theory, 73(3), 376–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12587
Boatswain-Kyte, A., David, S., & Mitchell, N. (2022). Black in the classroom: Teaching anti-oppressive practice in white spaces. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 42(2–3), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2022.2070578
Callan, E. (2016). Education in Safe and Unsafe Spaces. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 24(1), Article 1.
Cassar, C., Oosterheert, I., & Meijer, P. C. (2023). Why teachers address unplanned controversial issues in the classroom. Theory & Research in Social Education, 51(2), 233–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2022.2163948
Chandler Garcia, L., & Ulbig, S. (2024). Building Political Discourse Skills: Students as Teachers. Journal of Political Science Education, 20(2), 218–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2023.2267150
Cos, G. C., & Ivy, D. K. (1998). Obscenity, blasphemy, and sedition: An experimental capstone course in first amendment rights and responsibilities. Southern Communication Journal, 64(1), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417949809373121
Dallmann, A. (2024). Preserving Viewpoint Pluralism and Democratic Principles: Florida’s “Divisive Concepts” Law and Strategies for Challenging the Law’s Enforcement in K-12 and Higher Education. Journal of Law & Education, 53(1), 1–44.
Dewberry, D. R., Burnette, A., Fox, R., & Arneson, P. (2018). Teaching free speech across the communication studies curriculum. First Amendment Studies, 52(1–2), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2018.1500930
Dhali, H. H., Mahmut, D., Ghosh, R., & Tavakoli-Khou, A. (2022). The Potential of Quebec’s Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) Program in Preventing Violent Extremism: Perceptions of Students and Teachers at McGill University and University of Quebec in Montreal. Religion & Education, 49(2), 192–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2022.2059317
Eveslage, T. (1987). Teaching Free Speech Values to High School Students: Keys to Persevering Despite the Obstacles. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED284231
Gagné, L. (2024, November 26). Des enseignants du cours Culture et citoyenneté québécoise à bout de souffle. Radio-Canada; Radio-Canada.ca. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2122336/cours-ccq-materiel-pedagogique-epuisement
Geske, J. (1991). Approaches to Teaching Freedom of Expression: Teaching Free Speech in Advertising Classrooms. The Journalism Educator, 46(2), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769589104600203
Haiman, F. S. (1964). Iii. Some Reflections on the Teaching of Freedom of Speech. Speech Association of America: Committee on Freedom of Speech – Yearbook, 3(1), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/05848679.1964.10555854
Hand, M. (2008). What Should We Teach as Controversial? A Defense of the Epistemic Criterion. Educational Theory, 58(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2008.00285.x
Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion. Routledge.
Hilpert Jr., F. P. (1972). The Influence of a Course in Ethics and Free Speech in Changing Student Attitudes. Free Speech Yearbook, 11(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.1972.10555912
Hunsaker, D. M. (1970). Syllabus for Freedom and Responsibilities of Speech. Free Speech Yearbook, 9(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.1970.10555886
Hyslop, K. (2016, January 21). From Classroom to Courtroom, Gay Advocate’s 25-year Winning Streak. The Tyee. https://thetyee.ca/News/2016/01/21/Gay-Advocate-Winning-Streak/
Jackson, L. (2008). Silence, words that wound and sexual identity: A conversation with Applebaum. Journal of Moral Education, 37(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240801996891
Jolliffe, L. B. (1991). Approaches to Teaching Freedom of Expression: Industry’s Team Approach to Classroom Projects. The Journalism Educator, 46(2), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769589104600202
Khan, M. (2019). When Does Free Speech Become Offensive Speech? Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 21(1/2), (Sp)35-(Sp)50.
Marcus, AlanS., & Stoddard, JeremyD. (2009). The Inconvenient Truth about Teaching History with Documentary Film: Strategies for Presenting Multiple Perspectives and Teaching Controversial Issues. Social Studies, 100(6), 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377990903283957
Marshall, H. (2024). ‘We don’t have blasphemy laws in England.’ What does this mean for RE? Journal of Religious Education, 72(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-024-00224-5
Martinson, D. L. (2005). Building a Tolerance for Disagreement. Clearing House, 78(3), 118–122. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.78.3.118-122
Matto, E. C., & Chmielewski, R. (2021). Talking Politics: Creating a Course for Incoming Freshman on Political Discourse. Journal of Political Science Education, 17, 751–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2020.1818575
Maxwell, B., McDonough, K., & Waddington, D. I. (2020). La liberté d’expression des enseignants en classe: Quatre principes directeurs et leurs fondements juridiques. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 46(3), 174–198. https://doi.org/10.7202/1075992ar
Maxwell, B., Senécal, M., & Waddington, D. (2023). La liberté pédagogique et les thèmes sensibles à l’école un guide d’accompagnement pour les enseignant.e.s et les directions d’établissement. Centre d’intervention pédagogique en contexte de diversité.
Meeske, M. D. (1969). A Course in Freedom of Speech. Speech Association of America: Committee on Freedom of Speech – Yearbook, 8(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/05848679.1969.10555877
Mikander, P., & Satokangas, H. (2024). Addressing Democracy and Its Threats in Education: Exploring a Pluralist Perspective in Light of Finnish Social Studies Textbooks. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 43(5), 555–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-024-09934-7
Ministère de l’Éducation. (2024). Programme Culture et citoyenneté québécoise. Gouvernement du Québec. https://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/education/jeunes/pfeq/PFEQ-culture-citoyennete-quebecoise-Secondaire.pdf
Paddon, A. R. (1991). Approaches to Teaching Freedom of Expression: Parody as Free Expression: A Unit for Magazine Classes. The Journalism Educator, 46(2), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769589104600205
Parker, W. C. (2021). Structured academic controversy: What it can be. In J. C. Lo (Ed.), Making Classroom Discussions Work: Methods for Quality Dialogue in the Social Studies (pp. 73–89). Teachers College Press.
Rossiter Jr., C. M. (1969). Teaching Freedom of Speech in the Basic Course. Speech Association of America: Committee on Freedom of Speech – Yearbook, 8(1), 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/05848679.1969.10555878
Rossiter Jr., C. M. (1970). The Effects of Various Methods of Teaching About Freedom of Speech on Attitudes About Free Speech Issues. Free Speech Yearbook, 9(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.1970.10555887
Schwartz, S. (2010). Mock Trial: A Window to Free Speech Rights and Abilities. The Social Studies, 101(6), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377990903285473
Shahverdian, K., & Young, J. C. (2023). Campuses for All: How Free Speech Education Can Protect and Enrich Colleges and Universities. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 55(6), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2023.2263179
Shockley, D., & Morris, R. V. (2022). Professional Responsibility, Opinion, and High School Government Teachers Practicing the First Amendment in Their Community. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 88(5), 47–56.
Siegel-Stechler, K. (2023). “Conversation is everything”: How teachers and students create environments where open discussion can thrive. Theory & Research in Social Education, 51(4), 626–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2023.2219638
Smolla, R. A. (2021). Teaching and Preaching Free Speech. In E. Chemerinsky & J. Russomanno (Eds.), Speech Freedom on Campus: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 47–41). Lexington Books.
Soffer, V. (2024, August 27). Enseigner la culture et la citoyenneté québécoises au secondairecle. UdeM Nouvelles. https://nouvelles.umontreal.ca/article/2024/08/27/enseigner-la-culture-et-la-citoyennete-quebecoises-au-secondaire/
Speech Association of America. (1962). Ii. Teaching Freedom of Speech: Two Approaches. Speech Association of America: Committee on Freedom of Speech – Yearbook, 1(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/05848679.1962.10555849
Stitzlein, S. M. (2024). Shaping New Aims and Practices of Teaching Controversial Issues in Response to Conservative Critics. Studies in Philosophy and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-024-09961-4
Torres, E. (2024). Teaching Controversial Issues under Conditions of Political Polarization: A Case for Epistemic Refocusing. Educational Theory, 74(5), 696–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12666
Waddington, D. I. (2011). A Right to Speak Out: The Morin Case and its Implications for Teachers’ Free Expression. Interchange, 42(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-011-9146-3
Waddington, D. I., Maxwell, B., MacLean, T., McDonough, K., & Tavassoli, N. (2024). How free are classroom teachers? Understanding teacher academic freedom in the United States and Canada. Teachers and Teaching, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2024.2422859
Waddington, D. I., Thomas, T., Venkatesh, V., Davidson, A.-L., & Alexander, K. (2013). Education from inside the bunker: Examining the effect of Defcon, a nuclear warfare simulation game, on nuclear attitudes and critical reflection. Loading…, 7(12), Article 12. https://journals.sfu.ca/loading/index.php/loading/article/view/130
Zakharin, M., & Bates, T. C. (2024). Psychological pillars of support for free speech: Tolerance for offensive, disagreeing, socially divisive, and heterodox speech. Personality & Individual Differences, 219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112502