Vocational students’ limited access to civic learning has been a continuing concern (Rosvall & Nylund, 2022; Wheelahan, 2015). Misinformation, disinformation and the growth of populism and neo-nationalism globally are making this question even more topical. Students encounter conflicting views on social media and may pose spontaneous questions to their teachers on various issues, such as how to respond to the climate crisis, migration, or matters of gender equality and equity (Cassar et al., 2021; Dadvand et al., 2022). What teachers do when faced with these kinds of controversial global issues plays a crucial role also in vocational education and training (VET) where critical thinking has been emphasised less than in the academic track (Rönnlund et al., 2019; Zuurmond et al., 2023).    

In Finland, the school-based upper secondary VET is popular, with nearly half of the 16-year-old young people continuing their studies in the vocational track. Many adults also enter VET. When compared to the academic track, vocational students have more diverse backgrounds in terms of socioeconomic status, academic achievement, political attitudes, age, gender, mother tongue, or ethnicity. This heterogeneity provides an interesting research context for the focus of this paper, addressing controversial global issues in education.

Ethical and critical reflection as well as global responsibility feature among the ‘underlying values’ of all initial vocational qualifications in Finland. Yet, little is known about how VET teachers apply these values in practice. Recent studies have emphasised how Finnish VET teachers want to educate students for a good life, citizenship and social participation, fostering students’ growth more holistically beyond the immediate needs of the world of work (Löfgren et al., 2022; Ryökkynen & Räty, 2022). At the same time, teachers are struggling with the growing demands for efficiency, individualisation and fast graduation that constrain teachers’ possibilities to support students (Niemi & Jahnukainen, 2019).

Studies on teaching controversial issues in VET are limited. In other educational contexts, addressing controversial issues has been seen to develop learners’ critical thinking and democratic competences when provided an open classroom climate for dialogue, dissent, and reflection on diverse views  (Hess & McAvoy, 2015). Yet, particularly in pluralistic and polarising societies, teachers struggle with fostering this openness while ensuring the safety of marginalised or minority students (Pace, 2021). Although ways to organise VET differ between countries, these educational needs and challenges are widely shared across different socio-political contexts.

Our paper addresses the gaps in the literature with these two research questions:

(1) How do VET teachers describe their pedagogical approaches to addressing controversial global issues?

(2) What differences can be found between VET teachers’ pedagogical approaches to addressing controversial global issues?

Our study draws from research on teaching of controversial issues (Gindi & Erlich, 2018; Hess & McAvoy, 2015; Pace, 2021) as well as from critical global citizenship education stressing the need to question assumptions, learn from others, and encounter difficult knowledge (Blackmore, 2016). The paper contributes to the discussion on the civic aims of VET, and on how school settings can provide the time and space for students to also participate in debates on societal controversies (Rosvall & Nylund, 2022; Wheelahan, 2015).

Our study employed a mixed-method approach both in terms of data collection and analysis. The data was gathered through an online questionnaire for teachers (N=187) in March-April 2022 and four focus group discussions (FGDs) with teachers (N=12) in September-October 2022. Study participants included both vocational and common subject teachers from upper secondary VET schools in Finland. Questionnaire items included questions and statements using a 5-point Likert scale (1. not at all, 2. little, 3. to some extent, 4. much, 5. very much), multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions focusing on teaching of global issues, and in the second part of the questionnaire, particularly on controversial global issues. Survey responses were anonymous. The largest respondent group in the survey were teachers of technology (n = 35, 19%) followed by teachers of common units in communication and interaction competence (n = 33, 18%). All fields of teaching, geographical regions and different age groups were represented among the survey respondents. Participants for the FGDs were mainly recruited among survey respondents who had expressed interest to participate, leaving their contact details on a separate form. Most participants identified as female (8/12) and had Master's level education (11/12). Participants taught both vocational and common units. Building on the survey responses, the FGDs concentrated on controversial global issues that the participants had encountered in their teaching and interaction practices within VET. Participants were asked to describe challenges and opportunities related to their experiences in dealing with controversial issues with their students, talk about the characteristics of their student groups, and share their needs and hopes on the issues they would like to tackle with their students. Each FGD included two to four participants from different VET schools and fields of study. The verbatim transcriptions of the focus group material comprise 189 pages with a total recorded length of five hours and 42 minutes. Participants were presented with information on the research and GDPR, following the ethical guidelines of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (2019). The survey results were analysed through descriptive and inferential statistical methods. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) was used to analyse the open-ended survey answers as well as the FGDs. The analytical framework was built on previous research on teachers’ pedagogical approaches, dividing them into teacher-initiated, student-initiated, and silencing or avoiding controversial issues (Cassar et al., 2021; Hess & McAvoy, 2015).

The findings show that the participating VET teachers generally listen to students’ wishes to engage also with controversial global issues. They stressed the need to remain neutral and avoid ‘preaching about climate’ or expressing political views. However, teachers also recognised the growing prevalence of conspiracy beliefs, antisemitism and questioning of gender equality among students. Extreme views in terms of offensive content, and not only of the tone of speaking, pose challenges to teachers wanting to maintain a balanced, neutral approach (Hess & McAvoy, 2015). In these cases, teachers described their efforts to challenge students’ rigid views by providing factual knowledge and incorporating multiple perspectives into the discussion. Statistically significant differences were found between teachers’ pedagogical approaches. Teachers of technology stood out as a group that discussed less both societal and global issues with their students. They also encouraged students less to express and justify their views on contradictory societal questions. Teachers of health and wellbeing and teachers of common units of citizenship and working life competence were more likely to discuss divisive questions and values with their students. The statement on educating students to question the prevalent society divided participants the most (M = 2.69, SD = 0.98), with technology teachers agreeing the least (M = 2.27), and teachers of arts and humanities (M = 3.21), health and wellbeing (M = 3.12) and common units of citizenship and working life competence (M = 3.04) the most with the statement. The study highlights that not only common subject teachers, but also vocational teachers encounter controversial global issues in their teaching. VET teachers are well placed to resist neo-nationalism, mis- and disinformation, and eroding social trust, but they need more time and pedagogical training on how to develop critical thinking and democratic dialogue with diverse student groups.

Blackmore, C. (2016). Towards a pedagogical framework for global citizenship education. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 8(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.8.1.04 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE. Cassar, C., Oosterheert, I., & Meijer, P. C. (2021). The classroom in turmoil: Teachers’ perspective on unplanned controversial issues in the classroom. Teachers and Teaching, 27(7), 656–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.1986694 Dadvand, B., Cahill, H., & Zembylas, M. (2022). Engaging with difficult knowledge in teaching in post-truth era: From theory to practice within diverse disciplinary areas. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 30(3), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1977985 Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK. (2019). Guidelines for ethical review in human sciences. https://tenk.fi/en/advice-and-materials/guidelines-ethical-review-human-sciences Gindi, S., & Erlich, R. R. (2018). High school teachers’ attitudes and reported behaviors towards controversial issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.006 Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2015). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. Routledge. Löfgren, S., Ilomäki, L., & Toom, A. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions on relevant upper-secondary vocational graduate competencies and their development. Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.2212298 Niemi, A.-M., & Jahnukainen, M. (2019). Educating self-governing learners and employees: Studying, learning and pedagogical practices in the context of vocational education and its reform. Journal of Youth Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2019.1656329 Pace, J. L. (2019). Contained risk-taking: Preparing preservice teachers to teach controversial issues in three countries. Theory & Research in Social Education, 47(2), 228–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1595240 Pace, J. L. (2021). Hard questions: Learning to teach controversial issues. Rowman & Littlefield. Rönnlund, M., Ledman, K., Nylund, M., & Rosvall, P.-Å. (2019). Life skills for ‘real life’: How critical thinking is contextualised across vocational programmes. Educational Research, 61(3), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1633942 Rosvall, P.-Å., & Nylund, M. (2022). Civic education in VET: Concepts for a professional language in VET teaching and VET teacher education. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2022.2075436 Ryökkynen, S., & Räty, K. (2022). Vocational special needs teachers promoting inclusion in Finnish vocational education and training. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 6(3). https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.4838 Wheelahan, L. (2015). Not just skills: What a focus on knowledge means for vocational education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 750–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1089942 Zuurmond, A., Guérin, L., van der Ploeg, P., & van Riet, D. (2023). Learning to question the status quo. Critical thinking, citizenship education and Bildung in vocational education. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2023.2166573