Mapping Controversies and Deliberative Democracy in Practice: An Applied Study of the “Local Autonomy and Conflict Resolution” Module in South Korea's Integrated Social Studies Curriculum for Senior Secondary Education

Kim Min-seop   [South Korean]

Abstract

South Korea's Integrated Social Studies curriculum emphasises cultivating civic literacy to address complex societal issues. Addressing the prevalent tendencies towards intellectualisation and oversimplification in teaching the ‘Local Autonomy and Conflict Resolution’ unit, this study designed and implemented a teaching case centred on ‘Controversy Map’ creation and ‘Miniature Citizens' Jury’ deliberation. The case was based on a fictional yet highly realistic local land development dispute: the ‘Cheongsong Valley Resort Development Conflict’. Students, assuming roles as residents, developers, environmental groups, and local government officials, progressively map the dispute to visualise stakeholders' positions, interests, value claims, and argument networks. Subsequently, they engage in structured deliberation as a ‘citizen jury,’ using the map to seek consensus-based solutions. This case aims to concretise and proceduralise the democratic deliberation process, cultivating students' capacity for systematic analysis of social disputes, multi-perspective empathy, and evidence- and rule-based deliberative democracy skills. It lays the foundation for them to become active localised citizens.

Keywords: Debate Map; Deliberative Democracy; Local Autonomy; Conflict Resolution; Integrated Social Studies; Civic Literacy; Secondary Education

Introduction

In contemporary South Korean society, conflicts of interest and divergent values have become increasingly commonplace within public decision-making processes, ranging from major national policies to the siting of neighbourhood facilities at the community level. The ‘Local Autonomy and Conflict Resolution’ unit within the high school Integrated Society curriculum aims precisely to cultivate students' core competencies for understanding and participating in such public affairs. However, current teaching often reduces ‘conflict resolution’ to merely ‘understanding local government structures’ and ‘learning a few resolution methods (such as dialogue and compromise)’, lacking in-depth exploration of conflict complexity, dynamics, and the specific processes of deliberative democracy. Consequently, students remain ill-equipped to navigate the intricate web of conflicting interests and values encountered in the real world. To address this shortfall, this study introduces the ‘Controversy Map’ as a cognitive tool, combined with the deliberative model of the ‘Citizens' Jury’. The argument map is a tool that visually represents the claims, reasoning, evidence, and interrelationships of all parties within a complex dispute. It assists students in transcending binary oppositions and systematically deconstructing contentious issues. The ‘citizen jury,’ as a micro-practice of deliberative democracy, emphasises prudent consultation grounded in full information, clear rules, and equal standing. This case study integrates both approaches, using a simulated local development dispute as a vehicle. Students engage in a complete process of ‘role immersion – map creation – deliberate deliberation,’ enabling deep learning about the essence of local autonomy and the democratic art of conflict resolution. This paper details the design, implementation, and evaluation of this teaching case, aiming to provide an innovative paradigm for civic education practice in South Korea that focuses on process and thinking skills training.

I. Background and Theoretical Framework of the Teaching Case Design

1. Curriculum Content Analysis: This unit resides within the ‘Democratic Society and Citizenship’ module of the Integrated Social Studies curriculum. It requires students to comprehend the significance of local autonomy, the role of local government, and to master democratic methods for resolving social conflicts. The core lies in the construction of practical knowledge.

2. Student Profile Analysis: Year 12 students possess relatively strong abstract thinking abilities and show interest in social hot topics. However, their analyses often remain emotional and one-sided, lacking structured analytical tools and experience in rational negotiation.

3. Theoretical Framework: Deliberative democracy theory, Socially Significant Issues (SSI) teaching methodology, visual thinking tools.

II. Implementation Process of Teaching Case (4 lessons total)

Phase One: Contextualisation and Role Construction (1 lesson)

1. Introduction: Present real-world news reports on local development disputes in South Korea (e.g., Jeju Island, Sejong City cases) to prompt students' initial reflections on value conflicts between economic development, environmental protection, and housing rights.

2. Core Scenario Presentation: ‘Qingsong Valley Resort Development Dispute’ – Distribute a comprehensive ‘case dossier’ detailing regional context (population ageing, economic decline), development plans (location, scale, employment projections), environmental assessment reports (contentious points), and resident opinion surveys (highly polarised views).

3. Role allocation and team formation: Divide the class into four stakeholder groups:

① Local residents seeking livelihood improvement;

② Developers and some local government officials prioritising development and tax revenue;

③ Environmental organisation members focused on ecological conservation;

④ Higher-level government coordinators seeking balance and regional development. Each group must further subdivide roles internally (e.g., residents may include businesses supporting development and farmers opposing it).

4. Task Preview: Inform students that the ultimate goal is to convene a ‘Citizens' Jury Hearing on the Qing Song Valley Dispute.’ Each group must present their position and participate in negotiations during the hearing. The primary preparatory task is to create their group's ‘Argument Map.’

Phase Two: Creating the ‘Argument Map’ (1.5 lessons)

① Tool Learning: The teacher explains the fundamental components of a ‘Dispute Map’: core claims (our position), primary arguments, supporting evidence, anticipated counterarguments from the opposing side, and rebuttals. Introduce visual presentation methods (e.g., mind maps, concept map variants).

② Group Research and Mapping:

1. Each group thoroughly examines the case files and, from their assigned role's perspective, gathers additional ‘evidence’ (the teacher provides a pre-designed supplementary resource pack, e.g., excerpts from legal statutes, data from similar cases, expert opinion summaries).

2. Groups map their ‘Claim-Reason-Evidence’ tree diagram. This constitutes the first-level map.

3. Critical step: Each group attempts to infer the main arguments of the other three parties, incorporating these as ‘opposing branches’ into their map. They then devise and annotate their counter-strategies. This process generates a dynamic, second-level ‘debate map’ featuring opposing viewpoints.

③ Map Presentation and Peer Review: Groups present their maps. Other groups act as ‘opposing roles’ to challenge them, prompting the presenting group to refine and enhance their map accordingly.

Phase Three: Citizen Jury Hearing and Deliberation (1.5 teaching periods)

1. Establishing Rules: Announce hearing protocols, including speaking time, sequence (statement-cross-examination-free deliberation), evidence-based discussion principles, and prohibition of personal attacks. Appoint a teacher or student representative as chairperson.

2. Structured Deliberation Process:

①Position Statements: Each party clearly articulates core claims, key rationale, and evidence based on the ‘Controversy Map.’ Use phrasing such as ‘We understand... but we believe...’ to demonstrate acknowledgement of opposing concerns.

②Cross-Examination: Parties may question evidence or logic presented by others, with respondents providing answers. This phase aims to clarify facts and expose logical inconsistencies.

③Free Negotiation and Solution Exploration: Under the facilitator's guidance, parties move beyond entrenched positions to jointly explore ‘creative solutions’ balancing multiple core interests. Examples include: Can development scale or location be adjusted? Could a community benefit-sharing fund be established? How might stricter environmental monitoring protocols be designed?

3. Consensus Formation: Attempt to draft a ‘Qingsong Valley Development Proposal’ reflecting the broadest possible consensus, clearly identifying agreed terms and outstanding disagreements requiring suspension or escalation to higher-level adjudication.

III. Analysis and Reflection on Teaching Outcomes Through observation and analysis of students' ‘Dispute Maps,’ hearing recordings, final proposal texts, and post-lesson reflection reports, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. Enhanced Systemic Thinking: The ‘Dispute Map’ compelled students to organise fragmented information and emotional viewpoints into logically structured arguments. Student feedback noted: ‘Mapping forced me to question “why I hold this view” and “why others oppose it”—immediately deepening my thinking.’

2. Internalisation of deliberative democracy skills: Through rigorous hearing procedures, students personally experienced rational expression, active listening, cross-examination, compromise, and creative problem-solving. One student portraying a developer wrote: "When I insisted solely on “full-scale development”, negotiations reached an impasse. But when I proposed “phased development, with initial profits reinvested into the community environment fund”, I saw a shift in the other side's demeanour. I learnt that negotiation isn't about winning or losing, but jointly crafting new forms for the shared pie."

3. Cultivating Multi-Perspective Empathy: Role-playing and mapping opposing viewpoints compelled students to transcend their initial stances, understanding that conflict stems from legitimate divergences in group interests and values. This effectively mitigated the polarised thinking prevalent in online environments.

4. Challenges and Reflections: Firstly, the process is time-intensive, requiring substantial allocated teaching hours. Secondly, it places significant demands on the teacher's classroom facilitation and control skills, particularly during free negotiation phases where timely intervention is needed to break deadlocks or deepen discussions. Finally, the simulated scenario still falls short of real-world power dynamics and information asymmetry; the reflection session must guide students to discuss these limitations.

Conclusion

 By organically integrating the ‘debate map’ and ‘citizen jury’ methodologies, this teaching case successfully transforms the abstract topic of ‘local autonomy and conflict resolution’ into a practical activity that students can engage with, experience, and reflect upon. It transcends mere knowledge transmission, focusing instead on cultivating core civic participation competencies: systematic analysis, rational argumentation, and prudent negotiation. The case demonstrates that this immersive, process-oriented instructional design effectively aids students in comprehending the complexity of democratic decision-making and the necessity of deliberative procedures. It provides valuable preparatory experience for students to become active, rational, and responsible citizens in future societal life. This model is transferable to teaching other socially contentious issues and holds broad applicability.

References

[1] Ministry of Education. (2022). Integrated Social Studies Curriculum. Ministry of Education Notice No. 2022-33.

[2] Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press.

[3] Jeong, Y. H., & Lee, M. Y. (2020). The impact of debate map creation activities on secondary school students' SSI argumentation skills and decision-making. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 40(3), 315-328. [4] Kim, B. J. (2018). Research on developing civic education programmes for local autonomy and conflict resolution. Civic Education Research, 50(2), 1-30.

[4] Oh, Young-hee. (2019). A case study of integrated social studies lessons in high schools using the “mini-public” approach: Focusing on housing redevelopment conflicts. Social Studies Education, 58(1), 89-113.

[5] Freeman, J. (2013). The argument toolkit: A curriculum for critical thinking and discussion. IDEA.

[6] Korea Institute of Public Administration. (2021). Analysis of the current state and improvement measures for consultation systems to resolve local conflicts. KIPA.

[8] Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Springer.