LXD Style Guide

iPD’s Guide for Course Design & Development

Framework for Controversial Content

Standard

List all of the standards with which Michigan Virtual courses need to comply. 

For example: What WCAG standard is this iPD convention based upon?

Michigan Virtual courses must align with the Michigan Virtual Framework for Controversial Content to ensure appropriate handling of sensitive or potentially controversial subject matter in course design and delivery.

 

Requirements 

What exactly does iPD need to do in order to comply with each standard?
Write in easy-to-understand language with links to the source(s). 

For example: What exactly do captions need to include?

Refer to the linked document in Resources below for more information.  The requirements include, but may not be limited to the following:

Use multiple viewpoints that include diverse voices and perspectives. 

Support open and safe discussions about controversial issues. 

Incorporate personal reflection opportunities based on thoughtful questions. 

Use facts that are verified by established and respected sources which can be contextualized to support learners as they explore issues with multiple interpretations. 

Leverage appropriate expert and novice opinions to help explain controversial issues. 

Include explicit definitions in learning material to address ambiguities regarding the meaning of key concepts, principles, and phrases. 

 

Implementation 

How can iPD implement this standard? What is the process for doing so?

For example: What is the process for getting captions created for a video?

Follow the framework to guide our instructional design process.

  • Use multiple viewpoints that include diverse voices and perspectives.
    We believe examining controversial issues from different angles is key to promoting empathy, civic reasoning, and discourse, which is needed in a democracy. Key points of controversy will be explored; however, all viewpoints may not be covered in the same depth. We strive to present multiple credible perspectives while carefully avoiding false equivalence between views that lack evidentiary support or promote misinformation, discrimination, or harm. We do not encourage divisive rhetoric, and we strive to share different perspectives without dishonoring individuals or groups. 
  • Support open and safe discussions about controversial issues.
    We believe this activity supports increased political efficacy, civility, and knowledge. We encourage individuals to share their thoughts about complex civic, political, and social issues, and we design instructional activities that allow for respectful and honest dissent. We recognize that supporting educators with ongoing training and facilitation strategies is essential to equip them with the tools needed to guide these discussions effectively. We do not support dialogue that substantially disrupts the learning environment or violates the rights of others. 
  • Incorporate personal reflection opportunities based on thoughtful questions.
    Asking questions, even if rhetorical, can provide powerful insights as learners seek to grasp new or difficult concepts. 
  • Use facts that are verified by established and respected sources which can be contextualized to support learners as they explore issues with multiple interpretations.
    We believe facts can help tell stories in powerful ways, but we avoid empirical statements that have no basis in evidence. In an era where AI-generated content, deepfakes, and misinformation can distort facts, we emphasize the importance of teaching media literacy alongside verified sources to build student discernment.
  • Leverage appropriate expert and novice opinions to help explain controversial issues.
    We present opinions not as fact or a way to champion a single viewpoint. We clarify that novice perspectives may include authentic lived experiences, student voice, or emerging scholarship, recognizing that such viewpoints enrich understanding when properly contextualized. We believe opinions that are contrary to an individual learner’s stance represent an educational opportunity, not a threat. 
  • Include explicit definitions in learning material to address ambiguities regarding the meaning of key concepts, principles, and phrases.
    We make use of widely accepted definitions to support learners so they can better understand content that includes unfamiliar, vague or confusing language. 
  • Governance, Policy, and Application
    We believe we can do more to help others examine controversial issues in meaningful ways to cultivate critical thinkers and civic engagement, and ultimately strengthen our democracy. We are open to addressing a full range of topics and views that lie within broadly accepted parameters of K-12 education. As always, Michigan Virtual retains the right to determine content publication consistent with our mission, applicable laws, educational standards, and the safety and well-being of learners. Michigan Virtual will continue to support educators who need guidance, tools, and support to do this work skillfully and thoughtfully. We look forward to working with our content development partners to support and expand on this framework. 
  • Legal and Policy Awareness
    Michigan Virtual remains attentive to the evolving legal landscape governing curriculum and instruction related to controversial topics. We seek to balance open inquiry with compliance to relevant state and federal laws while safeguarding the professional integrity of educators and the rights of students.

 

Accountability

How can iPD test or track the successful implementation of this standard?

For example: What is the process for testing the implementation of captions?

Review the course before deployment to ensure it follows the framework.

 

Resources

What resources would help a developer implement this standard appropriately?

For example: If someone needs to learn more about how to caption videos or see real examples, where would they go to find them?

Framework for Controversial Content