P REFACE
“It is my desire, it is my wish to set out to sing, to begin to recite to let a song of our clan glide on, to sing a family lay The worlds are melting in my mouth, utterances dropping out, Coming to my tongue, being scattered on my teeth.” The Kelavala (Compiled by Elias Lonnrot, Harvard U. Press, 1963, p. 3)
As this new edition of Social Studies for the Twenty-First Century goes to press, the social studies community is living in a changed educational world, one dominated by the Internet—our huge and rapidly growing electronic base of knowledge. The advantages of this base for social studies offers astounding possibilities for teachers: unheard of quantities of original sources now digitalized, vast troves of lesson plans, and canned versions of almost anything a teacher could desire, including aims, lessons, units, courses, texts, tests, scholarly discussions, and lectures. And let us not forget wonderful media, including online courses, videos, film clips, interviews, lectures, and music. All this material is ours for the taking and is very rich and varied. Easily found and easily forgotten, too.
However, the specter of a knowledge explosion and subject fragmentation haunt the horizon of a virtual reality that seems to be replacing ordinary reality in the secondary school curriculum. There are many problems and issues that have arisen as the Web has expanded, and computers, electronic notebooks, and cell phones have become almost universally available. Problems range from sublime to ridiculous, but the biggest, in my view, is that teaching methods and curriculum are out of synch with the new electronic opportunities. Students are distracted by machines and social media, with outcomes positive and negative.1
Certainly, the new C3 NCSS Framework based on Common Core goals bears a deep desire for an ‘inquiry arc’ rather than data collection as a supreme objective. The Common Core seeks a much richer and deeper kind of instruction for our youth based on decades of accumulated research on teaching and learning.2
Despite widespread dissemination of computers and most teachers’ extensive knowledge of websites, the sheer quantity available tends to overwhelm both us and our students. Rather than providing deeper insight and analysis, the Web gives so many choices (many not sourced
or checked) that research is required simply to choose the one or two sources we hope to get across to our students.
Added to the complexity of knowledge expansion and curriculum rigidity and lack of innovation is the new ‘reform’ movement that has encompassed and endorsed quite an array of methods and structures to organize goals and content. These reforms run the gamut from multiple evaluation systems to the newly popular Common Core, with many attempts discarded or added in between.
In this new world, the authorities (federal, state, and local governments), often in conjunction with private industry, have imposed new objectives and evaluation systems for teachers without a great deal of philosophical consideration about what we really want from ourselves and our pupils in terms of input and results. Teachers and educators have seldom been at the forefront of consultations.
The Common Core—a basis for new integrated standards for the social studies—in particular needs careful examination and conversation because it is the dominant set of goals that has been adopted widely across our nation by many professionals, states, and communities. Irony abounds since the deeply analytical Common Core demands complex inquiry behavior from teachers who must also face cutbacks and a rather antique curriculum. Legislated inquiry and historical habits of mind are on the way in, if not already in place, largely by fiat from above.
Yet, as teachers of social studies, we are still left with the same old basic problems and questions: what to teach, how to teach, why this organization of curriculum, and how do we ascertain results? The Web has created opportunities unlimited but also issues of information overload and sourcing the origins of materials, sometimes now called social studies ‘phenomena.’ However, choosing quality data and quality learning are even greater problems since the Internet desperately needs a version of Consumer Reports for educators so we can sift the wheat from the chaff. There are websites now designed to find other websites.
And above all is that perennial question of what is worth teaching. This question is our central focus throughout the book, helping you to decide in the light of multiple demands from within and without, what is really of value for the youthful citizens of tomorrow, and for ourselves as social studies and history teachers. Must we teach manifest destiny?
You are invited to use this newly revised and updated fourth edition of Social Studies for the Twenty-First Century as a guide, framework, and reference for teaching social studies at the middle and secondary levels. In earlier editions, I had sought to provide a fair and balanced review of the field using up-to-date curriculum, research, and theory, including important work on history, civics, and economic education, and this will continue along with transmission of a sprinkling of classic lessons and research studies.
ABOUT THE FOURTH EDITION
In this edition, expansion of horizons is increased to include other social sciences, and I extend a welcome to the humanities and sciences, as well. The social studies can draw successfully from a wide array of fields and connect to many subjects to enrich lessons, units, and courses. However, caution must be exercised in making the social studies a conglomeration of facts and ideas without a character or focus of its own.
This edition employs the concept of ‘multiples’ as a guide: multiple perspectives, intelligences, sources, strategies, and course conceptions. There are many ways to achieve and exceed the standards. These techniques are spelled out clearly and supported with multiple examples.
As in previous editions, I stake out a position on what I think constitutes excellence in teaching, rooted in the inquiry method proposed by John Dewey and others 100 years ago or more, but still not terribly well implemented in schools. More than ever, I am in favor of deeper and more reflective teaching of history through primary and secondary sources promoting higher order thinking and the development of empathy as springboards to seeing and understanding the world, not only as we want to see it, but as others view it
However, social studies and history, as well as much of the U.S. curriculum, is facing ‘reform’ from above, not from teachers themselves, with legislated goals and standards that demand a ‘constructive,’ ‘productive,’ ‘value-added’ core-like curriculum without giving much attention to the nitty-gritty of daily lessons, or course content. The Common Core, for example, asks teachers to advance their skills and promote high levels of historical and language literacy, while curriculum itself is left largely at a standstill.3
So, we have problems facing our field that are similar to those facing most other fields, as well: issues of content, process, adaptation to audiences (differentiation), knowledge outcomes, measurable results, and emotional satisfaction for teachers, parents, and students. Questions can also be raised about investment in education rather than tests and evaluation systems. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, several key questions need consideration in our field. These include:
• Deciding what knowledge is of greatest worth in terms of process and content—an overall philosophy of instruction.
• Deciding how to judge the quality of knowledge, texts, sources, and websites in terms of accuracy and fairness, balance and agenda.
• Deciding why we adopt and adapt specific materials we have chosen or have been chosen for us to student audiences.
• Deciding on methods of teaching that may best advance student and teacher growth from lower to higher levels of thinking.
• Deciding and experimenting with ways of engaging student interest and stimulating ideas about history and the social sciences, as well as related subjects.
• Deciding when and how to bring students into conversations about key emotional and value issues that are embedded in human history that persist to the present day.
• And deciding when, where, and how to be creative professionals who invent our materials and strategies.
The social studies is a large and complex field, embedded in what is now a rapidly growing electronic world of knowledge seemingly so fragmented, yet entertaining, so rich, yet distracting, that, at times, its essence is difficult to grasp. In the future, we will need approaches to knowledge as much as knowledge itself.
In this edition, I review and critique much of the new and recent research on youthful comprehension of history, civics, and economics, noting reported and potential classroom application. History is a primary focus of social studies and always has been, but it is still part of a larger and more complex whole of the social sciences and humanities. There are also new advocates appearing promoting connections to STEM (the sciences, math, technology, and engineering) and STEAM (the “A” is for “Arts”) that make the work of a social studies teacher more difficult and demanding than in previous eras.
While I strongly favor an integrated concept of the field, with improved connections to other fields, I also suggest caution to avoid social studies becoming amorphous and pointless.
And there is the continuing problem of teachers learning how to integrate and intelligently use subject matter infusions. How about talking about the huge problems facing humankind in social studies: the decline and exploitation of the environment; the rapid rise of security and decline of privacy; and the growing inequality with the U.S. and around the globe? Therefore, throughout this text, I argue for more thoughtful and realistic history teaching as part of better social studies instruction.
As in previous editions, I provide an overview of social studies/history theory, goals, curriculum, and everyday practice in terms of three interlocking components: the didactic (information), the reflective (reasoning), and the affective (values). These components of planning for instruction should be thought of as three overlapping spheres of development, each moving into the other and contributing to an overall view of subject that includes facts, reasons, and judgments.
Didactic refers to all teaching and learning activities that revolve around gathering knowledge, from memorizing dates and definitions to matching tests. Reflective concerns all activities that focus on analyzing and thinking about data, research, or issues—reasoning for which more than one answer is possible. Affective deals with those facets of classroom life in which feelings, opinions, values, ethics, empathy, and morality dominate. Thus, each of the three components has a different, although not exclusive, focus: didactic mainly on the what, reflective on the why, and affective on decisions about the good—what ought to be decided in a better world. Each component is discussed as contributing to and complementing the others; each enriches classroom discussion and learning.
In addition to offering a basic philosophy of teaching social studies, informative “boxes” are scattered throughout for you to think about: summaries about research studies past and present (Research Reports); items to stimulate curriculum ideas (Food for Thought); instructional gimmicks (On Lessons); and places for you to get involved with designing activities that grow out of each subject and chapter focus (Applications).
And do not forget that as social studies folks, we have the most powerful justification for our subject as a key subject: we are teaching about the real world where present evolves out of past, and where similar questions, issues, and mysteries appear as perennial companions to human behavior.
P ERSONAL P ROLOGUE
Social Studies for the Twenty-First Century is an effort to present the field of social studies with an up-to-date discussion of its most important developments and persisting issues in our rapidly globalizing, electronically connected world. Like many other fields, social studies is a vast and complicated subject full of problems and inconsistencies. To the new teacher and the uninitiated, social studies may seem confusing and fragmented, leaving practitioners rudderless in steering a course through its reefs and shoals.
As in previous editions, in this fourth edition, I attempt to offer an overall framework that can act as a guide for setting objectives, devising lessons, and choosing classroom strategies. I also offer assistance in constructing tests and planning lessons, units, and courses for some of the field’s most popular and widespread programs. Throughout, all aspects of curriculum and instruction are viewed from a tripartite perspective that divides the world of social studies into didactic, reflective, and affective components. I use didactic, reflective, and affective to stand for the lower (factual), middle (analytical), and higher (judgmental) orders of thinking, decision making, and feeling, allowing each about a third of classroom time. The three levels are seen as supporting one another in a C3 ‘arc of inquiry’. At no time do I subscribe to interest groups in the field who want only their goals stressed at the expense of others. In my view, the greatest need is for social studies professionals to balance goals so their students obtain necessary knowledge, time for adequate discussions, and encouragement to probe their own feelings and those of others on the important issue, ultimately taking a stand that they are willing to act upon. It is the teacher’s job to give students the knowledge and skills needed to prepare a solid defense for their views, decisions, and actions.
Of course, giving equal emphasis to each of the three components of teaching is deeply optimistic. We know that social studies (maybe all) teachers are pressed from myriad directions to cover the “facts,” finish the textbook, teach thinking skills, complete special projects, use cooperative learning techniques, add assessments to their testing repertory, keep up to date with research and curriculum in the field, join and become active in professional organizations, and now meet professional, state, and national standards ad infinitum. On top of this, many schools provide a work experience that can be characterized as regimented, demanding, and overstuffed with nonteaching responsibilities. Some schools are repressive
and authoritarian as well, giving little or no leeway for creativity or time to breathe freely for a few moments of creativity.
Pressured situations make excellence in teaching social studies nearly impossible. Valiant effort is necessary to overcome professional demands and personal development problems. Certainly, stoic qualities of endurance have served teachers and teachers-to-be better than Epicurean, fun-loving characteristics!
Nevertheless, I believe that this frequently grim picture must be resisted or we will all lose sight of the joys of teaching—working with young adults and future citizens, trying new and exciting methods and materials and improving our own knowledge and understanding of the subjects we teach. Teachers and students need to recapture a sense of play as well as meet the goals of work.
Part of the reason social studies is disliked by so many secondary students is that it holds out the promise of democracy, of vibrant discussion and debate, without delivering much in actual practice. Didactic or knowledge nearly always triumphs over reflective reasoning and controversy. The “sexy stuff,” as one of my students put it, caves in to the “laundry list” of purportedly vital knowledge of dates, names, and places. Oddly enough, the famous “great books” or historical artifacts are almost never experienced first-hand by young adults, although reports and studies decry lack of familiarity with the classics.
To my mind, the only topics in the social studies worth teaching and talking about are those that contain or suggest questions with many answers. As a beginning high school teacher in Chicago, I remember vividly how bored my urban, inner-city classes were with the facts they had to know and how lively they would become when we did anything that gave them an active role and a chance to “spout off.” Many were so unused to speaking in public that they would at first slump down into their desks to avoid a question from their overzealous teacher. Others found the experience of free speech in a social studies classroom utterly exhilarating and shone immediately. However, after a period of frustration and struggle with their new roles, most found that they not only had something to say, but also were getting better at saying it!
I still recall having to teach these young people the dynasties of ancient Egypt—a really ‘useful’ topic for them! The class session was awful until we got around to discussing death, a grim but fascinating topic to which nearly everyone suddenly had something to contribute. The class divided along the lines of those who judged the ancient Egyptians “nuts” for their practices and others who empathized with their fears about death and their need to soften its blow. The dynasties were quickly forgotten, but the conversation on death and how humans cope with sadness carried on throughout the year. Such experiences taught me a lesson in ideas, how to motivate student inquiry, and what goals are important to creating an exciting classroom.
Clearly, didactic information is necessary, but not enough to gain deep understanding or reach for the big ideas! There must also be analysis, synthesis, examination of feelings and values, or the whole teaching enterprise dies a slow death from information overkill and lack of emotion. My second job, teaching younger middle-school students in Michigan, only served to confirm this principle. The young teens were, if anything, even more restless and impatient than the senior high school students. They, too, had plenty to say, although much of it was relatively uninformed and immature. Nevertheless, the teacher must start where the students are (prior knowledge!) if some measure of success is to be achieved. The opposite path seems to lead mainly to college-style lecturing and the worst kind of pedantic demands—that students need great amounts and of background data to think adequately about any topic in
history and the social sciences. Overlooked is the fact that it takes a lifetime truly to master a field! Thus, full background knowledge is a goal that is not only impossible for young adults, but one that also prevents going beyond the data given to reach higher realms of understanding, reasoning, and making choices.
So, you might ask, where is this all going?
To this point: The heart and soul of social studies instruction, perhaps all teaching lies in stimulating the production of ideas, looking at knowledge from others’ viewpoints, developing a sense of empathy, and formulating for oneself a set of values, and beliefs that can be explained and justified in open discussion. Questions and answers should be open both ways, with audience and actor, teacher and student willing and able to exchange and modify each other’s conclusions and commitments.
Thus, you are asked to read this book as a set of optimistic suggestions for setting goals, lesson planning, curriculum design, and experimentation. You are free to choose from its resources what you need and can handle. You are also free to reject ideas and opinions that you see as unsuitable. You may say, “You’re kidding, I can’t do this!” or “I have better ideas!” You are also invited to experiment with curriculum and judge the outcomes yourself. This book is constructed to represent a ‘reach’ for the social studies classroom. But what can I do as a teacher who has devoted many years to our field? Bemoan its problems and restrictions? Fall into the trap of cynicism and apathy? It seems to me we must all struggle with our local work situations, local, state, and national bureaucracies, redefining teaching in terms that suit ourselves and provide the deepest and most exciting instruction for our pupils.
One way of doing this is to keep our minds open to new ideas and keep a wary eye on those administrators, bureaucrats, and social problems that hem us in and sap our energies. Let’s try not to be seduced by vast compilations of “facts” on lovely websites, but always be ready to check sources and test arguments and conclusions against other sources, and a strong sense of logic. Let’s talk about the big issues of our times, both positive and negative, such as freedom and inequalities, empire and peace, the destruction of habitat and environmental protections, and apathy versus empathy for our fellow human beings.
Just as I am advocating a balance between social studies goals and techniques, content and process, so am I advising you to juggle subjects, students, and school life until a satisfactory equilibrium is achieved among competing forces. Any classroom session I observe in which the social studies teacher and the students divided their time equally between acquiring knowledge, thinking about motives, and making choices amid competing values rates as a wonderful enriching inquiry experience, deeply assisting in comprehending the human and physical world as we know it. So take this as an invitation to think about subjects, stories, and students on the way to developing your own style and stand as a teacher, and let me hear from you now and then.
This page intentionally left blank
P HILOSOPHY AND H ISTORY OF S OCIAL S TUDIES :
W HAT I S (A RE ) THE S OCIAL S TUDIES ?
This page intentionally left blank
S OCIAL
S
TUDIES : D EFINITION , O RGANIZATION , AND P HILOSOPHY
LINKS TO C3 FRAMEWORK
D1.1.6–8. Explain how a question represents key ideas in the field.
D1.1.9–12. Explain how a question reflects an enduring issue in the field.
C3 Framework, p. 24
OVERVIEW
What Is (Are) the Social Studies? Defining a Discipline
Organizing Principles from Way Back When
The Origins of Differing Social Studies Perspectives
Goals as a Bridge between Theory and Practice
Theory and Practice
Summary For Further Study: Foundations
Notes
Social studies should be defined in multiples. It is an all-encompassing subject representing a fusion of history and the social sciences with help from the humanities and the sciences. Most teachers, however, are teaching history and civics, a smaller portion geography and economics, and still smaller percentages devoted to psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Different traditions flow within the veins of social studies, one coming from history as a discipline, another from civics, and a third from the social sciences. So, one definition of social studies is to include pretty much everything having to do with human history and society. Educators have never fully agreed on a common definition of social studies. We have not yet decided whether the subject is singular or plural, a unity or a collection. We have
PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF SOCIAL STUDIES
experienced considerable conflict over goals, and this is ongoing. As a result, all social studies teachers confront certain dilemmas at the outset: what to teach, how to teach, and why to teach it. A major question is what lies at the heart of the subject. Some say history, some decision-making, and some scientific method.
There are fissures within the field between and among subgroups, but nearly all unite around the recently developed Common Core-inspired “College, career, and civic life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards” that calls for ‘an inquiry arc’ as its overall philosophy:
“Social studies prepares the nation’s young people for college, careers, and civic life. Inquiry is at the heart of social studies.
Social studies involves interdisciplinary applications and welcomes integration of the arts and humanities.
Social studies is composed of deep and enduring understandings, concepts, and skills from the disciplines.
Social studies emphasizes skills and practices as preparation for democratic decision-making.”
While the C3 Framework provides goals and guidance, teachers must still make decisions about evolving and testing a teaching style that suits their situations and audiences, hopefully within an inquiry philosophy. Creating and practicing a pedagogical style is exactly what this book is designed to help you accomplish. Social studies has a history that can be traced back to philosophical debates about its purpose and place in the curriculum. A deep divide is represented by a split between those who emphasize learning content versus those emphasizing critical thinking and preparation for democratic life. Many argue that the main goal of social studies is to transmit knowledge about the past, a didactic goal—one that emphasizes telling.
Others protest strongly that the goal of acquiring knowledge is not enough. Critics point out that information must be digested, analyzed, and applied in order to be useful. Forms of reasoning are a reflective goal. There is also a strong lobby for social studies to serve as an agent of social change, for active citizenship education. Even citizenship education has its problems now and long ago. Socrates—probably an outstanding activist and gadfly—was put on trial in a democracy for impious acts. Could there be such a thing as asking too many questions in a democracy?
Advocates in the activist camp worry about the need for participants in the democratic system, those who vote and pursue an ethical lifestyle. This we describe as an affective goal because it encompasses moral questions, feelings, emotions, judgments, and values. Didactic, reflective, and affective dimensions of teaching social studies form part of everyday school practices and disputes about education theory and philosophy.
In addition to debating goals, some define the social studies largely as the study of history; others see it primarily as a study of the social sciences: anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. Still others suggest that social studies is a field unto itself, offering an interpretation of society to young people, while a minority views it as useful for building of student self-confidence and encouraging good values. Each view has contributed to the current complexity of the curriculum.
At the secondary school level, our field is usually defined in practice by mandated course content: world and U.S. history, economics, and civics with a smattering of social sciences and special electives. Classroom realities like too much work, public opinion, budget restrictions, and insufficient classroom time further narrow the range of what is actually offered and how the subject is taught. In addition to the usual pressures are newer ones involving national
standards, a Common Core curriculum, and a push for uniform testing. Also, do not forget to keep up with your email, texts, tweets, and other inboxes!
Theoretically, social studies may include any topics or issues that concern human behav ior—past, present, or future. Content is most typically organized around one of the three dimensions or goals identified. Some educators would add at least two other organizing principles to this list: (a) a philosophy of social action, and (b) a person-oriented humanism that encourages self-regulation, confidence building, and personal growth. Each of these organizing principles has goals, methods, and curriculum additions, which have grown out of those schools of philosophy that influenced educators over the last 100 years and more.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Which subjects have you studied that should be included in social studies and which excluded? Sociology? History of science? Driver training? Marketing? Media? Ancient history? Character education? Service learning?
In this chapter, you are invited to study different definitions of social studies, different ways of organizing goals, and the competing schools of philosophy that have influenced this field. You are invited to apply the three dimensions to help you decide what, how, and why to teach every day in your social studies classroom.
WHAT IS (ARE) THE SOCIAL STUDIES? DEFINING A DISCIPLINE
A major conflict in the definition of social studies is contained in the title of this section: Is the social studies a single, integrated field, or are the social studies a series of related disciplines? Social studies is a relatively new subject in the world of academic disciplines, a product of public school expansion in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The field of study was originally designed to meet a number of needs, including the preservation of democratic life; the upgrading of skills for an increasingly industrialized, technological economy; and the socialization of vast numbers of new immigrants into the general population.1 Given diverse purposes, it comes as no surprise that social studies represent a fusion of several different strands, including history (a classical humanities academic discipline), the social sciences (with roots in empirical, scientific traditions), citizenship training (derived from both nationalism and social criticism), and self-enhancement (with roots in psychological and pluralistic/multicultural traditions).
Edgar B. Wesley’s famous definition, “the social studies are the social sciences simplified for pedagogical purposes,”2 suggests that social sciences form the heart of the discipline—a notion that many would dispute and that does not typically represent the practices of secondary school teachers. More fairly, we can define secondary school social studies as the study of history, citizenship, and ethical issues that deal with human history, human behavior, and human values. In short, social studies in the classroom is about how and why people act, what they believe, and where and how they live. It is about actions, ideas, values, time, and place—a series of topics that covers an immense range, but allows tremendous latitude in the selection of materials and methods for teachers.3 Although there is and will continue to be considerable debate on a theoretical level about what social studies is and should be, most secondary instruction on a practical level is defined
PHILOSOPHY
by content and courses mandated by state or local requirements that are basically similar from district to district. In this area, it is always useful to read through landmark thinkers like John Dewy, Jerome Bruner, and Howard Gardner, as we all borrow freely from them.
Your style and philosophy, however, are your own. As a social studies teacher, you should understand the different schools of thought and the rationales behind them, and from this understanding, slowly and carefully evolve a philosophy that suits your own view of subject and audience. A key issue here is the choice between eclecticism—an attempt to include many viewpoints—or a commitment to one major approach as your principal guide to action. An eclectic approach that collects many topics, views, and techniques may seem fairer in the classroom, but it may also lead to confusion about goals, inconsistency, and a disorganized approach to content. A consistent approach, however, may produce clear, consistent results, but leave you and your students with a narrower range of ideas.
The social sciences, history, citizenship, social action, and personal development advocates want to give social studies a different “heart” to supply its body with the sustenance of life, set its goals, and direct action. Each position derives from different philosophic grounds and tends to stress widely varying criteria for the content, methods, and outcomes of instruction. For example, in a reflective social science lesson, students might be asked to analyze the reasons for the rise of dictators rather than focus on any single example such as Mussolini or Hitler. A didactic history lesson might discuss political causes of the American Revolution. Citizenship-centered material might be a debate focused on voting rights and responsibilities in the here and now. A social action approach might typically ask students to study an issue such as world hunger, take a position on how to address it, and implement a plan for action. A lesson stressing personal or character development could involve service learning and social activism asking students to make contributions to the community. Thus, a dilemma exists not only of definition, but also of choice: Should you attempt to resolve conflicting conceptions, integrating and fusing them into a united whole? Or should you accept and utilize one of the competing conceptions, the ‘arc of inquiry’ to guide all classroom decisions? How can we organize our thinking about a diverse and fragmented field?
LET’S DECIDE
Form a group of at least three colleagues or classmates, write your own definition of social studies, and share your views. Is everyone’s view more or less alike or different? Why? Do you think history IS social studies, or do you prefer a civics or social science overall theme? Why or why not?
Organizing Principles from Way Back When
A Three-Part Approach
A number of organizing conceptions of social studies can serve as an aid to understanding the dynamics and pressures of the subject. Barr, Barth, and Shermis, for example, offer a view of social studies as divisible into three traditions: one to promote social science, a
second to promote citizenship, and a third to promote refl ective inquiry. 4 The social science tradition offers the fi ndings, concepts, and rules of the different social sciences, centering on the scientifi c method. Organizing ideas might include social class, culture, location, power, or the market system. The social science tradition seeks to give secondary students a sample of the ideas, skills, and data available to social scientists, “reduced to manageable terms for young people.” 5 Ultimately, Barr, Barth, and Shermis see the social sciences as supporting citizenship education by encouraging analysis of and generalizations about human behavior.
The citizenship transmission approach is teaching goals and expectations for U.S. society, seeking to develop the ideal participant in a democratic society. The desired product is someone who knows and understands the culture and its values and is able to function effectively as an active citizen. The intent of the transmitters is to inculcate within students those democratic beliefs and convictions that will be supportive yet critical of social and political institutions while providing assistance in choosing careers and developing personal capital. Barr, Barth, and Shermis view the purpose of the citizenship transmission tradition as being “to raise up a future generation of citizens who will guarantee cultural survival.” 6
The third tradition, social studies taught as reflective inquiry, proposes analysis and decisionmaking as the heart of a student’s classroom life, applied to the content and process of knowing and valuing. Method and content are closely related to conclusions, theories, and judgments subject to critical interpretation. Problem solving and critical thinking are integral to the reflective inquiry tradition; the student is placed in a situation in which she or he must deal with ambiguities and unknowns in order to make sense of the world. Inquiry process, according to Barr, Barth, and Shermis, is one “that involves all of the techniques and strategies that lend themselves to improving the students’ ability to ask important questions and find satisfactory answers.”7
The three traditions to correlate purpose, method, and content:
Tradition I: Citizenship/Cultural Transmission/National Values and Heritage
Tradition II: Reflective Thinking/Inquiry-Problem Solving/Social Criticism
Tradition III: Social Science/Scientific Method and Empiricism/Search for Truth.8
Brubaker, Simon, and Williams suggest a similar organizing scheme that includes citizenship, social science, and reflective inquiry, but adds a student-oriented tradition of a sociopolitical “involvement,” meaning participation in social action.9 The purpose of the student-oriented tradition is self-enhancement and the building of self-confidence; and it includes cultural awareness. The authors view social studies as a vehicle for building identity and strengthening psychological perceptions of the self, aimed at successful social, family, and community relationships. Sociopolitical involvement is a label for social criticism and political activism. A major purpose of social studies is to promote political activism for such goals as social justice, free speech and assembly, international peace, etc.
Note that these earlier analyses of social studies and its traditions has much in common with the three major dimensions: didactic, reflective, and affective. Social science and history can have a heavily didactic purpose. Reflective inquiry and critical thinking are, of course, most like our reflective dimension because reasoning is primary. Civic education clearly involves moral values, social criticism, self-analysis, and public controversy—judgments that fit the affective dimension. Thus, current practices and philosophies have grown out of
earlier models picking up new ideas and content as we head into the 21st-century Age of the Internet.
RESEARCH REPORT
A previous five-dimensional view of social studies was bolstered by a survey of teachers’ philosophic preferences by Irving Morrissett for the Social Science Education Consortium (1977). In this study, most teachers surveyed identified one or more of five principal areas that comprised social studies:
1. The transmission of culture and history.
2. The life experiences of personal development.
3. Reflective or critical thinking and inquiry.
4. Social sciences processes and subject matter.
5. The study of social and political controversies with the aim of promoting political activism.
A sample of secondary teachers saw history as a main link for knowledge of the past along with citizenship values. The social sciences overall were viewed as providing a scientific/ analytic framework. Reflective inquiry was considered as promoting students thinking through the investigation of social issues and problem solving. The action approach was viewed as involvement in real political processes and leadership in the world outside, as well as in school. Teachers saw the student-centered approach enhancing appreciation and understanding of self and others in society through discussion of personal beliefs and deeply held values.
Source: Irving Morrissett, “Preferred approaches to the teaching of social studies,” Social Education, 41 (March 1977), pp. 206–09.
The Origins of Differing Social Studies Perspectives
Social studies goals, definitions, categories, research agendas, curricula, and pedagogy can be traced wholly or in part to several philosophical movements that have had widespread impact on education as a whole in the U.S. and abroad. Almost every teacher’s pattern of behavior, self-concept, and curriculum decisions reflect one or more of these philosophic conceptions. Often conflicting, sometimes overlapping, evolving one from another, some systems have had almost universal impact, while others have remained the province of theoreticians and researchers. The major organization for social studies education, the National Council for the Social Studies, reflects the many competing philosophies of education, now drawn together into a single C3 Framework. Some advocate citizenship as central, others claim history as central; some view social studies as a “theory of instruction,” whereas others see it as a real “education program.”10 Multiple views have directly affected the choice content and practice. Overall, the social sciences and special topics have lost ground. The recent trend has definitely been in favor of history and historical ‘habits of mind’ but this view certainly falls within an inquiry arc and supports long-sought reflective goals.
Perennialism and Essentialism
Advocates of an ancient influential philosophy labeled perennialism argue that absolute and unchanging truths exist in human history. Social studies educators who adhere to this tenet
believe that students need to understand and apply truths to daily life and that studying these truths will produce competent, culturally literate individuals who know and understand their own history, capable of transmitting events to others. Perennialists support the study of history with an emphasis on skill development; curriculum centers on the study of Western civilization’s classic works, typified by Mortimer Adler’s ‘Great Books program’ that still exists.11 A perennialist perspective continues in the work of E. D. Hirsch’s Cultural Literacy School lessons should consist of two complementary parts: an intensive and an extensive curriculum. “The extensive curriculum is traditional literate knowledge, the information, attitudes, and assumptions that literate Americans share: cultural literacy.” The intensive curriculum “encourages a fully developed understanding of a subject, making one’s knowledge integrated and coherent.”12 Hirsch extends his argument for common goals and curriculum, arguing in favor of a standard national curriculum as a key to improving student learning.13 A Core Curriculum ancestor for sure!
A second school of thought closely allied to perennialism is often referred to as essentialism. One advocate, William Bagley, argued that students must know the basics or essentials of knowledge to be truly educated, and that these essentials include a strong dose of skills, concepts, and values drawn from the study of history, government, and economics.14 Essentialism and perennialism have a classical bent, usually emphasizing rigorous training in traditional disciplines of study. Theodore Sizer, for example, is a more modern exponent of essentialism, directing a movement for school reform through a “coalition of essential schools” that aim to train teachers in asking “essential questions.”15
Essentialism seeks a primary commitment to the transmission of knowledge as effectively as possible. In a recent work, Sizer made clear that the essential schools movement seeks a “focus on helping adolescents learn to use their minds well,” learning to use classical knowledge rather than simple rote memorization.16 Advocates have probably had a greater impact on social studies content perhaps than followers of any other philosophy.
Scientific Empiricism and the New Criticism
A second approach to social studies education derives from the principles of scientific inquiry. Social scientists have built on the techniques and tools of the scientific method in an effort to identify laws, principles, theories, and rules of human thought and behavior. These “empiricists” studied people as individuals, groups, and across cultures.
In secondary schools, educators sought to emulate empiricism by involving students in the scientifi c method, creating projects based on experimentation, survey research, and case studies. Students were encouraged to think in terms of probabilities rather than absolute truths, offered different perspectives to interpret evidence, and exhorted to be fair, objective, and unbiased in drawing conclusions. This search for solidly grounded data was an all-consuming passion in social science during the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. Toward the end of the 1970s, criticism mounted against attempts to defi ne social science through the scientifi c method alone, especially against the notion that conclusions and theories could ever be entirely value-free. Strongly infl uenced by philosophers Jurgen Habermas and Thomas Kuhn, many turned to the so-called “new criticism.” 17 These ideas, sometimes termed phenomenology or critical theory , abandoned, wholly or in part, the concept of objectivity and suggested that science can never be ‘fully’ free of value claims. 18 Critics in social studies as elsewhere expressed deep suspicion not only about empiricists’
PHILOSOPHY
conclusions, but also about research designs and methods, arguing that values form a basis for human investigation, and must be examined and made explicit. As Richard Bernstein points out:
When we examine those empirical theories that have been advanced, we discover again and again that they are not value-neutral, but reflect deep ideological biases and underlying controversial value positions. It is a fiction to think that we can neatly distinguish the descriptive from the evaluative components of these theories, for tacit evaluations are built into their very framework.19
Scientific empiricism greatly influenced content and method in social studies curriculum throughout the middle and later decades of the last century. The ‘new’ criticism has wielded less influence, but has had a considerable impact on academics and administrators who seek to promote student activism and decision-making. Advocates suggest that a willingness to examine policy and value claims should be fundamental to social studies education.20
Pragmatism and Progressivism
Pragmatism is a term often applied to the work of John Dewey, a key educational philosopher in the U.S., along with other educational “progressives” who emphasize the development of students’ reasoning and judgment applied to everyday civic life. Dewey saw education as part and parcel of supporting democratic traditions in the United States and around the world. Terms associated with Deweyian philosophy include problem solving, problem finding, reasoning, reflective thinking, inquiry, critical thinking, and creative thinking. Social studies methods are very strongly influenced by pragmatic or philosophical ideas. Dewey stressed the importance of building links among schools, community, and student experiences. Relationships are recognized, ideas analyzed, and decisions made through a thinking process that works from grounding in evidence and inductive and/or deductive logic culminating in conclusions. Conclusions or decisions will then presumably lead to taking action in terms of social commitments, political decisions, and personal growth.21
If essentialists tend to be preoccupied with content and traditions, pragmatists and progressives tend to emphasize process.22 Pragmatists see the curriculum as an open and flexible system capable of absorbing and applying new ideas, rather than be defined by a list of universal or eternal classics. As might be expected, progressives advocate the building of critical thinking and decision-making skills in the social studies classroom. The product of a progressive social studies education might well be a shrewd consumer, an intelligent and well-informed voter, an active participant in community life, and a life-long seeker of new ideas and new skills. Common Core seems very much in a Deweyian mode of thought, though giving less attention to social justice or making judgments.
Some educators see pragmatism as including personal growth in a democratic society and use terms like self-actualization, self-fulfillment, identity, and character education 23 Service learning is a descendant of this point of view contributing to civic action for the common good, although perhaps rather conservative in terms of political action. Multiculturalism also draws on the same philosophical base because transformative education and social protest are part of good citizenship in a democracy that seeks to correct injustices. Activism against civic and social prejudices is seen as part of citizen responsibility. Overall, pragmatism seeks what might be called a middle ground between essentialism and the more radical reconstructionism.
Reconstructionism and Public Issues
Social justice is a cherished value in Western tradition, and promoted in social studies. For those to whom social justice is a primary goal, social studies education provides a perfect vehicle for encouraging students to take a role in the affairs of the community, the nation, and the world, and to raise their voices in objection to moral lapses, political chicanery, and the destruction of the Earth for economic gain.
George S. Counts, who christened this philosophy “reconstructionism,” argues that the schools must play a role in changing or reconstructing society.24 Count’s work has been eagerly adopted by many, some of whom see schools, especially secondary, not only as sites for discussion of controversial issues, but also as participants in social action projects.25 Doing good, not just discussing good, is seen as the result of studying history.
Critical pedagogy developed by scholars such as Michael Apple, Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren, and Joel Spring provides a thorough analysis of the relationship between schooling and society, rooted in arguments that social injustice grows in part out of an unequal distribution of skills, knowledge, and resources in schools. 26 The long tradition in favor of discussing controversial issues also stems from earlier activist notions of teaching.
Reconstructionism has had a wide-ranging impact on social studies education—especially in the 1930s, 1960s, and 1970s, continuing to the present—reflected in curricula that emphasize current events, mock trials, debates, and simulations, raising judgmental questions about equality, the distribution of goods and services, foreign policy choices, international conflict and peace, and environmental issues such as famine, exploitation, destruction of wetlands, and air and water pollution. A public issues curriculum reflects a primary concern with current and persisting problems in history.27
Reconstructionists have in common with pragmatists their emphasis on critical thinking and decision-making. Adherents teach students to examine their own beliefs in order to decide which ones they would be willing to uphold with action; others frankly seek to indoctrinate students with their own values that they view as ethically correct. Participation, protest, and political action are major goals for social studies because ‘social reconstruction’ still runs wide and deep within educators at many levels in our field.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Which of the philosophies or traditions do you find most appealing for a teaching career? Do you enjoy content? Is activism necessary? What are the reasons for your choices?
For you, as a teacher, two worlds—one of day-to-day classroom practice and the other of ideological goals, debate, and research—must always be kept in mind if you hope to make sense of the field. Although the theoretical is often intensely debated by representatives of the different philosophic schools of thought, practical classroom concerns usually reflect professional standards, mandated content, course sequence, testing, subject matter, and student audiences. For better or worse, classroom practice tends to be quite stable from decade to decade, with remnants of all of the earlier philosophies of education still competing with one
another for dominance.28 The bottom line is still tell and ask later, while we would prefer ‘ask, don’t tell!’
RESEARCH REPORT
Based on a study of more than 300 junior high and 500 senior high school classrooms, John Goodlad found that, by and large, teaching social studies is and has been geared to present information as fact in a style closer to old-fashioned recitation than to modern democratic discussion. He concluded:
What the schools in our sample did not appear to be doing was developing all those abilities commonly listed under “intellectual development:” the ability to think rationally, to use and evaluate knowledge, intellectual curiosity, and a desire for further learning. Only rarely did we find evidence to suggest instruction likely to go much beyond mere possession of information to a level of understanding the implication of that information and either applying it or exploring its possible applications. Nor did we see in subjects generally taken by most students (including social studies) activities likely to arouse students’ curiosity or to involve them in seeking solutions to some problems not already laid bare by teacher or textbook. The traditional image of a teacher possessing the knowledge standing at the front of the classroom imparting it to students in a listening mode accurately portrays the largest portion of what we observed. . . . And why should we expect teachers to teach otherwise? This is the way they were taught in school and college.
From your own school experiences and observations, do you agree with Goodlad’s 30-year-old findings? Do you see more or less variety than he and his researchers uncovered? What do you believe the “climate” of a secondary social studies classroom should be now to fit C3 Standards?
*John Goodlad, “What some schools and classrooms teach,” Educational Leadership, 40, no. 7, (1983), p. 15.
TO DO
Collect two or three social studies history textbooks.
Find passages on the same topic or period, perhaps World War I, or the Progressive Era, or 9/11. Read and decide whether the lesson represents a fusion of several philosophies or is presented from a single viewpoint. Are facts most important or are questions most important? How can you tell?
GOALS AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE
Virtually every choice you will make as a social studies teacher will be based on the goals or learning objectives that you set for students. Objectives and goals, by their very nature, are drawn from theory and philosophy then translated into practice in the form of topics, goals, and questions.
Goals are the bridge between philosophy and practice, between setting objectives, carrying out the lessons, and evaluating results. Look, for instance, at the following typical objectives:
1. Students will learn the important dates, places, and events of World War II.
2. Students will memorize the definitions of commonly used legal terms.
3. Students will list five issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians.
These goals share a common thread: data collection. They suggest methods, materials, and questions that are didactic, stemming from a cultural transmission approach to social studies. Now look at a second set of goals:
1. Students will compare and contrast policy positions of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
2. Students will discuss some causes and consequences of the rise of rebellions and revolutions, recent and past.
3. Students will use data analysis to produce a theory of economic development for a given nation.
These goals all involve a reflective approach to social studies emphasizing a social science data analysis scientific approach to drawing conclusions. Finally, here is a third set of objectives.
1. Students will study and evaluate U.S. foreign policy on Syria and the Middle East.
2. Students will identify the most urgent environmental problem in their area and propose actions to remedy it.
3. Students will debate the political, ethical, and moral ramifications of gun control or the lack of it.
These goals share a commitment to the examination of values and represent different elements of social criticism, social action, and citizenship traditions. All reflect controversial themes and an affective approach to social studies education.
Objectives are not always as clearly derived from one or another of the major social studies philosophies. However, goals almost always reflect one or more of the three dimensions in some way. Knowledge of philosophical premises and definitions of the dimensions will enable you to choose your goals more effectively and support them with appropriate materials, methods, and teaching strategies.
There is considerable agreement—although for different reasons and toward different ends—that the development of high-quality reasoning skills is a key goal, but there is considerable disagreement about how much stress should be placed on teaching controversial and current issues as opposed to teaching the heritage and traditions of the common, dominant culture. Similarly, proponents of virtually all philosophic positions support presentation of accurate content and engaging methods of inquiry, such as in teaching global studies and American history, but argue heatedly about the role of indoctrination versus value-free teaching. If teachers set goals that demand one right answer, in terms of data or values, that limits inquiry and student opportunities to work out their own values. In other words, inquiry demands great care by teachers in speaking their own values, or endorsing any one particular interpretation as correct, even when patriotic controversies are raging. Inquiry nurtures young people into the art and science of thinking through and defending choices based on evidence and reasons, not prejudice or loyalty.
