Handbook of Research in Social Studies Education

Linda S. Levstik, Cynthia A. Tyson, Linda S. Levstik, Cynthia A. Tyson

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781135601454
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Éducation
• Categoria: Éducation générale

This Handbook outlines the current state of research in social studies education – a complex, dynamic, challenging field with competing perspectives about appropriate goals, and on-going conflict over the content of the curriculum. Equally important, it encourages new research in order to advance the field and foster civic competence; long maintained by advocates for the social studies as a fundamental goal.

In considering how to organize the Handbook, the editors searched out definitions of social studies, statements of purpose, and themes that linked (or divided) theory, research, and practices and established criteria for topics to include. Each chapter meets one or more of these criteria: research activity since the last Handbook that warrants a new analysis, topics representing a major emphasis in the NCSS standards, and topics reflecting an emerging or reemerging field within the social studies. The volume is organized around seven themes:

• 
  
  

• Change and Continuity in Social Studies

• 
  
  

• Civic Competence in Pluralist Democracies

• 
  
  

• Social Justice and the Social Studies

• 
  
  

• Assessment and Accountability

• 
  
  

• Teaching and Learning in the Disciplines

• 
  
  

• Information Ecologies: Technology in the Social Studies

• 
  
  

• Teacher Preparation and Development

The Handbook of Research in Social Studies is a must-have resource for all beginning and experienced researchers in the field.

1 Introduction

Linda S. Levstik

University of Kentucky

Cynthia A. Tyson

The Ohio State University

In 1994, after decades of debate regarding the goals and purposes of social studies, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) reiterated its commitment to civic competence as the “ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good” in “a culturally diverse, democratic society . . . [and] interconnected world” (NCSS, 1994). While the 1994 definition briefly alludes to the place of “coordinated, systematic study drawing upon . . . traditional academic disciplines,” the curriculum standards document developed to accompany the new definition organizes the field around themes (also identified as strands) rather than disciplines.¹ Most themes include organizing questions (i.e., “How can individual rights be protected within the context of majority rule?”), connections between organizing questions and civic competence, and grade-appropriate “performance expectations.” Rather than offer one more in an almost endless supply of content standards, NCSS chose to shift focus “from content . . . to method” (p. 158). Accordingly, the “guiding vision” behind the standards places disciplinary content within a coherent citizen education curriculum engaging “students in the difficult process of confronting ethical and value-based dilemmas [encouraging] students to speculate, think critically, and make personal and civic decisions based on information from multiple perspectives” (p. 159). Citizenship goals and purposes rather than (though not exclusive of) disciplinary structures would guide curriculum planning. To this end, NCSS offered an addendum to their standards, a “vision of powerful teaching and learning in the social studies” (p. 156).

“Vision statements” in diffuse and relatively loosely-defined fields such as social studies offer some insight into the issues and questions with which scholars contend, and that is certainly the case here.² The NCSS (1994) statement defines some terms common to the field (social understanding, civic efficacy), attempts to clarify the civic purposes and goals of social studies, identifies “key features of ideal social studies teaching and learning” (p. 162) and outlines the conditions necessary for “developing and maintaining powerful social studies programs” (p. 171). Accordingly, powerful teaching and learning in the social studies would mean that

teachers model fundamental democratic principles in their classrooms, discuss them as they relate to curriculum content and current events and make them integral to the school’s daily operations. . . . [S]ocial studies programs also prepare students to connect knowledge with beliefs and action using thinking skills that lead to rational behavior in social settings. . . . [and] develop social and civic participation skills that prepare students to work effectively in diverse groups to address problems by discussing alternative strategies, making decisions, and taking action: To pursue social and civic agendas through persuasion, negotiation, and compromise; and to participate actively in civic affairs.” (pp. 160–161)

Given the perspective outlined above, research in social studies might be expected to focus on connections among content, method, and civic behaviors with diverse populations and in international context, on the challenges of persuasion, negotiation, and compromise in various classroom and community settings, and on the complexities of active participation and rational behavior in civic affairs. As Daniel Pearlstein (1996) noted, community and democracy may both be worthy but not always overlapping educational goals. Community, for instance, is always somewhat ambiguous, marking borders and exclusions that create social inequalities on the one hand, and fostering citizen involvement and facilitating demands for justice on the other. Yet many social studies educators share the progressive ideal of a public school as a “hub, indeed engine, of democratic community life” (Pearlstein, 1996, p. 634). It is worth considering, then, what such a perspective illuminates or obscures, and the extent to which research might help us understand and, to the extent possible, work with its affordances and mitigate its constraints.

In a field whose goals include developing citizens who can draw on history and the social sciences to inform decision-making, we might also expect research to investigate the relationship between disciplinary ways of knowing and informed decision-making. And, given the emphasis on making decisions in an interdependent world, we might hope that research helps us understand how social studies might prepare globally responsible citizens. Saying that the world is interdependent has become so unremarkable as to be a cliché. Recognizing interdependence, however, offers little help in working across borders, sorting out local, national, and global interests, recognizing fundamental differences as well as similarities, or having enough information and understanding to participate intelligently and humanely in related decision making. What experiences prepare students to recognize others’ perspectives, or encourage them to care enough to take others’ perspectives into account, much less do so without abandoning individually or communally important social values (NCSS, p. 166)?

Finally, social studies exists within social, cultural, and political contexts where different aims and purposes take precedence or elicit controversy at different times. The National Council for the Social Studies may advocate for a particular version (or vision) of social studies, but alternative approaches arise in professional training and development programs, disciplinary standards, state assessment frameworks, and local interests (Adler, 1991; Grant, 2003; Segall, 2002). Scholarship in social studies has always included attention to these contending aims and interests. Indeed, one could argue that the field suffers from too much attention to defending itself against its critics and not enough to the kind of research that might help the field realize the lofty aims espoused by its proponents. The reviews of research included in this handbook suggest that without a firmer research base, social studies’ educators’ expressed intent will continue to exceed their empirical reach.

PROMOTING CIVIC COMPETENCE

To some extent, the research published in social studies journals between 1995 and 2007 reflects the emphases laid out by the National Council for the Social Studies. More articles in Theory and Research in Social Education (TRSE), the primary research journal in the field, focus explicitly on aspects of civic education than on any other topic. The same holds true for social studies research published in general education journals such as The American Educational Research Journal (AERJ), Teachers College Record, and the Journal of Curriculum and Supervision. As represented in these journals, research related to civic education falls into five broad categories. The first focuses on the development of civic ideas and inclinations within the United States’ pluralist democracy. This body of work includes historical and philosophical studies as well as investigations of students’ and teachers’ civic attitudes and understandings and classroom practices within the United States. A second category investigates civic ideas, attitudes, and values in cross-national context. While scholarship in this category focuses largely on Western democracies, it provides insight into the impact of differing Western contexts on civic education and suggests interesting research possibilities in other parts of the world. A third category of scholarship concentrates on democratic discussion and decision making. Most studies in this category locate discussion and decision making in the context of engagement with controversial issues in the classroom and in the larger (usually national) society. Research in a fourth category falls under the rubric of “service learning”—an approach that seeks to ground civic action in informed, evidence-based decision making and includes studies of civic participation— activity (usually local) designed to enhance the “common good.” Finally, a fifth category examines the connections between citizenship education, cosmopolitanism, and multicultural education.

Scholarship related to race, culture, and ethnicity appears regularly in social studies research journals as well as in general education journals. Between 1995 and 2007, for instance, three research journals, TRSE, AERJ, and Teachers College Record devoted a combined total of seven special issues or sections of their journals to some aspect of diversity, educating for multicultural competence, or race/ethnicity-based achievement gaps in the United States. In addition Social Education and Social Studies offered an array of articles and special issues devoted to aspects of teaching or learning about race, culture, and ethnicity. Despite this attention, empirical studies lag well behind theoretical and philosophical scholarship in the field. While a lack of research does not preclude fine teaching, curriculum development, or learning in individual instances, it certainly hinders informed decision-making in classrooms and in public policy. Perhaps this would not be as critical a weakness if research in other aspects of the social studies offered evidence regarding the differential impact of teaching and learning across populations. Unfortunately, as the reviews of research in this volume make clear, too few studies offer much help in this regard.

Again, there is considerable overlap across the categories in this section, but we commissioned separate chapters for each in order to do justice to their complexity as well as to their prominence in the social studies literature. Ultimately, civic competence develops in the context of particular and increasingly pluralist societies. Conceptions of race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and region, among other “differences” challenge the old progressive/Deweyan notion of society as “a number of people held together because they are working along common lines, in a common spirit, and with reference to common aims” (Pearlstein, 1996, p. 632). Indeed, as Pearlstein (1996) argues, “issues of class conflict and racial exclusion are not unfortunate lapses that can be easily excised from progressive pedagogy. Rather, they are central to its formulation of activity, child-centeredness, culture, and democratic participation” (p. 645). As any number of critics argue, silence on issues of difference supports social inequities and undermines civic competence (see for instance, Banks, 1996; Bickmore, 2003; Boyle-Baise, 2004; Gay, 200; Ladson-Billings, 2001; and Thornton, 2005). What, then, can social studies scholarship contribute regarding the plurality of democratic citizenship?

We organized the third section of this volume around several categories of scholarship: research, theory, and philosophical arguments for educating for social justice, scholarship related to gender and sexual orientation, and, finally, scholarship related to global education. We recognize deep connections across these categories and with the Banks and Diem chapter in the previous section, deep divisions among them. The difficulties in finding language to describe the categories suggests that the boundaries between them are permeable and, in many ways, artificial. Yet each category raises different questions, uses distinctive theoretical lenses and calls us to think about distinctions that are too often lost when attending to difference as if it were a single, clearly defined, straight-forward category.

To some extent, everything we’ve discussed to this point represents attention to social justice and human rights. Indeed, we see social justice as an umbrella concept that links the strands of civic education, multicultural/cosmopolitan education, education about gender and sexual orientation, and global education. Conceptions of justice as fairness certainly resonate with students and might provide a beginning point in exploring the nature of social justice. On the other hand, distinguishing between equality and equity challenges almost everyone. Living in a pluralist democracy whose founding document declares life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unalienable rights, but whose history includes denying those rights at various times to various groups and individuals, challenges us to think carefully about what it means to teach for or about social justice. Over time, social studies educators have discussed, debated, and written position statements regarding social justice and human rights. The NCSS Curriculum Standards mention human rights in reference to global connections (p. xii), to individual rights (p. xi) and to civic ideals and practices (p. xii). More recently, after NCSS moved social justice from a separate committee to part of the committee on academic freedom, the College and University Faculty Assembly (CUFA), the research arm of NCSS, established a Social Justice Committee to offer some leadership in this area. Yet, as Kathy Bickmore points out in chapter 9 in this volume, scholarship leans more heavily towards advocacy than investigation. We know relatively little about teaching and learning about social justice, no matter how defined. What we do know, however, represents an important beginning point and raises interesting questions to consider for future scholarship, as Bickmore’s chapter makes clear.

Scholarship related to gender and sexual orientation suffers from rather different issues than other issues of social justice. Between 1995 and 2007, articles focusing on gender appeared sixth most often in TRSE.³ Prior to 1995, TRSE published at least one special issue focusing on gender; the first special issue on sexual orientation appeared in 2002. Beyond that issue, we could identify only two articles published in TRSE between 1995 and 2007 that included attention to sexual orientation, and in neither was sexual orientation the primary focus of the article. As Margaret Crocco points out in chapter 10, little of the scholarship on gender and sexual orientation from other fields makes its way into the social studies literature. We find this a curious omission given not only the rich work on gender and sexual orientation available in the disciplines that inform social studies, but the obvious relationship between these topics and NCSS themes, including Individual Development and Identity and Power, Authority, and Governance, for instance (NCSS, 1994). In fact, no mention of gender or sexual orientation appears in the descriptions of any themes. The performance expectations for Individual Development and Identity mention gender (but not sexual orientation) once each for middle and high school and not at all for elementary students. No other themes include either topic, nor do either appear in any of the examples of classroom practice. We should note here that performance expectations are written so that they could include gender and/or sexual orientation, but there is no attempt to make that connection clear, except, briefly, in the Individual Development and Identity expectations. A stronger research base might counter the silence on this area in the NCSS Curriculum Standards. Given current concern regarding male/female school performance, too, it would be useful to have a strong enough research base to inform proposed remedies for differential academic performance (see for instance, Gurian & Stevens, 2007; and Pollock, 1999).

TEACHING AND LEARNING IN THE DISCIPLINES

In a field whose goals include developing citizens who draw on history and the social sciences to inform decision-making, we might expect a rich array of research to support those goals. With the notable exception of history, this has not been the case. Between 1995 and 2007, social studies and general educational research journals published relatively little research on teaching or learning in particular social sciences. Most recently, attention to geography education seems to be increasing among geographers and social studies researchers (see Bednarz, 2000, 2004, 2006). Most of this work has appeared in journals outside of social studies education. In fact, in the last decade TRSE published only two articles reporting research in this area, but an increase in research presentations on geography at professional meetings and a spurt of research since 2000 bodes well for an area Segall ...