Impact of a Methods Course on Teaching Practices: Implemeting Issues-Centered Teaching in the Secondary Social Studies Classroom, The

Journal of Social Studies Research, Fall 2004 by Caron, Edward

Abstract

Issues-centered teaching is considered an alternative to the monotonous, fragmented and coverage-oriented approach characteristic of most approaches to social studies instruction. This paper sought to investigate how six second-year middle and high school social studies teachers attempted to implement an issues-centered instructional model taught to them during a summer, graduate-level methods course. The research relied upon the self-reported data of teachers through "email interviews" and journal entries. The results of the study were mixed. Although teachers reported their students to be more thoughtfully engaged and participatory under an issues-centered model, significant practical dilemmas emerged that posed as barriers to its successful implementation. Instructional design concerns were paramount for teachers, as they struggled in creating and carrying out coherent, issues-based instructional units while remaining committed to content coverage. Among other implications, this research suggests that methods instructors should be more cognizant of the implementation challenges of the issues-centered methodology and design their courses to address these challenges.

Introduction

The listlessness of secondary social studies instruction is well-documented. Critics describe social studies instruction as fragmented and expository, brought about by an overstuffed curriculum that privileges rote learning at the expense of in-depth analysis of issues (Evans, 1989a; Evans, et. al., 1999; Goodlad, 1984; Newmann, 1988; Onosko, 1996b, 1996a, 1992; Sizer, 1985; Wiggins, 1989). Knowledge is often taught as a series of facts to be learned rather than as an opportunity to raise questions and confront societal or historical problems. Students are taught "as if there are simple answers to the questions we have about the nature of society, or worse, [they are] taught without asking those questions for which there are no answers" (Bloom and Ochoa, 1996, p.327). Teachers continue to rely on the textbook as the primary source for organizing their course (Chiodo and Byford, 2004; Shaughnessy and Haladyna, 1985), and classroom discussions and assessments frequently require students to reproduce answers already given to them rather than encourage higher-level reasoning and decision making (Shaver, Davis, and Helburn, 1979). Given these data, it is hardly suprising that students consistently rate social studies as one of their least favorite subjects (Goodlad, 1984; Owens, 1997; Remy, 1972; Rossi, 1995; Shaver, Davis, and Helburn, 1979; Snug, Todd, and Beery, 1984). High school students also report that social studies classes present very little new knowledge, particularly when compared to other core subjects such as science, mathematics, and literature (Remy, 1972). National studies and reports continue to show significant percentages of high school students lacking knowledge of the basic facts of American history, government, and geography (Ravitch and Finn, 1988; Schlafly, 2003; Lapp, et. al, 2002; Lutkus, et. al, 1999; Weiss, et. al, 2002).

During the last century, progressive educators have offered several reform ideas more conducive to the intellectual and democratic mandate of the social studies (Hertzberg, 1981). The aim of these initiatives was to promote the value of an issues-centered orientation to instruction (Evans, 1989b). This orientation to teaching, in fact, has its roots in the work of the 1916 Committee on Social Studies, commissioned as part of the Committee on the Reorganization of secondary Education (CRSE). Among several recommendations, the committee recommended a twelfth grade interdisciplinary course entitled "Problems of Democracy" designed to "study actual problems, or issues, or conditions, as they occur in life." The problems would vary from year to year and would be selected based on their "immediate interest to the class and their vital importance to society" (Nelson, 1994, p.50). The historical iterations of issues-centered education-many emerging out of the progressive education movement of the 1930's and 40's (see Evans, 1989b; Wraga, 1999)-share a similar commitment as did the authors of the 1916 report to educate students for the responsibilities of thoughtful and participatory citizenship.

For numerous reasons, not the least of which was the problem of implementation, these progressive attempts at reform have brought about little substantial or lasting change to social studies teaching (Cuban, 1984; Evans, 1989b), leading one researcher to conclude, "...the history of the field has a depressing feel to it, one that indicates the continuation of status quo practices with a few bursts of creativity now and then" (Zevin, 1990). Instruction targetted toward the delivery of facts continues to be the standard fare in most classrooms (Applebee, Langer, and Mullis, 1987; Goodlad, 1984).

With the multitude of practical barriers to issues-oriented teaching, it should not be all that surprising that traditional social studies teaching is so resistant to change. First and foremost, many teachers are reluctant to relinquish the control necessary to facilitate the discussion and debate of issues (Gross, 1989; Onosko, 1996). Encouraging students to take more ownership in their own learning can be a risky proposition for educators, particularly in light of the premium many teachers and administrators place on well-managed classrooms. In addition, practitioners have little exposure to issue or problem-based teaching in their own K-12 school experience, making the approach especially difficult for which to plan or organize (Gross, 1989; Koeppen, 1999; Onosko, 1996). Furthermore, issue-based curricula is hard to accommodate with the limited treatment textbooks and instructional materials give to civics or history-related problem areas (Gross, 1989; Onosko, 1996). Hence, teachers interested in issues-centered teaching are left on their own to find outside resources to support their instruction.