Portraits of Practices in Social Studies Methods Courses

By Slekar, Timothy D

Adler, in a 1991 review of research on the education of social studies teachers, remarked that. “Research on the teaching of social studies methods has been on the whole, particularistic and unsystematic” (211). In reviewing recent literature from Theory and Research in Social Education and other peer-reviewed publications. I concluded that Adler’s assertion remains unchallenged. Most of the literature documents preservice teachers’ successes or failures in conceptualizing and constructing disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge, making curricular decisions, critically analyzing their teaching practices, and incorporating multicultural perspectives and civic-minded strategies into their work (Bain 2000: Dinkelman 1999; Johnston 1990; McDiarmid and Vinten-Johansen 2000: Mitchell et al. 1997; Seixas 1998; VanSledright 1996; Wade 1999; Wilson. Konopak. and Readance 1994; Wineburg 2001; Yeager and Wilson 1997). One broader examination of a methods course in Canada (Segall 2002) contains a useful example. Others have served as the basis for dissertations (for example, see Dinkelman 1997), but their authors have chosen to parse out segments for journal articles rather than continue the focus on the course as a whole.

What the research base lacks are multiple portraits of practice- thick, rich, detailed accounts of social educators engaged in semester-long experiences using a theoretical base for a foundation of course design and an entry to guide reflection on instruction. According to Adler (1991 ), reflection on practice adds to knowledge about social studies methods. The practitioner-researcher can bring novel perspectives to the field, particularly through the thoughtful description of and reflection on practice.

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

According to Shulman,

We develop a scholarship of teaching when our work as teachers becomes public, peer-reviewed and critiqued, and exchanged with other members of our professional communities so they, in turn, can build on our work. These are the qualities of all scholarship. (2000, 50)

Thus, we deem that by opening up our social studies methods courses to our social education colleagues, we may begin to expand the research base in social education (Kreber 2002). “A scholarship of teaching . . . requires . . . faculty [to] frame and systematically investigate questions related to student learning- the conditions under which it occurs, what it looks like, how to deepen it” (Shulman 1999, 13).

Also, as Kreber remarked, “The greatest integration of research and teaching will occur if faculty are given the opportunity to not only advance the knowledge of their field, but to integrate this with existing knowledge, apply it, and explore the best ways of teaching it” (2002. 18). And. according to Shermis and Washburn, “Social studies educators seldom have asked questions about themselves” (1986, 331). In this special section, we present four “portraits of practice” that look at the multiple ways social studies methods courses (broadly defined) are experienced by instructors and preservice teachers.

In the first portrait, I provide a detailed look at the design of my elementary social studies methods course. I describe how I orchestrated it during a semester and how one student came to realize that the teaching and learning of history was somewhat unsettling. Scott W. DeWitt and Carrie Freie describe their social studies methods course that is part of a master’s in education program at the University of Buffalo. The main course objective is to make instructional decisions flow from the overall goals of teaching social studies rather than from the immediate pressures of the classroom. In the third portrait, Kristi Fragnoli describes her elementary methods course and how the integration of primary source evidence helped her inspire preservice teachers to look at the teaching and learning of history as a process of inquiry. Finally, Kevin Meuwissen describes his course and his students’ perceived “disconnections” to practice.

The four articles use a form of self-study methods, and we are aware of the limitations associated with that approach to research. However, considering the lack of portrait-type research in the literature, these four articles offer readers an opportunity to see various approaches to preparing preservice teachers to engage the social studies. We hope that more social studies researchers will see the value of portraits of practice and begin to add their own portraits to an emerging new gallery.

REFERENCES

Adler, S. A. 1991. The education of social studies teachers. In Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning, ed. J. P. Shaver, 210-21. New York: Macmillan.

Bain, R. 2000. Into the breach: Using research and theory to shape history instruction. In Stearns, Seixas, and Wineburg 2000, 331-52.

Dinkelman, T. 1999. Critical reflection in a social studies methods semester. Theory and Research in Social Education 27 (3): 329-57.

Dinkelman, T. D. 1997. Critically reflective teacher education in secondary social studies: A preservice case study. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Johnston, M. 1990. Teachers’ backgrounds and beliefs: Influences on learning to teach in the social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education 18 (3): 207-32.

Kreber, C. 2002. Teaching excellence, teaching expertise, and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education 27 (1):5-23.

McDiarmid, G. W., and P. Vinten-Johansen. 2000. A catwalk across the great divide: Redesigning the history teaching methods course. In Stearns, Seixas, and Wineburg 2000, 156-77.

Mitchell, G., S. Evans, J. DaIy, and P. Roach. 1997. Academic freedom and the prepartion of social studies teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education 25 (1): 54-66.

Segall, A. 2002. Disturbing practice: Reading teacher education as text. New York: P. Lang.

Seixas, P. 1998. Student teachers thinking historically. Theory and Research in Social Education 26 (3): 310-41.

Shermis, S. S., and P. C. Washburn. 1986. Social studies educators and their beliefs: Preliminary data from Indiana colleges and universities. Theory and Research in Social Education 14 (4): 331-40.

Shulman, L. S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change 31 (4): 10- 17.

_____. 2000. From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learning? Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 1 (1): 48-52.

Stearns, P. N., P. Seixas, and S. Wineburg, eds. 2000. Knowing, teaching, and learning history. New York: New York University Press.

VanSledright, B. A. 1996. Closing the gap between school and disciplinary history? Historian as high school teacher. In Advances in research on teaching, vol. 6: 257-89. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wade, R. 1999. Voice and choice in a university seminar: The struggle to teach democratically. Theory and Research in Social Education 27 (1): 70-92.

Wilson, E. K., B. C. Konopak, and J. F. Readance. 1994. Preservice teachers in secondary social studies: Examining conceptions and practices. Theory and Research in Social Education 22 (3): 364-79.

Wineburg, S. 2001. Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Yeager, E. A., and E. K. Wilson. 1997. Teaching historical thinking in the social studies methods course: A case study. The Social Studies 88 (3): 121-26.

Guest Editor

TIMOTHY D. SLEKAR

Assistant Professor of Social Studies Education

Pennsylvania State University, Altoona

Copyright HELDREF PUBLICATIONS Nov/Dec 2005