{"id":7514,"date":"2017-09-07T15:57:34","date_gmt":"2017-09-07T15:57:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2017-11-03T16:19:20","modified_gmt":"2017-11-03T16:19:20","slug":"three-social-studies-teachers-design-and-use-of-inquiry-modules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-17\/issue-3-17\/social-studies\/three-social-studies-teachers-design-and-use-of-inquiry-modules","title":{"rendered":"Three Social Studies Teachers\u2019 Design and Use of Inquiry Modules"},"content":{"rendered":"

The publication of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards<\/em> (National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS], 2013) represented a \u201cwatershed moment for social studies\u201d (Herczog, 2013, p. 316). For the C3 Framework to be a positive force for social studies education, classroom teachers must learn about, understand, and use it\u2014particularly the curricular guidance of the inquiry arc.<\/p>\n

In this paper, we discuss the results of a phenomenological study that followed one elementary and two secondary social studies teachers through their interactions with the C3 Framework. Specifically, we answered the research questions (a) \u201cHow do participants design inquiry modules?\u201d and (b) \u201cHow do participants teach these inquiries in K\u201312 classrooms?\u201d These questions were designed to explore the issues and opportunities that emerge as social studies teachers begin to learn about and implement the C3 Framework. The publication of the C3 Framework cannot represent a watershed moment unless teachers implement the inquiry arc with K-12 students.<\/p>\n

Review of the Literature<\/h2>\n

The NCSS has put forth the overriding goal of social studies as \u201cthe promotion of civic competence,\u201d through the study of social-studies-specific disciplines so students might be \u201cactive and engaged participants in public life\u201d (NCSS, 2010, p. 3). For this goal to be achieved, citizens must be able to \u201capply inquiry processes\u201d (p. 3).<\/p>\n

Inquiry in the Social Studies Classroom<\/h3>\n

The call for using inquiry in social studies instruction has been ongoing for over a century. John Dewey (1910) believed that students learn through investigation and coming to their own conclusions based on their investigations. The New Social Studies movement of the 1960s developed curriculum that included a focus on inquiry over the accumulation of facts (Haas, 1977). The Harvard Project also encouraged inquiry use and provided materials to support such pedagogy (Oliver & Shaver, 1966).<\/p>\n

Although social studies literature has addressed inquiry in different manners over the past century, for the purpose of this study the inquiry process involves students \u201casking meaningful questions, finding information, drawing conclusions, and reflecting on possible solutions\u201d (Levstik & Barton, 2001, p. 13). Utilizing inquiry in this fashion, students come into contact with various pieces of evidence, consider multiple perspectives, and develop their own conclusions.<\/p>\n

Despite the continuing advocacy for inquiry in social studies literature, for a variety of reasons the typical social studies classroom has continually been structured in a teacher-centered format (Goodlad, 1984; Saye, Kohlmeier, Brush, Mitchell, & Farmer, 2009). Goodlad (1984) described fact-based teacher-centered social studies classrooms in practice, and nearly 30 years later in a study of social studies teaching across the country, Saye and the Social Studies Inquiry Research Collaborative (SSIRC; 2013) found that \u201cmost study classrooms did not experience high levels of authentic pedagogy\u201d (p. 101).<\/p>\n

\u201cAuthentic pedagogy asks students to construct knowledge using disciplined inquiry to produce work that has value and impact beyond school,\u201d posited Saye and the SSIRC (2014, p. 33). This inquiry is rooted in \u201cauthentic intellectual work,\u201d described by King, Newmann, and Carmichael (2009), which \u201cinvolves original application of knowledge and skills, rather than just routine use of facts and procedures\u201d (p. 44). Several examples can be found in the literature.<\/p>\n

Grant and Gradwell\u2019s (2010) description of teachers\u2019 experiences using big ideas to design instruction provided various ways for classroom teachers to teach social studies more ambitiously through the use of inquiry. Teachers described using big ideas to support writing-intensive units, group and individual presentations, simulations, and technology.<\/p>\n

Further, Gerwin and Visone (2006) described a compelling distinction between the way two social studies teachers taught an elective course and a non-elective course. Each teacher taught at least one elective social studies course and one required course, which was connected to a statewide high-stakes test. In the elective course, both teachers were more likely to use inquiry teaching methods that challenged students to think critically about the content; however, both teachers focused on more \u201crote learning\u201d in their required course(s) (p. 260).<\/p>\n

While the teachers in Grant and Gradwell\u2019s (2010) study and those in Gerwin and Visone\u2019s (2006) study were in New York State, they responded differently to the high-stakes testing environment. However, all of these teachers provided examples of ways to use nontraditional teaching methods, which indicates that in certain contexts some teachers used research-based pedagogy rooted in inquiry.<\/p>\n

Saye and Brush (2006) have described multiple ways in which social studies teachers implement problem-based inquiry (PBI), as well as the continuing impediments to such ways of teaching. In particular, they developed an inquiry-based unit using technology to address \u201cknown teacher obstacles to PBI\u201d (p. 187). While they purposefully developed hard scaffolds using technology, they found that the teachers did not use the scaffolds to support high levels of student-led inquiry as they expected.\u00a0As Barton and Levstik (2004) also suggested, Saye and Brush (2006) attributed much of teachers\u2019 decision-making within PBI to their existing epistemological beliefs and their primary purpose in teaching social studies. Teachers\u2019 philosophies and motivations must be supportive of student-led inquiry in order for such challenging instruction to be implemented in the classroom.<\/p>\n

While most studies of inquiry in the social studies classroom focus on secondary education, some have focused on inquiry in elementary social studies. However, such studies tend to restrict the agency of the elementary teacher in designing and implementing the inquiries. For instance, Alleman and Brophy (2003) studied merely how a primary teacher implemented curriculum that was designed by the researchers.<\/p>\n

Nokes (2014) implemented inquiry-based lessons himself in a fifth-grade classroom using a mixture of existing document-based lessons and those he designed himself. While Nokes\u2019 lessons were effective in helping students develop disciplinary and inquiry-based skills, the classroom teachers implemented traditional instruction with the researcher implementing the inquiry-based instruction. These studies, and others, have shown that inquiry is an effective method in elementary social studies classrooms; however, more research needs to be done regarding elementary teachers who design and implement inquiry lessons on their own.<\/p>\n

Not Enough Inquiry in the Social Studies Classroom<\/h3>\n

The arguments for why more social studies teachers do not teach with inquiry include teachers\u2019 beliefs and purposes not aligning with inquiry (Barton & Levstik, 2004), contextual constraints (Cornbleth, 2002), and a lack of examples and support (Saye & the SSIRC, 2014). Key contextual constraints include limited instructional time (Cornbleth, 2002; Heafner, Lipscomb, & Fitchett, 2014) and high-stakes accountability policies (Grant, 2003; Heafner et al., 2014).<\/p>\n

The limitations of instructional time are particularly challenging for elementary social studies teachers (Brophy, Alleman, & Knighton, 2009; Fitchett & Heafner, 2010), though the limitations are felt at the secondary level as well. Elementary social studies teachers also face challenges with limited content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge coming out of their teacher preparation programs (Bolick, Adams, & Willox, 2010; Hawkman, Castro, Bennett, & Barrow, 2015; Passe, 2006), which further complicates efforts to engage in inquiry-based lessons in elementary grades.<\/p>\n

Cuban (1993) described the persistence of teacher-centered practices, particularly in secondary schools, as largely due to systemic factors outside of teachers\u2019 control, such as the organization and purpose of schools. Cuban described teachers who endeavored to teach in more student-centered ways despite the systemic constraints but maintained that larger-scale change would not happen without systemic change.<\/p>\n

Guskey\u2019s (1986) teacher change model argued that teachers must change their classroom practices before <\/em>their beliefs will change. If teachers see that shifting their practice\u2014such as using inquiry modules\u2014positively affects student learning, they will buy into the utility of inquiry in the classroom. Educators hope that the publication of the C3 Framework will carry instructional implications that finally increase the quality of classroom inquiries in social studies (Grant, Swan, & Lee, 2012; Swan, Lee, & Grant, 2014).<\/p>\n

Shifting Teachers\u2019 Instruction<\/h3>\n

For any reform to reach the classroom, it must first go through the \u201ccurricular\u2013instructional gatekeepers\u201d: teachers (Thornton, 2005, p. 11). Teachers need support in their professional learning efforts in order to enact change in the classroom (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Elmore, 2002; Guskey & Huberman, 1995). Yet, professional development alone has typically been insufficient in encouraging instructional shifts.<\/p>\n

Particularly in social studies, professional development for teachers is inadequate\u2014consisting of mostly one-shot workshops that are disconnected from teachers\u2019 daily practice (Adler, 1991; Grant, 2003; van Hover, 2008). As Guskey (1986) suggested, perhaps teachers need to implement suggested changes in their classroom before they can be convinced of their effectiveness and adopt the new practices in the future. This study followed Guskey\u2019s model in order to support teachers in the use of inquiry in the social studies classroom, in hope that teachers would continue using inquiry.<\/p>\n

The publication of the C3 Framework (NCSS, 2013) presented an opportune moment to revisit the status of social studies inquiry in the classroom. In addition to college and career readiness emphasized through the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Chief Council of State School Officers, 2010), the C3 Framework focuses on preparation of students for civic life. It is organized in four dimensions, forming a unique inquiry arc<\/em> consisting of (a) developing questions and planning inquiries, (b) applying disciplinary concepts and tools, (c) evaluating sources and using evidence, and (d) communicating conclusions and taking informed action.<\/p>\n

The inquiry arc can potentially provide a structure to make the wealth of source materials that are available for social studies teachers more useful for students and teachers, but teachers will likely need training and support in order to implement the shifts (Swan et al., 2014; Swan & Griffin, 2013) necessary to put the inquiry arc into action. One promising tool to support teachers is the Inquiry Design Model (IDM), which provides a pedagogical structure to facilitate the design and implementation of inquiry in the social studies classroom (Grant, Lee, & Swan, 2014).<\/p>\n

Inquiry Tools<\/h3>\n

In order for teachers to make instructional shifts, they \u00a0need a variety of supports. Scaffolding (Brush & Saye, 2002), the IDM (Grant et al., 2014), and accessible primary and secondary sources are all important tools to help teachers plan and implement social studies inquiries. Brush and Saye (2002) distinguished between hard and soft scaffolds with which teachers can support students to learn at a higher level than they could independently. They defined hard scaffolds as \u201cstatic supports that can be anticipated and planned in advance based on typical student difficulties with a task\u201d and soft scaffolds as \u201cdynamic, situation-specific aid provided by a teacher or peer to help with the learning process\u201d (p. 2).<\/p>\n

A hard scaffold might be a graphic organizer that a teacher provides to help students organize information; a soft scaffold might be guiding questions or prompts that teachers ask of students when students seem to need additional help, such as, \u201cHave you thought about X?\u201d The IDM (Figure 1) is an example of a hard scaffold provided to support teachers <\/em>in their inquiry planning, rather than supporting students in the implementation of an inquiry.<\/p>\n

\"Figure<\/a>
Figure 1.<\/strong> Inquiry Design Model (Grant et al., 2014).<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

As Figure 1 shows, an inquiry can be built around a single compelling question, which is broken down into several supporting questions. The teachers identify primary and secondary sources to correspond with each supporting question and design formative performance tasks for students to complete as they work through the selected sources for each supporting question. Teachers design a summative performance task that requires students to build an argument to answer the compelling question and ideally leads to students taking informed action related to the content of the inquiry. Accessible sources are critical for the utility of the IDM.<\/p>\n

The Internet\u2019s inclusion in schools and society over the past two decades has resulted in unprecedented access to digitized disciplinary sources that were previously unavailable to teachers (Cohen & Rosenszweig, 2006; VanFossen & Shiveley, 2000). As such, it was touted as a \u201ctruly revolutionary development\u201d for the field of social studies (Braun & Risinger, 1999, p. 7).<\/p>\n

Though the Internet and its vast collection of digitized sources has been a mainstay of social studies classrooms for over a decade, access in and of itself had not necessarily altered instruction on a large scale, according to the most recent data collected (Friedman, 2008; VanFossen & Waterson, 2008). Among the reasons for the limited changes, at least a decade ago, were a lack of instructional time and incongruence with traditional testing (Friedman, 2006; Friedman & Heafner, 2007). While sweeping changes and the \u201crevolution\u201d predicted by social studies scholars in the late 20th century have not taken place, access to digitized sources is a critical component to the implementation of the C3 Framework, as it allows teachers to develop compelling and supporting questions with the tacit assumption that they and their students have access to the requisite disciplinary sources.<\/p>\n

Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n

The C3 Framework, source materials, and inquiry structures such as the IDM represent some of the tools social studies teachers can use as they plan and implement inquiry-based instruction. We used Wertsch\u2019s (1998) adaptation of activity theory as the theoretical frame because of its focus on tool use\u2014both material and intellectual\u2014and mediated action. Tools are socially constructed in order to do specific work in the world and individuals develop skills in order to use appropriate tools; Wertsch (1998) explained,<\/p>\n

The development of such skills requires acting with, and reacting to, the material properties of cultural tools. Without such materiality, there would be nothing to act with or react to, and the emergence of socioculturally situated skills could not occur. (p. 31)<\/p>\n

Wertsch\u2019s (1998) concept of mediated action draws attention to the affordances and constraints of tool use. In our study, we considered the tools participants used as they designed and implemented social studies inquiries; however, we do not claim to analyze all of the tools with which teachers interacted as they worked. By limiting our analysis of tools to those specific for inquiry work, we attempted to isolate those tools that were most important for inquiry-based teaching and learning.<\/p>\n

Context<\/h2>\n

This study took place in a southern U.S. state in which social studies education has been in flux; teachers have become accustomed to changes in the way social studies is taught as well as assessed. Beginning in the 2012-2013 academic year, due to an act of the state legislature, secondary United States history, which had previously included people and events from 1789\u2013present, was divided into two courses. Though neither course\u2019s standards specified a date in which people or events are, or are not, included, the first course includes people, terms, and events from prior to the American Revolutionary War and overlaps with the second course in that the American Civil War and Reconstruction are included in both courses. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nearly simultaneous to the development of two United States history courses, the state Department of Education unveiled a revision to its standardized testing procedures that added short-answer items, whereas before there were only multiple-choice items. These examinations are also now used to evaluate teacher effectiveness following a value-added model in regard to student learning growth. Under this model, teachers are evaluated partly based on their students\u2019 performance on standardized tests.<\/p>\n

The following year (2013-2014) witnessed the introduction of the C3 Framework, as it was published on Constitution Day in September 2013, and the state Department of Education began broadcasting webinars about it during late 2013. In early 2014, the keynote speaker at a state social studies conference was a writer of the C3 Framework.<\/p>\n

A previous study showed that many social studies teachers had not yet become familiar with the framework. In May 2014, every middle and high school social studies teacher in the school district in which the current study took place (N<\/em> = 161) was sent an online survey about their instructional practices given the expectations of the C3 Framework. Though there was a relatively low (28%) response rate, this initial survey did yield useful data. Importantly, teachers\u2019 understandings of inquiry were aligned with the basic concepts of inquiry as described in the C3 Framework. Teachers\u2019 reported practices were not as closely aligned with ideas in the C3 Framework, however, suggesting a disconnect between belief and practice regarding inquiry (Thacker, Lee, & Friedman, 2016).<\/p>\n

The disconnect was particularly prominent in regard to Dimension 4 of the C3 Framework, titled Communicating Conclusions and Taking Informed Action. Dimension 4 practices were not part of most respondents\u2019 pedagogy (Thacker et al., 2016). Survey findings informed the design of the current study in that participants were given specific professional development regarding ways to implement all four dimensions of the C3 Framework.<\/p>\n

Research Design<\/h2>\n

This exploratory qualitative study uses a phenomenological approach (Yin, 2011) to describe an\u00a0inquiry-based instruction project in a large urban school district in the southern United States. The study explores the lived experiences of individual social studies teachers in a single district. The three study participants were part of a group of eight teachers who applied for and were selected by the school district to design, implement, and share inquiry-based instructional units. As such, they were already engaged in learning about, planning, and implementing inquiry-based instruction. While each was interested in inquiry methods, which certainly influenced their response to the invitation to apply for the district initiative, none had participated in previous training on the use of inquiry in social studies specifically. As such, this study examines participants\u2019 experiences with inquiry, in general, and the IDM, in particular, on their (a) development of inquiry-based instructional modules and (b) implementation of inquiry instruction in their classrooms.<\/p>\n

Participants<\/h3>\n

All participants in a district project focused on social studies inquiry were invited to participate in the present research study; the three teachers analyzed herein agreed to participate. These three teachers ranged in experience from two to 35 years and taught at a variety of schools. Table 1 describes the participants in terms of their teaching experience, school context, and the inquiries they designed and implemented that are reported on in this study.<\/p>\n

Table 1<\/strong>
\nParticipants<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Teacher<\/strong><\/td>\nSchool\/Grade\/Subject Taught<\/strong><\/td>\nInquiry Topic<\/strong> and <\/strong>Examples of Sources Used<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ms. Williams<\/p>\n

Second year teaching fifth-grade.<\/td>\n

Washington Elementary School<\/p>\n

Suburban elementary school; student population of over 75% White, 15% African American, and small percentages of students who identify as biracial or Asian.<\/p>\n

Fifth-grade US history<\/td>\n

Democracy during the Civil War<\/p>\n
    \n
  • U.S. Constitution<\/li>\n
  • Lincoln\u2019s \u201cA House Divided\u201d speech<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ms. Easterling<\/p>\n

35 years teaching secondary social studies.<\/td>\n

Richland High School<\/p>\n

Suburban school; about 60% of students are White, with about 15% identifying as African American, 15% identifying as Hispanic, and small percentages identifying as biracial or Asian.<\/p>\n

Tenth-grade Seminar and Regular Civics\/Economics<\/td>\n

Interest rates and the Federal Reserve<\/p>\n
    \n
  • Secondary sources explaining how the Federal Reserve works<\/li>\n
  • Recession\/Recovery political cartoon<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Checks and Balances<\/p>\n

      \n
    • U.S. Constitution<\/li>\n
    • Federalist Papers<\/li>\n
    • Summary of Marbury v. Madison<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mr. Thompson<\/p>\n

Third year teaching secondary social studies.<\/td>\n

Delano High School<\/p>\n

Urban high school; almost equal populations (about 40% each) of White and African American students, about 15% Hispanic students, and smaller percentages identifying as biracial or Asian.<\/p>\n

Ninth-grade Honors World History<\/td>\n

Truman and the atomic bomb<\/p>\n