{"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 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 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 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 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 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>\nReview of the Literature<\/h2>\n
Inquiry in the Social Studies Classroom<\/h3>\n
Not Enough Inquiry in the Social Studies Classroom<\/h3>\n
Shifting Teachers\u2019 Instruction<\/h3>\n
Inquiry Tools<\/h3>\n