Survey on the Status of Social Studies: Development … · Social Studies Research and Practice 1...

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

1

Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013

Survey on the Status of Social Studies: Development and Analysis

Paul G. Fitchett

University of North Carolina Charlotte

Phillip J. Vanfossen

Purdue University

In this paper, we outline the rationale for developing the Survey of the Status of Social Studies

(S4). The instrument contains items for analyzing the organizational structure, instructional

decision-making, professional attitudes, and demographics of social studies teachers.

Nationally-inclusive data generated from this survey analysis were used to examine the technical

and theoretical validity of the instrument. Incorporating factor analysis, findings suggest

constructs embedded within S4 related to social studies pedagogy, content emphases, and

technology-use that reflect extant theory. As such, the S4 and accompanying nationwide data set

offer social educators a valuable resource for fostering professional development and policy.

Keywords: social studies, survey research, teacher characteristics, instructional strategies,

Content-emphasis, technology-use

Introduction

In the changing 21st century curricular landscape, understanding the characteristics,

instructional decision-making and pedagogical aims of social studies educators is a complex

endeavor. The social studies have long been viewed as the curricular home of citizenship

education; the field charged with preparation of the nation’s future citizens (Engle & Ochoa,

1988; Parker, 2003). Historically, this characterization of social studies education and those who

teach it has been problematized by ideological conflicts, a shuffling of discipline dominance, and

unfavorable educational policy positioning (Evans, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 2011).

Complications aside, examining who represents the field of social studies, how they teach, and

why they do it is important for several reasons.

First, teachers’ beliefs and the context of their lived and work experience influence

instructional decision-making (Costigan & Crocco, 2004; Ross, 2006). Social studies

instruction, arguably more than other subjects, is shaped by a confluence of teachers’ and

students’ beliefs and identity (Epstein, 2001, 2009). Examining these relationships has

tremendous pedagogical implications for how social studies is taught in the classroom and how

future teachers are prepared at the university. Second, while an aim of social studies

traditionally has been citizenship education, this focus often differs across grade levels (Alleman

& Brophy, 2001; Hanna, 1937; Leming, Ellington, & Schug, 2006). Exploring the differences in

social studies instruction across grades offers an opportunity for critical examination of how and

why teachers enact various curricula. Finally, data on the characteristics and practices of social

studies teachers can have significant impact on related educational policy. Given the complexity

of defining social studies purpose across state curricula (Au, 2007, 2009) and the increasing

marginalization of social studies in the classroom (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; VanFossen, 2005),

it is necessary that socials studies combats a perceived image problem. Such a problem stems


www.socstrp.org

2


from partisans on the right who want to eliminate social studies in favor of historical

transmission (Leming, Porter-Magee, & Ellington, 2003; Ravitch & Finn, 1987; Thornton &

Barton, 2010) and from progressives on the left who question the veracity of social studies

efforts to bring about societal change (Gay, 2003; Howard, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2003).

A large-scale endeavor, such as the current study, provides a public-policy foothold from

which both future social studies related research and substantive advocacy campaigns can

emerge. Previous large-scale efforts to characterize social studies teachers and their teaching are

outdated and suffer from generalizability issues (Leming, 1991; Ochoa, 1981) or a lack of

specificity to social studies instruction (Fitchett, 2010). The current study was planned and

implemented by a team of social studies educators from colleges and universities across the

U.S.A., the “State of Social Studies Research Team”, or SSSRT (see under list of Web-Based

References). The team’s goal was to develop a large-scale national study to support research

initiatives that might inform both practice and policy. In an effort to characterize Kindergarten-

12 social studies teaching, this multi-state consortium of researchers collaborated on nation-wide

data collection and survey development. In this paper, we provide the framework for how and

why our research team developed the primary instrument for that data collection. Specifically,

we offer justification for development of the survey, methodological considerations in the

instrument’s construction, prospective uses for the instrument and the data it has generated, and

limitations for its use. In the subsequent section, we present a review of previous analyses of

social studies teacher characteristics both qualitative and quantitative.

A Review of Previous Analyses of Social Studies Teacher Characteristics

Qualitative research has traditionally dominated examination of social studies teacher

work. S.G. Grant (1996, 2003) and Bruce VanSledright (2011), utilized case study

methodologies to examine how teacher background, professional attitudes, and pedagogical aims

influence social studies practitioners’ instructional decision-making. To explore the professional

dispositions of teachers, Jill Gradwell (2006) and Stephanie van Hover (2006) used ethnographic

methods. Other studies have examined how school level context and student demographics,

coupled with teacher identity, influenced social studies teaching (Epstein, 2001, 2009; Pace,

2008, 2011; Wills, 2007). While these studies, and others like them, have substantially

contributed to our understanding of practitioners’ attitudes toward social studies instruction,

Wayne Au (2007) suggested that we remain cautious in how we interpret these findings due to

the limited sampling frame, potential bias due to intimacy between researcher and subject, and

interstate differences between curricular structures and purposes. Generalizing from such

qualitative findings is, necessarily—due to the nature of such studies—problematic. This makes

it difficult for such research to inform or influence large-scale policy reform in social studies.

Survey analysis, on the other hand, affords researchers the opportunity to examine the collective

landscape of social studies teachers, offering the potential to influence such policy.

The National Science Foundation

Few studies have substantially surveyed the field of social studies for teacher

characteristics and professional habits (Leming, 1991). The National Science Foundation (NSF)

conducted the most comprehensive and rigorous survey study of social studies teachers in 1976.

The NSF provided an overview of the demographics, instructional decision-making, and content


www.socstrp.org

3


emphases among math, science, and social studies pre-college teachers for policy-making

purposes (Weiss, 1977). James Shaver, O.L. Davis, and Elizabeth Helburn (1978) reviewed the

NSF study along with two other funded projects with cooperation of the the National Council for

the Social Studies (NCSS). The review noted that textbooks, lecture, and question/answer

recitation overwhelmingly drove social studies teaching. It was concluded that the social studies

teachers’ who responded were more concerned with students’ essential content acquisition than

with inquiry-oriented instruction. This finding seemed to contradict the citizenship education

goals of social studies education. As a recommendation for improving social studies practice,

Shaver, et al (1979) suggested that teacher educators develop more pragmatic instructional

positions.

The Ochoa Study

In another early attempt to survey the social studies profession, Anna Ochoa (1981)

examined 402 social studies teacher from six states. This analysis presented some of the earliest

insight into who taught courses in social studies methods (e.g., demographics, credentials) and

the professional attitudes of the teachers. The survey instrument employed for this study

explored social studies teachers’ background characteristics, academic history, reading patterns,

opinions on controversial attitudes, and dispositions toward work (Ochoa, 1981). Though the

scope and purpose of the study were ambitious, the survey did not contain items related to

instructional decision-making, content emphases, nor the use of technology. Furthermore, the

instrument failed to include school and classroom level contextual factors such as school

location, socioeconomic status of students, and urbanity. Researchers were unable to determine

either the type of instruction most prevalent among social studies teachers or the context in

which they taught.

The National Council for the Social Studies Surveys

In an effort to understand social studies teachers’ attitudes and practices, Mary Haas and

Margaret Laughlin (2001) and Kevin Vinson (1998) sampled members of the National Council

for the Social Studies (NCSS). The use of NCSS membership for surveying the field was not a

novel idea (Leming, 1991); yet, unlike previous social studies-specific research, the instruments

used in these projects included items specific to research and practice. In the process of survey

construction, Vinson (1998) also conducted rigorous tests of reliability and validity. These

instruments, while demonstrating greater complexity in item development, were purposefully

limited in their application. Hass and Laughlin (2001) targeted elementary practitioners and

Vinson (1998) examined the instructional decision-making of high school social studies teachers.

Thus, these previous studies could not sufficiently compare social studies instruction across

grade levels or offer an accurate picture of teacher practice nationally. The use of NCSS

membership rolls as a sampling frame may have brought about inherent selection bias in that

membership is not representative of all social studies teachers nationwide.

Secondary Data Analyses

Further attempts to conduct large-scale analysis of social studies teachers’ professional

characteristics have incorporated secondary data sets. Robert Rutter (1986) analyzed data from

the High School and Beyond (HSB) supplemental teacher survey of 1984. Researchers more

recently have employed data made available from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) public

school teacher survey (Fitchett, 2010; Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Heafner & Fitchett, 2012).

These surveys, developed by the National Center for Educational Statistics, produced the most


www.socstrp.org

4


expansive and generalizable data on public school teachers in the United States. While

informative and considerably more nationally representative than previous analyses, these

instruments were not designed to collect specific data about social studies teachers. While the

self-reported data can be disaggregated to various social studies teacher subsets, the SASS and

HSB teacher surveys (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007; Spencer, Sebring, &

Campbell, 1987) do not contain items specific to the social studies pedagogy and teacher

decision-making associated with social studies instruction, thus limiting the level of analysis

appropriate for social education. As with the Ochoa (1981) instrument, teaching practices,

content emphases, and related social studies issues were not stressed. In terms of external

reliability, the complex sampling frame of respondents for this data, while sensitive to various

socioeconomic, geographic, and demographic indicators, did not consider subject area as a

primary sampling unit (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007; Spencer et al., 1987).

Disaggregating social studies teachers at various grade levels (i.e. elementary, middle, high),

geographic location (i.e. state, urbanity), and building-type (charter, parochial, private, public)

from these survey data can be problematic with respect to sample size and analytic power.

Special Interest Group Projects

In addition to research conducted by social studies academics, there have been concerted

efforts by public-policy groups and think tanks to survey the field, most notably the Fordham

Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). These groups have taken what might

be characterized as a conservative, essentialist stance regarding social studies teaching, content,

and purpose. These self-proclaimed “contrarians” criticize many progressive educational ideas

and student-centered practices. The Fordham Institute, for example, published a book titled,

Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong, which included a chapter titled “The Training of Idiots”

(Leming et al., 2003). The social and political agendas of these organizations may cast suspicion

on the research conducted and endorsed by their membership (Farkas & Duffett, 2010; Leming

et al., 2006; Ravitch & Finn, 1987).

Given the limited, and often times contradictory, findings of previous large-scale social

studies research, we sought to develop a survey study of social studies teachers that used an

instrument developed by and for social studies teacher educators, practitioners, and public-policy

advocates. The purpose of the study was to better understand the current state of social studies in

the Kindergarten-12 public school curriculum and of the teachers who teach it. Since the 1976

NSF studies, the profession has changed. Shaped by political, social, and cultural forces, the

purposes and aims of social studies education have evolved. Given recent state and federal

educational policy emphasizing science/mathematics education and English/language arts

instruction seemingly at the expense of social studies instruction (Heafner & Fitchett, 2012), it is

important for social studies professionals and advocates to inwardly examine the how and why of

our practice. We were interested in documenting teachers’ characteristics, attitudes, and

practices to “catch a glimpse” into the professional world of social studies education. The

Survey of the Status of Social Studies (S4) designed by and for social studies educators, was

developed to examine such contemporary social studies teaching and professional attitudes.


www.socstrp.org

5


Method

Large-scale surveys provide generalizable findings that can be used to support a rationale

for social studies teaching and offer insight into how we can better prepare future practitioners.

The S4 was developed to meet this need. In the following sections, we summarize the

development of survey items, content validity procedures, and construct validity analysis. We

recommend referring to the instrument website (see under list of relevant webpages) while

examining this section.

Development of Items

Respondent Organization

Grade level, classroom structure, and school type can have substantial influence over

instructional decision-making, content emphasis, and workplace attitudes. Elementary social

studies curriculum traditionally has followed an “expanding communities” model (Hanna, 1937).

Social scientists and educational progressives rationalized that elementary school children could

more readily conceptualize their direct community (e.g., family, neighborhood), with focus

eventually enlarging to state, national, and world considerations. Such curricula are more often

associated with subject matter integration (Alleman & Brophy, 1993; Boyle-Baise, Hsu,

Johnnson, Sierrere, & Stewart, 2008) and a focus on cultural universals (Alleman & Brophy,

2001). Though little research supports this curricular sequence (Henke, Chen, & Goldman,

1999), it remains a staple of elementary content development. Given this structure, considerable

variability lies in how much time practitioners spend on social studies teaching in elementary

schools (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010) and how they utilize that time (Thornton & Houser, 1996;

VanFossen, 2005). Conversely, high school (and to some degree middle grades) social studies

has specialized in content area specifics, most often history but also separate civics, geography,

economics and social science courses (Evans, 2004; Kliebard, 2004; Thornton & Barton, 2010).

Instruction in later grades tends to focus on isolated content knowledge and occasionally the

inquiry-based skills (e.g., historical thinking) associated with the content. Thus, the pedagogical

content knowledge of social practitioners and execution of that knowledge (Shulman, 1986)

varies according to the grade level taught.

Curricular development, emphasis, and utilization also vary among states. Political,

social, economic, and other cultural forces influencing the social studies curriculum often

account for these interstate differences. Consequently, state-by-state comparisons of social

studies are a problematic endeavor (Au, 2007, 2009). Within state variance can be just as

problematic across public schools, private schools, and charter schools with each mandating

different curricular guidelines and advocating for different classroom practices. As of this

writing, little research has examined the differences in social studies teaching among these

different school types.

In developing the Survey of the Status of Social Studies (S4), we constructed initial items

to indicate the state, school type, and grade level in which the respondent taught (items 1 to 4).

These items allow researchers to disaggregate responses by state, school-type, and grade level.

Response to these initial items also directs survey participants to one of three grade level-specific

domains: elementary (items 5-26), middle (items 27-41), or high school (items 42-57).

Elementary-specific items include class organization, teacher and student rank of core course

(English/language arts, math, science, and social studies) importance, instructional time spent on

subject area instruction, use of integration, and attitudes toward mandatory testing. These items


www.socstrp.org

6


were influenced by previous research (Bolick, Adams, & Willox, 2010; Boyle-Baise et al., 2008;

Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Heafner, Libscomb, & Rock, 2006; VanFossen, 2005; Holloway &

Chiodo, 2009; Yon & Passe, 1990) that examined elementary teachers’ classroom prioritization

of social studies and attitudes towards teaching it. Middle and high school domains include

individual items on grade level description, class organization, and subject area taught (high

school only). These organizational items were constructed to reflect the more subject matter-

specific curriculum of middle and high school social studies with its focus on content and

separate disciplines (Thornton, 2005; Thornton & Barton, 2010). Organizational structure and

development of these items was influenced by, and/or replicated from, the SASS survey for

public school teachers (Coopersmith & Gruber, 2009).

Professional Development Items

One area of growing interest among social educators is professional development.

Previous research across varying subject areas has confirmed the impact of professional

development to improve teachers’ content knowledge, encourage dynamic instructional

strategies, and increase students’ outcomes on assessments (Borko, 2004; Garet, Porter,

Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Within social studies, research has examined the influence

of professional development on teachers’ instructional decision-making and content knowledge

(Kenreich, 2002; van Hover, 2008). In a study of a Teaching American History Grant

professional development, De La Paz and colleagues (2011) found that sustained commitment to

the program via networking and follow-up workshops produced significant gains in students’

ability to conduct historical inquiry. As van Hover (2008) noted, the majority of these studies

are particularistic and do not provide large-scale understanding of teachers’ involvement with

professional development. We, therefore, constructed items relating to social studies teachers’

professional development (items 60-68). These items included teachers’ rank-order scales of

possible professional development topics such as methods, classroom management, content, and

special needs students. Teachers also reported the type and frequency of professional

development in which they had participated over the last academic year. We posited that social

studies education researchers could use participant responses to gauge teachers’ levels of interest

in type and format of professional development. Responses to various items could be analyzed

in conjunction with teachers’ reported instructional strategies and content emphases.

Classroom Accommodation Items

English language learners (ELLs) are a growing community in our social studies

classrooms. Yet, as Cinthia Salinas (2006) has pointed out, the teaching of social studies often

fails to resonate with recent immigrants within this population. Research indicated that teachers

with a high percentage ELLs received less instructional support, obtained minimal training to

work with limited English proficient students, and lacked the efficacy to sufficiently support

students’ learning (O’Brien, 2011). Though frequently under-prepared to work with ELLs,

social studies teachers viewed cultural connection as vital. Survey data collected by Seonhee

Cho and Gabriel Reich (2008) indicated that social studies teachers rated cultural understanding

of ELLs as an essential area of growth. In addition to ELL populations, social studies

classrooms are charged with preparing students with special needs for engagement in a

democratic society. Students classified as special needs, however, are leaving school less

civically competent than their regular education peers (Hamot, Shokoohi-Yetka, & Sasso, 2000).

Social studies’ low priority among teachers of special needs children might be partially


www.socstrp.org

7


responsible for this phenomenon (Litner & Schweder, 2008; Mastropieri et al., 2005). Given

this literature, four items were constructed for S4 to reflect specific issues facing special

education (items 70-73) and five on ELL instruction in social studies (items 74-78). Items

categorized the type of student, the mode of instruction (inclusion or pull-out), differentiation

techniques, and obstacles to working with student populations. These items offer researchers the

opportunity to examine teachers’ work with various classroom populations on a large scale and

compare responses based upon various instructional criteria, dispositions, or other milieu and to

make comparisons across various student populations.

Instructional Strategies and Content Emphasis Items

As noted earlier, the contentious aims and purposes of social studies education are well

documented (Evans, 2004; Levstik, 2008; Thornton & Barton, 2010). The intersection of

discipline area, ideology, and identity politics has contributed to an uncertain characterization of

what social studies teaching is and should be. Tom Fallace (2010) recognized three orientations

to social studies (the traditional, disciplinary, and progressive strands). Individually, these

paradigms infer both purpose and practice of social studies education. For many teachers, the

purpose of social studies remains a traditional transmission of canonical, historical knowledge.

The increased emphasis on accountability and prescriptive curricula has intensified pressures on

social studies teaches to narrow their content focus and pedagogy (Crocco & Costigan, 2007;

Gerwin & Visone, 2006; Hargreaves, 1994). Traditional orientations toward social studies

teaching are associated with teacher-centered instruction, lecture, and textbook-focused reading

(Fallace, 2010). Research of teaching practice suggests that this orientation is the most pervasive

and observed form of instruction among practitioners (Leming et al., 2006; Levstik, 2008;

Ravitch & Finn, 1987). However, students exposed to primary sources, historical writing, and

other “active” forms of instruction score significantly higher on US History National Assessment

for Educational Progress (NAEP) tests (Smith & Niemi, 2001). These discipline-specific

instructional strategies are characterized most frequently by historiography and methodology-

focused pedagogy (Grant, 2003; VanSledright, 2011; Wineburg, 2001). While advocated among

social educators as a preferred instructional approach, such pedagogy occupies a mostly ancillary

position in classrooms due to teachers’ lack of skill-set and perceived curriculum constraints

(Barton & Levstik, 2003; Wineburg, 2005). Such a ‘progressive’ orientation focuses on themes

of citizenship, inquiry, and discipline integration (Borko, 2004). Progressive social studies

teachers more often utilize authentic instructional strategies such as cooperative learning,

inquiry, and discussion (Hess, 2009; Parker, 2003; Smith & Niemi, 2001; van Hover, 2008).

Teachers who subscribe to this orientation are likely to foster tolerant classroom environments

where students’ knowledge and perspectives are validated (Avery, 2002; Torney-Purta &

Richardson, 2003). Yet, like discipline-specific instruction, progressive teaching is observed less

frequently than traditional social studies practice.

Based on Fallace’s (2010) three instructional paradigms, we constructed two inventories

to gauge teachers’ social studies teaching practices and purpose. The instructional strategies

inventory (elementary = item 16, middle = item 31, and high school = item 47) is comprised of

branch items that measured frequency of various instructional strategies (e.g., listen to a lecture,

examine a primary source document, participate in a cooperative learning assignment). We also

developed branch items to examine respondents’ content emphases (elementary=item 18,

middle= item 33, and high school=item 49) such as political history, civic responsibility, and


www.socstrp.org

8


issues of race and class. Additionally, two items asked teachers to indicate agreement with one

of two statements about the goals of their social studies instruction: one with a traditional

approach and one with a more progressive focus. These inventories, used separately or together,

allow researchers to explore the multifaceted aims and approaches toward teaching social

studies.

Instructional Technology in Social Studies Items

Social studies content (and the methods used to teach that content) lends itself to digital

(and other) instructional technologies. Phil VanFossen (1999) suggested that social studies, by

its very nature as a media rich field, was the content area most likely to benefit from such

technologies. In their meta-analysis of previous studies, Kathy Swan and Mark Hofer (2008)

concluded that social studies teachers are slow to adopt new technologies and less likely than

other content area teachers to use technology overall (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001).

Nowhere is this more evident than in the classroom use of the Internet. Adam Friedman and Phil

VanFossen (2010) found that, for social studies teachers, classroom use of the Internet in their

teaching has been both a lost opportunity and an unexplored frontier. In an effort to determine

how social studies teachers were utilizing digital and computer technologies in their classrooms,

we developed a series of items that asked teachers to indicate how often they engaged students in

particular forms of instructional technology. Among these items were questions about: (1)

Internet use, (2) computer-based instruction, (3) use of digital primary sources, (4) Web 2.0 use,

(5) the use of Web Quests, (6) multi-media, and (7) virtual fieldtrips.

Items Replicated from Schools and Staffing Surveys

Little research has examined social studies teachers’ professional attitudes (Levstik,

2008). In developing the survey, we sought to construct valid items that would reliably measure

social studies teachers’ perceptions of workplace climate. We chose to replicate items from the

largest and most statistically scrutinized survey of teachers’ workplace attitudes, the NCES

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) for public school teachers (Coopersmith & Gruber, 2009).

These scales are represented in item 59. We also incorporated SASS demographic

measurements (gender, race/ethnicity, urbanity of school location). They are included in the

survey as items 69 and 78-95.

Content Validation

As noted previously, the comprehensive instrument developed by VanFossen (2005) was

a starting point for creating the S4. The authors created a beta version of the S4 in the

commercial survey tool Surveyshare. A sub-group of the State of Social Studies Research Team

was asked to review, submit comments, and/or submit additional items for inclusion in the

instrument. The authors integrated these suggestions and created a second beta version. This

second version also was reviewed by the sub-group and then discussed when the State of Social

Studies Research Team (SSSRT) met at NCSS annual conference in 2010. This process of

developing survey item collaborations with expert scholars in the field of social studies

education established face validity. We further examined content validity through a two-step

process. The first step used the research and theoretical expertise of professors of social studies

education. The second step employed classroom teachers to examine functionality of items.

First, we shared these results with the SSSRT members from higher education institutions

across the country who had not been directly involved in the instrument development.

Individuals were assigned to various inventories in the S4 (e.g., instructional decision-making,


www.socstrp.org

9


professional development, technology, etc.) based upon their area of teaching and research

expertise. These reviewers provided feedback on item selection, wording, and placement within

the survey. This formalized feedback helped us determine which items to keep, eliminate, and

expand given the existing theory and research of social studies education. Second, the

instrument (now in its third beta iteration) was piloted with teachers from Indiana (n = 88; mailed

survey links) and North Carolina (n = 20; e-mailed survey links) in order to examine the

instrument’s initial technical adequacy. Internal consistency reliability estimates using

Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients were high across the three grade level-specific domains:

elementary (α = 0.84), middle (α = 0.81), and high school levels (α = 0.93). Respondents to this

pilot also provided feedback as to the relevance and wording of individual items. In addition, we

examined survey completion times to determine whether the pilot participants were able to

complete the survey in a reasonable amount of time (approximately 20 minutes). From the

analysis of the pilot, we made final revisions to the instrument and disseminated it to SSSRT

membership who would be responsible for data collection.

Between April 2010 and January 2011, we distributed the final version of the S4 through

a web link to state representatives of the SSSRT. We received responses from Kindergarten-12

social studies teachers (n = 11295) from 44 states. The District of Columbia, Hawaii, Missouri,

New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming did not contribute to this study. Ideally,

state representatives were tasked to incorporate stratified, random sampling of participants, but

given the limited access of state teachers’ databases, SSSRT members in only five states

(Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, and Wisconsin) were able to use the desired sampling frame.

The remaining 39 states employed samples of convenience from various teacher and professional

organization email listservs. Because of the difficulty in identifying state-level teacher-licensure

databases, the response rate was relatively low: below 25% on average. In order to determine

whether response rate variations would contribute significant error to a cross-state comparative

analysis, we conducted a post hoc comparison of responses from states that used stratified,

random sample responses from states that used samples of convenience. Results indicated

statistically non-significant and negligible practical differences (η2 < 0.02) between the groups.

However, because there was also a wide range in proportion of responses across states—some

states were overrepresented (e.g., FL, 18.90%) whereas other states of equal of greater

population were underrepresented (e.g., NY, 1.90%)—we decided against detailed interstate

comparisons.

Construct Validation

We posited that researchers of social studies pedagogy might want to investigate

relationships among and between items. The use of single-item Likert-type scales, however, is

fraught with issues of reliability and validity (Liu, 2004). For a single-item scale, participants

are less likely to give consistent responses over time. Variability in responses can be affected by

item interpretation, mood, and timing. Furthermore, many attitudes and constructs that social

educators wish to examine (e.g. instructional strategies and content emphasis) are multi-

dimensional (Levstik, 2008; VanSledright et al., 2006). A singular item does not always offer a

valid interpretation of a complex pedagogy or attitude so, it is often more appropriate to

aggregate single-items into multi-item constructs in order to measure abstract concepts (Liu,

2004). Therefore, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis of three social studies-specific

inventories (instructional strategies, content emphases, and instructional technology).


www.socstrp.org

10


Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is used to investigate possible commonalities among

individual items within a survey inventory. These commonalities, which consist of shared

variance among individual scales, are referred to as factors. Factors are multidimensional and

are more representative of an abstract concept (i.e. teacher-centered or learning strategies) than

the individual items from which the factors are drawn.

Researchers can use statistically valid factors that also align with substantiated social

studies theory to investigate complex relationships between pedagogy, content, and teaching

context. For example, factors embedded within the instructional strategies inventory (see Table

1) could be examined in association with credentials, demographics, and professional attitudes to

answer questions regarding the nature of social studies teaching (i.e. Is instructional preference

indicative of classroom demographics? Are grade level bands associated with discipline-specific

instruction?) Thus, we conducted an EFA in the hopes that future researchers will use the

factors uncovered in our analysis to investigate complex professional attitudes and beliefs

associated with social studies instruction.

To examine the statistical validity and reliability of key item inventories embedded

within the survey (e.g., instructional strategies, content emphases, and instructional technology),

we disaggregated a randomized subgroup of approximately 20% of the complete sample (n =

2818). Examination of demographic variables indicated that this group was representative of the

aggregated total, thus appropriate for exploratory analysis. We computed Cronbach’s alpha tests

(α) to examine internal consistency reliability of selected inventories. We also examined inter-

item correlations within inventories to determine if constructs might account for variance among

items.

Based upon a priori findings, we conducted an EFA to establish the presence of latent

variables within various item inventories. We employed principal axis factor analysis (PAF) to

examine variable constructs because the items analyzed were Likert-type and assumptions of

multivariate normality were not met (Costello & Osbourne, 2005). We used eigenvalues

parameter values and scree plots to determine factor inclusion. Only eigenvalues greater than

one were included in factor interpretation (Kaiser, 1960). To further substantiate the inclusion or

exclusion of factors, we used scree plots to determine the break point among factors where

eigenvalues were no longer substantially different (Costello & Osbourne, 2005). We employed

rotation procedures to clearly establish latent constructs. Because previous studies suggest social

studies teachers’ decision-making is inter-related and multifaceted (Grant, 2003; VanSledright et

al., 2006), we chose to rotate data using an oblique procedure (oblimin), which allowed factors to

correlate. In an attempt to reach simple solutions for the factors, we suppressed pattern matrix

loadings (linear combinations of the variables) less than 0.30 of contributed variance for

interpretation purposes. As noted in the subsequent results, simple solutions were not always

attainable or conceptually applicable.

Instructional Strategies Inventory

To examine factor structure of the instructional strategies inventory (items 16, 31, and

47), we analyzed the three categories of respondents together. We intentionally excluded items

pertaining to “whole class” instruction because it was not included in the high school category.

Cronbach’s alpha test indicated reliability of the instructional inventory was an acceptable level

(α = 0.71). PAF distinguished three factors, which accounted for approximately 52% of the

variance among items in the inventory (Table 1). We defined the three remaining factors as (1)


www.socstrp.org

11


discipline-specific social studies instructional strategies, (2) teacher-centered learning strategies,

and (3) student-centered social studies teaching strategies. These three factors reflect existing

social studies literature on the direction and emphases of instructional decision-making (Fallace,

2010; Levstik, 2008). Two of the items, “working with maps or globes” and “watch films or

videos,” minimally loaded on the discipline-specific factor, thereby suggesting a poor correlation

with the factor. Examination of the communalities indicates a marginal proportion of these

items’ variance is associated with the extracted factors (Table 1). Therefore, researchers should

use caution when including these items for multivariate analysis. Interestingly, participation in

role-play/simulation loaded upon two factors: discipline-specific and student-centered. We posit

that the split loading item supports previous research on the use of perspective-taking and role-

play discourse in making sense of social studies-related content (Hess, 2002, 2009).

Furthermore, factor correlations indicate moderate association between student-centered and

discipline-specific factors (Table 1). Conversely, correlations between teacher-

centered*discipline-specific factors and teacher-centered*student-centered factors were low,

indicating minimal association among these factors combinations.

Table 1

Obliquely rotated principal axis factor loadings for the instructional strategies inventory

(n=2642)

Item Factor

(% contributed to overall inventory

variance)

During social studies instruction

how often do you students engage

in the following:

Discipline-

specific

Social

Studies

Instruction

(26.8)

Teacher-

centered

Learning

Strategies

(15.6)

Student-

Centered

Social

Studies

Instruction

(9.4)

Extracted

Communaliti

es

Examine photographs, artifacts, or

primary source materials

.762 .496

Writing assignments such as

essays or reflections

.521 .361

Use computer-based social studies

applications

.434

.276

Participate in role play/simulations

.355 .325 .340

Watch videos or film

.305 .151

Work with maps or globes .300 .141


www.socstrp.org

12


Complete textbook-based

worksheets

.716 .481

Answer questions/define terms

from textbook

.664 .471

Listen to a lecture on social

studies-related content .371

.252

Cooperative learning assignments

.688 .458

Develop group projects

.629 .515

Direct Oblimin Factor

Correlations

Discipline Teacher Student

Discipline 1.00 .254 .466

Teacher .254 1.00 .002

Student .466 .002 1.00

Content Emphases Inventory

To explore factors within the content emphases inventory, we examined responses to

items that asked teachers to report on the nature of the content coverage in their classrooms

(items 18, 33 and 49). Each of these items required teachers to indicate how frequently they

emphasized various content (see Table 2) such as learning about the US Constitution, learning

basic economic concepts, learning foundations of state and local government, etc. We merged

responses from each of the three grade level categories. Cronbach’s Alpha tests indicated very

high inter-item reliability (α=0.90). PAF specified two factors that accounted for approximately

64.0% of total variance among items in the inventory (see Table 2). Based upon strength of

factor loadings, we defined two latent factors as civic content and historical content. These

themes represent the most prevalent underlying content emphases in social studies education

(Levstik, 2008). Teaching basic economic concepts loaded onto both factors (albeit the smallest

loading), suggesting that economic content is taught across both domains and is embedded across

social studies content (Ellington, 2011). Factor correlations indicated a moderate, inverse

relationship between the civics content and history content factors (Table 2). This finding

suggests that an increase in civic content domain is associated with a decrease in historical

content (and vice versa).


www.socstrp.org

13


Table 2

Obliquely rotated principal axis factor loadings for the content emphases inventory (n=2635)

Item Factor


variance)

During social studies

instruction how often

do you emphasize the

following:

Civic Content

(51.7)

Historical Content

(12.1)

Extracted

Communalities

Civic responsibility

.805 .516

Fundamentals of state

and/or federal

government

.759 .611

Learning about the US

Constitution

.739

.581

Discussing core

democratic values

.659 .561

Integrating current

events into classroom

activities

.509 .345

Basic economic

concepts

.389 .310 .406

Social history of the US

and /or World

.894 .711

Political history of the

US and/or World

.857 .763

Diversity of religious

views

.675 .493

Issues of race and class

.653

.555


www.socstrp.org

14


Direct Oblimin Factor

Correlations

Civic Historical

Civic 1.00 -.657

Historical -.657 1.00

Technology-Purpose Inventory

Given the current emphasis of instructional technology in social studies education (Swan

& Hofer, 2008; VanFossen & Waterson, 2008), we included items focused on technology use:

(1) purpose of technology, (2) technology tools, and (3) Internet-use. We merged grade level

responses to the technology items (21 = elementary, 36 = middle, and 51 = high school). There

were three emphases within these items: (a) use technology to support learner-centered

strategies, (b) apply technology to develop students’ higher order thinking skills, and (c)

facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address the content standards. Internal

consistency reliability was very high (α = 0.91). The limited item-to-factor ratio prohibited the

conducting of a factor analysis (Velicer & Fava, 1998).

Technology Tools Inventory

The technology tools inventory combined grade level responses across four items (22 =

elementary, 37 = middle, and 52 = high school). The items covered four themes: (1) interactive

multimedia presentations, (2) instructional strategies that utilize digital images/primary sources,

(3) digital media, and (4) course development software. Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.73) was

moderate. As with the technology purpose inventory, we decided against conducting a factor

analysis due to a low item-to-factor ratio.

Internet-use inventory. Responses to the Internet-use item were also merged items across

grade levels (23 = elementary, 38 = middle schools, 54 = high school). Cronbach’s alpha

reflected high internal consistency reliability (α = 0.85). PAF indicated two factors accounting

for approximately 64.7% variance among inventory items (Table 3). Based upon the strength of

factor loadings, we defined the two factors as (a) Internet for research/investigation and (b)

Internet for communication. Factor correlations indicate a moderate association between the two

latent constructs.

Table 3

Obliquely rotated principal axis factor loadings for the Internet-use inventory (n=2686)

Item Factor


variance)

How do you have

students use the

Internet:

Internet for

Research/Investiga

tion

(49.9)

Internet for

Communication

(14.8)

Extracted

Communalities

.887 .723


www.socstrp.org

15


Findings from these factor analyses suggest that the S4 instrument and attached data

reflect theory of previous social studies research efforts, thus inferring validity and reliability.

Using this instrument, social studies professionals and advocates can design policy and

To find and examine

primary source

materials

During social

studies instruction

.782 .581

To collect

information for

reports or projects

.735

.537

To complete a

Webquest or other

inquiry activity

.656 .558

To take a virtual

field trip to an

online museum

.424

.399

To communicate

with students from

another country

.872 .647

To communicate

with others

(including

historians)

.548 .453

To develop Web 2.0

projects .533 .411

Direct Oblimin

Factor Correlations

Research/Investiga

tion Communication

Research/Investigati

on

1.00 .535

Communication .535 1.00


www.socstrp.org

16


professional development drawn from large-scale findings. Given these potentials, we hope that

researchers will dig deeper and test hypotheses using this instrument, data, and constructs

embedded within the various inventories.

Discussion

It has been over 30 years since Shaver et al. (1978) published their results on the state of

social studies. Since that time, social studies has experienced various national and state policy

changes, shifts in pedagogy and purpose, and an altering workforce. Over the last generation,

several quantitative (Haas & Laughlin, 2001; Ochoa, 1981; Vinson, 1998) and qualitative (Au,

2007; Grant, 2003; VanSledright, 2011) studies have profiled, examined, and characterized

social studies teachers and their practice. At the macro-level, limited research has examined the

social studies landscape broadly, who teaches it and how they do it. In this paper, we have

presented the rationale and development of a survey instrument designed to collect national data

in an effort to explore the professional characteristics and pedagogical decision-making of social

studies teachers.

The origins of the instrument and the accompanying nation-wide survey were based on

the need for data-driven research that has implications for local, state, and national policy-

making. This instrument was developed specifically for social studies instructional and

professional emphases. The data generated permit social studies researchers to investigate large-

scale research questions specific to our field and offer an opportunity to explore the intersections

between instructional practice and the contexts of teaching: better understanding the when, why,

and how of social studies teachers’ decision-making (Au, 2007; Grant, 1996; VanSledright et al.,

2006).

In addition to describing the development of the survey, we provided an example of how

data developed from this instrument can be used to examine existing social studies theory and

research. In our example, we conducted a factor analysis to examine key inventories included

within the instrument. The factors that emerged from this analysis aligned with previous social

studies scholarship examining practitioners’ instructional attitudes and behaviors (Levstik, 2008;

Litner & Schweder, 2008; van Hover, 2008), thereby offering evidence of the survey’s validity.

The latent constructs within each inventory also provide useful variables for potential

researchers. Moreover, the various factor correlations substantiated the complexity of previous

qualitative studies that have examined social studies teachers’ workplace characteristics and

perceptions (Au, 2007; Grant, 2003; VanSledright, 2011). We plan to use these components in

future multivariate analyses.

As mentioned earlier, a limitation to this study is the sampling methods used to collect

data. Because only five states incorporated stratified, random sampling procedures and several

key states (namely California and Texas) are underrepresented, it is not appropriate to suggest

the data are nationally representative. It is appropriate, however, to recognize these data as the

single largest, nation-wide sample of social studies practitioners in over 30 years. Moreover, the

reliability and validity analyses suggest that the instrument reflects current and past social studies

teaching and learning. We contend that while sampling procedures were flawed, the S4

instrument represents areas of theory and practice of the highest importance to social studies

educators and should be considered in future studies.


www.socstrp.org

17


As the critique of previous research suggests (VanSledright et al., 2006), studies

examining pedagogical practice have been limited in their sampling depth and scope. What

constitutes successful teaching often is contingent upon the subjective context of when, where,

and whom is taught. Survey research (when conducted judiciously) offers a more substantial

normative position from which to make generalizable claims (Richardson, 2006). The Survey on

the State of Social Studies is an appropriate instrument for such research.

The ability to offer greater generalizability of research findings extends beyond social

studies teacher education and theory. Large-scale analysis can and should be incorporated in

policy dialogue surrounding social studies teaching and learning. One example where such data

can be useful is that of the Common Core Standards. Current iterations of the standards address

social studies only in the context of English/language arts and only as a vehicle for reading

comprehension (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). As social studies teachers,

teacher educators, and researchers, we understand that while literacy is essential to social studies,

it is not the singular focus. Our survey is a tool whereby researchers can inform policy on what

social studies teachers “do” at the local, state, and national level. In addition, it can offer

landscape (rather than portrait) illustrations of how professional characteristics, student context,

and instructional emphases merge in social studies classrooms.

Conclusion

If social studies is to prosper as a viable discipline in Kindergarten-12 schools, it has to

adequately define itself. Beyond mission statements, social studies educators need the resources

to discuss openly the pedagogical aims and practices that define who we are and what we do in

this profession. Though numerous studies have examined social studies teachers’ practices and

offered rich findings (Au, 2007; Gradwell, 2006; Grant, 2003; van Hover, 2006; VanSledright,

2011), these studies are limited in the context and replication of their results. Survey research, as

in the past (Ochoa, 1981; Shaver, Davis Jr., & Helburn, 1979), provides an opportunity for

researchers to examine teaching across multiple contexts, establishing a collective professional

identity. The S4 instrument, created by and for social studies teachers, enfranchises those who

care about social studies-related educational policy by presenting a research tool unique to the

field from which to advocate, inform legislation, and make curricular decisions. While

understanding what goes on in social studies classrooms cannot (and should not) be

essentialized, examining the trends, attitudes, and emphases of teachers counteracts

misrepresentations of what social studies is not and provides directions for what it is and could

be.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all of the social studies teacher educators and researchers who helped

collect data and provide insightful feedback on the development of individual items. In

particular, we would like to acknowledge the important contributions of Dr. Jeff Passe (Towson

University), Dr. Nancy Patterson (Bowling Green University), and Dr. Michael Berson

(University of South Florida).


www.socstrp.org

18


References

Alleman, J., & Brophy, J. (1993). Is the curriculum integration a boon or a threat to social

studies? Social Education, 37, 287-291.

Alleman, J., & Brophy, J. (2001). Powerful units on food, clothing, and shelter (Vol. 1).

Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis.

Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267.

Au, W. (2009). Social studies, social justice: W(h)ither the social studies in high-stakes testing?

Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(1), 43-58.

Avery, P. G. (2002). Teaching tolerance: what research tells us. Social Education, 66, 270-275.

Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2003). Why don't more history teachers engage students in

interpretation? Social Education, 67, 358-361.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.

Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Boyle-Baise, M., Hsu, M., Johnnson, S., Sierrere, S. C., & Stewart, D. (2008). Putting reading

first: Teaching social studies in elementary classrooms. Theory and Research in Social

Education, 36, 233-255.

Cho, S., & Reich, G. A. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: High school social studies

teachers and English language learners. The Social Studies, 99, 235-242.

Coopersmith, J., & Gruber, K. (2009). Characteristics of public, private, and Bureau of Indian

Education elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from

the 2007-08 Schools and Staffing Survey (pp. 65 ). Washington, DC: National Center for

Educational Statistics.

Costigan, A. T., & Crocco, M. S. (2004). Learning to teach in an age of accountability. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age

of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42, 512-535.

Cuban, L., Kirkptrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high

school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research

Journal, 38, 813-834.

De La Paz, S., Malkus, N., Monte-Sano, C., & Montanaro, E. (2011). Evaluating American

history teachers' professional development: Effects on student learning. Theory and

Research in Social Education, 39, 494-540.

Ellington, L. (2011). Economics and history: What every high school student and teacher needs

to know. In M. Schug & W. C. Wood (Eds.), Teaching economics in troubled times:

Theory and practice for secondary social studies (pp. 153-176). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Engle, S. & Ochoa, A. (1988). Education for democratic citizenship: Decision making in the

social studies. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

Epstein, T. (2001). Racial identity and young people's perspectives on social education. Theory

into Practice, 40, 42-47.

Epstein, T. (2009). Interpreting national history. New York, NY: Routledge.


www.socstrp.org

19


Evans, R. (2004). The social studies war: What should we teach the children? New York:

Teachers College Press.

Fallace, T. (2010). Exploring three orientations to the social studies In E. E. Heilman (Ed.),

Social studies and diversity education: What we do and why we do it (pp. 23-25). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Farkas, S., & Duffett, A. M. (2010). High schools, civics, and citizenship: What social studies

teachers think and do AEI Programon American Citizenship. Washington, DC: American

Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Fitchett, P.G. (2010). A profile of twenty-first century social studies teachers Journal of Social

Studies Research, 34, 229-265.

Fitchett, P. G., & Heafner, T. L. (2010). A National Perspective on the Effects of High-Stakes

Testing and Standardization on Elementary Social Studies Marginalization. Theory and

Research in Social Education, 38, 114-130.

Friedman, A. & VanFossen, P.J. (2010). The Internet in social studies classrooms: Lost

opportunity or unexplored frontier? In, Diem, R. and Berson, M. (Eds.), Technology in

retrospect: Social studies in the information age 1984 – 2009. Charlotte, NC: Information

Age Publishing.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes

professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.

American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.

Gay, G. (2003). Deracialization in social studies teacher education textbooks. In G. Ladson-

Billings (Ed.), Critical race theory perspecitves on the social studies: The profession,

policies, and the curriculum (pp. 123-147). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Gerwin, D., & Visone, F. (2006). The freedom to teach: Contrasting teaching in elective and

state-tested courses. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34, 259-282.

Gradwell, J. M. (2006). Teaching in spite of rather than because of, the test. In S. G. Grant (Ed.),

Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across states (pp. 157-176). Greenwich,

CT: Information Age Publishing.

Grant, S. G. (1996). Locating authority over content and pedagogy: Cross-current influences on

teachers' thinking and pratice. Theory and Research in Social Education, 24, 237-272.

Grant, S. G. (2003). History lessons: Teaching, learning, and testing in U.S. high school

classrooms. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Haas, M. E., & Laughlin, M. A. (2001). A profile of elementary social studies teachers and their

classrooms. Social Education, 65, 122-126.

Hamot, G. E., Shokoohi-Yetka, M., & Sasso, G. M. (2000). Civic compentencies and students

with disabilities. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of National Council for the

Social Studies, San Antonio, TX.

Hanna, P. R. (1937). Social education for childhood. Childhood Education, 14, 74-77.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the

postmodern age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Heafner, T. L., & Fitchett, P. G. (2012). National trends in elementary instruction: Exploring the

role of social studies curricula. The Social Studies, 103(2), 67-72.


www.socstrp.org

20


Heafner, T. L., Libscomb, G. B., & Rock, T. C. (2006). To test or not to test? the role of testing

in elementary social studies, A collaborative study conducted by NCPSSE and SCPSSE.

Social Studies Research and Practice, 1, 145-164.

Henke, R. R., Chen, X., & Goldman, G. (1999). What happens in classroms? Instructional

practices in elementary and secondary schools, 1994-95. Washington, DC: US

Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Hess, D. E. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies

classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education,

30(1), 10-41.

Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion. New

York: Routledge.

Holloway, J. E., & Chiodo, J. J. (2009). Social studies is being taught in the elementary school:

A contrarian view. Journal of Social Studes Research, 33, 235-261.

Howard, T. (2003). The dis(g)race of the social studies. In G. Ladson-Billings (Ed.), Critical

race perspectives on social studies: The profession, policies, and curriculum (pp. 27-44).

Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis Educational and

Psychologial Measurement, 20, 141-151.

Kenreich, T. W. (2002). Professional development becomes political: Geography's corps of

teacher leaders. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30, 381-400.

Kliebard, R. M. (2004). The Struggle for the American curriculum. New York: Routledge

Falmer.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2003). Lies my teacher still tells: Developing a critical race perspective

toward the social studies. In G. Ladson-Billings (Ed.), Critical race theory perspectives

on the social studies (pp. 1-14). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). "Yes, but how do we do it?":Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy.

In J. G. Landsman & C. W. Lewis (Eds.), White teachers/Diverse classrooms:Creating

inclusive schools, building on students' diversity, and providing true educational equity

(2nd ed., pp. 33-46). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Leming, J. S. (1991). Teacher characeristics and social studies education. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.),

Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 222-236). New York,

NY: MacMillan.

Leming, J. S., Ellington, L., & Schug, M. (2006). Social Studies in our nation's elementary and

middle schools. Hartford, CT: The Center of Survey Research and Analysis.

Leming, J. S., Porter-Magee, K., & Ellington, L. (Eds.). (2003). Where did social studies go

wrong? Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Levstik, L. S. (2008). What happens in social studies classrooms? Research on K-12 social

studies practice. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social

studies education (pp 50-64). New York, NY: Routledge.

Liu, C. (2004). Multi-item measures. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The

Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods (Vol. 3, pp. 673-XXX). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Litner, T., & Schweder, W. (2008). Social studies in special education classrooms: A glimpse

behind the door. Journal of Social Studies Research, 32, 3-9.


www.socstrp.org

21


Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005).

Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260-270.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Documentation fo the 2003-2004 Schools and

Staffing Survey.Washington, DC: US Department of Educaiton.

O'Brien, J. (2011). The system is broken and it's failing these kids: High school social studies

teachers' attitudes towards training for ELLs. Journal of Social Studies Research, 35, 23-

38.

Ochoa, A. (1981). A profile of social studies teachers. Social Education, 45, 401-404.

Pace, J. (2008). Inequalities in history-social science teaching under high stakes accountability:

Interviews with fifth-grade teachers in California. Social Studies Research and Practice,

3, 24-40.

Pace, J. (2011). The complex and unequal impact of high stakes accountability on untested social

studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 39, 32-60.

Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Ravitch, D., & Finn, C. (1987). What do our 17-year olds know? A report on the National

Assessment of History and Literature. New York: Harper Collins.

Richardson, W. K. (2006). Combining cognitive interviews and social science surveys:

Strengthening interpretation and design. In K. C. Barton (Ed.), Research methods in

scoial studies education (pp. 159-182). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.

Ross, E. W. (2006). The struggle for the social studies curriculum. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The

social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possiblities (Third ed., pp. 17-36).

Albany, NY: SUNY.

Rutter, R. A. (1986). Profile of the profession. Social Education, 50, 252-255.

Salinas, C. (2006). Educating late arrival high school immigrant students: A call for a more

democratic curriculum. Multicultural Perspectives, 8, 20-27.

Shaver, J. P., Davis Jr., O. L., & Helburn, S. W. (1978). An interpretive report on the status of

pre-college social studie education on three NSF-funded studies. Available from ERIC.

(ED164363). from National Council for the Social Studies.

Shaver, J. P., Davis Jr., O. L., & Helburn, S. W. (1979). The status of social studies education:

Impressions from three NSF studies. Social Education, 43, 150-153.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15, 4-14.

Smith, J., & Niemi, R. G. (2001). Learning history in school: The impact of course work and

instructional practices on achievement. Theory and Research in Social Education, 29, 18-

42.

Spencer, B. D., Sebring, P., & Campbell, B. (1987). High School and Beyond: Third follow-up

report (1986), Sample design report. Washington, DC: Center for Educational Statistics.

Swan, K. & Hofer, M. (2008). Technology and social studies. In L. Levstik & C. Tyson (Eds.),

Handbook of research un social studies education (pp. 307-328). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Thornton, S. J. (2005). Teaching social studies that matters. New York: Teachers College Press.


www.socstrp.org

22


Thornton, S. J., & Barton, K. C. (2010). Can history stand alone? Drawbacks and blind spots of a

"disciplinary" curriculum. Teachers College Record, 112, 2471-2495.

Thornton, S. J., & Houser, N. O. (1996). The status of elementary social studies in Delaware:

Views from the field. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Torney-Purta, J., & Richardson, W. K. (2003). Teaching for the meaningful practice of

democratic citizenship: Learning from the IEA civic eduation study in 28 countries. In J.

J. Patrick, G. E. Hamot & R. S. Leming (Eds.), Civic learning in teacher education:

International perspectives on education for democracy in the preparation of teachers

(Vol. 2, pp. 25-44). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social

Science Education.

VanFossen, P. J. (2005). "Reading and math take so much time...": An overview of social studies

instruction in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33, 376-403.

VanFossen, P. J. and Waterson, R. (2008). It's just easier to do what you did before? An update

on internet use in secondary social studies classrooms in Indiana. Theory and Research in

Social Education, 36 (2), 124-152.

van Hover, S. D. (2006). Teaching in the Old Dominion. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring

history: Cases of state-level testing across the United States (pp. 195-219). Greenwich,

CT: Information Age Publishing.

van Hover, S. D. (2008). The professonal devleopment of social studies teachers. In L. S. Levstik

& C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 352-372).

New York, NY: Routledge.

VanSledright, B. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories,

and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

VanSledright, B., Kelly, T., & Meuwissen, K. (2006). Oh, the trouble we've seen: Researching

historical thinking and understanding. In K. C. Barton (Ed.), Research methods in social

studies education (pp. 207-233). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor

pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231-251.

Vinson, K. D. (1998). The "traditions" revisited: Instructional approach and high school social

studies teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26, 50-82.

Weiss, I. R. (1977). Report of the 1977 national survey of science, mathematics, and social

studies education. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Wills, J. S. (2007). Putting the squeeze on social studies: Managing teaching dilemmas in subject

areas excluded from testing. Teachers College Record, 109, 1980-2046.

Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Philadelphia, PA: Temple

University Press.

Wineburg, S. (2005). What does NCATE have to say to future history teachers? Phi Delta

Kappan, 86, 658-665.

Yon, M., & Passe, J. (1990). The relationship between the elementary social studies methods

course and student teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Social Studies Research, 14,

13-24.


www.socstrp.org

23


Web-Based References

Bolick, C. M., Adams, R., & Willox, L. (2010). The marginalization of elementary social studies

in teacher education. Social Studies Research and Practice, 5(1), 1-22. Retrieved from

http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/5.2.3.pdf

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core ctate Standards for English

Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects.

Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-

standards

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four

recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment,

Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. Retrieved from

http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7

Status of Social Studies Cross-State Study Team. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.edci.purdue.edu/vanfossen/SS_study/index.html

Survey of the Status of Social Studies. (2010). Retrieved from

http://coedpages.uncc.edu/coe/surveys/NationalSocialStudiesSurvey(final).pdf

VanFossen, P.J.. (1999). The family farm: Still part of the American dream? National Council on

Economic Education’s NetNewsLine. Retrieved from

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=NN122.

Authors’ Bio

Paul G. Fitchett is assistant professor of education in the Department of Middle, Secondary, and

K12 education at the University of North Carolina Charlotte in Charlotte, NC. His research

interests include social studies education, teacher characteristics, and educational policy. E-mail:

[email protected].

Phillip J. VanFosssen is head of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction; James F.

Ackerman Professor of Social Studies Education; Director of the Ackerman Center for

Democratic Citizenship, and Associate Director of the Purdue University Center for Economic

Education at Purdue University. His research interests include how social studies teachers use the

Internet, digital media, and virtual worlds in their teaching.

Survey on the Status of Social Studies: Development … · Social Studies Research and Practice 1...

Documents

Transcript of Survey on the Status of Social Studies: Development … · Social Studies Research and Practice 1...