Upload
trinhkhue
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
2
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
3
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
4
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
5
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
6
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
7
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
8
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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,
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
9
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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).
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
10
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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)
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
11
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
12
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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).
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
13
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
Table 2
Obliquely rotated principal axis factor loadings for the content emphases inventory (n=2635)
Item Factor
(% contributed to overall inventory
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
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
14
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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
(% contributed to overall inventory
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
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
15
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
16
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
17
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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).
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
18
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
19
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
20
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
21
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
22
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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.
Social Studies Research and Practice
www.socstrp.org
23
Volume 8 Number 1 Spring 2013
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:
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.