THE CHALLENGES OF TEACHING SOCIAL STUDIES METHODS TO PRESERVICE

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS (excerpt)

Full article: Owen, William T.  (1997) The Challenges of Teaching Social Studies
Methods To Preservice Elementary Teachers.  Social Studies, May/Jun97, Vol.
88 Issue 3, p113, 8p, 1 chart.

Challenge 1: Negative Past Experiences with Social Studies

The finding that an unacceptably high percentage of preservice elementary teachers shared a

negative perception of their past encounters with social studies presents a serious challenge. The
cumulative percentage of participants who described their past social studies courses as being
either "very interesting" or "interesting" was 58.5 percent. For those who reported their
past socialstudies courses as being either "very uninteresting" or "uninteresting," the cumulative
percentage was 41.5 percent.

The harsh reality is that over two-fifths of the participants described most of their
past social studies courses as being more or less boring. That finding substantiates other research
that indicated that students often perceived social studies as a boring subject (Schug, Todd, and
Berry 1984; Shaughnessy and Haladyna 1985). I believe the finding, which comes from a sample in
which 90 percent of the participants were women, adds to the literature by connecting the negative
perception to the low status that social studies has among preservice elementary teachers (the
second challenge).

The fact that most elementary education programs either offer only one course that concentrates
solely on social studies methods or combine it with other content areas raises the question of
whether it is expecting too much from professors to have them strive to alter the negative
perception that many preservice elementary teachers have of social studies. After all, how much
enthusiasm for teaching social studies can professors really be expected to generate, over the
course of a semester, among those who have found social studies to be anything but interesting?

A related issue is the temptation for individuals to equate the uninteresting with the unimportant.
Too many preservice elementary teachers are likely to have experienced disengagement on a
cognitive and affective level with the content of social studies courses. If one of the goals
of social studies educators is ensuring that social studies "receive vigorous support as a vital
curriculum component responsible for accomplishing uniquely important purposes and goals"
(NCSS 1994, 174), then maybe the place to begin rallying support is on the preservice level.

The first challenge is how to change the negative perception that many preservice elementary
teachers have of social studies and how to convince them that it is an important and vital subject in
the curriculum.

Challenge 2: Lack of Interest in Teaching Social Studies

What should come as no surprise is the connection between the negative past experiences of the
participants and their current lack of interest in teaching social studies. Of the participants who
were completing the course, twice as many of them (33.2%) reported their interest level for
teaching social studies before enrolling in the course as being "low," compared to the number of
participants (16.6%) who reported it as being "high." Actually, the finding that a majority of these
participants (50.2%) reported their interest level as being "medium" appears rather generous and
provides some basis for optimism that professors can somehow "turn things around" in favor
of social studies. One would like to think that the tepid or low interest level that
many preserviceelementary teachers may have for teaching social studies before taking
a social studies methods course is not necessarily indicative of what their interest level will be
when they are about to complete one. Unfortunately, such optimism appears ill-founded.

When competing against the other content areas in the traditional elementary curriculum for the
participants' selection as their most preferred content area, social studies did not fare well, as
shown in table 1. Social studies ranked either last or next-to-last and was consistently surpassed by
language arts, reading, and mathematics, in this order. These findings are similar to those of Houser
(1995) who found social studies to have a secondary status among inservice elementary teachers.
Confirming the earlier conclusion that preservice elementary teachers have a low regard
for socialstudies before taking the course, the participants who had not taken the course
chose social studies the fewest number of times as their most preferred content area. Of the
participants who were completing the course, social studies was chosen next to last. Although the
positive news is that the position of social studies improved among the participants who were about
to complete the course, there is little cause for celebration in social studies being chosen next to last
by tomorrow's teachers. The second challenge awaiting professors is changing the reality that
many preserviceelementary teachers have concluded that other subjects in the curriculum are more
desirable to teach than social studies. Unless their minds are changed, the secondary status
of social studies in the curriculum will continue.

Challenge 3: Confusion over the nature of Social Studies

Although the history of social studies is replete with conflicting views about its nature and
definition (Allen 1996; Barr, Barth, and Shermis 1977; Barr, Barth,
and Shermis 1978), preserviceelementary teachers should fundamentally understand that it is a field
of study (Engle 1976; Maxim 1995; Oliva 1982) that draws content from a variety of sources,
predominately from the socialsciences (Martorella 1994; National Council for
the Social Studies 1994).

The first item on the questionnaire asked participants to respond to the following statement:
"Social studies is one of the social sciences, just like sociology and economics." The item is
worded in a manner that could bring a negative response. It is quite common for
elementary social studies methods textbooks (Banks 1985; Ellis 1995; Maxim 1995; Naylor and
Diem, 1987) to list the academic disciplines in the social Sciences. Although sociology and
economics are always included in these lists, social studies never is. In fact,
what preservice elementary teachers are supposed to understand is that the existence
of social studies is dependent upon its multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary nature (Banks
1985; Martorella 1994). Of the participants who had not yet taken the course, 59.2 percent of them
agreed with the statement, and 22.9 percent of them were undecided. Although disturbing in some
ways because "social studies" is a term commonly used in K-12 education, the finding is not
unexpected. Far more troubling is the finding that 58.8 percent of the participants who were
completing the course agreed with the statement, and 14.7 percent were undecided.

In another item, the participants had to consider whether or not it was difficult to
define social studies. Of the participants who were completing the course, 58 percent did not think
it was, and 9.6 percent were undecided. Less than a third of the participants perceived the definition
of social studies as being elusive, even though the literature is saturated (Mehlinger 1977; National
Commission for Social Studies in the Schools 1989; NCSS 1994; Wesley 1950) with debates over
the definition of social studies and discussions about how its definition influences the choice of
content (Allen 1996; Barth and Shermis 1970). More research is needed to investigate the suspicion
that to many preservice elementary teachers these debates and discussions are either unknown or
have not been made meaningful.

In a third item, the participants had to determine if the term "social studies" really means a
combination of history and geography. Of the participants who were completing the course, 32.5
percent agreed with the statement, 52.5 percent disagreed with the statement, and 15 percent were
undecided. The results were disappointing because just over half the participants
considered social studiesto be something other than a combination of history and geography.

While I acknowledge that too much can be inferred from a limited number of items, I still feel that
the findings raise some important questions. First, if almost three-fourths of the participants who
were about to complete the course either believed that social studies was one of the social sciences
or remained undecided, what did that indicate about their understanding of the nature of the
academic disciplines in the social sciences and how these disciplines differ from social studies?
Second, how can preservice elementary teachers adequately understand the multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary nature of social studies if they believe social studies is one of the academic
disciplines in the social sciences? If a majority of the participants did not perceive social studies as
being difficult to define, how do they explain the fact that experts in the field have found the
opposite to be true? Why was such a large percentage (47.5%) of the participants unconvinced
that social studies was something other than merely a combination of history and geography?

Although some issues in social studies education at the preservice level may be negotiable, the

nature of social studies is not one of them. Herein lies the third challenge. It is difficult to
comprehend how social studies can be taught purposely and successfully as an integrated study of
the social sciences and other areas to promote civic competence (NCSS 1994) when its basic nature
remains a mystery to those who are responsible for teaching it.

Challenge 4: Conflicting/Conservative Sociological Beliefs

Banks (1985) stated that one of the major goals for social studies should be "to help develop
citizens who have the commitment and the skills needed to help close the gap between the
democratic ideals of our nation and societal realities" (9). That goal, stated in various forms, has
long been advocated by social studies educators. For example, the NCSS (1979) concluded that the
ultimate goal of social studies was not "to advance the frontiers of knowledge nor to
produce social scientists" (267) but rather "to engage students in analyzing and attempting to
resolve the social issues confronting them" (267). Also, the National Commission
on Social Studies in the Schools (1989) chose as one of its goals the development of "critical
attitudes and analytical perspectives appropriate to analysis of the human condition" (65). As a
further commitment to that goal, the NCSS (1994) described effective social studies programs as
those that "prepare young people to identify, understand, and work to solve problems facing our
diverse nation in an increasingly interdependent world" (159). Clearly, there is a nexus
between social studies education and a desire to improve the human condition (Leming 1989) for
all the nation's citizenry, but especially for those who have had limited access to the nation's
political and economic resources.

In principle, the participants agreed with the aforementioned goal. Several items on the
questionnaire provided data to substantiate that finding. When the total number of participants was
asked whether "social studies should teach children to accept society the way it is," 74 percent
disagreed with the statement. When they were asked whether "social studies should acknowledge
our country's social problems," 90 percent of the participants agreed with the proposition. When the
participants were asked if they favored "teaching children what the world is really like as well as
what it should be like," 88 percent of them responded favorably. Another item asked the
participants whether they thought it was desirable for children to "believe that American society
needs to be improved," and 90 percent of them responded that it was desirable. Similarly, when
asked whether "children who are concerned about problems in our society" was something they
considered desirable, 95 percent of the participants believed that it was desirable.

From the data above, we can conclude that the participants supported the goal
of social improvement. What might not be as obvious is the general nature of the items; none dealt
with specifics. When the items became more specific, the participants responded quite differently
than one might have been led to think from their previous responses. One such item asked the
participants whether they believed it was desirable or undesirable for children "to believe that the
American Dream is available to everyone who will simply work hard enough to attain it." Of the
total number of participants, 75 percent responded that that was something desirable for children to
believe. When only the participants who were completing the course were included in the analysis,
the results were much the same: 69 percent of them believed it was desirable; 9 percent of them
found it undesirable, and 22 percent of them were undecided.

Another item asked whether it was desirable or undesirable for children to "believe that America's
political and economic institutions have the best interests of all Americans at heart." Of the total
number of participants, 26 percent found it desirable, 36 percent found it undesirable, and 38
percent were undecided. When the data were separated so that only the participants who were
completing the course were included, the results were nearly identical: 28 percent found it
desirable, 35 percent found it undesirable, and 37 percent were undecided.
Although the participants had progressive sociological beliefs generally, their responses on specific
items reflected conservative positions. That finding seems to relate directly to important issues in
multicultural education; one of which is the difference that is likely to exist between the life
experiences and sociological perspectives of teachers and their students who are members of
diverse cultural groups (Banks 1988; Garcia 1994; Grossman 1995). Because most teachers come,
and will continue to come, from a middle-class background, the sociological perspective they bring
to the classroom may be far more conservative and benign than that of minority parents and
children. That difference in perspective is inherent in both items that were specific in nature.

For the first item, the difference is found in how one explains the realities of poverty and
unemployment in the United States. A belief that everyone can attain the American Dream simply
by hard work is what Bennett and LeCompte (1990) refer to as "a middle-class ideology which
states that status and mobility in American society are based upon merit, earned competitively, and
facilitated by schooling" (161). To those who accept that ideology, individuals who experience
poverty and unemployment have only themselves to blame; they just have not tried hard enough to
succeed (Lewis 1978, Sleeter and Grant 1993). Comments made by preservice elementary teachers
subsequent to the initial study provide further evidence of such a belief. Five selections from their
statements that support the conservative ideology follow:

1. I believe children need to know that the American Dream is available to everyone [emphasis
in original] but that to attain it one must work hard. If you want something [goal], you have
to do what is needed to get it. Not only does it take work but also an education. Nears age, an
education wasn't as important as today. A lot of parents back then didn't go to school.
Therefore, studyin school.
2. I believe that it is important for children to have dreams. I also think it is important to teach
our children that anything is possible if you work hard enough.
3. I would explain to this child that it is not impossible for people in poverty to get out and
reach the American Dream. I would emphasize the hard work part of it and tell the student it
is a struggle, but to always keep the hope alive.
4. It is important for students to believe that it's possible to achieve in America. even though
they need to realize that many things are only a dream [emphasis original].
5. I would tell the child that I do not know why he lives in the projects. And that the
government is not responsible for why he or she lives the way they do. People make their
own choices in life. And it is not of [sic] my business how choose to live it.

Bennett and LeCompte note that those who accept such explanations somehow overlook the fact
that that ideology most often applies in principle to those who are already the most advantaged
(white middle-and upper-class men). The contrast is rather apparent between the conservative,
"middle class" ideology and one that includes such concepts as "reproduction," "hegemony,"
"oppression," "resistance," and empowerment" (Apple 1978, 1979, 1982; Giroux 1983a, 1983b,
1988; Freire 1970)--concepts that persons with minority status in a society may find particularly
relevant and meaningful.

The difference also concerns how one perceives the nature of society. Sleeter and Grant (1993)
believe that members of dominant groups are likely to perceive the nature of society as fair and
open, whereas members of oppressed groups are likely to view it as unfair or rigged. An uncritical
view of societal institutions is a characteristic of structural functionalism (Bennett
and LeCompte1990), which, once again, reflects a conservative position, that is, "a benign,
unquestioning view of the social system" and one that "accepts existing class structures as
appropriate" (Bennett and LeCompte 1990, 6). Such a view has little in common with "critical
citizenship" (Engle and Ochoa 1988) that encourages questioning and leaves room for doubt.

The fourth challenge is to encourage preservice elementary teachers to adopt and teach the all-
important social studies goal of working to improve society. A conflict may exist between their
general agreement with the ideals of that broad goal and their conservative sociological beliefs on
specific issues. Additional research is needed in this area. What becomes clear is the need for
professors to engage preservice elementary teachers in meaningful and substantive discussions
about sociological issues, especially because elementary classrooms will include increasing
numbers of students from diverse cultural groups (Garcia 1994).

Challenge 5: Selecting What to Teach

The number of topics deemed pertinent to social studies education at the preservice level continues

to expand. As the content demands increase, so does the pressure on professors to
prepare preservice elementary teachers adequately for an increasing number of responsibilities. The
sheer number of topics can leave professors perplexed about finding enough time to cover some,
much less all, of them. Massialas and Allen (1996) label some of these topics "crucial issues" and
include the following under the description of what to teach in social studies: creating a civic
culture, the hidden curriculum, student motivation, thinking skills, values education, global
education, multicultural studies, gender studies, educational technology, alternative assessment,
meeting the needs of students with disabilities, and academic freedom. One of the greatest
challenges facing professors is how to use the limited amount of time available to them in a prudent
manner.

Elementary social studies methods textbooks typically present what Leming (1989,1992) refers to

as the social studies theorists' culture of social studies. Another apt description of that culture is a
`university perspective' of social studies education. Within this perspective, the following positions
are usually espoused: Society needs to be improved (Banks 1985); controversial studies (or
problem-centered units) should be included in the curriculum (Jarolimek and Parker 1993);
citizenship education is highly related to social studies (Maxim 1995); units of study are highly
desirable (Chapin and Messick 1995); social interaction among students is encouraged (Ellis 1995);
student engagement in social issues is a worthy and realistic goal (Martorella 1994); and multiple
perspectives should be used for investigating historical events (Brophy and Alleman 1996).

I designed the Elementary Social Studies Perspective Questionnaire to measure a university

perspective of elementary social studies. The items were derived from a literature review of the
professional writings in the field and from elementary social studies methods textbooks. For the
two groups in the study, an ANCOVA was used to test the adjusted means, with GPA serving as a
covariant. Although the participants who were completing the course had a significantly higher
adjusted mean (a more positive university perspective) than those who had not yet taken the course
(M = 4.0 vs. M = 3.82), the difference on a practical level was too small to be meaningful. Both
groups had a moderately positive university perspective of elementary social studies.

Among the possible explanations for the lack of practical significance, one that deserves careful
consideration suggests that the ideals of social studies education (i.e., a university perspective) are
closely aligned with the ideals of education in general (Hollins 1996; Leming 1989; Schubert
1986). According to that hypothesis, preservice elementary teachers who enroll in a course that
addresses social studies methods, after having been exposed to the ideals of education in
introductory education courses, are predisposed to accept a university perspective and readily agree
with most of the general elements of this perspective.

On a practical level, the issue is whether or not professors should spend as much time (let alone an
entire semester) attempting to persuade preservice elementary teachers of the merits of the general
elements of a university perspective. To use the limited amount of time efficiently, professors need
to engage preservice elementary teachers in new, challenging, and unresolved issues rather than in
those on which, for the most part, they are already in agreement. The findings should encourage
professors to spend more time discussing critical and complex topics and less time covering
generalities that relate to a university perspective.

The fifth challenge is selecting and teaching content that is new, challenging, complex, and
specific, rather than that which is redundant, simple, and general. By going beyond the general,
valuable and enriching discussions can occur between professors and preservice elementary
teachers.

Challenge 6: Using a Concurrent Social Studies Field Experience

Two universities in South Florida required an intensive and interactive field experience during
a preservice elementary teacher's enrollment in a social studies methods course. Other universities
in the area used different models for providing field experience in social studies prior to student
teaching. For the two universities that offered a concurrent field experience, using it to its full
advantage proved problematic. Although the data supported the general finding that the field
experience was beneficial and important to the participants (N = 127), areas for improvement were
found.

For instance, when considering the field experience in relation to what the students had learned in
their social studies methods course, 80 percent of the participants found it a positive experience
("excellent" or "good"). Of those participants, the finding that just over a third (33.9%) of them
evaluated it as being "excellent" was disappointing. The other 20 percent of the participants
evaluated the field experience as being either "fair" (15.7%) or "poor" (4.7%).

Because nearly all the instructional strategies that are recommended in

elementary social studies methods (e.g., cooperative learning, roleplaying, simulation, inquiry,
group and independent projects) encourage socially interactive and active learning experiences
(NCSS 1994), one would naturally think that field experience placements would be made with
directing teachers who model these strategies. The data revealed that over 30 percent of the
participants were placed with directing teachers whom they described as having a "traditional"
teaching style. Although the term "traditional" is subject to interpretation, it is commonly used to
denote a style that favors passive rather than active learning experiences (Dewey 1938) and one
that is highly teacher-directed (Hollins 1996).

The most revealing finding to support the contention that the field experience was not used
optimally pertained to the participants' evaluation of the interest level their directing teachers had
for teaching social studies. A third of the participants (33.3%) reported that their directing teachers
were either "uninterested" or "very uninterested" in teaching social studies. It is counterproductive,
to say the least, to place a preservice teacher with a directing teacher who is not interested in
teaching social studies.

To meet the sixth challenge, instructors must place each preservice elementary teacher with a
directing teacher who can provide encouragement, positive modeling, and support for
teaching socialstudies. Simply finding directing teachers who are willing to
have preservice elementary teachers in their classrooms is not an acceptable nor a successful
strategy for making field experience placements.

Summary

These formidable challenges are obstacles that professors of social studies methods will

confront. Social studies educators on all levels have a vital interest in discussing the challenges and
developing effective strategies to meet them. To enhance their dialogue, I offer the general
observations that follow:

1. For the first challenge, secondary and postsecondary social studies educators must improve

existing lines of communication and develop new ones. The fact
that social studies is considered boring by a large percentage of preservice elementary
teachers needs to be addressed within the context of causes and cures. What must not be
overlooked is the fact that 90 percent of the participants in the study were women. The issue
of integrating women into the social studies curriculum (Bloom and Ochoa 1996) must
receive more attention, and changes must occur that will allow women to relate better to the
content of social studies courses.
2. The finding that social studies has a low status among preservice elementary teachers
mirrors the view found among elementary teachers in general. What must become more
apparent is that teaching social studies can be a rewarding, enjoyable. meaningful, and
significant experience, both for elementary teachers and their students.
Although social studies will continue to lag behind other content areas so long as current
concerns over reading and mathematics remain the focus of the public, it can attract a greater
following. Of the preservice elementary teachers who were completing the course, the
largest percentage of them (24%) reported that they did not yet have a preference for a
content area. Professors of elementary social studies should take some solace from that
finding and develop strategies for reaching the uncommitted.

Although discussions are constantly occurring over what content should be taught to elementary
children, the real issue is whether teachers (preservice and inservice), who have a low regard
for social studies, will make the necessary effort to find the time to teach the subject at all,
regardless of what the content is. Presently, that issue appears to be the more important of the two.
 3. Professors of social studies must make ever, effort to ensure that preservice ice
elementary teachers finish a course that addresses social studies methods with an
understanding of the basic nature of social studies. A follow-up study should be conducted
to verify the findings of the current study.
 4. The fourth challenge serves notice of the need to discuss various sociological
issues. particularly those that relate to race, class, and gender, in courses that
address social studies methods. The topic of multicultural education could serve as a
springboard for such discussions. Professors cannot assume that a sociology course,
somewhere along the way, will provide preserviceelementary teachers with sufficient
opportunities to reflect upon their own sociological beliefs.
 5. The fifth challenge may, in fact, have a "silver lining." Professors
of social studies methods cannot ignore the prior knowledge and attitudes
that preservice elementary teachers bring to their courses. The current study suggests
that preservice elementary teachers have a predisposition to accept many of the general
elements of a university perspective of elementary socialstudies and that more time should
be spent discussing specific issues.
 6. To address the sixth challenge, universities must implement or improve the monitoring
procedures for field experience placements. Those procedures should provide guidelines for
screening, selecting, evaluating, retaining, it necessary. excluding directing teachers.
Every preservice elementary teacher deserves to benefit positively from a social studies field
experience, and universities and schools must work together to reach that goal.