Jones continued, "Facts, conditions, theories and activities that do not contribute rather directly to an understanding of the methods of human betterment have no claim for inclusion in the social studies" While history would hold a prominent place in the committee's recommendations, the capstone course of the social studies curriculum was to be the senior year "Problems of Democracy" course.
Wells Singleton notes, while historians balked at "the adoption of the problems of democracy course, the sociologists and political scientists moved quickly to endorse the offering" , The "Problems of Democracy" course was one of the truly unique offerings forwarded by the Committee on Social Studies.
Embodying in a single course the spirit of the entire report, this offering made the better understanding and study of present society the focus of an entire year of study. All the social sciences and history were to participate in this attempt at a better understanding and improvement of the present.
When analyzing the impact of the Committee on Social Studies, Wesley noted that the committee. For years following the organization of the Council in , it met at the back door of the American Historical Association and was regarded and treated as a poor relative. The typical historian was indifferent, condescending, or scornful of the Council.
Concluding Remarks Prior to the birth of NCSS, the renderings of scholars, the minutes and recommendations of learned societies, professional organizations, reports in journals, and textbooks offer information about the evolution of the content and methodology of the social studies as we know it.
Historically, textbooks are the best evidence about what was actually taught because teachers have always let textbooks dictate the majority of content taught in school, and still do today. These sources reveal to us that social education early on promoted values, religion, nationalism, geography, history, and politics.
As educational organizations and historians began to establish national commissions and committees in the late s, individual subjects were promoted, but there was a sympathetic ear to integrating the various social sciences with history as long as history was taught as a separate subject. Then, as the social scientists began to create their own national organizations and study committees to investigate the curriculum, the struggle for a place for each subject in the public school curriculum began to intensify.
Philosophically, scholars began to disagree about not only what should be taught but how it should be taught.
Even though the content was being determined mostly by historians, they could not agree about the goals and purposes of history. Much of this discussion was going on during a progressive period in American history.
The progressive movement in America, with its goal of improving the American way of life by expanding democracy and attaining economic and social justice, influenced education and the curriculum. Progressive educators wanted to implant ideas obtained from research in the social sciences and psychology. Progressives were concerned that, because education was to be provided for all, the methods of teaching school and the meaning of education needed to be altered Cremin Influenced in large part by John Dewey and other progressive educators, schools were increasingly called upon to educate "good citizens" and to contribute to the overall betterment of society.
The social studies did not just happen. Social studies evolved during the era under examination to include history and the social sciences, and a more integrated, relevant approach to teaching those subjects.
As social studies began to find its way into the school curriculum, NCSS was formed to provide leadership and to give credibility to a subject that would be constantly challenged during the twentieth century.
American Historical Association. The Study of History in the Elementary Grades. Report of the Committee of Eight. New York: Scribners', The Study of History in Schools.
New York: Macmillan Co. Barr, R. Barth, and S. Defining the Social Studies. Bulletin Washington, D. Brown, R. Cornell, S. New York: D. Correia, S. Cremin, L. American Education: The National Experience.
New York: Harper and Row, Cruikshank, A. Cummings, J. An Introduction to Ancient and Modern Geography. Boston: Cummings and Hilliard, Davis, O. Mehlinger and O. Davis, Jr. Chicago: NSSE, Hertzberg, H. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Hooper, J. History Textbooks, Jarolimek, J. Johnson, H. Teaching of History in Elementary and Secondary Schools. New York: The Macmillan Company, Jones, T. Ann Arbor, Mich. The Social Studies in the Hampton Curriculum. Hampton: Hampton Institute Press, Keels, O.
McCulloch, J. Introduction to the History of America. Philadelphia: Young and McCulloch, Morse, J. Discovery and General Description of America General View of the United States Boston: Thomas and Andrews, Murra, W. Secondary social studies. The s brought significant changes to the middle school and high school curricula with the introduction of the elective system. Courses in subjects like anthropology, economics, sociology, and psychology were added to a curriculum that had formally been primarily limited to world history, world geography, government, and U.
Advanced Placement courses were also introduced. Citing the need to promote civic ideals and principles for life in the twenty-first century, the standards consisted of ten interdisciplinary thematic strands as a guide for developing social studies curriculum. The National Council for the Social Studies was founded in , and is the largest organization in the United States to focus exclusively on social studies education.
Historically, the organization was established as a coordinating entity and clearing-house. It evolved at a time when social studies was immersed in disagreement on scope and sequence. Dissent ensued among teacher educators and content specialists, and certification requirements in the social studies were nonexistent. The founders, comprised of professors from Teachers College at Columbia University, envisioned NCSS as the unifying organization that could merge the social studies disciplines with education.
At the start of the twenty-first century NCSS plays a leadership role in promoting an integrated study of the social studies and offers support and services to its members. The membership includes K—12 teachers, curriculum specialists, content supervisors, college and university faculty, students, and education leaders in the social studies.
The organization has members in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and numerous foreign countries. It draws on multidisciplinary studies and emphasizes a civic-based approach. The council has articulated a framework to foster academic and civic competence by integrating national standards across disciplines.
They have integrated approaches from the social sciences, behavioral sciences, and humanities to aid in structuring a comprehensive and effective social studies program. Ten themes are highlighted in the framework, which include culture; people, places and environments; individuals, groups, and institutions; production, distribution, and consumption; global connections; time, continuity, and change; individual development and identity; power, authority, and governance; science, technology, and society; and civic ideals and practices.
The council also has developed position statements to guide the profession on critical areas of education, such as ability grouping, character education, ethics, information literacy, multicultural and global education, religion, and testing. The term social studies appears in the literature and the names of professional associations and organizations, academic institutions, and curriculum projects and centers throughout the world.
Its meaning, however, is as varied as the contexts in which it appears, and may have little to do with the way content is organized or delivered. Three types of content organization predominate.
Social studies in its most interdisciplinary form combines the integrated study of humanities and the social sciences. This integrated focus appears in relatively few nations, such as the United States and Canada, where both instructional materials and curriculum objectives focus on interdisciplinary learning.
In other nations, the mandate for such a system is somewhat more direct. Australia's Adelaide Declaration DETYA calls upon schools to prepare students to "exercise judgment and responsibility in matters of morality, ethics and social justice, and the capacity to make sense of their world, to think about how things got to be the way they are" and to "be active and informed citizens" committed to democratic principles and ideals.
Recent changes in Japanese national educational policy and law require all students to study integrated courses such as "Human Beings and Industrial Society. And, while no "social studies" course is mandated per se, the South African Ministry of Education requires that the "values of human rights, civic responsibility and respect for the environment [be] infused throughout the curriculum.
The more common use of the term social studies is as an organizing term for the social science disciplines in faculties, schools, and professional interest groups. In Ghana, for example, social studies faculties in the local secondary schools and university are composed of historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and other social scientists. The organizational patterns noted above exist in a minority of nations in the world community.
The large majority of educational institutions, including schools, universities, ministries of education and culture, and local educational agencies organize the social studies into separate, distinct disciplines: history, economics, anthropology, political science, and other traditional social sciences.
Indeed, the university entrance examinations or secondary school exit exams in nations such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Russia, for example, focus on specific social science disciplines, notably history and geography. Even in nations with emerging integrated curriculum standards such as Japan and the Republic of China, however, examination programs tend to follow traditional social science academic disciplines. Since its very inception, social studies education has weathered a number of controversies and challenges.
The core idea of an integrated field of study has been under scrutiny since its earliest days. The field's eclectic nature not only draws on a wide range of disciplines, but also attracts continuing debate and conflict. Developed with a National Science Foundation grant, the mixed media curriculum was designed to stimulate the learner's curiosity, promote scientific literacy, and help children learn to think like social scientists. Almost immediately, the program was at the center of a backlash from the "Back to Basics Movement.
Among other things, critics charged that students were not developing basic skills, that the curriculum promoted cultural relativism, and that it was a threat to democracy.
Not surprisingly, the curriculum was eventually phased out. Conflicts regarding new teaching and learning strategies still abound. For example, role-playing and simulations, guided imagery, cooperative learning, and technology-based learning have all received their share of criticism and opposition.
The content of the social studies curriculum has also been the source of debate and disagreement. When the National Center for History in the Schools published National Standards for World History: Exploring Paths to the Present in , some educators charged that the standards were too inclusive; others claimed that certain groups were omitted altogether.
Other controversies center on the plausibility of a national curriculum and the ongoing development of state-level standards, mandates, and high-stakes testing. Debates surrounding culture continue in the teaching of history, geography, ethnic studies, and multicultural education. While many educators support a cultural relativist position, many others argue that "the mission of public schools is to instill in children our shared, not our separate, cultures" Ravitch, p.
These "culture wars" as termed by Nash, Crabtree, and Dunn have resulted in a rich, intellectual, and academic debate that will hopefully illuminate the field. Global education and international studies have also been criticized for their emphases on issues and events outside the United States' borders.
Critics charge that global studies advance cultural relativism, minimize patriotism, and emphasize skills at the expense of content. Advocates point out, however, that national borders are becoming less relevant in the face of technology, international politics, and environmental issues.
Technology has gained prominence as a tool within the social studies with the potential to enhance current pedagogic practice. Although an increasing body of research suggests that technology can improve academic achievement, changes in social studies instruction based on these findings have been tempered by the following: 1 questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of computer technology applications in the classroom; 2 the role of teacher education institutions and school settings in facilitating or hindering computer-based activities; 3 the unrealized potential of technology; and 4 the overlooked consequences of technological development on children and youth with regard to their social functioning, interpersonal interactions, and global understanding.
Various technologies such as Internet and web-based resources, hypermedia, data instruments, digital video, and tele-collaborative teaching represent emerging resources implemented in social studies instruction.
Technology, however, is more than just a tool of instruction, and these resources have effects on the political, social, and economic functioning of American society. Technology's impact on society is exemplified in the phenomenon of the digital divide that separates those who are information rich through their access to telecommunications, computers, and the Internet from the information and technologically poor.
Within the social studies educators focus on the differential impact of privileged access to these resources in the early stages of development and consider the potential ongoing consequences of this separation of haves and have-nots on economic success, civic influence, and personal advancement. Social studies education will continue to evolve as it is affected by events and trends in the United States and abroad.
These include the globalization of the media and the economy, advancements in technology, shifts in schools and school demographics, teacher accreditation standards, student testing mandates, changes in the American family, and swings of the political pendulum.
These forces will certainly impact ideological perspectives and influence the direction of the social studies in the future. William B. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Design for a Social Studies Program.
Focus on the Social Studies. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Boston: Little, Brown. Wayne Ross. New York: Knopf. The social studies are organized primarily for instructional purposes. In that year the Committee on Social Studies of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education of the National Education Association published a report which gave sanction to the use of the term and delimited its meaning. The organization in of the teachers in this field and the selection of the name, The National Council for the Social Studies, tended to standardize the use of the term.
The process of transforming the separate subjects into a federated group gave rise to various theories and ideas. Some writers and experimenters wanted to fuse two particular subjects; others wanted to combine each of them with history; and still others wanted to efface all subjects, leaving only the undivided field of the social studies. They differed widely with one another in the extent to which they combined materials from the various subjects, in the advantages claimed for each combination, and in the name given to the process.
All agreed, however, in basing their arguments upon the theory that pupils could learn more readily if civics and history, for example, were fused into a significant unity. Regardless of the merits or soundness of any particular theory or experiment, one general result seems to have emerged from this period of trial and error, namely, the widespread recognition of the intimate relations among all subjects within the social studies field.
Furthermore, social studies teachers have increasingly realized that the intimate relationship which exists among the subjects within the social studies field extends, though in a lesser degree, to subjects in other fields. There is a widespread notion that history, particularly American history, is being squeezed out of the curriculum in both the schools and the colleges.
The assumed cause for this assumed calamity is the mere existence of the field of the social studies. What are the facts? The recognition of the social studies field with the attendant rise of economics, sociology, social problems, and other studies inevitably lessened the prominence and predominance of history.
Some educators and historians have argued that the addition of new subjects to the curriculum necessarily lessened the time devoted to history. The elimination of English history, the merging of ancient and medieval history, and the subsequent substitution of a one-year course in world history for the two-year cycle in European history do seem to imply lessened attention to the subjects.
The loss is more apparent than real, however, for few students elected the two-year cycle in European history, whereas world history has become a requirement in many schools.
Though the change in the program makes it appear that history has suffered an enormous loss, the number of pupils who study world history compares favorably with the number of those who formerly studied one or the other of the courses in the two-year sequence.
Whatever may be the status of European history, American history has made steady gains. It has gained in time allotment and in absolute and relative enrollment, and it has become a generally required subject in both the elementary and the high schools.
The data supporting these statements appear in Chapter III. Here it is sufficient to point out that whatever loss history may have suffered has not been at the expense of the history of the United States. Furthermore, American history is receiving not only more formal recognition, but also more attention within other subjects. Numerous topics and units in economics, sociology, government, modern problems, and other subjects draw heavily from history.
Such topics as immigration, foreign trade, international relations, the tariff, world resources, transportation, and dozens of others cannot be taught without extensive use of history. One may question the accuracy and adequacy of the history learned by this indirect method, but no one can deny that large elements of modern and contemporary history are involved in the study of these topics.
While history so labelled may receive less class time than it did twenty years ago, the social studies as a whole have received increased attention. Before that time geography, civics, and history were in the program, but they continued to be more or less unrelated subjects. The rise of the social studies field convinced school administrators and teachers of the desirability of providing a systematic sequence of social subjects, one for each grade level.
Thus the aggregate time which is devoted to the social studies is far greater than the time formerly devoted to the separate subjects of civics, geography, and history. The conclusions about the status of history within the social studies are 1 the aggregate time devoted to the social studies is on the increase; 2 European history at the high-school level has suffered a loss in time allotment, but not necessarily in enrollment; and 3 American history has not only maintained its status but has actually received increased attention in the middle grades, at the junior-high-school level, in the senior high school, and in college.
There is no exclusive road to the achievement of a particular understanding; there is no exclusive method for the acquisition of a particular skill. Various materials can be utilized in the development of a desired insight. The Committee nevertheless believes that there are compelling reasons why it should endorse the study of history and why it should undertake to indicate at least the minimum content of American history.
The interests and capacities of pupils and the needs of society take precedence over the claims of any subject. The argument for history rests upon the assumption that it serves the needs of the individual and society. Citizens cannot understand the society in which they live without some knowledge of its past, and they cannot give their fullest loyalty to the nation without understanding the ideals and aspirations which have developed in its history.
0コメント