MODULE 2 FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL STUDIES

I. WHAT IS THIS : The Social Studies Curriculum

II. DO THIS : Discuss the nature of the social studies curriculum
III. READ THIS: Read the following and answer the assessments below.

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, where both instructional materials and curriculum objectives focus on
interdisciplinary learning. In other nations, the mandate for such a system is somewhat
more direct. Other country’s call 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." The Constitution of
the Republic of China (Taiwan) requires education for citizenship that "shall aim at the
development among the citizens of the national spirit, the spirit of self-government,
national morality, good physique, scientific knowledge and the ability to earn a living"
(Article 158). 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. Similar
organizations are found in Zimbabwe, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, the United
Kingdom, Hong Kong, and other nations throughout Asia and Europe.
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.

One of the most publicized controversies in the United States was triggered by the
curriculum "Man: A Course of Study" (MACOS) during the 1960s. 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." Central to the MACOS controversy was its focus
on inquiry and discovery rather than content. 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 1994, 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. 8). 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.
Social studies teachers at all levels are often forced into the stereotype of being a jack of
all trades and master of none. From a teacher’s point of view, the answer to “What
changed?” is rooted in the ambiguous definition of “social studies” itself. In most
classrooms, social studies is an amalgam of disciplines largely dominated by history, but
depending on the curriculum adopted by a district or school, it also may incorporate
geography, political science, economics, religious studies, psychology, sociology, and
archaeology. This means that social studies teachers at all levels are often forced into the
stereotype of being a jack of all trades and master of none. For that reason, many history
professors will end up seeing students with limited historical content knowledge and
critical-thinking skills. But what they might not understand is that social studies curriculum
is heavily dependent on not just teacher preferences (or preparation) but also the priorities
of the government. District and state standards matter, but the status of social studies
education as a mix-match of disciplines reflects priorities that start at the federal level.

Social studies education, it seems to many educators, has never recovered from the blow
dealt to it by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, with its high-stakes
standardized testing in math and reading, to the detriment of other subjects. The effects
of NCLB are evident when students in a 100-level history course do not understand the
difference between primary and secondary sources, for example, or when students in
upper-level courses have trouble identifying and evaluating a historian’s argument. These
gaps in the skills necessary to succeed in history courses are formed at an early age for
most American students because of the emphasis on math and reading education.

On the ground, this means that elementary and intermediate school teachers have a dual
mission: teaching multiple content areas and increasing reading and math standardized
test scores. If teachers feel underqualified or ill-equipped to teach social studies
curriculum per se, they might integrate pieces of it into content areas that students will be
assessed on. For example, teachers might use a short story with the American Revolution
as a backdrop in a reading or language arts class. Or, students might learn about the
state bird in a science class as part of a broader unit on varying species. On paper, the
student has received social studies “minutes” as mandated by the state or district, but in
reality, the student has learned about an event, a person, or a place without any historical
context. The student therefore views the topic in isolation, never to be thought about
again. Young learners’ inherent curiosity is stifled when they can’t move beyond
the what to also explore the why and how: the very essence of what quality social studies
education should encourage.
Unfortunately, the lack of quality social studies education does not improve much as a
student progresses in grade level. According to the most recent Schools and Staffing
Survey, conducted in 2011, third graders schools spent less than 10 percent of their
academic week learning social studies. By the eighth grade, students spent only 4.2 hours
per week in a history or social studies class—as compared to 6.5 hours in English or
Language Arts, 5 hours in math, and 4.3 hours in science. What changed, then? Social
studies, and therefore history as a discipline, became the bottom rung of the educational
ladder for many schools and therefore the first of the core academic subjects to be
modified or reduced to increase minutes in other subject areas, or to be scrapped
completely.
Prioritizing social studies education probably won’t come from state mandates, nor should
it. Its needs to come from the grassroots level, by encouraging professionalization among
those who teach social studies. Professionalization would increase educators’ authority
to emphasize content-relevant skills in their curriculum, and to incorporate opportunities
for students to experience what it means to be a professional historian. This would result
in clear skill development among students, which would transcend the problem of social
studies’ content variability—a problem that has contributed to its decline. At a time when
it seems the only path to a subject’s legitimization is whether it is tested,
professionalization would help teachers gain recognition for their content mastery while
also reinforcing their ability to develop students’ critical-thinking skills.

The means of professionalization for social studies teachers can and should vary by
individual, but there are several readily accessible pathways, including content-driven
professional development, advanced study, and networking with professional historians.
Professionalization will allow the conversation to move from “What changed?” to what
works.

___________________________________________________________________

IV.ASSESSMENTS: To be submitted on or before May 30, 2020.

A. ANSWER THIS Accomplish the following table and submit this to the assignment
page. Your score here will be computed as part of your Summative Assessment.

Module 2 The Social Studies Curriculum (10 points)

1. Discuss the
characteristics of
the social studies
curriculum

B. ANSWER THIS: Accomplish the following table and submit this the assignment
page. Your score here will be computed as part of your Final Examination.

Module 2 The Social Studies Curriculum (25 points)

Answer the following in not more than 5 sentences each.

1. Discuss the controversies in
social studies.

2. Explain the role of technology in

social studies

3.Identify the changes that happen

in the social studies curriculum
delivery.

4.Why is there a need for the

changes in the social science
delivery?
5.How can these changes be
effectively implemented to
improve the delivery system in
social studies?

Did you learn something from the module? I hope so. Once you have done the
assessment above, you may send your answer in the assignment page or can proceed
to Module 3 and submit all your assignments on or before May 30, 2020. If you have any
question you can send me a message so we can discuss. Stay safe and God bless you!