There is currently a wave of interest within
education regarding the appropriate use of technology in the
classroom (Maddux, Johnson, & Willis, 2001; Owston, 1997). This
interest is also readily apparent within the specific domain of
social studies (Berson, Cruz, Duplass, & Johnston, 2001; Ross,
2000).
Mason, Berson, Diem, Hicks, Lee, & Dralle (2000) recently
provided a list of "guidelines for using technology to prepare
social studies teachers." The general thrust of the Mason et al.
article was the delineation of five principles for guiding the use
of technology within social studies education, generally, and
social studies teacher education, specifically.
According to Mason et al. (2000), social studies
educators need to focus on (a) utilizing technology to engage
students in sources and activities that are beyond that which is
possible in the traditional non-technology classroom; (b)
integrating technology into lessons to facilitate student
achievement and not focus solely on the development of
technology-based skills; (c) reducing the "digital divide," but
also providing thoughtful and prudent technology integration to all
students; (d) developing the skills and knowledge necessary for
future students to be active and productive citizens in a
democratic society; and (e) continuing the investigation into how
technology can be used to influence and enhance teaching and
learning within the social studies. Mason et al. concluded by
stating, "The challenge then, over the next decade, will be to
provide quality training to all social studies educators that
incorporates the principles noted here, while gaining insight into
the effectiveness of the medium and the message through
research."
Crocco (2001), in a response to Mason et al. (2000), raised
several questions concerning the implementation of technology
within the social studies. These questions address what knowledge
and skills social studies educators should know about technology,
whether the focus should be on technology skills or technology
usage, how technology can be used to enhance teaching and learning,
and how technology may impair education in the long term. Crocco
(2001) stated that the fundamental issue for addressing her
questions, Mason et al.'s (2000) five principles, and the general
use of technology in the social studies is that "in teaching and
writing about technology in social studies, researchers and teacher
educators need to be clear and explicit about what learning theory
informs the ways in which learning will be extended through the use
of technology." Further, Crocco (2001) concluded her article by
stating,
Unless we adopt and promote a
powerful, research-based theory of learning on which our answers to
these questions depend, we will miss an incredible opportunity to
leverage technology for real change in social studies teacher
education and by extension, in our nation's schools.
Crocco's (2001) point is essential—social
studies education, generally, and the use of technology in social
studies education, specifically, needs a theoretical foundation
upon which to build valid technological and non-technological
pedagogy. Mason et al. (2001) are correct when they state,
Preservice teachers must not simply
acquire skills that make them proficient at using technology, but
also learn how to use technology to make their teaching better than
it would be without it....Therefore, if teachers are to use
technology in the classroom, it is important that they receive
appropriate technological training in methods and other education
courses.
Unfortunately, Mason et al. (2000) provided little
or no theoretical foundation for establishing what is "better"
teaching and "appropriate technological training." Crocco (2001),
while positing the need for "a strong statement about the model of
teaching and learning necessary or at least favored in fulfilling
these promises of enrichment and improvement," does little to
further this cause. She mentions her preference for philosophically
based constructivism as an appropriate theoretical foundation and
also makes several references to Bransford, Brown, and Cocking's
(1999) text, How People Learn , which presents a more
empirically based cognitive psychology approach. Which theoretical
approach to take, constructivism or cognitive psychology, is
perhaps less of an issue than simply the need to take one. It is
time within social studies education to take a long look backwards
at the beliefs, assumptions, and theory underlying the domain, so
that the look forward to practice and pedagogy is clear, informed,
and valid. It is time to stop professing technological and
pedagogical integration and to start integrating with purpose and
forethought.
The Need for a Theoretical
Foundation
The basis for a theoretical foundation is a good
theory. A theory is a set of interrelated and interdependent
principles designed to explain phenomena of interest. Specifically,
a theory of human learning would combine principles of human memory
and learning in order to explain and predict human thought and
behavior. Such a theory of human learning would include three
essential components: theoretical principles, theoretical
formation, and theoretical function (see Figure 1). The theoretical
principles "identify specific factors that consistently influence
learning and describe the particular effects of these factors [on
thought and behavior]" (Ormrod, 1999, p. 4). These principles are
then meaningfully combined or synthesized to form a theory. The
theory, however, is useless unless it can be applied through
prediction, explanation, or regulation.
Figure
1. A theory is synthesized from principles of phenomena
and seeks to inform the prediction, explanation, and regulation of
those phenomena.
While there are several characteristics of valid
theories, only three are mentioned here (see Hergenhahn &
Olson, 1993). First, the principles and the resultant theory must
be verified through observations of the actual phenomena being
explained. Good theory is grounded in and agrees with rigorous
observation. Second, a theory is a synthesis of many, and often
disparate, observations. A theory provides an integration of both
observational data and the relationships between those data
resulting in a clear, though often complex, description. Third,
theory is a tool and thus is neither right nor wrong, but rather,
useful or not useful. That is, a theory is only as beneficial as
its ability to correctly explain, predict, or regulate.
This brief foray into theory is necessary to
explain the essential role of theory in the formation of
guidelines, prescriptions, or suggestions for instruction,
learning, and technology in social studies. Theory provides an
essential rationale for answering why when promoting guidelines or
suggestions. For example, Mason et al. (2000) suggested, "The
challenge in preparing social studies teachers to use technology
begins by highlighting how technology can be used to encourage
inquiry, perspective taking, and meaning making." Crocco (2001),
similarly, states, "The chief value of technology lies therefore,
in providing the leverage so urgently needed for moving social
studies instruction away from passive, teacher-dominated approaches
emphasizing recall and regurgitation towards active,
student-centered forms of learning demanding critical and
conceptual thinking from all students at all levels"
(italics in the original). These statements raise the question, "On
what basis is the promotion of 'inquiry, perspective taking, and
meaning making' and 'active, student-centered forms of learning
demanding critical and conceptual thinking ' made?" Additionally,
what does is mean to be "student-centered" and why is
student-centered better than teacher-centered? Finally, while these
two statements are agreeable to most, they are whispers unless they
can be supported by a theory based on empirical observation.
Indeed, when these statements are linked to a solid theoretical
foundation, they become deafening.
It should be noted at this point, however, that
while a large portion of social studies guidelines, prescriptions,
or suggestions for instruction, learning, and technology lack a
theoretical foundation, this is not always the case. Milman and
Heinecke (2000) explicitly addressed the theoretical foundation of
their investigation into the use of Internet technology in an
undergraduate history course. Milman and Heinecke clearly stated
their theoretical foundation as symbolic interactionism, a form of
social constructivism. They then stated three assumptions of
symbolic interactionism and provided a link between their
theoretical foundation and classroom instruction. Unfortunately,
Milman and Heinecke's explanation of symbolic interactionism was
superficial, providing the reader with little knowledge from which
to understand their findings. In addition, Milman and Heinecke
provided no connection between their use of symbolic interactionism
and their prior discussion of constructivism.
This author's concern is not which theoretical
foundation Milman and Heinecke (2000) used (or Mason et al. or
Crocco for that matter), but did they adequately specify the
details of their theoretical foundation such that the reader can
comprehend the basis for their findings. This concern develops
direct significance in Milman and Heinecke's final implication for
social studies teacher education, "Social studies teacher educators
could use the model of technology integration and constructivist
pedagogy represented in this study to redesign the teaching methods
course" (p. 563). If readers do not understand the theoretical
foundation upon which the "technology integration and
constructivist pedagogy" are based, that is, why the integration
and pedagogy were effective, then the reader's only options are to
mimic Milman and Heineck's design or blindly apply an augmented
design. If, however, readers comprehend the theoretical foundation
of Milman and Heineck's study and findings, then the readers may
appropriate the theoretical foundation's principles and judiciously
apply them to their own situations. Finally, if social studies
teacher educators are not clear about their theoretical
foundations, then how can we expect clarity from our students?
Constructivism and Cognitive Psychology as
Theoretical Foundations
As mentioned previously, the intent here is not to
propose one theoretical foundation over another. Indeed, there are
a multitude of theoretical foundations depending upon one's focus
and intent. Crocco (2001), however, mentioned two potential
theories that may serve social studies well if adopted more
rigorously—cognitive psychology and constructivism. While a
full explication of these theories is beyond the scope of this
article, a brief synopsis of each is provided to demonstrate the
role of theoretical foundations in the informed construction of
social studies practice.
Cognitive
Psychology. Cognitive psychology uses the metaphor
of "humans as information processors" (Mayer, 1998); that is, human
thought and behavior are explained by positing how the human mind
processes the information it experiences and retains. The
information processing metaphor is instantiated through the use of
mental structures and the mental processes that act on and with
these structures. Typically, cognitive psychology theorists focus
on structures and processes such as sensation, perception,
attention, sensory memory, working memory, long-term memory,
knowledge organization, comprehension, problem solving, and
expertise. These foci are investigated empirically and integrated
into various theoretical models, such as information processing
theory. Often these theoretical models include diagrammatic
representations such as Figure 2.
Figure
2. A generaic model of cognitive psychology's
information processing theory including both structures and
processes
The empirical investigations of information
processing theory have resulted in many principles regarding the
nature of human thought and behavior. Three of these principles
will be discussed along with their application to social studies
teacher education to demonstrate the power of utilizing a sound
theoretical foundation (see Table 1).
Table
1. A Series of Information Processing Theoretical
Foundation Examples That Relate Theoretical Principles to
Theoretical Applications Within Social Studies
|
Theoretical Principles |
Theoretical Application |
| Knowledge is retained more readily when it is processed more
deeply (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). |
Teachers should focus on how students are processing knowledge,
not simply what they are "doing." Specifically, the "doing" of
history should focus on the processes used by historians, not
simply the use of primary sources within traditional pedagogy. |
| Elaborative processing, especially self-generated and
personally relevant elaborations, results in increased memory
retention (Anderson & Bower, 1972; Stein & Bransford,
1979). |
Students should be encouraged to relate their prior knowledge
to current experiences; specifically, students should actively
relate their autobiographical knowledge to new historical concepts,
processes, and experiences. |
|
Individuals organize knowledge according to schemas and
scripts, which influence how new knowledge is encoded and prior
knowledge is retrieved (Bartlett, 1932; Bower, Black, & Turner,
1979; Brewer & Treyen, 1981; Schank & Abelson, 1977). |
Student's prior historical knowledge should be probed via
discussions and assignments in order to determine their
perspectives (i.e., schemas and scripts) on material. These
perspectives should then be the starting point of historical
learning and instruction. Where no previous perspective exists, the
teacher should focus on relevant examples and experiences that will
assist in developing rich and integrated perspectives (i.e.,
schemas and scripts). |
The first principle simply states that the degree
to which knowledge and experiences are processed is related to the
quality of the remembrances that result (Craik & Lockhart,
1972). Craik and Lockhart referred to this phenomenon as "depth of
processing," where depth refers to the degree of integration of
knowledge with prior knowledge, the degree of mental effort
exerted, and the quantity and quality of mental resources utilized
during a learning event. For example, a preservice teacher surfing
the Internet collecting URLs of historical sites that contain
primary sources requires little processing other than the use of
search strategies. However, creating a written synopsis of the
obtained sites, including a concept map relating the various
threads found within the sites to the National Council for the
Social Studies' (NCSS) 10 thematic strands, would require
significantly deeper processing to accomplish. This increased
mental processing would result in increased meaningful learning and
retention.
An important aspect of the application of this
theoretical principle is the realization that it is the cognitive
activity that is paramount, not the physical activity. That is,
there is a current emphasis in social studies on "doing" history
(Levstki & Barton, 2001; see also Crocco, 2001, and Mason et
al., 2000). The key to "doing" history, however, is not the
physical manipulation of historical objects or the construction of
historically related web sites, but rather, the development of the
cognitive resources and skills (processes) typical of historians
(Wiley & Voss, 1996). Nevertheless, the physical manipulation
of historical objects or the construction of historically related
web sites could be beneficial to learning and instruction if the
tasks are oriented toward fostering deeper processing (see Braun
& Risinger, 1999). If, for instance, a social studies teacher
educator's students were engaged in constructing a web site related
to the 100 year history of a nearby town, the task at hand would
require little cognitive processing and thus would result in little
student learning if the task was simply the accumulation and
demonstration of historical artifacts (e.g., pictures, newspaper
articles, movies, or letters). However, if students are required to
interview town members regarding specific events and to describe,
explain, and evaluate these specific events through the voices and
primary sources of the town members, then students would be
engaging in deeper processing, resulting in rich learning. Thus,
the focus of the teacher, whether the teacher is a social studies
teacher educator, in-service teacher, or preservice teacher, should
be on the cognitive processing that the task at hand demands, not
on the surface characteristics of the task (i.e., use of
technology, "hands-on" manipulations, use of primary sources).
This focus on the cognitive processing involved in
task completion leads to the second principle, which states that
processing that is elaborate (i.e., processing that requires
relating one's prior knowledge to the task at hand) leads to
increased learning. Specifically, elaborative processing that is
self-generated and personally relevant results in increased memory
retention (Anderson & Bower, 1972; Stein & Bransford,
1979). Thus, students learn more, both qualitatively and
quantitatively, when they relate and integrate their own personal
histories (i.e., autobiographical knowledge) to current
experiences, especially when the students are responsible for the
"relating" and "integrating," as opposed to when the teacher simply
provides relevant examples.
It is important to maintain the link between this
principle, elaborative processing, and the previous principle,
depth of processing. Elaborative processing is most effective when
the student is actively elaborating and when the elaborations are
personal, as these contingencies lead to deeper processing.
Continuing the example of constructing a web site for a
100-year-old town, students will benefit more from investigating a
particular event, building, or person if they have a personal
relationship to this event (e.g., they have marched in the Memorial
Day parade), building (e.g., their favorite ice cream parlor), or
person (e.g., grandmother or father). If this is not possible, the
student can still increase his or her elaborations by visiting the
particular event, building, or person. Finally, if this is also not
possible, the student will benefit if asked to relate (i.e.,
compare, contrast, analyze) the specific event, building, or person
to a specific event, building, or person that they know. Thus,
while it is often stated that students need to relate current
experiences to prior knowledge, it should be stressed that students
themselves should be encouraged to make these connections (i.e.,
through discussions, activities, reflections), and not to have
these connections simply provided by the teacher.
While depth of processing and elaborative
processing deal primarily with the mental processing aspect of
cognitive psychology and information processing theory, the third
principle addresses an aspect of mental structure; specifically,
that individuals organize knowledge according to schemas and
scripts, which influence how new knowledge is encoded and prior
knowledge is retrieved (Bartlett, 1932; Bower, Black, & Turner,
1979; Brewer & Treyen, 1981; Schank & Abelson, 1977). A
schema is a prior knowledge organizational structure that
represents a generalization or abstraction of the regularities in
categories. Schemas, or schemata, do not represent specific objects
or artifacts but, rather, are categorical generalizations of
objects or artifacts inferred from experience. For example,
historical maps contain certain stereotypic characteristics
including boundaries, legends, symbols (e.g., points, lines, area
patterns, and colors), projections, coordinate systems, and
abstraction. As preservice students work with maps, they will
develop their own map schemas. These map schemas based on their
experiences with maps will be idiosyncratic in nature; that is,
their schemas will not be "truthful" representations of the maps
they have seen but, rather, will be personal generalizations.
Similarly, a script is a prior knowledge
organizational structure that represents a generalization or
abstraction of the regularities present in events. As with schemas,
a script does not represent a specific event, but rather, a
generalized procedure inferred from experience. For example, a
person's script for voting may include (a) go to voting location,
(b) stand in line, (c) sign in and show identification, (d) enter
voting booth, (e) vote, and (f) leave. If a person has never voted,
then his or her script will be based on second hand accounts (i.e.,
through discussions or reading); however, a student who has voted
previously will develop a more personal and well-developed script.
It is important to remember that in both cases, the map schema and
the voting script, the organizational structures do not relate to
specific objects or events but, to maps and voting, in general.
An important aspect of these mental structures,
schemas and scripts, is their ability to influence both how an
individual perceives a given situation and what they infer from
that situation. The importance of these prior knowledge
organization structures on current understanding and behavior
cannot be overemphasized. For example, the expectations,
understanding, and planning of the students beginning the web site
for the 100-year-old town will be constrained and shaped by their
current schemas and scripts. Students with significant web
experience (e.g., programming, web design, server administration)
may anticipate the site as having text, graphics, searchable
databases, and streaming audio and video. These experts may see the
process of obtaining interviews as involving videotaping and then
streaming these tapes on the web site. Differentially, students
with little or no web experience may anticipate a site with text
and graphics only. Also, a student with extensive experience with
primary sources and the process of using these sources to find
intersections between various threads or themes may view the data
collection process more as an investigation, while a student who
has never collected data may view the process as simply acquiring
as many resources as possible. These brief examples of the
influence of scripts and schemas demonstrate the powerful influence
they have on comprehension and behavior.
The effective use of schemas and scripts, however,
depends on (a) the explicit fostering of schemas and scripts, (b)
the activation of appropriate schemas and scripts to facilitate
connections between prior knowledge and new experiences, and (c)
the adjustment of instruction to take into account student's
existing schemas and scripts. The explicit fostering or development
of schemas and scripts is dependent upon students' repeatedly
experiencing the objects or events. Mason et al. (2000) stated,
"Methods faculty can use archives such as these [e.g., Virginia
Center for Digital History, Virtual Jameston, Race and Place] to
model lessons that engage students in historical inquiry." In order
to effectively develop appropriate schemas and scripts in
preservice teachers, this modeling should include several and
diverse modeling episodes from which students can generalize,
explication of key issues and processes in completing the modeled
task, and an opportunity to use the archives to practice what was
learned from the modeling.
In addition to developing new schemas or scripts,
it is important for students to activate relevant schemas and
scripts when engaging in an activity. Teachers need to be explicit
in assisting the activation of student's relevant schemas and
scripts through advance organizers, introductory activities, or
direct instruction. Crocco (2001) stated, "If we believe that
technology can leverage more powerful learning in social studies,
then we need to be sensitive to contexts of many kinds." One view
of this "context" is the student's perspective that is attainable
through his or her scripts and schemas. Finally, social studies
teacher educators and preservice social studies teachers must take
into account student's prior knowledge, schemas and scripts when
designing, implementing, and evaluating instruction. Thus, a
central tenet of learning was stated by Ausubel (1968), "The most
important single factor influencing learning is what the learner
already knows. Ascertain this and teach him [or her] accordingly"
(p. vi).
Thus, we have discussed three important theoretical
principles (i.e., depth of processing, elaborative processing, and
schemas and scripts) that contribute to theoretical formation
(i.e., information processing theory) and allow for informed
theoretical application (i.e., social studies teacher education).
The reason for investigating this theoretical foundation is to
provide an answer to why we teach the way that we do and why we
recommend that others do as well. If we revisit an earlier quote
and question—"The challenge in preparing social studies
teachers to use technology begins by highlighting how technology
can be used to encourage inquiry, perspective taking, and meaning
making" (Mason et al., 2000), and "On what basis is the promotion
of 'inquiry, perspective taking, and meaning making'
made?"—The question is now answerable. Inquiry promotes depth
of processing, perspective taking promotes elaborative processing,
and meaning making promotes schema and script application (as well
as deep, elaborative processing). In addition and more importantly,
this theoretical foundation allows the creation of new and creative
pedagogy that goes beyond the application of specific activities.
Although cognitive psychology, and information processing
particularly, provides an efficacious theoretical foundation for
the use of technology in preparing social studies teachers, it is
not the only such theoretical foundation.
Constructivism.
Constructivism as a philosophical and theoretical foundation
represents a break from the traditional assumptions within social
studies of "passive, teacher-dominated approaches emphasizing
recall and regurgitation" (Crocco, 2001). Constructivism employs a
more flexible, culturally relativistic, and contemplative
perspective in which knowledge is a personal construction based on
social experience. According to Fosnot (1996),
Learning from [a constructivist]
perspective is viewed as a self-regulatory process of struggling
with the conflict between existing personal models of the world and
discrepant new insights, constructing new representations and
models of reality as a human meaning-making venture with culturally
developed tools and symbols, and further negotiating such meaning
through cooperative social activity, discourse, and debate. (p.
ix)
Thus, constructivism emphasizes the active role
played by the individual learner in the construction of knowledge,
the primacy of social and individual experience in the process of
learning, and the realization that the knowledge attained by the
learner may vary in its accuracy as a representation of an
objective reality. The adoption of this theoretical foundation
changes the nature of the social studies from one of a search for
objective truth to one of a search for valid perspectives.
Unfortunately, constructivism is not a unitary
theoretical concept, resulting in several different "types" of
constructivism. Generally, these different types of constructivism
are categorized into three main genres, cognitive constructivism,
social constructivism, and radical constructivism (see Good,
Wandersee & St. Julien, 1993; Moshman, 1982; Phillips, 1995).
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss all three types,
and thus only one type of constructivism will be addressed, social
constructivism. Social constructivism emphasizes the social nature
of knowledge and the belief that knowledge is constructed through
social interaction and is a shared rather than an individual
experience (Prawatt & Floden, 1994) (see Figure 3). This
position is exemplified by Bakhtin (1984): "Truth is not to be
found inside the head of an individual person, it is born between
people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their
dialogic interaction" (p. 110). Truth, in this case, is a socially
constructed and agreed upon truth resulting from "co-participation
in cultural practices" (Cobb & Yackel, 1996, p. 37).
Figure
3. A diagrammatic representation of social
constructivism in which meaning is negotiated through the social
transaction of prior social experiences and current discourse.
The philosophical and empirical investigations of
social constructivism have resulted in many principles regarding
the nature of human thought and behavior. Three of these principles
will be discussed, along with their application to social studies
teacher education to demonstrate the power of utilizing a sound
theoretical foundation (see Table 2).
Table
2. A Series of Constructivist Theoretical Foundation
Examples That Relate Theoretical Principles to Theoretical
Applications Within Social Studies
| Theoretical Principles |
Theoretical Application |
|
Knowledge is the result of active cognizing by the individual
in a social environment (Cobb & Yackel, 1996; Prawat,
1996). |
Students should be motivated to reflect on their experiences,
to create understanding (and thus knowledge), to evaluate their
understanding, and to explain their understanding to others. |
|
Knowledge acquisition is an adaptive function designed to
organize one's experiences (Fleury, 1998; Prawat & Floden,
1994). |
Students should be confronted with problems or discrepant
events that motivate the students to seek, test, and assess answers
within socially collaborative environments. |
|
Knowledge is the result of language-based social interaction
(Gergen, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). |
Teachers should create activities that necessitate students
interacting verbally and students should communicate often with
both novices and experts in their field of study. |
The first principle reflects constructivism's
emphasis on knowledge construction being an active process of
social interaction and personal reflection and not a passive
process of knowledge absorption. Knowledge cannot simply be
transmitted from teacher to student or individual to individual;
rather, knowledge is built up through the synthesis of social
experiences. That is, knowledge is constructed in response to
social interactions through social negotiation, discourse,
reflection, and explanation—all active processes. According
to the NCSS's National Standards for Social Studies (1997), active
knowledge construction results from reflective thinking,
decision-making, interactive discourse, and self-regulated
learning. As Aristotle stated, "For the things we have to learn
before we can do them, we learn by doing them."
This active versus passive perspective leads to an
emphasis on activity. This activity requires both social activity,
as the source of knowledge and meaning construction, and individual
mental activity, as the mechanism of remembrance. While knowledge
construction involves both social and individual processes, "the
process of personal meaning-making takes a backseat to socially
agreed upon ways of carving up reality, however. The community is
the prime source of meaning for objects and events in the world"
(Prawat,1996, p. 220). Revisiting the previous example of building
a web site for a 100-year-old town from a constructivist
perspective, students will not learn how to gather and interpret
source materials, organize the source materials into a meaningful
whole, or create a web page by being told how to do so. Learning
these skills requires that students actually engage in the
activity, specifically, building consensus on what sources to
include, interviewing observers, reflecting on the historical
accounts that are being generated, and working to understand web
design. Thus, students must be engaged in various forms of active
discourse, provided the opportunity to reflect on their knowledge
construction and, ultimately, to verbally express that constructed
understanding.
This emphasis on activity provides the impetus for
the second principle, that knowledge construction serves the
purpose of organizing our experiences, a form of adaptation. An
important corollary to this principle is that knowledge
construction is not designed to yield a mirror image of one's
experience or an objective reality. Rather, knowledge construction
yields a personalized version of one's experience as these
experiences are filtered through one's prior knowledge, social
norms, and culture. This view of knowledge construction results in
perspectival knowledge, not factual knowledge. This
multi-perspective orientation necessitates the realization that
knowledge is not "true" or "false," but rather is viable or not
viable. Viability results from the usefulness of knowledge in the
navigation of the social milieu, agreement with social or community
knowledge norms, and/or the fulfillment of one's needs.
Furthermore, the determination of viability can only be made
through usage that is evaluative, such as problem solving,
questioning, inquiry, and the resolution of various forms of
dissonance.
The implications of knowledge as socially
subjective, observer dependent, and dissonance-based are that there
are multiple perspectives of what is true, context matters, and
ideational conflict is productive. Within social studies the
current shift from "history as fact" to "history as perspective"
reflects the knowledge that history is interpretive, culturally
subjective, and dynamic. Teachers and students need to become
skilled in the interpretive nature of the social studies and
deemphasize the memorization of dates, facts, and stories. This
emphasis on interpretation necessitates a more active
acknowledgement of the influences of culture and context. Indeed,
all lived events occur within a cultural context that influences
the understanding of that event. Furthermore, in addition to
acknowledging the cultural context of the event, the cultural
context of the learner (e.g., student, teacher, reader) must be
taken into account. Therefore, teachers and students must begin to
interpret events by actively examining the context of the event
itself as well as their own context including personal and social
biases, mores, and understandings.
Finally, a salient avenue for examining multiple
perspectives and context relations is through strategies that
emphasize questioning, investigation, analysis, and critique. For
example, for the students engaging in the web site design for the
100-year-old town, it is important that they realize that multiple
perspectives will exist relative to the town at any given period in
time and that understanding the town does not entail determining
which perspective is correct, but rather that all perspectives
intersect to create the town. In addition, students must interpret
this multi-perspective endeavor within the larger context of the
nation and the world. All of these interpretations require constant
discourse with interviewees, other students and teachers, and a
careful and critical evaluation of related primary sources. Thus,
students must become skilled interpreters of both their own
experiences and the experiences of others through self-reflection,
critical analysis, and social interaction, in order to adequately
organize these experiences.
The first two principles that state that active
knowledge construction is designed to organize one's experiences
into coherent meanings leads to the final principle that states
that the key mechanism for creating meaning is language (oral and
written). According to Gergen (1995),
To put the conclusion more bluntly,
all that we take to be the case—our propositional
representations of everything from physics to psychology, geography
to government—gain their legitimacy not by virtue of their
capacities to map or picture the world, but through processes of
social interchange [language]. (p. 24)
While Gergen is a bit of an extremist within the
social constructivist community (see Prawat, 1996), his focus on
language as an important aspect of knowledge construction is a
shared premise. According to Vygotsky (1986), language is a
cultural tool, ascribed with cultural knowledge or memes (see
Dawkins, 1998), used by the individual in social interactions to
become a member of that culture. Language in social constructivism,
however, does not serve to "transmit" knowledge between individuals
but, serves as a stimulus to negotiation, action, and knowledge
construction. Language provides an avenue for both confusion, as
when a statement made by another does not coincide with one's or
society's understanding, and comprehension, as when a dialogue
results in an individual testing meanings through social exchange.
"Language acquires both its social value and its meaning largely
from the way in which it is used by people in specific
contexts"(Gergen, 1995, p. 35). Language, then, provides the
mechanism for translating external verbal exchanges into
internalized meanings. Garrison (1998) stated, "Thinking...is
represented as an internalization of social dialogue" (p. 57),
while Vygotsky (1978) explained, "The history of the process of
the internalization of social speech is also the history of
the socialization of children's practical intellect" (p. 27,
italics in the original).
This focus on the use of language in the
construction of knowledge brings to the forefront of social studies
education the need to engage preservice teachers in the
conversation of history and in the practical application of
historical methods. Social studies teacher educators must disengage
from the unidirectional telling of historical stories and begin to
entrust preservice teachers with a discussion of the development of
history. This discussion or discourse may take many forms.
According to Levstik and Barton (2001),
History, too, has its own forms of
oral discourse, including expositions, explanations,
justifications, narratives, and dialogue. Each of these genres uses
historical content and processes as the substance of discourse.
Making sense in history, then, is at least partially constructed
within (or in opposition to) this discourse, as participants test
out ideas, listen to other possibilities, ask questions, and
challenge interpretations. (p. 22-23)
It is imperative to stress that dialogue does not
imply simple discussing and telling, but rather, includes the
analysis of ideas, the synthesis of verbal sources, the evaluation
of the intersection of multiple sources, and reflective explanation
of one's own thoughts and understandings. Revisiting the social
studies educator whose students are engaged in the construction of
a web site concerning a 100-year-old town one last time, an
emphasis should be placed on engaging the students in dialogue.
Dialogues at multiple levels of complexity and sophistication,
including with persons inhabiting the town during various time
periods, other students, expert historians, the teacher, and
themselves. Engaging in these different dialogues allows the
student to construct knowledge through interacting with others and
other's perspectives, by experiencing multiple contexts of language
usage, and by using discourse to provide the next direction of
inquiry. Thus, social studies teachers should hone the tool of
language, in both themselves and their students, so that the tool
of language may be used to create knowledge that is both meaningful
and valid.
This discussion of constructivist principles (i.e.,
active knowledge construction, organized knowledge construction,
and language-based knowledge construction) assists in elucidating a
theoretical foundation for the social studies. Fleury (1998)
summarized this foundation:
The constructivist need to negotiate
knowledge within a social community ultimately requires democratic
social practices. The tenets governing the process of doing this
kind of science are the virtues of democracy: a search for workable
truths, personal humbleness in the power of evidence, toleration
for different perspectives and interpretations, and an acceptance
of the tentativeness of what is held to be true at any particular
time. (Bronowski, 1965, p. 172)
As stated earlier, a theoretical foundation for
social studies provides an answer to why we employ various teaching
strategies in the social study's classroom and why we recommend
those strategies to others. If we again revisit the earlier quote
and question: "On what basis is the promotion of 'inquiry,
perspective taking, and meaning making' made?"—the question
is now answerable from within a constructivist theoretical
foundation. Inquiry promotes active learning, perspective taking
promotes contextually sensitive knowledge organization, and meaning
making results from language usage. The use of the constructivist
theoretical foundation provides the basis for constructing new,
creative and effective pedagogy that exceeds the blind application
of specific activities.
Two theoretical foundations have been briefly
described as alternatives for constructing social studies pedagogy,
cognitive psychology, and constructivism. Each has its own flavor
or tone, and neither is "correct," as theoretical foundations are
open to change and challenge.
Conclusion
Mason et al. (2000) stated, "Researchers should
continue to evaluate the influence of technology on social studies,
and should seek to provide exemplary models for the infusion of
technology within social studies methods of instruction." What is
missing from this charge is the basis for proffering these
exemplary models. Should social studies pedagogy take a pragmatic
stance of offering what seems to work today, or should social
studies take an informed stance that provides the necessary
foundation to create pedagogy that is molded to specific contexts,
contents, and constituents? It is time to choose. It is time to
choose a foundation upon which to build the NCSS's "vision of
powerful social studies teaching and learning" (1994, p. 162).
References
Anderson, J.R. (2000). Cognitive psychology
and its implications. New York: Worth.
Anderson, J.R., & Bower, G.H. (1972).
Configural properties in sentence memory. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11 , 594-605.
Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational
psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1984). Problem of
Dostoevsky's poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Berson, M. J., Cruz, B.C., Duplass, J.A.,
& Johnston, J.H. (2001). Social studies on the Internet.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Bower, G.H., Black, J.B., & Turner, T.J.
(1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11
, 177-220.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking,
R.R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Braun, J.A., & Risinger, C.F. (Eds.).
(1999). Surfing social studies: The Internet book.
Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
Brewer, W.F., & Treyens, J.C. (1981). Role
of schemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psychology, 13 ,
207-230.
Bronowski, J. (1965). Science and human
values. New York: Harper and Row.
Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996).
Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the
context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist,
31 (3/4), 175-190.
Crocco, M.S. (2001). Leveraging constructivist
learning in the social studies classroom. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1 (1),
Available:
http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss3/currentissues/socialstudies/article2.htm
Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972).
Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11 , 671-684.
Dawkins, R. (1991). Viruses of the mind
. Online]. Available:
http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
Fleury, S.C. (1998). Social studies, trivial
constructivism, and the politics of social knowledge. In M.
Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism
and education (pp. 156-172). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge.
Fosnot, C.T. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism:
Theory, perspective, and practice. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Garrison, J. (1998). Toward a pragmatic social
constructivism. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. Garrison
(Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 43-60). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge.
Gergen, K.J. (1995). Social construction and
the educational process. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale,
Constructivism in education (pp. 17-39). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Good, R.G., Wandersee, J.J., & St. Julien,
J. (1993). Cautionary notes on the appeal of the new "ism"
(constructivism) in science education. In K. Tobin, (Ed.), The
practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 71-87).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hergenhahn, B.R., & Olson, M.H. (1993).
An introduction to theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice hall.
Levstik, L.S., & Barton, K.C. (2001).
Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and
middle schools. Maywah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Maddux, C.D., Johnson, D.L., & Willis,
J.W. (2001). Educational computing: Learning with tomorrow's
technologies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D.,
Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using technology
to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial] , 1
(1), 107-116. Available:
http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/socialstudies/article1.htm
Mayer, R.E. (1998). The promise of
educational psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Milman, N.B., & Heinecke, W.F. (2000).
Innovative integration of technology in an undergraduate history
course. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28 (4),
546-565.
Moshman, D. (1982). Exogenous, endogenous, and
dialectical constructivism. Developmental Review, 2 ,
371-384.
National Council for the Social Studies.
(1994) Expectations for excellence: Curriculum standards for
social studies. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council for the Social Studies.
(1994) National standards for social studies: Volume 1.
Washington, DC: Author.
Ormrod, J.E. (1999). Human learning.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Owston, R. (1997). The World Wide Web: A
technology to enhance teaching and learning? Educational
Researcher, 26 (2), 27-33.
Phillips, D.C. (1995). The good, the bad, the
ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher,
24 (7), 5-12.
Prawat, R.S. (1996). Constructivisms, modern
and postmodern. Educational Psychologist, 31 (3/4),
215-225.
Prawat, R.S., & Floden, R.E. (1994).
Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning.
Educational Psychology, 29 (1), 37-48.
Ross, E.W. (Ed.). (2000). Technology in social
studies [Special issue]. Theory and Research in Social
Education, 28 (4).
Schank, R.C., & Abelson, R. (1977).
Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Stein, B.S., & Brandsford, J.D. (1979).
Constraints on effective elaboration: Effects of precision and
subject generation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 18 , 769-777.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and
language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J.F. (1996). The
effects of "playing historian" on learning in history. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 10 , S63-S72.
Contact Information
Peter E. Doolittle
Department of Teaching and Learning (0313)
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061
pdoo@vt.edu
