In previous postings, this blog describes the efforts social
studies leadership undertook through what was called the New Social
Studies. By way of a quick reminder,
that initiative was timed shortly after the Soviet Union’s launching of Sputnik,
the first man made orbital satellite.
Generally, the reaction took many forms including one in which various
American institutions promoted a significant push in the nation’s schools to
emphasize science.
In the social studies –
including civics courses – that materialized in what was called the New Social
Studies. There, not only was the
scientific method highlighted but the various subjects became more objectified
and lacking in normative concerns. This
mirrored shifts in various social science disciplines like political science
and its adoption of the political systems model (also described in previous
postings).
The leadership in social
studies aimed its efforts at convincing teachers to implement an instructional
strategy known as inquiry, which in turn heavily relied on the scientific
method. Overall, that leadership failed
at getting teachers to adopt scientific modes of study to their teaching. But that does not mean the effort totally failed.
In terms of what
this current series of postings aims to accomplish, the reader should take into
account two areas in which the national concern for science did have large
impacts. One area was how the various
social sciences changed. In political
science, this development coincided with what Harold Lasswell started in the
1930s. That political scientist caused a
stir mainly with his proposed definition for politics. He defined this central concept or factor as
follows: “who gets what, when, how.”[1]
He writes in the preface of
his famous book the following:
The interpretation of politics found in this book underlies the
working attitude of practicing politicians.
One skill of the politician is calculating probable changes in influence
and the influential.
This version of
politics is not novel to all students of social development. Yet it is constantly in danger of attenuation.[2]
The general thrust of his book portrays an elitist account of
politics in general, but with a focus on American politics. A reader of this work walks away, to the extent
Lasswell is successful, with a sobering view of politicians devoid of
sentimentality or much hope for a shared sense of communality. As its title suggests, politics is a
no-nonsense business of government that determines the distribution of public assets.
Initially,
Lasswell’s work did not have the influence it would eventually have. That latter development begins in the 1950s
and with the nation’s shift to more scientific concerns in the 1960s. No political scientist garners more credit
for this change than David Easton.[3] Reviewing Easton’s main contribution, in
terms of this series’ aims, his work facilitated political science’s shift
toward a more scientific approach of study.
Those who deal with
this matter identify Easton’s introduction of his model for the study of
politics as central. He introduced the
political systems model in the early fifties.
Again, that is reviewed in previous postings, but generally the model
describes a system noted for its depiction of a circular process.
That is, it denotes citizens
(individually or through some interest group arrangement) feed demands and
supports into the system. The system
then converts those inputs into outputs of public policy usually in the form of
laws and regulations. Once issued, the
output is subject to review by the populous that then engage in feedback, that
is, communicated judgements that then can be new demands and supports. This, again, is described in previous
postings.
A side note should be emphasized:
if one approaches the typical civics teacher and asks about the
political systems model, he or she will probably not know what that is. Even those who received a degree in political
science might not be familiar with the above language. The political systems model no longer enjoys
the dominance it once enjoyed, but among all political science programs, it is
still quite influential. In addition,
most civics teachers received a degree in history or took a concentration in
history, not in political science.
The point here is that Easton’s work led to a more “scientific”
approach to political science. And in
how this development affected civics, the subject matter became more
objectified, less concerned with justice, and less aimed at promoting a civic
society. Instead, it became more of a
report about how participants pursue self-interest within structural elements
of government.
Initially,
political systems approach with its related behavioral studies were meant to
imitate the natural sciences in their approaches. Those engaged with this effort anticipated
successes in social sciences that those natural sciences experienced starting
in the nineteenth century and straight through the twentieth century. But alas, no such success was being
achieved.
Consequently,
the political systems approach broke down into various derived approaches like
cybernetics, public opinion studies, conflict theory studies, political
sociology studies, comparative politics studies, political economy studies,
etc. In addition to this diverse, more
specific areas of research, older methodologies are currently held in higher
regard than they were in the late twentieth century.
They
include philosophic and historical methods.
In addition, more recently, one finds hermeneutics studies (interpretive
analyses) enjoying respected standing within the discipline. But all of that has little to no effect on
civics instruction. Instead, that
instruction has maintained a structural view of government and this blog in
upcoming postings will give the reader an adequate taste of what that subject
material looks like.
Through the developments
associated with Sputnik and the coincidental influence of Lasswell and Easton,
authors of civics textbooks took up the mantle in what they chose to include in
their books. One can make a general
observation – and this blog will do so in more detail in the near future. -
that by simply reviewing what the currently utilized textbooks contain one gets
a good view of what and how civics is taught today.
Currently, that would be
looking at such best-selling textbooks as Magruder’s American Government
or Glencoe United States Government:
Democracy in Action. But as
for the leadership of social studies, there has been a lingering effort among
professional, teacher organizations to uphold the New Social Studies’
instructional format as being progressive and interactive.[4]
This is promoted to replace
traditional teaching methods that have students receive instruction in a more
passive fashion and known as didactic methods.
Inquiry, on the other hand, calls for students to employ interactive
modes of study in which they discover information and form conclusions
regarding civic problems. Practically
all teachers ignore these calls for change in teaching methods.
This reluctance to change might
be offset with all the new technologies that have befallen the typical
classroom, especially in the more affluent school districts. Easy access to the Internet probably
encourages teachers to assign research topics, but in the understanding of this
writer, the general process of dispensing information is still through lectures
and demonstrations.
An
Internet review of the prevalence of didactic teaching practices reveals that
there are those who defend and promote the didactic style of teaching. This blog’s position on this issue is that
didactic teaching, while it can be used to solicit from students’ higher levels
of thinking, the usual result is that students are expected to recall (a low
level skill and highly dependent on an individual’s inherent ability to
remember) information.
While
a lot of what is argued in this blog can be said to favor interactive, open, or
student-centered instructional approaches, it does not rule out the ability of
some teachers to be effective “didactic” teachers. When this writer taught, didactic style was
the prevailing form of teaching. Since
the technology factor is at play, it is difficult to say what prevails today,
but from the evidence to which this writer is privy, he believes didactic
teaching still dominates.
[1] Harold Lasswell, Who Gets What, When, and How (New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1936). Current distributor of this book is Papamoa Press. Also access through online site, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Politics_Who_Gets_What_When_How/UlekDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover , accessed April 16, 2020.
[2] Ibid., n.p. (Preface).
[3] David Easton, The Political
System (New York, NY: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1953) AND David Easton, A System
Analysis of Political Life (New York, NY:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965).
[4] See National Council for the Social Studies, Preparing Students for College, Career, and
Civic Life C3. This writer has a
critical review of these standards in recently published book. See Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated
Nation: Implementing National Civics
Standards (Tallahassee, FL:
Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020).
No comments:
Post a Comment