DIDACTIC METHOD RULES

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]

The last posting reviewed the effects of the New Social Studies on that portion of the curriculum.  That initiative was an effort by social studies educators to jump on the federal government’s science bandwagon in the 1960s.  In general, the effort was to introduce scientific methods into the study of various social studies subjects.  That includes history, government/civics, and economics. 

Here in this blog, the concern is over government/civics, to be referred to as simply civics.  That subject is directly charged with imparting the knowledge and skills associated with citizenship (a responsibility that all social studies subjects share to some degree). 

          The last posting left off with a challenge that any reform in curriculum faces.  That is, teachers reluctantly giving up on how they do their jobs.  Most reform efforts from the last century into this one has emphasized changes in instructional methods.  Teachers who feel comfortable with using one approach – usually didactic methods – will not readily shift to another promoted method – usually an interactive approach called inquiry.

The important concern that transcends both instructional approaches is that to be successful either way needs for students to be reflective about what is being taught – i.e., not having students merely recalling the subject matter but thinking about it.  This might be more challenging when a teacher uses didactic methods since that method emphasizes the dispersal of information without calling for any mental action in response unless the teacher calls for it – it’s a demand that is not essential to the method, but can be made a part of it.

An online review as to the prevalence of didactic teaching practices today reveals that there are those who defend and promote this style of teaching.  Editorially, this writer argues 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 information (a low level skill and highly dependent for its success on an individual’s inherent ability to remember).  

But this writer can personally testify that even honors students who were exposed to didactic teaching could not recall basic information about a subject in the subsequent year.  He would, for example, ask ten basic American history questions – a subject taught in the eleventh grade – to twelfth grade honors students that they could not answer.  For whatever reason school officials require American history for graduation; this evidence seems to indicate that the reason is not being met.

While a lot of what this blog argues can be said to favor interactive instructional approaches, it does not rule out the ability of teachers to be effective “didactic” teachers.  When this writer taught, didactic style was the prevailing style of teaching and his ongoing communication with educators today indicates that is still the case.  The only proviso one might interject today is the effect technology might currently be having on instruction.  It is difficult to say, without any reservations, what teaching method prevails today, but common observation does not indicate that inquiry has taken over.

What can have an influence on instruction along with how lessons are taught is what is taught.  And that goes for civics as well as any other subject.  Relevant to this posting is how political science has affected civics content.  With the behavioral turn, explained previously in this blog, one has a more objectified view of government and politics.  This blog, with next posting, turns to that influence.  And to do that, it will look closely at the central determiner of what teachers teach.  That is the textbook.

INTRODUCING THE SCHOOL CONCERN

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]

Earlier in this series of postings, this blog made the point that the academic field of political science had what is known as the behavioral revolt at about the mid twentieth century point.  According to one of that movement’s central figures, David Easton, there has even been a post-behavioral movement in the 1970s and ‘80s.  Be that as it may, the effect of natural science methods has had a fundamental influence on the study of politics.

Those earlier postings highlighted the different elements of these turns during the latter part of the twentieth century.  These elements include formulation and adoption of the political systems model and the adoption of more scientific protocols in carrying out the research within that academic discipline.  All of this was bound to have an effect in how civics and government would be taught in the nation’s secondary schools.  That effect is the next focus of this blog.

But for the sake of saving the reader who missed that earlier report, here is a brief summary.  Due in part to historical accident, the behavioral movement had a bigger impact on social studies than otherwise would have been the case.  During the 1960s, a parallel movement became prominent in our secondary schools.  As a point of reference, this all happened while the nation was reacting to Sputnik, the initial Soviet satellite launch into space in the late 1950s. 

Almost overnight, Americans grew very concerned with how well our schools were preparing our nation's youth to remain competitive with the Soviets.  The leadership of the nation did not only see this as a race for space, but they visualized the danger Americans would face if the Soviets had a meaningful advantage from a military capability perspective.  In response, the federal government pumped a lot of money into schools and most of it went to bolster science and math education (sound familiar?). 

In order not to be left out, a new movement began in social studies.  That movement was known as the “New Social Studies” and it promoted the teaching of the scientific method and applying that method to relatively simple historical, social, and in civics and government classes, political questions. 

In addition, to compete for federal funds, many in the social studies field promoted a potential shift in what social studies teachers would teach.  That is, school officials could shift their curriculum toward a more “scientific” approach.  This jelled nicely with the developments in the social sciences such as those in political science and its adoption of the political systems approach.

When this writer was a senior in high school in the 1965-66 school year, he didn't take government and economics as most seniors do today.  People his age remember taking problems of democracy courses (in many places it was called problems in American democracy). This course dealt with the social and political issues of the day.  It was focused on those issues that were current and this called for lessons that had normative dimensions. 

When one refers to “problems,” by necessity, one starts talking about values.  Social problems are situations that at least some people judge as not being good or right to some level.  Logically, one is therefore applying some standard of good and evil or right and wrong.  But by taking on a “scientific” approach, as the New Social Studies called for, educators were asked to take a step away from normative questions – teachers were instead asked or, at least, encouraged to present content without any ethical consideration to it. 

Not all of the New Social Studies were so objectified, but there was a definite move in the nation’s classrooms to be less engaged in instruction that promoted or discussed values.  In its place, lessons began emphasizing structural and procedural elements of the subject matter.  Of course, the effect was less strident in history since that whole endeavor emphasizes the noted issues of a given time, e.g., a unit concerning the Civil War in American history.  But even there the emphasis became what happened over what should have happened.

But there needs to be a distinction between those elements of the New Social Studies that referred to content and those elements that referred to instruction.  While the New Social Studies lost favor during the 1970s, there has been a lingering effort among professional, teacher organizations to uphold its instructional format as being progressive and interactive, as opposed to traditional teaching strategies that have students receive instruction in a more passive fashion – didactic methods.  

For example, of late the social studies professional organization, the NCSS, has recently issued a set of standards for civics education.  Those standards promote what it calls an “inquiry arc.”[1]  This writer believes that tying content standards to instructional approach is counterproductive; teachers are significantly less likely to adopt the program if that aspect becomes a requirement of its application.

As stated earlier in this blog, the majority of teachers ignore these calls for change as they continue following the more traditional modes of instruction.  This might be offset with all the new technologies that have befallen the typical classroom, exemplified by access to online resources, especially in the more affluent school districts.  That is, easy access to online sources probably encourages teachers to assign more research topics or engage in discussions in which students are expected to identify relevant evidence to any position they may make. 

But to the understanding of this writer, the general instructional process of dispensing information – through mostly lectures and other demonstrations – still prevails.  And, in defense of those teachers, teaching is a very personal activity.  Standing in front of a class full of adolescents, one needs to feel comfortable.  There is a palpable difference in using a didactic method as oppose to an inquiry method.  The next posting will pick up this line of thought.

---

[1] 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).