In answering the question – does a federalist
perspective, in the form of liberated federalism, provide a legitimate and
viable construct for the study of governance and politics in American secondary
schools? – this blog has presented a dialectic study.[1] Each of the arguments in that presentation,
the segments of the study in the form of a thesis (natural rights based
approach), antithesis (critical theory based approach), and synthesis
(liberated federalism based approach), contained a methodological subsection.
That
is, within these subsections the blog addressed the question of which pedagogic
strategies would best present instructionally the content of each
approach. Those approaches – which included
the dominant view prior to the natural rights ascendency, the parochial/traditional
federalism (pre thesis) – stems back to colonial days in American history. Currently, the dialectic struggle pits natural
rights being challenged by critical theory.
This account offers liberated federalism as a viable synthesis.
This was not an extensive treatment of
instructional methods but an attempt to present the methodology that was/is
either prevalent during the historical period in which the approach was/is
dominant or in which it became dominant.
That would include the proposed dominance of liberated federalism.
For
example, the essentialist strategy, associated with the natural rights
perspective, was reviewed since it has been the most used strategy of
instruction during the current natural rights period. Other than that review, the dialectic study
did extend its analysis to other origins of curricular content, namely the
commonplaces of curricular development.[2] Much more should be addressed either in terms
of other topics or more extensive study of those elements identified.
That
is, future research concerns over this general topic should look at the claims
made in this presentation. Such studies
should devise empirical and qualitative questions and follow those with
appropriate, methodologically sound research.
The answers to those questions addressing the proposed construct, for
the most part, are dependent on the actual implementation of that model.
To
be targeted, any subsequent study would be assisted by suggested, more targeted
questions. More specifically, these questions
identify general research areas which are deemed relevant to the implementation
of the proposed construct. In offering a
list of those questions, this posting addresses three concerns: 1. the existing levels of supportive values
and attitudes regarding federalist, republican values that prevail among
Americans; 2. the sociological factors that could affect the acceptance,
implementation, and success of the proposed construct; and 3. the anticipated efficiency
in implementing the proposed construct.
In
terms of the first concern – supportive values and attitudes – the following
questions can and should be asked:
·
To what extent do adults in the general
national population share in values and attitudes that can be described as federalist
or republican?
·
To what extent do students of secondary age
share in values and attitudes that can be described as federalist or
republican?
·
Are there personality types that are more
receptive to federalist values and attitudes?
·
Are there cognitive levels of ability
associated with federalist and republican values and attitudes?
·
Are emotional patterns among the citizenry
positively associated with federalist values and attitudes?
·
What are the values and attitudes of the
general citizenry, particularly among parents, to a normative approach to the
study of government and civics, as described in this dialectic argument, to
instruction?
·
To what extent do secondary social studies
teachers support federalist and republican values and attitudes?
·
Are values supportive of the natural rights
perspective and the federalist perspective mutually exclusive as perceived by affected
individuals?
In terms of sociological factors, the following
is offered:
·
Does the amount of time students’ families have
lived in the United States and been exposed to American culture influence the
level of support those students have for federalist or republican values?
·
Does the fact that a student’s household is a
one or two parent arrangement influence the level of support that student has
for federalist and republican values and attitudes?
·
Does a student’s success in school relate to
the support that student has for federalist or republican values and attitudes?
·
Do negative experiences with law enforcement
agents or agencies influence the level of support a student has for federalist
or republican values or attitudes?
·
Is there an association between the geographic
origins of a family and the level of support a student might have for
federalist and republican values and attitudes?
·
Does the number of household inhabitants have
an association with the level of support a student might have for federalist or
republican values and attitudes?
·
Does the family’s income level have an
association with the level of support a student has for federalist or
republican values and attitudes?
And with the last concern, efficiency of
implementing the proposed construct, the questions are:
·
Is the proposed model efficient in formulating
instructional lessons?
·
How understandable, among teachers, is the
proposed model?
·
In use, does the proposed model address the
political issues sufficiently – regarding the expectations of teachers and the
demand of curricular guides by state and district officials for a secondary
course in civics or American government?
·
Are the constructivist strategies suggested in
this blog and its supportive psychological theory a viable approach for
pedagogic purposes?
·
And the remaining questions are based on Peter
Oliva’s perennial problems of curriculum development[3]
and asks if the resulting curriculum, which uses the proposed model, have the
following: viable level of scope,
relevancy, balance, sequence, continuity, articulation, and transferability?
As the scope of these questions indicates, the
implementation of a new curricular foundation to the study of civics – or any
legitimate subject – is not a simple proposition. Not only are there vested interests in what
is, but the whole mental framing that people have of an institutional practice is
likely to be well embedded.
[1] Interested readers who wish to look up the postings
that present the dialectic argument from its beginning, see Robert Gutierrez,
“Dealing with Ideals,” Gravitas: A
Voice for Civics,” December 14, 2021, accessed November 14, 2023, URL: https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2021_12_12_archive.html.
[2] William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility
(New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing
Company, 1986). The commonplaces can be
defined as follows:
·
The subject matter refers to the academic
content presented in the curriculum.
·
The teacher is the professional instructor
authorized to present and supervise curricular activities within the classroom
setting.
·
Learners are defined as those individuals
attending school for the purpose of acquiring the education entailed in a
particular curriculum.
·
Milieu refers to the general cultural setting
and ambiance within the varied social settings found at the school site.
[3] Peter F. Oliva, Developing the Curriculum (Boston,
MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1982).
No comments:
Post a Comment