THE OTHER ANGLE

In this report on the development of a unit of study – an account that started two postings ago – there are two angles that need to be addressed.  This account has begun addressing the first one – the substance or scope – by identifying the issue under consideration:  foreign trade.  The reason for this choice was that it relates to federalist values in that foreign trade has had, in the last few decades, an effect on equal opportunity in this country.  The other angle is the sequence or instructional process that will be used in the resulting unit.

          On this score, this blog has reported a bit of history.  That is that under the movement, beginning in the 1960s, of the New Social Studies, the field attached itself to something called the inquiry approach.  This has taken several turns since its inception – the in-term now is critical thinking – but its essence is that students need to discover content – generalizations, principles, explanations – instead of being told what it is.  The bias is toward discovery not didactic lecturing.

          For reasons already described, the initial thrust of this movement was heavily skewed toward scientific protocols; i.e., the so-called scientific method.  The fact that this effort began in the wake of the Sputnik surprise is not accidental.  Since then, there have been other instructional methods that have been introduced.  One method this blog has highlighted is the jurisprudential approach introduced by Donald Oliver and James Shaver.[1] 

What is offered here is reliant on Oliver and Shaver, but there is a more developed effort to define those concerns that serve to underpin what is being offered in way of an instructional process.[2]  The earlier material relied on the too open-ended concept of “constitutional values.”  It seemed that those efforts relied heavily on a concept, an American dilemma, offered by Gunnar Myrdal,[3] and on court decisions to define what should be addressed and how it should be addressed.

This was in the wake of the Warren Court’s liberal interpretations of both individual rights and group rights such as in the decisions affecting discriminated racial and ethnic groups.  Here the effort, by a reliance on federation theory, is based on at least an initial and well-directed sense of what constitutes constitutional values by offering a firm sense of where they come from – a long-standing perspective that traces its roots to the colonial days of the nation. 

By relying on federalist theory, this effort will be more directed as to what should be included and what should not.  It also offers a more directed sense of what questions any ensuing inquiry should ask.  What remains is an overall model of instruction to provide a methodological guide as to how a teacher should organize his/her efforts in the classroom.  But this model should not be an essential element in incorporating federation theory.

This writer has made the claim in this blog that the use of federation theory does not insist that a teacher use any one instructional method.  A teacher who lectures or leads students in an inquiry exercise or any other method can use federation theory since that theory is aimed at choosing content not determining teaching styles.  This writer has a definite belief regarding this issue.  He believes that insisting on a style is counterproductive as it could be a turn-off to those teachers who do not use the anointed style.

Further, teaching is a personal activity; how a teacher teaches reflects his/her personality.  When an approach dictates a style that is at odds with what a teacher does in the classroom, then it adds a whole other burden to that approach.  Experience has shown, that by doing so, it can be the death knell of such an approach.  Teachers who do not feel comfortable with the proposed style will simply not use it.

That was the history of what happened to the inquiry method.  It can even be a source of rancor among teachers that otherwise are getting along.  So, what is offered in this posting and subsequent postings is a suggestion, not a list of instructions. 

By saying a substantive model is open to be used by any style of teaching, though, is not to say one style of teaching is not more conducive than another style.  This would be the case for any content model.  The content is going to point to a communication mode over others.  If federation theory highlights certain activities among citizen, then it is naturally biasing those activities. 

Specifically, if to federate means citizens define their status as a member of a community that interacts, then how citizens interact will be noted by a content model that highlights that interaction.  And, in the case of federation theory, that mode happens to be one in which citizens discuss, argue, and debate the issues of the day.

This writer’s favorite depiction of that activity is offered by Tocqueville (see posting entitled, “An Early Hero:  Tocqueville”) and to get a taste for this, a look at a portion of that writer’s description is helpful:

It is not impossible to form an imaginary picture of the surpassing liberty which the Americans enjoy; some idea may likewise be formed of the extreme equality which subsists amongst them.  But the political activity which pervades the United States must be seen in order to be understood.  No sooner do you set foot upon the American soil than you are stunned by a kind of tumult; a confused clamour is heard on every side; and a thousand simultaneous voices demand the immediate satisfaction of their social wants.[4]

Can a teacher recreate, within reason, this form of “clamour” in the classroom?

          The next posting will introduce a new approach that builds on this type of interchange.  This writer calls it “historic based dialogue.”  It will be an instructional approach that does not count on the scientific method, citizens don’t conduct experiments or conduct survey research when they “talk” politics or reflect on what the government is up to.  Instead, they engage in discussions, arguments, and/or debates.  These are the type of activities historic based dialogue calls on students to perform.

---

[1] Donald W. Oliver and James P. Shaver, Teaching Public Issues in the High School (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1966) AND Fred M. Newmann, and Donald W. Oliver, Clarifying Public Controversy:  An Approach to Teaching Social Studies (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1970).

[2] The reader can review the work of Oliver, Shaver, and another collaborator, Fred Newmann and judge whether, from a substantive perspective, those theorists provide sufficient guidance to teachers.  While this writer is a fan of their work, in trying to apply their theory, this writer – as a teacher – had to fill in a lot of substantive content.

[3] Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York, NY:  Harper and Brothers, 1944).

[4] Alexi de Tocqueville, “Political Structure of Democracy,” in Alexis de Tocqueville:  On Democracy, Revolution, and Society, ed. John Stone and Stephen Mennell (Chicago, IL:  Chicago University Press, 1980/1835), 78.