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.
