[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.
No comments:
Post a Comment