JUDGING THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, XXIII

 

An advocate of natural rights continues his/her presentation[1] …

The last posting looked at teacher effectiveness.  Joseph Schwab, through his theorizing, devised a set of commonplaces that focuses on the factors that affect the way curricula are designed and implemented.[2]  Teacher is one of those commonplaces and can be analyzed by looking at teacher effectiveness.  This posting looks at another attribute, that being teacher knowledge.  Of course, the topics of effectiveness and knowledge, when applied to teachers, are highly related.

Teacher Knowledge

          As Lee S. Shulman, some years ago argued,

 

To teach all students according to today’s standards, teachers need to understand subject matter deeply and flexibly so they can help students create useful cognitive maps, relate one idea to another, and address misconceptions. Teachers need to see how ideas connect across fields and to everyday life. This kind of understanding provides a foundation for pedagogical content knowledge that enables teachers to make ideas accessible to others.[3]

 

Therefore, these teachers must keep up with the latest developments in their disciplines.  Also of importance is for teachers to have a working knowledge of the history and philosophy of their individual disciplines – which means for civics teachers becoming knowledgeable of vying philosophies and theoretical traditions that are prominent in the various social sciences.

          This – extensive knowledge of a teachers’ subject matter – can be a point of concern for a variety of reasons.  Those reasons extend from noting incorrect information – due to more recent discoveries – to looking more closely at some topic or issue.  As one might intuitively surmise, knowledge affects the quality of teaching in any subject including civics.

          Commenting on mathematics teachers, Margaret Walshaw claims,

 

[Knowledge] plays a critical role in extending and challenging students’ conceptual ideas.  Sound subject knowledge enables teachers to mediate between the mathematical tasks, the artifacts, the talk, and the actions surrounding teaching / learning encounters.  Teachers with limited subject knowledge have been shown to focus on a narrow conceptual field rather than on forging wider connections between the facts, concepts, structures, and practices of mathematics.[4]

 

To further this sentiment, Suzanne Wilson, et al. noted that teachers with high degrees of knowledge more often questioned textbook authority in the class, efficiently pointed out students’ misconceptions, readily related subject matter content to other concerns and other disciplines, organized class activities effectively, and meaningfully interpreted students’ remarks and positions.[5]

          Meanwhile those teachers who were not so knowledgeable were more often inaccurate, superficial, and inappropriate in their comments.  Therefore, knowledgeable teachers are preferrable for a variety of reasons.  Unfortunately, in either controlling course content or in the knowledge base one would want for   teachers, certain shortcomings exist.

          In teaching civics, teachers have little say as to what perspective or approach the content will be determined.  Those decisions are left to district curricular designers and, more importantly, developers of textbooks.  This blogger, from his teaching experience of thirty years, agrees with this claim:

 

The textbook determines the components and method of learning.  It controls the contents, the method and the procedures of learning.  Students learn what is presented in the textbook, in other words the way the textbook presents materials is the way the students learn it.[6]

 

          Most teachers do not feel they have a say in those determinations.  Teachers pride themselves in being able to teach what is given them.  This attitude came through clearly in a four-year ethnographic study of a working-class elementary school[7] and at the high school level.[8]  More recent attention has become somewhat viral as concerns over an array of issues have reflected the polarized political environment that prevails today.[9]  What the long-term effects of these developments will have are yet to be known.

          But beyond these more current concerns, what one can still ascertain is that with higher levels of knowledge, teachers can make the viable choices as to what is important content and what is not.  Teachers, irrespective of the textbook used, have great influence in determining how students will come to understand the content of a particular subject.  This influence in turn is, as stated above, dependent on the knowledge and understanding that individual teachers have.

          And in no area is this factor more important than in how teachers treat the textbooks they are assigned.

 

A textbook is only as good as the teacher who uses it.  And it’s important to remember that a textbook is just one tool, perhaps a very important tool, in your teaching arsenal.  Sometimes, teachers over-rely on textbooks and don’t consider other aids or other materials for the classroom.  Some teachers reject a textbook approach to learning because the textbook is outdated or insufficiently covers a topic or subject area.

          As a teacher, you’ll need to make many decisions, and one of those is how you want to use the textbook.  As good as they appear on the surface, textbooks do have limitations.[10]

 

And yet textbooks continue to have the pervasive role. 

This blogger, in his book, From Immaturity to Polarized Politics,[11] has continued a long list of scholarly works that have looked at civics books and evaluated their effects on civics education.  Generally, they point out that while relying on a political systems model, they are varying only in their incorporation of current issues or the utilization of inquiry methods – which are utilized, if at all, to a very limited level.  Therefore, the use of the natural rights perspective with the emphasis on political systems seems to be a prudent course to take.

          This blog will next address the milieu, the last of Schwab’s commonplaces of curriculum development.

---

[1] This presentation continues with this posting.  The reader is informed that the claims made in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this blogger.  Instead, the posting is a representation of what an advocate of the natural rights view might present.  This is done to present a dialectic position of that construct.  This series of postings begins with “Judging Natural Rights View, I,” August 2, 2022.

[2] Joseph Schwab presents his conception of the commonplaces of curriculum development – they are subject matter, students, teachers, and milieu.  See William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).

[3] “Teacher’s In-Depth Content Knowledge,” University of Northern Iowa (n.d.), accessed October 12, 2022, https://intime.uni.edu/teachers-depth-content-knowledge.

[4] Margaret Walshaw, “Teacher Knowledge as Fundamental to Effective Teaching Practice,” Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15 (May 6, 2012), 181-185, accessed October 16, 2022, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10857-012-9217-0#:~:text=It%20plays%20a%20critical%20role,actions%20surrounding%20teaching%2Flearning%20encounters.

[5] Suzanne Wilson, Lee S. Wilson, Anna E. Richert, “‘150 Different Ways of Knowing:’ Representations of Knowledge in Teaching,” in Exploring Teachers’ Thinking, edited by James Calderhead (London, England:  Cassell Education, 1987), 104-124.

[6] “Role of Textbook in Language Teaching and Learning,” School Education (n.d.), accessed October 16, 2022, https://www.rajeevelt.com/role-of-textbook-language-teaching-learning-educationist/rajeev-ranjan/.  An insight that equally pertains to social studies.

[7] Jane J. White, “What Works for Teachers:  A Review of Ethnographic Research Studies  as They Inform Issues on Social Studies Curriculum and Instruction,” in Review of Research in Social Studies Education:  1976-1983, edited by William B. Stanley (Washington, DC:  National Council of the Social Studies, 1985), 215-307.

[8] Stephen J. Thornton, “Teacher As Curricular-Instructional Gatekeepers in Social Studies,” in Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Co., 1991), 237-248.

[9] Nicole Daniels, “What Role Should Textbooks Play in Education?” The New York Times, January 14, 2020, accessed October 16, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/learning/what-role-should-textbooks-play-in-education.html.

[10] “Textbooks:  Advantages and Disadvantages,” Teacher Vision (November 15, 2019), accessed October 12, 2022, https://www.teachervision.com/curriculum-planning/textbooks-advantages-disadvantages.

[11] Robert Gutierrez, From Immaturity to Polarized Politics:  Obstacles in Achieving a Federated Nation (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas Civics Books, 2022) AND, for example, Syukron Saputra, “Analysis of Civics Textbooks in Framework of the 21^st Century Learning, Advances in Social Sciences and Humanities Research,” 636, 2022, accessed October 16, 2022, file:///C:/Users/gravi/Downloads/125969102.pdf.

JUDGING THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, XXII

 

An advocate of natural rights continues his/her presentation[1] …

The last posting introduced the teacher as the next commonplace of curriculum development.  For those just beginning to read this series of postings over the commonplaces, they are the brainchild of Joseph Schwab; his theorizing focuses on the factors that affect the way curricula are designed and implemented.[2]  More specifically, this posting, as opposed to what the last one indicated, addresses only teacher effectiveness and the next posting will report on teachers’ command of civics, the subject matter.

Teacher Effectiveness

Jere Brophy, some years ago, reviewed the research on this factor of effectiveness among teachers up until 1988.[3]  He states that, according to that research, effective teachers tend to be those who have a goal-directed approach and a businesslike, task-oriented personality.  These teachers do not waste time in class on non-academic activities but stay on task expecting their students to meet their goals.

Class periods are well planned, and students are clearly told what is expected of them.  Students’ progressions are closely monitored and problems such as behavioral ones are quickly identified and handled.  There are brisk paces to their class procedures, and presentations are conducted in smooth manners avoiding choppy transitions.

Students receive timely feedbacks on their evaluated works and content sets of material are organized into small increments so that successes are more likely.  These teachers rely mostly on direct instruction (usually didactic style).  They maintain enthusiastic manners and utilize content presentations that are structured in such ways as “integrated wholes.”

That leads students to grasp the material more easily.  Brophy adds that these teachers have students do challenging but not overly difficult activities, so that the students can more likely achieve successes.  And they also prepare students with appropriate framing or previewing of homework assignments so as to increase the likelihood that those efforts meet their planned purposes.

A respected online service, University of the People, identifies eight functions that social studies in general – and civics in particular – serve.  This review of the commonplaces addresses the function of civics as a subject matter earlier, but here, by extension, one can apply those functions to that subject’s teachers. 

And in that pursuit, UOP offers eight functions:  better reading and learning, citizen responsibilities and values, cultural understanding, economic education, critical thinking (especially in line with Robert Gagne’s approach to essentialist teaching),[4] real-world understanding, political skills, and respect for history.[5] 

In line with the effort here, and while this account focuses on secondary schooling, readers can derive useful information from elementary education literature.  One such case is what G. R. McKenzie[6] offers.  He applies these arguments from his study of elementary education to social studies.  His research further supports how social studies is a basic, fundamental source for much of the core information students need to know in order to perform in a typical curriculum.

That is, social studies information helps individuals make sense of the complex realities of the world, from local settings to the global stage.  Such knowledge is even necessary to acquire “basic skills” of reading, writing, and arithmetic.  McKenzie warns against the use of high-level questioning, stating that teacher effectiveness research does not support this practice because students do not have adequate knowledge to respond in a useful manner.  Of course, with secondary students, more sophisticated questioning can be expected.

McKenzie tends to support a systemic approach of curricular development.  He hypothesizes that problem solving skills are better taught with a systems approach than with a direct problem-solving approach and calls for more research into the question. 

Daniel T. Willingham addresses this directly.

 

It's true that knowledge gives students something to think about, but a reading of the research literature from cognitive science shows that knowledge does much more than just help students hone their thinking skills: It actually makes learning easier. Knowledge is not only cumulative, it grows exponentially. Those with a rich base of factual knowledge find it easier to learn more — the rich get richer. In addition, factual knowledge enhances cognitive processes like problem solving and reasoning. The richer the knowledge base, the more smoothly and effectively these cognitive processes — the very ones that teachers target — operate. So, the more knowledge students accumulate, the smarter they become.[7]

 

For some time, teacher effectiveness research has provided support for direct instruction, i.e., an essentialist approach to the teaching of social studies.  It is conducive to the content suggested by the natural rights construct and its reliance on political systems.

          Teachers who incorporate the pedagogic method outlined by the teacher effectiveness approach have at their disposal a theoretical foundation that has a holistic model of governance and politics, that being the political systems model (with the supplemental addition of the structural-functional model).  Once applied, an explanatory basis for that reality emerges and the essential facts and principles of American government become exposed, making cognitive acquisition by secondary students possible. 

Of course, this presupposes that teachers are sufficiently sophisticated in their knowledge of the discipline of political science and, to some degree, the other social sciences.  Teachers, one can assume, cannot know too much when it comes to the subject they teach.  The next topic of this review is teacher knowledge.

---

[1] This presentation continues with this posting.  The reader is informed that the claims made in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this blogger.  Instead, the posting is a representation of what an advocate of the natural rights view might present.  This is done to present a dialectic position of that construct.  This series of postings begins with “Judging Natural Rights View, I,” August 2, 2022.

[2] Joseph Schwab presents his conception of the commonplaces of curriculum development – they are subject matter, students, teachers, and milieu.  See William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).

[3] Jere Brophy, “Research on Teacher Effects:  Uses and Abuses,” The Elementary School Journal, 89, 1 (September 1988), 3-21.

[4] B. Janse, “Gagne’s Conditions of Learning,” Toolshero (2019), accessed September 15, 2022, https://www.toolshero.com/personal-development/gagnes-conditions-of-learning/.

[5] “Why Is Social Studies Important?  8 Reasons to Study,” University of the People (n.d.), accessed October 9, 2022, https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/why-is-social-studies-important/.

[6] G. R. McKenzie, “Learning and Instruction,” in Elementary School Social Studies:  Research as a Guide to Practice (Bulletin No. 79), edited by Virginia A. Atwood (Washington, DC:  National Council of the Social Studies, 1986), 119-136.

[7] Daniel T. Willingham, “How Knowledge Helps,” Reading Rockets (associated with WETA), (n.d.), accessed October 9, 2022, https://www.readingrockets.org/article/how-knowledge-helps.

JUDGING THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, XXI

 

An advocate of natural rights continues his/her presentation[1] …

Before moving on with this blog’s treatment of the commonplaces of curriculum development – as an advocate of the natural rights perspective would treat them – this posting completes its account of the commonplace, the students.[2]  The last posting ended with a restatement about the relevancy of students’ pedagogical interests and that they lie with the preparations of those students for the competitive environment they will encounter as adults.

          The pedagogic interests of students are further met by adopting a systems approach to the development of curricular instruction.  As a representative model of the systems approach, Walter Dick and Lou Carey provide an example that could be used for such development.[3]  That model identifies the following progression of functions: 

 

·      identify the instructional problem and state the terminal objectives,

·      conduct a task analysis,

·      describe entry behaviors of students,

·      state sub-objectives in behavioral terms,

·      develop evaluation instruments,

·      determine instructional sequence,

·      select appropriate media and instructional procedures,

·      develop instructional materials, and

·      conduct formative and summative evaluations

 

While these functions are performed in roughly the order presented, the developer can skip around as necessary, especially given the information derived from conducting formative evaluations (evaluations performed during the development and implementation of the curricular instructional plan and materials).

This approach is considered by its advocates to be beneficial to students since it is a logical system.  How?  It identifies and functionally deals with the factors that allow success to take place in the instructional effort.  It places its emphasis on the resulting behaviors that curricular planners expect to see performed by students.

It also very carefully analyzes and arranges the component parts of materials so that it is presented in a viably logical sequence, taking into account where students are cognitively and emotionally situated in relation to the presented content.  In doing so, developers are maximizing their chances of being successful and students’ pedagogic interests are being reasonably addressed.

This approach is not promoting some social, idealistic visions of the future – such as radical equality or some other futuristic utopian state.  Instead, it defines students’ interests in the “here-and-now” realities.  They include the realities pertaining to a pluralistic student population and the social / political / economic realities the students will face.  It stands for “getting real” when it comes to the future of the students whom the schools serve.

And now, it’s time for a look at the role teachers play in shaping curriculum.  This posting will now provide a short introduction to that commonplace.

The Teacher

The teacher is the next curricular commonplace to be analyzed in the development of this antithesis argument.  That would be a review of the factors concerning teachers as they relate to the proposed curricular change of implementing a natural rights construct to the teaching of American government and civics at the secondary level.  Specifically, this posting, and the one to follow, will address these questions:

 

·      What claims of competency can interested parties make for the effectiveness of teachers?  And,

·      How appropriate is the knowledge base of teachers regarding the subject matter – in this case, civics?

 

Teachers play a very important role through their obligations in classrooms.  This quote captures this role:  “The teacher is the one who is most directly responsible for the academic, as well as the motivational successes and failures, accomplishments and limitations of the classroom experiences throughout the year.”[4]  Despite this role being recognized for many years, it is one of those factors deserving ongoing concern. 

But a few words to further introduce this next concern is helpful.  As one reads what follows, one might experience a bit of confusion in that it will overlap a good deal of student or subject matter concerns – the commonplaces already reviewed.  The reason for the overlap is the obvious fact that how effective or competent teachers happen to be is highly reliant on the students and content with which they are dealing.

So, as the next posting will demonstrate, the subject matter and how it is conceptualized or arranged can highly affect, according to systems theory, how effective teachers are likely to be.  The same can be said about how teachers perceive the sophistication of their students.  These factors should be kept in mind as readers consider what the next posting has to offer.  That will be a focused review of teacher effectiveness and teacher knowledge.

---

[1] This presentation continues with this posting.  The reader is informed that the claims made in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this blogger.  Instead, the posting is a representation of what an advocate of the natural rights view might present.  This is done to present a dialectic position of that construct.  This series of postings begins with “Judging Natural Rights View, I,” August 2, 2022.

[2] Joseph Schwab presents his conception of the commonplaces of curriculum development – they are subject matter, students, teachers, and milieu.  See William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).

[3] See Dan Le, “Instructional Design Models, Theories & Methodology:  The Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model,” Learning Technologies (n.d.), accessed October 9, 2022, https://k3hamilton.com/LTech/dick.html AND Hee-Sun Lee and Soo-Young Lee, “Dick and Carey Model,” University of Michigan Publication (n.d.), accessed October 9, 2022, http://websites.umich.edu/~ed626/Dick_Carey/dc.html.  One can trace such models to the pioneering work of Ralph Tyler.  See Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1949).

[4] Pete Reilly, “Teacher Gatekeepers,” The Teacher’s Path (April 16, 2007), accessed October 9, 2022, https://preilly.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/teacher-gatekeepers/.

JUDGING THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, XX

An advocate of natural rights continues his/her presentation[1] …

Moving on with the commonplace of curriculum development – the learner – the next concern of this blog is pedagogic student interests.[2]  Gerald Gutek[3] puts forward the argument of essentialists, i.e., that the pedagogic interests of students are served if they are mastering the basic skills and acquiring basic subject matter content.  E. D. Hirsch writes how skills and content are related.

 

All cognitive skills depend on procedural and substantive schemata that are highly specific to the task at hand.

          Once the relevant knowledge has been acquired, the skill follows.  General programs contrived to teach general skills are ineffective.  [Artificial intelligence] research shows that experts perform better than novices not because they have more powerful and better oiled intellectual machinery but because they have more relevant and quickly available information.  What distinguishes good readers from poor ones is simply the possession of a lot of diverse, task-specific information.[4]

 

Or more directly,

 

Teacher-centered philosophies [such as essentialism] are those that transfer knowledge from one generation of teachers to the next. In teacher-centered philosophies, the teacher’s role is to impart a respect for authority, determination, a strong work ethic, compassion for others, and sensibility. Teachers and schools succeed when students prove, typically through taking tests, that they have mastered the objectives they learned.[5]

 

          Hirsch continues in this vein by further pointing out that his cited research has found that such skills as critical thinking or inquiry skills are only taught successfully for specific tasks and content and are not transferable as is claimed by the Rousseau-Dewey tradition.[6]  Even among researchers who generally support inquiry, a level of concern can be detected.

          For example, and looking at this instructional approach from a more global perspective, the following can be found:

 

It should be cautioned that inquiry-based learning takes a lot of planning before implementation. It is not something that can be put into place in the classroom quickly. Measurements must be put in place for how students [sic] knowledge and performance will be measured and how standards will be incorporated. The teacher’s responsibility during inquiry exercises is to support and facilitate student learning … A common mistake teachers make is lacking the vision to see where students’ weaknesses lie. According to Bain, teachers cannot assume that students will hold the same assumptions and thinking processes as a professional within that discipline …

While some see inquiry-based teaching as increasingly mainstream, it can be perceived as in conflict with standardized testing common in standards-based assessment systems which emphasise the measurement of student knowledge, and meeting of pre-defined criteria, for example the shift towards “fact” in changes to the National Assessment of Educational Progress as a result of the American No Child Left Behind program.

Programs such as the International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary Years Program can be criticized for their claims to be an inquiry based learning program … While there are different types of inquiry … the rigid structure of this style of inquiry based learning program almost completely rules out any real inquiry based learning in the lower grades. Each “unit of inquiry” is given to the students, structured to guide them and does not allow students to choose the path or topic of their inquiry. Each unit is carefully planned to connect to the topics the students are required to be learning in school and does not leave room for open inquiry in topics that the students pick. Some may feel that until the inquiry learning process is open inquiry then it is not true inquiry based learning at all. Instead of opportunities to learn through open and student-led inquiry, the IB program is viewed by some to simply be an extra set of learning requirements for the students to complete.[7]

 

This extended quote is included to point out that even in an inquiry-based approach, educators need to give essentialist ideas and ideals due respect – again, students need information before they can go off and inquire or do whatever else education calls on them to do.

          That tradition – the Rousseau-Dewey tradition – emphasizes intensive study by classroom students in which critical thinking skills, inquiry skills, or discovery skills (terms that are often used interchangeably) are practiced and “taught” over limited material (teaching in depth, not breadth).  This antithesis argument claims that students need many referents in order to make sense of the realities of the world.

          Expert thinking, as studied by current cognitive psychologists, is evidenced by being able to recall many facts which are contained within the contexts of schemata.[8]  Schemata mentally arrange facts in meaningful groupings or chunks of information.  “As we have seen, the most effective system of the mind, whether in chess or in reading, is to keep most of its indexed schemata at a medium level of generality.” [9]

          What works in reading and chess works for governmental studies.  The political systems approach, under the construct of the natural rights perspective, provides such a medium level of generality.  It is a viable vehicle by which to arrange meaningful and relevant political facts.  Relevancy is determined by the goals of the natural rights perspective to prepare students to be viable citizens in the competitive realities of the American political system.

          The next posting will pick up on this theme as it continues this review of pedagogic student interests.

[Reminder:  Readers are reminded that they can have access to the first 100 postings of this blog, under the title, Gravitas:  The Blog Book, Volume I.  To gain access, they can click the following URL:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zh3nrZVGAhQDu1hB_q5Uvp8J_7rdN57-FQ6ki2zALpE/edit 

OR

click onto the “gateway” posting that allows the reader access to a set of supplemental postings to other published works by this blogger by clicking the URL: http://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/ and then looking up the posting for October 23, 2021, entitled “A Digression.”]

---

[1] This presentation continues with this posting.  The reader is informed that the claims made in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this blogger.  Instead, the posting is a representation of what an advocate of the natural rights view might present.  This is done to present a dialectic position of that construct.  This series of postings begins with “Judging Natural Rights View, I,” August 2, 2022.  [Note:  This blog, in the postings entitled “Judging the Natural Rights View, I-XVI, started with “An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation …”  It should have read “An advocate of natural rights …”  Please excuse the mistake.  The archived record has been corrected.]

[2] The learner or student is one of Joseph Schwab’s commonplaces.  See William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).

[3] Gerald L. Gutek, Basic Education:  A Historical Perspective (Bloomington, IN:  Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1981).

[4] E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Cultural Literacy:  What Every American Needs to Know (New York, NY:  Vintage, 1987), 61.

[5] Matthew Lynch, “Philosophies of Education:  2 Types of Teacher-Centered Philosophies,” The Edvocate/Entelechy, August 5, 2016, accessed October 5, 2022, https://www.theedadvocate.org/philosophies-education-2-types-teacher-centered-philosophies/.

[6] Hirsch, Cultural Literacy.

[7] “Inquiry-based Learning,” Lumen/Foundation of Education (n.d.), accessed October 5, 2022, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/olemiss-education/chapter/inquiry-based-learning/.  British spelling.

[8] Schemata, plural form of schema, are representations of developed plans, theories, or models presented in the form of graphic models, other graphic presentations, or outlines.

[9] Hirsch, Cultural Literacy, 64.