a critical approach and analysis of a social studies report

Selçuk Üniversitesi
Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
A CRITICAL APPROACH AND ANALYSIS OF A SOCIAL
STUDIES REPORT: “WHERE DID SOCIAL STUDIES GO
WRONG”
Bulent Tarman
Selcuk University, Ahmet Kelesoglu Faculty of Education, [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to develop a clear understanding on the major
political frameworks, agendas, values, beliefs, and players involved in social
studies education in the US by analyzing the report published by Fordham
Institute in 2003: “Where Did Social Studies go wrong?” particularly chapter six:
“Garbage In, Garbage Out” by Bruce Frazee and Samuel Ayers. The researcher
believes that the issue should be taken from a broader perspective. Therefore,
opposing viewpoints, political ideas, values, beliefs and players should be
brought into consideration in order to have a clear understanding about the
debate and discussion over the report.
Key Words: Social Studies Education; United States; Political framework,
values and beliefs
Selçuk Üniversitesi
Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
SOSYAL BİLGİLER RAPORUNUN ANALİZİ VE
ELEŞTİREL BİR YAKLAŞIM: “FORDHAM RAPORU”
Bulent Tarman
Selcuk Üniversitesi, Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi, [email protected]
ÖZET
Bu çalışmanın amacı geçtiğimiz yıllarda sosyal bilgiler eğitimi hakkında
yazılmış bir raporu (Fordham Raporu) analiz ederek Amerika’daki sosyal bilgiler
eğitiminin içinde barındırdığı siyası yapı, gündem, değerler ve inançlar gibi
kavramlar hakkında fikir sahibi olmaktır. Bu kavramlar değerlendirilirken alanı
temsil edenlerin oluşturduğu karşıt görüşler, siyasi fikirler, değerler ve inançlar
göz önünde bulundurulmuştur. Bu çalışmada, Amerika’da sosyal bilgilerin
tanımı, kapsamı, amaçları, öğretim stratejileri üzerine köklü bir anlaşmazlığın
olduğunu görmekteyiz. John Saxe Godfrey’in “Kör İnsanlar Ve Fil” adlı şiiri de
bu anlaşmazlığın ne boyutta olduğunu gözler önüne sermek için kullanılmış bir
örnektir. Kör İnsanlar ve Fil adlı şiirdeki durumu Amerika’daki sosyal bilgiler
alanına uyarlarsak, herkesin bu alanda kendince haklı bir iddiaya sahip olduğunu
ama hiç birinin de aynı konuda uzlaşamadığı ve her birinin de yanıldığı bir
gerçektir.
Öncelikle sosyal bilgiler eğitiminin ne olduğu ve amaçlarının ne olması gerektiği
konusunda çelişen iki fikrin varlığından sözedilebilir. Bunlardan birincisi,
öğrenciyi liberalleştirecek olan ve eleştirel düşünceyi savunan Liberal görüş,
ikincisi ise, sosyal bilgiler eğitiminin bazı siyasi, sosyal, ekonomik ve ahlaki
değerleri öğrencilere aşılaması gerektiğini düşünen Tutucu(muhafazakâr)
düşünce yapısıdır.
Selçuk Üniversitesi
Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
Bu çalışmada sırasıyla Sosyal Bilgilerin tanımı, Sosyal bilgiler devrimin kısa bir
tarihi, “Garbage in Garbage Out by Bruce Frazee & Samuel Ayers”, başlıkları
altında sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanında var olan anlaşmazlıklardan bahsedilerek,
sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanındaki farklı görüşlerin neler olduğu tespit edilmeye
çalışılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi; Amerika Birleşik Devletleri; siyasi
çerçeve; değerler ve inançlar
114
B. Tarman
INTRODUCTION
I would like to start with a poem entitled “The Blind Men and the Elephant”
because today’s social studies education reflects much of the same drama of the
poem. Once we review the literature concerning the essential nature, goals, and
teaching strategies of social studies education, it is obvious that there is a lack of
agreement about the field in the United States of America (USA).
The Blind Men and the Elephant
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and
sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his
hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager
hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is
like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the
ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the
right,
And all were in the wrong!
by John Godfrey Saxe
Much like the wise people of the poem, people in the field of social studies
education seem to lack an understanding of any kind of overall conceptualization
of the field in the US. Each supporter argues strongly for his/her view and like
the blind men in the poem, perhaps each is partly right, and all are in the wrong.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop a clear understanding on the
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 30 Sayfa 111-123, 2010
A Critical Approach and Analysis of a Social Studies Report…
115
major political frameworks, agendas, values, beliefs, and players involved in
social studies education by analyzing the following report published by
Fordham Institute in 2003: “Where Did Social Studies go wrong?” particularly
chapter six: Garbage In, Garbage Out by Bruce Frazee and Samuel Ayers. This
report “consists of penetrating critiques by renegade social studies educators who
fault the regnant teaching methods and curricular ideas of their field and suggest
how it can be reformed” (Leming, Ellington and Porter, 2003, p.2). In order to be
clear about the debate and discussion over this report, the issue should be taken
from a broader perspective. Therefore, I analyzed opposing viewpoints, political
ideas, values, beliefs and players in this context.
Before analyzing the chapter, a general picture can be drawn with an analysis of
several well-known studies examining what social studies education is and what
social studies education should be doing. By this examination, it can be
understood that disagreement on the social studies education rotated around two
general and conflicting notions. One idea is that social studies education should
indoctrinate students to certain political, social, economic, and moral norms. The
other notion commonly found in the field calls for teaching critical thinking
which will lead to the emancipation and liberation of students. The field was
then visually conceptualized along these philosophical/political lines. So, the
following Table-1 shows these two Philosophical/Political sides and representing
concepts:
Table-1 Two Philosophical/Political sides and representing concepts
Liberal
Conservative
Multicultural & Global vs.
Patriotic
Student centered
Teacher centered-Direct instruction
Constructivist
Behaviorist-content knowledge
Cognitive assessment
Standards with Testing
Progressivism
Traditional instruction
Teacher as facilitator or collaborator
Teacher as transmitter or managers (information
processor)
There is a longstanding debate/conflict among scholars over definition, scope
and squence of Social Studeis Education. For instance, the battle between Adler
(2003) and Saxe (2003) can be considered as one of the reflection of this
longstanding conflict in the field. Therefore, in the next part I will give a
historical background of refrom movements in Social Studies with definition of
the Social Studies Education.
What is Social Studies?
One obvious way to proceed would be to start with the explanation of social
studies to understand the bigness of the debate over this term. Even though
“Social Studies” is defined by National Council for the Social Studies 1 (NCSS)
1
The official definition is: “Social studies is the integrated study of the social
sciences and humanities to promote civic competence. Within the school
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
116
B. Tarman
in several decades ago, it still remains a field in search of an identity. Or, social
studies is a field struggling to reconcile multiple and, at times, conflicting
rationales.
Social studies is an eclectic field that covers several subject matters and
disciplines. It is this enormous range of knowledge that makes social studies
such a rich and dynamic curriculum area. The fields include the social science
disciplines (e.g., anthropology, economics, geography, political science,
psychology, sociology), and the humanities, (e.g., history, law, literature,
philosophy). But, social studies also include interdisciplinary study of other
disciplines’ or fields (e.g., the history and philosophy of science; literary
criticism; critical race theory; ethnic studies; bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgendered, and queer studies; multicultural education; and women’s studies). We
also need to keep in our minds that each of the disciplines or interdisciplinary
fields that contribute to the social studies curriculum has itself been the locus of
considerable debate regarding its methods, purposes and boundaries (Stanley,
2001). As its definition is very complex like above, not surprisingly, the purpose
of social studies is also varying and related to the question that “what students
should be taught?”
As it can be understood from the explanation above, it is not surprising that there
has been so much debate over the definition and purposes of social studies.
While the level of debate might be understandable, the lack of consensus has
made the social studies exposed to political attack and manipulation for a long
time.
Brief History of Social Studies Reform
The historical foundations of social studies are melded into the history of
American education. After the post-Civil War of the industrialization of the
United States, realizing the necessity to create a new type of American society
(democratic society) forced politicians to reconsider their politics and during
1880s the Populist Movement appeared in with a reform platform. “During the
nation’s rise as an industrial giant during the 19th century, the expanded working
class saw education as a path to success; free universal schooling became a
reality through the secondary school, and emphasis on citizenship and social
studies education increased” (Stockard, 2001, p. 101). This is supported by the
literature. “Mark Twain in collaboration with Charles Dudley Warner wrote The
Gilded Age, a book which chronicled the change to an industrialized society and
program, social studies provides coordinated, systematic study drawing upon
such disciplines as anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history,
law, philosophy, political science, psychology, religion and sociology as well as
appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences…”
NCSS (1992).
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
A Critical Approach and Analysis of a Social Studies Report…
117
the feeling of concern that in the process something had gone wrong and needed
reforming” (Brady; 1992, p.16).
Throughout the history of American education, and especially in the early years
of 20th century, there were swings from one educational movement to another.
The social studies curriculum has been the site of continuing territory wars
among competing camps, each trying the influence the direction of the
curriculum, with varying levels of success. As one camp’s philosophy is in
ascendance, another’s go back, yet remains a part of the dialogue. The major
camps include traditional historians, mandarins (social science advocates), social
efficiency educators, meliorists, and social deconstructionists. Progressive
education was very popular until the late 1930. After World War II, there was a
more conservative view of education, as a response to the nation’s perceived
decline in technological supremacy. During the 1960s, the direction changed
again, back to child-centered, liberal approach, as the schools became the major
weapon in the War on Poverty and in addressing the civil rights struggles of
time. The back-to-basics approach experienced resurgence in the late 1970s and
1980s, as national dissatisfaction with the schools prompted cries for reform.
Throughout the 1990s and into the twenty-first century, federal and state
program have appeared with various agendas, generally supporting
deregulations, increased parental choice, vouchers, and generally a conservative
plan. On the whole, however, educators for social efficiency have been the most
influential group partly because of the ways in which schooling in America
mirrors and reproduces capitalist economic technology (Stockard, 2001; Evans,
2001).
The era of national educational reform leading to the standards movement began
in earnest during a time of political conservatism and educational reduction of
expenditure heralded by publication of the report, A Nation at Risk, in 1983. The
origins of the standards movement may be readily traced to the educational
agenda during the Reagan and Bush administrations. The reform movement
spawned by the report has continued under the America 2000 and Goals 2000
programs with a top down push for standards (Evans, 2001).
The standards movement was launched amid a national crisis in education based
upon the charge that our schools were in terrible condition and largely to blame
for a decline by the U.S. in international economic competition. Many educators
and the public agreed that crucial reform was required to treatment the situation
(Evans, 2001). That is why, many proposals prepared to prevent the fears raised
by A Nation at Risk that American students were not adequately prepared to
allow American nation to compute in a global economy. But, instead of the
broader sense of social studies, reformers focused on basic subjects like history
and geography to fix the schools. The idea of developing a national curriculum
and using standardized tests to assess student knowledge has been gained more
importance and continued gradually. Due to the conflict with the National
standards for United States History, state and local standards were developed and
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
118
B. Tarman
now form the basis for state and local assessments, mainly through standardized
tests, based on a traditional pattern of subject organization.
In the past few decades, much has been written and said regarding the need for
the standards. Several publications illustrate this concern. Hirsch (1987) was one
of the educators to strongly support a standards-based curriculum in the nation’s
school. In his book, Cultural Literacy, What Every American Needs To Know,
Hirsch advocated a core curriculum for all students and such a core curriculum
should be defined so that teachers were aware of what should and should not be
taught. Denish d’ Souza is another advocator of standardization approach. He
worried that the progressivism of the previous decades, which had given rise to
multiculturalism in education, had served to highlight “victim-hood” at the
expense of sound education. He argued that contend-based curriculum was
needed to offset this liberal impact on education. According to him “instead of
liberal education, what American students are getting is its diametric opposite, an
education in close-mindedness and intolerance, which is to say liberal education”
(1991; p.299). Standards and assessment serve as an important signaling device
to students, parents, teachers, employers, and colleges,” by telling everyone in
the educational system what is expected of them, and providing information on
“how well expectations have been met” (Ravitch & Finn, 1996 p.132).
So far, I have attempted to draw a big picture by pointing the debates in social
studies education with a brief historical background. In the next part, I will start
analyzing the ideas of Bruce Frazee and Samuel Ayers. Who are those people?
What political position do they represent? Where do they stand on this big
picture? What is their argument? and How strong is their argument? These are
the questions I will address in this part. Although the report is questioning the
US social studies education, I do bring a global perspective and ask the question
standing from my Turkish point of view.
“Garbage In, Garbage Out” by Bruce Frazee and Samuel Ayers
Frazee and Ayers explore the implications of the "expanding environments"
curriculum and constructivism on social studies education. The main argument
of the study can be conceptualized like: Content Knowledge vs. “Expanding
Environment” and “Constructivism”. They argue that “content knowledge” as
the “backbone of good teaching” must come first when making learning and
teaching decisions because “you have to possess some basic skills and
knowledge before you can begin to tackle the higher tasks of analysis and critical
thinking” (p.113). To be effective, pedagogy must begin by identifying the
specific knowledge a teacher expects students to learn and establishing clear
assessment procedures. Only then can teachers begin to determine how to teach
content to their students.
The authors indicate the ineffectiveness of two popular theories— “expanding
environments” and “constructivism”. The reason why these two theories is not
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
A Critical Approach and Analysis of a Social Studies Report…
119
effective is because “they (constructivism and expanding environment) focus
on how social studies should be taught in elementary classrooms rather than on
the content knowledge that should be the centerpiece for teaching and learning”
(p.111). Frazee and Ayers use the “learning to play chess” as an example to
support the idea of the importance of the content knowledge.
The authors continue their argument with the explanation of the two “misguided
theories”—“expanding environments” and “constructivism.” The basic
principles of the first theory-Expanding environments- is that at each grade level,
each year, students are exposed to a slowly widening social environment that
takes up, in turn, self/home (kindergarten), families (1st grade), neighborhoods
(2nd), communities (3rd), state (4th), country (5th), and world (6th).
Their first criticism on this theory is that the sequence of this curricular lacks
substantial content and children get bored by its narrow focus and repetition.
Secondly, they criticize the assumption that children can only understand the
environment nearest in time by ignoring the today’s technological development
on the communication. The recent technological developments changed the
boarders of our community and expanded the traditional environments (Frazee
and Ayers, 2003)
As for Constructivism, Frazee and Ayers define it like: “it is a theory that holds
that humans learn when they analyze, interpret, create, and construct meaning
from experience and knowledge” (p.112) and continue “constructivists believe
that students must be self-directed while learning in order to create their own
meaningful experiences that will be retained when moving forward in life”.
After indicating the theory’s root which is a belief that only self-discovered
knowledge is understood and remembered, Frazee and Ayers bring the same
argument once more like “specific content knowledge is a prerequisite”
otherwise “it is difficult to achieve self-created meaning.”
According to the authors no one see the reality except for a few people! “The
emperor has no clothes”. They are among those few people who realize that
“constructivism is a massive logical feedback loop”, and it “complicates the
teacher’s role in teaching and implementing elementary school social studies”.
To point the problem they go ahead and review the definitions and description of
constructivism and they talk about two types of constructivism: (a) cognitive
constructivism, based on Piaget’s theory of developmental stages, and (b) social
constructivism based on Vygotsky’s belief that social interaction is crucial for
learning.
Regarding with the relation between constructivism and standards, Frazee and
Ayers say that “constructivism will increasingly find itself at odds with the
standards and testing movement as the latter gathers momentum among policy
makers and parents. Constructivism has no value to the standards movement
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
120
B. Tarman
without the acknowledgment of the importance of building and increasing a
substantive and meaningful content knowledge base.
After indicating that “no one can deny that children simply don’t know enough
about history, civics, and geography”, They conclude the article with their
vicious circle that “as long as social studies leaders tolerate the expanding
environments curriculum and promote social constructivism without
emphasizing content knowledge, the situation is unlikely to improve” (p.120).
My reflection and opposing views
From my perspective, Frazee and Ayers have a weak argument on the issues
addressed in the chapter. I have a couple points to highlight on their weaknesses.
First, they attack on “constructivism” and “expanding environments” but they
are circling around the same argument: “content knowledge is a prerequisite”. By
this explanation they built their argument on a fragile base and they could not
stand strong to condemn the “constructivist” theory because constructivist theory
does not claim that “knowledge” is nothing. In contrast, the constructivist
learning theory claims that knowledge and reality are not out of the mind. In fact
they are constructed by person himself. According to constructivists view,
learning is essential part of the result of the mental construction, students learn
by fitting new information together with what they have already known. People
learn best when they actively construct their own understanding (Bruner, 2001;
Duffy & Jonassen, 1991; 1996; Fasnot, 1989; Hofer & Pintrichk 1997). So, if
there is a problem in today’s school that is not because of the theory of
constructivism. In contrast, that is because of the fact that the theory of
constructivism is not understood well by some teachers, writers or authors like in
this article. Since the authors could not make this difference well between the
definition of the theory and the practice of it in the classroom, they fail on their
analysis about constructivism.
Second, the authors use some general statements starting with like “many
writers” and “journals” but they fail to put the citations. For instance, let’s look
at the following statement and pay attention to the underlined words.
“Education journals add to the confusion surrounding constructivism. Writers
use a welter of jargon to describe the many roles of a constructivist teacher in a
social studies classroom” (p.112).
Third, I would like to call the authors as “ second hand writers” Why I am using
this kind of description is because when they try to explain what people are
thinking or bringing against to their ideas, they use other people’s arguments or
writings instead of developing their own arguments. Or in other words, while
reading the chapter, it is really hard to hear the authors’ own voices. For
example, when they explain what progressivism is and what its supporters say,
the authors use the following method:
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
A Critical Approach and Analysis of a Social Studies Report…
121
“William Kilpatrick, Harold Rugg, and John Dewey, all influential progressive
educators of the 1920s and 1930s, helped lead the charge to revise the K-12
curriculum by replacing the study of history and heroes with a new focus on
social, political, and economic problems. Ravitch (1987) explains that they
sought “to make the curriculum less academic, more utilitarian, less ‘subjectcentered,’ and more closely related to students’ interests and experiences”(p.
345)” (p.113).
A scholarly written article is the one supposed to use first hand sources as much
as possible if it is intended to use any. For example, in this particular case,
instead of using Ravitch to cite the well-known progressive’s scholars, William
Kilpatrick, Harold Rugg, and John Dewey, they should have used the scholars’
original studies.
Finally, I would like to conclude my reflection with a general statement. As
indicated at the beginning of this study there has been a
politically/philosophically longstanding paradox in social studies education. The
Fordham report can be considered as a new version of this paradox representing
the conservative point of view. Therefore, I want to call this situation like “same
scene but different actors”.
However, as a final comment, I think addressing the conflict is not enough
and/or meaningful by itself. The conflict has not only American aspects but also
has global aspects. As an international scholar, I can say that we also have the
same kind of problems in Turkey and I have been looking for scholarly solutions
for a long time.
Thinking on the solutions always pushes me to bring the importance of
democracy education to erase the prejudice in people’s mind. In this regard,
social studies should serve the following two purposes: “It must socialize youth,
that is, make youth fit into the ways of society. But it must also countersocialize, that is, help youth develop their capacity to engage in critical thinking,
to ask important questions, to solve problems, to make intelligent decisions, to
act independently. These capacities are more important to democracy than is
blind loyalty to poorly understood principles” (Engle, 1988, p.12).
Conclusion:
In conclusion, I would like to finish my reflection by asking some critical
questions that needs further attention of researchers to each question for future
studies: By considering the longstanding conflicts and lack of the cohesion in the
field of social studies, how the idea of paradox can be incorporated into the field
in a manner that brings together in a unifying way of all the positions found in
social studies? If it is not possible by politicians and/or philosophers how about
by teachers? What kind of strategies should be developed to help pre-service or
in-service social studies teachers to understand and incorporate the paradoxical
goals into their own classroom teaching? and How?
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
122
B. Tarman
What is the role of critical thinking if we think the situation of today’s “blind
men”? After making a consensus on the importance of having critical thinking
skills in today’s contemporary world:As social studies educators, how can we
promote critical thinking in our classrooms?
References:
Adler, S. (2003) A response to David Warren Saxe. Social Education. 67(2),
pp.111-113. National Council For Social Studies.
Bruce Frazee, B. & Ayers, S.(2003). “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. In J. Leming,
L.Ellington and K. Porter (Eds.), Where did social studies go wrong (pp. 111123). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Bruner,
J.
“Constructivist
Theory”
http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/04c.htm
[On-line]
available
Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. (1991) “Constructivism”: New Implications for
Instructional Technology, 31 (3), 7-12.
Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the
design and delivery of the instruction. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of
Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-197). New
York: Macmillan
D’ Sauza, D. (1991). Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on
Campus, New York, Free Press.
Evans, Ronald W. (2001) “Thoughts on Redirecting a Runaway Train A Critique
of The Standards Movement” Theory and Research in Social Education, Vol.29,
issue 2, p.330-340.
Engle, S. Conformity of independent thought. Democratic Schools (3), 12-13
Fasnot, C.T. (1989) Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist
approach for teaching, New York: Teacher College Press.
Hirsch, E. D., (1987) Cultural Literacy, What Every American Needs To Know,
New York, Vintage Press.
Hofer, B. & Pintrichk, P. (1997). Development of epistemological theories:
Beliefs about knowledge and knowing their relation to knowing. Review of
Educational Research, 67 (1), 88-140
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
A Critical Approach and Analysis of a Social Studies Report…
123
Hursh, David, (2001) “Social Studies Within The Neo-Liberal State, The Co
modification of Knowledge And The End Of Imagination” Theory and Research
in Social Education, Vol.29, issue 2, p.341-356.
Leming, J., Ellington, L., Porter, K. (2003). Where did social studies go wrong,
Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Ravitch, D., Finn, C. (1996) What do our 17-year olds know: A report on the
first national assessment of history and literature, New York: Harper and Row
Pub.
Saxe, D.W. (2003). Patriotism versus multiculturalism in times of war. Social
Education. 67(2), pp.107-109. National Council For Social Studies.
Stanley, W. B. (2001) Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st
century, University of Colorado at Boulder
Stockard, J. W. (2001) Methods and resources for elementary and middle school
social studies, Louisiana State University, Waveland press.
Thiesen, R.M. (2003). "Social Studies and the Battle for America's Soul."
American Enterprise Institute forum. Washington
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 30, Sayfa 111-123, 2010
124
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 30, 2010