Authentic pedagogy: examining intellectual challenge in social studies classrooms

ABSTRACT

This paper reports results from a six-state study of 62 USA social studies classrooms. We examined the extent to which intellectually challenging authentic pedagogy was present in study classrooms, the characteristics of classroom practice at different levels of authentic pedagogy, and how those characteristics may promote or inhibit high levels of authentic intellectual work (AIW). Like earlier AIW studies, we found generally low levels of AIW in observed classes. However, we did find several cases of classrooms scoring in the highest AIW range. We examined characteristics of practice that typified teaching of exemplar lessons at four different levels of authentic pedagogy and identified noteworthy differences in teacher purpose, the ways teachers structured and enacted lessons to accomplish their purposes, and the ways that the structures of the lessons encouraged different lesson narratives that communicated different epistemological assumptions about the complexity of social reality and the process of sense-making. Teachers at the higher levels of the AIW scale sought to promote autonomy and civic competence. We conclude that to maintain democratic societies, educators must expand the number of classrooms offering students this essential preparation for civic life and provide suggestions for how this might be accomplished.

KEYWORDS:

• Authentic pedagogy
• social studies
• teaching and learning
• inquiry
• citizenship education

Acknowledgments

Support for this work was been provided by a FASSE/CUFA Social Studies Inquiry Grant and by the U.S. Department of Education Teaching American History program, Grant U215X060225

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary data can be accessed here

Notes

1. SSIRC members whose research contributed to this article (in alphabetical order): Brooke Blevins (Baylor University), Whitney Blankenship (Rhode Island College), Prentice Chandler (University of Cincinnati), Michelle Cude (James Madison University), Lorrei DiCamillo (Canisius College), Jill Gradwell (Buffalo State College), John Gunn (Queens College, City University of New York), Rosemary Hodges (Athens State University), Jada Kohlmeier (Auburn University), Michael Lovorn (University of Pittsburgh), Theresa McCormick (Auburn University), Nancy Patterson (Bowling Green University), Cinthia Salinas (University of Texas-Austin), Susan Santoli (University of South Alabama), Audrey Schewe (Georgia State University), David Shannon (Auburn University), Barbara Slater Stern (James Madison University), Caroline Sullivan (Georgia State University), Elizabeth Wilson (University of Alabama).

2. For example, an Ohio standard requires students to ‘analyse the actions of the United States government and evaluate the extent to which those actions reflect characteristics of American democracy and help to serve the public good’. A New York standard requires that ‘students identify historical problems, pose analytical questions …, test hypotheses, formulate conclusions …, raise new questions or issues for further investigation’. (DeWitt et al., 2013).

3. Testing stakes vary among states. Test scores can be used as the basis for awarding merit pay, terminating teachers, and sanctioning low performing schools. At the time of the study, 20% of USA states required students to pass a mandated social studies exam in order to graduate (Grant & Horn, 2006).

4. Effective teaching is complex and multidimensional, including qualities such as enthusiasm, caring, and consistency (e.g. Cooper, 2014). In our study we focus on qualities of effective teaching associated specifically with authentic pedagogy.

5. In a precursor to the AIW research line, Onosko (1990) and Newmann (1990) did examine the goals and practices of social studies teachers regarded as among the best at developing student thinking in departments that emphasized higher order thinking. They found substantial differences among teachers in the degree to which thoughtfulness was manifest in their classrooms that were closely related to stated teacher goals and conceptions of thinking.

6. Students in New York, Texas, and Virginia took end-of-course tests that measured history content knowledge. Others completed graduation exams that either measured knowledge of U.S. History (Alabama) or a range of social studies content (Ohio, Georgia). In all settings, tests heavily used multiple-choice items, sometimes as the sole method of measuring student mastery.

7. See Demographic Data [Supplemental File 1_Demographic Data] for detailed information on the sample.

8. Prior to data collection, training sessions were conducted to norm scoring on the AIW scales. Once scoring norms were established, researchers did periodic scoring of new material throughout the data collection period to monitor researcher fidelity. See Saye et al., 2013 for detailed information on the norming process.

9. See Saye et al., 2013 for more information on the interview protocol. After all observations were complete, exit interviews asked teachers to reflect on the enacted lessons. Those interviews and discussion with teachers of observation summaries allowed for member checking.

10. We gathered at least two complete sets of classroom data (observation and task scores) for all 62 teachers. 55 teachers had three complete data sets. The primary researcher for each site scored every observation and task associated with site teachers. An additional researcher independently rated at least 25% of all observations and tasks at each school site for inter-rater agreement. We correlated the primary and secondary scorers’ ratings for each component of the AIW instruction and task rubrics. The median correlation between primary and secondary researchers was .864 for classroom instruction and .845 for task ratings. Having established strong inter-rater agreement, AIW analyses were based on primary researcher data.

11. Analysis based on two or three sets of classroom data yielded very similar results with composite score means of 16.11 and 16.10, respectively. Additional examination of the 55 teachers with three complete sets of data revealed no significant difference between composite scores based on 2 sets or 3 sets of data (t = .636, p = .527). Since a third observation did not alter teachers’ AIW composite rankings, all subsequent analysis included the larger group of 62 teachers who had at least two complete data sets.

12. In addition to examining the degree of authentic pedagogy present in study classrooms, we also asked if authentic pedagogy was more likely to exist in some contexts than others. We used Pearson correlations to examine student demographics (gender and ethnicity) as well as certain institutional (school and class sizes and per pupil expenditure) and teacher (advanced degrees, teaching experience) variables. Gender was the only demographic variable found to have a statistically significant relationship to authentic pedagogy. Teachers demonstrated significantly higher levels of authentic pedagogy in classrooms with larger percentages of female students (r = .278, #60;italic#62;p#60;/italic#62; < .05). When considering other variables, statistically significant correlations existed between higher AIW scores and smaller class sizes (r = -.270, #60;italic#62;p#60;/italic#62; < .05), smaller schools (r = -.340, #60;italic#62;p#60;/italic#62; < .01), higher per pupil expenditures (r = -.375, #60;italic#62;p#60;/italic#62; < .01), and for classes where the teacher held a Masters’ degree in field (r=-.373, #60;italic#62;p#60;/italic#62; < .01). All statistically significant relationships had medium effect sizes. When the PBA teachers were removed from the analysis, significant effects remained only for gender and Masters’ degree in field.

13. As evidence, we invite readers to make their own judgment of the quality of teaching exhibited by the teacher described in this paper’s Moderate case example.

14. Classroom dialogue is reconstructed from field notes. Although dialogue may not be verbatim in all instances, it accurately reflects the content of the conversations.

15. Exit interviews included questions asking teachers about purposes and goals for teaching social studies.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Education[Teaching American History program, Grant U215X0602]; Fund for the Advancement of Social Studies/College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies [Social Studies Inquiry Grant];

Notes on contributors

John W. Saye

John W. Saye is Mildred Cheshire Fraley Distinguished Professor of Secondary Social Science Education at Auburn University, Auburn University, 5040 Haley Center, Auburn, AL 36,849, USA; [email protected]. He is Director of the Social Studies Inquiry Research Collaborative. His research interests include authentic pedagogy, problem-based inquiry, teacher thinking, and collaborative communities of practice.

Jeremy Stoddard

Jeremy Stoddard is Professor in the Department of Curriculum & Instruction at the College of William & Mary. His research focuses on the role of media in teaching and learning controversial issues in history and politics, authentic pedagogy and learning environments, and the roles of epistemology and ideology in teacher development.

David M. Gerwin

David M. Gerwin is Professor of Secondary Social Studies Education at Queens College, and chairs the QC chapter of the faculty and staff union, PSC-CUNY. Research interests include authentic pedagogy, the impact of high-stakes assessments (edTPA) and how historical inquiry differs when undertaken in single classrooms compared to an inquiry-oriented performance assessment school.

Andrea S. Libresco

Andrea S. Libresco is Professor of Social Studies Education, Director of Elementary Education and of the Minor in Civic Education at Hofstra University. Books include: Every Book is a Social Studies Book: How to Meet Standards with Picture Books, K-6, Exemplary Elementary Social Studies: Case Studies in Practice, and Notable Books, Notable Lessons: Putting Social Studies Back in the K-8 Curriculum. Her research interests include exemplary social studies instruction in an age of standardized testing, the integration of children’s literature and social studies, civic engagement, and women’s history.

Lamont E. Maddox

Lamont E. Maddox is Associate Professor at the University of North Alabama. His research interests include authentic pedagogy, problem-based instruction, assessment in social studies, and geography education.