Queen Essays

History of Teaching and Learning – Rubric

Overview of the Common Historical Perspectives of Teaching and

Learning in America 44 points

Criteria Description

Overview of the Common Historical Perspectives of Teaching and Learning in America

5. Excellent 44 points

An overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in

America is presented and is thorough. Information presented is from current or

seminal scholarly sources.

4. Good 38.28 points

An overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in

America is presented. Information presented is from scholarly though dated

sources.

3. Satisfactory 34.76 points

An overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in

America is presented. Information presented is from both non-scholarly and

scholarly sources.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 32.56 points

A vague overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in

America is presented, but is incomplete or inaccurate. Information presented is not

based on scholarly sources.

Overview of the Historically Key Theories of Teaching and Learning in

America 44 points

Criteria Description

Overview of the Historically Key Theories of Teaching and Learning in America

5. Excellent 44 points

An overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America is

presented and is insightful. Information presented is from current or seminal

scholarly sources.

Collapse All

4. Good 38.28 points

An overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America is

presented and thorough. Information presented is from scholarly though dated

sources.

3. Satisfactory 34.76 points

An overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America is

presented. Information presented is from both non-scholarly and scholarly sources.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 32.56 points

A vague overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America

is presented, but is incomplete or inaccurate. Information presented is not based

on scholarly sources.

Synthesis of the Common Perspectives and Key Theories of Teaching and

Learning in America 55 points

Criteria Description

Synthesis of the Common Perspectives and Key Theories of Teaching and Learning in

America

5. Excellent 55 points

A synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning

in America is presented and is insightful. Information presented is from current or

seminal scholarly sources.

4. Good 47.85 points

A synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning

in America is presented and is thorough. Information presented is from scholarly

though dated sources.

3. Satisfactory 43.45 points

A synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning

in America is presented. Information presented is from both non-scholarly and

scholarly sources.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 40.7 points

A vague synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and

learning in America is presented, but is illogical. Information presented is not based

on scholarly sources.

Two Scholarly Research Sources With In-Text Citations 11 points

Criteria Description

Two Scholarly Research Sources With In-Text Citations

5. Excellent 11 points

All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic related, and

obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources.

4. Good 9.57 points

All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic related, and

obtained from reputable professional sources.

3. Satisfactory 8.69 points

All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic related, but

the source and quality of one reference is questionable.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 8.14 points

Not all required elements are present. One or more elements are missing and/or

one or more sources are not scholarly research or topic related.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

None of the required elements (two topic-related scholarly research sources and

two in-text citations) are present.

Thesis Development and Purpose 15.4 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent 15.4 points

Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained

within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Good 13.4 points

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is

descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory 12.17 points

Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 11.4 points

Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not

clear.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Argument Logic and Construction 17.6 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent 17.6 points

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and

compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Good 15.31 points

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident.

There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most

sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory 13.9 points

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents

minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the

purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 13.02 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There

are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language

use) 11 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. Excellent 11 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good 9.57 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety

of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

3. Satisfactory 8.69 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the

reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 8.14 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in

language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.

Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 11 points

Criteria Description

Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent 11 points

All format elements are correct.

4. Good 9.57 points

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory 8.69 points

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors

may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 8.14 points

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of

control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Research Citations 11 points

Criteria Description

Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference

page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Excellent 11 points

In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation

of cited sources is free of error.

4. Good 9.57 points

Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is

appropriate and citation style is usually correct.

3. Satisfactory 8.69 points

Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are

appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 8.14 points

Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

No reference page is included. No citations are used.

Total 220 points

Barton, Keith C., and Linda S. Levstik. Teaching History for the Common Good. Chapter Mahwah, N. J. : L. Erlbaum Associates, 2004.

13

Teacher Education and the Purposes of History

To produce a mighty book, you must choose a mighty theme. No great and enduring volume can ever be written on theJea, though many there be that have tried it.

The two of us spend much of our professional time preparing history and so- cial studies teachers. We have taught thousands of students in our methods courses, along with hundreds more in workshops or graduate classes. We know this includes a great many success stories-teachers who provide excit- ing instruction for their students in ways consistent with what we have taught them. Others have adopted our suggestions less wholeheartedly but with se- lective enthusiasm for practices we consider important-good literature, or inquiry, or conflicting viewpoints, or open-ended writing. Yet we fear these success stories may pale in comparison with the number of teachers who have ignored our ideas completely. As we look around, we have to admit that many classrooms (the majority? the vast majority?) show little evidence of the cur- ricular and instructional perspectives we have tried to promote. Around the country, we have hundreds of colleagues who prepare teachers much as we do (many with greater ability and enthusiasm, no doubt), yet we fear their ex- periences may be the same as ours-plenty of individual success stories but no widespread or systematic changes in teaching.

Why is this? How can our efforts at developing teachers' understanding of instructional methods leave so little imprint on classroom practice? Why aren't all children using a variety of sources to develop interpretations of history? Surely teachers who have taken courses from us or our colleagues know that history is an interpretive, inquiry-oriented subject involving mul- tiple perspectives, and they must know how to implement the practice in the classroom, at least in an introductory way. Yet maybe knowing isn't enough. From a sociocultural perspective, after all, what people know–conceived of as individual cognition-is less important than how they act purposefully (and how they use cultural tools to do so). To under- stand why teachers engage in the practices they do, perhaps we need to turn to the socially situated purposes that guide their actions. While we are at it,

TEACHER EDUCATION 245

maybe we should ask ourselves, as teacher educators, whether we are help- ing them explore themes "mighty" enough to lead to the kinds of instruc- tion we hope for.

TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND EDUCATION REFORM

Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan Lytle note that over the last two de- cades, teacher learning has been at the forefront of efforts at improving education and that "it has been more or less assumed that teachers who know more teach better." This has not always been so: Perspectives on the teacher's role in improving instruction have undergone a number of changes over the past half century. Behaviorists of the 1950s, for example, emphasized the transformative potential of teaching machines and pro- grammed instruction; from their viewpoint, the teacher was little more than a manager of the classroom who needed little specialized knowledge. Similarly, in the 1960s, a variety of national organizations created and field tested new reading materials, artifact kits, and classroom activities that focused on the concepts and procedures of the academic disciplines. Although rarely dismissing teacher knowledge directly, these movements clearly hoped to promote instructional reform by improving curricular materials rather than by addressing teachers' ideas; teachers were respon- sible primarily for implementing the innovations developed by others. By the mid-1970s, reform efforts (and much academic research) focused less on curricular innovation and more on "teaching behaviors7'-the set of generic skills that were believed to result in higher levels of student achievement (such as pacing, wait time, feedback, and so on). Although this approach put teachers at the center of instructional improvement, it deemphasized their role as knowledgeable professionals and centered in- stead on changing observable behavior through structured systems of feedback.'

Over the last 20 years, though, most theory and research on teachers' ed- ucation and professional development has focused on precisely the area ne- glected in previous work-their active role in designing and implementing instruction. This work has been grounded in the assumption that teachers are ultimately responsible for what goes in their classrooms; they serve as "brokers" or "gatekeepers" who select from and transform the array of pos- sible curricula, resources, and instructional strategies to provide concrete learning activities for students. As Stephen Thornton puts it, "As gatekeep- ers, teachers make the day-to-day decisions concerning both the subject matter and the experiences to which students have access and the nature of that subject matter and those experiences." If teachers' decisions shape their students' curricular and instructional experiences, then it seems logi- cal to assume that we need to understand the thinking behind those deci- sions, and a large body of research has been devoted to this topic. Although this research has employed a number of different theoretical frameworks

246 CHAPTER 13 TEACHER EDUCATION 247

and conceptual terms-includingpersonal theories, practical knowledge, inter- active decision making, kames of reference, pedagogical reasoning, and oth- ers-all have shared a concern with getting "inside teachers' heads" to explain how they make the decisions that determine classroom pra~ t ice .~

One of the most influential frameworks for understanding what teachers know and believe (the distinction between the two is elusive) has been that of Lee Shulman. Shulman argues that that a critical component of teachers' expertise is their pedagogical content knowledge. Whereas some reformers insist that teachers need greater content preparation in their subject (usu- ally conceived of as more coursework in a specific academic discipline), and others argue for greater exposure to educational theories and methods, Shulman maintains that the distinctive body of knowledge for teaching lies at the intersection of content and pedagogy. Teachers must understand the structures and principles of their disciplines, and they must also know how to transform disciplinary ideas in ways that will make sense to students. Much of the recent research on the thought and practice of history teachers has been consistent with this conception of teacher's thinking, particularly in its emphasis on teachers' understanding of the underlying conceptual structures of the history and their implications for classroom practice. As Bruce Vansledright succinctly notes, most research in the field has assumed that "history teachers need to possess deep knowledge of their discipline and robust understandings of how to teach it." From this viewpoint, if teachers know that history involves the interpretation of evidence among members of a community of inquiry, and if they learn to apply that knowledge in the classroom, then presumably they will engage students in inquiry-based his- torical interpretation. Indeed, the two of us have written an entire book based precisely on that assumption: In Doing History: Investigating With Children in Elementary and Middle Schools, we set out to help teachers under- stand history as an interpretive and inquiry-oriented endeavor, and we de- scribed classroom practices consistent with that ideal. However, the question remains: Is it true? Does this knowledge and understanding affect classroom pra~ t ice?~

THE PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY TEACHERS

Several studies have investigated the extent to which teachers' understand- ing of the interpretive nature of history is consistent with that of historians, and each of these studies has found that teachers typically have little ac- quaintance with such disciplinary concerns as the context, authorship, and perspective of historical documents. Chara Bohan and 0. L. Davis, Jr., for example, gave three secondary student teachers a set of primary source ac- counts of the bombing of Hiroshima; they asked teachers to read the docu- ments, think aloud as they did so, and use the documents to write a narrative account of the event. On the basis of responses to this task, Bohan

and Davis concluded that all three were unfamiliarwith the process of creat- ing historical interpretations: Participants failed to consider the source of the documents, they saw each as a simple statement of fact, and they failed to cite sources in writing their accounts. In a related study, Melanie Gillaspie and Davis gave a similar task to three elementary student teachers. They found that only one of the three compared the source accounts to each other or referred to them in the written narrative; one participant made no reference to the sources at all, and the third failed to explain the accounts in detail or to question their perspective^.^

Elizabeth Yeager and Davis also found varied levels of disciplinary un- derstanding among both elementary and secondary teachers. They asked three secondary and three elementary student teachers to read and com- pare conflicting accounts of the battle at Lexington Green, just as Sam Wineburg had done with historians and high school students in an earlier study. Only one of the secondary participants noted previous experience with issues of historical interpretation (he considered history his hobby), and he read the documents much as the historians in Wineburg's study had done-he looked for the authors' assumptions, compared the audi- ences to which the documents were addressed, and considered the con- texts and circumstances of their production. Another secondary participant more closely resembled Wineburg's high school students: He simply gathered and summarized information from the documents and saw little subtext. The third was just beginning to see problems of bias as she worked through the exercise; although she merely summarized the documents initially, she eventually began to compare them and to specu- late about their authorship and potential bias. Although the three elemen- tary teachers had more limited backgrounds in academic history, they demonstrated patterns of historical understanding nearly identical to those of the secondary teachers: One summarized the documents with lit- tle comparison or attention to context or subtext; one explored the au- thors' assumptions, purposes, and audiences; and a third began by summarizing but developed a more critical and interpretive perspective as she worked through the set of document^.^

When Yeager and Davis gave the same task to 15 practicing secondary teachers, they found three distinct profiles among participants. Some read the documents for evidence of each author's purpose and perspec- tive; some were concerned primarily with determining on which "side" each document fell and hoped to be able to uncover accurate information about "what actually happened"; and still others, again like the high school students in Wineburg's study, simply gathered information with lit- tle attention to comparison or subtext. One of the teachers in this third category even equated credibility with interest and readability-she con- sidered a passage form Howard Fast's April Morning more credible than other sources "because it was the 'most fun.. . . It has vivid details, and it's full of emotion.""

248 CHAPTER 13

Although these studies do not indicate that teachers have a uniformly im- poverished understanding of history (and the small sample sizes limit generalizability), they do suggest that attending to teachers' disciplinary understanding may be a critical task for teacher educators, as implied in the perspective of Shulman and others. If teachers do not understand the na- ture of historical knowledge, then they cannot design meaningful learning experiences for students, because they will not know what it is that students need to learn (much less how to help them learn it). A teacher who thinks sources can be evaluated on how "fun" they are surely is not qualified to teach history, and as teacher educators (whether in history departments or colleges of education), we must help our students develop more sophisti- cated and accurate understandings of what history is all about. A "deep knowledge of their discipline" would seem to be a prerequisite for history teachers, and its development a major task for those of us who educate them. Encouragingly, though, the study of student teachers by Yeager and Davis suggests this task may not be as difficult as it seems: Two of their six participants developed more sophisticated understandings of historical ev- idence and interpretation simply through participating in one research ex- ercise! Perhaps extended exposure to historical content is less important to the growth of pedagogical content knowledge than intensive engagement in a few well-chosen tasks that allow teachers to reflect on the epistemo- logical basis of historical knowledge.

PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Although the studies described in the previous section suggest teachers need greater understanding of the interpretive nature of history, there is some reason to question whether sophisticated disciplinary understanding, even when combined with pedagogical knowledge, will have an impact on instruction. Bruce VanSledright, for example, conducted a case study of an experienced secondary history teacher (a 16-year veteran of the classroom) who had just completed a doctorate in history. In her graduate studies- and particularly in her dissertation research-she had come to understand the complicated nature of historical facts and evidence, and she recognized the central role of interpretation in the creation of historical knowledge. In addition, this teacher's apprenticeship into the historical profession cen- tered on "the new sociocultural history," or "history from the bottom up," a perspective that reflects one of the discipline's central concerns in recent decades. Although one might question whether her understanding of the discipline was as thorough as that of someone immersed in the profession for a longer period of time, her level of disciplinary content knowledge was certainly all that could be asked for in a teacher (few are going to complete a doctorate in history, after all), and her extensive classroom experience sug-

TEACHER EDUCATION

gests that she should have had no problem putting her sophisticated knowl- edge into practice in the cla~sroom.~

In fact, her teaching reflected little of this disciplinary understanding, and her students had few opportunities to engage with historical knowledge as she had done. Her instruction focused primarily on enabling students to reproduce a single, consensus-oriented account of the U.S. past, one that was outlined in the district curriculum and assessed, primarily through multiple-choice items, on a required district test at the end of the year. Stu- dents spent much of their time learning the content of long review lists that centered on factual information about people, places, and events. Although she addressed multiple perspectives in the past, and although she re- minded students of the difference between fact and interpretation (fre- quently beginning sentences with phrases such as, "Some historians believe . . . "), she nonetheless treated the textbook as though it were an authorita- tive and unproblematic source of factual information. Students did not learn that the text itselfwas an interpretation, nor were they asked to evalu- ate the historical claims found in that or any other source. There were no questions about where the evidence for historical accounts came from, and there was little work with primary sources. Even the teacher's concern with history from the bottom up was limited to a single day spent lecturing about women and minorities during the Federal Period. Students' exposure to the teachers' "fact/interpretation" distinction, then, was spent primarily on the factual side of the dichotomy. VanSledright concludes that "by itself, the possession of deep and current subject-matter knowledge arrayed with rich pedagogical experience provides no promise of an unproblematic transla- tion to the high school classr~om."~

Vansledright's study is not alone in questioning the connection between disciplinary knowledge and classroom practice. G. Williamson McDiarmid interviewed 14 students (8 of whom planned to teach high school history) enrolled in an undergraduate historiography course. At the beginning of the course, students recognized that bias in historical accounts existed, but they thought such bias was simply the result of the personal beliefs or agen- das of authors and that all historical texts were equally unreliable. After tak- ing the course, about half the students had developed more complex notions of the interpretive nature of history-recognizing, for example, that historical knowledge is always tentative and that history is invariably seen through the preoccupations of the present. However, although stu- dents' disciplinary knowledge increased, their beliefs about teaching and learning history remained unchanged: They thought that lecture was the most appropriate method for teaching history and that a good history teacher was one who told "good stories" and wrote lecture notes on the board. They did not think that high school students would be motivated to engage in the kind of interpretive work they had done in their historiogra- phy class or be capable of doing so; they thought learners simply needed to be told what happened and why.''

CHAPTER 13

The research by VanSledright and by McDiarmid points to the lack of a straightfonvard connection between disciplinary knowledge and pedagogy, but still more shocking is a pattern consistently found in research on history and social studies education: Even teachers' conceptions of pedagogy have lit- tle connection to their teaching. In study after study, teachers articulate a view of instruction that emphasizes active student learning, multiple viewpoints, and construction of knowledge. However, a different picture emerges when they are observed teaching or when they describe their classroom practices. What teachers actually do is cover the content of textbooks or curriculum guides through teacher-directed instruction and carehl control of classroom activity and discourse. Even when teachers' ideas about the subject differ from each other, or when they have vastly difference levels of background or exper- tise, they wind up teaching in remarkably similar ways, and these often have lit- tle connection to their espoused beliefs."

Stephanie van Hover and Elizabeth Yeager, for example, conducted a case study of a 2nd-year, high school history teacher who had graduated from an intensive certification program emphasizing historical interpreta- tion, inquiry, and the use of a variety of historical sources and perspectives. This teacher was considered one of the program's strongest students, and she also held an undergraduate degree in history. In interviews, she dem- onstrated a clear understanding of historical thinking and inquiry: She saw history as an interpretive discipline that involved contextualization of ac- tions and motivations, believed that history should be analyzed from multi- ple perspectives, and thought the subject should be taught through inquiry exercises, problem-solving activities, debate, discussion, and cooperative learning. '*

In all respects, this teacher's pedagogical content knowledge seemed ex- emplary. Her instruction, however, bore almost no resemblance to that knowledge. She did not encourage perspective-taking, interpretation, or open-ended historical thinking or inquiry. Instead, classroom activities were heavily teacher centered. She lectured frequently-recounting a sin- gle, univocal narrative of major events in U.S. history-and students took notes from the outline of textbook chapters. When she included simula- tions or other group activities, she told students what conclusions they should draw, and she contradicted those who disagreed with her. Although she credited her social studies methods course with influencing her knowl- edge of how to teach history, she applied almost none ofwhat she learned in that course to actual practice."

As teacher educators, our commonsense explanation for this failure to influence instructional practices is to point to our own limited impact on prospective teachers. We have only a brief time to help them develop the pedagogical content knowledge they will need, typically during a social studies methods course, supplemented by other education courses that may also be relevant to instructional practices in history. (At the second- ary level, teachers may also take one or more courses in historical meth-

TEACHER EDUCATION

ods as part of a history major or area of concentration; other history courses may also address the interpretive nature of history, although not usually methods for teaching it at the precollegiate level.) This brief set of experiences seems too thin to overcome the "apprenticeship of obser- vation"-the 12 or more years students have spent watching teachers perform their daily tasks, a time during which they have developed an image of teaching that revolves around teacher control and the coverage of textbook-based information. The content of students' university courses, particularly in education, seems to have little effect on their ideas about teaching, particularly when the practices they observe in field settings contradict that content. Within history and social studies education, the view that university courses have a limited impact on teachers is supported by numerous studies showing that their ideas about education derive from a wide variety of sources, including not only their own experiences as students but their personalities, experiences with pupils, institutional factors, and the perspectives of family mem- bers, colleagues, and cooperating teachers.14

This can be a fairly pessimistic viewpoint, because it implies that what we do in teacher education programs has little impact on the development of teachers. When this perspective does not descend into despair, its implica- tion seems to be that we need to redouble our efforts to develop students' pedagogical content knowledge: We have to design better history courses, with a greater emphasis on the nature of the discipline, we have to do a better job challenging students' ideas in our methods courses and helping them construct new understandings of how to teach, and we have to select field placements carefully so that students see good models of the kinds of instruction we hope to promote. Only such thorough and intensive efforts seem to provide hope of developing a clear and consistent body of peda- gogical content knowledge in our students.

However, we believe this approach may be misguided, or at least insuffi- cient. As the studies by VanSledright, McDiarmand, and van Hover and Yeager show, understanding the interpretive nature of history has little im- pact on teachers' instructional ideas or practices. Moreover, as we noted previously, studies consistently show that teachers who have learned a vari- ety of pedagogical practices still fail to implement them in the classroom. There simply does not seem to be any evidence that teacher knowledge is the variable that predicts classroom practice. That is not to say such knowl- edge is unimportant; recognizing history's interpretive nature and know- ing how to represent the subject to students is undoubtedly a necessary condition for teaching history interpretively. If teachers do not understand the underlying premises of the subject, and if they do not know how to go about implementing inquiry, or discussing historical controversies, or lo- cating primary sources, then it is inconceivable that they will actually do so. However, this knowledge, by itself, does not appear to be a sufficient condi- tion for transforming educational practices in history. Teachers can under-

252 CHAPTER 13

stand history as a discipline and know how to teach it in the ways recommended by reformers and still not do so.

THE PRACTICE OF HISTORY TEACHING

The emphasis on pedagogical content knowledge-whether conceptualized in Shulman's terms or through alternative frameworks such as personal theo- ries, practical knowledge, or pedagogical reasoning-may be an unproduc- tive way of thinking about instructional practice, because it assumes that teachers' behavior is primarily the result of individual cognition. From a sociocultural perspective, attention should be directed not just toward the private ideas teachers are believed to "possess" as individuals but toward the actions they engage in as members of social groups, as well as the socially situ- ated purposes that guide those actions. Pamela Grossman, Peter Smagorinsky, and Sheila Valencia, for example, have argued that the indi- vidualistic focus of research on teaching should give way to a concern with the "predominant value systems and social practices that characterize the set- tings in which learning to teach occurs." These values and practices provide direction for beginners who hope to become part of the system of schooling, and they necessarily constrain the choices available to them. From this per- spective, learning to teach is not a matter of applying individually con- structed knowledge-whether developed in university coursework or through a lifetime of experiences-but a process of appropriating the histor- ically and culturally situated tools and practices of school settings.15 To this point in the book, we have emphasized how the historical actions demanded of students are situated in broader contexts; we now turn to cultural expecta- tions for teachers' actions.

What are the predominant social practices in classrooms? The empiri- cal evidence on this question, particularly in the fields of history and social studies, is clear: Teachers are expected to (a) cover the curriculum and (b) maintain control. In explaining the nature of their classroom practices, teachers repeatedly return to the centrality of these two activities. The need to cover a prescribed curriculum is the most common way of explain- ing instruction, both in published research and our own experience: A curriculum exists (whether in textbooks, district curriculum guides, or state standards), and the teacher's primary job is to ensure that students are exposed to that curriculum-principals expect it, parents support it, and teachers themselves accept coverage as their chief duty. Improving students' comprehension, developing their motivation, and enhancing their ability to work together may be important, but as instructional activi- ties, they are distinctly secondary to delivering a prescribed curriculum (even though teachers may be mistaken about the actual content of that curriculum). If teachers perceive that primary sources, multiple perspec- tives, or student interpretation will interfere with that goal, coverage will win out, because covering the curriculum is what teachers do.16

TEACHER EDUCATION

Equally important is maintaining classroom control. Again, both re- search evidence and our own experience suggest that most teachers devote a great deal of effort to making sure that classroom procedures are orderly, students are quiet and still, and instructional objectives, materials, and practices are consistent and predictable. Teachers are particularly con- cerned about other teachers' (and administrators') perceptions of their ability to maintain control; nothing is more likely to inspire condescension from colleagues or a negative evaluation from a principal or mentor than a classroom in which students talk too much, move around too often, or pur- sue unstructured activities. Teachers know that the open-ended, group projects associated with historical inquiry lead to precisely those behaviors associated with a "lack of control." In Bruce Fehn's and Kim Koeppen's study of preservice teachers who had engaged in an intensive, document- based social studies methods course, for example, they found that students said they were likely to increase their use of primary sources only if they had been shown how to do it in a highly structured way, to overcome classroom control problems. l7

This focus on coverage and control is especially clear in Linda McNeil's influential book, Contradictions of Control: School Structure and School Knowl- edge. In her study of social studies teachers at four high schools, McNeil found that despite differences in their political and philosophical views, teachers' classroom actions were remarkably similar. Although many of them professed high academic expectations for students and were them- selves very knowledgeable about history, political events, and economics, their teaching reflected little of this. Instead, as they recognized, their ac- tions revolved around controlling the method of presentation while cov- ering the content of their courses. McNeil identifies four strategies teachers used to accomplish this goal: fragmentation, in which topics were presented as disjointed pieces of information; mystijication, in which teach- ers made topics seem important yet unknowable, thus closing down dis- cussion; omission, in which teachers left out consideration of political and economic issues that were either contemporary or controversial; and de- fensive simplijication, in which complex topics were accorded only superfi- cial attention. By using these strategies, teachers were able to cover the curriculum efficiently and limit the opportunities for potentially disrup- tive student discussion.18

McNeil's findings are consistent with much of the research on classroom practice in history and social studies. Seen from a sociocultural vantage point, the principal social acts of history teaching are coverage and control. The tools teachers use include the four approaches identified by McNeil, along with other strategies, such as limiting information to a single source (such as the textbook), requiring all students to learn the same body of in- formation, and testing students on their restatement of predetermined facts and analysis. The purpose of coverage and control, though, is some- what murkier. When asked for their ideas about the purpose of history edu-

254 CHAPTER 13

cation, teachers typically respond with abstract rationales that have little connection to their practices. We are less concerned with teachers' explana- tions than with the purposes that actually guide their practices of coverage and control. Why are they so concerned with these?

THE ROLE OF PURPOSE IN HISTORY TEACHING

Identifying the purposes that guide teachers' actions necessarily involves an element of speculation. People cannot always be counted on to give valid explanations of their actions, and it would be offensive even to ask a question like, "Why do you spend all your time controlling students?" Yet two possibilities immediately suggest themselves, and both have found support in the literature on teacher education. The first is that teachers hope to fit in: They want to be accepted as competent professionals by fel- low teachers, administrators, and parents. Doing so means acting in ways similar to those around them; if everyone else covers the curriculum and maintains quiet, orderly classrooms, devoid of controversy, then new teachers will be highly motivated to do the same, regardless of what they may have learned about the nature of history or methods of teaching the subject. Out of all the potential teaching practices they have encoun- tered-through their own experience, in readings, in teacher education courses, and elsewhere-they will understandably chose those that allow them to achieve the goal of acceptance.lg

A second purpose guiding teachers' actions is practicality: Content cov- erage is an "efficient" practice, one unlikely to require unreasonable expen- ditures of time and energy. Teaching is hard enough without placing unreasonable demands on oneself, particularly if the additional work may not lead to meaningful results, and teachers take these energy demands into account as they develop classroom practice^.'^ Notions of efficiency and practicality are relative, though, because schools differ dramatically in prevailing norms regarding appropriate expenditure of effort; in many schools, teachers continue to work in their classrooms until well after dark, and in others, the parking lot is empty 15 minutes after school is dismissed. As teachers make decisions about how to expend their energy, then, they look to those around them for cues about what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable work.

When teachers aim for group acceptance and practicality, practices like coverage and control make perfect sense. If a teacher's purpose is to fit in, then at most schools it would be nonsense to engage students in developing their own interpretations of controversial historical issues. Similarly, if a teacher hopes to make it through the day (or the year) without potentially wasted effort, there is little point in developing group projects based on original research; these require an incredible amount of work by the teacher, and they may result in learning that has little connection to the re- quired curriculum. Whether teachers have the pedagogical content knowl-

TEACHER EDUCATION 255

edge to carry out such practices is irrelevant if these endeavors do not help them achieve their goals.

Again, this kind of explanation for teachers' actions seem fatalistic, be- cause it suggests that what we do as teacher educators has little influence on classroom practice. We can help teachers construct an understanding of history as an interpretive subject, but they may never apply that perspec- tive, because it fails to contribute to their goal of fitting in. We can help them discover tools for engaging students in interpreting primary sources, but these will never be used if interpretation does not occur in the first place. However, this recognition-that factors beyond pedagogical content knowledge influence classroom actions-is not tantamount to consigning teachers to history's dustbin, nor does it doom teacher educators to irrele- vance. Studies consistently have shown that some teachers do apply what they have learned about historical evidence and interpretation. There are thousands of such teachers around the country, and they do far more than cover the curriculum or control students. We have seen them teach, we have written about them, we have read their books and articles. Why are they so different? Because their purposes are different.

At the most basic level, this means that some teachers are not interested in conformity. Many of the best history and social studies teachers we know are unconcerned with the opinions of people at their school, particularly those of other teachers. They go about theirjobs in the best way they know how and pay no attention to whether their colleagues snub their noses at them for having classrooms that are loud and messy, or students who move around on their own initiative. In fact, some of these teachers pride them- selves on their nonconformity and actively challenge school norms. Other good teachers, meanwhile, seem to have little interest in practicality: They take on multiple projects, track down a mountain of resources, provide de- tailed feedback on every piece of student work, and win "Teacher of the Year" honors. They give the impression that efficiency is unimportant to them because they have a limitless supply of time and energy. For mavericks and dynamos like these, coverage and control have little relevance, and they are free to pursue other activities with their students.

However, as inspiring as such teachers may be, they provide only a lim- ited model for others. First, most teachers are not mavericks, and no amount of exhortation is likely to convince them to become such; even fewer have unlimited energy, and teacher education programs can do lit- tle to change their students' metabolisms. More important, though, it is not enough that some teachers do not share the purposes that lead many of their colleagues to emphasize coverage and control, for this says noth- ing about what their purposes are or what practices they will adopt them- selves. Without a sense of purpose that is clearly thought out and articulated, teachers may fall prey to each new fad or harebrained instruc- tional program, or they may find themselves adopting the practices of their peers by default.

CHAPTER 13 TEACHER EDUCATION

Yet on this score, the research evidence is encouraging. Teachers who have a clear sense of purpose can resist the temptation of conformity, and they can implement practices consistent with their aims. Letitia Fickel, for example, has described a secondary teacher with strongly felt and con- sciously articulated goals that included preparing students to become ac- tive and critically thoughtful citizens and helping them learn from the "multiple truths and knowledge inherent in a diverse, democratic soci- ety." His instruction was consistent with these goals, as he engaged stu- dents in working with primary sources, manipulating and interpreting data, and considering persistent and locally relevant social issues. Simi- larly, in Ronald Evans' study of five secondary history teachers, he found that the two with the clearest sense of purpose also engaged in classroom practices that most closely matched their aims; those whose goals were less deeply held (or less clearly articulated) often taught in ways inconsistent with their expressed beliefs. Jesse Goodman and Susan Adler, in their study of elementary social studies teachers, also found that in classrooms in which teachers had a clear sense of the subject's purpose, the enacted curriculum more closely matched their aims; those with less commitment to the subject were more likely to teach in inconsistent or contradictory ways. Meanwhile, comparative case studies both by Bruce Vansledright and Jere Brophy and by Suzanne Wilson and Sam Wineburg portray his- tory teachers whose practices vary significantly but whose differences arise less from their pedagogical content knowledge than from the distinct goals they have for their student^.^'

The impact of purpose on classroom practice is particularly clear in S. G. Grant's detailed portrait of two high school history teachers. These teachers worked in the same setting-teaching the same course, to the same level of students, at the same school-and both had exten- sive preparation in historical content and instructional methods. Both were committed to history's importance and considered it necessary for understanding the present. Seen in terms of "teacher knowledge," the two appeared virtually identical. Yet their classroom practices differed dramatically: Mr. Blair lectured from the front of the room, displayed outlines of textbook content on an overhead, and required students to copy notes silently; Mrs. Strait not only lectured but engaged students in simulations, role playing, and small-group discussions, and she ex- posed them to avariety of texts and other media. Neither was a "better" teacher than the other, for Blair's lectures were not boring record of dates and facts but masterful narratives with complex characters and interesting plots; he was as accomplished at delivering lectures as Strait was at facilitating small groups and class discussion. Grant's compari- son of Blair and Strait is instructive, then, because it enables us to con- sider the factors that influence teachers' practices without being led astray by the confounding variable of "effectiveness": Both were effec- tive at what they were doing, but that doing differed greatly.22

Why were their practices so dissimilar? It was not because of differing content knowledge, for both had bachelors and masters degrees in his- tory, and both described the subject in terms compatible with the views of contemporary historians, although they emphasized different aspects of the subject. Nor did their practices arise from differing knowledge of ped- agogy, for Blair was as familiar as Strait with a variety of instructional methods-he simply chose not to use them. Rather, differences between the two derived from their differing purposes. Blair wanted students to learn the master narrative of U.S. history from the Colonial Era to the present day-a complex narrative, one that included both progress and problems. Combined with his belief that students had little or no back- ground in the subject, Blair's goal rendered the use of overhead notes and lectures a seemingly obvious choice for classroom practice, for it allowed him to cover that narrative efficiently; as Grant notes, "Stories demand a storyteller and an audience, and there is no role confusion in Blair's class- room." Blair resembled other history teachers in attempting to cover ma- terial efficiently, but he differed from many of his colleagues in that he aimed to cover the material he considered important rather than that mandated by external authorities. (He refused to reduce his coverage of the Federal Period, for example, despite its de-emphasis in recent curric- ulum guidelines.) Like most teachers, Blair was motivated by practical- ity-hence his use of lecture-but his focus on coverage was motivated not by the desire to do what everyone else did but by his own goal of exposing students to the grand narrative of U.S. history. In this case, coverage was not a means to the end offitting in but a clearly articulated end of its own.23

Strait had a different purpose. She wanted students to understand his- tory not only intellectually but emotionally, and in particular, to become familiar with the perspectives of a diverse set of actors who were involved in historical events, with the ultimate goal of becoming more tolerant of those who differed from themselves. This goal drove Strait's classroom practice in several ways. First, she engaged students in simulations and role plays, so they were forced to consider events from the perspectives of people at the time; such activities were more effective than lectures as a way of getting students to understand multiple points of view. Second, Strait emphasized social history in addition to the political narratives that dominated Blair's narrative; because politics has traditionally been the preserve of elite White males, social history had greater potential to help students understand the diverse set of perspectives that Strait valued. Finally, Strait emphasized historical topics and periods she considered particularly effective at conveying the inner experiences of a range of par- ticipants; she devoted more attention to the Civil Rights movement, for example, than other topics that commanded as much space in the official curriculum. Like Blair, she made her own decisions about how to imple- ment that curriculum, but whereas his decisions were most apparent when he included periods he thought necessary to understand the overall narra-

CHAPTER 13

tive of U.S. history (such as the Federal Period), Strait's were most obvious in her emphasis on topics that helped achieve her goal of developing stu- dents' understanding of diverse experiences. Strait worried that students might not be exposed to enough content for their required examinations, but like Blair, her purposes guided her instr~ction. '~

Based on the studies we have described in this chapter, teachers' goals appear to have more impact on practice than their pedagogical content knowledge. Unless they have a clear sense of purpose, teachers' primary actions continue to be coverage of the curriculum and control of students, no matter how much they know about history, teaching, or the intersec- tion of the two. Deriving from the common, and understandable, goals of fitting in and working efficiently, such practices appear to be the "default" means of teaching, and they quickly override principles based on the con- tent of university coursework-even when teachers ostensibly understand and accept those principles. However, many teachers, including Strait and even Blair, resist the temptation to conformity. Their practices do not necessarily emphasize coverage (at least of the required curriculum) or control of students. They have alternative purposes-strongly held and clearly articulated-and they make decisions consistent with these goals. If we hope to change the nature of history teaching, then, we may have a greater impact by focusing on teachers' purposes than on their pedagogi- cal content knowledge.

CHANGING THE PRACTICE OF HISTORY TEACHING

Most educators interested in reforming history education, despite a vari- ety of individual backgrounds and perspectives, share a concern with changing instructional practice: They want the act of history teaching to change so that students interpret historical evidence and consider multi- ple perspectives. Unfortunately, reformers have long been bedeviled by the fact that the act of history teaching, like that of most subjects, is highly resistant to change. In recent years, programs of teacher education and professional development have focused on teacher knowledge as the key to reform: If teachers know more-about content, pedagogy, and the in- tersection of the two-then surely their instruction will be better. Our re- view of the available evidence, however, suggests that this is not true. Neither teachers' knowledge of history-including its interpretative na- ture-nor their knowledge of how to represent content to learners has a decisive impact on classroom practice. Although such knowledge is proba- bly necessary for engaging students in historical interpretation, it is by no means sufficient.

If we want to change teachers' practices, we must change the purposes that guide those practices. To engage students in activities that involve in- terpreting evidence, teachers must have a purpose that can only be accom- plished by such activities. This kind of purpose must be more than a

TEACHER EDUCATION 259

slogan, and it must be more than lip service; it must be a goal to which teachers are deeply and genuinely committed, a goal that will inspire ef- forts to make actions consistent with beliefs. Only this kind of commit- ment will overcome the temptation to conform and, ultimately, to replicate existing practice.

The first task, then, is to identify an instructional purpose that requires stu- dents to take part in interpreting historical evidence and considering multiple perspectives. There are two obvious candidates for this honor. The first has dominated scholarship on history education over the past two decades: Stu- dents should learn about the past in ways consistent with the academic disci- pline of history. Because that discipline involves interpretation of evidence and consideration of multiple perspectives, instruction in school should do so as well. This does not necessarily mean that students will become "little histori- ans," but it does mean they will learn how historians develop interpretations, and this necessarily involves taking part in such activities themselves. Research into student's work with primary sources and historical perspective, and corre- sponding recommendations for emphasizing these practices in school have generally been situated in this framework. If teachers accept the premise that school history should familiarize students with disciplinary history, and if re- search demonstrates that students are capable of understanding and taking part in disciplinary activities, then the implications for practice are clear: Stu- dents should work with evidence, develop interpretations, and consider multi- ple perspectives.

This is the educational equivalent of trying to write a great book about the flea. The goal of teaching in ways consistent with academic disciplines is an inadequate and unconvincing rationale for history or, we suspect, any other subject. Far from constituting the crowning achievements of civ- ilization that some scholars like to claim, academic disciplines are simply institutionalized outgrowths of the professional specialization that took place during the late 19th century. Moreover, their methods and objects of study are profoundly shaped by the limited and particularistic view- points of those involved in creating and perpetuating them.25 As a ratio- nale for teaching, the focus on disciplinary history seems unlikely to inspire the intellectual and emotional commitment necessary to reform practice. It has not done so yet, and we see no reason to think it will in the future. When teachers must decide between practices that help them fit into their school communities and those that adhere to disciplinary stan- dards, most will choose conformity.

However, the other candidate for the purpose of history education has far greater potential to inspire the conviction necessary to resist tempta- tions to conformity: Students should learn history to contribute to a par- ticipatory, pluralistic democracy. This is the argument we have made throughout the book, and there is no need to repeat it in detail. What we want to emphasize here is notjust that we believe history should be taught this way, but that this goal can provide teachers with the intellectual pur-

260 CHAPTER 13

pose necessary to break out of the mold of coverage and control. If teach- ers are committed to the humanistic goals necessary for democracy, then they literally cannot focus on covering curriculum and controlling stu- dents because those practices will not enable them to reach their goals. Preparing students to make reasoned judgments cannot be accomplished by telling them what to think; preparing them to move beyond their own perspective cannot be accomplished by demanding reproduction of a con- sensual narrative of the national past; and preparing them to take part in collaborative discourse about the common good cannot be accomplished by tightly controlled, teacher-centered instruction. These goals can only be achieved when students take part in meaningful and relevant historical inquiries, examine a variety of evidence, consider multiple viewpoints, and develop conclusions that are defended and negotiated with others. If preparation for democracy is the goal, then teachers will need to engage in these practices, regardless of what anyone else tells them; and if they need to engage in these practices, they will also need the tools teacher edu- cators can provide, such as methods for finding and using primary sources, developing inquiry projects, managing discussion, and so on-the knowledge and skills usually thought of as "pedagogical content knowledge." Teachers will use this knowledge when it helps them achieve their goals.

We have no magic formula for developing such purposes among teachers. On one hand, preparation for citizenship forms the underlying rationale for all public schooling in the United States, and teachers are likely to accept that broad goal aswell as their own responsibility for achieving it. Yet on the other hand, research indicates that beginning and experienced teachers alike of- ten hold narrow or unelaborated notions of democracy and of citizenship ed- ~cation. '~ Thus, although it may be easy to convince teachers that history should serve the goals of democracy, it will be more diff~cult to help them see how that goal can be achieved by the humanistic purposes we have described throughout this book. If teachers believe history should promote citizenship but do not think in terms of the participatory and pluralist elements of de- mocracy, then coverage and control are likely to continue as the principal ac- tions of the history classroom.

For teachers to emphasize reasoned judgment, an expanded view of hu- manity, and collaborative discourse about the common good, they will have to believe-deeply and clearly-that these contribute to democracy. Of course, these beliefs cannot simply be transmitted; teachers have to reach such conclusions themselves. To create the conditions that make such con- clusions possible, teacher education programs may have to become less concerned with covering technical issues related to the discipline's content and pedagogy and more with helping teachers evaluate the relevance of history education, consider alternative perspectives on the subject, and be- come initiated into a community that takes these questions seriously. This does not guarantee that teachers will accept the humanistic goals of history

TEACHER EDUCATION 261

education, and we are willing to accept that they may construct differ- ent-or even better-perspectives of their own. However, we believe that given the chance, they will develop a deep and enduring commitment to de- mocracy, because democracy is a mighty theme.

ENDNOTES

1. Herman Melville, Moby Dick; or The White Whale (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1922), 421.

2. Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan L. Lytle, "Relationships of Knowledge and Prac- tice: Teacher Learning in Communities," in Review of Research in Education, Vol. 24, Eds. Asghar Iran-Nejad and F! David Pearson (Washington, D.C.: American Educa- tional Research Association, 1999), 249; emphasis in original. On behaviorism and programmed instruction, see especially B. F. Skinner, "The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching," Harvard Educational Review 24 (Spring 1954): 86-97; on disci- pline-based educational reform in the 1960s, see John L. Rudolph, Scientists in the Classroom: The Cold War Reconstruction of American Science Education (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002); and on teacher effectiveness research and its relation- ship to teacher evaluation in the 1970s, see Linda Darling-Harnmond, Arthur E. Wise, and Sara R. Pease, "Teacher Evaluation in the Organizational Context: A Re- view of the Literature," Review of Educational Research 53 (Fall 1983): 285-328.

3. Jane J. White, "The Teacher as Broker of Scholarly Knowledge,"Journal of Teacher Education 38 UulyIAugust 1987): 19-24; Stephen J. Thornton, "Teacher as Cur- ricular-Instructional Gatekeeper in Social Studies," in Handbook ofResearch on So- cial Studies Teaching and Learning, Ed. James F! Shaver (New York: MacMillan, 1991), 237; Hugh Munby, Tom Russell, and Andrea K. Martin, "Teachers' Knowledge and How It Develops," in Handbook of Research on Teaching, 4th ed., Ed. Virginia Richardson (Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research As- sociation, 2001), 877-904; Christopher M. Clark and Penelope L. Peterson, "Teachers' Thought Processes," in Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., Ed. Merlin C. Wittrock (New York: MacMillan, 1986), 255-296.

4. Lee J. Shulman, "Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform," Harvard Educational Review 57 (February 1987): 1-22; Bruce Vansledright, "Closing the Gap Between School and Disciplinary History? Historian as High School History Teacher," in Advances in Research on Teaching, Vol. 6, Teaching and Learning History, Ed. Jere Brophy (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1996), 257, em- phasis in original; Linda S. Levstik and Keith C. Barton, Doing History: Investi- gating with Children in Elementary and Middle Schools, 2nd ed. (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2001).

5. Chara H. Bohan and 0. L. Davis, Jr., "Historical Constructions: How Social Studies Student Teachers' Historical Thinking is Reflected in Their Writing of History," Theory and Research in Social Education 26 (Spring 1998): 173-197; Melanie K. Gillaspie and 0 . L. Davis, Jr., "Historical Constructions: How Elemen- tary Student Teachers' Historical Thinking is Reflected in their Writing of His- tory," Zntmational J o u m l of Social Education 12 (FalVWinter 199711 998): 3545.

6. Elizabeth A. Yeager and 0 . L. Davis, Jr., "Between Campus and Classroom: Sec- ondary Student-teachers' Thinking about Historical Texts," J o u m l of Research

262 CHAPTER 13 TEACHER EDUCATION 2 63

and Development in Education 29 (Fall 1995): 1-8; "Understanding the Knowing How of History: Elementary Student Teachers' Thinking About Historical Texts," Journal of Social Studies Research 18 (Fall 1994): 2-9; Samuel S. Wineburg, "On the Reading of Historical Texts: Notes on the Breach Between School and Academy," American Educatimzal Research Journal 28 (Fall 199 1): 495-5 19. The wide range of students' understanding of the interpretive nature of history is also apparent in Pe- ter Seixas' study of secondary student teachers, "Student Teachers Thinking His- torically," Theory and Research in Social Education 26 (Summer 1998): 3 10-34 1.

7. Elizabeth A. Yeager and 0. L. Davis, Jr., "Classroom Teachers' Thinking about Historical Texts: An Exploratory Study," Theory and Research in Social Education 24 (Spring 1996): 146-166; quote from p. 157.

8. VanSledright, "Closing the Gap." 9. VanSledright, "Closing the Gap," 286. For another example of a teacher who un-

derstands history as a multi-perspectival, evidence-based, interpretive discipline but who does not design his instruction around these principles, see Suzanne M. Wilson and Sam Wineburg, "Wrinkles in Time and Place: Using Performance As- sessments to Understand the Knowledge of History Teachers," American Educa- tional Research Journal 30 (Winter 1993): 729-69.

10. G. Williamson McDiarmid, "Understanding History for Teaching: A Study of the Historical Understanding of Prospective Teachers," in Cognitive and Instructional Processes in History and the Social Sciences, Eds. James F. Voss and Mario Carretero (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1994), 159-186.

1 1. Susan Adler, "A Field Study of Selected Student Teacher Perspectives Toward Social Studies," Theory and Research in Social Education 12 (Spring 1984): 13-30; Ronald W. Evans, "Teacher Conceptions of History Revisited: Ideol- ogy, Curriculum, and Student Belief," Theory and Research in Social Education 28 (Spring 1990): 10 1-1 38; Bruce Fehn and Kim E. Koeppen, "Intensive Doc- ument-Based Instruction in a Social Studies Methods Course," Theory and Re- search in Social Education 4 (Fall 1998): 461-484; Sigrun Gudmundsdottir, "Curriculum Stories: Four Case Studies of Social Studies Teaching," in Insights Into Teachers Thinking and Practice, Eds. Christopher W. Day, Maureen Pope, and Pam Denicolo (London: Falmer, 1990), 107-118; John T. Hyland, "Teaching About the Constitution: Relationships Between Teachers' Subject Matter Knowledge, Pedagogic Beliefs and Instructional Decision Making Re- garding Selection of Content, Materials, and Activities; Summary of Research Findings," 2-7, Eric Document Reproduction Service, ED 273557; Marilyn Johnston, "Teachers' Backgrounds and Beliefs: Influences on Learning to Teach in the Social Studies," Theory and Research in Social Education 28 (Sum- mer 1990): 207-232; Joseph J. Onosko, "Barriers to the Promotion of Higher-order Thinking in Social Studies," Theory and Research in Social Educa- tion 19 (Fall 199 1): 34 1-366; Timothy D. Slekar, "Epistemological Entangle- ments: Preservice Elementary School Teachers' 'Apprenticeship of Observation' and the Teaching of History," Theory and Research in Social Educa- tion 26 (Fall 1998): 485-507; Stephen J. Thornton, "Curriculum Consonance in United States History Classrooms," Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 3 (Summer 1998): 308-20; Stephen J. Thronton and R. Neil1 Wenger, "Geogra- phy Curriculum and Instruction in Three Fourth-Grade Classrooms," Elemen- tary School Journal 90 (May 1990): 5 13-3 1.

12. Stephanie D. van Hover and Elizabeth A. Yeager, ""'Making" Students Better People?' A Case Study of a Beginning History Teacher," International Social Studies Forum, 3, No. 1 (2003): 219-232.

13. van Hover and Yeager, "Making Students Better People?", 22428. 14. The concept of the apprenticeship of observation comes from Dan C. Lortie,

Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977). On the limited effect of teacher education programs, see Justine Z. X. Su, "Sources of Influence in Preservice Teacher Socialization," Journal ofEducation for Teaching 18, No. 3 (1992): 239-258, and Kenneth M. Zeichner and Jennifer M. Gore, "Teacher Socialization," Handbook ofResearch on Teaching, 3d ed., Ed. Mer- lin C. Wittrock (New York: MacMillan, 1986), 329-348. On the multiple influ- ences on history and social studies teachers' ideas, see Jeffrey W. Cornett, "Teacher Thinking about Curriculum and Instruction; A Case Study of a Second- ary Social Studies Teacher," Theory and Research in Social Education 18 (Summer 1990): 248-273; Jesse Goodman and Susan Adler, "Becoming an Elementary So- cial Studies Teacher: A Study of Perspectives," Theory and Research in Social Educa- tion 13 (Summer 1985): 1-20; S. G. Grant, "Locating Authority Over Content and Pedagogy: Cross-Current Influences on Teachers' Thinking and Practice," Theory and Research in Social Education 24 (Summer 1996): 237-72; Cynthia Hartzler-Miller, "Teaching for Social Change: The Interplay of Social Knowl- edge, Content Knowledge, and Personal Biography" International Social Studies Forum 2, No. 2 (2002): 141-55.; Melissa J. Marks, "From Coursework to Class- room: A Qualitative Study on the Influences of Preservice Teacher Socialization" (Ed.D. diss., University of Cincinnati, 2002); Marilyn Johnston, "Teachers' Back- grounds and Beliefs: Influences on Learning to Teach in the Social Studies," The- ory and Research in Social Education 28 (Summer 1990): 207-232; E. Wayne Ross, "Teacher Perspective Development: A Study of Preservice Social Studies Teachers," Theory and Research in Social Education 15 (Fall 1987): 225-243; Eliza- beth G. Sturtevant, "Lifetime Influences on the Literacy-related Instructional Beliefs of Experienced High School History Teachers: Two Comparative Case Studies," Journal of Literacy Research 28 (June 1996): 227-257.

15. Pamela L. Grossman, Peter Smagorinsky, and Sheila Valencia, "Appropriating Tools For Teaching English: A Theoretical Framework for Research on Learning to Teach," American Journal of Education 108 (November 1999): 1-29; quote from pp. 4-5. Similarly, Robert Yinger and Martha Hendricks-Lee propose the notion of "ecological intelligence" as a way of explaining how knowledge is jointly con- structed by participants and systems in the activity of teaching; "Working Knowl- edge in Teaching," in Research on Teacher Thinking: Understanding Professional Development, Eds. Christopher Day, James Calderhead, and Pam Denicolo (Lon- don: Falmer Press, 1993), 100-123.

16. Goodman and Adler, "Becoming an Elementary Social Studies Teacher," 10-1 1; Fehn and Koeppen, "Intensive Document-Based Instruction," 480; David Hicks, "Examining Preservice Teachers' Conceptions and Approaches to the Teaching of History in England and America," paper presented at the International As- sembly of the Annual Conference of the National Council for the Social Studies, November 2001; Hyland, 'Teaching about the Constitution," 2-7; Johnston, "Teachers' Backgrounds and Beliefs," 2 18; Onosko, "Barriers to the Promotion of Higher-Order Thinking," 347-351; Slekar, "Epistemological Entangle-

264 CHAPTER 13 TEACHER EDUCATION

ments," 500; Sturtevant, "Lifetime Influences," 240-241; Thornton, "Curricu- lum Consonance," 311-315; Bruce VanSledright, "The Teaching-Learning Interaction in American History: A Study of Two Teachers and Their Fifth Graders," Journal of Social Studies Research 19 (Spring 1995): 16; van Hover and Yeager, "Making Students Better People."

17. Fehn and Koeppen, "Intensive Document-Based Instruction," 480; see also Hyland, TeachingAbout the Constitution, 7; Johnston, "Teachers' Backgrounds and Beliefs," 212-214; Onosko, "Barriers to the Promotion of Higher-Order Thinking," 355; Thornton, "Curriculum Consonance," 309; VanSledright, "Teaching-Learning Interaction," 6.

18. Linda M. McNeil, Contradictions of Control: School Structure and School Knowledge (New York: Routledge, 1988), 157-190.

19. Linda S. Levstik, "Articulating the Silences: Teachers' and Adolescents' Concep- tions of Historical Signficance," in Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History: Na- tional and International Perspectives, Eds. Peter N. Stearns, Peter Seixas, and Sam Wineburg (New York: New York University Press, 2000), 299; E. Michael H. Romanowski, "Issues and Influences that Shape the Teaching of U.S. History," in Advances in Research on Teaching, Vol. 6, Teaching and Learning History, Ed. Jere Brophy (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1996), 296-299; Wayne Ross, "Teacher Perspective Development: A Study of Preservice Social Studies Teachers," Theory and Research in Social Education 15 (Fall 1987): 225-243.

20. Gerald Ponder and Walter Doyle, "Teacher Practicality and Curriculum Change: An Ecological Analysis," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 4-8 April 1977, Eric Document Reproduction Service, ED 136390; 0. L. Davis, Jr., "In Pursuit of Historical Empathy," in Histor- ical Empathy and Perspective Taking in the Social Studies, Ed. 0. L. Davis, Jr., Eliza- beth Anne Yeager, and Stuart J. Foster (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001), 10; McNeil, Contradictions of Control, 176; John Allen Rossi and Christo- pher M. Pace, "Issues-Centered Instruction with Low Achieving High School Stu- dents: The Dilemmas of Two Teachers," Theory and Research in Social Education 26 (Summer 1998), 401; Yeager and Davis, "Between Campus and Classroom," 5; Elizabeth Anne Yeager and Elizabeth K. Wilson, "Teaching Historical Thinking in the Social Studies Methods Course: A Case Study," The Social Studies 88 (MayIJune 1997): 121-126; Thornton, "Teacher as Curricular-Instructional Gatekeeper," 242-43.

21. Letitia H. Fickel, "Democracy is Messy: Exploring the Personal Theories of a High School Social Studies Teacher," Theory and Research in Social Education 28 (Summer 2000): 359-390; Evans, "Teacher Conceptions of History Revisited," 122-1 25; Goodman and Adler, "Becoming an Elementary Social Studies Teacher," 1 1-13; Bruce A. VanSledright and Jere Brophy, "'Storytellers,' 'Scien- tists,' and 'Reformers' in the Teaching of U.S. History to Fifth Graders: Three Teachers, Three Approaches," inAdvances in Research on Teaching, Vol. 5, Learning and Teaching Elementary Subjects, Ed. Jere Brophy (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1995), 195-243; Wilson and Wineburg, "Wrinkles in Time and Place," 729-769.

22. S. G. Grant, History Lessons: Teaching, Learning, and Testing in U.S. High School Classrooms (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2003), 3-28.

23. Grant, History Lessons, 8-15. 24. Grant, History Lessons, 15-28.

25. The assumption that academic disciplines are "the most powerful ways human be- ings have devised for making sense of our world" can be found in Howard Gardner, The Disciplined Mind: What All Students Should Understand (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999), 157. Critical and historical perspectives on the rise of disciplines and their approach to knowledge can be found in Burton Bledstein, The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978); Julie A. Reuben, The Making of the Modern Univer- sity: Intellectual Tramfornation and the Marplizat ion of Morality (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1996); Laurence R. Veysey, The Emergence of the American University (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965); John Willinsky, Learning to Divzde the World: Education at Empire's End (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Min- nesota Press, 1998); and Bruce Wilshire, The Moral Collapse of the University: Profes- sionalism, Purity, and Alienation (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1990). On the emergence of history as a discipline in the United States, see Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Pro- fession (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

26. Christopher Anderson, Patricia G. Avery, PatriciaV. Pederson, Elizabeth S. Smith, and John L. Sullivan, "Divergent Perspectives on Citizenship Education: A Q-Method Study and Survey of Social Studies Teachers," American Educational Research Journal 34 (Summer 1997): 333-365; Dorene Doerre Ross and Elizabeth Yeager, "What Does Democracy Mean to Prospective Elementary Teachers?" Journal of Teacher Education 50 (SeptemberIOctober 1999): 255-266.

1

History of Adult Teaching & Learning

Stacey G. Barnes

College of Doctoral Studies: Grand Canyon University

TLC 801: History & Philosophy of Teaching & Learning

Dr. Patti Beltram

May 3, 2023

Commented [PB1]: History of Teaching and Learning (220 pts) Having a sense and perspective of the history of teaching and learning allows the practitioner to build a foundation of knowledge upon which to construct deeper and larger perspectives of the teaching and learning process. It also allows for a clearly focused understanding of teaching and learning from the American perspective, which provides opportunities to conduct research and gain knowledge in clearly applicable, relevant, and defined ways. In this assignment, you will consider the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning in the American context. General Requirements: Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

•This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

•Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.

•This assignment requires that at least two additional scholarly research sources related to this topic, and at least one in-text citation from each source be included.

•You are required to submit this assignment to Lopes Write. Refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

Directions: Write a paper (1,250-1,500 words) that synthesizes the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning in the American context. Include the following in your paper:

1.An overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in America. (Section 1) 2.An overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America. (Section 2) 3.A synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning in America. What do these suggest when taken as a single entity? (Section 3)

2

History of Adult Teaching & Learning

Consider the educational landscape throughout American history. Founded on classical

ideals (Carr, 2010), it has taken a meandering journey that reflects time, place, people, and

beliefs. There have been periods of systematic reform, such as Horace Mann’s inception of

normal schools (Reese, 2013); individuals advocating for change, as seen in John Dewey’s desire

for a more holistic approach to education (Demetrion, 2022); and glimpses into the future, as the

global community faces questions regarding climate, resources, justice, and flourishing

(Gouthro, 2019). The American perspective is vast and deep, spanning centuries, traversing

across the continent, and ever evolving as the humans and systems within. For much of

American history, education has focused on the teaching and learning of children (Kober &

Rentner, 2020); yet these children grow up to be adults, and learning does not stop once one

becomes an adult (Hodge et al., 2022). The last hundred years have seen a growth in adult

teaching and learning (O’Banion, 2019). As such, applying a historical lens to the American

perspective of adult teaching and learning can aid in a greater awareness of the past, the present,

and the future of what it means to educate adults. The purpose of this paper is to provide an

overview of the common historical perspectives of adult teaching and learning in America, as

well as an overview of the historically key theories of adult teaching and learning in America,

leading up to a synthesis of ideas when taken as a single entity. The thesis statement of this paper

is that an understanding of the historical perspectives and key theories of adult teaching and

learning in America highlights two themes: the contextual nature of perspectives and theories

and the teacher as reflective practitioner.

Common Historical Perspectives of Adult Teaching & Learning in America

This following section presents a discussion of the common historical perspectives of

adult teaching and learning in America. There are five common historical perspectives identified

Commented [PB2]: 5 – You have identified the purpose and your thesis statement for this paper; both are well developed.

Commented [PB3]: Section 1: An overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in America.

Commented [PB4]: Your body paragraph needs development. Body paragraph should include a topic sentence (tell me what you are going to say), your provide your argument, you provide evidence and then have a conclusion (tell me what you told me). Please see this source for suggestions: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writ ing_assignments/argument_papers/body_paragraphs.html A good rule of thumb for a fully developed paragraph is:

•Topic Sentence

•State a claim in one sentence or two.

•Have evidence with a quote, story, statistic, etc. in a sentence or two.

•State a claim in one sentence or two.

•Have evidence with a quote, story, statistic, etc. in a sentence or two.

•State a claim in one sentence or two.

•Have evidence with a quote, story, statistic, etc. in a sentence or two.

•Summary of paragraph

3

in Pratt & Collins’ (2000) Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI). Building on prior work, Pratt

(1992; 1998; 2002) observed five common perspectives within adult education: transmission,

developmental, apprenticeship, nurturing, and social reform. These five perspectives

contextualize a teacher’s behaviors, intentions, and assumptions regarding teaching and learning.

The transmission perspective suggests that learning occurs through lecture-based delivery

of content (Pratt & Collins, 2000), as the teacher is the expert and, as such, must present content

systematically and accurately. Additionally, transmission suggests that the learner assumes

responsibility for mastering content. The second perspective, developmental, suggests that

learners construct their own knowledge by engaging in reasoning and problem solving within a

field to change ways of thinking. The teacher activates the learner’s prior knowledge and skills,

scaffolds content, employs questioning strategies, and links prior knowledge with new

knowledge to foster the intellect.

The third perspective is that of apprenticeship, which sees teachers as experienced

practitioners who use demonstrations, observations, and guided practice (Pratt & Collins, 2000).

Learners are active participants who engage in authentic, real-world tasks and progressively do

more of the work. Apprenticeship considers both the individual and societal aspects, developing

both identity of self and identity within a community. The fourth perspective of nurturing takes a

holistic view of learning, as teachers nurture learners, conveying trust, respect, and support.

Teachers create a safe learning environment that enhances learners’ motivation, communicates

high expectations, and empowers learners’ self-efficacy. The fifth and final perspective is that of

social reform, presenting teachers as agents committed to social issues and change. The teacher,

guided by ideals that benefit the good of society, asks probing questions and encourages learners

to become social advocates who critically examine texts, events, and practices.

Commented [PB5]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources.

4

These five perspectives provide insight into the roles and responsibilities of both the

teacher and the learner; no perspective is better or worse, (Pratt & Collins, 2000), simply one

way of viewing teaching and learning. In addition to understanding common perspectives in

adult teaching and learning, an understanding of key theories can be beneficial.

Overview of Historically Key Theories of Adult Teaching & Learning in America

The following section will examine historically key theories applicable to adult learning

and teaching. Hodge et al. (2022) categorized learning theories into four groups: scientific,

humanistic, contextual/societal, and post-humanistic. While theories may not fit perfectly within

these categories, it provides one way to explore key theories applicable to adult teaching and

learning.

Scientific approaches rely on the use of observation, hypothesis, and experimentation

(Hodge et al., 2022) and include theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, and pragmatism.

Behaviorism, advanced by scientists such as Pavlov and Skinner, suggests that observable

behaviors can be learned and are influenced by external forces. Cognitivism suggests that

learning relies on external factors and internal thought processes, and it includes theorists like

Glasser and Piaget. Pragmatism, most credited to Dewey, emphasizes the practical application of

ideas to improve daily life (Demetrion, 2022). Use of these theories can be seen in training

programs and evidence-based practices of the military, instructional technology, and medical

fields (Hodge et al., 2022).

Humanist approaches take the learner’s needs and self-directedness into account (Hodge

et al., 2022) and include adult learning theories of andragogy and transformative learning.

Andragogy, pioneered by Knowles, assumes that adults learn differently than children and use

their experiences as the basis for learning. Building on this, transformative learning, theorized by

Mezirow, asserts that critical reflection can lead to transformations in the learner’s perspective

Commented [PB6]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources.

Commented [PB7]: 5 – Sections are like body paragraphs but larger. You have multiple paragraphs organized to have a topic sentence, multiple arguments with evidence to support each argument, then conclusion. Nicely organized section that addresses the rubric criteria.

Commented [PB8]: Section 2: An overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America.

Commented [PB9]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources.

5

(Schnepfleitner & Ferreria, 2021). These humanistic approaches to adult learning and teaching

highlight the autonomy and self-actualization of adult learners.

Contextual and societal theories view learning as essentially a human concern (Hodge et

al., 2022) and includes theories of social constructivism, Marxism, feminism, and situated

learning. Social constructivism asserts that learning occurs through interactions with others and

includes proponents like Vygotsky. Marxism, developed by Karl Marx, suggests that all ideas are

products of social and economic factors, and, as such, learners are concerned with navigating

systems to attain autonomy, whereas proponents of feminism, like Nancy Fraser, seek to address

issues of oppression and power (Gouthro, 2019). Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situational learning

theory argues that learning involves active participation within a community of practice.

Contextual and societal theories can empower adult learners as they navigate identity formation,

social engagement, and meaning making.

Post-humanistic theories recognize that humans are not at the center, exploring the

connection between human and non-human (Hodge et al., 2022) and emerging in recent years in

response to technology, the effect of human behavior on Earth, neoliberalism, and COVID-19.

For example, the actor network theory seeks to understand who and what is involved in learning.

Post-humanistic theories can aid adult educators and learners in rethinking what it means to be

human, reframing relationships between individuals and the material world, and recognizing the

interconnectedness of all things.

These theoretical approaches provide frameworks for teaching and learning, and, when

coupled with historical perspectives, highlight two key themes.

A Synthesis of Perspectives & Theories of Adult Teaching & Learning in America

The following section presents a discussion of the key themes of the historical

perspectives and theories of adult teaching and learning in America. When taken as a single

Commented [PB10]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources.

Commented [PB11]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources.

Commented [PB12]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources. Be sure you cite evidence/claims in each paragraph.

Commented [PB13]: 5 – Sections are like body paragraphs but larger. You have multiple paragraphs organized to have a topic sentence, multiple arguments with evidence to support each argument, then conclusion. Nicely organized section that addresses the rubric criteria.

Commented [PB14]: Section 3: A synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning in America. What do these suggest when taken as a single entity?

6

entity, two themes emerge from these perspectives and theories: the contextual nature of

perspectives and theories and the teacher as reflective practitioner.

Contextual Nature of Perspectives and Theories

First, perspectives and theories are contextual in nature; they are products of the

individuals and circumstances of their time (Carr, 2010). Additionally, perspectives and theories

build on each other, opposing and overlapping each other, and cannot be neatly segregated into

categories. What they do provide, however, is evidence for continued development, refinement,

and transformation of approaches. For example, Dewey’s educational reform stemmed from

behaviorist learning theory, eventually led to cognitive development theories by Piaget and

Skinner (Carr, 2010), and was further developed by Knowles’ theory of andragogy (Gouthro,

2019). Events can spark reconstruction of approaches, such as the development of vocational

training and enhanced teacher training in the post-WWII era, or events can lead to the creation of

theories in response to emerging phenomena like climate change and artificial intelligence

(Hodge et al., 2022). Perspectives and theories will continue to evolve as America continues to

evolve as a nation, and critical questioning can aid in addressing social and global issues

(Gouthro, 2019). As such, applying a historical lens not only aids in a theoretical understanding

of approaches, but also in applied practices.

Teacher as Reflective Practitioners

A second theme that emerges is in the practical application of perspectives and theories,

as teachers engage in reflective practice. The world is complex and constantly changing, with

adaptability, flexibility, and reflection as traits to aid in understanding and navigating within this

world (Gouthro, 2019). A teacher may employ more than one perspective in teaching (Pratt &

Collins, 2019), at times employing transmission to deliver content or modeling ways of being via

Commented [PB15]: Introduction of section with topic sentence(s) No deduction for fully developed paragraph

Commented [PB16]: Nice subsections with headings

7

apprenticeship to fit the context or the learner’s needs, and a teacher may subscribe to more than

one theory of learning (Gouthro, 2019; Hodges et al., 2022), such as tapping into prior

knowledge via constructivism or empowering learners through humanistic or nurturing

approaches. This adaptability of strategies and flexibility of thought are by-products of engaging

in reflection. Reflective practice can enable a teacher to be better informed about teaching

practices and how adult learners learn (Gouthro, 2019); reflective practice can empower a

teacher to evaluate, justify, and enhance their approaches (Pratt & Collins, 2000); and reflective

practice can challenge a teacher to critically consider their underlying values and beliefs that

shape their pedagogical identity (Pratt et al., 2019). With a deeper understanding of perspectives

and theories, a teacher will be more equipped to meet the needs of the adult learner.

Conclusion

An understanding of the historical perspectives and key theories of adult teaching and

learning in America can aid the adult educator in both an awareness of the contextual nature of

perspectives and theories and empower reflective practitioners. There are a variety of ways to

teach, as seen in the five perspectives of transmission, developmental, apprenticeship, nurturing,

and social reform (Pratt & Collins, 2000), and a number of theories that inform how adults learn,

including but not limited to pragmatism, social constructivism, and transformative learning

(Hodge et al., 2022). Through a greater awareness of the diverse ways in which teachers teach

and adults learn, educators can seek to find answers to critical questions (Barrow, 2010): What

can educators learn when they study the past? How can knowledge of the ways in which adults

learn enhance pedagogy? How does the changing nature of humans and the systems within

which they live impact teaching and learning? These questions can lead an educator to a deeper

knowledge of the complexities involved in adult teaching and learning, sparking introspection

Commented [PB17]: 5 – Outstanding section with subheadings! Sections are like body paragraphs but larger. You have multiple paragraphs organized to have a topic sentence, multiple arguments with evidence to support each argument, then conclusion. Nicely organized section that addresses the rubric criteria.

Commented [PB18]: 5 – Argument is logical and can be followed by any reader. You had a good introduction and conclusion.

Commented [PB19]: 3 – There are paragraphs that need improvement. Please see the resource: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/in dex.html

8

and self-awareness, articulation of assumptions and beliefs, and informed practices that enhance

both the teaching and learning experience (Gouthro, 2019). As the educational landscape

continues to shift and morph, theories and perspectives will continue to change to fit the needs of

the individual, American society, and the global community. It is through continued reflection

that a teacher can understand the evolution of teaching and learning, be equipped with

pedagogical knowledge to adapt approaches that fit the context and need, and envision a future

where teachers and learners, individuals and societies, and humans and non-humans can flourish.

Commented [PB20]: 5 – Your paper has good APA formatting throughout the paper.

9

References

Barrow, R. (2010). Schools of thought in philosophy of education. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D.

Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of philosophy of education (pp. 21-35).

Sage.

Carr, D. (2010). The philosophy of education and educational theory. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D.

Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of philosophy of education (pp. 37-53).

Sage.

Demetrion, G. (2022). Mediating work and culture through Dewey’s integrative vision of

vocational education. Adult Literacy Education, 4.

http://doi.org/10.35847/GDemetrion.4.2.4.

Hodge, S., Knight, L., Milana, M., Waller, R., & Webb, S. (2022). Theorising adults, theorising

learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 41(4/5), 399–404. https://doi-

org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/02601370.2022.2116792

Gouthro, P. A. (2019). Taking time to learn: The importance of theory for adult education. Adult

Education Quarterly: A Journal of Research and Theory, 69(1), 60–76.

https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136188156

Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2020). History and evolution of public education in the US. Center

on Education Policy.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge University Press.

O’Banion, T. U. (2019). A brief history of workforce education in community colleges.

Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 43(3), 216–223. https://doi-

org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1547668

Commented [PB21]: First line indent is throwing off your heading.

10

Pratt, D.D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42,4.

https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369204200401

Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Krieger

Publishing Co.

Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education, 93, 5–15.

Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. B. (2000). The teaching perspectives inventory (TPI). Adult Education

Research Conference. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2000/papers/68/

Pratt, D. D., Schrewe, B., & Pusic, M. V. (2019). Pedagogical validity: The key to understanding

different forms of “good” teaching. Medical Teacher, 41(6), 638–640. https://doi-

org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1533242

Reese, W. J. (2013). In search of American progressives and teachers. History of Education,

42(3), 320-334.

Schnepfleitner, F. & Ferreira, M. (2021). Transformative learning theory—is it time to add a

fourth core element? Journal of Educational Studies and Multidisciplinary Approaches,

1(1). https://doi.org/10.51383/jesma.2021.9 Commented [PB22]: 5 – Your APA reference list page is mostly formatted correctly.

Commented [PB23]: 5 – Paper included 2 or more sources. Scholarly research sources are topic related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources.

1

History of Adult Teaching & Learning

Stacey G. Barnes

College of Doctoral Studies: Grand Canyon University

TLC 801: History & Philosophy of Teaching & Learning

Dr. Patti Beltram

May 3, 2023

Commented [PB1]: History of Teaching and Learning (220 pts) Having a sense and perspective of the history of teaching and learning allows the practitioner to build a foundation of knowledge upon which to construct deeper and larger perspectives of the teaching and learning process. It also allows for a clearly focused understanding of teaching and learning from the American perspective, which provides opportunities to conduct research and gain knowledge in clearly applicable, relevant, and defined ways. In this assignment, you will consider the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning in the American context. General Requirements: Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

•This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

•Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.

•This assignment requires that at least two additional scholarly research sources related to this topic, and at least one in-text citation from each source be included.

•You are required to submit this assignment to Lopes Write. Refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

Directions: Write a paper (1,250-1,500 words) that synthesizes the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning in the American context. Include the following in your paper:

1.An overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in America. (Section 1) 2.An overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America. (Section 2) 3.A synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning in America. What do these suggest when taken as a single entity? (Section 3)

2

History of Adult Teaching & Learning

Consider the educational landscape throughout American history. Founded on classical

ideals (Carr, 2010), it has taken a meandering journey that reflects time, place, people, and

beliefs. There have been periods of systematic reform, such as Horace Mann’s inception of

normal schools (Reese, 2013); individuals advocating for change, as seen in John Dewey’s desire

for a more holistic approach to education (Demetrion, 2022); and glimpses into the future, as the

global community faces questions regarding climate, resources, justice, and flourishing

(Gouthro, 2019). The American perspective is vast and deep, spanning centuries, traversing

across the continent, and ever evolving as the humans and systems within. For much of

American history, education has focused on the teaching and learning of children (Kober &

Rentner, 2020); yet these children grow up to be adults, and learning does not stop once one

becomes an adult (Hodge et al., 2022). The last hundred years have seen a growth in adult

teaching and learning (O’Banion, 2019). As such, applying a historical lens to the American

perspective of adult teaching and learning can aid in a greater awareness of the past, the present,

and the future of what it means to educate adults. The purpose of this paper is to provide an

overview of the common historical perspectives of adult teaching and learning in America, as

well as an overview of the historically key theories of adult teaching and learning in America,

leading up to a synthesis of ideas when taken as a single entity. The thesis statement of this paper

is that an understanding of the historical perspectives and key theories of adult teaching and

learning in America highlights two themes: the contextual nature of perspectives and theories

and the teacher as reflective practitioner.

Common Historical Perspectives of Adult Teaching & Learning in America

This following section presents a discussion of the common historical perspectives of

adult teaching and learning in America. There are five common historical perspectives identified

Commented [PB2]: 5 – You have identified the purpose and your thesis statement for this paper; both are well developed.

Commented [PB3]: Section 1: An overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in America.

Commented [PB4]: Your body paragraph needs development. Body paragraph should include a topic sentence (tell me what you are going to say), your provide your argument, you provide evidence and then have a conclusion (tell me what you told me). Please see this source for suggestions: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writ ing_assignments/argument_papers/body_paragraphs.html A good rule of thumb for a fully developed paragraph is:

•Topic Sentence

•State a claim in one sentence or two.

•Have evidence with a quote, story, statistic, etc. in a sentence or two.

•State a claim in one sentence or two.

•Have evidence with a quote, story, statistic, etc. in a sentence or two.

•State a claim in one sentence or two.

•Have evidence with a quote, story, statistic, etc. in a sentence or two.

•Summary of paragraph

3

in Pratt & Collins’ (2000) Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI). Building on prior work, Pratt

(1992; 1998; 2002) observed five common perspectives within adult education: transmission,

developmental, apprenticeship, nurturing, and social reform. These five perspectives

contextualize a teacher’s behaviors, intentions, and assumptions regarding teaching and learning.

The transmission perspective suggests that learning occurs through lecture-based delivery

of content (Pratt & Collins, 2000), as the teacher is the expert and, as such, must present content

systematically and accurately. Additionally, transmission suggests that the learner assumes

responsibility for mastering content. The second perspective, developmental, suggests that

learners construct their own knowledge by engaging in reasoning and problem solving within a

field to change ways of thinking. The teacher activates the learner’s prior knowledge and skills,

scaffolds content, employs questioning strategies, and links prior knowledge with new

knowledge to foster the intellect.

The third perspective is that of apprenticeship, which sees teachers as experienced

practitioners who use demonstrations, observations, and guided practice (Pratt & Collins, 2000).

Learners are active participants who engage in authentic, real-world tasks and progressively do

more of the work. Apprenticeship considers both the individual and societal aspects, developing

both identity of self and identity within a community. The fourth perspective of nurturing takes a

holistic view of learning, as teachers nurture learners, conveying trust, respect, and support.

Teachers create a safe learning environment that enhances learners’ motivation, communicates

high expectations, and empowers learners’ self-efficacy. The fifth and final perspective is that of

social reform, presenting teachers as agents committed to social issues and change. The teacher,

guided by ideals that benefit the good of society, asks probing questions and encourages learners

to become social advocates who critically examine texts, events, and practices.

Commented [PB5]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources.

4

These five perspectives provide insight into the roles and responsibilities of both the

teacher and the learner; no perspective is better or worse, (Pratt & Collins, 2000), simply one

way of viewing teaching and learning. In addition to understanding common perspectives in

adult teaching and learning, an understanding of key theories can be beneficial.

Overview of Historically Key Theories of Adult Teaching & Learning in America

The following section will examine historically key theories applicable to adult learning

and teaching. Hodge et al. (2022) categorized learning theories into four groups: scientific,

humanistic, contextual/societal, and post-humanistic. While theories may not fit perfectly within

these categories, it provides one way to explore key theories applicable to adult teaching and

learning.

Scientific approaches rely on the use of observation, hypothesis, and experimentation

(Hodge et al., 2022) and include theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, and pragmatism.

Behaviorism, advanced by scientists such as Pavlov and Skinner, suggests that observable

behaviors can be learned and are influenced by external forces. Cognitivism suggests that

learning relies on external factors and internal thought processes, and it includes theorists like

Glasser and Piaget. Pragmatism, most credited to Dewey, emphasizes the practical application of

ideas to improve daily life (Demetrion, 2022). Use of these theories can be seen in training

programs and evidence-based practices of the military, instructional technology, and medical

fields (Hodge et al., 2022).

Humanist approaches take the learner’s needs and self-directedness into account (Hodge

et al., 2022) and include adult learning theories of andragogy and transformative learning.

Andragogy, pioneered by Knowles, assumes that adults learn differently than children and use

their experiences as the basis for learning. Building on this, transformative learning, theorized by

Mezirow, asserts that critical reflection can lead to transformations in the learner’s perspective

Commented [PB6]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources.

Commented [PB7]: 5 – Sections are like body paragraphs but larger. You have multiple paragraphs organized to have a topic sentence, multiple arguments with evidence to support each argument, then conclusion. Nicely organized section that addresses the rubric criteria.

Commented [PB8]: Section 2: An overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America.

Commented [PB9]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources.

5

(Schnepfleitner & Ferreria, 2021). These humanistic approaches to adult learning and teaching

highlight the autonomy and self-actualization of adult learners.

Contextual and societal theories view learning as essentially a human concern (Hodge et

al., 2022) and includes theories of social constructivism, Marxism, feminism, and situated

learning. Social constructivism asserts that learning occurs through interactions with others and

includes proponents like Vygotsky. Marxism, developed by Karl Marx, suggests that all ideas are

products of social and economic factors, and, as such, learners are concerned with navigating

systems to attain autonomy, whereas proponents of feminism, like Nancy Fraser, seek to address

issues of oppression and power (Gouthro, 2019). Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situational learning

theory argues that learning involves active participation within a community of practice.

Contextual and societal theories can empower adult learners as they navigate identity formation,

social engagement, and meaning making.

Post-humanistic theories recognize that humans are not at the center, exploring the

connection between human and non-human (Hodge et al., 2022) and emerging in recent years in

response to technology, the effect of human behavior on Earth, neoliberalism, and COVID-19.

For example, the actor network theory seeks to understand who and what is involved in learning.

Post-humanistic theories can aid adult educators and learners in rethinking what it means to be

human, reframing relationships between individuals and the material world, and recognizing the

interconnectedness of all things.

These theoretical approaches provide frameworks for teaching and learning, and, when

coupled with historical perspectives, highlight two key themes.

A Synthesis of Perspectives & Theories of Adult Teaching & Learning in America

The following section presents a discussion of the key themes of the historical

perspectives and theories of adult teaching and learning in America. When taken as a single

Commented [PB10]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources.

Commented [PB11]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources.

Commented [PB12]: Your body paragraph needs development. See above for advice and resources. Be sure you cite evidence/claims in each paragraph.

Commented [PB13]: 5 – Sections are like body paragraphs but larger. You have multiple paragraphs organized to have a topic sentence, multiple arguments with evidence to support each argument, then conclusion. Nicely organized section that addresses the rubric criteria.

Commented [PB14]: Section 3: A synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning in America. What do these suggest when taken as a single entity?

6

entity, two themes emerge from these perspectives and theories: the contextual nature of

perspectives and theories and the teacher as reflective practitioner.

Contextual Nature of Perspectives and Theories

First, perspectives and theories are contextual in nature; they are products of the

individuals and circumstances of their time (Carr, 2010). Additionally, perspectives and theories

build on each other, opposing and overlapping each other, and cannot be neatly segregated into

categories. What they do provide, however, is evidence for continued development, refinement,

and transformation of approaches. For example, Dewey’s educational reform stemmed from

behaviorist learning theory, eventually led to cognitive development theories by Piaget and

Skinner (Carr, 2010), and was further developed by Knowles’ theory of andragogy (Gouthro,

2019). Events can spark reconstruction of approaches, such as the development of vocational

training and enhanced teacher training in the post-WWII era, or events can lead to the creation of

theories in response to emerging phenomena like climate change and artificial intelligence

(Hodge et al., 2022). Perspectives and theories will continue to evolve as America continues to

evolve as a nation, and critical questioning can aid in addressing social and global issues

(Gouthro, 2019). As such, applying a historical lens not only aids in a theoretical understanding

of approaches, but also in applied practices.

Teacher as Reflective Practitioners

A second theme that emerges is in the practical application of perspectives and theories,

as teachers engage in reflective practice. The world is complex and constantly changing, with

adaptability, flexibility, and reflection as traits to aid in understanding and navigating within this

world (Gouthro, 2019). A teacher may employ more than one perspective in teaching (Pratt &

Collins, 2019), at times employing transmission to deliver content or modeling ways of being via

Commented [PB15]: Introduction of section with topic sentence(s) No deduction for fully developed paragraph

Commented [PB16]: Nice subsections with headings

7

apprenticeship to fit the context or the learner’s needs, and a teacher may subscribe to more than

one theory of learning (Gouthro, 2019; Hodges et al., 2022), such as tapping into prior

knowledge via constructivism or empowering learners through humanistic or nurturing

approaches. This adaptability of strategies and flexibility of thought are by-products of engaging

in reflection. Reflective practice can enable a teacher to be better informed about teaching

practices and how adult learners learn (Gouthro, 2019); reflective practice can empower a

teacher to evaluate, justify, and enhance their approaches (Pratt & Collins, 2000); and reflective

practice can challenge a teacher to critically consider their underlying values and beliefs that

shape their pedagogical identity (Pratt et al., 2019). With a deeper understanding of perspectives

and theories, a teacher will be more equipped to meet the needs of the adult learner.

Conclusion

An understanding of the historical perspectives and key theories of adult teaching and

learning in America can aid the adult educator in both an awareness of the contextual nature of

perspectives and theories and empower reflective practitioners. There are a variety of ways to

teach, as seen in the five perspectives of transmission, developmental, apprenticeship, nurturing,

and social reform (Pratt & Collins, 2000), and a number of theories that inform how adults learn,

including but not limited to pragmatism, social constructivism, and transformative learning

(Hodge et al., 2022). Through a greater awareness of the diverse ways in which teachers teach

and adults learn, educators can seek to find answers to critical questions (Barrow, 2010): What

can educators learn when they study the past? How can knowledge of the ways in which adults

learn enhance pedagogy? How does the changing nature of humans and the systems within

which they live impact teaching and learning? These questions can lead an educator to a deeper

knowledge of the complexities involved in adult teaching and learning, sparking introspection

Commented [PB17]: 5 – Outstanding section with subheadings! Sections are like body paragraphs but larger. You have multiple paragraphs organized to have a topic sentence, multiple arguments with evidence to support each argument, then conclusion. Nicely organized section that addresses the rubric criteria.

Commented [PB18]: 5 – Argument is logical and can be followed by any reader. You had a good introduction and conclusion.

Commented [PB19]: 3 – There are paragraphs that need improvement. Please see the resource: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/in dex.html

8

and self-awareness, articulation of assumptions and beliefs, and informed practices that enhance

both the teaching and learning experience (Gouthro, 2019). As the educational landscape

continues to shift and morph, theories and perspectives will continue to change to fit the needs of

the individual, American society, and the global community. It is through continued reflection

that a teacher can understand the evolution of teaching and learning, be equipped with

pedagogical knowledge to adapt approaches that fit the context and need, and envision a future

where teachers and learners, individuals and societies, and humans and non-humans can flourish.

Commented [PB20]: 5 – Your paper has good APA formatting throughout the paper.

9

References

Barrow, R. (2010). Schools of thought in philosophy of education. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D.

Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of philosophy of education (pp. 21-35).

Sage.

Carr, D. (2010). The philosophy of education and educational theory. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D.

Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of philosophy of education (pp. 37-53).

Sage.

Demetrion, G. (2022). Mediating work and culture through Dewey’s integrative vision of

vocational education. Adult Literacy Education, 4.

http://doi.org/10.35847/GDemetrion.4.2.4.

Hodge, S., Knight, L., Milana, M., Waller, R., & Webb, S. (2022). Theorising adults, theorising

learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 41(4/5), 399–404. https://doi-

org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/02601370.2022.2116792

Gouthro, P. A. (2019). Taking time to learn: The importance of theory for adult education. Adult

Education Quarterly: A Journal of Research and Theory, 69(1), 60–76.

https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136188156

Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2020). History and evolution of public education in the US. Center

on Education Policy.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge University Press.

O’Banion, T. U. (2019). A brief history of workforce education in community colleges.

Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 43(3), 216–223. https://doi-

org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1547668

Commented [PB21]: First line indent is throwing off your heading.

10

Pratt, D.D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42,4.

https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369204200401

Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Krieger

Publishing Co.

Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education, 93, 5–15.

Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. B. (2000). The teaching perspectives inventory (TPI). Adult Education

Research Conference. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2000/papers/68/

Pratt, D. D., Schrewe, B., & Pusic, M. V. (2019). Pedagogical validity: The key to understanding

different forms of “good” teaching. Medical Teacher, 41(6), 638–640. https://doi-

org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1533242

Reese, W. J. (2013). In search of American progressives and teachers. History of Education,

42(3), 320-334.

Schnepfleitner, F. & Ferreira, M. (2021). Transformative learning theory—is it time to add a

fourth core element? Journal of Educational Studies and Multidisciplinary Approaches,

1(1). https://doi.org/10.51383/jesma.2021.9 Commented [PB22]: 5 – Your APA reference list page is mostly formatted correctly.

Commented [PB23]: 5 – Paper included 2 or more sources. Scholarly research sources are topic related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources.