Journal of curriculum & instruction |
Previous | 1 of 15 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 Practitioners as Decision-Makers: What and How They Teach Chan Evans Sharilyn C. Steadman East Carolina University This issue of the Journal of Curriculum and Instruction presents four articles and a book review that focus on choices that educational practitioners make as they address various aspects of K-12 teaching in a range of classroom settings and locations in the United States and other countries. To begin, the research studies describe results of two large-scale teacher surveys that explore how practitioners allocate instructional time, what methods they use to teach content, and the effect of mandated testing on time and teaching methods. Next, the practitioners’ articles provide international perspectives on the use of multimodal instruction and the determination of graphic quality in textbook selection. Finally, the reviewed book offers insights on skill-based practice that addresses a series of related questions: What makes an effective teacher? If an effective teacher applies specific skills at specific points in a lesson, can those skills be identified, studied, and taught to other teachers? Research Forum In “An analysis of time prioritization for social studies in elementary school classrooms,” Paul Fitchett, Tina Heafner, and Phillip VanFossen (2014) examined the responses of 2,336 elementary teachers across the United States to determine the relationship among time spent teaching social studies, attitudes about the workplace, and decisions about which instructional strategies to use. They also considered the impact of mandated testing and integration of social studies in English language arts classes. Results indicated that there was a significant association between teachers’ decision-making and attitudes about work and proportional time spent on social studies. Mandated testing was associated with increased use of student-centered, teacher-centered, and discipline-specific instructional strategies. There was also an association between high frequency integration of social studies and student-centered and discipline-specific instruction. The authors discuss implications and recommendations for practitioners, school leaders, teacher educators, and policy makers. Kenneth Vogler and Nathan Carnes’ (2014) study, “Comparing the impact of a high school exit examination on biology teachers’ instructional practices,” presents ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 1 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 another view of what and how practitioners teach. Participants in their study, 247 high school biology teachers from Mississippi and Tennessee, reported on the type and amount of time they used specific instructional strategies and delineated factors related to their use. Results indicated that teachers from both states employed a mix of student-centered and teacher-centered tools and practices. A large majority of respondents reported that an interest in helping students earn test scores required for graduation and helping their school improve exam scores influenced their instructional decision-making; however, only a minimal relationship was found between the type of instruction used and time spent preparing students for the exit exam. Vogler and Carnes conclude with recommendations for future research and practice based on implications of their findings. Practitioner’s Platform In “Advancing English language learning in China through multimodal content area teaching,” Cheryl North and Nancy Rankie Shelton (2014) share the experiences of ten U.S. teachers who worked alongside their Chinese counterparts to enact an interactive curriculum at an elementary school in China. Focusing on one elementary student in a representative case study, North and Shelton studied the English literacy development of “Paul” over the ten-day experience. The teacher-researchers employed a kid-watching approach to assess the impact on learning of a combination of factors: an environment that encouraged risk-taking, a focus on written and oral communication, an inclusion of multiple content areas and associated literacies (science, social studies, engineering), and a diminished emphasis on correctness in grammar and structure. As a result of this experience, the U.S. teachers developed a deeper understanding of the importance of attending to intended expression, purposeful observation, factors that motivate students to learn a new language, and the impact of multimodal education. The authors include a representative sample lesson. The second article in the Practitioner’s Platform focuses on the role of graphics in second language acquisition. Striving to select educational materials that actively and effectively support learning is a ubiquitous task in education. In the case of second language education, the graphics found within those educational materials are often viewed as essential supporting components that foster enhanced learning. In their article, “More than just eye-catching: Evaluating graphic quality in middle school English language learners’ science textbooks” (2014), Katherine Landau Wright, Erin McTigue, Zohreh Eslami, and Dudley Reynolds provide the results of their study of 118 graphics from 54 texts used to teach science to 7th and 8th grade language learners. The results of their study, set in Qatar, indicated that graphics that ineffectively aligned with ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 2 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 concepts, that were ambiguous, or that were confusing and distractive not only failed to advance learning, but also were capable of impeding reading comprehension. The authors provide a graphic-evaluation rubric, designed in response to their study, to inform educators’ choices when selecting textbooks for English language learners. Book Review The book review (Steadman, 2014) of Elizabeth Green’s Building A+ Better Teacher: How Teaching Works (and How to Teach it to Everyone) analyzes the author’s approach to tackling a question that has been central to educational conversation over time: What makes an effective teacher? The author strives to make visible the complex blend of knowledge and skills enacted by master teachers, notably Magdalene Lampert and Deborah Ball, as they guide K-12 students to develop their own theories and understandings of concepts. In providing these teaching vignettes, Green challenges the notion that teachers are born, not made, and presents a forceful argument that a highly interactive, collegial approach to developing teaching skills, such as the practice known as Japanese Lesson Study, would benefit U.S. teachers, their students, and ultimately, the nation. While the text does not provide a step-by-step approach to creating more effective teachers, as the title suggests, it does offer thought-provoking insight into the skills that highly competent teachers possess and challenges the educational community to consider how these skills might be refined, taught, and applied by today’s educators. Final Thoughts As we end our tenure as JoCI editors, we reflect on the last three years and the contributions made by authors in diverse areas of curriculum and instruction. Research, practice, and perspective articles have included such disparate topics as working with multicultural students, families, and communities (Byrd, 2012; Walkingstick & Bloom, 2013); technology and game dynamics (Chandler, 2013); and assessment of individual students, pre-service teacher candidates, and teacher preparation programs (Cuthrell, Stapleton, Bullock, Lys, Smith, & Fogarty, 2014; Kilgus, 2013; Schaffer, 2014; Vostal, Messenheimer, Hampton, & Keyes, 2014). We are especially grateful to the invited authors, leaders in their respective fields, for sharing their knowledge, insights, and recommendations for practitioners, administrators, and teacher educators. In the Diversity and Global Learning issue, Kevin Murry (2012) described a six-level framework, the accommodation readiness spiral, which promotes teachers’ readiness as they accommodate culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families. In the Behavioral Support issue, ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 3 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 Kathleen Lane, Holly Menzies, Robin Ennis, and Jamie Bezdek (2013), summarized school-wide and individualized systems, assessments, and strategies that promote positive behavior and facilitate classroom instruction. In the Performance Assessment issue, Cap Peck, Marcy Singer-Gabella, Tine Sloan, and Susan Lin (2014) provided a rationale, examples, and suggestions for using standardized performance assessments. Working with these individuals has afforded us opportunities to grow professionally and to share their visions with JoCI readers. While each published article bears the name of one or more authors, they and we know that no submission moves from manuscript to publication without a team effort. We thank the many JoCI peer reviewers who offered their opinions and suggestions to authors over these years. Also, we acknowledge Michael Vitale for his instrumental reviews of manuscripts submitted to the Research Forum. A special thanks goes to JoCI’s executive editor, Diane Kester. For the last seven years, the first and last steps – and many of the ones in between - of the publishing process were masterfully accomplished by her. Diane’s technology expertise and editorial skills provided continuity and smooth transitions for successive editorial teams. During the last three years, we have endeavored to uphold the original mission of JoCI: to publish free open-access quality research, practice, and prospective articles that are relevant, useful, and make a contribution to the field of curriculum and instruction. We are thankful for having had that responsibility and opportunity. We will miss working on the journal, regret its current necessary hiatus, and look forward to its reinstatement as a robust, contributory member of the scholarly community of educational journals. References Byrd, D. R. (2012). Conducting successful home visits in multicultural communities. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 6(1), 43-54. doi: 10.3776/joci.2012.v6n1p43-54 GS Search Chandler, C. (2013). The use of game dynamics to enhance curriculum and instruction: What teachers can learn from the design of video games. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 6(2), 60-75. doi: 10.3776/joci.2013.v6n2p60-75 GS Search Cuthrell, K. C., Stapleton, J. N., Bullock, A. A., Lys, D. B., Smith, J. J., & Fogarty, E. (2014). Mapping the journey of reform and assessment for an elementary ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 4 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 education teacher preparation program. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction. 8(1), 67-85. doi: 10.376/joci.2014.v8n1p67-85 GS Search Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & VanFossen, P. (2014). An analysis of time prioritization for social studies in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 7-35. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 GS Search Kilgus, S. P. (2013). Use of direct behavior ratings as the foundation of Tier 2 service delivery. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(1), 79-99. doi: 10.3776/joci.2013.v7n1p79-99 GS Search Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Ennis, R. P., & Bezdek, J. (2013). School-wide systems to promote positive behaviors and facilitate instruction. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(1), 6-31. doi: 10.3776/joci.2013.v7n1p6-31 GS Search Murry, K. G. (2012). Cognitive development, global learning, and academic progress: Promoting teacher readiness for CLD students and their families. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 6(1), 11-24. doi: 10.3776/joci.2012.v6n1p11-24 GS Search North, C., & Shelton, N. R. (2014). Advancing English language learning in China through multimodal content area teaching. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 68-88. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p68-88 GS Search Peck, C. A., Singer-Gabella, M., Sloan, T., & Lin, S. (2014). Driving blind: Why we need standardized performance assessment in teacher education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 8-30. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p8-30 GS Search Schaffer, C. L. (2014). When assessment and accountability intersect, good things can happen. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 31-47. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p31-47 GS Search Steadman, S. C. (2014). [Review of the book, Building A+ better teacher: How teaching works (and how to teach it to everyone), by E. Green.] Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 110-112. doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p110-112 Vogler, K. E., & Carnes, G. N. (2014). Comparing the impact of a high school exit examination on biology teachers’ instructional practices. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 36-67. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 GS Search Vostal, B. R., Messenheimer, T., Hampton, D., & Keyes, S. E. (2014). Using a mnemonic strategy to match elements of response to intervention lessons with performance assessment requirements. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 48-66. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p48-66 GS Search ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 5 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 Walkingstick, J., & Bloom, L. A. (2013). Creating community and support using native American values in an inclusive third grade setting: An action research case study. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(1), 55-78. doi: 10.3776/joci.2013.v7n1p55-78 GS Search Wright, K. L., McTigue, E. M., Eslami, Z. R., & Reynolds, D. (2014). More than just eye-catching: Evaluating graphic quality in middle school English language learners’ science textbooks. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 89-109. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p89-109 GS Search About the Authors Chan Evans, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education, Foundations, and Research in the College of Education at East Carolina University. Her research interests include academic and behavioral support for students with emotional/behavioral disorders across educational environments, teachers-as-researchers, and universal design for learning. E-mail: evansru@ecu.edu Sharilyn C. Steadman, PhD, is an assistant professor and program coordinator of English Education in the Department of Literacy Studies, English Education, and History Education in the College of Education at East Carolina University. Her research focuses on pre-service teacher development, effective means of supporting the transition from teacher candidate to classroom teacher, and the use of authentic data to inform program improvement. E-mail: steadmans@ecu.edu ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 6 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 An Analysis of Time Prioritization for Social Studies in Elementary School Classrooms Paul G. Fitchett Tina L. Heafner University of North Carolina at Charlotte Phillip VanFossen Purdue University Abstract Time is an essential component of instructional decision-making and subject area prioritization. The greater the amount of instructional time teachers allocate toward a specific subject the greater the content exposure and opportunity to engage learners. Evidence suggests that social studies receives short shrift in the elementary schools resulting in the undermining of opportunities to learn the subject in meaningful ways. Using survey data from 2,336 elementary social studies teachers, we examined relationships among the professional attitudes and instructional decision-making of elementary school teachers on reported social studies instructional time. Results from analyses indicated that teachers who used discipline-specific methods, integrated within English Language Arts, and who reported being satisfied with teaching social studies spent significantly increased time on social studies. Moreover, teachers who reported more frequent social studies content integration or who reported having a mandated test spent more time on discipline-specific strategies than teachers who did not. Findings have implications for teacher educators preparing elementary practitioners, school leaders accommodating the field, and policymakers attempting to position social studies within an era of accountability. Time is precious in teaching. Instructional time, as an indicator of opportunity to learn (Berliner, 1990), can substantially affect how much and how long students are exposed to specific content and skills. Conversely, limited instructional time can have a negative impact on learning. Thus, teachers’ prioritization of instructional time is an important consideration. How teachers choose to use time is determined by a myriad of complex factors including the demands of curricula, grade level, classroom context, management, and teacher disposition (Hargreaves, 1994; Kyriakides, Christoforou, & Charalambous, 2013). Perhaps no classroom practitioners experience the demands of instructional time like elementary school teachers. Unlike their secondary colleagues, elementary teachers juggle competing core discipline areas (English/language arts, math, science, social studies) as well as specials (e.g., art, music) while simultaneously nurturing the social and emotional development of students (Wills, 2007; Wills & Sandholtz, 2009). In the competition among the core subject areas for elementary instructional time, research has consistently indicated that social studies receives the lowest priority (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Leming, Ellington, & Schug, 2006; VanFossen, 2005). For example, VanFossen (2005) found that, out of a five-hour instructional day, K-3 grade teachers in Indiana spent less than 20 minutes on social studies instruction, while ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 7 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 teachers in grades 4-5 spent less than 30 minutes. Mounting accountability pressures combined with student socioeconomic status and grade level curriculum differences are the most commonly cited predictors of social studies instructional time at the elementary level (Pace, 2008, 2011; VanFossen, 2005). The neglect of social studies at the elementary level can have profoundly negative effects on students’ knowledge of history and civics (Bisland, 2012; Brophy, 1986; Good & Brophy, 2000). Perhaps not coincidentally, the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results indicated that among the core subject areas, student performance is lowest in social studies-related fields of history, civics, and geography (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2011). In a recent study, Fitchett, Heafner, and Lambert (2014b) analyzed another dimension of teaching that was significantly associated with the amount of instructional time devoted to elementary social studies: perceived autonomy. Teachers who reported more autonomy (i.e., greater sense of control over the classroom) also indicated spending more time teaching social studies. This finding led us to question whether other attitudes toward teaching social studies, such as job satisfaction and subject area prioritization, were predictors of instructional time. We also sought to understand whether teachers’ instructional decision-making and the strategies they used for teaching social studies, factors yet to be examined in large-scale data analyses, were associated with instructional time. Finally, we examined the relationship between two key concepts associated with elementary social studies, teaching integration frequency and mandatory testing (Bisland, 2012; Pace, 2011b), to determine how these factors might influence teachers’ instructional decision-making. In the present study, we used data collected from the online Survey on the Status of Social Studies (2010) to examine the contextual determinants of social studies marginalization and the influence of elementary teachers’ perceptions of attitudes and instructional decision-making on reported social studies instructional time while controlling for classroom contexts, including testing mandates, grade level of students, and socioeconomic status of students. In addition, we examined the influence of teachers’ testing environment and integration frequency on their reported instructional decision-making. Conceptual Framework This study built upon three conceptual areas frequently associated with elementary social studies time: the contextual determinants of social studies marginalization (grade-level differences, mandated testing requirements, and school-level characteristics), teachers’ professional attitudes (including professional control and perception of social studies value), and instructional decision-making (use of integration and instructional strategy preferences). The following section highlights how these concepts influence the curricular prioritization of social studies among elementary grade practitioners. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 8 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Contextual Determinants of Marginalization In the United States, elementary social studies has historically been placed on the instructional backburner in favor of other core subjects (Barton, 2011; Houser, 1995; Lintner & Schweder, 2008), reflecting a well-documented longstanding issue (Henry, 1993). Over the last decade, instructional time allocated for social studies has further diminished due to high-stakes accountability mandates in the US that have placed greater emphasis on English/language arts (ELA), math, and science (Heafner & Fitchett, 2012;Levine, Lopez, & Marcelo, 2008; VanFossen, 2005). Under a narrowing curriculum, teachers eliminated social studies instruction or absorbed it within ELA as part of the literacy agenda (Boyle-Baise, Hsu, Johnnson, Serriere, & Stewart, 2008; Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Holloway & Chiodo, 2009). Research has suggested that grade 1-5 teachers in states with an elementary social studies test spend approximately 30 minutes per week (18 hours more per academic year) on social studies than comparable teachers in non-tested states (Fitchett et al., 2014a). Classroom- and school-level contexts also shape the nature and prioritization of social studies teaching. Previous studies indicated that elementary teachers in areas of poverty lost more time from social studies instruction than peers in more affluent communities, believing that their students required more support in the form of time in universally-tested subjects like ELA and mathematics (Levine et al., 2008; Pace, 2008, 2011; Segall, 2006). The additional instructional time for these tested subjects resulted in inequitable curricular access to social studies (Au, 2007, 2009; Pace, 2011a; Piere, Baker, & Bobbitt, 1997; Wills & Sandholtz, 2009). Grade-level was also associated with increased social studies instructional time; teachers of intermediate level students (grades 4-5) spent significantly more time on social studies than practitioners in earlier grades (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Thornton & Houser, 1996; VanFossen, 2005). Researchers posited that this phenomenon was linked to the traditional structure of the elementary grade curriculum, whereby later grades tend to have a more structured, content-specific curriculum compared to the more integrated nature of early grades social studies (Brophy & Alleman, 2008; Duplass, 2007; Hanna, 1937). Professional Attitudes toward Social Studies Context and policy do not necessarily predetermine the amount of time elementary teachers allot toward instruction, however. Teachers’ workplace attitudes, such as autonomy, satisfaction teaching social studies, and interest in the subject matter influence how teachers prioritize social studies. Social studies remains a low priority among many elementary practitioners in the United States. Previous survey data indicated that elementary teachers and their students viewed social studies as the least important of the core subject areas (Good et al., 2010; Passe, 2006; Zhao & Hoge, 2005). Underscoring a lack of interest, research of elementary teacher education programs noted that pre-service teachers experienced less social studies instruction during student teaching than other core areas, resulting in perceptions of feeling ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 9 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 unprepared to teach the subject (Yon & Passe, 1990). Elementary preservice teachers were less likely to student-teach social studies and were frequently cajoled by their cooperating teachers to neglect social studies to provide more time for other instruction (Bolick, Adams, & Willox, 2010). In contrast to the systematic resistance against preservice elementary social studies, numerous qualitative studies have called attention to examples of practitioners who elected to spend time teaching social studies regardless of testing and standardization constraints (Brophy, 1993; Gradwell, 2006; Grant, 2003; van Hover, 2006). These ambitious teachers consciously chose to teach beyond the limitations set forth by state curricula and accountability pressures. Ultimately, these practitioners viewed themselves as efficacious gatekeepers and critical consumers of the curricula who have pedagogical control over how and how much social studies content they taught (Ross, 2006; Thornton, 1991, 2005). These studies affirmed that teachers who viewed themselves with such autonomy spent more time on social studies instruction than teachers who did not view themselves in that way (Fitchett et al., 2014a). Instructional Decision-Making Teacher workplace attitudes, such as perceived autonomy, often impact instructional decision-making. What teachers want to do in their classroom and how they do it are related to the allocation of their instructional time for social studies. Previous studies indicated that teachers who prioritized social studies instruction and engaged in inquiry-based, discipline-specific practice allocated more time to social studies (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Levstik, 2008; Serriere, Mitra, & Cody, 2010). In his examples of historical inquiry, VanSledright (2011) noted that time constraints were a persistent issue for dynamic teaching. Teachers who engaged students with materials outside the textbook, encouraged critical thinking, and promoted cooperative learning spent more time on social studies instruction than teachers who engaged in more passive forms of pedagogy, such as traditional lectures (Brophy, 2006). Yet, what social studies teachers know regarding content and pedagogy and what they practice are often quite disparate (Barton & Levstik, 2003, 2004; van Hover & Yeager, 2003). U.S. policy trends of increased accountability, standardization, and curricular intensification can affect how teachers make instructional choices, prompting them to increase content coverage. Perceived content mandates seemingly restricted teachers’ instructional options (Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Mausethagen, 2013; Thornton, 1991). In this intensified environment, teachers perceived worksheets, textbooks, and lecture as timesaving strategies (Wills, 2007; Zhao & Hoge, 2005). Testing, as a by-product of accountability policies, has received particular scrutiny from the field. Research has suggested that high-stakes testing in social studies encourages teacher-centered practices such as lecture, reading from the textbook, and other forms of rote instruction, while deterring discipline-specific pedagogies (Gerwin & Viscone, 2006; Saye & The Social Studies Inquiry Research Collaborative, 2013; Vogler, 2006). ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 10 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 In most states, however, social studies is under-tested at the elementary level (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010). The emphasis on high-stakes testing in content areas such as math and English/language arts leads many elementary teachers to utilize integration, whereby the social studies content is interwoven with ELA content and skills as a strategy for addressing social studies content (Heafner & Fitchett, 2012). The widely used, highly polarizing, Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSI; 2010) includes strands specific to history/social studies integration in grades 6-10. These strands include standards such as “determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the relationships among the key details and ideas” (CCSI, 2010). Though no such standards exist for elementary grades, research indicates that K-5 teachers frequently incorporate social studies texts in their ELA instruction. For example, Good et al. (2010) noted that 60% of elementary teachers used integration as a general approach to teaching social studies. Findings indicated that such integration efforts varied widely, ranging from highly effective curricula (Field, Bauml, & Ledbetter, 2011; Holloway & Chiodo, 2009) to those lacking substantive social studies content and skills (Boyle- Baise et al., 2008; Pace, 2011b). For this reason, some social studies educators are cautious of championing integration as an optimal instructional compromise (Thornton & Houser, 1996; VanFossen, 2005). Rationale for Further Investigation and Research Questions Research confirms that emphasis on high-stakes testing and standards in math and ELA has crowded out elementary teachers’ social studies instructional time allocation. Yet, teachers’ decision-making remains a complex phenomenon. Some previous research examined the relationship between school contexts (demographics, testing, and grade level) and social studies instructional time (cf. Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Pace, 2011a; VanFossen, 2005). Other studies explored the phenomena of ambitious teaching and its relationship to instructional decision-making (cf. Au, 2007; Grant, 2003). The confluence of these lines of research has remained relatively unexamined in social studies, however, and serves as the rationale for this study. Specifically, there is a paucity of research exploring the extent to which teachers’ instructional decision-making and workplace attitudes influence reported social studies time – an important indicator of opportunity to learn (Berliner, 1990). Understanding how workplace attitudes and instructional decision-making are associated with social studies prioritization has potential implications for how teachers, teacher educators, and educational leaders promote social studies in the elementary grades. Thus, our study examined teachers’ instructional decision-making strategies and professional attitudes as predictors of instructional time and explored the association between teaching context and attitudes on instructional decision-making. We addressed the following research questions: 1. What professional attitudes and instructional decision-making do elementary teachers report toward social studies? ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 11 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 2. Is there an association between the proportion of instructional time elementary teachers report allocating to social studies and their professional attitudes when controlling for contextual determinants of marginalization (e.g., urbanity, socioeconomic factors)? 3. Is there an association between the proportion of instructional time elementary teachers report allocating to social studies and their reported use of three types of instructional decision-making when controlling for contextual determinants and professional attitudes? 4. To what extent is there a relationship between mandated testing and teachers’ reported instructional decision-making use in elementary social studies? 5. To what extent is there a difference in the use of three types of instructional decision-making reported by elementary teachers who frequently integrate social studies in their ELA instruction compared to teachers who do not frequently integrate in ELA? Method Participants In the present study, we used data collected from the online Survey on the Status of Social Studies (S4) (2010), which included PK-12 social studies teachers across 44 U.S. states (N = 11,295)1 between spring 2010 and spring 2011. Participants were recruited via email to complete the survey. Limited access to states’ social studies teacher databases made a nationally representative, stratified-random sample prohibitive. Therefore, the sampling frame for this study is considered a convenience sample. The S4 is the largest study of social studies teaching attitudes, reported practices, and characteristics in over two decades (Fitchett & VanFossen, 2013). For purposes of the present study, we selected respondents who indicated they were full-time, U.S. teachers in grades 1-5.2 Because team teachers and single subject teachers would confound reports of instructional time (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010), we also selected only respondents who reported teaching in self-contained classrooms (i.e., taught all subjects). Data were conditioned to a subsample (n = 2,336). 1 A link to the survey can be found here: http://webpages.uncc.edu/~pfitchet/NationalSocialStudiesSurvey.pdf The District of Columbia, Hawaii, Missouri, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming did not participate in the study. 2 Kindergarten was intentionally excluded from our study because of the organizational variability across U.S. states and school systems. In some states, kindergarten is required full-instructional day. In other states/systems, it is required half-day, and in a few states, kindergarten is not required at all. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 12 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Respondents were overwhelming female (94%) and white (88.3%). Among the subsample, 99% were licensed teachers. A majority of teachers reported having a master’s degree (54%) compared to bachelor’s (43%) and doctorate (2.2%) degrees. The average years of teaching experience among the subsample was approximately 15 years. A greater proportion of the teachers surveyed characterized their schools as suburban (38%) compared to urban (26%) or rural (36.3%). Teachers also reported low minority enrollment (34%). Instrument The online survey instrument (S4) included 97 items that measured reported time spent teaching social studies at the elementary level, professional attitudes, and instructional emphases. Participants’ email addresses were removed from all respondent data. The average completion time for the instrument was approximately 20 minutes. Likert-type items were analyzed for validity and technical adequacy in both a pilot study and technical report following data collection (cf. Fitchett & VanFossen, 2013). Face validity of the instrument was obtained through feedback from social studies teachers and teacher educators. Item reliability on various subscales was minimally to moderately adequate (α = .70 to .80) on inventories reporting teachers’ decision-making (e.g., frequency of use of textbooks, lecture, primary source documents) and dispositional items relating to teacher autonomy (e.g., teacher control over resources, instructional strategies). Statistical validity of the items was obtained through principal axis factor analysis. 3 Before investigating the research questions, several individual items on the S4 were combined into factors. Factors offer greater reliability and validity than single item predictors (Liu, 2004). Furthermore, educational research suggests that teaching factors are more valid predictors than singular instructional approaches (Kyriakides et al., 2013). In a previous study (Fitchett & VanFossen, 2013) that examined the technical adequacy of individual S4 items, the authors conducted exploratory factor analysis to examine the statistical validity and reliability of key item inventories embedded within the instrument. Using principal axis factor analysis with oblique rotations, factor inclusion and simple solutions were determined by eigenvalues (>1.0) and scree plots. Findings indicated that items in the instructional decision-making inventory of the S4 loaded onto three distinct factors: discipline-specific instruction, teacher-centered instruction, and student- centered instruction.4 This finding corresponded with existing literature and research on social studies teachers’ 3 A full description of the survey instrumentation can be found at Fitchett, P.G. & VanFossen (2013). Survey on the Status of Social Studies: Development and analysis. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1), 1-23. Retrieved from: http://www.socstrpr.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/04/MS_06462_no1.pdf 4 Items 16, 31 and 47 comprise the instructional decision-making inventory for Survey on the Status of Social Studies. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 13 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 instructional decision-making (Fallace, 2010; Knowles & Theobald, 2013; Levstik, 2008). For purposes of the present study, each of these factors was then used to create scale variables by summing across all the Likert-type items that loaded on a particular factor. For example, the student-centered scale summed items on use of role-play, cooperative learning assignments, and group projects. The teacher-centered scale summed items on use of the textbook, worksheets, and lecture. The discipline-specific scale was created by summing responses to items that asked about teachers’ use of primary/secondary materials, writing essays, computer applications, role play, film, and maps and globes. The teacher autonomy scale was created by summing responses to teacher control items: How much actual control do you have in the classroom at this school over the following areas of your planning and teaching: selecting the textbook, selecting content and skills taught, curriculum emphases, teaching techniques, and evaluation? We then conducted Cronbach’s alpha to examine the internal consistency of the scale variables developed for this subsample. Results indicated that teacher autonomy and the discipline-specific scales were moderately consistent (α > 0.70). While teacher-centered and student-centered scales were minimally acceptable (α > 0.60), we decided to include these scales because previous analyses confirmed their validity and multidimensionality (Fitchett & VanFossen, 2013). For interpretation purposes, items and variable constructs were occasionally recoded. Item 19 (“How often do you integrate the following subjects: English/language arts?”) was recoded into two categories: the highest two values (almost daily and frequently) were recoded as high frequency integration in ELA and the remaining values were coded as low frequency integration in ELA. Another item (“To what extent do you agree with the following statement? I am generally satisfied teaching social studies at this school.”) was recoded into two values: satisfied (agree/strongly agree) and dissatisfied (disagree/strongly disagree). Because the length of the instructional day varies among schools (Berliner, 1990), using reported instructional time as a dependent variable can be problematic. Given the building environment and curricular obligations, how much time a teacher reported spending on a subject might be a greater or lesser proportion of the instructional day compared to another teacher. Due to curricular variability among schools, we decided against using reported social studies time as the dependent variable. Instead, we examined the proportion of time spent on social studies as a percentage (%) of aggregate core subject instructional time, whereby Aggregate core subject time = Social Studies instructional time + ELA instructional time + Science instructional time + Math instructional time. SSPERCENT= (Social Studies instructional time/aggregate core subject time) X 100. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 14 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 This approach standardized social studies instructional time across respondents to a percentage. Design and Data Analysis To answer research question 1, we used descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) to analyze elementary teachers’ overall attitudes toward social studies. To answer questions 2 and 3, we employed hierarchical multiple regression (HMR). This statistical technique specifies the order in which variables (grouped into blocks) enter the model. It accounted for the unique variance contributed by various predictor types (see Table 1). Model 1 included control variables previously associated with social studies instructional time (i.e., contextual determinants of marginalization). To answer research question 2, Model 2 added professional disposition variables. To answer research question 3, Model 3 included teacher instructional strategies. Ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates were used in these analyses because we posited that error terms associated with these models would remain constant across responses. Tests of homoscedacity confirmed this assumption. In a practical sense, this analytical approach allowed us to examine the effect of assigned conceptualized variable groupings in predicting change in the percentage of instructional time spent on social studies. Models are specified below: Model 1 YSSproportionaltime = ß0 + ß1Xurbanity +…+ ß5Xmandated test+ r0 Model 2 YSSproportionaltime = ß0 + ß1Xurbanity +…+ ß5Xmandated test+…+ ß6XprioritzeSS+…+ ß8Xautnomy + r0 Model 3 YSSproportionaltime = ß0 + ß1Xurbanity +…+ ß5Xmandated test+…+ ß6XprioritzeSS+…+ ß8Xautnomy + ß9Xfrequentlyintegrate+…+ ß12Xdisciplinespecific + r0 Whereby: YSSproportionaltime= Reported Social Studies Proportional Time ß1Xurbanity +…+ ß5Xmandated test = Classroom Context Variables ß6XprioritzeSS+…+ ß8Xautnomy = Teacher Professional Attitudes ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 15 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 ß9Xfrequentlyintegrate+…+ ß12Xdisciplinespecific = Teacher Instructional Strategies Table 1 Description of Variables for Hierarchal Multiple Regression Model Model No. Variable Constructs Variables Model 1 Classroom Context Five dummy-coded control variables frequently associated with social studies instructional time High/Upper Middle/ Middle socioeconomic status (compared to Low Middle/Low SES) Urban, Rural (compared to Suburban) Intermediate grades 4 and 5 (compared to grades K - 3) State test in elementary social studies (compared to no test) Model 2 Teacher Professional Attitudes* Variables examining teacher attitudes Teacher Rank of Social Studies (1 lowest to 6 highest) Satisfied Teaching Social Studies (agree/somewhat agree compared to somewhat disagree/strongly disagree) Teacher Autonomy scale (5 lowest to 20 highest) Model 3 Teacher Instructional Strategies* Variables associated with instructional strategies High Frequency of Integration (Almost daily/frequently compared to occasionally/rarely/never) Student-centered instruction scale Teacher-centered instruction scale Discipline-specific instruction scale *Factors were statistically validated in previous studies conducted by the researchers (Fitchett & VanFossen, 2013). To answer questions 4 and 5, we employed factorial multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine the relationship between two significant predictors from the HMR (high frequency of integration and mandatory testing) on instructional strategies scales. Given the highly correlated nature of social studies teaching (Levstik, 2008; Stodolsky, 1993), we chose multivariate analysis to examine the linear combination of the reported strategies (student-centered, teacher-centered, and discipline-specific scales) on two independent variables (high frequency integration and mandatory testing). MANOVAs also allowed us to explore the relationship between integration and mandatory testing, a point of interest in earlier qualitative elementary social studies research (Boyle-Baise et al., 2008). Thus, we examined the potential interaction between the two independent variables. For post-hoc tests of between-subject statistical difference, we used analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 16 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Elementary Teachers’ Professional Attitudes and Instructional Decision-Making What professional attitudes and instructional decision-making do elementary teachers report toward social studies? To answer Research Question 1, we examined descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation among variables (Table 2). Results indicated that sampled U.S. elementary social studies teachers spent 13.8% of their core subject area instruction time on social studies content, whereas ELA instruction received 43.9% of the core instruction time. Respondents prioritized social studies fourth of six in subject area importance (English/Language Arts, math, science, social studies, art, PE). On average, 56% of respondents were satisfied with teaching social studies (n = 1,302), and 86% of respondents reported integrating social studies content into ELA instruction on a frequent basis (n = 2,001). Teachers reported feeling relatively autonomous given the scale range (mean of 14.20 out of a 5 to 20 range). Approximately 14% of respondents indicated giving a mandated test on social studies (n = 328). Based on mean scale results, respondents were slightly more likely to engage in student-centered instruction than using teacher-centered instruction or discipline-specific instruction (including analyzing primary sources, reading maps/globes). ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 17 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Elementary Teacher Professional Disposition and Instructional Emphasis (n = 2336) Variable (range) Mean SD SSPERCENT (1.79-58.62) 13.77 5.76 ELAPERCENT (3.03-81.58) 43.86 9.13 MATHPERCENT (2.22-63.54) 27.92 6.26 SCIPERCENT (1.59-39.91) 14.44 5.40 Prioritize SS (1-6) 3.31 0.82 Autonomy (5-20) 14.20 2.92 Reported a mandated test in SS 0.14 0.35 Satisfied teaching social studies 0.56 0.50 Frequently integrate ELA 0.86 0.35 Student-Centered instruction (3-15) 8.96 2.17 Teacher-Centered instruction (3-15) 8.15 2.61 Discipline-Specific instruction (6-30) 16.86 3.61 Instructional Time, Professional Attitudes, and Instructional Strategies Next, we employed hierarchical multiple regression to answer research questions 2 and 3 (see Table 3). Results from Model 1 confirmed previous research that testing, grade level, and socioeconomic status as significantly associated with reported elementary social studies time (Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014a, 2014b; Pace, 2011a). Holding other contextual determinant variables constant, teachers who have a state test in social studies devoted almost 4% more time to teaching social studies than comparable teachers in states without a test. Teaching in the intermediate grades (4-5) was associated with an approximately 1.6% increase in proportional social studies time compared to teaching in the primary grades (K-3). Working in a higher socioeconomic school environment was associated with almost a 1% increase in proportional time spent on social studies instruction. In the subsequent models 2 and 3, these context variables served as controls, allowing us to better isolate the unique association ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 18 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 between teachers’ workplace attitudes and instructional decision-making in social studies on reported social studies time. Is there an association between the proportion of instructional time elementary teachers’ report allocating to social studies and their professional attitudes when controlling for classroom context? To answer Research Question 2, we developed a model that explained variables associated with social studies practitioners’ attitudes toward teaching (Model 2 in Table 3). Holding the control variables in Model 1 constant (i.e., accounting for their variance) instructional prioritization of social studies (from 6th priority to 1st priority) was associated with an increase between 0.6% to 3.0% in the proportion of time spent teaching social studies. Teachers who were highly satisfied teaching social studies reported spending approximately 3% more proportionally on the subject per week. Greater teacher autonomy was associated with an approximate increase of between 0.1% to 1.6% in social studies time per week. Model 2 accounted for 16% of proportional social studies time, a significant change that doubled the variance attributed to the previous model. Is there an association between the proportion of instructional time elementary teachers report allocating to social studies and their reported use of three types of instructional decision-making when controlling for classroom contexts and professional attitudes? To answer Research Question 3, Model 3 was constructed. Holding both the contextual controls and the teacher attitudes constant, we found that teaching emphasis across all three instructional factors and high frequency integration were associated with more time spent on social studies. Among the three instructional decision-making scales, time spent on discipline-specific instruction was associated with the largest increase in the proportion of time spent on social studies—a range between 0.19% to 4.60%. Increases in teacher- and student-centered instruction were associated with smaller ranges of proportional social studies time: 0.25% - 3.0% for student centered and between 0.26% - 3.14% in teacher-centered instruction. Teachers who reported frequently integrating social studies content into their ELA instruction spent an estimated 0.73% more time on the subject than teachers who did not integrate. When accounting for the final model predictors, autonomy and reported socioeconomic status of the school were no longer significantly associated with social studies time. This finding reflects that the variation in instructional strategies confounds the significance of professional autonomy and reported socioeconomic context. Variables associated with Model 3 accounted for 22% of the variance attributed to proportional social studies time, a significant increase of approximately 6% from Model 2 and a 14% increase from Model 1. Given these initial findings, we examined in more detail two of these predictors: mandated testing and frequent integration. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 19 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Unstandardized Coefficients for Variables as a Predictor of Proportional Reported Social Studies Time (n = 2336) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Variable B SE CI 95% B SE CI 95% B SE CI 95% (Constant) 12.26** 0.25 11.73,12.72 7.26** 0.73 5.83, 8.69 0.74** 0.86 -0.94, 2.42 Urban -0.35** 0.31 -0.96, 0.25 -0.10** 0.30 -0.69, 0.48 -0.23** 0.29 -0.79, 0.34 Rural 0.37** 0.28 -0.18, 0.92 0.25** 0.27 -0.028, 0.78 0.37** 0.26 -0.14, 0.88 High_SES 0.82** 0.25 0.32, 1.31 0.50** 0.25 0.02, 0.98 0.44** 0.24 -0.29, 0.90 Intermediate 1.58** 0.24 1.10, 2.05 1.84** 0.24 1.37, 2.30 1.45** 0.23 1.00, 1.90 Mandated SS Test 3.73** 0.34 3.06, 4.40 3.05** 0.33 2.39, 3.70 2.43** 0.33 1.79, 3.07 Prioritize SS 0.61** 0.14 0.33, 0.84 0.46** 0.13 0.20, 0.72 SSsatisfaction 2.85** 0.24 2.39, 3.31 2.21** 0.23 1.75, 2.66 Autonomy 0.10** 0.04 0.03, 0.18 0.06** 0.04 -0.02, 0.13 FreqintegrateELA 0.73** 0.32 0.10, 1.37 Student-Centered instruction 0.25** 0.07 0.11, 0.39 Teacher-Centered instruction 0.26** 0.04 0.18, 0.35 Discipline-Specific instruction 0.19** 0.04 0.11, 0.28 Model R2 .082 .156 .218 F for Δ R2 40.8* 65.8** 44.6** *p < .05, **p < .01 Mandated Testing, Integration, and Instructional Decision-Making To answer Questions 4 and 5, we conducted a factorial MANOVA to explore the relationship between teachers’ reporting of mandatory testing and frequency of social studies integration in ELA on the instructional factors: student-centered, teacher-centered, and discipline-specific (see Table 4). ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 20 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 To what extent is there a relationship between mandated testing and teachers’ reported instructional decision-making in elementary social studies? Significant differences were found between teachers who reported giving a mandated test and those who did not on each of the three instructional factors [Wilk’s Λ = .98, F(3, 2330) = 12.97, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.02]. Follow-up between subject tests (ANOVA) indicated significant differences between testing status and the dependent variables. As Table 4 illustrates, teachers who reported a mandated test spent more time on: (a) student-centered instruction [F(1, 2332) = 15.72, p <.001, η2 = 0.01], (b) teacher-centered instruction [F(1, 2332) = 20.35, p <.001, η2 = 0.01], and (c) discipline-specific instruction [F(1, 2332) = 25.01, p <.001, η2 = 0.01]. Though the effect sizes for these models were small, findings indicated a consistent theme that testing was associated with greater instructional decision-making opportunity indiscriminate of typology (student-centered, teacher-centered, or discipline-specific). To what extent is there a difference in the emphasis of instructional decision-making reported by elementary teachers who frequently integrate social studies in their ELA instruction compared to teachers who do not frequently integrate in ELA? Multivariate tests pointed toward significant differences between high and low frequency integration of ELA among instructional factors [Wilk’s Λ = .96, F(3, 2330) = 29.56, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04]. ANOVA tests indicated that teachers reporting high frequency integration in ELA spent more time on: (a) student-centered instruction [F(1, 2332) = 65.44, p < .001, η2 = 0.03] and (b) discipline-specific instruction [F(1, 2332) = 79.79, p <.001, η2 = 0.03] (see Table 4). Tests showed no statistically significant time difference in teacher-centered instruction between those respondents who reported frequently integrating social studies content into ELA and those who did not [F(1, 2332) = 1.94, p = .591]. Results conveyed that elementary teachers who frequently integrated social studies with language arts also spent more time on social studies-specific instruction. A final multivariate test was conducted to examine the interaction effect between testing status and the frequency with which social studies content was integrated into ELA. Results indicated no statistically significant difference across instructional factors that could be associated with the interaction [Wilk’s Λ = 1.00, F(3, 2330) = 1.33, p = 0.263]. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 21 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Table 4 Mean Instructional Factor Scores by Reported Testing Status and Integration Frequency (n = 2336) Instructional Factor (range) Reported Testing Status Mean (SE) Reported ELA Integration Frequency Mean (SE) Student-centered instruction (3-15) No test in social studies reported 8.29 (.07) Low frequency 7.89 (.18) Test in social studies 9.06** (.18) High frequency 9.46** (.07) Teacher-centered instruction (3-15) No test in social studies reported 7.85 (.08) Low frequency 8.34 (.23) Test in social studies 8.945** (.23) High frequency 8.47 (.08) Discipline-specific instruction (6-30) No test in social studies reported 15.66 (.11) Low frequency 15.03 (.30) Test in social studies 17.27** (.30) High frequency 17.90** (.11) **p < .01 Discussion The purpose of our study was to examine the confluence of teacher workplace attitudes and instructional decision-making on social studies time. Furthermore, we sought to understand the relationships among instructional decision-making, testing, and ELA integration. Results indicated that teachers’ decision-making with an emphasis on discipline-specific instruction and teacher attitudes’ (i.e., their satisfaction teaching social studies at their school) were significantly associated with proportional time spent on social studies. Moreover, testing was associated with increases in all three instructional decision-making types, contrary to research suggesting that testing constrains discipline-specific instruction (Vogler, 2006). Moreover, high frequency integration was associated with increased student-centered and discipline-specific instruction—pedagogies championed by social studies researchers and advocates ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 22 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Fallace, 2010; VanSledright, 2011). In the following sections, we describe how this research can be used to inform social studies teachers, school leaders, and policymakers. Implications and Recommendations for Elementary Social Studies Practitioners and Teacher Educators Not surprisingly, elementary teachers who responded to the S4 rated social studies as the least important subject among four core areas (math, ELA, science, social studies). Given recent U.S. policy toward education, including No Child Left Behind science testing mandates and Race to the Top, we posit that the time devoted to social studies will continue to decrease. These findings affirm that social studies has never really been a priority (Henry, 1993). Hierarchical multiple regression findings conveyed a more complex picture, indicating that teachers’ opportunities to teach social studies were influenced by workplace attitudes and instructional decision-making. The current study confirmed the significance of contextual determinants of marginalization reported in previous studies (Fitchett et al., 2014a, 2014b; Pace, 2011a; Segall, 2006), such as grade level, social economic status of students, and mandatory testing. Given the mean reported social studies instructional time (M = 2.84 hours per week), teachers in states with mandatory testing spend, on average, 7 minutes more per week on social studies instruction. Across a traditional academic year in the US (36 weeks), this increase contributes 252 more minutes (or over 4 hours) to social studies instruction; however, these variables only contributed a modest 8% of the variance in reported social studies time. For social studies teachers and teacher educators, these findings suggest that, while testing remains a significant predictor of time spent on social studies content, elementary teachers do not have to remain instructionally hamstrung by accountability mandates. Elementary teachers’ positive professional attitudes toward social studies and their instructional decision-making in the model accounted for over twice the variance in the overall amount of proportional time spent on social studies. More importantly, unlike testing mandates, promotion of instructional strategies and positive attitudes are within the realm of good social studies practice and teacher education. Teachers who showed positive attitudes toward their job satisfaction accounted for a proportional increase between 2.9% (Model 2) and 2.2% (Model 3) of social studies time or roughly 2.3 or 2.9 hours increase in social studies during an academic year. Empowering teachers and equipping them with discipline-specific instructional practices can produce positive outcomes for improving social studies’ learning opportunities in elementary schools. Findings suggest that those practices aligned with discipline-specific instruction are associated with up to 8 additional minutes of instructional time per week or 4.70 hours per academic year. From results of the present study, we conclude that teachers who reported having greater professional autonomy were more likely to report spending a greater ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 23 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 proportion of time teaching social studies content than those who did not. This finding aligns with the literature on an ambitious teaching construct and the gate-keeping mentality that social educators have advocated for several years (Grant, 2003; Thornton, 1991, 2005). Influencing autonomy or the perception of autonomy, among social studies teachers is a slippery slope, however. Encouraging and nurturing specific teaching attitudes is difficult and is empirically unreliable (Anderson, 2014; Bruner, 1996; Pajares, 1992; Tubachnick & Zeichner, 1984). As illustrated in the present study, after instructional strategies were included in the model, perceived autonomy along with the socioeconomic indicator were no longer statistically significant. Given our findings, we recommend that social studies teachers emphasize discipline-specific strategies similar to those measured in our study. As our findings illustrate, however, it is also important that teachers have positive attitudes (satisfaction and autonomy) toward social studies. In finding a way to combine the best of all desired qualities associated with this study, we encourage elementary grade teachers to orient themselves as curriculum “gatekeepers” (Thornton, 2005), whereby they take ownership of the content, skills, and concepts associated with social studies teaching and learning. Gatekeeping social studies teachers also embed principles of social studies content, skills, and dispositions in their daily lessons. Effective ideas for teaching social studies in the K-12 can be found in the National Council for the Social Studies journal, Social Studies and the Young Learner. We suggest that teachers interested in improving their practice begin by exploring the discipline-oriented lesson plan examples found there. We also encourage teacher education programs to provide greater emphasis on social studies instruction in their course work and offer greater opportunities for teachers to become more comfortable teaching the subject. Social studies programs that seek to encourage ambitious, gatekeeping practices should partner preservice teachers with cooperating teachers who privilege social studies education and make instructional decisions congruent with discipline-specific instruction (i.e., using source material, maps and globes, writing essays, role play/simulation), while also demonstrating positive attitudes toward the subject. Confirming qualitative (Field et al., 2011) and quantitative (Holloway & Chiodo, 2009) research, we found that teachers who integrated social studies content within ELA instruction spent more time on social studies content and also spent more time on student-centered and discipline-specific instruction. From these results, we posit that such integration can be used to improve the quantity of social studies instruction in constrained curricular environments. While the issue of instructional quality is outside the scope of this study, findings from this study indicate integration with ELA is associated with a greater frequency of highly advocated teaching practices (e.g., discipline-specific instruction and student-centered instruction). We recommend that teachers further their development of meaningful integration techniques in conjunction with discipline-specific methods, perhaps including case studies from existing research (Field et al., 2011; Serriere, Mitra, & Cody, 2010). Beyond reading circles, elementary teachers and teacher educators should give primacy to literacy practices that encourage ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 24 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 inter-textual reading of source material, analysis of documents, and creation of authentic historical accounts. Implications and Recommendations for School Leaders While teachers’ professional attitudes are difficult to influence within teacher education programs, research indicates that building-level climate and teacher job satisfaction are strongly associated with school leadership, including principals and department chairs. Numerous studies have pointed out that principals who provide faculty greater curricular freedom over day-to-day instruction improve teachers’ workplace attitudes (Bolger, 2001; Shen, 1997; Singh & Billingsley, 1996; Taylor & Tashakkori, 1995). Among social studies practitioners, teachers who viewed their school leadership favorably tended to maintain higher job satisfaction (Nelson, 1981). VanFossen (2005) found that building-level support for teaching social studies content significantly related to the amount of instructional time for social studies in grades K-5. A recent study by Patterson, Maguth, DeWitt, Doppen, Harshman, and Augustine (2013, April) noted that school principals value social studies and believe that elementary teachers should spend time on the subject. Concurrently, Anderson (2014) found that principal support was strongly connected with elementary teachers’ emphasis on social studies content. Teachers who felt compelled and encouraged by school leadership to teach social studies spent more time on the subject. By supporting teachers in their social studies teaching and giving them greater curricular control, school leaders can indirectly improve the emphasis of social studies instruction. Moreover, results indicate that integration of social studies content into ELA instruction is positively associated with increased time for social studies and more frequent dynamic instruction. We encourage teacher-leaders to collaborate and share ideas for using integration as an effective strategy for improving overall social studies instruction among grade levels. Finding curricular spaces in which social studies can share instructional time with other subjects, specifically ELA, is a practical step toward improving overall instruction. Additionally, integration aligns with current Common Core initiatives and could position social studies teachers (informational text and close reading literacy specialists) as leaders in cross-curricular integration. We contend that Common Core language associated with the history/social studies strands in grades 6- 12 should be applied to elementary grades. Integration for purposes of analyzing and evaluating multiple sources is a skill applicable in early grades as well (Barton & Levstik, 2004). We encourage social studies advocates to consider thoughtful integration practices that complement the discipline-specific pedagogies associated with the field. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 25 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Implications and Recommendations for Curriculum and Instruction Policy Interestingly, these analyses indicated that testing, often associated with narrowing of pedagogical decision-making and rote instruction (cf. Grant & Salinas, 2008), was associated with a reported increase in time spent on a variety of instructional strategies. Though the present study did not examine the nature of course content, our findings suggest that the presence of elementary social studies testing increased the quantity of social studies instruction across various instructional typologies, specifically discipline-specific instruction, and increased the amount of social studies taught overall. We posit that these findings differ from research in U.S. secondary education (Vogler, 2006), primarily due to the complex curricular organization of elementary grades. Unlike in U.S. middle and high schools where social studies is typically afforded a specific block of instructional time with a subject-area specialist (Stodolsky, 1993), elementary grade practitioners are often required to teach social studies as part of the self-contained instructional day. Thus, elementary teachers’ decision-making is predicated on curriculum mandates and macro-level accountability pressures that constrain time usage (Anderson, 2014; Wills, 2007; Wills & Sandholz, 2009). Mandated testing exemplifies one of these external pressures, influencing both exposure to various content, at the exclusion of others, and pedagogical decision-making of teachers (Mausethagen, 2013). The bottom line is that state testing policies impact teacher decision-making. The fact that social studies is not tested in some U.S. states, while it is tested in others, perpetuates a national inequity for the opportunity to teach and learn elementary social studies across the country. Elements outside of testing policy, such as teachers’ instructional decision-making and professional attitudes, can and should be major foci of social studies research and advocacy efforts. We argue that a balance of accountability (testing/policy mandates), teacher attitudes, and discipline-specific instructional practice will create a more level, equitable learning opportunity for all students while positioning social studies as an important and essential subject. Lastly, we recommend that future research examine the relationship among state-level accountability policies, instructional decision-making, and social studies time on student achievement in social studies-specific subjects. Such analyses would help policymakers and curriculum specialists better understand the effects accountability has on teacher decision-making and student learning. Limitations Effective teaching is directly related to the amount and management of instructional time (Berliner, 1990, Kyriakides et al., 2013). Follow-up case research is needed to examine the relationship between teachers’ instructional emphases and reported social studies time across various educational outcomes. Further complicating the findings, the sampling for this study was a convenience sample. There is a potential for over- or underrepresentation of various teacher-types. Moreover, our study used ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 26 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 self-reported data and, therefore, was subject to possible social desirability bias. Given the large sample size and use of de-identified survey protocols, however, we posit that these issues are minimal. Lastly, the nature of data prohibited us from using multilevel analysis and accounting for teaching conditions nested within schools. Further research is needed to examine how elementary school-level climate and context influence social studies teaching. Conclusion Anecdotally, teachers across the country are beginning to recognize the value of assessment to increase exposure to social studies. In May 2012, the Governor of Maryland signed into law a bill mandating that all seniors pass a state assessment on government prior to graduating (Dresser, 2012; Maryland House of Delegates 1227, 2012). The law also requires the state school board to develop and implement middle school social studies assessments by the 2014-2015 academic year. Interestingly, it was classroom teachers and other social studies professionals who advocated for the return of state assessments in order to bolster support for the much-maligned subject area. Traditionally opposed to testing, social educators are now keenly aware of the ongoing and intensified marginalization of social studies in the era of increased standardization and accountability. Marginalization of social studies at the elementary grades negatively impacts students’ opportunities to learn, which in turn can have potentially harmful effects on students’ performance in later grades as well as hinder civic understanding. While the presence of a mandated test remains a significant predictor of the proportion of time spent on social studies, results from our study also indicate that testing at the elementary level is associated with increased use of a range of instructional factors, including discipline-specific teaching. This finding offers promise of pedagogical change toward more historical thinking and inquiry-based activity as advocated in the field. We also infer from our findings that teachers, teacher educators, and proponents of social studies education not directly tied to accountability policymaking can make a substantial contribution to the field by promoting efficacious attitudes, quality integration, and dynamic instructional strategies. More importantly, taking the time to teach social studies at the elementary level is an important step toward guaranteeing that students are exposed to content and skills necessary to becoming productive, engaged members of a democratic society. References Anderson, D. (2014). Outliers: Elementary teachers who actually teach social studies. The Social Studies, 105(2), 91-100. doi: 10.1080/00377996.2013.850055 ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 27 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07306523 Au, W. (2009). High-stakes testing and curriculum control: A qualitative metasynthesis. In D. J. Flinders & S. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum reader (pp. 286-302). New York, NY: Routledge. Barton, K. C. (2011). Wars and rumors of war: Making sense of history education in the United States. In T. Taylor & R. Guyver (Eds.), History wars in the classroom: Global perspectives (pp. 189-204). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2003). Why don't more history teachers engage students in interpretation? Social Education, 67(6), 358-361. GS Search Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahway, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Berliner, D. C. (1990). What's all this fuss about instructional time? In M. Ben-Peretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3-35). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bisland, B. M. (2012). The marginalization of social studies: An overview. In W. B. Russell (Ed.), Contemporary social studies: An essential reader (pp. 173-191). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662-683. GS Search Bolick, C. M., Adams, R., & Willox, L. (2010). The marginalization of elementary social studies in teacher education. Social Studies Research and Practice, 5(1), 1-22. Retrieved from http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/5.2.3.pdf Boyle-Baise, M., Hsu, M., Johnnson, S., Serriere, S. C., & Stewart, D. (2008). Putting reading first: Teaching social studies in elementary classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education, 36(3), 233-255. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2008.10473374 Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1069-1077. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1069 Brophy, J. (1993). Findings and issues: The cases seen in context. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research in teaching: Case studies of teaching and learning in social studies (Vol. 4, pp. 219-232). Greenwich, CT: JAI press. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 28 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Brophy, J. (2006). Graham Nuthall and social constructivist teaching: Research-based cautions and qualifications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 529-537. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.01.008 Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (2008). Early elementary social studies. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 33-49). New York, NY: Routledge. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSI). (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects. Available from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535. doi: 10.1177/0042085907304964 Dresser, M. (2012, May 22). Law puts social studies back in the limelight, The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-05-22/news/bs-md-social- studies-signing-20120522_1_social-studies-school-board-maryland-schools Duplass, J. A. (2007). Elementary social studies: Trite, disjointed, and in need of reform? The Social Studies, 98(4), 137-144. doi: 10.3200/TSSS.98.4.137-144 Fallace, T. (2010). Exploring three orientations to the social studies. In E. E. Heilman (Ed.), Social studies and diversity education: What we do and why we do it (pp. 23-25). New York, NY: Routledge. Field, S. L., Bauml, M., & Ledbetter, M. (2011). Every day success: Powerful integration of social studies content and English-language arts. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 23(3), 22-25. Fitchett, P. G., & Heafner, T. L. (2010). A national perspective on the effects of high-stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114-130. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2010.10473418 Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L. & Lambert, R. G. (2014a). Assessment, autonomy, and social studies instructional time. Teachers College Record. Found at http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17605 ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 29 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & Lambert, R. G. (2014b). Examining social studies marginalization: A multilevel analysis. Educational Policy, 28(1), 40-68. doi: 10.1177/0895904812453998 Fitchett, P. G., & VanFossen, P. J. (2013). Survey on the status of social studies: Development and analysis. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1), 1-23. Retrieved from: http://www.socstrpr.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/04/MS_06462_no1.pdf Gerwin, D., & Visone, F. (2006). The freedom to teach: Contrasting teaching in elective and state-tested courses. Theory & Research in Social Education, 34(2), 259- 282. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2006.10473307 Good, A. J., Heafner, T. L., Rock, T. C., O'Connor, K. A., Passe, J., Waring, S., & Byrd, S. P.. (2010). The de-emphasis on social studies in elementary schools: Teacher candidate perspective. Current Issues in Education, 13(4), 1-22. Retrieved.from http://cie.asu.edu Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. (2000). Looking in classrooms (8th ed.). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley. Gradwell, J. M. (2006). Teaching in spite of rather than because of, the test. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across states (pp. 157-176). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Grant, S. G. (2003). History lessons: Teaching, learning, and testing in U.S. high school classrooms. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grant, S. G., & Salinas, C. (2008). Assessment and accountability in the social studies. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 219-236). New York, NY: Routledge. Hanna, P. R. (1937). Social education for childhood. Childhood Education, 14, 74-77. doi: 10.1080/00094056.1937.10724151 Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Heafner, T. L. & Fitchett, P. G. (2012). National trends in elementary instruction: Exploring the role of social studies curricula. The Social Studies, 103(2), 67-72. doi: 10.1080/00377996.2011.592165 Henry, M. (1993). A fifty-year perspective on history teaching’s “crisis.” OAH Magazine of History, 7(3), 5-8. doi: 10.1093/maghis/7.3.5 ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 30 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Holloway, J. E., & Chiodo, J. J. (2009). Social studies IS being taught in the elementary school: A contrarian view. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(2), 235- 261. GS Search Houser, N. O. (1995). Social studies on the "backburner": Views from the field. Theory & Research in Social Education, 23(2), 147-168. doi: 10.1080/00933104.1995.10505749 Knowles, R., & Theobald, R. (2013). Moving toward more dynamic instruction: A comparison of how social studies is taught among disciplines and advanced placement courses. In J. Passe & P. G. Fitchett (Eds), The status of social studies: Views from the field (pp. 101-121). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Kyriakides, L., Chistoforou, C., & Charlambos, C. Y. (2013). What matters of student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis of studies exploring factors for effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 143-152. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.010 Leming, J. S., Ellington, L., & Schug, M. (2006). The state of social studies: A national random survey of elementary and middle social studies teachers. Social Education, 70(5), 322-327. GS Search Levine, P., Lopez, M. H., & Marcelo, K. B. (2008). Getting narrower at the base: The American curriculum after NCLB. Medford, MA: Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Levstik, L. S. (2008). What happens in social studies classrooms? Research on K-12 social studies practice. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education. New York, NY: Routledge. Lintner, T., & Schweder, W. (2008). Social studies in special education classrooms: A glimpse behind the door. Journal of Social Studies Research, 32(1), 3-9. Liu, C. (2004). Multi-item measures. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods (Vol. 3, p. 673). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Maryland House of Delegates 1227. (2012). Accountability Act of 2012: Education— Core Content Areas. 431st session. Mausethagen, S. (2013). Talking about the test: Boundary work in primary school teachers' interactions around national testing of student performance. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 132-142. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.08.003 ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 31 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Nation's Report Card: US History 2010. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, Department of Education. Nelson, L. R. (1981). Social studies teachers: Their view of the profession. Social Education, 45(6), 418-420. ERIC database. Pace, J. (2008). Inequalities in history-social science teaching under high stakes accountability: Interviews with fifth-grade teachers in California. Social Studies Research and Practice, 3(1), 24-40. Retrieved from http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/3.1.2.pdf Pace, J. (2011a). The complex and unequal impact of high stakes accountability on untested social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 39(1), 32-60. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2011.10473446 Pace, J. (2011b). Teaching literacy through social studies under No Child Left Behind. Paper presented at the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies Annual Conference, Washington, DC. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. doi: 10.3102/00346543062003307 Passe, J. (2006). New challenges in elementary social studies. The Social Studies, 97(5), 189-192. doi: 10.3200/TSSS.97.5.189-192 Patterson, N. C., Maguth, B., DeWitt, S. W., Doppen, F. H., Harshman, J. R., & Augustine, T. A. (2013, April). Ohio elementary principals report on the state of social studies since high-stakes test elimination. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA. Perie, M., Baker, D. P., & Bobbitt, S. (1997). Time spent teaching core academic subjects in elementary schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Ross, E. W. (2006). The struggle for the social studies curriculum. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (3rd ed., pp. 17-36). Albany, NY: SUNY. Saye, J., & The Social Studies Inquiry Research Collaborative. (2013). Authentic pedagogy: Its presence in social studies classrooms and relationship to student performance on state-mandated tests. Theory & Research in Social Education, 41, 89-132. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2013.756785 ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 32 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Segall, A. (2006). Teaching in the age of accountability. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across the United States (pp. 105-132). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Serriere, S. C., Mitra, D., & Cody, J. (2010). Young citizens take action for better school lunches. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 23(2), 4-8. Shen, J. (1997). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools: Evidence from SASS91. Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 81-88. doi: 10.1080/00220679709597525 Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. S. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 17(1), 37-47. doi: 10.1177/074193259601700105 Stodolsky, S. S. (1993). A framework for subject matter comparisons in high schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 333-346. doi: 10.1016/0742- 051X(93)90001-W Taylor, D. L., & Tashakkori, A. (1995). Decision participation and school climate as predictors of job satisfaction and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. Journal of Experimental Education, 63(3), 217-230. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1995.9943810 Thornton, S. J. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 237-248). New York, NY: MacMillan. Thornton, S. J. (2005). Teaching social studies that matters. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Thornton, S. J., & Houser, N. O. (1996). The status of elementary social studies in Delaware: Views from the field. ERIC database. Tubachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the development of teacher perspectives Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-36. doi: 10.1177/002248718403500608 van Hover, S. D. (2006). Teaching in the Old Dominion. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across the United States (pp. 195-219). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers. van Hover, S. D., & Yeager, E. A. (2003). "Making students better people?" A case study of a beginning history teacher. In International Social Studies Forum (Vol. 3, pp. 219-232). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 33 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 VanFossen, P. J. (2005). "Reading and math take so much time...": An overview of social studies instruction in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(3), 376-403. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2005.10473287 VanSledright, B. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Vogler, K. (2006). The impact high school graduation examination on Mississippi social studies teachers' instructional practices. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across the United States (pp. 273-302). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Wills, J. S. (2007). Putting the squeeze on social studies: Managing teaching dilemmas in subject areas excluded from testing. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 1980- 2046. GS Search Wills, J. S., & Sandholtz, J. H. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the face of test-based accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065-1114. GS Search Yon, M., & Passe, J. (1990). The relationship between the elementary social studies methods course and student teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Social Studies Research, 14(1), 13-24. GS Search Zhao, Y., & Hoge, J. D. (2005). What elementary students and teachers say about social studies. The Social Studies, 96(5), 216-221. doi: 10.3200/TSSS.96.5.216- 22 About the Authors Paul G. Fitchett, EdD, is an Associate Professor of education in the Department of Middle, Secondary, and K12 Education and graduate director of the PhD in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. His research interests include the intersection of educational policy, school contexts, and teachers’ professional characteristics on teaching and learning outcomes. Email: Paul.Fitchett@uncc.edu ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 34 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Tina L Heafner, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Middle, Secondary, and K-12 Education, College of Education, at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She is the Director of the MEd in Secondary Education, the Minor in Secondary Education, and the College of Education’s Prospect for Success. Her research interests include policy, marginalization, and curriculum in social studies education. Additional research interests include content area literacy and digital literacy, and online teaching and learning. She has published four co-authored books and three edited books on inquiry-based short texts, strategic reading, targeted vocabulary, professional development schools, and technology-mediated learning. Email: theafner@uncc.edu Phillip J. VanFossen, PhD, is the Head of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education and the James F. Ackerman Professor of Social Studies Education at Purdue University. He is Director of the Ackerman Center for Democratic Citizenship and Associate Director of the Purdue University Center for Economic Education. His research interests include how social studies teachers use the Internet and digital media in their teaching and on the intersection between civic education and economic education. Email: vanfoss@purdue.edu ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 35 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 Comparing the Impact of a High School Exit Examination on Biology Teachers’ Instructional Practices Kenneth E. Vogler G. Nathan Carnes University of South Carolina Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of a high school exit examination with different consequences attached to the results on biology teachers’ instructional practices in Mississippi and Tennessee. Self-reported survey data were obtained from a representative sample of teachers who taught the same content tested on their respective state’s high-stakes graduation examination. An analysis showed that both groups used a balance of student-centered (e.g., critical-thinking activities) and teacher-centered practices (e.g., lectures) on average at least 2 to 4 days per week. At least 83% of participants indicated an interest in helping their students earn test scores required for graduation and improving graduation examination scores as factors that influenced their use of specific practices and tools. This study presents a detailed picture of which practices were used and factors influencing their use by biology teachers who prepare students for state-mandated examinations with different consequences attached to results. Calls for accountability within the education community have resulted in an increase in high-stakes testing, particularly at the high school level in the form of exit exams (Yell, Katsiyannis, & Collins, 2012). Several years ago, Britton and Schneider (2007) indicated that high school exit exams have continued to attract increasing amounts of attention. As expected, there are individuals who advocate for high-stakes testing and those who oppose it. The following review summarizes perspectives that support high stakes testing and accountability systems that include it and views that oppose these practices. Testing Viewpoints Proponents of testing and accountability systems generally fall into two camps (Firestone, Monfils, Camilli, Schorr, Hicks, & Mayrowetz, 2002). The first group focuses on the accountability of testing programs. This group believes that the way to improve education is to test and use the results to hold teachers and students accountable for their actions. The form of the assessment is not as important as the rewards or sanctions attached to the test results (National Alliance of Business, 2000). ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 36 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 An opposing viewpoint contends that the use of testing and accountability systems is a sure way to improve education. For this group, the key to improving education is not the rewards or sanctions attached to the test results, but the tests themselves. They contend that tests can serve as “powerful curricular magnets” (Popham, 1987, p. 680), and that standardized assessments can guide the educational system to be more productive and effective (Popham). This group also believes that the use of assessments, such as portfolios, performance assessments, and other forms of authentic tasks, will spur teachers to focus on more than just facts and procedures and help students construct knowledge and develop higher level thinking skills (Baron & Wolf, 1996; Bracey, 1987a, 1987b; Newmann & Associates, 1996; Resnick & Resnick, 1992; Rothman, 1995). Opponents of testing and assessment systems believe that, contrary to the idea of promoting critical level thinking, state-level assessments force teachers to focus on facts and procedures without meaning or context (Firestone et al., 2002; McNeil, 2000; Shaeffer, 2012). They argue that these high-stakes assessment systems create negative side effects such as narrowing and dumbing down the curriculum, de-skilling teachers, pushing students out of school, and generally inciting fear and anxiety among both students and educators (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985; Gilman & Reynolds, 1991; Jones & Whitford, 1997; Madaus, 1988a, 1988b; McNeil, 2000; Shepard, 1989, March). According to opponents, these side effects outweigh any possible benefits of measurement-driven reform. Over the past few years, increasing numbers of educators have undertaken actions against high stakes testing. For example, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) unanimously approved a resolution against this high stakes practice at its 2012 annual convention, indicating that the focus on standardized tests undermines the American education system. Instead, testing should be used to inform, not impede, classroom instruction. This group has enlisted the support of parents and other members of the education community. While protests against high stakes testing are not new, the surge in the number and strength of the opponents are unprecedented (Schaeffer, 2012). Between the proponents and opponents of testing and accountability systems lies a third position. According to advocates of this perspective, the effects of testing and assessment systems depend not on the tests themselves, but on factors relating to their implementation (Firestone et al., 2002; Grant 2003). These factors include how tests are interpreted by teachers and administrators, the content knowledge assessed, and the opportunities afforded to teachers to learn about and to try out instructional practices that will help prepare students for the testing and assessment system (Borko & Putnam, 1995; Cohen & Hill, 1998; McLaughlin, 1990; Reich & Bally, 2010; Saxe, Franke, Gearhart, Howard, & Michele, 1997; Supovitz, Mayer, & Kahle, 2000; Vogler, 2003). ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 37 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 Relationship between Testing and Instruction As policymakers continue to authorize the use of statewide examinations to assure that educators (e.g., administrators and teachers) are being held accountable for the education of students in their care, the impact of these examinations on teachers’ instructional practices seems to be a relevant concern, with, as of yet, no clear consensus as to what the impact is. Although researchers such as Barksdale-Ladd and Thomas (2000), Faxon-Mills, Hamilton, Rudnick, and Stecher (2013), Goodwin (2014), Jones and Johnston (2002), McNeil (2000), Vogler (2002), and Yarbrough (1999) have found that teachers changed their instructional practices in response to state accountability examinations, there is still no clear understanding about the nature and intensity of this relationship (Firestone et al., 2002; Grant, 2001; Grant, 2003). Factors such as subject and grade level taught, personal beliefs, type of high-stakes assessment, and professional development all have the potential to impact this relationship in varying degrees (Cimbricz, 2002; Jones, Jones, & Hargrove, 2003). Teachers have been acutely aware of the narrow focus on student test results that have stalled efforts to improve education for all (Bridwell, 2012; Goodwin, 2014; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Nichols & Valenzuela, 2013; Rebora, 2012). The high-stakes attached to state-mandated testing programs have included consequences such as public reporting of test results, prevention of grade-to-grade promotion, and possible takeover of schools that continue to demonstrate low levels of student performance. The pressure to produce at least adequate student test results, although felt in varying degrees by all teachers, may be the greatest for those who teach the same content tested on their state’s End-of-Course exit examination (otherwise known as a high school graduation examination). On one hand, these teachers want to use teaching practices that make their classes interesting, develop students’ higher-level thinking skills, and spark an interest in the subject and why it is relevant; on the other hand, these teachers have a responsibility to prepare students for the state accountability examination. Unlike standards-based examinations that test content taught in more than one course, End-of-Course examinations test what an instructor may teach in a specific content course (see Center on Educational Policy, 2005). Failure to do so may lead to severe consequences for their students, their school, and themselves, including low rates of high school graduation and diminished school funding (see Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Nichols & Valenzuela, 2013; Smith, 1991). Definition of Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Instruction In consideration of our central question related to the impact of a high school exit examination on high school biology teachers’ instructional practices, we define student-centered and teacher-centered instruction. In providing these definitions, we do not promote one type of instruction over another, but highlight the distinction between the two. Student-centered instruction is aligned with the National Science Education Standards (NSES; National Resource Council [NRC], 1996). Even though the ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 38 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 Framework for K- 12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) was neither fully developed nor disseminated at the time of our study, this recent set of guidelines are in concert with our characterization of student-centered instruction. Specifically, both reform documents call for instructional practices that provide opportunities for students to generate authentic questions, plan and carry out investigations, formulate explanations in light of available evidence, and engage in evidence-based arguments (Bybee, 2011; Bybee, 2013; NRC, 1996; NRC, 2012). Brooks and Brooks (1993) have identified differences between a student-centered and teacher-centered classroom. Within student-centered classrooms, teachers allow students to work in groups to learn from one another as well as the teacher, as opposed to having students work alone. They allow students to use real world raw data and manipulatives as opposed to primarily using textbooks and workbooks. Teachers act as facilitators or guides as opposed to presenting themselves as experts who dispense the correct information. They present curriculum with an emphasis on big concepts as opposed to an emphasis on basic facts and skills. In short, student-centered classrooms provide a learning environment in which students are participants, consumers, and are actively engaged in their learning. Teacher-centered classrooms, on the other hand, provide a learning environment in which students are relatively passive recipients of information. As strenuously argued by researchers (e.g., Clark, Kirschner, & Sweller, 2012), teacher-centered instruction “is more effective and more efficient than partial guidance” (p. 6). Thus, this perspective advocates the use of fully guided teacher-centered instruction in science classrooms (see Clark, Kirschner, & Sweller, 2012; Hirsch, 1996; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Mississippi’s High School Graduation Examination In 2000, under the Mississippi Board of Education Policy IHF-1, the Subject Area Testing Program (SATP) became a requirement for high school graduation (Mississippi Department of Education, 2004a). Among other reasons, this test program was designed to evaluate the performance of Mississippi schools and districts in teaching the Mississippi Curriculum Framework (Marchette, 2003). The SATP consists of end-of-course, criterion-referenced tests in Algebra I, Biology I, United States History from 1877-Present, and English with a writing component (Mississippi Department of Education, 2004b). In 2002, after a standard-setting and a phase-in process, the science portion of the SATP was completely implemented (Mississippi Department of Education, 2004c). Students must pass the Biology I examination as a requirement for high school graduation. Tennessee’s High School Graduation Examination In 1998, under Education Policy TCA 49-1-608 and TCA 49-6-600, the Tennessee Department of Education accepted the recommendation of the High School Testing Advisory Committee to develop and phase in, beginning with the 9th grade in ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 39 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 2001-2002 school year, End-of-Course examinations for ten high school courses (Tennessee Department of Education, 2005). In three subjects, Algebra I, Biology I, and English II, students had to pass the examinations as a requirement for high school graduation. These would later be called the Gateway Examinations. The other seven End-of-Course examinations were given in the areas of Math Foundations, Geometry, Algebra II, Physical Science, Chemistry, English I, and U.S. History. Also, the testing policy included the following points: (a) the testing programs were to be fully implemented by the 2004-2005 school year; (b) results of the examinations were to be given to the teacher in a timely fashion; and (c) although local boards of education would determine how to use the examination results, the results were required to count at least 15% of the student’s grade in that subject for the semester in which the test was administered (Tennessee Department of Education, 2005). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to compare the instructional practices of biology teachers from two Southeastern states, Mississippi and Tennessee, and factors that influenced their teaching biology content tested on their respective state’s high-stakes high school exit examination. We examined one central question: In what manner does a high school exit examination with consequences attached to the results influence high school biology teachers’ instructional practices? In order to ascertain the answer, we considered four questions. 1. What instructional practices do high school biology teachers use? 2. How often do high school biology teachers use these instructional practices? 3. What factors influenced their use? 4. Are there differences in the instructional practices used and factors influencing their use between teachers from different states with different consequences attached to the results of the exit examination? If so, what are they? Method Survey Instrument For this study, we developed a survey instrument consisting of Likert-type and open-ended items (see Appendix). Part I of this research tool contained items pertaining to instructional practices used and the extent to which they are used. Part II contained items pertaining to factors influencing instructional practices used, and Part III contained items pertaining to demographic information. Also, the end of Part I asked if and how much instructional time was spent preparing students for the accountability examination. Finally, there was a section called Comments that offered respondents an opportunity to ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 40 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 provide more information about the instructional practices they used to prepare students for the accountability examination. Survey Instrument’s Validity and Reliability We took two approaches to ascertain the validity and reliability of the survey instrument. First, we sought evidence for the content validity of the 54 items on the initial draft of the survey instrument. As our investigation was part of a larger study about the impact of state-mandated examinations on English, science, mathematics, and social studies teachers’ instructional practices, 36 high school teachers (nine English, nine science, nine mathematics, and nine social studies) reviewed the items on the survey instrument for clarity and completeness in coverage of the instructional practices used and possible influences. Using their recommendations, the number of items on the survey instrument was reduced to 48. Second, 34 different high school teachers (nine English, seven science, nine mathematics, and nine social studies) completed the revised 48-item survey instrument. These same 34 teachers completed the revised survey instrument again following a three-week interval. Reliability was assessed by comparing each teacher’s responses. A Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient was used as the test-retest reliability measure. The correlation coefficient was .82, indicating a high positive relationship and above the .70 needed to insure the reliability of the survey instrument (see McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). Sixty-four percent (64%) of the teachers had exact matches for all items; 88% of the matches were within one point on the six-point scale, and 92% of the matches were within one point on the five-point scale. Sample Selection We used a convenience sample of Mississippi and Tennessee high school biology teachers that reflected the demographics within each state. First, school systems were grouped according to each state’s geographic region: East, Middle, and West. Second, the school systems in each region were ranked according to student success on the latest state accountability examination—SATP in Mississippi and Tennessee in Tennessee. Quartiles were generated using this ranking. At least four, but no more than six, school systems from each quartile participated in the study. This sampling design allowed us to compare and generalize the survey response sample to the population as a whole (see Muijs, 2004). Individual teacher participation was voluntary. In Mississippi, 55 school systems, out of a total sample of 63 (87.0%), agreed to participate in the study. All high school Biology I teachers from each participating school system were given a cover letter and the survey instrument by their principals or school designate. The cover letter explained the nature of the study and other aspects (e.g., how to calculate instructional time spent on test preparation). The content covered in the Biology I course, according to the Mississippi State Framework, was the ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 41 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 same science content tested on the SATP. One hundred six (106) teachers (61.3%) of the total sample of science teachers elected to complete the survey instrument. In Tennessee, 53 school systems, out of a total sample of 62 (85.0%), agreed to participate in the study. The same procedure as in Mississippi was followed: All high school Biology I teachers from each participating system received the cover letter with details about the study. The content covered in this science course, according to the Tennessee State Framework, was the same science content tested on the Gateway Examination. One hundred forty-one (141) teachers (60.2%) of the total sample completed the survey instrument. Comparison of Survey Sample and State Teaching Population We compared the Mississippi and Tennessee survey respondents with each state’s teaching population using data obtained from Part III of the survey instrument and the Mississippi and Tennessee Department of Education. Table 1 is a comparison of the frequency distribution between the Mississippi and Tennessee response sample and the Mississippi and Tennessee high school Biology I teacher population for gender, education, and teaching experience. Table 1 Comparison of Sample and Mississippi and Tennessee High School Biology I Teacher Population for Gender, Education, and Teaching Experience High School Biology I Teacher Population Mississippi Tennessee Sample State Sample State Demographic Variable % n % n % n % n Gender Female 73.6 78 70.3 345 58.9 83 62.4 504 Male 26.4 28 29.7 146 41.1 58 37.6 304 Education Bachelor’s 60.0 63 62.1 305 35.5 50 37.7 305 Master’s 36.2 39 34.0 167 63.1 89 56.2 454 Specialist’s 03.8 04 03.9 019 00.7 01 04.1 033 Doctorate 00.0 00 00.0 000 00.7 01 02.0 016 Teaching Experience 0-6 Years 38.7 41 42.7 210 22.0 31 not available 7-14 Years 24.5 26 22.5 110 32.6 46 not available 15-24 Years 20.7 22 21.2 104 20.6 29 not available 25+ Years 16.0 17 13.6 067 24.9 35 not available With a few exceptions, Table 1 shows that participants in the present study were representative of the Mississippi and Tennessee high school Biology I teaching ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 42 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 population in terms of gender and education, and the Mississippi high school Biology I teaching population in terms of teaching experience. At the time of our study, the Tennessee Department of Education had no information regarding years of teaching experience. A principal component analysis was conducted on the instructional practices and tools listed in the survey instrument. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Factor Analysis Student-Centered Teacher-Centered Item Instruction Instruction Problem-Solving Activities .82 Creative/Critical Thinking .77 Newspaper/Magazines .72 Lessons on Current Events .69 Project-Based Assignments .68 Computers/Internet .68 Inquiry/Investigation .66 Charts/Webs/Outlines .63 Role Playing .61 Cooperative Learning/Group Work .59 Interdisciplinary Instruction .59 Discussion Groups .58 Response Journals .56 Group Projects .53 Computers/Ed Software .52 Lab Equipment .52 Rubrics or Scoring Guides .51 Audiovisual Materials .50 Writing Assignments .49 Supplementary Materials .45 .34 Open-Response Questions .44 Visual Aids .42 Modeling .39 Calculators .37 .31 Textbooks .77 Textbook Based Assignments .74 Worksheets .68 Lecturing .62 True-False Questions .55 Multiple Choice Questions .46 Eigenvalue 4.3 2.1 % of variance explained 42.4 28.6 Alpha .88 .77 ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 43 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 Components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were retained and rotated with a varimax rotation. The analysis revealed that two factors accounted for 71% of the variance. These factors were labeled student-centered instruction (24 items) and teacher-centered instruction (6 items). Two items (Supplementary Materials and Calculators) loaded on both factors (using .30 as the cut-off point); however, in each case, the second loading was lower than the first one (see Table 2). The values of alpha for the two subscales were a satisfactory .88 and .77, respectively. Results Results showed a balance of student-centered and teacher-centered practices and tools; teachers in both states reported that they most often used visual aids, supplementary materials, lab equipment, and open response questions, as well as teacher-centered practices such as multiple choice questions, textbooks, lecturing, textbook-based assignments, and worksheets. Teachers reported that they least used student-centered instructional practices or tools such as response journals, role playing, discussion groups, project-based assignments, and interdisciplinary instruction. A minimal relationship was found between the type of instructional practice used, either student-centered or teacher-centered, and time spent on test preparation; 88.6% of the total sample of Mississippi teachers and 77.3% of the total sample of Tennessee teachers acknowledged spending class time preparing students for the high school exit examination. Comparing the instructional practices used by the amount of time respondents of both states spent preparing students for the examination yielded only minor relationships between the two variables. For instance, teachers spending time preparing students for the high school exit examination were more likely to use a combination of student-centered and teacher-centered practices such as textbooks, textbook-based assignments, lecturing, cooperative learning/group work, and supplementary materials than those spending no time preparing students for the examination. Over 83% of teachers from both states felt that two factors influenced their use of instructional practices: their interest in helping their students attain test scores that enabled them to meet high school graduation requirements and their desire to help their respective schools improve high school graduation examination scores. Other factors that were less influential included format of the examination, personal desire, and their beliefs in best instructional practices. Using a Balance of Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Practices Part I of the survey instrument was designed to answer the study’s first two guiding questions and part of the fourth guiding question. Table 3 compares the practices Mississippi and Tennessee survey respondents reported using regularly or ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 44 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 mostly.1 It also notes statistically significant differences between respondents from the two states. Table 3 Comparison of Mississippi and Tennessee High School Biology I Teachers’ Use of Instructional Practices or Tools: Regularly or Mostly Mississippi Tennessee Total % Total % Instructional Practice or Tool Sig. Effect Multiple Choice Questions 97.2 85.8 .002** .19 Textbooks 84.9 85.1 .965 .00 Visual Aids 83.0 75.8 .174 .08 Supplementary Materials 82.1 85.1 .522 .04 Lecturing 78.3 79.4 .829 .01 Lab Equipment 78.3 76.8 .782 .06 Open-response Questions 75.5 55.3 .001** .20 Textbook-based Assignments 74.6 81.6 .183 .08 Charts/Webs/Outlines 72.6 48.7 .439 .04 Worksheets 71.7 48.7 .002** .16 Audiovisual Materials 69.8 65.2 .450 .04 Cooperative Learning/ Group Work 68.0 65.2 .659 .02 Writing Assignments 59.4 39.0 .001** .20 Creative/Critical Thinking Questions 58.4 56.8 .783 .01 Problem-solving Activities 53.8 53.2 .928 .00 Note. *p < .05; **p < .01. An analysis of Table 3 shows that survey respondents from both states used a balance of student-centered and teacher-centered practices. For example, of the first ten instructional practices or tools they reported using most, five used a student-centered approach (visual aids, supplementary materials, lab equipment, open-response questions, charts/webs/outlines) and five were of a teacher-centered nature (multiple choice questions, textbooks, lecturing, textbook-based assignments, worksheets). Table 3 also shows Mississippi respondents used significantly more multiple choice questions, open-response questions, worksheets, and writing assignments than respondents from Tennessee, but the effect size shows these are relatively weak 1 Instructional practices or tools used regularly and often means respondents either circled 4 for RU (regularly) or 5 for M (mostly) on Part I of the survey instrument. Instructional practices or tools used less often or not at all means respondents either circled 1 for D (don’t use), 2 for R (rarely), or 3 for O (occasionally) on Part I of the survey instrument. ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 45 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 relationships. In summary, this table shows respondents in both states used a balance of student- and teacher -centered instruction. Table 4 compares the practices Mississippi and Tennessee respondents reported using occasionally, rarely, or not at all. Table 4 Comparison of Mississippi and Tennessee High School Biology I Teachers’ Instructional Practice or Tool: Occasionally, Rarely, or Don’t Use Mississippi Tennessee Total % Total % Instructional Practice or Tool Response Journals 90.6 93.6 Calculators 87.5 75.2 Role Playing 80.2 94.3 Newspapers/Magazines 80.2 85.1 True-False Questions 73.6 58.1 Lessons-based on Current Events 71.5 70.1 Discussion Groups 69.8 60.3 Project-based Assignments 64.2 70.2 Computer/Ed Software 62.2 60.6 Interdisciplinary Instruction 61.3 73.9 Computer/Internet 60.3 65.0 Rubrics or Scoring Guides 52.4 72.5 Whereas Table 3 shows that respondents used a balance of student-centered and teacher-centered practices, an analysis of the practices respondents reported using less often or not at all presents a slightly different picture. Table 4 shows respondents in both states reported spending the least amount of instructional time using student-centered instructional practices and tools such as response journals, role playing, newspapers/magazines, discussion groups, project-based assignments, computers/ educational software, computers/internet, and interdisciplinary instruction. Of the 12 instructional practices and tools respondents acknowledge using occasionally, rarely, and not at all, only one (true-false questions) can be considered instruction in line with a teacher-centered learning approach. Tables 3 and 4 showed a pattern pertaining to the type of instructional practices used by respondents and the extent to which they were used. Respondents most often used a balance of teacher-centered and student-centered instructional practices and tools in their classrooms, including multiple choice questions, visual aids, textbooks, supplementary materials, lecturing, lab equipment, textbook-based assignments, open-response questions, worksheets, and charts/webs/outlines. Teachers from both states reported least using mostly student-centered instructional practices and tools, including ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 46 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 response journals, role playing, newspapers/magazines, discussion groups, project-based assignments, computers/educational software, computers/Internet, and interdisciplinary instruction. Relationship between Instructional Practices and Time Spent on Test Preparation Questions #31 and #32 in the survey instrument (see Appendix) asked about preparing students for the accountability examination. Ninety-f
Object Description
Description
Title | Journal of curriculum & instruction |
Other Title | Journal of curriculum & instruction (Greenville, N.C.); Journal of curriculum and instruction; JoCI |
Date | 2014-12 |
Description | Vol. 8, no. 2 (December 2014) |
Digital Characteristics-A | 2.07 MB; 114 p. |
Digital Format |
application/pdf |
Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_journalcurriculuminstruction201412.pdf |
Full Text | Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 Practitioners as Decision-Makers: What and How They Teach Chan Evans Sharilyn C. Steadman East Carolina University This issue of the Journal of Curriculum and Instruction presents four articles and a book review that focus on choices that educational practitioners make as they address various aspects of K-12 teaching in a range of classroom settings and locations in the United States and other countries. To begin, the research studies describe results of two large-scale teacher surveys that explore how practitioners allocate instructional time, what methods they use to teach content, and the effect of mandated testing on time and teaching methods. Next, the practitioners’ articles provide international perspectives on the use of multimodal instruction and the determination of graphic quality in textbook selection. Finally, the reviewed book offers insights on skill-based practice that addresses a series of related questions: What makes an effective teacher? If an effective teacher applies specific skills at specific points in a lesson, can those skills be identified, studied, and taught to other teachers? Research Forum In “An analysis of time prioritization for social studies in elementary school classrooms,” Paul Fitchett, Tina Heafner, and Phillip VanFossen (2014) examined the responses of 2,336 elementary teachers across the United States to determine the relationship among time spent teaching social studies, attitudes about the workplace, and decisions about which instructional strategies to use. They also considered the impact of mandated testing and integration of social studies in English language arts classes. Results indicated that there was a significant association between teachers’ decision-making and attitudes about work and proportional time spent on social studies. Mandated testing was associated with increased use of student-centered, teacher-centered, and discipline-specific instructional strategies. There was also an association between high frequency integration of social studies and student-centered and discipline-specific instruction. The authors discuss implications and recommendations for practitioners, school leaders, teacher educators, and policy makers. Kenneth Vogler and Nathan Carnes’ (2014) study, “Comparing the impact of a high school exit examination on biology teachers’ instructional practices,” presents ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 1 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 another view of what and how practitioners teach. Participants in their study, 247 high school biology teachers from Mississippi and Tennessee, reported on the type and amount of time they used specific instructional strategies and delineated factors related to their use. Results indicated that teachers from both states employed a mix of student-centered and teacher-centered tools and practices. A large majority of respondents reported that an interest in helping students earn test scores required for graduation and helping their school improve exam scores influenced their instructional decision-making; however, only a minimal relationship was found between the type of instruction used and time spent preparing students for the exit exam. Vogler and Carnes conclude with recommendations for future research and practice based on implications of their findings. Practitioner’s Platform In “Advancing English language learning in China through multimodal content area teaching,” Cheryl North and Nancy Rankie Shelton (2014) share the experiences of ten U.S. teachers who worked alongside their Chinese counterparts to enact an interactive curriculum at an elementary school in China. Focusing on one elementary student in a representative case study, North and Shelton studied the English literacy development of “Paul” over the ten-day experience. The teacher-researchers employed a kid-watching approach to assess the impact on learning of a combination of factors: an environment that encouraged risk-taking, a focus on written and oral communication, an inclusion of multiple content areas and associated literacies (science, social studies, engineering), and a diminished emphasis on correctness in grammar and structure. As a result of this experience, the U.S. teachers developed a deeper understanding of the importance of attending to intended expression, purposeful observation, factors that motivate students to learn a new language, and the impact of multimodal education. The authors include a representative sample lesson. The second article in the Practitioner’s Platform focuses on the role of graphics in second language acquisition. Striving to select educational materials that actively and effectively support learning is a ubiquitous task in education. In the case of second language education, the graphics found within those educational materials are often viewed as essential supporting components that foster enhanced learning. In their article, “More than just eye-catching: Evaluating graphic quality in middle school English language learners’ science textbooks” (2014), Katherine Landau Wright, Erin McTigue, Zohreh Eslami, and Dudley Reynolds provide the results of their study of 118 graphics from 54 texts used to teach science to 7th and 8th grade language learners. The results of their study, set in Qatar, indicated that graphics that ineffectively aligned with ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 2 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 concepts, that were ambiguous, or that were confusing and distractive not only failed to advance learning, but also were capable of impeding reading comprehension. The authors provide a graphic-evaluation rubric, designed in response to their study, to inform educators’ choices when selecting textbooks for English language learners. Book Review The book review (Steadman, 2014) of Elizabeth Green’s Building A+ Better Teacher: How Teaching Works (and How to Teach it to Everyone) analyzes the author’s approach to tackling a question that has been central to educational conversation over time: What makes an effective teacher? The author strives to make visible the complex blend of knowledge and skills enacted by master teachers, notably Magdalene Lampert and Deborah Ball, as they guide K-12 students to develop their own theories and understandings of concepts. In providing these teaching vignettes, Green challenges the notion that teachers are born, not made, and presents a forceful argument that a highly interactive, collegial approach to developing teaching skills, such as the practice known as Japanese Lesson Study, would benefit U.S. teachers, their students, and ultimately, the nation. While the text does not provide a step-by-step approach to creating more effective teachers, as the title suggests, it does offer thought-provoking insight into the skills that highly competent teachers possess and challenges the educational community to consider how these skills might be refined, taught, and applied by today’s educators. Final Thoughts As we end our tenure as JoCI editors, we reflect on the last three years and the contributions made by authors in diverse areas of curriculum and instruction. Research, practice, and perspective articles have included such disparate topics as working with multicultural students, families, and communities (Byrd, 2012; Walkingstick & Bloom, 2013); technology and game dynamics (Chandler, 2013); and assessment of individual students, pre-service teacher candidates, and teacher preparation programs (Cuthrell, Stapleton, Bullock, Lys, Smith, & Fogarty, 2014; Kilgus, 2013; Schaffer, 2014; Vostal, Messenheimer, Hampton, & Keyes, 2014). We are especially grateful to the invited authors, leaders in their respective fields, for sharing their knowledge, insights, and recommendations for practitioners, administrators, and teacher educators. In the Diversity and Global Learning issue, Kevin Murry (2012) described a six-level framework, the accommodation readiness spiral, which promotes teachers’ readiness as they accommodate culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families. In the Behavioral Support issue, ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 3 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 Kathleen Lane, Holly Menzies, Robin Ennis, and Jamie Bezdek (2013), summarized school-wide and individualized systems, assessments, and strategies that promote positive behavior and facilitate classroom instruction. In the Performance Assessment issue, Cap Peck, Marcy Singer-Gabella, Tine Sloan, and Susan Lin (2014) provided a rationale, examples, and suggestions for using standardized performance assessments. Working with these individuals has afforded us opportunities to grow professionally and to share their visions with JoCI readers. While each published article bears the name of one or more authors, they and we know that no submission moves from manuscript to publication without a team effort. We thank the many JoCI peer reviewers who offered their opinions and suggestions to authors over these years. Also, we acknowledge Michael Vitale for his instrumental reviews of manuscripts submitted to the Research Forum. A special thanks goes to JoCI’s executive editor, Diane Kester. For the last seven years, the first and last steps – and many of the ones in between - of the publishing process were masterfully accomplished by her. Diane’s technology expertise and editorial skills provided continuity and smooth transitions for successive editorial teams. During the last three years, we have endeavored to uphold the original mission of JoCI: to publish free open-access quality research, practice, and prospective articles that are relevant, useful, and make a contribution to the field of curriculum and instruction. We are thankful for having had that responsibility and opportunity. We will miss working on the journal, regret its current necessary hiatus, and look forward to its reinstatement as a robust, contributory member of the scholarly community of educational journals. References Byrd, D. R. (2012). Conducting successful home visits in multicultural communities. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 6(1), 43-54. doi: 10.3776/joci.2012.v6n1p43-54 GS Search Chandler, C. (2013). The use of game dynamics to enhance curriculum and instruction: What teachers can learn from the design of video games. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 6(2), 60-75. doi: 10.3776/joci.2013.v6n2p60-75 GS Search Cuthrell, K. C., Stapleton, J. N., Bullock, A. A., Lys, D. B., Smith, J. J., & Fogarty, E. (2014). Mapping the journey of reform and assessment for an elementary ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 4 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 education teacher preparation program. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction. 8(1), 67-85. doi: 10.376/joci.2014.v8n1p67-85 GS Search Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & VanFossen, P. (2014). An analysis of time prioritization for social studies in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 7-35. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 GS Search Kilgus, S. P. (2013). Use of direct behavior ratings as the foundation of Tier 2 service delivery. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(1), 79-99. doi: 10.3776/joci.2013.v7n1p79-99 GS Search Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Ennis, R. P., & Bezdek, J. (2013). School-wide systems to promote positive behaviors and facilitate instruction. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(1), 6-31. doi: 10.3776/joci.2013.v7n1p6-31 GS Search Murry, K. G. (2012). Cognitive development, global learning, and academic progress: Promoting teacher readiness for CLD students and their families. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 6(1), 11-24. doi: 10.3776/joci.2012.v6n1p11-24 GS Search North, C., & Shelton, N. R. (2014). Advancing English language learning in China through multimodal content area teaching. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 68-88. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p68-88 GS Search Peck, C. A., Singer-Gabella, M., Sloan, T., & Lin, S. (2014). Driving blind: Why we need standardized performance assessment in teacher education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 8-30. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p8-30 GS Search Schaffer, C. L. (2014). When assessment and accountability intersect, good things can happen. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 31-47. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p31-47 GS Search Steadman, S. C. (2014). [Review of the book, Building A+ better teacher: How teaching works (and how to teach it to everyone), by E. Green.] Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 110-112. doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p110-112 Vogler, K. E., & Carnes, G. N. (2014). Comparing the impact of a high school exit examination on biology teachers’ instructional practices. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 36-67. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 GS Search Vostal, B. R., Messenheimer, T., Hampton, D., & Keyes, S. E. (2014). Using a mnemonic strategy to match elements of response to intervention lessons with performance assessment requirements. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 48-66. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p48-66 GS Search ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 5 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 1-6 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p1-6 Walkingstick, J., & Bloom, L. A. (2013). Creating community and support using native American values in an inclusive third grade setting: An action research case study. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(1), 55-78. doi: 10.3776/joci.2013.v7n1p55-78 GS Search Wright, K. L., McTigue, E. M., Eslami, Z. R., & Reynolds, D. (2014). More than just eye-catching: Evaluating graphic quality in middle school English language learners’ science textbooks. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 89-109. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p89-109 GS Search About the Authors Chan Evans, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education, Foundations, and Research in the College of Education at East Carolina University. Her research interests include academic and behavioral support for students with emotional/behavioral disorders across educational environments, teachers-as-researchers, and universal design for learning. E-mail: evansru@ecu.edu Sharilyn C. Steadman, PhD, is an assistant professor and program coordinator of English Education in the Department of Literacy Studies, English Education, and History Education in the College of Education at East Carolina University. Her research focuses on pre-service teacher development, effective means of supporting the transition from teacher candidate to classroom teacher, and the use of authentic data to inform program improvement. E-mail: steadmans@ecu.edu ______________________________________ Evans and Steadman 6 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 An Analysis of Time Prioritization for Social Studies in Elementary School Classrooms Paul G. Fitchett Tina L. Heafner University of North Carolina at Charlotte Phillip VanFossen Purdue University Abstract Time is an essential component of instructional decision-making and subject area prioritization. The greater the amount of instructional time teachers allocate toward a specific subject the greater the content exposure and opportunity to engage learners. Evidence suggests that social studies receives short shrift in the elementary schools resulting in the undermining of opportunities to learn the subject in meaningful ways. Using survey data from 2,336 elementary social studies teachers, we examined relationships among the professional attitudes and instructional decision-making of elementary school teachers on reported social studies instructional time. Results from analyses indicated that teachers who used discipline-specific methods, integrated within English Language Arts, and who reported being satisfied with teaching social studies spent significantly increased time on social studies. Moreover, teachers who reported more frequent social studies content integration or who reported having a mandated test spent more time on discipline-specific strategies than teachers who did not. Findings have implications for teacher educators preparing elementary practitioners, school leaders accommodating the field, and policymakers attempting to position social studies within an era of accountability. Time is precious in teaching. Instructional time, as an indicator of opportunity to learn (Berliner, 1990), can substantially affect how much and how long students are exposed to specific content and skills. Conversely, limited instructional time can have a negative impact on learning. Thus, teachers’ prioritization of instructional time is an important consideration. How teachers choose to use time is determined by a myriad of complex factors including the demands of curricula, grade level, classroom context, management, and teacher disposition (Hargreaves, 1994; Kyriakides, Christoforou, & Charalambous, 2013). Perhaps no classroom practitioners experience the demands of instructional time like elementary school teachers. Unlike their secondary colleagues, elementary teachers juggle competing core discipline areas (English/language arts, math, science, social studies) as well as specials (e.g., art, music) while simultaneously nurturing the social and emotional development of students (Wills, 2007; Wills & Sandholtz, 2009). In the competition among the core subject areas for elementary instructional time, research has consistently indicated that social studies receives the lowest priority (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Leming, Ellington, & Schug, 2006; VanFossen, 2005). For example, VanFossen (2005) found that, out of a five-hour instructional day, K-3 grade teachers in Indiana spent less than 20 minutes on social studies instruction, while ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 7 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 teachers in grades 4-5 spent less than 30 minutes. Mounting accountability pressures combined with student socioeconomic status and grade level curriculum differences are the most commonly cited predictors of social studies instructional time at the elementary level (Pace, 2008, 2011; VanFossen, 2005). The neglect of social studies at the elementary level can have profoundly negative effects on students’ knowledge of history and civics (Bisland, 2012; Brophy, 1986; Good & Brophy, 2000). Perhaps not coincidentally, the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results indicated that among the core subject areas, student performance is lowest in social studies-related fields of history, civics, and geography (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2011). In a recent study, Fitchett, Heafner, and Lambert (2014b) analyzed another dimension of teaching that was significantly associated with the amount of instructional time devoted to elementary social studies: perceived autonomy. Teachers who reported more autonomy (i.e., greater sense of control over the classroom) also indicated spending more time teaching social studies. This finding led us to question whether other attitudes toward teaching social studies, such as job satisfaction and subject area prioritization, were predictors of instructional time. We also sought to understand whether teachers’ instructional decision-making and the strategies they used for teaching social studies, factors yet to be examined in large-scale data analyses, were associated with instructional time. Finally, we examined the relationship between two key concepts associated with elementary social studies, teaching integration frequency and mandatory testing (Bisland, 2012; Pace, 2011b), to determine how these factors might influence teachers’ instructional decision-making. In the present study, we used data collected from the online Survey on the Status of Social Studies (2010) to examine the contextual determinants of social studies marginalization and the influence of elementary teachers’ perceptions of attitudes and instructional decision-making on reported social studies instructional time while controlling for classroom contexts, including testing mandates, grade level of students, and socioeconomic status of students. In addition, we examined the influence of teachers’ testing environment and integration frequency on their reported instructional decision-making. Conceptual Framework This study built upon three conceptual areas frequently associated with elementary social studies time: the contextual determinants of social studies marginalization (grade-level differences, mandated testing requirements, and school-level characteristics), teachers’ professional attitudes (including professional control and perception of social studies value), and instructional decision-making (use of integration and instructional strategy preferences). The following section highlights how these concepts influence the curricular prioritization of social studies among elementary grade practitioners. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 8 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Contextual Determinants of Marginalization In the United States, elementary social studies has historically been placed on the instructional backburner in favor of other core subjects (Barton, 2011; Houser, 1995; Lintner & Schweder, 2008), reflecting a well-documented longstanding issue (Henry, 1993). Over the last decade, instructional time allocated for social studies has further diminished due to high-stakes accountability mandates in the US that have placed greater emphasis on English/language arts (ELA), math, and science (Heafner & Fitchett, 2012;Levine, Lopez, & Marcelo, 2008; VanFossen, 2005). Under a narrowing curriculum, teachers eliminated social studies instruction or absorbed it within ELA as part of the literacy agenda (Boyle-Baise, Hsu, Johnnson, Serriere, & Stewart, 2008; Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Holloway & Chiodo, 2009). Research has suggested that grade 1-5 teachers in states with an elementary social studies test spend approximately 30 minutes per week (18 hours more per academic year) on social studies than comparable teachers in non-tested states (Fitchett et al., 2014a). Classroom- and school-level contexts also shape the nature and prioritization of social studies teaching. Previous studies indicated that elementary teachers in areas of poverty lost more time from social studies instruction than peers in more affluent communities, believing that their students required more support in the form of time in universally-tested subjects like ELA and mathematics (Levine et al., 2008; Pace, 2008, 2011; Segall, 2006). The additional instructional time for these tested subjects resulted in inequitable curricular access to social studies (Au, 2007, 2009; Pace, 2011a; Piere, Baker, & Bobbitt, 1997; Wills & Sandholtz, 2009). Grade-level was also associated with increased social studies instructional time; teachers of intermediate level students (grades 4-5) spent significantly more time on social studies than practitioners in earlier grades (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Thornton & Houser, 1996; VanFossen, 2005). Researchers posited that this phenomenon was linked to the traditional structure of the elementary grade curriculum, whereby later grades tend to have a more structured, content-specific curriculum compared to the more integrated nature of early grades social studies (Brophy & Alleman, 2008; Duplass, 2007; Hanna, 1937). Professional Attitudes toward Social Studies Context and policy do not necessarily predetermine the amount of time elementary teachers allot toward instruction, however. Teachers’ workplace attitudes, such as autonomy, satisfaction teaching social studies, and interest in the subject matter influence how teachers prioritize social studies. Social studies remains a low priority among many elementary practitioners in the United States. Previous survey data indicated that elementary teachers and their students viewed social studies as the least important of the core subject areas (Good et al., 2010; Passe, 2006; Zhao & Hoge, 2005). Underscoring a lack of interest, research of elementary teacher education programs noted that pre-service teachers experienced less social studies instruction during student teaching than other core areas, resulting in perceptions of feeling ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 9 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 unprepared to teach the subject (Yon & Passe, 1990). Elementary preservice teachers were less likely to student-teach social studies and were frequently cajoled by their cooperating teachers to neglect social studies to provide more time for other instruction (Bolick, Adams, & Willox, 2010). In contrast to the systematic resistance against preservice elementary social studies, numerous qualitative studies have called attention to examples of practitioners who elected to spend time teaching social studies regardless of testing and standardization constraints (Brophy, 1993; Gradwell, 2006; Grant, 2003; van Hover, 2006). These ambitious teachers consciously chose to teach beyond the limitations set forth by state curricula and accountability pressures. Ultimately, these practitioners viewed themselves as efficacious gatekeepers and critical consumers of the curricula who have pedagogical control over how and how much social studies content they taught (Ross, 2006; Thornton, 1991, 2005). These studies affirmed that teachers who viewed themselves with such autonomy spent more time on social studies instruction than teachers who did not view themselves in that way (Fitchett et al., 2014a). Instructional Decision-Making Teacher workplace attitudes, such as perceived autonomy, often impact instructional decision-making. What teachers want to do in their classroom and how they do it are related to the allocation of their instructional time for social studies. Previous studies indicated that teachers who prioritized social studies instruction and engaged in inquiry-based, discipline-specific practice allocated more time to social studies (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Levstik, 2008; Serriere, Mitra, & Cody, 2010). In his examples of historical inquiry, VanSledright (2011) noted that time constraints were a persistent issue for dynamic teaching. Teachers who engaged students with materials outside the textbook, encouraged critical thinking, and promoted cooperative learning spent more time on social studies instruction than teachers who engaged in more passive forms of pedagogy, such as traditional lectures (Brophy, 2006). Yet, what social studies teachers know regarding content and pedagogy and what they practice are often quite disparate (Barton & Levstik, 2003, 2004; van Hover & Yeager, 2003). U.S. policy trends of increased accountability, standardization, and curricular intensification can affect how teachers make instructional choices, prompting them to increase content coverage. Perceived content mandates seemingly restricted teachers’ instructional options (Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Mausethagen, 2013; Thornton, 1991). In this intensified environment, teachers perceived worksheets, textbooks, and lecture as timesaving strategies (Wills, 2007; Zhao & Hoge, 2005). Testing, as a by-product of accountability policies, has received particular scrutiny from the field. Research has suggested that high-stakes testing in social studies encourages teacher-centered practices such as lecture, reading from the textbook, and other forms of rote instruction, while deterring discipline-specific pedagogies (Gerwin & Viscone, 2006; Saye & The Social Studies Inquiry Research Collaborative, 2013; Vogler, 2006). ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 10 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 In most states, however, social studies is under-tested at the elementary level (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010). The emphasis on high-stakes testing in content areas such as math and English/language arts leads many elementary teachers to utilize integration, whereby the social studies content is interwoven with ELA content and skills as a strategy for addressing social studies content (Heafner & Fitchett, 2012). The widely used, highly polarizing, Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSI; 2010) includes strands specific to history/social studies integration in grades 6-10. These strands include standards such as “determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the relationships among the key details and ideas” (CCSI, 2010). Though no such standards exist for elementary grades, research indicates that K-5 teachers frequently incorporate social studies texts in their ELA instruction. For example, Good et al. (2010) noted that 60% of elementary teachers used integration as a general approach to teaching social studies. Findings indicated that such integration efforts varied widely, ranging from highly effective curricula (Field, Bauml, & Ledbetter, 2011; Holloway & Chiodo, 2009) to those lacking substantive social studies content and skills (Boyle- Baise et al., 2008; Pace, 2011b). For this reason, some social studies educators are cautious of championing integration as an optimal instructional compromise (Thornton & Houser, 1996; VanFossen, 2005). Rationale for Further Investigation and Research Questions Research confirms that emphasis on high-stakes testing and standards in math and ELA has crowded out elementary teachers’ social studies instructional time allocation. Yet, teachers’ decision-making remains a complex phenomenon. Some previous research examined the relationship between school contexts (demographics, testing, and grade level) and social studies instructional time (cf. Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Pace, 2011a; VanFossen, 2005). Other studies explored the phenomena of ambitious teaching and its relationship to instructional decision-making (cf. Au, 2007; Grant, 2003). The confluence of these lines of research has remained relatively unexamined in social studies, however, and serves as the rationale for this study. Specifically, there is a paucity of research exploring the extent to which teachers’ instructional decision-making and workplace attitudes influence reported social studies time – an important indicator of opportunity to learn (Berliner, 1990). Understanding how workplace attitudes and instructional decision-making are associated with social studies prioritization has potential implications for how teachers, teacher educators, and educational leaders promote social studies in the elementary grades. Thus, our study examined teachers’ instructional decision-making strategies and professional attitudes as predictors of instructional time and explored the association between teaching context and attitudes on instructional decision-making. We addressed the following research questions: 1. What professional attitudes and instructional decision-making do elementary teachers report toward social studies? ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 11 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 2. Is there an association between the proportion of instructional time elementary teachers report allocating to social studies and their professional attitudes when controlling for contextual determinants of marginalization (e.g., urbanity, socioeconomic factors)? 3. Is there an association between the proportion of instructional time elementary teachers report allocating to social studies and their reported use of three types of instructional decision-making when controlling for contextual determinants and professional attitudes? 4. To what extent is there a relationship between mandated testing and teachers’ reported instructional decision-making use in elementary social studies? 5. To what extent is there a difference in the use of three types of instructional decision-making reported by elementary teachers who frequently integrate social studies in their ELA instruction compared to teachers who do not frequently integrate in ELA? Method Participants In the present study, we used data collected from the online Survey on the Status of Social Studies (S4) (2010), which included PK-12 social studies teachers across 44 U.S. states (N = 11,295)1 between spring 2010 and spring 2011. Participants were recruited via email to complete the survey. Limited access to states’ social studies teacher databases made a nationally representative, stratified-random sample prohibitive. Therefore, the sampling frame for this study is considered a convenience sample. The S4 is the largest study of social studies teaching attitudes, reported practices, and characteristics in over two decades (Fitchett & VanFossen, 2013). For purposes of the present study, we selected respondents who indicated they were full-time, U.S. teachers in grades 1-5.2 Because team teachers and single subject teachers would confound reports of instructional time (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010), we also selected only respondents who reported teaching in self-contained classrooms (i.e., taught all subjects). Data were conditioned to a subsample (n = 2,336). 1 A link to the survey can be found here: http://webpages.uncc.edu/~pfitchet/NationalSocialStudiesSurvey.pdf The District of Columbia, Hawaii, Missouri, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming did not participate in the study. 2 Kindergarten was intentionally excluded from our study because of the organizational variability across U.S. states and school systems. In some states, kindergarten is required full-instructional day. In other states/systems, it is required half-day, and in a few states, kindergarten is not required at all. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 12 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Respondents were overwhelming female (94%) and white (88.3%). Among the subsample, 99% were licensed teachers. A majority of teachers reported having a master’s degree (54%) compared to bachelor’s (43%) and doctorate (2.2%) degrees. The average years of teaching experience among the subsample was approximately 15 years. A greater proportion of the teachers surveyed characterized their schools as suburban (38%) compared to urban (26%) or rural (36.3%). Teachers also reported low minority enrollment (34%). Instrument The online survey instrument (S4) included 97 items that measured reported time spent teaching social studies at the elementary level, professional attitudes, and instructional emphases. Participants’ email addresses were removed from all respondent data. The average completion time for the instrument was approximately 20 minutes. Likert-type items were analyzed for validity and technical adequacy in both a pilot study and technical report following data collection (cf. Fitchett & VanFossen, 2013). Face validity of the instrument was obtained through feedback from social studies teachers and teacher educators. Item reliability on various subscales was minimally to moderately adequate (α = .70 to .80) on inventories reporting teachers’ decision-making (e.g., frequency of use of textbooks, lecture, primary source documents) and dispositional items relating to teacher autonomy (e.g., teacher control over resources, instructional strategies). Statistical validity of the items was obtained through principal axis factor analysis. 3 Before investigating the research questions, several individual items on the S4 were combined into factors. Factors offer greater reliability and validity than single item predictors (Liu, 2004). Furthermore, educational research suggests that teaching factors are more valid predictors than singular instructional approaches (Kyriakides et al., 2013). In a previous study (Fitchett & VanFossen, 2013) that examined the technical adequacy of individual S4 items, the authors conducted exploratory factor analysis to examine the statistical validity and reliability of key item inventories embedded within the instrument. Using principal axis factor analysis with oblique rotations, factor inclusion and simple solutions were determined by eigenvalues (>1.0) and scree plots. Findings indicated that items in the instructional decision-making inventory of the S4 loaded onto three distinct factors: discipline-specific instruction, teacher-centered instruction, and student- centered instruction.4 This finding corresponded with existing literature and research on social studies teachers’ 3 A full description of the survey instrumentation can be found at Fitchett, P.G. & VanFossen (2013). Survey on the Status of Social Studies: Development and analysis. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1), 1-23. Retrieved from: http://www.socstrpr.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/04/MS_06462_no1.pdf 4 Items 16, 31 and 47 comprise the instructional decision-making inventory for Survey on the Status of Social Studies. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 13 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 instructional decision-making (Fallace, 2010; Knowles & Theobald, 2013; Levstik, 2008). For purposes of the present study, each of these factors was then used to create scale variables by summing across all the Likert-type items that loaded on a particular factor. For example, the student-centered scale summed items on use of role-play, cooperative learning assignments, and group projects. The teacher-centered scale summed items on use of the textbook, worksheets, and lecture. The discipline-specific scale was created by summing responses to items that asked about teachers’ use of primary/secondary materials, writing essays, computer applications, role play, film, and maps and globes. The teacher autonomy scale was created by summing responses to teacher control items: How much actual control do you have in the classroom at this school over the following areas of your planning and teaching: selecting the textbook, selecting content and skills taught, curriculum emphases, teaching techniques, and evaluation? We then conducted Cronbach’s alpha to examine the internal consistency of the scale variables developed for this subsample. Results indicated that teacher autonomy and the discipline-specific scales were moderately consistent (α > 0.70). While teacher-centered and student-centered scales were minimally acceptable (α > 0.60), we decided to include these scales because previous analyses confirmed their validity and multidimensionality (Fitchett & VanFossen, 2013). For interpretation purposes, items and variable constructs were occasionally recoded. Item 19 (“How often do you integrate the following subjects: English/language arts?”) was recoded into two categories: the highest two values (almost daily and frequently) were recoded as high frequency integration in ELA and the remaining values were coded as low frequency integration in ELA. Another item (“To what extent do you agree with the following statement? I am generally satisfied teaching social studies at this school.”) was recoded into two values: satisfied (agree/strongly agree) and dissatisfied (disagree/strongly disagree). Because the length of the instructional day varies among schools (Berliner, 1990), using reported instructional time as a dependent variable can be problematic. Given the building environment and curricular obligations, how much time a teacher reported spending on a subject might be a greater or lesser proportion of the instructional day compared to another teacher. Due to curricular variability among schools, we decided against using reported social studies time as the dependent variable. Instead, we examined the proportion of time spent on social studies as a percentage (%) of aggregate core subject instructional time, whereby Aggregate core subject time = Social Studies instructional time + ELA instructional time + Science instructional time + Math instructional time. SSPERCENT= (Social Studies instructional time/aggregate core subject time) X 100. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 14 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 This approach standardized social studies instructional time across respondents to a percentage. Design and Data Analysis To answer research question 1, we used descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) to analyze elementary teachers’ overall attitudes toward social studies. To answer questions 2 and 3, we employed hierarchical multiple regression (HMR). This statistical technique specifies the order in which variables (grouped into blocks) enter the model. It accounted for the unique variance contributed by various predictor types (see Table 1). Model 1 included control variables previously associated with social studies instructional time (i.e., contextual determinants of marginalization). To answer research question 2, Model 2 added professional disposition variables. To answer research question 3, Model 3 included teacher instructional strategies. Ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates were used in these analyses because we posited that error terms associated with these models would remain constant across responses. Tests of homoscedacity confirmed this assumption. In a practical sense, this analytical approach allowed us to examine the effect of assigned conceptualized variable groupings in predicting change in the percentage of instructional time spent on social studies. Models are specified below: Model 1 YSSproportionaltime = ß0 + ß1Xurbanity +…+ ß5Xmandated test+ r0 Model 2 YSSproportionaltime = ß0 + ß1Xurbanity +…+ ß5Xmandated test+…+ ß6XprioritzeSS+…+ ß8Xautnomy + r0 Model 3 YSSproportionaltime = ß0 + ß1Xurbanity +…+ ß5Xmandated test+…+ ß6XprioritzeSS+…+ ß8Xautnomy + ß9Xfrequentlyintegrate+…+ ß12Xdisciplinespecific + r0 Whereby: YSSproportionaltime= Reported Social Studies Proportional Time ß1Xurbanity +…+ ß5Xmandated test = Classroom Context Variables ß6XprioritzeSS+…+ ß8Xautnomy = Teacher Professional Attitudes ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 15 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 ß9Xfrequentlyintegrate+…+ ß12Xdisciplinespecific = Teacher Instructional Strategies Table 1 Description of Variables for Hierarchal Multiple Regression Model Model No. Variable Constructs Variables Model 1 Classroom Context Five dummy-coded control variables frequently associated with social studies instructional time High/Upper Middle/ Middle socioeconomic status (compared to Low Middle/Low SES) Urban, Rural (compared to Suburban) Intermediate grades 4 and 5 (compared to grades K - 3) State test in elementary social studies (compared to no test) Model 2 Teacher Professional Attitudes* Variables examining teacher attitudes Teacher Rank of Social Studies (1 lowest to 6 highest) Satisfied Teaching Social Studies (agree/somewhat agree compared to somewhat disagree/strongly disagree) Teacher Autonomy scale (5 lowest to 20 highest) Model 3 Teacher Instructional Strategies* Variables associated with instructional strategies High Frequency of Integration (Almost daily/frequently compared to occasionally/rarely/never) Student-centered instruction scale Teacher-centered instruction scale Discipline-specific instruction scale *Factors were statistically validated in previous studies conducted by the researchers (Fitchett & VanFossen, 2013). To answer questions 4 and 5, we employed factorial multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine the relationship between two significant predictors from the HMR (high frequency of integration and mandatory testing) on instructional strategies scales. Given the highly correlated nature of social studies teaching (Levstik, 2008; Stodolsky, 1993), we chose multivariate analysis to examine the linear combination of the reported strategies (student-centered, teacher-centered, and discipline-specific scales) on two independent variables (high frequency integration and mandatory testing). MANOVAs also allowed us to explore the relationship between integration and mandatory testing, a point of interest in earlier qualitative elementary social studies research (Boyle-Baise et al., 2008). Thus, we examined the potential interaction between the two independent variables. For post-hoc tests of between-subject statistical difference, we used analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 16 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Elementary Teachers’ Professional Attitudes and Instructional Decision-Making What professional attitudes and instructional decision-making do elementary teachers report toward social studies? To answer Research Question 1, we examined descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation among variables (Table 2). Results indicated that sampled U.S. elementary social studies teachers spent 13.8% of their core subject area instruction time on social studies content, whereas ELA instruction received 43.9% of the core instruction time. Respondents prioritized social studies fourth of six in subject area importance (English/Language Arts, math, science, social studies, art, PE). On average, 56% of respondents were satisfied with teaching social studies (n = 1,302), and 86% of respondents reported integrating social studies content into ELA instruction on a frequent basis (n = 2,001). Teachers reported feeling relatively autonomous given the scale range (mean of 14.20 out of a 5 to 20 range). Approximately 14% of respondents indicated giving a mandated test on social studies (n = 328). Based on mean scale results, respondents were slightly more likely to engage in student-centered instruction than using teacher-centered instruction or discipline-specific instruction (including analyzing primary sources, reading maps/globes). ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 17 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Elementary Teacher Professional Disposition and Instructional Emphasis (n = 2336) Variable (range) Mean SD SSPERCENT (1.79-58.62) 13.77 5.76 ELAPERCENT (3.03-81.58) 43.86 9.13 MATHPERCENT (2.22-63.54) 27.92 6.26 SCIPERCENT (1.59-39.91) 14.44 5.40 Prioritize SS (1-6) 3.31 0.82 Autonomy (5-20) 14.20 2.92 Reported a mandated test in SS 0.14 0.35 Satisfied teaching social studies 0.56 0.50 Frequently integrate ELA 0.86 0.35 Student-Centered instruction (3-15) 8.96 2.17 Teacher-Centered instruction (3-15) 8.15 2.61 Discipline-Specific instruction (6-30) 16.86 3.61 Instructional Time, Professional Attitudes, and Instructional Strategies Next, we employed hierarchical multiple regression to answer research questions 2 and 3 (see Table 3). Results from Model 1 confirmed previous research that testing, grade level, and socioeconomic status as significantly associated with reported elementary social studies time (Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014a, 2014b; Pace, 2011a). Holding other contextual determinant variables constant, teachers who have a state test in social studies devoted almost 4% more time to teaching social studies than comparable teachers in states without a test. Teaching in the intermediate grades (4-5) was associated with an approximately 1.6% increase in proportional social studies time compared to teaching in the primary grades (K-3). Working in a higher socioeconomic school environment was associated with almost a 1% increase in proportional time spent on social studies instruction. In the subsequent models 2 and 3, these context variables served as controls, allowing us to better isolate the unique association ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 18 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 between teachers’ workplace attitudes and instructional decision-making in social studies on reported social studies time. Is there an association between the proportion of instructional time elementary teachers’ report allocating to social studies and their professional attitudes when controlling for classroom context? To answer Research Question 2, we developed a model that explained variables associated with social studies practitioners’ attitudes toward teaching (Model 2 in Table 3). Holding the control variables in Model 1 constant (i.e., accounting for their variance) instructional prioritization of social studies (from 6th priority to 1st priority) was associated with an increase between 0.6% to 3.0% in the proportion of time spent teaching social studies. Teachers who were highly satisfied teaching social studies reported spending approximately 3% more proportionally on the subject per week. Greater teacher autonomy was associated with an approximate increase of between 0.1% to 1.6% in social studies time per week. Model 2 accounted for 16% of proportional social studies time, a significant change that doubled the variance attributed to the previous model. Is there an association between the proportion of instructional time elementary teachers report allocating to social studies and their reported use of three types of instructional decision-making when controlling for classroom contexts and professional attitudes? To answer Research Question 3, Model 3 was constructed. Holding both the contextual controls and the teacher attitudes constant, we found that teaching emphasis across all three instructional factors and high frequency integration were associated with more time spent on social studies. Among the three instructional decision-making scales, time spent on discipline-specific instruction was associated with the largest increase in the proportion of time spent on social studies—a range between 0.19% to 4.60%. Increases in teacher- and student-centered instruction were associated with smaller ranges of proportional social studies time: 0.25% - 3.0% for student centered and between 0.26% - 3.14% in teacher-centered instruction. Teachers who reported frequently integrating social studies content into their ELA instruction spent an estimated 0.73% more time on the subject than teachers who did not integrate. When accounting for the final model predictors, autonomy and reported socioeconomic status of the school were no longer significantly associated with social studies time. This finding reflects that the variation in instructional strategies confounds the significance of professional autonomy and reported socioeconomic context. Variables associated with Model 3 accounted for 22% of the variance attributed to proportional social studies time, a significant increase of approximately 6% from Model 2 and a 14% increase from Model 1. Given these initial findings, we examined in more detail two of these predictors: mandated testing and frequent integration. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 19 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Unstandardized Coefficients for Variables as a Predictor of Proportional Reported Social Studies Time (n = 2336) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Variable B SE CI 95% B SE CI 95% B SE CI 95% (Constant) 12.26** 0.25 11.73,12.72 7.26** 0.73 5.83, 8.69 0.74** 0.86 -0.94, 2.42 Urban -0.35** 0.31 -0.96, 0.25 -0.10** 0.30 -0.69, 0.48 -0.23** 0.29 -0.79, 0.34 Rural 0.37** 0.28 -0.18, 0.92 0.25** 0.27 -0.028, 0.78 0.37** 0.26 -0.14, 0.88 High_SES 0.82** 0.25 0.32, 1.31 0.50** 0.25 0.02, 0.98 0.44** 0.24 -0.29, 0.90 Intermediate 1.58** 0.24 1.10, 2.05 1.84** 0.24 1.37, 2.30 1.45** 0.23 1.00, 1.90 Mandated SS Test 3.73** 0.34 3.06, 4.40 3.05** 0.33 2.39, 3.70 2.43** 0.33 1.79, 3.07 Prioritize SS 0.61** 0.14 0.33, 0.84 0.46** 0.13 0.20, 0.72 SSsatisfaction 2.85** 0.24 2.39, 3.31 2.21** 0.23 1.75, 2.66 Autonomy 0.10** 0.04 0.03, 0.18 0.06** 0.04 -0.02, 0.13 FreqintegrateELA 0.73** 0.32 0.10, 1.37 Student-Centered instruction 0.25** 0.07 0.11, 0.39 Teacher-Centered instruction 0.26** 0.04 0.18, 0.35 Discipline-Specific instruction 0.19** 0.04 0.11, 0.28 Model R2 .082 .156 .218 F for Δ R2 40.8* 65.8** 44.6** *p < .05, **p < .01 Mandated Testing, Integration, and Instructional Decision-Making To answer Questions 4 and 5, we conducted a factorial MANOVA to explore the relationship between teachers’ reporting of mandatory testing and frequency of social studies integration in ELA on the instructional factors: student-centered, teacher-centered, and discipline-specific (see Table 4). ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 20 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 To what extent is there a relationship between mandated testing and teachers’ reported instructional decision-making in elementary social studies? Significant differences were found between teachers who reported giving a mandated test and those who did not on each of the three instructional factors [Wilk’s Λ = .98, F(3, 2330) = 12.97, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.02]. Follow-up between subject tests (ANOVA) indicated significant differences between testing status and the dependent variables. As Table 4 illustrates, teachers who reported a mandated test spent more time on: (a) student-centered instruction [F(1, 2332) = 15.72, p <.001, η2 = 0.01], (b) teacher-centered instruction [F(1, 2332) = 20.35, p <.001, η2 = 0.01], and (c) discipline-specific instruction [F(1, 2332) = 25.01, p <.001, η2 = 0.01]. Though the effect sizes for these models were small, findings indicated a consistent theme that testing was associated with greater instructional decision-making opportunity indiscriminate of typology (student-centered, teacher-centered, or discipline-specific). To what extent is there a difference in the emphasis of instructional decision-making reported by elementary teachers who frequently integrate social studies in their ELA instruction compared to teachers who do not frequently integrate in ELA? Multivariate tests pointed toward significant differences between high and low frequency integration of ELA among instructional factors [Wilk’s Λ = .96, F(3, 2330) = 29.56, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04]. ANOVA tests indicated that teachers reporting high frequency integration in ELA spent more time on: (a) student-centered instruction [F(1, 2332) = 65.44, p < .001, η2 = 0.03] and (b) discipline-specific instruction [F(1, 2332) = 79.79, p <.001, η2 = 0.03] (see Table 4). Tests showed no statistically significant time difference in teacher-centered instruction between those respondents who reported frequently integrating social studies content into ELA and those who did not [F(1, 2332) = 1.94, p = .591]. Results conveyed that elementary teachers who frequently integrated social studies with language arts also spent more time on social studies-specific instruction. A final multivariate test was conducted to examine the interaction effect between testing status and the frequency with which social studies content was integrated into ELA. Results indicated no statistically significant difference across instructional factors that could be associated with the interaction [Wilk’s Λ = 1.00, F(3, 2330) = 1.33, p = 0.263]. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 21 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Table 4 Mean Instructional Factor Scores by Reported Testing Status and Integration Frequency (n = 2336) Instructional Factor (range) Reported Testing Status Mean (SE) Reported ELA Integration Frequency Mean (SE) Student-centered instruction (3-15) No test in social studies reported 8.29 (.07) Low frequency 7.89 (.18) Test in social studies 9.06** (.18) High frequency 9.46** (.07) Teacher-centered instruction (3-15) No test in social studies reported 7.85 (.08) Low frequency 8.34 (.23) Test in social studies 8.945** (.23) High frequency 8.47 (.08) Discipline-specific instruction (6-30) No test in social studies reported 15.66 (.11) Low frequency 15.03 (.30) Test in social studies 17.27** (.30) High frequency 17.90** (.11) **p < .01 Discussion The purpose of our study was to examine the confluence of teacher workplace attitudes and instructional decision-making on social studies time. Furthermore, we sought to understand the relationships among instructional decision-making, testing, and ELA integration. Results indicated that teachers’ decision-making with an emphasis on discipline-specific instruction and teacher attitudes’ (i.e., their satisfaction teaching social studies at their school) were significantly associated with proportional time spent on social studies. Moreover, testing was associated with increases in all three instructional decision-making types, contrary to research suggesting that testing constrains discipline-specific instruction (Vogler, 2006). Moreover, high frequency integration was associated with increased student-centered and discipline-specific instruction—pedagogies championed by social studies researchers and advocates ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 22 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Fallace, 2010; VanSledright, 2011). In the following sections, we describe how this research can be used to inform social studies teachers, school leaders, and policymakers. Implications and Recommendations for Elementary Social Studies Practitioners and Teacher Educators Not surprisingly, elementary teachers who responded to the S4 rated social studies as the least important subject among four core areas (math, ELA, science, social studies). Given recent U.S. policy toward education, including No Child Left Behind science testing mandates and Race to the Top, we posit that the time devoted to social studies will continue to decrease. These findings affirm that social studies has never really been a priority (Henry, 1993). Hierarchical multiple regression findings conveyed a more complex picture, indicating that teachers’ opportunities to teach social studies were influenced by workplace attitudes and instructional decision-making. The current study confirmed the significance of contextual determinants of marginalization reported in previous studies (Fitchett et al., 2014a, 2014b; Pace, 2011a; Segall, 2006), such as grade level, social economic status of students, and mandatory testing. Given the mean reported social studies instructional time (M = 2.84 hours per week), teachers in states with mandatory testing spend, on average, 7 minutes more per week on social studies instruction. Across a traditional academic year in the US (36 weeks), this increase contributes 252 more minutes (or over 4 hours) to social studies instruction; however, these variables only contributed a modest 8% of the variance in reported social studies time. For social studies teachers and teacher educators, these findings suggest that, while testing remains a significant predictor of time spent on social studies content, elementary teachers do not have to remain instructionally hamstrung by accountability mandates. Elementary teachers’ positive professional attitudes toward social studies and their instructional decision-making in the model accounted for over twice the variance in the overall amount of proportional time spent on social studies. More importantly, unlike testing mandates, promotion of instructional strategies and positive attitudes are within the realm of good social studies practice and teacher education. Teachers who showed positive attitudes toward their job satisfaction accounted for a proportional increase between 2.9% (Model 2) and 2.2% (Model 3) of social studies time or roughly 2.3 or 2.9 hours increase in social studies during an academic year. Empowering teachers and equipping them with discipline-specific instructional practices can produce positive outcomes for improving social studies’ learning opportunities in elementary schools. Findings suggest that those practices aligned with discipline-specific instruction are associated with up to 8 additional minutes of instructional time per week or 4.70 hours per academic year. From results of the present study, we conclude that teachers who reported having greater professional autonomy were more likely to report spending a greater ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 23 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 proportion of time teaching social studies content than those who did not. This finding aligns with the literature on an ambitious teaching construct and the gate-keeping mentality that social educators have advocated for several years (Grant, 2003; Thornton, 1991, 2005). Influencing autonomy or the perception of autonomy, among social studies teachers is a slippery slope, however. Encouraging and nurturing specific teaching attitudes is difficult and is empirically unreliable (Anderson, 2014; Bruner, 1996; Pajares, 1992; Tubachnick & Zeichner, 1984). As illustrated in the present study, after instructional strategies were included in the model, perceived autonomy along with the socioeconomic indicator were no longer statistically significant. Given our findings, we recommend that social studies teachers emphasize discipline-specific strategies similar to those measured in our study. As our findings illustrate, however, it is also important that teachers have positive attitudes (satisfaction and autonomy) toward social studies. In finding a way to combine the best of all desired qualities associated with this study, we encourage elementary grade teachers to orient themselves as curriculum “gatekeepers” (Thornton, 2005), whereby they take ownership of the content, skills, and concepts associated with social studies teaching and learning. Gatekeeping social studies teachers also embed principles of social studies content, skills, and dispositions in their daily lessons. Effective ideas for teaching social studies in the K-12 can be found in the National Council for the Social Studies journal, Social Studies and the Young Learner. We suggest that teachers interested in improving their practice begin by exploring the discipline-oriented lesson plan examples found there. We also encourage teacher education programs to provide greater emphasis on social studies instruction in their course work and offer greater opportunities for teachers to become more comfortable teaching the subject. Social studies programs that seek to encourage ambitious, gatekeeping practices should partner preservice teachers with cooperating teachers who privilege social studies education and make instructional decisions congruent with discipline-specific instruction (i.e., using source material, maps and globes, writing essays, role play/simulation), while also demonstrating positive attitudes toward the subject. Confirming qualitative (Field et al., 2011) and quantitative (Holloway & Chiodo, 2009) research, we found that teachers who integrated social studies content within ELA instruction spent more time on social studies content and also spent more time on student-centered and discipline-specific instruction. From these results, we posit that such integration can be used to improve the quantity of social studies instruction in constrained curricular environments. While the issue of instructional quality is outside the scope of this study, findings from this study indicate integration with ELA is associated with a greater frequency of highly advocated teaching practices (e.g., discipline-specific instruction and student-centered instruction). We recommend that teachers further their development of meaningful integration techniques in conjunction with discipline-specific methods, perhaps including case studies from existing research (Field et al., 2011; Serriere, Mitra, & Cody, 2010). Beyond reading circles, elementary teachers and teacher educators should give primacy to literacy practices that encourage ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 24 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 inter-textual reading of source material, analysis of documents, and creation of authentic historical accounts. Implications and Recommendations for School Leaders While teachers’ professional attitudes are difficult to influence within teacher education programs, research indicates that building-level climate and teacher job satisfaction are strongly associated with school leadership, including principals and department chairs. Numerous studies have pointed out that principals who provide faculty greater curricular freedom over day-to-day instruction improve teachers’ workplace attitudes (Bolger, 2001; Shen, 1997; Singh & Billingsley, 1996; Taylor & Tashakkori, 1995). Among social studies practitioners, teachers who viewed their school leadership favorably tended to maintain higher job satisfaction (Nelson, 1981). VanFossen (2005) found that building-level support for teaching social studies content significantly related to the amount of instructional time for social studies in grades K-5. A recent study by Patterson, Maguth, DeWitt, Doppen, Harshman, and Augustine (2013, April) noted that school principals value social studies and believe that elementary teachers should spend time on the subject. Concurrently, Anderson (2014) found that principal support was strongly connected with elementary teachers’ emphasis on social studies content. Teachers who felt compelled and encouraged by school leadership to teach social studies spent more time on the subject. By supporting teachers in their social studies teaching and giving them greater curricular control, school leaders can indirectly improve the emphasis of social studies instruction. Moreover, results indicate that integration of social studies content into ELA instruction is positively associated with increased time for social studies and more frequent dynamic instruction. We encourage teacher-leaders to collaborate and share ideas for using integration as an effective strategy for improving overall social studies instruction among grade levels. Finding curricular spaces in which social studies can share instructional time with other subjects, specifically ELA, is a practical step toward improving overall instruction. Additionally, integration aligns with current Common Core initiatives and could position social studies teachers (informational text and close reading literacy specialists) as leaders in cross-curricular integration. We contend that Common Core language associated with the history/social studies strands in grades 6- 12 should be applied to elementary grades. Integration for purposes of analyzing and evaluating multiple sources is a skill applicable in early grades as well (Barton & Levstik, 2004). We encourage social studies advocates to consider thoughtful integration practices that complement the discipline-specific pedagogies associated with the field. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 25 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Implications and Recommendations for Curriculum and Instruction Policy Interestingly, these analyses indicated that testing, often associated with narrowing of pedagogical decision-making and rote instruction (cf. Grant & Salinas, 2008), was associated with a reported increase in time spent on a variety of instructional strategies. Though the present study did not examine the nature of course content, our findings suggest that the presence of elementary social studies testing increased the quantity of social studies instruction across various instructional typologies, specifically discipline-specific instruction, and increased the amount of social studies taught overall. We posit that these findings differ from research in U.S. secondary education (Vogler, 2006), primarily due to the complex curricular organization of elementary grades. Unlike in U.S. middle and high schools where social studies is typically afforded a specific block of instructional time with a subject-area specialist (Stodolsky, 1993), elementary grade practitioners are often required to teach social studies as part of the self-contained instructional day. Thus, elementary teachers’ decision-making is predicated on curriculum mandates and macro-level accountability pressures that constrain time usage (Anderson, 2014; Wills, 2007; Wills & Sandholz, 2009). Mandated testing exemplifies one of these external pressures, influencing both exposure to various content, at the exclusion of others, and pedagogical decision-making of teachers (Mausethagen, 2013). The bottom line is that state testing policies impact teacher decision-making. The fact that social studies is not tested in some U.S. states, while it is tested in others, perpetuates a national inequity for the opportunity to teach and learn elementary social studies across the country. Elements outside of testing policy, such as teachers’ instructional decision-making and professional attitudes, can and should be major foci of social studies research and advocacy efforts. We argue that a balance of accountability (testing/policy mandates), teacher attitudes, and discipline-specific instructional practice will create a more level, equitable learning opportunity for all students while positioning social studies as an important and essential subject. Lastly, we recommend that future research examine the relationship among state-level accountability policies, instructional decision-making, and social studies time on student achievement in social studies-specific subjects. Such analyses would help policymakers and curriculum specialists better understand the effects accountability has on teacher decision-making and student learning. Limitations Effective teaching is directly related to the amount and management of instructional time (Berliner, 1990, Kyriakides et al., 2013). Follow-up case research is needed to examine the relationship between teachers’ instructional emphases and reported social studies time across various educational outcomes. Further complicating the findings, the sampling for this study was a convenience sample. There is a potential for over- or underrepresentation of various teacher-types. Moreover, our study used ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 26 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 self-reported data and, therefore, was subject to possible social desirability bias. Given the large sample size and use of de-identified survey protocols, however, we posit that these issues are minimal. Lastly, the nature of data prohibited us from using multilevel analysis and accounting for teaching conditions nested within schools. Further research is needed to examine how elementary school-level climate and context influence social studies teaching. Conclusion Anecdotally, teachers across the country are beginning to recognize the value of assessment to increase exposure to social studies. In May 2012, the Governor of Maryland signed into law a bill mandating that all seniors pass a state assessment on government prior to graduating (Dresser, 2012; Maryland House of Delegates 1227, 2012). The law also requires the state school board to develop and implement middle school social studies assessments by the 2014-2015 academic year. Interestingly, it was classroom teachers and other social studies professionals who advocated for the return of state assessments in order to bolster support for the much-maligned subject area. Traditionally opposed to testing, social educators are now keenly aware of the ongoing and intensified marginalization of social studies in the era of increased standardization and accountability. Marginalization of social studies at the elementary grades negatively impacts students’ opportunities to learn, which in turn can have potentially harmful effects on students’ performance in later grades as well as hinder civic understanding. While the presence of a mandated test remains a significant predictor of the proportion of time spent on social studies, results from our study also indicate that testing at the elementary level is associated with increased use of a range of instructional factors, including discipline-specific teaching. This finding offers promise of pedagogical change toward more historical thinking and inquiry-based activity as advocated in the field. We also infer from our findings that teachers, teacher educators, and proponents of social studies education not directly tied to accountability policymaking can make a substantial contribution to the field by promoting efficacious attitudes, quality integration, and dynamic instructional strategies. More importantly, taking the time to teach social studies at the elementary level is an important step toward guaranteeing that students are exposed to content and skills necessary to becoming productive, engaged members of a democratic society. References Anderson, D. (2014). Outliers: Elementary teachers who actually teach social studies. The Social Studies, 105(2), 91-100. doi: 10.1080/00377996.2013.850055 ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 27 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07306523 Au, W. (2009). High-stakes testing and curriculum control: A qualitative metasynthesis. In D. J. Flinders & S. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum reader (pp. 286-302). New York, NY: Routledge. Barton, K. C. (2011). Wars and rumors of war: Making sense of history education in the United States. In T. Taylor & R. Guyver (Eds.), History wars in the classroom: Global perspectives (pp. 189-204). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2003). Why don't more history teachers engage students in interpretation? Social Education, 67(6), 358-361. GS Search Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahway, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Berliner, D. C. (1990). What's all this fuss about instructional time? In M. Ben-Peretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3-35). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bisland, B. M. (2012). The marginalization of social studies: An overview. In W. B. Russell (Ed.), Contemporary social studies: An essential reader (pp. 173-191). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662-683. GS Search Bolick, C. M., Adams, R., & Willox, L. (2010). The marginalization of elementary social studies in teacher education. Social Studies Research and Practice, 5(1), 1-22. Retrieved from http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/5.2.3.pdf Boyle-Baise, M., Hsu, M., Johnnson, S., Serriere, S. C., & Stewart, D. (2008). Putting reading first: Teaching social studies in elementary classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education, 36(3), 233-255. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2008.10473374 Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1069-1077. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1069 Brophy, J. (1993). Findings and issues: The cases seen in context. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research in teaching: Case studies of teaching and learning in social studies (Vol. 4, pp. 219-232). Greenwich, CT: JAI press. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 28 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Brophy, J. (2006). Graham Nuthall and social constructivist teaching: Research-based cautions and qualifications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 529-537. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.01.008 Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (2008). Early elementary social studies. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 33-49). New York, NY: Routledge. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSI). (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects. Available from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535. doi: 10.1177/0042085907304964 Dresser, M. (2012, May 22). Law puts social studies back in the limelight, The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-05-22/news/bs-md-social- studies-signing-20120522_1_social-studies-school-board-maryland-schools Duplass, J. A. (2007). Elementary social studies: Trite, disjointed, and in need of reform? The Social Studies, 98(4), 137-144. doi: 10.3200/TSSS.98.4.137-144 Fallace, T. (2010). Exploring three orientations to the social studies. In E. E. Heilman (Ed.), Social studies and diversity education: What we do and why we do it (pp. 23-25). New York, NY: Routledge. Field, S. L., Bauml, M., & Ledbetter, M. (2011). Every day success: Powerful integration of social studies content and English-language arts. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 23(3), 22-25. Fitchett, P. G., & Heafner, T. L. (2010). A national perspective on the effects of high-stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114-130. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2010.10473418 Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L. & Lambert, R. G. (2014a). Assessment, autonomy, and social studies instructional time. Teachers College Record. Found at http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17605 ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 29 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & Lambert, R. G. (2014b). Examining social studies marginalization: A multilevel analysis. Educational Policy, 28(1), 40-68. doi: 10.1177/0895904812453998 Fitchett, P. G., & VanFossen, P. J. (2013). Survey on the status of social studies: Development and analysis. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1), 1-23. Retrieved from: http://www.socstrpr.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/04/MS_06462_no1.pdf Gerwin, D., & Visone, F. (2006). The freedom to teach: Contrasting teaching in elective and state-tested courses. Theory & Research in Social Education, 34(2), 259- 282. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2006.10473307 Good, A. J., Heafner, T. L., Rock, T. C., O'Connor, K. A., Passe, J., Waring, S., & Byrd, S. P.. (2010). The de-emphasis on social studies in elementary schools: Teacher candidate perspective. Current Issues in Education, 13(4), 1-22. Retrieved.from http://cie.asu.edu Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. (2000). Looking in classrooms (8th ed.). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley. Gradwell, J. M. (2006). Teaching in spite of rather than because of, the test. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across states (pp. 157-176). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Grant, S. G. (2003). History lessons: Teaching, learning, and testing in U.S. high school classrooms. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grant, S. G., & Salinas, C. (2008). Assessment and accountability in the social studies. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 219-236). New York, NY: Routledge. Hanna, P. R. (1937). Social education for childhood. Childhood Education, 14, 74-77. doi: 10.1080/00094056.1937.10724151 Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Heafner, T. L. & Fitchett, P. G. (2012). National trends in elementary instruction: Exploring the role of social studies curricula. The Social Studies, 103(2), 67-72. doi: 10.1080/00377996.2011.592165 Henry, M. (1993). A fifty-year perspective on history teaching’s “crisis.” OAH Magazine of History, 7(3), 5-8. doi: 10.1093/maghis/7.3.5 ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 30 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Holloway, J. E., & Chiodo, J. J. (2009). Social studies IS being taught in the elementary school: A contrarian view. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(2), 235- 261. GS Search Houser, N. O. (1995). Social studies on the "backburner": Views from the field. Theory & Research in Social Education, 23(2), 147-168. doi: 10.1080/00933104.1995.10505749 Knowles, R., & Theobald, R. (2013). Moving toward more dynamic instruction: A comparison of how social studies is taught among disciplines and advanced placement courses. In J. Passe & P. G. Fitchett (Eds), The status of social studies: Views from the field (pp. 101-121). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Kyriakides, L., Chistoforou, C., & Charlambos, C. Y. (2013). What matters of student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis of studies exploring factors for effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 143-152. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.010 Leming, J. S., Ellington, L., & Schug, M. (2006). The state of social studies: A national random survey of elementary and middle social studies teachers. Social Education, 70(5), 322-327. GS Search Levine, P., Lopez, M. H., & Marcelo, K. B. (2008). Getting narrower at the base: The American curriculum after NCLB. Medford, MA: Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Levstik, L. S. (2008). What happens in social studies classrooms? Research on K-12 social studies practice. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education. New York, NY: Routledge. Lintner, T., & Schweder, W. (2008). Social studies in special education classrooms: A glimpse behind the door. Journal of Social Studies Research, 32(1), 3-9. Liu, C. (2004). Multi-item measures. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods (Vol. 3, p. 673). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Maryland House of Delegates 1227. (2012). Accountability Act of 2012: Education— Core Content Areas. 431st session. Mausethagen, S. (2013). Talking about the test: Boundary work in primary school teachers' interactions around national testing of student performance. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 132-142. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.08.003 ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 31 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Nation's Report Card: US History 2010. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, Department of Education. Nelson, L. R. (1981). Social studies teachers: Their view of the profession. Social Education, 45(6), 418-420. ERIC database. Pace, J. (2008). Inequalities in history-social science teaching under high stakes accountability: Interviews with fifth-grade teachers in California. Social Studies Research and Practice, 3(1), 24-40. Retrieved from http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/3.1.2.pdf Pace, J. (2011a). The complex and unequal impact of high stakes accountability on untested social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 39(1), 32-60. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2011.10473446 Pace, J. (2011b). Teaching literacy through social studies under No Child Left Behind. Paper presented at the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies Annual Conference, Washington, DC. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. doi: 10.3102/00346543062003307 Passe, J. (2006). New challenges in elementary social studies. The Social Studies, 97(5), 189-192. doi: 10.3200/TSSS.97.5.189-192 Patterson, N. C., Maguth, B., DeWitt, S. W., Doppen, F. H., Harshman, J. R., & Augustine, T. A. (2013, April). Ohio elementary principals report on the state of social studies since high-stakes test elimination. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA. Perie, M., Baker, D. P., & Bobbitt, S. (1997). Time spent teaching core academic subjects in elementary schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Ross, E. W. (2006). The struggle for the social studies curriculum. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (3rd ed., pp. 17-36). Albany, NY: SUNY. Saye, J., & The Social Studies Inquiry Research Collaborative. (2013). Authentic pedagogy: Its presence in social studies classrooms and relationship to student performance on state-mandated tests. Theory & Research in Social Education, 41, 89-132. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2013.756785 ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 32 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Segall, A. (2006). Teaching in the age of accountability. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across the United States (pp. 105-132). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Serriere, S. C., Mitra, D., & Cody, J. (2010). Young citizens take action for better school lunches. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 23(2), 4-8. Shen, J. (1997). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools: Evidence from SASS91. Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 81-88. doi: 10.1080/00220679709597525 Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. S. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 17(1), 37-47. doi: 10.1177/074193259601700105 Stodolsky, S. S. (1993). A framework for subject matter comparisons in high schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 333-346. doi: 10.1016/0742- 051X(93)90001-W Taylor, D. L., & Tashakkori, A. (1995). Decision participation and school climate as predictors of job satisfaction and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. Journal of Experimental Education, 63(3), 217-230. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1995.9943810 Thornton, S. J. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 237-248). New York, NY: MacMillan. Thornton, S. J. (2005). Teaching social studies that matters. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Thornton, S. J., & Houser, N. O. (1996). The status of elementary social studies in Delaware: Views from the field. ERIC database. Tubachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the development of teacher perspectives Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-36. doi: 10.1177/002248718403500608 van Hover, S. D. (2006). Teaching in the Old Dominion. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across the United States (pp. 195-219). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers. van Hover, S. D., & Yeager, E. A. (2003). "Making students better people?" A case study of a beginning history teacher. In International Social Studies Forum (Vol. 3, pp. 219-232). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers. ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 33 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 VanFossen, P. J. (2005). "Reading and math take so much time...": An overview of social studies instruction in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(3), 376-403. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2005.10473287 VanSledright, B. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Vogler, K. (2006). The impact high school graduation examination on Mississippi social studies teachers' instructional practices. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across the United States (pp. 273-302). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Wills, J. S. (2007). Putting the squeeze on social studies: Managing teaching dilemmas in subject areas excluded from testing. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 1980- 2046. GS Search Wills, J. S., & Sandholtz, J. H. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the face of test-based accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065-1114. GS Search Yon, M., & Passe, J. (1990). The relationship between the elementary social studies methods course and student teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Social Studies Research, 14(1), 13-24. GS Search Zhao, Y., & Hoge, J. D. (2005). What elementary students and teachers say about social studies. The Social Studies, 96(5), 216-221. doi: 10.3200/TSSS.96.5.216- 22 About the Authors Paul G. Fitchett, EdD, is an Associate Professor of education in the Department of Middle, Secondary, and K12 Education and graduate director of the PhD in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. His research interests include the intersection of educational policy, school contexts, and teachers’ professional characteristics on teaching and learning outcomes. Email: Paul.Fitchett@uncc.edu ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 34 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp.7-35 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p7-35 Tina L Heafner, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Middle, Secondary, and K-12 Education, College of Education, at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She is the Director of the MEd in Secondary Education, the Minor in Secondary Education, and the College of Education’s Prospect for Success. Her research interests include policy, marginalization, and curriculum in social studies education. Additional research interests include content area literacy and digital literacy, and online teaching and learning. She has published four co-authored books and three edited books on inquiry-based short texts, strategic reading, targeted vocabulary, professional development schools, and technology-mediated learning. Email: theafner@uncc.edu Phillip J. VanFossen, PhD, is the Head of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education and the James F. Ackerman Professor of Social Studies Education at Purdue University. He is Director of the Ackerman Center for Democratic Citizenship and Associate Director of the Purdue University Center for Economic Education. His research interests include how social studies teachers use the Internet and digital media in their teaching and on the intersection between civic education and economic education. Email: vanfoss@purdue.edu ______________________________________ Fitchett, Heafner, and VanFossen 35 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 Comparing the Impact of a High School Exit Examination on Biology Teachers’ Instructional Practices Kenneth E. Vogler G. Nathan Carnes University of South Carolina Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of a high school exit examination with different consequences attached to the results on biology teachers’ instructional practices in Mississippi and Tennessee. Self-reported survey data were obtained from a representative sample of teachers who taught the same content tested on their respective state’s high-stakes graduation examination. An analysis showed that both groups used a balance of student-centered (e.g., critical-thinking activities) and teacher-centered practices (e.g., lectures) on average at least 2 to 4 days per week. At least 83% of participants indicated an interest in helping their students earn test scores required for graduation and improving graduation examination scores as factors that influenced their use of specific practices and tools. This study presents a detailed picture of which practices were used and factors influencing their use by biology teachers who prepare students for state-mandated examinations with different consequences attached to results. Calls for accountability within the education community have resulted in an increase in high-stakes testing, particularly at the high school level in the form of exit exams (Yell, Katsiyannis, & Collins, 2012). Several years ago, Britton and Schneider (2007) indicated that high school exit exams have continued to attract increasing amounts of attention. As expected, there are individuals who advocate for high-stakes testing and those who oppose it. The following review summarizes perspectives that support high stakes testing and accountability systems that include it and views that oppose these practices. Testing Viewpoints Proponents of testing and accountability systems generally fall into two camps (Firestone, Monfils, Camilli, Schorr, Hicks, & Mayrowetz, 2002). The first group focuses on the accountability of testing programs. This group believes that the way to improve education is to test and use the results to hold teachers and students accountable for their actions. The form of the assessment is not as important as the rewards or sanctions attached to the test results (National Alliance of Business, 2000). ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 36 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 An opposing viewpoint contends that the use of testing and accountability systems is a sure way to improve education. For this group, the key to improving education is not the rewards or sanctions attached to the test results, but the tests themselves. They contend that tests can serve as “powerful curricular magnets” (Popham, 1987, p. 680), and that standardized assessments can guide the educational system to be more productive and effective (Popham). This group also believes that the use of assessments, such as portfolios, performance assessments, and other forms of authentic tasks, will spur teachers to focus on more than just facts and procedures and help students construct knowledge and develop higher level thinking skills (Baron & Wolf, 1996; Bracey, 1987a, 1987b; Newmann & Associates, 1996; Resnick & Resnick, 1992; Rothman, 1995). Opponents of testing and assessment systems believe that, contrary to the idea of promoting critical level thinking, state-level assessments force teachers to focus on facts and procedures without meaning or context (Firestone et al., 2002; McNeil, 2000; Shaeffer, 2012). They argue that these high-stakes assessment systems create negative side effects such as narrowing and dumbing down the curriculum, de-skilling teachers, pushing students out of school, and generally inciting fear and anxiety among both students and educators (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985; Gilman & Reynolds, 1991; Jones & Whitford, 1997; Madaus, 1988a, 1988b; McNeil, 2000; Shepard, 1989, March). According to opponents, these side effects outweigh any possible benefits of measurement-driven reform. Over the past few years, increasing numbers of educators have undertaken actions against high stakes testing. For example, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) unanimously approved a resolution against this high stakes practice at its 2012 annual convention, indicating that the focus on standardized tests undermines the American education system. Instead, testing should be used to inform, not impede, classroom instruction. This group has enlisted the support of parents and other members of the education community. While protests against high stakes testing are not new, the surge in the number and strength of the opponents are unprecedented (Schaeffer, 2012). Between the proponents and opponents of testing and accountability systems lies a third position. According to advocates of this perspective, the effects of testing and assessment systems depend not on the tests themselves, but on factors relating to their implementation (Firestone et al., 2002; Grant 2003). These factors include how tests are interpreted by teachers and administrators, the content knowledge assessed, and the opportunities afforded to teachers to learn about and to try out instructional practices that will help prepare students for the testing and assessment system (Borko & Putnam, 1995; Cohen & Hill, 1998; McLaughlin, 1990; Reich & Bally, 2010; Saxe, Franke, Gearhart, Howard, & Michele, 1997; Supovitz, Mayer, & Kahle, 2000; Vogler, 2003). ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 37 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 Relationship between Testing and Instruction As policymakers continue to authorize the use of statewide examinations to assure that educators (e.g., administrators and teachers) are being held accountable for the education of students in their care, the impact of these examinations on teachers’ instructional practices seems to be a relevant concern, with, as of yet, no clear consensus as to what the impact is. Although researchers such as Barksdale-Ladd and Thomas (2000), Faxon-Mills, Hamilton, Rudnick, and Stecher (2013), Goodwin (2014), Jones and Johnston (2002), McNeil (2000), Vogler (2002), and Yarbrough (1999) have found that teachers changed their instructional practices in response to state accountability examinations, there is still no clear understanding about the nature and intensity of this relationship (Firestone et al., 2002; Grant, 2001; Grant, 2003). Factors such as subject and grade level taught, personal beliefs, type of high-stakes assessment, and professional development all have the potential to impact this relationship in varying degrees (Cimbricz, 2002; Jones, Jones, & Hargrove, 2003). Teachers have been acutely aware of the narrow focus on student test results that have stalled efforts to improve education for all (Bridwell, 2012; Goodwin, 2014; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Nichols & Valenzuela, 2013; Rebora, 2012). The high-stakes attached to state-mandated testing programs have included consequences such as public reporting of test results, prevention of grade-to-grade promotion, and possible takeover of schools that continue to demonstrate low levels of student performance. The pressure to produce at least adequate student test results, although felt in varying degrees by all teachers, may be the greatest for those who teach the same content tested on their state’s End-of-Course exit examination (otherwise known as a high school graduation examination). On one hand, these teachers want to use teaching practices that make their classes interesting, develop students’ higher-level thinking skills, and spark an interest in the subject and why it is relevant; on the other hand, these teachers have a responsibility to prepare students for the state accountability examination. Unlike standards-based examinations that test content taught in more than one course, End-of-Course examinations test what an instructor may teach in a specific content course (see Center on Educational Policy, 2005). Failure to do so may lead to severe consequences for their students, their school, and themselves, including low rates of high school graduation and diminished school funding (see Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Nichols & Valenzuela, 2013; Smith, 1991). Definition of Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Instruction In consideration of our central question related to the impact of a high school exit examination on high school biology teachers’ instructional practices, we define student-centered and teacher-centered instruction. In providing these definitions, we do not promote one type of instruction over another, but highlight the distinction between the two. Student-centered instruction is aligned with the National Science Education Standards (NSES; National Resource Council [NRC], 1996). Even though the ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 38 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 Framework for K- 12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) was neither fully developed nor disseminated at the time of our study, this recent set of guidelines are in concert with our characterization of student-centered instruction. Specifically, both reform documents call for instructional practices that provide opportunities for students to generate authentic questions, plan and carry out investigations, formulate explanations in light of available evidence, and engage in evidence-based arguments (Bybee, 2011; Bybee, 2013; NRC, 1996; NRC, 2012). Brooks and Brooks (1993) have identified differences between a student-centered and teacher-centered classroom. Within student-centered classrooms, teachers allow students to work in groups to learn from one another as well as the teacher, as opposed to having students work alone. They allow students to use real world raw data and manipulatives as opposed to primarily using textbooks and workbooks. Teachers act as facilitators or guides as opposed to presenting themselves as experts who dispense the correct information. They present curriculum with an emphasis on big concepts as opposed to an emphasis on basic facts and skills. In short, student-centered classrooms provide a learning environment in which students are participants, consumers, and are actively engaged in their learning. Teacher-centered classrooms, on the other hand, provide a learning environment in which students are relatively passive recipients of information. As strenuously argued by researchers (e.g., Clark, Kirschner, & Sweller, 2012), teacher-centered instruction “is more effective and more efficient than partial guidance” (p. 6). Thus, this perspective advocates the use of fully guided teacher-centered instruction in science classrooms (see Clark, Kirschner, & Sweller, 2012; Hirsch, 1996; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Mississippi’s High School Graduation Examination In 2000, under the Mississippi Board of Education Policy IHF-1, the Subject Area Testing Program (SATP) became a requirement for high school graduation (Mississippi Department of Education, 2004a). Among other reasons, this test program was designed to evaluate the performance of Mississippi schools and districts in teaching the Mississippi Curriculum Framework (Marchette, 2003). The SATP consists of end-of-course, criterion-referenced tests in Algebra I, Biology I, United States History from 1877-Present, and English with a writing component (Mississippi Department of Education, 2004b). In 2002, after a standard-setting and a phase-in process, the science portion of the SATP was completely implemented (Mississippi Department of Education, 2004c). Students must pass the Biology I examination as a requirement for high school graduation. Tennessee’s High School Graduation Examination In 1998, under Education Policy TCA 49-1-608 and TCA 49-6-600, the Tennessee Department of Education accepted the recommendation of the High School Testing Advisory Committee to develop and phase in, beginning with the 9th grade in ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 39 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 2001-2002 school year, End-of-Course examinations for ten high school courses (Tennessee Department of Education, 2005). In three subjects, Algebra I, Biology I, and English II, students had to pass the examinations as a requirement for high school graduation. These would later be called the Gateway Examinations. The other seven End-of-Course examinations were given in the areas of Math Foundations, Geometry, Algebra II, Physical Science, Chemistry, English I, and U.S. History. Also, the testing policy included the following points: (a) the testing programs were to be fully implemented by the 2004-2005 school year; (b) results of the examinations were to be given to the teacher in a timely fashion; and (c) although local boards of education would determine how to use the examination results, the results were required to count at least 15% of the student’s grade in that subject for the semester in which the test was administered (Tennessee Department of Education, 2005). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to compare the instructional practices of biology teachers from two Southeastern states, Mississippi and Tennessee, and factors that influenced their teaching biology content tested on their respective state’s high-stakes high school exit examination. We examined one central question: In what manner does a high school exit examination with consequences attached to the results influence high school biology teachers’ instructional practices? In order to ascertain the answer, we considered four questions. 1. What instructional practices do high school biology teachers use? 2. How often do high school biology teachers use these instructional practices? 3. What factors influenced their use? 4. Are there differences in the instructional practices used and factors influencing their use between teachers from different states with different consequences attached to the results of the exit examination? If so, what are they? Method Survey Instrument For this study, we developed a survey instrument consisting of Likert-type and open-ended items (see Appendix). Part I of this research tool contained items pertaining to instructional practices used and the extent to which they are used. Part II contained items pertaining to factors influencing instructional practices used, and Part III contained items pertaining to demographic information. Also, the end of Part I asked if and how much instructional time was spent preparing students for the accountability examination. Finally, there was a section called Comments that offered respondents an opportunity to ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 40 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 provide more information about the instructional practices they used to prepare students for the accountability examination. Survey Instrument’s Validity and Reliability We took two approaches to ascertain the validity and reliability of the survey instrument. First, we sought evidence for the content validity of the 54 items on the initial draft of the survey instrument. As our investigation was part of a larger study about the impact of state-mandated examinations on English, science, mathematics, and social studies teachers’ instructional practices, 36 high school teachers (nine English, nine science, nine mathematics, and nine social studies) reviewed the items on the survey instrument for clarity and completeness in coverage of the instructional practices used and possible influences. Using their recommendations, the number of items on the survey instrument was reduced to 48. Second, 34 different high school teachers (nine English, seven science, nine mathematics, and nine social studies) completed the revised 48-item survey instrument. These same 34 teachers completed the revised survey instrument again following a three-week interval. Reliability was assessed by comparing each teacher’s responses. A Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient was used as the test-retest reliability measure. The correlation coefficient was .82, indicating a high positive relationship and above the .70 needed to insure the reliability of the survey instrument (see McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). Sixty-four percent (64%) of the teachers had exact matches for all items; 88% of the matches were within one point on the six-point scale, and 92% of the matches were within one point on the five-point scale. Sample Selection We used a convenience sample of Mississippi and Tennessee high school biology teachers that reflected the demographics within each state. First, school systems were grouped according to each state’s geographic region: East, Middle, and West. Second, the school systems in each region were ranked according to student success on the latest state accountability examination—SATP in Mississippi and Tennessee in Tennessee. Quartiles were generated using this ranking. At least four, but no more than six, school systems from each quartile participated in the study. This sampling design allowed us to compare and generalize the survey response sample to the population as a whole (see Muijs, 2004). Individual teacher participation was voluntary. In Mississippi, 55 school systems, out of a total sample of 63 (87.0%), agreed to participate in the study. All high school Biology I teachers from each participating school system were given a cover letter and the survey instrument by their principals or school designate. The cover letter explained the nature of the study and other aspects (e.g., how to calculate instructional time spent on test preparation). The content covered in the Biology I course, according to the Mississippi State Framework, was the ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 41 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 same science content tested on the SATP. One hundred six (106) teachers (61.3%) of the total sample of science teachers elected to complete the survey instrument. In Tennessee, 53 school systems, out of a total sample of 62 (85.0%), agreed to participate in the study. The same procedure as in Mississippi was followed: All high school Biology I teachers from each participating system received the cover letter with details about the study. The content covered in this science course, according to the Tennessee State Framework, was the same science content tested on the Gateway Examination. One hundred forty-one (141) teachers (60.2%) of the total sample completed the survey instrument. Comparison of Survey Sample and State Teaching Population We compared the Mississippi and Tennessee survey respondents with each state’s teaching population using data obtained from Part III of the survey instrument and the Mississippi and Tennessee Department of Education. Table 1 is a comparison of the frequency distribution between the Mississippi and Tennessee response sample and the Mississippi and Tennessee high school Biology I teacher population for gender, education, and teaching experience. Table 1 Comparison of Sample and Mississippi and Tennessee High School Biology I Teacher Population for Gender, Education, and Teaching Experience High School Biology I Teacher Population Mississippi Tennessee Sample State Sample State Demographic Variable % n % n % n % n Gender Female 73.6 78 70.3 345 58.9 83 62.4 504 Male 26.4 28 29.7 146 41.1 58 37.6 304 Education Bachelor’s 60.0 63 62.1 305 35.5 50 37.7 305 Master’s 36.2 39 34.0 167 63.1 89 56.2 454 Specialist’s 03.8 04 03.9 019 00.7 01 04.1 033 Doctorate 00.0 00 00.0 000 00.7 01 02.0 016 Teaching Experience 0-6 Years 38.7 41 42.7 210 22.0 31 not available 7-14 Years 24.5 26 22.5 110 32.6 46 not available 15-24 Years 20.7 22 21.2 104 20.6 29 not available 25+ Years 16.0 17 13.6 067 24.9 35 not available With a few exceptions, Table 1 shows that participants in the present study were representative of the Mississippi and Tennessee high school Biology I teaching ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 42 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 population in terms of gender and education, and the Mississippi high school Biology I teaching population in terms of teaching experience. At the time of our study, the Tennessee Department of Education had no information regarding years of teaching experience. A principal component analysis was conducted on the instructional practices and tools listed in the survey instrument. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Factor Analysis Student-Centered Teacher-Centered Item Instruction Instruction Problem-Solving Activities .82 Creative/Critical Thinking .77 Newspaper/Magazines .72 Lessons on Current Events .69 Project-Based Assignments .68 Computers/Internet .68 Inquiry/Investigation .66 Charts/Webs/Outlines .63 Role Playing .61 Cooperative Learning/Group Work .59 Interdisciplinary Instruction .59 Discussion Groups .58 Response Journals .56 Group Projects .53 Computers/Ed Software .52 Lab Equipment .52 Rubrics or Scoring Guides .51 Audiovisual Materials .50 Writing Assignments .49 Supplementary Materials .45 .34 Open-Response Questions .44 Visual Aids .42 Modeling .39 Calculators .37 .31 Textbooks .77 Textbook Based Assignments .74 Worksheets .68 Lecturing .62 True-False Questions .55 Multiple Choice Questions .46 Eigenvalue 4.3 2.1 % of variance explained 42.4 28.6 Alpha .88 .77 ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 43 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 Components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were retained and rotated with a varimax rotation. The analysis revealed that two factors accounted for 71% of the variance. These factors were labeled student-centered instruction (24 items) and teacher-centered instruction (6 items). Two items (Supplementary Materials and Calculators) loaded on both factors (using .30 as the cut-off point); however, in each case, the second loading was lower than the first one (see Table 2). The values of alpha for the two subscales were a satisfactory .88 and .77, respectively. Results Results showed a balance of student-centered and teacher-centered practices and tools; teachers in both states reported that they most often used visual aids, supplementary materials, lab equipment, and open response questions, as well as teacher-centered practices such as multiple choice questions, textbooks, lecturing, textbook-based assignments, and worksheets. Teachers reported that they least used student-centered instructional practices or tools such as response journals, role playing, discussion groups, project-based assignments, and interdisciplinary instruction. A minimal relationship was found between the type of instructional practice used, either student-centered or teacher-centered, and time spent on test preparation; 88.6% of the total sample of Mississippi teachers and 77.3% of the total sample of Tennessee teachers acknowledged spending class time preparing students for the high school exit examination. Comparing the instructional practices used by the amount of time respondents of both states spent preparing students for the examination yielded only minor relationships between the two variables. For instance, teachers spending time preparing students for the high school exit examination were more likely to use a combination of student-centered and teacher-centered practices such as textbooks, textbook-based assignments, lecturing, cooperative learning/group work, and supplementary materials than those spending no time preparing students for the examination. Over 83% of teachers from both states felt that two factors influenced their use of instructional practices: their interest in helping their students attain test scores that enabled them to meet high school graduation requirements and their desire to help their respective schools improve high school graduation examination scores. Other factors that were less influential included format of the examination, personal desire, and their beliefs in best instructional practices. Using a Balance of Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Practices Part I of the survey instrument was designed to answer the study’s first two guiding questions and part of the fourth guiding question. Table 3 compares the practices Mississippi and Tennessee survey respondents reported using regularly or ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 44 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 mostly.1 It also notes statistically significant differences between respondents from the two states. Table 3 Comparison of Mississippi and Tennessee High School Biology I Teachers’ Use of Instructional Practices or Tools: Regularly or Mostly Mississippi Tennessee Total % Total % Instructional Practice or Tool Sig. Effect Multiple Choice Questions 97.2 85.8 .002** .19 Textbooks 84.9 85.1 .965 .00 Visual Aids 83.0 75.8 .174 .08 Supplementary Materials 82.1 85.1 .522 .04 Lecturing 78.3 79.4 .829 .01 Lab Equipment 78.3 76.8 .782 .06 Open-response Questions 75.5 55.3 .001** .20 Textbook-based Assignments 74.6 81.6 .183 .08 Charts/Webs/Outlines 72.6 48.7 .439 .04 Worksheets 71.7 48.7 .002** .16 Audiovisual Materials 69.8 65.2 .450 .04 Cooperative Learning/ Group Work 68.0 65.2 .659 .02 Writing Assignments 59.4 39.0 .001** .20 Creative/Critical Thinking Questions 58.4 56.8 .783 .01 Problem-solving Activities 53.8 53.2 .928 .00 Note. *p < .05; **p < .01. An analysis of Table 3 shows that survey respondents from both states used a balance of student-centered and teacher-centered practices. For example, of the first ten instructional practices or tools they reported using most, five used a student-centered approach (visual aids, supplementary materials, lab equipment, open-response questions, charts/webs/outlines) and five were of a teacher-centered nature (multiple choice questions, textbooks, lecturing, textbook-based assignments, worksheets). Table 3 also shows Mississippi respondents used significantly more multiple choice questions, open-response questions, worksheets, and writing assignments than respondents from Tennessee, but the effect size shows these are relatively weak 1 Instructional practices or tools used regularly and often means respondents either circled 4 for RU (regularly) or 5 for M (mostly) on Part I of the survey instrument. Instructional practices or tools used less often or not at all means respondents either circled 1 for D (don’t use), 2 for R (rarely), or 3 for O (occasionally) on Part I of the survey instrument. ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 45 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 relationships. In summary, this table shows respondents in both states used a balance of student- and teacher -centered instruction. Table 4 compares the practices Mississippi and Tennessee respondents reported using occasionally, rarely, or not at all. Table 4 Comparison of Mississippi and Tennessee High School Biology I Teachers’ Instructional Practice or Tool: Occasionally, Rarely, or Don’t Use Mississippi Tennessee Total % Total % Instructional Practice or Tool Response Journals 90.6 93.6 Calculators 87.5 75.2 Role Playing 80.2 94.3 Newspapers/Magazines 80.2 85.1 True-False Questions 73.6 58.1 Lessons-based on Current Events 71.5 70.1 Discussion Groups 69.8 60.3 Project-based Assignments 64.2 70.2 Computer/Ed Software 62.2 60.6 Interdisciplinary Instruction 61.3 73.9 Computer/Internet 60.3 65.0 Rubrics or Scoring Guides 52.4 72.5 Whereas Table 3 shows that respondents used a balance of student-centered and teacher-centered practices, an analysis of the practices respondents reported using less often or not at all presents a slightly different picture. Table 4 shows respondents in both states reported spending the least amount of instructional time using student-centered instructional practices and tools such as response journals, role playing, newspapers/magazines, discussion groups, project-based assignments, computers/ educational software, computers/internet, and interdisciplinary instruction. Of the 12 instructional practices and tools respondents acknowledge using occasionally, rarely, and not at all, only one (true-false questions) can be considered instruction in line with a teacher-centered learning approach. Tables 3 and 4 showed a pattern pertaining to the type of instructional practices used by respondents and the extent to which they were used. Respondents most often used a balance of teacher-centered and student-centered instructional practices and tools in their classrooms, including multiple choice questions, visual aids, textbooks, supplementary materials, lecturing, lab equipment, textbook-based assignments, open-response questions, worksheets, and charts/webs/outlines. Teachers from both states reported least using mostly student-centered instructional practices and tools, including ______________________________________ Vogler and Carnes 46 Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014 December 2014, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 36-67 ISSN: 1937-3929 http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n2p36-67 response journals, role playing, newspapers/magazines, discussion groups, project-based assignments, computers/educational software, computers/Internet, and interdisciplinary instruction. Relationship between Instructional Practices and Time Spent on Test Preparation Questions #31 and #32 in the survey instrument (see Appendix) asked about preparing students for the accountability examination. Ninety-f |
OCLC number | 155178298 |