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