The Three Social Studies Traditions

Social studies, unlike other subjects, has long been noted for its susceptibility to different interpretations as to its history, nature, and purposes (Nelson, 2001). The multiplicity of interpretations, in turn, have resulted in a myriad of patterns with which teachers tend to teach the subject. Because of their implications on various aspects of social education, notably curricular reform, these patterns have occupied the attention of social educators for decades (White, 1982).

Perhaps the most influential work in this particular area of social studies research is that of Barr, Barth, & Shermis (cited in White, 1982). Basing their ideas on the results of their analysis of various documents that nearly span an entire century, they have identified three patterns with which teachers tend to approach the teaching of social studies and termed these patterns traditions. They are: 1) Citizenship Transmission, 2) Social Science, and 3) Reflective Inquiry.

These traditions differ in terms of the view they hold regarding the purpose of social studies, their preferred teaching method, and the selection of content. From the time of the subject’s inception in the 19th century, social studies teaching have been informed by any of these traditions.

For the first tradition, i.e. the one that views social studies education as an exercise in citizenship transmission, the purpose of social studies is none other than the inculcation to students of the values, ideology, and traditions cherished by the society. Its pedagogy is characterized by reliance on textbooks and such other “traditional” methods of teaching. For the selection of content, it subscribes to the notion that the “experts” have the sole authority to undertake the task (in White, 1982).

The early practices in the field of social studies in the 19^th century, which was characterized by reliance on textbooks (Hertzberg, 1981), may be said to have pioneered this tradition. Even the curricula produced by the Committee of Ten and Committee of Seven (conventions of educators that prescribed the content of early social studies curricula at the turn of the 20th century) may also have drawn from this tradition, with their reliance on the expertise of professional historians for the selection of content (Hertzberg, 1981). Even today, this tradition seems to influence the majority of social educators (Hertzberg, 1981).

The second tradition—the one that regards social studies as nothing more than social science transferred to the schools—believed that the purpose of social studies is to teach students the procedural knowledge of social scientists. It championed the use of inquiry. For the content, it focused on the structure of the disciplines unlike the first tradition (in White, 1982). The Source Study Method and the New Social Studies Movement represent represent this tradition. Both of these movements advocated the use of disciplinary knowledge used in the professions in teaching students (Hertzberg, 1971).

Finally, the third tradition, i.e. the one that views social studies as an exercise in reflective inquiry, believed that the purpose of social studies is to teach students inquiry skills for them to be able to make decisions and solve problems. Its pedagogy is characterized by the use of reflective inquiry in solving problems (in White, 1982). It differs from the second tradition in that it emphasized the role of the students in inquiry process rather than reenacting the job of social scientists. For the content, it focuses on problems (in White, 1982).

The Social Problems Movement of the 1970’s may be said to have followed this tradition (Hertzberg, 1981). Said movement called for the use of social issues and problems as the organizing themes of the curriculum.

References:

Nelson, J. L. (2001). Defining social studies. Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st century, 15-38.

White, C. S. (1982). A validation study of the Barth-Shermis social studies preference scale. Theory & Research in Social Education, 10(2), 1-20.

Hertzberg, H. W. (1981). Social Studies Reform 1880-1980. SSEC Publications, 855 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302.

Hertzberg, H. W. (1971). Historical Parallels for the Sixties and Seventies: Primary Sources and Core Curriculum Revisited.

Shermis, S. S. (1982). A response to our critics: reflective inquiry is not the same as social science. Theory & Research in Social Education, 10(2), 45-50.