Planning and developing a social studies programme: a case for “serious talk” in the syndicate

Abstract

Abstract An interpretive case study approach was used to investigate teachers' understanding of purpose and nature of studies education and how teachers plan and develop their studies programme. Data were gathered from eight teachers in a Years 3 and 4 syndicate at a large Auckland primary school through three complementary techniques: observation at syndicate meetings; documentary evidence; and semistructured interviews with four syndicate members. Overall, was concluded that if teachers are to move beyond limiting and limited perspective of studies education that underpins current understanding and programmes, and if students are to experience contemporary, transformative studies, teachers need opportunities to engage in serious talk about what counts as worthwhile studies knowledge, why is considered worthwhile, and how should be taught and learnt. Introduction The study reported in this paper has its origins in my experiences as a primary school teacher, and more recently as a teacher educator in area of studies education. In particular, has been motivated by issues that have arisen through my teaching of degree courses in studies and my professional observation of studies programmes in primary classrooms. I have noted, for instance, that primary school teachers often have difficulty articulating a clear purpose for and/or a coherent conception of nature of studies education, and studies unit plans sighted during classroom observations have varied markedly in terms of their quality. The Education Review Office (2001) has identified unit planning in studies as an area of concern, commenting that some [primary] teachers lack knowledge and understanding about how to construct a successful [social studies] learning programme (p. 37). In addition, topics and content of programmes often fail to address current issues and areas appropriate to studies education. It has also been noted that teachers seem unaware of purpose of studies education (Education Review Office, 2001). More recently, Barr (2005) launched a stinging attack on quality of studies programmes, arguing that units of work are boring and pointless because many teachers don't know why they are teaching studies so they don't know how to teach it (p. 53). There have been repeated calls in literature (see, for example, Sewell, 2001; White, 2000) for teachers' studies programmes to incorporate contemporary ideas and practices such as those foreshadowed in Hill's (1994) critical affiliation tradition of studies education, and Bell's (1997) social justice approach. Attempts to reframe New Zealand studies curriculum statement in early 1990s resulted in public controversy (Openshaw, 2004; Roberts, 1998). The concessions made and compromises reached to appease range of protagonists resulted in a final curriculum statement awash with unaddressed tensions and contradictions (Irwin, 1999, p. 163). Moreover, statement had neither a coherent rationale for studies education nor a consistent underpinning philosophy (Openshaw, 2004). It is thus not surprising that teachers' understanding of national studies curriculum statement and their ability to use to inform development of class programmes have been identified as areas of concern (Cubitt, 2005; Education Review Office, 2001; Openshaw, 2004). A review of New Zealand curriculum carried out by Australian Council for Educational Research concluded the structure of achievement objectives [in studies curriculum statement] does not provide schools and teachers with sufficient advice to implement programs (Ministry of Education, 2002, p. 4). The issues outlined above have, singly and collectively, potential to undermine planning and development of effective classroom studies programmes. …